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.
6 Collaborative partnering is a structured process that is applied to construction projects of all delivery methods. This approach has been used on projects to improve results in terms of cost, time, and quality and also to reduce or eliminate claims in the construction process. This chapter provides an âat-a-glanceâ overview of collaborative partnering, then gives a definition of collaborative partnering, describes its benefits, presents real life examples of business cases in action, lists the main barriers to its adoption and lists the resources needed to adopt it. The chapter also explains how this guide can help industry practitioners effectively implement collaborative partnering in airport construction projects. 1.1 What Is Collaborative Partnering? Collaborative partnering is a structured process that is used to instill cooperative cultures on construction project teams. Collaborative partnering: â¢ Is scalable to any project type and level of risk, whether the project is airside, landside, or a terminal project. â¢ Is suitable for any size and type of airport, with payback generally increasing with scale and complexity. â¢ Works best when it is driven by the owner or owner representative, as the process needs top management support and resources for successful outcomes. â¢ Enhances team integration and goal alignment among project participants. â¢ Improves project outcomes (through improved cost, schedule, safety, reduced claims, and so forth). â¢ Is suitable for any project delivery method, including: â Construction Manager-at-Risk/Construction ManagerâGeneral Contractor (CMR): The owner contracts with a designer for design services and separately selects a contractor for construction management services. The contractor provides significant input in the design and generally guarantees the maximum construction price. â Design-Build (DB): The owner holds a contract with a single entity to perform both design and construction. â Design-Bid-Build (DBB): The owner contracts with a designer to furnish design services and construction documents and then solicits bids from contractors to construct the facility. The owner awards a separate contract to the contractor to perform the work in accordance with the complete construction documents. Collaborative partnering brings the following groups together regularly from design to project close-out: â¢ Project Team Members: Owner, architect/engineer (A/E), construction manager, and contractor (including field level, management level, and executive level from each). C H A P T E R 1 Collaborative Partnering In collaborative partnering, project teams: â¢ Start with a kick-off partnering meeting during which the participants develop a Partnering Charter that includes a vision statement, co-created project goals, commit- ment to communication methods, and the issue resolution process (e.g., Issue Resolution Ladder). â¢ Hold follow-up partner ing workshop meetings during which the participants revisit the Partnering Charter to discuss the project goals and how they are tracking progress against the goals, and to discuss and resolve any issues that have come up since the last meeting.
Collaborative Partnering 7 â¢ Stakeholders: Key business units at the airport that either work directly with the project team or are the end-users/maintainers of the final facility. Internal stakeholders include operations, maintenance, properties, environmental systems, security, concessionaires, inspection, and so forth. External stakeholders include airlines, TSA, FAA, CBP, and so forth. Figure 1 illustrates the collaborative partnering process on airport construction projects. 1.2 Making the Business Case to Obtain Top Management Support Organizations benefit highly from collaborative partnering in complex construction projects. Airport construction projects can be highly complex. Most aviation projects: â¢ Rely on multiple funding sources. â¢ Involve many stakeholders. â¢ Are very tight on schedule. â¢ Take place in highly regulated environments where safety and security are of paramount importance. â¢ Might involve external stakeholder concerns. â¢ Occur in areas adjacent to on-going airport operations and/or travelling public. These project complexities translate into potential risks such as change orders, cost growth, and poor schedule performance. On non-partnered projects, project team conflicts in these risk areas are more likely to lead to claims, disputes, and even litigation, thereby significantly affecting project and team performance and damaging relationships and reputations. Collaborative partnering offers a great opportunity to (1) address the added complexity in airport construction projects successfully, (2) enhance team coordination and collaboration, and (3) improve project outcomes. Studies of collaborative partnering have shown that partner- ing agreements and charters have been referenced as proofs of promise of fair dealing. 0 Project Team Design Construction Close-Out Close-Out and Lessons-Learned Workshop Joint development of punchlist Discussion of activa- tion/commissioning strategy Recording and reflecting on lessons learned Recognition and celebration of success Kick-Off Workshop Vision statement Joint creation of project goals (on time, on budget, safe, etc.) Commitments on communication Issue Resolution Ladder Team signature page Follow-Up Sessions Regular meetings based on project risk Revision and update of Charter, project goals, and commitments Monitoring and resolution of project issues Revision of scorecards and issue resolution processes. Collaborative Partnering Process Stakeholders Field Level Management Level Executive Level Follow-up sessions can go from monthly to quarterly based on project characteristics Figure 1. Collaborative partnering process for airport construction projects.
