DBIA's 10 BPs in 10 Posts (#1)

Practice Makes Perfect

Now that the design and construction 'world' is taking in Design-Build Institute of America's (DBIA) 10 Best Practices for Design-Build, I want to take time and convince all that this "living" document of practices is, indeed, a sort of magic. I say 'magic', because to follow these practices is to transform an otherwise adequate outcome into a High Performance Outcome…and that is what I'm here to advance.

I'm not going to recite the 10 BP's: you can read them for yourselves. What I want to do in this blog-series is share my experience with each: gained over the past 15 years, on how I've applied them (before & after
their systemization) and either succeeded or failed with each. In this way I intend to give you, the reader, a practical perspective of each, and how they have accomplished their goal implicit in the document's introduction:

To quote the DBIA document directly, "implementing these practices on any type of design-build project increases the probability of a successful project that meets the expectations of all stakeholders. If these practices are not implemented, there is an increased probability that the project’s performance will be compromised and that some or all of the stakeholders will be disappointed".

To make application of the practices easier, they are organized categorically as follows:

1. Procuring Design-Build Services 
2. Contracting for Design-Build Services 
3. Executing the Delivery of Design-Build Projects 

To me this organization recognizes a few very important things: that Design-Build is not just a "delivery system", it is an "acquisition strategy". An acquisition strategy must be holistic, from project inception to operational start-up. The tactics of such strategy must consider activities, roles, and responsibilities that are interdependent and independent, specialized and collaborative, active and responsive. The presentation of the Design-Build Done Right Best Practices does this very well.

So let's get to it…Best Practice #1

An owner should conduct a proactive and objective assessment of the unique characteristics of its program/project and its organization before deciding to use design-build.

Boy howdy, is this practice important to success. I have two instances that I can recall quickly. These come from actual projects: one with an educational institution and the other with a government client. The former is both funny and scary at the same time: at least for me as their Design-Build Consultant and Owner Rep.

I made it a practice, beginning in 1999, to always ask my clients why the were interested in design-build. As you might imagine, I received the common answers that indicated they had read or listened to a 'how-to' concerning design-build…good! Those included save time and money, and get better quality.

But in the case of one client, an influential member of the 'ownership group' said that he wanted to use design-build because he was at a dinner party on the west coast and heard some people remarking they were using it on one of their projects…a dinner party? You decided to forego the articles and workshops, and go directly to the old 'dinner-party' analysis.

I never actually discovered if the 'party-conversation' provided an objective assessment of the unique characteristics of the upcoming project or the owner's organization, but I do know that it involved 'senior leadership'. Design-build was, apparently, fashionable at the turn of the millennium. For what it's worth, they had never done a design-build project before. Fortunately the 'staff' of this particular client kept the application of other such objective-based decision-making processes out of the reach of 'leadership'.

The limited consideration of design-build's difference to traditional delivery, and its affect on the staff's successful management of design-build principals resulted in a quality issue. In the end, one that dramatically impacted leadership's perception that design-build could achieve a better "project outcome."

The quality issue was born from the replacement of a key staff member involved in project management. The replacement did not have the design-build experience or knowledge required, and did not know how to correct the contractually 'non-conforming' quality issue. Not conceding his 'power position' as the sole arbiter in dealing with the design-build team (an issue of collaboration), the project ultimately devolved into a 'design-bid-build-looking' process, and leadership was never the wiser: believing fault resided fundamentally in the design-build process and the design-builder's tradesmen.

In the end the project was viewed by many as a success and was recognized by industry awards….surely none were rooted in applying the principles of BP #1. To my knowledge, the owner has not used design-build since.

The other, and more recent, example of BP #1 comes from a client who was very much the opposite. They had done design-build before, successfully I might add. Still, this owner wanted to do a deeper dive into the 'details' of Design-Build Done Right. They attended seminars, studied industry information, and generally involved all of their leaders and stack-holders in a proactive and objective assessment of the unique characteristics of their project and their organization relative to design-build delivery.

In fact, their fear of not understanding the principles of design-build, despite their commitment to apply them, were self-identified as a possible risk to the project's successful outcome. This, of course, made 'understanding and commitment' a touchstone for activities throughout the process. The leadership was so dedicated to understanding their staff and resources in relation to project challenges in the context of design-build, several members of their organization (from top to bottom) remained integrated in all education activities and decision-making for the project.

This understanding and commitment sustained them through many challenging aspects of the work. They repeatedly drew from their design-build education and knowledge, and stuck to the principles as established by DBIA specifically. Their project leaders considered and practiced the 'differences' required of design-build delivery, while some (outside the management group) were tempting the comforts of more 'traditional' approaches. Their staff-wide understanding and commitment to design-build allowed them to adjust on-the-fly and successfully proceed through the project.

The techniques required to do design-build 'Right' are many, but not complex; they are specific, but not exclusive to highly trained 'professionals'. Just about any project owner can easily apply these techniques. I believe many a 'screwed-up' and 'failed' design-build project is the result of ownership not applying Best Practice #1.