Partnering Magazine July/August 2014

IPI partnering award winnersHonoring those who work to make the industry more collaborative

page 8No Project

is an Island: Part Two

INSIDE:page 16Partnered

Project Performance

Issue 3July/August 2014

2 Partnering Magazine July/August 2014 www.partneringinstitute.org

World-Class Innovators. Landmark Bui ldings. Inspir ing Per formance.

EVERY SUCCESSFUL PROJECT BEGINS WITH A STRONG

PARTNERSHIP.

At Hensel Phelps, our high performance teams understand the importance of integrating our client’s vision with the design and construction of their project.

It requires a synthesis of effectively managed professionals that understand working in a team environment with one overriding goal: to provide the best value, on time and on budget.

For more information scan this code.

hens

elph

elps

.com

www.partneringinstitute.org July/August 2014 Partnering Magazine 3 3

INTERNATIONAL PARTNERING INSTITUTEIPI is a non-profit 501(c) 3 charitable

organization that is funded by our

members and supporters who wish

to change the culture of construction

from combative to collaborative.

Phone: (925) 447-9100

BOARD OF ADVISORSJohn Martin, San Francisco International Airport

Larry Anderson, Salisbury University Center

for Conflict Resolution

Roddy Boggus, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Pierre Bigras, PG&E

Larry Eisenberg, Ovus Partners 360

Michael Ghilotti, Ghilotti Bros, Inc.

Richard Grabinski, Flatiron West, Inc.

Dan Himick, C.C. Myers, Inc.

Randy Iwasaki, Contra Costa Trans. Authority

Mark Leja, Caltrans

Pete Matheson, Granite Construction

Geoff Neumayr, San Francisco International

Airport

Jim Pappas, Hensel Phelps Construction Co.

Zigmund Rubel, Aditazz

Ivar Satero, San Francisco International Airport

Stuart Seiden, County of Fresno

Todd Sutton, Skanska Civil, USA

David Thorman, CA Div. of the State

Architect, Ret.

John Thorsson, NCC Construction Sverige AB

Len Vetrone, Webcor Builders

Curt Weltz, Walsh Group

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORRob Reaugh, MDR

FOUNDER & CEOSue Dyer, MBA, MIPI, MDRF

EDITORIAL OFFICE: SUBSCRIPTIONS/INFORMATIONInternational Partnering Institute

291 McLeod Street

Livermore, CA 94559

Phone: (925) 447-9100

Email: [email protected]

www.partneringinstitute.org

DESIGN/CREATIVEMichelle Vejby

Email: [email protected]

COPYRIGHTPartnering Magazine is published by the

International Partnering Institute, 291 McLeod

Street, Livermore, CA 94550. Six bi-monthly

issues are published annually. Contents

copyright 2014 International Partnering

Institute, all rights reserved. Subscription

rates for non-members, $75 for six electronic

issues. Hard copy issues are available

only to IPI members. Additional member

subscriptions are $75 each for six issues.

Postmaster please send address changes to

IPI, 291 McLeod Street, Livermore, CA 94550.

IN THIS ISSUE

4Executive Director’s ReportIPI honors the world’s most collaborative teams and organizations

6Barriers to PartneringNew IPI Research identifies the key barriers to partnering

7Committee SpotlightIPI Research Committee is led by top academics in the industry

18Facilitator’s CornerLearn “Best Practices” from award winning water and wastewater projects

CONTENTS

FeaturesJuly/August 2014 Partnering Award Winners

No Project is an IslandPart Two:

Internal Strategic

Partnering

8

Partnered vs Non-Partnered ProjectsThe research proves it—

partnered projects not only

make more money, but they

save more time. Read on to

find out more of the numbers

in this Research Roundup.

16

Partnering AwardsIPI Celebrates their 5th Annual

Partnering Awards Ceremony and

recognizes our innovative Award

Winners and their Projects.

10

Cover photo of the IPI Partnering Awards ceremony held at the San Francisco Internation Airport Museum; Brian Wong Photography


the best practices that his award-winning Wastewater projects have used to deliver great results! (p.14). We hope you enjoy reading the Magazine as much as we enjoy developing it for you. Remember, this resource is for you. If you would like to see any new topics covered, or if you would like to contribute, please give us a holler!

