TEAMWORK

Growing a culture of collaboration

Throughout the Mosaic Centre construction process, there were numerous examples of team members exhibiting project-first or team-first attitude in the face of changing project scope or unforeseen problems This practice was founded in the fact that all the key team members were signatories to the contract and shared in a risk/reward pool.

Addressing major problems in an IPD environment

The following example illustrates the level of effectiveness that the Mosaic IPD team functioned at to mitigate unforeseen problems and achieve the project goals.

During the course of construction, the Mosaic team discovered that, due to a misunderstanding between the structural engineer and the contractor, there was an unexpected cost of $270,000 related to the design of a shear wall. An impromptu meeting was held with rest of the team and a solution found that reduced the cost to change the wall to $80,000 while meet the structural requirements The team then found enough savings elsewhere in the project to cover the outstanding cost increase.

The team found that the level of trust that they established allowed them to collectively discuss everyone’s work ope nly and constructively. This created opportunities for creative problem-solving, where “what seemed like a dumb question could turn into an ‘Aha!’ moment”.

Overall, the team members interviewed agreed that IPD had a positive impact on their decision-making process and encouraged collaboration in routine team interactions. For example, the structural steel contractor believed that the IPD approach and the shared risk/reward really helped in fostering far greater collaboration.17

Although the contract was signed 3 months after the start of construction, the SMT members did not believe there was an adverse effect on the project or on team relationships. They noted how “the owner was very big on promoting culture and really worked with the team on that.” As a result, “Everybody was really quite engaged and committed to the job.” At the same time, they conceded that, in the absence of a signed contract, the legal relationships were quite “fragile” and, particularly at the outset, it took more work than would be usual by the owner and the SMT to keep the team moving forward. While not explicitly raised by interviewees, the forcefulness of key personalities appears to have played an important role in establishing the team dynamic. SMT members were strong supporters of the process. However, questions remain about whether there was a truly equitable “balance of power” across the entire project team and if, indeed, this is to be desired. For Mosaic, the consultants had to make decisions that would be the best for the whole group (not necessarily best for them) Managing this situation effectively requires great skill. This approach could lead to perceptions of loss of control and a feeling of being “bulldozed” – especially for those that are unused to having their design questioned (especially by trades).

A major difference between IPD and traditional practice is the level of team resiliency. This is highlighted in the way the team functions in the face of a major problem.

“I had a mandate that we would have the zero change orders and that then forced everybody [to be hyper-hyper communicationinvolved all of the time.]”

Dennis Cuku

In traditional contractual arrangements even with the most collaborative of team structures, problems that occur during the construction process generally cause team members to take a position of self-preservation in order to minimize risk exposure, potentially at the expense of the project. In o ther words, without the motivation of the shared risk / shared reward structure that is hardwired into an IPD agreement, individual team members will tend to look after their own interests ahead of those of the project.