Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

91 A P P E N D I X C Resources to Learn More C1: ABOUT THE COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING TOOLS I. Tool 1: Partnering Specifications 1. Aviation Partnering Specifications – All Level Specifications, Owner’s Toolbox, IPI (Interna- tional Partnering Institute), https://partneringinstitute.org/owners-toolbox/ IPI has published generic partnering specifications especially for aviation projects to aid out- lining a structured process designed to develop a collaborative environment for a project. It describes required partnering tools to be used according to the partnering intensity level adopted using IPI’s partnering aviation matrices. 2. A Mini Guide to Partnering, SFPW (San Francisco Public Works) SFPW has presented an example of its standard partnering specifications in its partnering guide. These partnering requirements have been as systematically drafted as general specifi- cations and includes summary, definitions, costs, and implementation elements of partnering on its projects. II. Tool 2: Partnering Facilitator 1. Facilitator Certification, IPI (International Partnering Institute) The IPI has a panel of professional neutral partnering facilitators that provides a Facilitator Code of Ethics, which is a common set of professional ethical principles to which members will adhere in their facilitation practice. This webpage also lists information regarding finding a partnering facilitator. 2. Partnering Facilitator’s Manual, Florida DOT The Department of Construction of the Florida DOT has published an extensive guideline out- lining the aspects of partnering facilitation. Its contents include information regarding the fa- cilitator approval process, facilitator selection, workshop set-up and process guidelines, and a list of construction partnering facilitators. 3. List(s) of qualified facilitators offered by reliable sources such as: i. Find a Facilitator, IPI (International Partnering Institute), https://partneringinsti- tute.org/find-a-facilitator/ IPI, a non-profit that provides education, guidance, research, and resources about part- nering provides a list of IPI-certified partnering facilitators on their website. These facili- tators are classified based on their experience (Master, Senior, and Certified) and adhere to the facilitation standards set by IPI.

92 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices ii. A Mini Guide to Partnering (2016). SFPW (San Francisco Public Works), Office of Commu- nications and Public Affairs SFPW provides a list of facilitators along with their experience, certifications, and contact details. It might help an organization new to partnering to select the facilitator from such a list that is compiled by an organization experienced in partnering on similar projects that one’s organization intends to undertake. III. Tool 3: Kick-off Partnering Meeting 1. Partnering 101 - A Guide to the Basics of Partnering with ADOT, Arizona DOT The Arizona DOT talks about the modeling of the pre-workshop meeting, among other work- shops, and tailoring it according to project complexities. 2. Partnering – A Guideline for Project Teams, MdQI (Maryland Quality Initiative) MdQI presents a checklist for planning the partnering pre-workshop kick-off meeting that en- compasses planning for the logistics of the meeting, development of the mission statement, goal-setting, drafting project expectations, identification of an issue resolution process, selec- tion of team-building activities and determining lead personnel for discussed meeting items. IV. Tool 4: Partnering Charter 1. Partnering – A Guideline for Project Teams, MdQI (Maryland Quality Initiative) MdQI mentions that contribution from all stakeholders is necessary for the development of the Partnering Charter, which includes: the mission statement, goals, and sometimes guiding principles for the partnering team. Sample Partnering Charters are also provided wherein all stakeholders sign the Partnering Charter, denoting their commitment to collaborative princi- ples. It must be noted that the signing of the Partnering Charter is a symbol of stakeholder commitment and does not change contract requirements. 2. Delivering Exceptional Projects – Our Guiding Principles, SFO (San Francisco International Air- port) SFO states that the Partnering Charter signifies the promise and the commitment of all par- ticipants that the project team will solve problems collaboratively and seek synergy that meets the requirements of the whole project, rather than those of any particular constituent entity. V. Tool 5: Issue Resolution Process 1. Partnering – A Guideline for Project Teams, MdQI (Maryland Quality Initiative) In this guideline, MdQI has listed issue resolution as one of the organization’s key partnering values and attributes stating that the best way to resolve issues is to identify them early and address them together as a team. When partnering is used, issues are identified and resolved before they become barriers. It describes the levels of the Issue Resolution Ladder to be used on its projects. 2. Field Guide to Partnering on Caltrans Construction Projects, Caltrans Caltrans describes how the issue resolution process works on its projects. It explains how a partnering facilitator can play a role in the resolution of an issue and conduct a partnering session at the same time.