A Celebration of Success

At the IPI Awards Ceremony, Hensel Phelps Construction Co. took home top honors, receiving the 2014 IPI Partnering Champion Award for its long-term commitment to making Partnering a norm on projects at SFO International Airport and with other agencies, including the City of San Jose, the California Department of Corrections and Stanford University. NCC Construction Sverige and Telge Fastigheter proved that Strategic Partnering is the best way to develop project efficiencies over a long-term program and IPI inducted our first class of Professional Partnering Facilitators with our new three-tiered Certification (IPI, SIPI, and MIPI)!

In order to make collaboration the norm on projects, a partnering program must recognize when teams follow through with the process and achieve

In order to effectively

change the culture

of construction, it is

essential to celebrate our

successes. This issue of

Partnering Magazine does

exactly that by honoring

world’s most collaborative

construction project teams

and organizations who have

received IPI Industry and

Partnered Project of the

Year Awards!The feature for the July/

August issue highlights the 2014 IPI Awards Ceremony where IPI honored 3 organizations, 6 Professional Neutral Facilitators, 9 construction project teams, and one individual IPI Member (p. 10-13). There were some outstanding projects this year, and over the past two years of collecting data on IPI Award recipients, project teams have saved more than $345M and have found that for $1 spent on Partnering, their project saves $96.

outstanding results. IPI believes that there is no better way to reward good behavior than through an effective recognition program!

If you are hungry for new research, we have what you seek. We highlight IPI’s first sponsored research project, a study on “Barriers to Partnering in the AEC Industry” lead by Michigan State University Assistant Professor Sinem Mollaoglu (Korkmaz), Ph D. LEED®AP (p.6). The Research Committee, which supports the ongoing effort between MSU and IPI, is also highlighted in this issue (p.7). In the Research Roundup, we focus on a key Partnering study by Gransberg et. al, which asked the essential question of Texas DOT, “Does Partnering have an effect on Projects?” In short, the answer is a resounding yes!

Last, but certainly not least, this issue features a Facilitator’s Corner by Eric Sanderson (MIPI), on

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S

REPORT

Rob Reaugh, MDR

IPI Executive Director

That’s because IPI Members

believe in and are committed

to project collaboration.

usa.skanska.com

Collaboration. Innovation. Sustainability.Partnering to build a better future for our customers and communities.

James B. Hunt Library, North Carolina State University

George Bush Intercontinental Airport, Terminal B Redevelopment, Houston TX

2013 NAIOP Community Enhancement Day, Seattle, WA

Gold Line Bridge, Arcadia, CA


COMMITTEESPOTLIGHT

IPI is pleased to announce the

completion of our first self-funded

research project! The research,

completed in June 2014 was led by

Assistant Professor Sinem Mollaoglu

(Korkmaz), Ph D. LEED®AP at Michigan

State University’s (MSU) Construction

Management Program. The study

entitled “An Inquiry to Move an Under-

Utilized Best Practice Forward: Barriers

to Partnering in the Architecture,

Engineering, and Construction Industry,”

(Barriers to Partnering) relied on the

Delphi survey method which involves

a series of questionnaires to a panel

of experts. The expert panel identified

four key barriers to partnering:

Organizational, Cultural, Legislative,

and Project-team related.

The findings of the study were that first,

Cultural barriers emerged as the most-

frequently cited barrier to partnering

by the panel of experts. It is therefore

essential for organizations to develop

a collaborative culture both for project

teams and also within organizations.

This finding is particularly exciting to

IPI because it is in alignment with our

mission to improve organizational and

project-team cultures, resulting in better

outcomes for construction project teams!

The second most frequently cited

barriers (and most highly ranked)

fell under the Project-team related

barriers and included “resistance from

participating team members” and a

“genuine lack of trust between the

traditional parties” of a project. The

third most frequently cited barriers

were Organizational. They comprised

only two of the top twelve barriers to

partnering and included “unfair risk

sharing” and that partnering means

“giving up” something. The academic

team noted that both the Project-team

related and Organizational barriers

appeared to be symptoms that emerge

from an adversarial project culture.

The last finding was perhaps the

most interesting—that although many

in construction believe that low-bid

contracting processes cause adversarial

relationships, none of the top barriers to

partnering were Legislative (having to

do with the contract methodology). The

experts surveyed in this study did not

agree that the contract determines how

a team works together.

