Confessions of an Architect: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Partnering

by Gray Plosser, FAIA, KPS-Group, Birmingham, Alabama

Like many design professionals, Architect Gray Plosser was skeptical of this thing called "partnering." And like many before him, that skepticism turned to enthusiasm once his firm was involved in a partnered project. Here are Gray Plosser's confessions regarding his conversion to a partnering true believer.

The job is a fast-track, design/build project: a new $26.5 million U.S. District Courthouse. As architect, we work for the general contractor, a fine organization with which we have completed more than $165 million in both negotiated and bid projects. Nevertheless, this was our first design/build project.

Our first meeting was five days after the award. There were about 25 folks, and I looked down the agenda for something that said "pay request procedures." Not finding it, I came across an item entitled "partnering." I must confess my first reaction was:

"Great, we've got to invest some more time in some touchy feely stuff just when we've got a contractor screaming at us about schedule, and we really need to know when we can get paid for that $100,000 plus we've put into this thing so far."

Having set the stage and my frame of mind at the time, let me now explain the partnering process. Because we were working design/build, the design team, the contracting team, and the owner-user team participated from the outset. There were three partnering sessions.

The first session in January, 1992, focused on establishing personality profiles, communication styles, goals, commitments, problem resolution techniques and self-evaluation criteria. More important, we signed a partnership agreement which included a mission statement for the project. Interestingly, given the pilot nature of this program, part of the mission statement affirmed everyone's desire to see this become a positive model for design/build in the federal arena.

The second session in June, 1992, focused on evaluations of progress against objectives and team-building exercises. The key obstacles to achieving objectives were also examined. Those that had been removed or overcome were so noted and those that loomed new were discussed.

The third session in January, 1993, was very informal and primarily anecdotal in nature. It consisted of stories, lessons and reflections about the project and our personal experiences to date.

How has partnering helped? I would like to give two specific examples which I attribute directly to the result of our partnering process.

The first example confronted us immediately. To achieve the design/build fast-track schedule, it would be necessary to substantially reorganize the design sequence and thus the approval sequence. The owner-user would not have the luxury of seeing completed documents before construction or even uniformly up-to-date documents at any of the review milestones. A new approval process was devised with simultaneous reviews and on-board updates. The contractor was an integral part of the review process to ensure that pricing, constructability and scheduling objectives could be met.

As it turned out, structural design was complete and construction underway with the architectural design just 45% complete. The entire design team, but particularly the owner, had to radically alter the traditional modus operandi. The potential for frustration and high anxiety was pervasive. Extraordinary coordination and cooperation was required in the early months of the project.

Vitally important was explicit recognition that the documents would not be perfect, that problems would occur requiring timely solutions, and that commitment to the schedule required innovative ways of working together. I do not believe that we would have managed this particularly daunting task without the partnering process. It gave team members the personal rapport and trust necessary to overcome what otherwise would have been a schedule-breaking set of circumstances.

The second example was again a design issue. The original price was based on performance specifications developed by the owner for finishes in various areas of the building. We felt, based on our previous experience, that the finishes in the public spaces and in the courtrooms themselves were neither consistent with the expectations of the judges nor with the dignity and the stature of the courts. This was a sensitive area which we did not relish exposing to confrontation. Nevertheless, we raised this issue with the owner and the judges. It was agreed that we would submit a special finish upgrade package for approval.

This package was ultimately approved and incorporated into the project. Valued at over $1 million, it represented a significant willingness by the owner to trust the design construction team in a highly sensitive area and to act in a manner consistent with the mission statement of the project. It also represented a high level of trust by the contractor since this work could have adversely affected his schedule and relationship with the owner.

There are many other examples of how partnering helped this project. They manifest daily in the resolution of problems, the avoidance of conflict, and the commitment to common objectives. Discrepancies between the solicitation and the proposal, definition of industry standards, specified products no longer available, personnel turnover, local labor participation, shop drawings, labor disputes and change orders all represented opportunities for problems, disputes and claims.

Certainly, we try to use the principles of partnering on all projects. In part, that's why I thought we really didn't need partnering. I was wrong. And that leads me to the "why" of partnering.

Surely we all benefit from reducing exposure to disputes and litigation. Administrative costs can be reduced, and because problems are resolved cooperatively, everyone can enhance time and cost control over the project. When parties are concentrating on the ultimate goal rather than defensive posturing, owners and clients benefit in the form of an improved product. Open communication and improved working relationships create an increased opportunity to use innovative technologies and to develop value engineering. And finally, a cooperative approach to construction can make a project far more rewarding and fulfilling on a personal basis.

But ultimately, I believe that there is a very tangible and qualitative "why," and that is profitability. Each of the above benefits has the potential to affect productivity and the bottom line.