8 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices 1.2.1 Benefits to Project, Team, and Individual Performance Outcomes The Construction Industry Instituteâs first nationwide partnering study showed 10% cost savings, 20% reduction in schedules, and 83% reduction in number of claims (CII 1996). The first large-scale comprehensive quantitative comparison of partnering sponsored by the Texas DOT found that, among projects with a budget larger than $5 million, partnered projects outperformed non-partnered ones in nearly every category (Gransberg et al. 1999). More specifically: â¢ The total cost of change orders in partnered projects was less than half the cost of change orders in non-partnered projects. â¢ No costs were associated with claims on partnered projects. â¢ Cost growth was nearly double for the non-partnered projects (i.e., 1.87% for partnered projects versus 3.94% for non-partnered projects, on average). â¢ Partnered projects were completed almost 5% ahead of schedule, whereas non-partnered projects were completed about 10% behind schedule, on average. â¢ Liquidated damages were fewer in partnered projects (i.e., they made up only about 2% of costs for the partnered projects, whereas they accounted for more than 12% for non- partnered ones). According to industry reporting, between 2006 and 2018, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) completed installations with total costs of about $3.5 billion via collaborative partnering (Dyer 2014). These projects have been completed at 20%â30% below the industry average, and have experienced no construction claims. In 2012, Sacramento International Airport (SMF) used partnering to deliver the $687 million âBig Buildâ Program, which was delivered $12 million under budget and 119 days early, without claims. Most recently, the AASHTO Partnering Handbook, 2d Ed., reported that 26 state DOTs had institutionalized partnering programs requiring partnering to be incorporated into most of their projects, based on the state DOTsâ conclusion that partnering benefits mostly outweigh the resources needed to maintain the partnering programs (Gransberg et al. 2018). Figure 2 shows the perceived improvements in performance outcomes in airport construction projects using partnering, as reported by 65 industry practitioners during ACRP Project 08-02. With regard to project performance outcomes, study participants reported perceived improve- ment in all key project performance outcomes (safety, quality, schedule, cost, and so forth) in partnered projects. On average, the highest perceived positive impact was on conflict resolution and reduced disputes. With regard to team and individual performance outcomes, participants perceived highly improved team integration and commitment to project goals in partnered projects. The ACRP research team also analyzed nine airport construction projects that had used partnering. Various sizes of airports (e.g., small, large hub, and others) delivered these projects between 2006 and 2017 using DB, DBB, or CMR project delivery methods. Project budgets ranged between $30 million and $1.6 billion. Project teams adopted a variety of partnering intensity levels that ranged from very informal to highly organized. The case studies displayed the following characteristics: â¢ In five out of the nine cases, partnering helped keep the schedule on target or helped to reduce it. â¢ In six cases, partnering helped the projects stay on budget or save costs. â¢ In two cases, cost savings were generated by partnering, estimated as 5% in one case and 10% in the other. â¢ In six cases, there were no claims; in the other three cases all reported claims were resolved mainly due to partnering.
Source: ACRP Project 08-02 3.9 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.2 3.7 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Safety Quality Owner Satisfaction Public Satisfaction Project Team Satisfaction Control of Scope Schedule Cost Conflict Resolution Reduced Disputes Reduced Claims Reduced Litigation Change Orders Project Performance Outcomes 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.2 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Establishing Mutual Trust Commitment to Project Goals Team Integration Individualsâ Attitudes Working with Integrity Field-level Decision Making Relationships Between Organizations Communication Between Organizations Team and Individual Performance Number of Respondents: 65 Higher Perceived Improvement 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree No Perceived Improvement High improvement perfor- mance areas in partnered projects, according to indus- try professionalsâ percep- tions: ï§ Conflict resolution (4.4) ï§ Reduced disputes (4.3) ï§ Team integration (4.3) ï§ Commitment to project goals (4.3) Figure 2. Average of survey participantsâ perceptions of project, team, and individual performance improvement in airport construction projects using collaborative partnering.