IPI is grateful for all of the tremendous

work by Professor Mollaoglu (Korkmaz)

and her team at MSU and also for the

IPI Board of Advisors who has greatly

supported this research effort. Please

note that ALL IPI Members are eligible

to receive a free copy of this valuable

research Report! Contact us for details.

To get involved with

the Research Committee,

or to receive your own

copy of the new “Barriers

to Partnering” Research

Report, contact IPI at

(925) 447-9100 or email us at

[email protected]

Breaking Down BarriersIPI’s First University Sponsored Research Is Here!

Sinem Korkmaz, IPI

Lead Researcher

IPI’s study, “An inquiry

to move an Under-

Utilized Best Practice

Forward: Barriers to

Partnering in the AEC

Industry” was written

by Assistant Professor Sinem Mollaoglu

(Korkmaz), Ph D. LEED®AP at Michigan

State University (MSU)’s Construction

Management Program. Professor

Mollaoglu’s primary research focuses

on information exchange patterns and

the performance of inter-organizational

project teams and this is the first in a

series of studies IPI will publish.

www.partneringinstitute.org July/August 2014 Partnering Magazine 7

The IPI Research Committee

COMMITTEE SPOTLIGHT

For years, Partnering advocates have

sought data that verifies what they have

experienced in the field—that Partnered

projects outperform non-partnered projects.

In order to determine both what Partnering

research exists and what gaps there are in the field

of study, IPI launched the Research Committee.

The Committee, led by Co-Lead PI’s, Keith Molenaar

of Colorado University at Boulder & Sinem

Mollaoglu (Korkmaz) of Michigan State University

is focused on designing original research, identifying

existing research, and seeking new data related to

Partnering. In 2012, the Committee started a library

of research papers and has already collected more

than 40 academic papers and DOT studies related

to Partnering into an FTP site.

In 2013, IPI commissioned its first series of

Partnering Research studies to be conducted by

Michigan State University. The first study in this

annual effort, focused on “Barriers to Partnering”

is highlighted above and was just published

this June 2014. The Barriers to Partnering Study

unearthed cultural, project team, organizational,

and legislative barriers to effective implementation

of Partnering.

The second study to be published by MSU is a

meta-analysis of Partnering research and focuses

on “Benefits to Partnering.” The analysis, led by

Professor Mollaoglu and MSU Masters student,

Anthony Sparkling, has unearthed more than

170 studies related to partnering and has focused

on more than 70 papers that discuss the impact

of Partnering on project outcomes. Give us a

call at (925) 447-9100 or send us an email ED@

partneringinstitute.org to gain access to the FTP

site, get involved, or to contribute to IPI’s ongoing

Research efforts!

8 Partnering Magazine July/August 2014 www.partneringinstitute.com

BEST PRACTICES

No Project is an IslandPart Two: Internal Strategic Partnering

had during construction. Also, the Construction

Division didn’t have a way to provide feedback

to Design so that they could make improvements.

The Division leaders, as well as the Chief

Engineer, wanted to see improvements made. So

they established an Internal Strategic Partnering

Process between the two divisions. At the kick-off

session the internal Strategic Partnering team

identified areas that they felt could provide the

biggest ROI for the delivery of their projects.

Over time, these teams established statewide

programs and policies for: (1) Quarterly Design

Performance Measures; (2) a Project Risk

Management Program including an online tool so

that risks could be tracked over the life of a project;

(3) and a Lessons Learned process for capturing

those key lessons learned (with the largest ROI)

and then sharing those decisions or solutions so

that others could access these from anywhere.

Overall, the Design/Construction Internal

Strategic Partnering process took place over

four years. In that time the two Divisions started

sharing information and working together on

a myriad of other issues. They became a team.

Proud of the projects they were delivering.

They were no longer just two groups who were

disconnected or enemies, they became true

Strategic Partners. Perhaps an Internal Strategic

Partnering within your organization might be

just the answer.

In our final installment next month, we will

look at the overall Strategic Partnering process.

Sometimes the biggest challenges we face on our projects is dealing

with the people in our own organization! These internal stakeholders

can often cause long delays, create endless decision making loops, and

generate enormous frustration. Problems seem next to impossible to resolve.

Often the internal stakeholder organizations are so siloed that they don’t

even see the completed project as their “end game.” This is often the case

for very large construction programs. They naturally organize around the

phases of construction; planning, environmental, design, and construction.

