Partnering came into its own during the last decade of the 20th century. It was adopted by the UK Highways Agency as a way of doing business and was used on one of the major tunnelling contracts for the Jubilee Line Extension in London. To emphasise its popularity, the UK Institution of Civil Engineers hosted a Win-Win Partnering conference in 1998.
The year before, partnering guru Jordan Lewis led a seminar sponsored by New Civil Engineer magazine in the UK. In a key statement he said, "If, when selecting a partner, there is not good chemistry, and people are not actively working together to build trust and raise difficult issues, you don’t have an alliance, you have a transaction." This statement encapsulates the philosophy of partnering.
The author’s single experience of partnering was on the North Hollywood Project, a $1.3bn extension of the Los Angeles Metro. The project is forecast to be completed on time and well below budget, and a strong factor in achieving this result was the pro-active use of partnering by all major participants. In spite of initial hesitation on the part of some of the stakeholders, by the time the process was complete it was judged a success by everyone. Previous phases of the metro construction had not pursued the partnering process and had achieved less positive results.
What is partnering? The question in the minds of those engaged in construction projects must be, "Can partnering help my project – and what is it?" In essence, the process is formulated as an exercise in encouraging good communications among all stakeholders on a project, both on and off site. It is not, however, a panacea for all ills.
Partnering is not a formula for avoiding construction claims, but it is a mechanism for settling claims in a positive, constructive manner in so far as it draws all stakeholders in the project together in a positive relationship where problems can be examined and resolved in a team spirit.
It is also a formula for minimising cost to the owner and maximising profit for the contractor and encompasses joint planning, scheduling, mitigation of delays and value engineering. An important element is ‘interactive planning’.
Why is it needed? A number of answers could be given, but here are some primary ones:
Basic requirements _ there are a number of key basic elements that need to be included in carrying out the process and to ensure the maximum chances of success.
How is it organised?
Although partnering seeks to create an informal atmosphere among the stakeholders, it is, nevertheless, important to achieve this aim through a process that has a degree of formality.
The process starts early in the contract with the appointment of an experienced independent facilitator. In America, there is a cadre of professional facilitators who lead partnering as a full- time career. The use of one of these professionals is important, if not vital, to the success of the process. They fulfill a number of vital requirements: They are independent and neutral; They teach participants how the process should be carried out; They provide an outside discipline to keep the process on track; They lead and guide the formal sessions; They provide an impartial evaluation of the sucess of the process.
It is important that the facilitator is used for virtually the whole life of the process, and that the process continues throughout the contract period.
The formal way in which the process is carried out is important to its success. It must be continuous, well formulated, well led, and be entered into enthusiastically by all participants. Steps in the process can be as follows:
1. The stakeholders agree to the appointment of a professional facilitator
2. The facilitator leads the process through the life of the project
3. A first meeting is held, which may last two days. First, there is an executive session with senior management, lasting two or three hours. Principles are agreed. Then there is a meeting with all levels of management present, down to foreman level. During this meeting the following agenda can be followed: Introduction of participants; Project goals; Project challenges; Project solutions.
This first meeting should be held, say, about one or two months after contract award.
4. Follow up meetings, normally lasting a day, should be held, say, every three months. The agenda for the follow-up meetings can be: How have we performed against the goals; Are we resolving the challenges; Do we have new solutions; Are the relationships positive; Do we have adjusted goals?
5. The subjects that are included in the discussion on challenges and solutions are: Schedule and cost; Quality and safety; Environment and community impact; Value engineering; Claims and mitigation of delays.
The facilitator usually sends out a review sheet before each meeting so that a report on results can be made at the meetings. On site meetings are usually held each month to review the issues. These do not have the facilitator present, but senior management from head offices should attend.
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) authority has the following statement in its contract conditions: ‘The goals of partnering are: For the contractor, the GEC, the city, and the district to work as partners; To avoid confrontation and litigation among the parties; To reach a mutual understanding on how the construction project is to be conducted; To establish an atmosphere of trust and communication.’
In the UK there was a serious collapse of tunnelling work under the central terminal area of Heathrow Airport. In the wake of the collapse, the British Airports Authority (BAA) decided that the only way to mitigate the results of this event was to partner with the contractor and engineers to find the best solutions. By all accounts, the parties decided that, once the chips were down, an environment of mutual trust, mutual risk -sharing, and all-round co-operation was the only way to come out intact. This approach was described as highly successful by all participants.
Good partnering will achieve the following results:
Can partnering fail? Like a marriage, it can fail if the relationship breaks down for a number of reasons: Lack of commitment by one party; Lack of interest from senior management; Inability of the individuals to communicate; One party only interested in using the process to its own advantage; An individual at senior level sabotaging the process.
Conclusions
There are two models of partnering. The type adopted by the UK Highways Agency, which involves a contract written on the basis of a partnering alliance, and the type pioneered in the US, where partnering is included as an ‘add on’ to the traditional form of confrontational contracting. It is hoped that, in the foreseeable future, all owners and agencies throughout the construction world will adopt the full partnering alliance type of contract.
There is no doubt that we need to change our ways of doing business and review our form of contract. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain if it is entered into with total commitment.
Determined efforts by all stakeholders will bring benefits to all parties. Until the contracting culture changes from inequitable risk sharing and confrontation to alliance forming, there will always be a need to use partnering. The author recommends the process to all who are interested in producing a stable environment in our industry.