10 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices â¢ From the ownersâ standpoint, in all the case studies, partnering helped improve safety, quality, and overall process performance. Overall, the findings presented in this guidebook align with previous research about partner- ing summarized at the beginning of this section. In summary, the findings show that partnering can improve all project outcomes in airport projects regardless of the: â¢ Project delivery method. â¢ Budget size. â¢ Partnering intensity. â¢ Organizational readiness for partnering. 1.2.2 Partnering Costs Two conclusions were drawn from examining the cost performance data of the nine case studies: â¢ As a percentage of the overall project budget, the collaborative partnering costs (for the facili- tator, training, workshops, and so forth) amount to less than 0.2%. â¢ Two cases reported zero cost for collaborative partnering. In each of these cases, one of the participating organizations employed personnel who were highly experienced in partnering. â¢ One case reported 10% savings due to collaborative partnering. In this case, an owner- appointed facilitator (an employee of the owner organization) led the process, and the team had experience using partnering and working together. A detailed breakdown of the costs of collaborative partnering, along with the responsible parties, appears in Chapter 3 of this guidebook. 1.3 Project Examples This section of the guidebook presents three exemplary airport construction case study projects in which collaborative partnering was vital to delivering optimal project outcomes (safety, time, cost, quality, and so forth). To protect participant confidentiality, the specific airport names are not presented. 1.3.1 A Highly Complex Terminal Project with Many Stakeholders The project owner was a county-owned medium hub airport. The new terminal project included a new landside terminal and a 19-gate airside concourse. The estimated project cost was approximately $676 million, and the planned duration included 2 years for design and 3 years for construction. This project was considered high risk, with notable political significance, many potential risks affecting project cost and schedule, on-going operations during construction, and more than 60 stakeholders. This project used the DB project delivery method. Collaborative partnering commenced during the conceptual design phase when the design-builders came on board. The owner followed a request for qualifications (RFQ) and a request for proposals (RFP) process to hire a third-party facilitator. All key team members, including the owner, A/E, contractor, specialty subcontractors, and stakeholders were involved in the partnering process. The project team followed a highly formal collaborative partnering process that included practices such as: â¢ Holding a kick-off partnering meeting at which the team developed a Partnering Charter that established project goals, team roles and responsibilities, and organizational structure to manage issue resolution processes. Partnering costs vary, but at the highest partnering intensity level, collaborative partnering costs are less than 0.2% of the project budget. Partnering helped deliver a $676 million new terminal project 3 months ahead of time and $11.5 million under budget in a project that had a large number of stakeholders.
Collaborative Partnering 11 â¢ Holding follow-up partnering workshops every 2 months. â¢ Updating partnering scorecards during the workshops to measure progress toward team goals every 2 months. Collaborative partnering helped this project team deliver the project 1.7% under budget and 3 months earlier than originally scheduled. 1.3.2 Stakeholders Led the Airport Project This private project in a city-owned medium-sized hub airport had a budget of $155 million. The project schedule included 1.5 years of design and more than 2 years of construction. Potential risks affecting the project cost and schedule were considered moderate, and construc- tion had to deal with on-going airport operations. The owners had long-term plans to expand this medium-sized airport, and bringing stakeholders on board with this plan brought high political significance to the project. This project used the DB project delivery method. From the beginning of project design, this project team used a less formal approach to collaborative partnering (with no Partnering Charter, scorecards, or issue resolution ladder). In this case, success with the process was due to the team membersâ experience with collaborative partnering in prior projects and their experience working together. The two main partnering tools used in this project were: â¢ Partnering Facilitation: An owner representative with partnering experience was appointed to act as the partnering facilitator. The facilitator enabled project stakeholders to lead the project instead of the airport organization, because the greatest risk in this project resided with those stakeholders. â¢ Partnering Workshops: Monthly partnering workshops were held at two different levels, one of which did not involve the airport owner. This separation allowed representatives of the rental car company, a significant project stakeholder, to make important decisions without interference from the owner. Collaborative partnering helped all the parties prioritize project success and align their goals. Consequently, the project was completed on budget and had no claims. The design phase took longer than initially estimated, but the owner was fully satisfied. 