This always leads to each silo focusing on local-optimization of their phase.

They lose perspective that they are just one of the phases of the multi-phased

construction process.

This was the case for one Department of Transportation (DOT) when they

realized that their Design Division did not understand the effect their actions

Often in Owner Organizations, the various processes of construction become siloes. Strategic Partnering helps break down these siloes to help

each Division see themselves as part of a continuous process.


WINNER OF THE 2014 CALTRANS EXCELLENCE IN PARTNERING AWARD“BEST IN CLASS” FOR PROJECTS GREATER THAN $50 MILLION

Highway 65 Lincoln Bypass ProjectCaltrans District 3, Placer County

B U I L D I N G C A L I F O R N I A F O R S E V E N T Y- F I V E Y E A R S11555 Dublin Boulevard, P.O. Box 2909, Dublin, California 94568-2909 925-829-9220

w w w . d e s i l v a g a t e s . c o m

Contractors License No. 704195A


On May 15th, 2014, IPI celebrated its 5th Annual IPI Partnering Awards Ceremony. Owners,

Contractors, Facilitators, CMs, Designers, and other associated Construction professionals dedicated to construction culture change, gathered at the SFO International Airport Museum to Celebrate the Nation’s most collaborative organizations and Project Teams. • Total contracted work: $868,979,087• Total budget savings: $529,241• 5/9: ratio of projects that came in on

time or early• 7/9: ratio of jobs without a Time Loss

Incident• There were 183 Change Orders—but

Zero ClaimsThe 2014 IPI Industry Awards honor

Organizations and Individuals who have worked to make the industry more collaborative. We hope you’ll join us in congratulating this year’s winners:

IPI Partnering Champion:

Hensel Phelps Construction Co.

The IPI Partnering Champion is IPI’s highest honor. The award recognizes an organization that embraces and models the IPI mission to develop high trust relationships and collaborative cultures with multiple organizations over a long period of time. Hensel Phelps has partnered with SFO, the City of San Jose, the California Department of Corrections, Stanford University and many others as a champion for the IPI Partnering Model.

IPI Strategic Partnering Achievement Award:

NCC Construction Sverige AB and Telge Fastigheter, Sodertalje Municipality (Sweden)

This award goes to organizations that demonstrates a commitment to creating agreements using the integrated partnering program elements to achieve significant results from high trust relationships. NCC Construction and Telge Fastigheter built 22 projects over a 7-year period, all of which were completed under budget and on time.

IPI Chairman’s Award:Lisa Watada, Parsons Brinckerhoff

This award highlights an individual who has provided exceptional leadership and service to IPI and its members, and who models the collaborative behavior at the core of IPI’s mission.

IPI Facilitator CertificationsMaster Level Certified Facilitators (MIPI)• Eric Sanderson (MIPI), Red Rocks Advisors• Jim Eisenhart (MIPI), Ventura Consulting

Group• Paul Crotty (MIPI), Ventura Consulting Group• Sue Dyer (MIPI), OrgMetrics LLC• Larry Anderson (MIPI), Center for Conflict

Resolution, Salisbury University

Senior Level Certified Facilitators (SIPI)• Sydne Jacques (SIPI), Jacques & Associates• Neil Flesner (SIPI), Ventura Consulting

Group • Cinda Bond (SIPI), OrgMetrics LLC


DIAMOND LEVEL PROJECTS

California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation – California Health Care Facility Project

• (Owner) California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

• (Prime) Clark-McCarthy A Joint Venture• (Designer) HDR, Inc.• (CM) URS/Lend Lease• (PM) Vanir Construction Management, Inc.• (Facilitator) ReAlignment Group, LTD.• (Facilitator) FMI Corporation

UTA Sugar House Streetcar Project • (Owner) Utah Transit Authority• (Prime) Stacy and Witbeck, Inc.• (Designer) HDR, Inc.• (End User) Salt Lake City• (End User) City of South Salt Lake• (End User) Salt Lake County• (Facilitator) ML Robertson

SR-193 2000 West to I-15 Project• (Owner) Utah DOT• (Prime) Granite/Ames – A Joint Venture• (Designer) Jacobs Engineering• (CM) Horrocks Engineers• (Facilitator) Jacques & Associates

IPI PARTNERED PROJECTS OF THE YEAR:IPI honors Project Teams who have exhibited the highest levels of collaboration on projects completed in 2013.