Resources to Learn More 93 VI. Tool 6: Co-Location 1. Maximizing Co-Location, IPI Owner’s Toolbox, IPI (International Partnering Institute) A short article explaining co-location as described at the 6th Annual IPI Awards Ceremony by then IPI Board of Advisors Member John Thorsson of NCC Construction Sweden via his experi- ence with the tool on a construction project. An important point discussed in this article is how co-location “by function” (A/Es, builders, managers and estimators) is more effective than just co-habitation because teams in a project building could still choose to stay within their organizational group within a common location and only interact “accidentally.” VII. Tool 7: Partnering Training 1. Partnering Training Evaluation Research Report, CCR (Center for Conflict Resolution), Mary- land DOT’s State Highway Administration, http://bossermancenter.com/research/past-re- search/ The report is an outcome of the research that conducted an extensive assessment of the part- nering training needs of the State Highway Administration (SHA). It highlights the various training sessions, development of courses, various partnering roles, partnering processes, uti- lization of partnering tools, training objectives, and so forth. This can serve as a guiding docu- ment for organizations willing to start, assess, or improve their own partnering training pro- gram. 2. Partnering – A Guideline for Project Teams, MdQI (Maryland Quality Initiative) MdQI lists a few of its available training modules for stakeholders working on Maryland DOT projects. These modules include “Basic Partnering Training,” “Refresher Partnering Training,” “Partnering Communications I and II,” and “Partnering Facilitation Training.” VIII. Tool 8: Partnering Scorecards 1. A Mini Guide to Partnering, SFPW (San Francisco Public Works) In the partnering requirements specified by SFPW for construction projects by the city, part- nering scorecards are described as an accountability tool. Its requirements are specified ac- cording to the project’s adoption of a partnering intensity level. The guide mentions that partnering scorecards vary in terms of the cost to work through them, but an average amount is about $500–$600 per scorecard. 2. ODOT (Ohio DOT) Partnering Handbook, Ohio DOT The Ohio DOT provides sample partnering scorecards for partnering in its handbook that can be revised to fit the needs of the project in terms of participants evaluated and frequency of evaluation. The prime contractor is responsible to determine when and how the best re- sults can be obtained. Regarding use of project scorecards, ODOT says, “The key is to use it like a thermometer – keep a healthy temperature on the project.” IX. Tool 9: Stakeholder Engagement 1. Delivering Exceptional Projects – Our Guiding Principles, SFO (San Francisco International Airport) In developing a long-term strategy to become the world’s top ranked airport and deliver suc- cessful construction projects dubbed as “Exceptional Projects,” SFO published its plans to achieve their goals. It states that the stakeholder engagement concept is central to the air- port’s exceptional project delivery paradigm that helps “integrate the participants into a col- laborative unit.”

