National Academies Press: OpenBook

The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium (1994)

Chapter: 'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'

« Previous: THE USE OF PARTNERING ON THE FACILITIES DESIGN PROCESS
Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×

THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE

Jerome J. Sincoff

Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum, Inc.

I'm very pleased to be here today and pleased to be discussing this subject. I'm an enthusiastic supporter of partnering.

All of us who want this idea to be the process idea for project delivery, thank the Corps of Engineers for all their work in making partnering an important ingredient in the design and construction industry.

  1. Background

The A.I.A. Supports:

  • Quality Based Selection (QBS)

  • The Brooks Bill.

The A.I.A [and I] believe this to be the best way to plan, design, and build facilities. On balance, and after all these years of experimenting with project delivery, it's still the best way to deliver projects. Now we can work to make it even better through partnering.

The balanced approach that is Q.B.S. has three teams:

  1. - Owner/User team - one team

  2. - A/E team [design]

  3. - Building team [construction]

All three teams have clear responsibilities, clear areas of knowledge and experience, and are dedicated to one goal: a successful project. Success means meeting the clients, requirements.

All three support the project while constructively providing checks and balances.

Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×
Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×
  1. Teaming or partnering (T/P) idea

The central idea [as I see it] is to make the project the center of attention; the focus of everyone's efforts.

Partnering is a:

Way of doing this

Method to do this

Procedure for doing this

There are many positive benefits that come from T/P.

  1. For the maximum benefit, partner from start to finish.

Itis very important to partner at the beginning and to continue partnering for the duration. It ensures continuity [total P/T] and shared responsibility with real teammates for the entire process:

  1. Facility programming and planning, budgeting and scheduling [project definition]

All teammates should be there at the beginning, being invested in and co-responsible for the goals of the project.

In the private sector HoK has worked and is currently working with several corporate clients in start to finish partnering. However, if all three partners can't be there at the start, then we should briefly pause, review, and educate, when the team takes on additional partners.

For several public sector projects we have started with just two partners and added the third at the start of construction and the results have been good.

  1. Design

During the design process the design team may take the lead, but constructive input and review by the owner/user team is required for the best results.

In addition the consultation of builders [of course builders with specific experience in the particular project type under development] in the areas of constructability, costing, scheduling, local contracting will enhance the reliability of the design.

It's during the design phase of the project's life that constructive collaboration can have the most beneficial impact on the outcome with the least penalty in

Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×

wasted time, money, and frustration.

Surely this is the time for the team spirit to be in play.

  1. The basic ideas about partnering or teaming.

Being teammates goes back to our youth. Being on teams creates team spirit.

The team's goal was to win and win for the team. The individual players could take pride in their own accomplishments, but it was always a team victory.

What's our team's record this year?

These were real feelings that produced real results.

Partnering is perhaps a more adult version of teaming and, of course, implies contractual relationships. Even so, the idea can be, should be the same. Each partner can take pride in their accomplishments, but it's the partnership that wins.

What's our partnership's record this year?

Just as the team mates are devoted to the team so the partners are devoted to the partnership and devoted to the project.

  1. Is this way of looking at it too simple?

Am I overlooking the difficulties?

Not taking them into consideration?

  1. $'s are involved.

  2. The importance of one's own organization.

  3. The destructive doctrine of constructive conflict.

  4. 20 years of adversarial practice to overcome.

  5. Pride in your own special knowledge—I know best. Invented here.

  6. The design team or the construction team wants to be right and importantly look right in the client's eyes.

During the process the partners must work to overcome these impediments.

  1. I believe partnering is proving beneficial during the construction process.

I'm old enough to remember the 1960's when—without the methodology or formalization—we informally, intuitively teamed/partnered on projects—and it worked very well.

If it's successful during construction, it will, I believe, be even more successful

Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×

when applied from start to finish. As I've mentioned before, there are excellent examples in the private sector.

Let's stop experimenting with project delivery—the method of the month.

Let's combine quality based selection with total partnering and win one for the project.

Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"'THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS' PERSPECTIVE'." National Research Council. 1994. The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9227.
×
Page 18
Next: A DESIGN PHASE CASE STUDY OF PARTNERING ON THE ROSS RESEARCH BUILDING AT THE JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE »
The Use of Partnering in the Facilities Design Process: Summary of a Symposium Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!