SINCE 2013, ACCORDING

TO A SURYEY OF ALL IPI

AWARD APPLICANTS: $1

SPENT ON PARTNERING

LEAD TO $96 IN SAVINGS

FOR THE PROJECT.

PARTNERING AWARDS


PARTNERINGAWARDS

SAPPHIRE LEVEL PROJECTS

New York Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation Project• (Owner) District Department of Transportation

(Washington D.C.)• (Prime) Fort Myer Construction Corporation• (Designer) T.Y. Lin International• (CM) Michael Baker Jr., Inc.• (Facilitator) Roenker Bates Group

Highway 101 Overlay from the Golden Gate Bridge to Corte Madera Creek Project

• (Owner) California Department of Transportation• (Prime) Ghilotti Bros., Inc.• (Facilitator) OrgMetrics LLC

11-0448 ODOT District 3 Project (left)• (Owner) Ohio Department of Transportation, District 3• (Prime) Mosser Construction Co.• (Designer) GPD Group

RUBY LEVEL PROJECTS SFO International Airport Boarding Area E Improvements Terminal 3 Project (right)

• (Owner) City and County of San Francisco Airport Commission

• (Prime) Hensel Phelps Construction Co.• (Designer) Gensler• (Designer) The KPA Group• (CM) PGH Wong Engineering, Inc.• (Facilitator) OrgMetrics LLC


As one of North America’s largest transportation and infrastructure contractors, our commitment to building the best is demonstrated in the projects we build and the partnerships we develop. Our success is dependent upon our relationships with owners, partners, designers, subcontractors and community members. Flatiron works closely with our partners to develop innovative solutions that benefi t everyone, and we’re proud of what we’ve created together. The more than 20 partnering awards Flatiron has won in the past decade serve as recognition of these relationships and

the resulting successful projects.

To learn more about Flatiron’s innovation in partnering visit

www.fl atironcorp.com

Interstate 880/State Route 92 Interchange Reconstruction

Hayward, CA

2012 IPI Partnered Project of the Year, Diamond Level

HONORABLE MENTION

The Sacramento Railyard Track Relocation Project

• (Owner) City of Sacramento• (Prime) Granite Construction Company• (Designer) TranSystems• (CM) Vali Cooper and Associates• (Facilitator) Ventura Consulting Group

Doyle Drive Utilities Relocation Contract #2 Project• (Owner) California Department of Transportation• (Owner) The Presidio Trust• (Prime) Ghilotti Bros., Inc.• (Designer) ARUP/Parsons Brinckerhoff – A Joint Venture• (Facilitator) Ventura Consulting Group

FACILITATOR’S CORNER

Structured Collaborative Partnering can help any type of project be successful

and achieve project goals. However, project teams may need to develop specific

adaptations of the partnering process to address the unique attributes of each type

of project. With water and wastewater facility and infrastructure projects, a few of these

adaptations can create significant positive impact to the project if planned for in advance.

After over 200 facilitated sessions on water and wastewater projects, I have seen numerous

creative approaches and adaptations to meet the needs of the projects. Below are a few best

practices and special adaptations of the partnering process, used on award-winning water

and wastewater projects around the country. Implemented from the beginning of a project,

these can improve overall chances of project success and reduce risk.

1. Include operations in the processWhile the projects being constructed will ultimately be the responsibility of the operations

group of a utility, their role may be limited during the design and construction phases of

a project. The engineering group of a utility is typically kept separate and is responsible

for the design, and management of the construction of new facilities. This separation may

lead to a lack of involvement of the operations group which can, in-turn lead to reduced

communication and miss-aligned expectations related to plant function and operations.

By engaging the operations staff in the Partnering process, the project team can ensure

critical coordination occurs related to operational expectations, shut-downs, tie-ins, and

start-up activities. In addition, the operations group will provide meaningful input into

existing conditions, possible unforeseen conditions, and ultimately be more receptive to

the final project.

Award-Winning Best Practices

from Water & Wastewater Projects



By communicating openly about submittal requirements

and collaborating on what will meet the requirements of an

approvable submittal, a project team can expedite this process.