94 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices X. Tool 10: Partnering Workshops 1. A Guide to Partnering Workshops, Construction Industry Council, London This guide, drafted by the Partnering Task Force, provides valuable introduction to partnering workshops and their use across a project’s timeline, location, agenda, and so forth. 2. Partnering – A Guideline for Project Teams, MdQI (Maryland Quality Initiative) This section talks about maintaining the partnership throughout the project through monthly partnering workshops as well as intermediate partnering workshops. It highlights the tools that could be used at these workshops. XI. Tool 11: Multi-Tiered Partnering 1. Multi-Tiered Partnering, IPI (International Partnering Institute), https://partneringinsti- tute.org/ This document graphically represents the tiers in multi-tiered partnering, along with func- tions and objectives of separate workshops held for each tier. XII. Tool 12: Focus Groups No specific additional resource was selected to list for this tool. XIII. Tool 13: Partnering Meeting Minutes 1. Partnering – A Guideline for Project Teams, MdQI (Maryland Quality Initiative) MdQI’s guideline addresses “Agendas and Minutes” as a separate section because it believes it is the form of communication for the partnering team. It highlights what constitutes an ef- fective meeting agenda before a meeting and what constitutes effective meeting minutes during the partnering workshop. 2. Partnering Field Guide for MnDOT Construction Projects, Minnesota DOT Meeting minutes are required so that everyone knows what was agreed to and what is still unresolved even after the project is completed. The contractor and the Minnesota DOT share the responsibility for taking the minutes. Minutes are submitted to the Minnesota DOT for approval then distributed to appropriate individuals. XIV. Tool 14: Team-Building Activities 1. Field Guide to Partnering on Caltrans Construction Projects, Caltrans Caltrans believes and states in its guidelines that it is important to the success of the project that project personnel have a sense of enjoyment. It suggests team-building events within project teams. 2. Partnering Facilitator’s Manual, Florida DOT The first activity of a minimum five activities to be done in the workshop by the facilitator is “Team Building” as listed in the Florida DOT’s Partnering Facilitator Manual. Components of this activity include preparing a list of team members, a short group dynamics course, devel- oping a set of common performance objectives, developing project issues, and giving each member an equal opportunity to contribute. XV. Tool 15: Partnering Recognition and Awards 1. Partnering 101 – A Guide to The Basics of Partnering with ADOT, Arizona DOT The Office of Partnering at the Arizona DOT encourages partnership members to recognize the achievements and successes of individuals and teams at the organizational level through the Partnering Spirit Award. You can learn more about the award at: http://www.azdot.gov/business/programs-and-partnerships/partnering/spirit-award.

Resources to Learn More 95 2. Field Guide to Partnering on Caltrans Construction Projects, Caltrans While describing the various awards held at various levels in Caltrans, this section also high- lights various factors used in selecting award recipients such as team-building efforts, im- proved communications, innovation and joint problem solving, conflict/dispute resolution ef- forts, delivery of a quality project, and utilization of the partnering evaluation survey. XVI. Tool 16: Close-Out Workshop 1. ODOT (Ohio DOT) Partnering Handbook, Ohio Department of Transportation This section in the handbook highlights the need, responsible parties, and objectives of the “Close-Out Meeting and Celebrations/Recognitions” stage. It mentions data to be collected over the project duration, forms for this data collection, its analysis, and nuances of conduct- ing the close-out meeting. 2. Field Guide to Partnering on Caltrans Construction Projects, Caltrans A short section describes the utilization of the close-out partnering workshop on projects for Caltrans’ Division of Construction. It also describes its web-based “project close-out survey” conducted by its district construction office in addition to the project level evaluation. 3. Partnering – A Guideline for Project Teams, MdQI (Maryland Quality Initiative) MdQI believes that the close-out workshop can help the project team answer two basic ques- tions: “What made this project a great project?” and “What would you do differently?” This is also the opportunity to discuss if the project wants to apply for the partnering award. C2: ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS PRACTICES I. Participating in Mentoring Programs (Recommended Practice) 1. International Partnering Institute (IPI): https://Partneringinstitute.org/ IPI is a non-profit with more than 150 member organizations (as of December 2017) that serves owners, CM firms, A/Es, contractors and facilitators with partnering training opportu- nities and resources like education, research and development, recognition, guidance, learn- ing opportunities and facilitator certification, and professional development 2. AASHTO Partnering Handbook, 2d Ed. (NCHRP Project 19-10), AASHTO, 2018 This report highlights the various training sessions, development of courses, various partner- ing roles, partnering processes, utilization of partnering tools, training objectives, and so forth, at construction projects, and can serve as a guiding document for organizations willing to start, assess, or improve their own partnering training programs. Link: https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=4025 II. Web-Based Resources and Guidelines 1. IPI Owner’s Toolbox, IPI (International Partnering Institute), 2017 This page provides tools to construction project owners who seek to adopt the best practices of construction partnering. IPI committees have created a series of tools to help organizations or individuals take their partnering program to the next level like: Partnering scalability ma- trices, sample partnering specifications, articles on various partnering aspects, online guide- line resources among others. Link: https://Partneringinstitute.org/owners-toolbox/

