 |
| Copying the A's "High Performance Outcome" |
It further seems to me that these documented advancements "are heavy" on the Designer/Builder side of the ledger. By this I mean there's more discussion on how the architect, engineers, builders, suppliers, subs, etc. are applying an innovative process or re-inventing an approach that chips away at challenges such as energy performance, schedule length, waste reduction, constructability, and so on.
All of these advancements are indeed "advancements". With the full blown use of Integrated-Delivery such as Design-Build: designers and builders are working together in new ways, with new products, and conquering new challenges: Net Zero Energy, Net Zero Water, Zero Carbon, Sustainable Service Life, Reduced Waste, Environmentally Friendly, and so on...(not to mention all the other standard project goals related to budget and scope).
Question: Where are all the articles about the advancements and innovations that Project Owners bring to the table?
Seems to me that most owners continue to bring ever more "project challenges" to the table only to let the market scratch, claw, and spin its way to contract-award...then the project-winner spends the next few years being challenged by owners on every thought, decision, and project activity.
I have known many owners that talk "innovation". But when designers and builders "bring" innovation (to all or any part of the process), the owner says: We can't do that...we've never done that before...that's not the way we do it...we're not allowed to do it that way...we have a certain way of doing things here...and the ultimate in anti-innovation, here's our STANDARDS (probably written 5 years ago).
For the most part, today's Project Owner remains tied to team-selection based on "price rather than value", prefers a contract based on "plans rather than performance", needs to "direct design rather than measure outcome", and believes "Biggest Design Portfolio + Biggest Building Portfolio = Best Team".
Innovation doesn't come from the Mainstream, it comes from the Margins; it comes from the "kooks"...thoughtful kooks, but when compared to the sages, kooks nonetheless. A creative "solution" happens only once...if it succeeds, it's replicated. Warren Buffett once said (paraphrasing), "the three I's of business are Innovation, Imitation, and Idiots."
If owners truly want Innovation to solve their ever-growing project challenges, they must allow, even promote innovative ideas to win out. For the owner to conquer today's new challenges, tradition must take a back seat to innovation. Owners should examine every step and activity of their "impact" on the project acquisition process. From Proposal Evaluation and Scope Definition, to Design/Constuction Approvals and Facility Operation, owners must "bring innovation".
Every designer knows who the competition is, every builder too. If you're an owner, ask yourself, who is your competition? There are owners out there that are not only defining the future of facilities, they are achieving unheard of results...via "owner innovation". Case in point: DOE RSF Facility.
Project Owners Should Play "Money Ball"
I love the movie "Money Ball" just because it shows the potential of innovation. My favorite character is not the General Manager, Billy Beane (no offense to Brad Pitt); although Beane's leveraging true innovation is central to the movie's theme of re-inventing how to win.
My favorite character is the owner of the A's, Stephen Schott (please note: he's the Owner). Throughout the movie Schott is objectively clear (win), he delegates ("you" better win), and is nervous (you sure we are going to win?). Schott defined his performance expectations and then got out of the way. His commitment to innovate and break with tradition saved millions of dollars and set the record for the longest winning streak in American League Baseball history...Schott wanted wins, Schott got wins, and got them on his budget.
In a nut shell, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) and his Assistant Manager, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), broke all the traditions of baseball by assembling players based on a innovative analytic methodology. Schott questioned the methodology, but allowed innovation to run its course. In the end Beane's approach caught eyes throughout the MLB.
So successful was Beane/Brand's approach to assembling a team, Red Sox's owner John Henry offered Beane a record amount of money for him to "play ball" with Boston. In the movie, John Henry sums up Beane's break with tradition:
- Henry to Beane: "For forty-one million, you built a playoff team. You lost Damon, Giambi, Isringhausen, Pena and you won more games without them than you did with them. You won the exact same number of games that the Yankees won, but the Yankees spent one point four million per win and you paid two hundred and sixty thousand. I know you've taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It's the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it's threatening the game. But really what it's threatening is their livelihoods, it's threatening their jobs, it's threatening the way that they do things. And every time that happens, whether it's the government or a way of doing business or whatever it is, the people are holding the reins, have their hands on the switch. They go bat shit crazy. I mean, anybody who's not building a team right and rebuilding it using your model, they're dinosaurs. They'll be sitting on their ass on the sofa in October, watching the Boston Red Sox win the World Series."
Today every MLB franchise uses some form of Beane/Brand's "innovative analytics" to assemble their teams...so I guess it's not innovative anymore.
What Project Owners can learn from Stephen Schott:
- Begin with an Audit: What's different about your "acquisition process" today than 5, 10, or 20 years ago? Not the tools others use (i.e. BIM or Fast Tracking), but your process. Remember that Innovation leads Tradition.
- Recognize when Billy Beane is in front of you: Examine what's "different" about a proposed process or approach, and "why" it could work.
- Establish the "Outcome" of Innovation: The good thing about traditional thinking is it yields traditional results, which particular outcome do you want to change through innovation?
- By definition, Innovation alters Tradition: Educate yourself on the "why" your breaking with tradition, because everyone will think you're a kook.
Also, before you start your next "ball game", check out my innovations:
No comments:
Post a Comment