2. Plan for unforeseen conditionsMore than any other

type of project, water

and wastewater projects

are subject to challenges

and changes related

to unforeseen conditions. Whether the project is “inside the

fence” of an existing facility, or a pipeline project in a public

area, discovering differing conditions in the form of previously

abandoned structures and varying underground conditions

is common. So much so that it makes sense to plan for the

discovery of unforeseen conditions in advance and develop

contingency plans to resolve issues quickly when they are

identified. When done up front, this can allow a project team

to react quickly to unforeseen conditions, keep the project on

schedule, and contain costs.

3. Collaborate on submittalsAll projects require submittals as part of the documentation

and approval process. Submittals are an important component

in ensuring the overall quality of the end project is understood.

However, due to the complex equipment, processes, and work

sequences in water and wastewater projects, some submittal

requirements may be extremely complex and difficult to

fully understand. By communicating openly about submittal

requirements and collaborating on what will meet the

requirements of an approvable submittal, a project team can

expedite this process. By conducting “submittal workshops,”

as the Marvin M. Black award winning General Wastewater

Pump Station Improvements project team in Atlanta did for

critical process submittals, the team was able to work through

and clarify the expectations of the engineering staff. The

results were high quality submittals approved upon the first

submission without sacrificing the quality of the documents.

4. Include external stakeholders in the process

Many water and wastewater infrastructure projects are

constructed in public areas and can have the same level of

public impact as a road or highway project. By engaging

external stakeholders, such as neighborhood groups, schools,

business representatives, and even other government

representatives, a project team can win important support for

a project and minimize the level of negative feelings towards

the project. In addition, larger projects can provide unique

educational opportunities for schools and other groups. The

award-winning project Upper Northwest Interceptor #9 project

team in Sacramento even created a contest for students at a

nearby school to name the large

tunnel boring machine used on

the project.

5. Coordination with other projects

Most water and wastewater projects are

constructed within the context of larger

capital improvement programs. Whether minor

upgrades to existing facilities or construction

of complex new facilities, concurrent projects

require careful coordination on issues related to

tie-ins, site access, and staging. The Partnering

process can enable this critical coordination

to occur in an environment of collaboration

and teamwork, rather than competition. Direct

communication related to schedule, sequencing,

and even safety procedures can reduce risk for

all parties and improve delivery for the owner.

By adopting these best practices on your next

water or wastewater project, along with your

traditional Partnering tools, you can help ensure

your team will have a predictably successful

outcome.

Eric Sanderson, MBA, MIPI President of Red Rock Advisors

LLC. Based in Arizona, Eric is

an Award-winning Partnering

Facilitator who specializes in

Wastewater, Horizontal and

Vertical Construction.



Partnered vs Non-Partnered Projects

In 1999, Douglas Gransberg, William Dillon, Lee Reynolds and

Jack Boyd studied the Texas Department of Transportation’s

(TxDOT) construction program to determine whether formal,

structured partnering had an impact on projects. To summarize,

they found that partnered projects outperformed non-partnered

projects in terms of cost growth, time growth, liquidated

damages, claims elimination, and other key statistical areas.

The Gransberg study has become a key piece of Partnering

research for two reasons: First, it is one of the few truly

quantitative research studies on partnering. Second, the

team from Texas Tech began with a critical hypothesis—

Partnering has no impact on project performance. Gransberg

and his colleagues found the data refuted the hypothesis.

Partnering had a profound effect on the Texas Department of

Transportation construction program and we will share you

some key highlights from the study.

The setupPartnering his historically been challenging to

study. A limited number of construction programs

in the U.S. have required partnering across

the entire program, so finding a pool of similar

“partnered” to compare to “non-partnered” projects

has proven difficult. Also, it can be problematic

to quantify a process that focuses on culture

change...how do you prove that teams are more

collaborative on partnered jobs?

The researchers set up an elegant sample set and conducted

a macro-analysis of the data. They started with a pool of 204

projects with “required partnering,” completed from January

1992–November 1996. They compared this pool to a batch

of 204 projects (out of a pool of 255) completed between

February 1987-December1991, before Partnering had ever

been used on a project at TxDOT. The 408 projects comprised

$2.1 billion and varied in size from under $600K to $40M.

This study followed an associated Partnering survey of more

than 500 TxDOT employees by Gransberg, Reynolds, Gilman,

and Gokdogan (1998).

