 |
| Prediction: The Key to Planning |
What would influence the path and pace of their individual routes? Let's say each person had only $1,000 to spend toward the trip. Does the mode of transportation change? Let's say each must visit at least one National Park along the way (more than one park visited earns a 'tip'). Do the routes change? Let's say that each had to spend at least one day photographing a "national landmark" along the way (more than one photographed earns another 'tip'). Does the 'itinerary' change?
Of course each 'proposal' would likely be different, there is a thousands ways to get from NY to LA and dozens of National Parks and landmarks along the way...any way. So how would the 'eccentric' and 'tripper' form a contract for said service? What would be the contract basis? Would it include maps with highlighted routes, circles and arrows indicating parks and landmarks, timetables down to the minute for breaks and sleeping arrangements, taxi schedules at airports or automobile refueling locations? (sounds like plans & specs to me)
Or would the contract simply restate the expected outcome detailed above (the "problem statement")...7 days, be in LA, deliver letter, submit proof of parks/landmarks...ready, set, GO.
If we apply this concept of "expected outcome" to a building or infrastructure project, we have established that "satisfying" the "problem statement" can be the basis of the contract. In other words, solving the owner's "Problem Statement" replaces the designer/builder's "Proposed Solution" as the contract's scope-of-work. The designer's and builder's detailed "solution" to the problem statement is important, but does not change the ultimate goal of satisfying (i.e. resolving) the owner's stated "Problem".
Since the "final solution" provided by the designer/builder (through the execution of the contract) must satisfy the owner's "problem statement"...maybe we don't need to actually know the "solution" before we award a contact and move the schedule along. Maybe we can "qualify" the designer/builder based on skill, knowledge, understanding, experience, or better yet, based on unique risk elements of the project at hand. Imagine the time and resources saved by such an acquisition process...a contract that lets the design/builder "figure it out" as we all go along. This would really reduce the "proposal cost" and "stipend" discussions.
Sound spooky?...bet your "traditional drawings & 16 division specifications" it does. Why is it spooky...CONTROL. Specifically the owner's traditional "outcome control" has been violated. To date most (and I mean most) owners cannot conceive of a reliable acquisition process that allows them to "control" the "project outcome" in any other way than via plans & specs, and "their decisions" made relative to said plans & specs.
If you are a "project owner", ask yourself how many times have you been up to your elbows in "design & construction decision making", working side-by-side with your designer, sweating out the answers to endless questions, recording them in volumes of 'contract documents', making them the basis of the contract, intended to 'clearly' guide the builder, only to be disappointed when halfway through construction things change and you become the "hinge pin" to moving the project forward (usually accompanied by a Change-Order, or 2, or 3...). How on earth does the path to "their solution" become "your problem"? To borrow from Steinbeck: "The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray".
The trick for the owner is simple: create a contract in which measurable results define the scope and define success...pay only for results i.e. success...and allow (no wait...empower) the designer/builder to do what ever they want to achieve the contracted "results".
I don't mean to suggest by saying "their solution" and "your problem" that collaboration is not essential to a project's successful outcome. But I do suggest that "decision-making by committee" is a wasteful and unreliable process. Ultimately every contract must "obligate" a result. And I am not suggesting that the owner is not intimately involved in assisting the designer/builder in satisfying the problem statement of a contract. But "deciding" the elements and details of the "solution" is not the responsibility of the owner...the architect is not a draftsman for the owner's ideas, nor is the builder the owner's labor force for its execution. Mr & Ms Owner...get out of their way, they're "big boys and girls"...besides your "problem" is likely not that difficult for them to solve...we're not curing cancer here.
Problem-Based Contracting
A "Problem-Based" contract within a methodic acquisition process is the answer. This is the ultimate evolution of Perfromance-Based Design-Build. PBC does something so simple, most do not believe it can work. The contract basis replaces plans & specs with problem satisfaction. What are the fundamentals of a "Problem-Based" contract and acquisition process?- Define the "Problem" to be "Solved" in terms of "outcome" (not based on a set of predetermined "inputs" i.e. "the design")
- Establish a clear, objective and specific "metric" for each "outcome" you desire (price, schedule, collaboration, program, performance, etc.)
- Prioritize your expected "outcomes", giving emphasis to "mission critical" objectives
- Evaluate & Select the designer/builder based on reliable "risk attribute mitigators" unique to your project (not boiler-plate criteria)
- Establish the designer/builder's "authority & accountability" for the "decision-making" that ultimately provides the "solution"
- Pay for "performance of outcome", i.e "satisfying the problem" (not work, not activity, not labor, not drawings, not problem solving, not commissioning, not flow diagrams, not schedules, not site supervision, or any other element the designer/builder deems essential to their satisfying your "problem")
No comments:
Post a Comment