1.3.3 Collaborative Partnering Helped Address a Critical Change in a Runway Project The project owner was a city-owned large hub airport. The scope of this project was to provide a ârunway safety areaâ at the end of two runways. The estimated project cost was $87 million, and the planned duration included 4 months for design and 9 months for construction. This high-risk project had more than $1 million worth of construction work scheduled per day during on-going airport operations. Delays would cost the contractor $50,000 per day. This project used the DBB project delivery method and employed formal collaborative partnering during construction, following the ownerâs partnering specifications. Both the owner and the general contractor had experience with partnering and jointly selected a third-party partnering facilitator. Owner representatives, contractors, and subcontractors participated in the collaborative partnering process. Highlights from this project included: â¢ A Partnering Charter was developed at the kick-off partnering meeting. The Partnering Charter established key project goals and a performance measurement system. â¢ Monthly, multi-tiered partnering workshops were held, during which: â Executive members of the project team evaluated project progress, addressed outstanding issues, and discussed the resources needed to keep the project rolling. âPartnering is key to coordinate not only a number and variety of stakeholders but also to better control the phased nature of design and construction, and ambiguity in funding and project scope due to external elements.â âExcerpt from interview with an airport executive Collaborative partnering helped deliver a DBB runway project ahead of schedule. During project delivery, partnering also helped address a major change order associated with high costs and thus reduced cost growth.
12 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices â Core team members representing the contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and stake- holders discussed key issues and how to accomplish project goals. Despite the preventive features of collaborative partnering, unanticipated problems can arise during construction projects. When such problems arise, collaborative partnering can be called upon to deal with them while continuing to apply preventive features to keep projects on track. This project provides a great example of collaborative partnering being used to resolve such a problem. Specifically, in the project estimate, the main parties to the project had missed account- ing for the warranty and inspection costs of the engineered material arresting system arrays. The change orders related to this work package threatened to increase the project budget by 8.7%. To resolve this issue, the project team called a partnering workshop and invited the supplier to participate. At this workshop, the participants resolved the issue, and the paperwork followed later. Collaborative partnering enabled all key stakeholders to work jointly on the deviations and to trim the costs of the work covered by the change orders by nearly 3%, thus reducing the projectâs cost overage from 8.7% to 5.8%. Collaborative partnering was key to effectively coordinating the project team and facilitating delivery of a large amount of daily work. The project finished 32 days earlier than originally planned with no claims. Even though the project came in 5.8% over budget, the owner was extremely satisfied with the project outcomes, including the final project cost. 1.4 Barriers to Partnering and Resources to Overcome Them Despite the benefits of collaborative partnering, barriers to its adoption still exist. The research team for ACRP Project 08-02 collected data from 84 experts in the aviation, construction, and engineering industries to gain insights to the importance of those barriers and resources that can help overcome them. Overall, respondentsâ ratings of all identified barriers averaged between â3â (indicating that the respondents were neutral about their importance) and â4â (indicating that the respondents agreed they were important). These ratings suggest that respondents did not perceive the barriers as major impediments to partnering. The two barriers that received the highest ratings were: â¢ Low-bid DBB contracts, which present a legislative barrier. â¢ Project teams and airports do not understand what collaborative partnering is, which presents a cultural barrier. Several resources can be helpful in overcoming these barriers to successfully adopt collaborative partnering in airport construction projects. The most important resources include: â¢ Owner (top management) support. â¢ Time and resources to set up the program. â¢ Regulatory agenciesâ support. The collaborative partnering process cannot overcome a broken team. Owners need to do the due diligence at the beginning to find the right team members and be clear about the fitting cultures for a project team up front and put the necessary language in the RFP. The owner also needs to select the right personnel to represent them and for the project team.