The measurementThe research team broke the projects into strata based on cost

and analyzed the 408 projects by thirteen criteria. The criteria

were: (1) Cost Growth, (2) Cost per Change Order (CCO), (3)

Average % increase per CCO, (4) Average total CCO per project,

RESEARCH ROUNDUP

“Partnered projects outperformed non-partnered projects in terms of cost growth, time growth, liquidated damages, claims elimination, and other key statistical areas.”


For career opportunities and/or more information, please visit

pbwor ld .com

Dream It!We’ve Got You Covered

The challenges facing

today’s airports are endless,

yet so are the opportunities.

Parsons Brinckerhoff

offers a full range of

services to partner with

airport owners to

envision the future …

and then create it.

(5) Time Growth, (6) Average % of additional days granted,

(7) Average liquidated damages (LD) as percentage of total

cost, (8) Average LD days as percentage of total time, (9) % of

projects with LD, (10) % of projects with deducts, (11) Claims

cost as percentage of original cost, (12) Dispute cost as % of

original cost, and (13) Award Price.

The resultsBy taking a data-driven, quantitative approach, the team was

able to identify a number of significant findings:

1. Partnered Projects outperformed non-partnered

projects in nearly every category when the project was

larger than $5M (we include the section of the table for

$5M - $40M)

2. For the entire population of projects, the average

partnered project finished 4.7% early and the average

non-partnered project finished 10.04% later than

originally planned.

3. Partnered projects have fewer LD days than non-

partnered projects, regardless of the cost of the project.

This means that partnering seems to have a positive

effect on projects with time problems by reducing the

number of days that a project finishes over schedule.

4. For partnered projects between $5M and $40M in the

study—there were no costs associated with claims!

Continued on next page


Partnered vs Non-Partnered Projects (cont.)

5. Partnered jobs in the study averaged a higher number

of change orders per job, but the cost of each change

order was less than half of the change orders in non-

partnered jobs.

What is perhaps even more exciting about this study is

that the results were consistent with the 1998 Gransberg,

Reynolds, etc. al survey of both TxDOT employees and

contractors. According to the survey, 67% of TxDOT and

contractor personnel indicated that projects valued more

than $5M should be formally partnered. Further, 67% of

TxDOT employees and 71% of contractor personnel agreed

that partnering improved working relationships!

Based on these and other studies, IPI requires structured

partnering with professional facilitators for all projects

greater than $5M in the IPI Partnering Specifications Program

and on the IPI Vertical and Horizontal Matrices.

We believe that advocates for partnering must be armed

with this data, and share it with the industry. This is just one

of several important studies that have confirmed exactly what

we experience in the field—construction programs that can

produce highly collaborative cultures through partnering will

outperform traditional, adversarial programs—every time!

RESEARCH ROUNDUP

“Construction programs that can produce highly collaborative cultures through partnering will outperform traditional, adversarial programs— every time!”

IPI’S COLLABORATIVE PARTNERINGORIENTATION TRAINING

IS GETTING RAVE REVIEWS!

COLLABORATION

COMBAT

SLOTS ARE LIMITED! DON’T MISS OUT—BOOK A TRAINING FOR YOU OR FOR YOUR TEAM [email protected], (925) 447-9100

“The orientation training teaches you the structured way to take collaboration to the next level to improve project cost, schedule, safety and quality. You also learn how collaboration reduces risk for your teams by developing consensus and a shared project vision. At PB we pride ourselves on delivering cutting edge projects and I cannot wait to implement this with my teams!”— Peter Aarons, Sr. Program Manager Parsons Brinckerhoff

“We believe that it is essential that Airport staff, builders, designers and other consultants understand the IPI Structured Collaborative Partnering Model to ensure we deliver exceptional project outcomes on every project! This highly valuable training teaches the concepts of Structured Collaborative Partnering—the process & implementation, the return on investment, and how trust is the essential critical path to success on any project.” — Geoff Neumayr, Deputy Director SFO International Airport

Making SFO’sPartnering Program FlyFor almost two decades OrgMetrics has been providing Partnering Services for San Francisco International Airport’srenowned Partnering Program

Partnering Program Development/Facilitation • Project Partnering Facilitation • Strategic Partnering Facilitation • Facilitated Dispute Resolution • Project Scorecards

www.orgmet.com | (925) 449-8300

Documents

Partnering Magazine July/August 2014