96 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices 3. Professional Organizations that Specialize in Collaboration Consulting Consulting companies such as OrgMetrics LLC offer services to help organizations delineate their partnering goals, tailor best practices to the specific characteristics of the organization, and train employees in partnering practices, to become partnering champions or even to act as internal facilitators. Link: http://orgmet.com/ III. Developing Meaningful Partnering Measurement System(s) (Required Practice) 1. Partnering – A Guideline for Project Teams, MdQI (Maryland Quality Initiative), 2015 In the “Measurement” section of the document, MdQI describes its partnering project rating form and its aspects like its mandatory elements, project-based additional elements, updat- ing frequency, and its use. Link: http://www.mdqi.org/images/stories/mdqidocuments/Partnering/2015Partnering- manual.pdf 2. Partnering 101 – A Guide to The Basics of Partnering with ADOT (Arizona DOT), 2017 The “Partnering Evaluation Program” section of the documents outlines a comprehensive de- scription of partnering performance measurement. It includes examples of reports, guidelines on evaluation, inclusion in workshops as well as access to a user instruction document. Link: https://www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/business/Partnering-101-a-guide-to-the- basics-of-Partnering-with-adot.pdf IV. Establishing a Partnering Steering Committee (Required Practice) 1. Maryland SHA Steering Committee (http://www.mdqi.org/steering-team-a-subcommit- tees/partnering-subcommittee) This page describes the partnering steering committee program of the Maryland State High- way Administration (SHA). Maryland SHA recognized the need to address quality at all levels and areas of the highway community. The SHA and the Maryland Quality Initiative (MdQI) created the steering committee to draw industry partners into Maryland's transportation plan. It is the link between their stakeholders, and guides strategic thinking on a day-to-day basis. 2. San Francisco Public Works Steering Committee (http://sfpublicworks.org/sites/de- fault/files/San%20Francisco%20Collaborative%20Partnering%20Steering%20Commit- tee%20list%204.20.16.pdf ) This article describes the history, objective and composition of the partnering steering com- mittee at San Francisco Public Works. 2. Contractor Resources, SFPW (San Francisco Public Works), 2017 SFPW has created an online page for contractor resources for future A/Es and contractors looking to bid on their construction projects. These include a description of the agency’s Part- nering Summit 2014 – kick-off of its first nationwide partnering program, a mini-guide to partnering, partnering project manual reference documents, and standard specifications and plans. Link: http://sfpublicworks.org/contractorresources

Resources to Learn More 97 V. Developing Consistent Partnering Guidelines 1. Sources of Partnering Facilitator Manuals: o Florida DOT: http://www.fdot.gov/construction/contractorissues/Partnering/ PartneringManual.pdf o Caltrans: http://dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/Partnering/documents/ Partnering%20Facilitator%20Stadards%20and%20Expectations%201-17-2013%20fi- nal.pdf VI. Developing/Participating in Partnering Recognition and Rewards Programs 1. Caltrans Partnering Awards – 2018: Partnering Award Fact Sheet, Partnering with Caltrans, Caltrans Division of Construction, 2017. This document along with various supporting documents, is published to help both completed and on-going Partnered projects under Caltrans apply for the annual Caltrans Partnering Awards. Link: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/Partnering/documents/ caltrans_awards_one_sheet_aug_2011.pdf 2. Collaboration 2018, International Partnering Institute (IPI), 2017. This event organized by IPI showcases Partnering Award applications for awards like Project of the Year Award, Excellence in Partnering Facilitation Award, IPI Strategic Partnering Award and IPI Partnering Champion Award conferred at the annual conference “Collaborations.” Link: https://Partneringinstitute.org/

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 G uidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional A irport Practices A CRP Research Report 196 TRB ISBN 978-0-309-48011-6 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 0 1 1 6 9 0 0 0 0