Collaborative Partnering 13 Based on the study findings, additional recommendations to overcome barriers and success- fully adopt partnering in airport organizations are as follows: â¢ Educate the individuals responsible for decision making for airport budgets and oper ations (executives, high-level stakeholders, and elected officials, etc.) about the benefits of collabora- tive partnering using case-based evidence. Resources to help achieve this include: â Published industry and web-based resources, such as this guidebook. â In-person training opportunities. â Mentoring programs and professional networks with experience in partnering. â¢ Pilot collaborative partnering on smaller projects. â¢ Prioritize using highly qualified third-party partnering facilitators in the pilot projects. â¢ Incorporate partnering requirements into project manuals, specifications, and pre-bid meeting documents. â¢ Improve airportsâ readiness for partnering by cultivating champions in top management, resources, and connections with experienced partnering experts and organizations. â¢ If the airport is state-owned and is operated under a DOT that has a pre-existing partnering program, take advantage of that pre-existing knowledge and experience to immediately improve organizational readiness for partnering. â¢ When possible, follow procedures outlined for best-value procurement. â¢ Via development and effective communication of values and institutional goals, encourage openness in corporate policies to promote or incorporate partnering. 1.5 Adopting This Guidebook The goal of this guidebook is to help industry practitioners effectively implement collaborative partnering in airport construction projects. To achieve this goal, practitioners can follow the stages shown in Figure 3. 1.5.1 The Collaborative Partnering Process Learn About Collaborative Partnering and its Benefits, and Obtain Top Management Support This step is associated with Chapter 1 in this guidebook. The preceding sections in Chapter 1 have defined collaborative partnering and its benefits to motivate and guide airport organization representatives in investing the necessary resources to effectively implement it in construction projects. Emphasis has been placed on obtaining buy-in and support from top management. Learn About Collaborative Partnering Tools This step is described in greater detail in Chapter 2 in this guidebook. Owners can use many tools to implement collaborative partnering. Chapter 2 presents 16 tools that drive team goal alignment and collaboration, and ensure project success: â¢ Tool 1: Partnering specifications. â¢ Tool 2: Partnering facilitator (internal or neutral third-party). â¢ Tool 3: Kick-off partnering meeting. â¢ Tool 4: Partnering Charter. â¢ Tool 5: Issue resolution process. â¢ Tool 6: Co-location. â¢ Tool 7: Partnering training. â¢ Tool 8: Partnering scorecards. â¢ Tool 9: Stakeholder engagement.
14 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices â¢ Tool 10: Partnering workshops. â¢ Tool 11: Multi-tiered partnering. â¢ Tool 12: Focus groups. â¢ Tool 13: Partnering meeting minutes. â¢ Tool 14: Team-building activities. â¢ Tool 15: Partnering recognition and awards. â¢ Tool 16: Close-out workshop. Select Tools and Start Using Them at the Right Time in Project Delivery Chapter 3 addresses how to assess and use the partnering intensity level to determine the selection and frequency of use of collaborative partnering tools. Partnering intensity on a project can range from low to high (from internal partnering facilitation and quarterly partner- ing workshops, all the way to neutral third-party partnering facilitation and monthly partnering workshops). The partnering intensity level depends on two factors: â¢ Organizational Readiness to Use Partnering: The lower the ownerâs organizational readi- ness, the higher partnering intensity level needs to be to ensure project success. â¢ Project Risk: The higher the project risk, the higher the partnering intensity level needs to be to establish greater team alignment and collaboration and effectively manage project risk. Table 3 (in Chapter 3) organizes the partnering tools in relation to various partnering intensity levels based on an assessment of project risk. Project risk can be assessed based on: â Project cost. â Project duration. â Project delivery method. â Number of potential risks. â Project complexity. â Impact on key airport systems. â Political significance (sensitivity/visibility). â Airport operations during construction. â Involvement of third parties. â Required project team coordination. YOU ARE HERE Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Effective Implementation Optimal Implementation Learn about COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING TOOLS SELECT tools and START using them at the right time in project delivery Manage KEYTOOLS effectively: PARTNERING FACILITATOR and STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Assess and improve ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS to use Partnering Learn about COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING and its BENEFITS, and obtain TOP MANAGEMENT support Figure 3. Stages for effective and optimal implementation of collaborative partnering in airport construction projects, with corresponding guidebook chapters.
