My daughter recently attended a play at the University of Washington, which she reported was one of the most confusing theatrical performances she’d ever seen. The play was performed completely in Polish with English subtitles streamed across the top of the theater. She said it was extremely confusing, not just because of the content matter, but because she had to constantly take her attention away from what was happening on stage to understand what the actors were saying. I wonder if selection committees for A/E/C short-list interviews often feel the same way. I suspect they might.
After 25 years in the industry, I’m convinced we speak a different language, one for which we rarely provide helpful subtitles. And, when we do, they are often presented in such a way that disconnects our audience from the action happening on the project or in the interview. Even when clients know the multitude of acronyms we use (I challenge each of you to go an entire day without using one!), most don’t understand what they really mean, though few would ask for clarification. Even the team requirements of the procurement methods clients use are fraught with confusion for us and them. For example, I suspect that the vast majority of clients who are currently experimenting with IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) don’t really understand the ramifications of either the contract or the working relationship – as evidenced by the many who like the concept but balk at negotiating an actual IPD contract.
Do we think clients really understand how the entire realm of relationships changes when they move from DBB (Design Bid Build) to CMAR (Construction Manager at Risk)? Clearly, some do and some don’t. But, I think our industry needs to do a much better job explaining how teams work together differently under each procurement method beyond the contractual obligations and transference of risk. This is essential because within these relationships we see the real benefits of CMAR, CM/GC, IPD, Design Build, etc.
In two weeks, I’m working on one of the more refreshing interviews of my career. The client, understanding that his organization does not understand the costs and benefits of different procurement methods, has requested a very non-traditional short-list interview. In the interview for a $300+ million project, the team must first educate and convince the owner as to the benefits of the Construction Manager at Risk procurement method and then convince him that the team is the best choice for the project. I’m looking forward to this interview because we will really get to explore the core benefits of the procurement method and how by working together, the entire team – owner, designer, and construction manager – can reap the benefits in cost, schedule, quality, profitability, and relationship.
So, what do we take away for short-list interviews? Beyond the obvious goal to explain our acronyms (if you didn’t get that, “Return to Go; do not collect $200”), I think we need to do a better job explaining the benefits and the requirements of the procurement methodologies used for projects. This affords us the chance to position our teams as meeting not only the needs of the project, but being able to work with the owner to achieve the benefits of the procurement method. For example, how can the owner and the design team get real benefit from the CM’s early engagement of subs? Beyond just saying that we will engage subs early, teams should explain how this process works and the real benefit to the project and the team. In shorter interviews in particular, I’d love to see teams spend more time explaining the details of what they can do for the project via the procurement method than trying to cover the entire breadth of typical topics (our history, our experience, our staffing, our management plan….).
The partnership required to make any of the delivery methods work can start in the interview – with clarity of expectations and a conversation about how to achieve the benefits of team members working together. Savvy teams take the time to explain how they are going to achieve the promise of the procurement method vs. delivering a typical quals-based interview. Clients are yearning for teamwork, partnership, protection from growth in their budgets and schedules – and they are turning to procurement methods many of them don’t fully understand to get there. It behooves teams to not only deliver on the promises these procurement methods may offer, but to fully explain to owners how they will get there. A winning interview presents not only the benefits, but the unique methodology to achieve them in a way that is clear, compelling, and game changing.
No comments:
Post a Comment