Collaborative Partnering 15 The project delivery method (DB, DBB, or CMR/CMGC) influences collaborative partnering implementation because it determines the timing of key partiesâ involvement in the project delivery process. To assist project teams in adopting the partnering tools at the right time, Chapter 3 also offers a partnering implementation framework that is based on frequently used project delivery methods. Having established the level of partnering intensity and the partnering implementation framework, Chapter 3 closes by providing a series of partnering checklists practitioners can use to track the adoption and status of the partnering tools in their projects. Manage Key Tools Effectively: Partnering Facilitator and Stakeholder Engagement Chapter 4 provides more information about how to effectively use partnering facilitators and tools for stakeholder engagement. By employing partnering facilitators earlier in project delivery, project teams use more of the collaborative partnering tools. As a result, project and team performance outcomes tend to be higher. Three types of partnering facilitation are used in airport construction projects: â¢ External Third-Party Facilitation: A neutral, third-party (external) partnering facilitator, ideally selected jointly by the project team members, leads the partnering process. This type of facilitation is most effective for high-cost, high-risk projects, but also can be useful with medium or small projects that have high visibility. â¢ Internal Partnering Facilitation: An airport, contractor, or designer representative takes on the role of partnering facilitator. The facilitatorâs only duty in the project is to guide the partnering process and development of the Partnering Charter. Internal partnering facilitators typically are used on small, low-risk projects because the facilitator is not a truly âneutralâ party. â¢ Self-Directed Process: A project team member (working for the A/E, contractor, design- builder, or construction manager) guides the partnering process in addition to the team memberâs regular project duties related to construction, design, and so forth. Project team members create the goals and a Partnering Charter on their own. A self-directed facilitation process is typical for very small projects (e.g., projects under $5 million). The individual assigned to guide the process may change during various stages of project delivery, reflecting the need for the team lead to have expertise in that phase of the projectâs needs and goals. Chapter 4 describes methods for selecting partnering facilitators and the optimal timing for bringing them into airport construction projects. The term stakeholders refers to parties outside of the immediate project team members but whose inputs into the projectâs design and construction processes are critical, to varying degrees, for project success. Their level of involvement depends on two factors: â¢ Financial Contribution: Stakeholders who are providing funds to a project (e.g., airlines, FAA, TSA) may have a strong influence on design and construction outcomes. â¢ Project Type: Depending on the project type, various stakeholdersâ roles and expertise may be more or less significant in the partnering process. This variation occurs because of the projectâs impacts on the stakeholdersâ occupied facilities and/or systems. For example, FAA representativesâ input is vital in construction projects located on the airside affecting air traffic. In such projects, Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) representatives should be involved in the partnering process as internal stakeholders. In projects located on the landside of airports, FAA representatives might be involved in the partnering process as external stakeholders. Key stakeholders who participate on collaborative partnering project teams may include, but are not limited to, FAA, TSA, CBP, airlines, and concessionaires. Chapter 4 further details the roles, responsibilities, and involvement of stakeholders.
16 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices Assess and Improve Organizational Readiness for Partnering Organizationsâ readiness for partnering depends on the availability of specific organizational resources to enable optimal partnering implementation in construction projects. Based on the type and number of these resources, airport organizations can assess and improve their readiness to effectively use partnering. This study defined five levels of organizational readiness (see Table 1), which are detailed in Chapter 5. Table 1. Levels of organizational readiness to use partnering. Level of Organizational Readiness Organizational Resources for Optimal Partnering Implementation in Construction Projects* 0 â No Partnering No organizational resources available for use of partnering in projects. 1 â Initial Time and money available to investigate partnering as a possible solution to improve project performance. 2 â Managed Connections with external partnering experts available for high-risk projects or projects that might devolve into disputes. 3 â Defined Partnering specifications available. 4 â Integrated Partnering Manual or Field Guide available. 5 â Optimized Systems available to monitor partnered projectsâ performance and record lessons learned for continuous improvement. *Each level embraces the resources from the preceding (lower) levels.