Fitting Your Values into the Design and Construction Industry Is NO JOKE.

July 23rd, 2008

Effective relationships in the design and construction industry very often depend on your values and where you fit. Research shows that if you are more than a level away from the people, peers, superiors or organizations you you will be significantly less effective. So look around you, assess where you are versus who you interface with in general and per key issue.

First, let us define the five ( 5 ) levels of values for the design and construction industry professionals. It might be important to note that it is possible for a person or entity to be on more than level at a time depending on the issue.

Level 1 – Near Gods
Examples: Jesus, Moses, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Mandela

These are rare individuals of conscience, who work towards a concept of a good and just society for all. They think unwaveringly in universal principles, wanting for the world, their group, race or constituents only what is moral and right — freedom, peace, basic dignity, spirituality, human rights, etc. Completely unselfish they never think of themselves, their safety, their job security, re-election, money, etc.

Level 1 people are usually considered radical, idealistic, dreamers, and often devoured by the society they are attempting to change. Rarely do they succeed in the short term in achieving their goals but often have a significant effect over time.

For the most part, level 1s are out of the mainstream, fighting in single purpose organizations for their “cause.” The level 1 person that we might actually see would be that individual who might be a strong advocate for a solitary campus cause and who shows up at a public meeting. Usually, they are treated with begrudging respect but their ideas as too idealistic and too impractical to implement.

Typically, an individual or group may occasionally act like level 1 on a singular issue and cause some consternation because of the lack of consistency across other issues.

As they are considered extremely idealistic or dreamers, these people are often radical change agents and / or might be found in opposition to growth movements (environmentalists) or specifically, in leading groups that advocate stopping the demolition of a potential historical site, a roadway through a park or on the seashore, etc…

Level 2 – Great Leaders
Examples: George Washington, Lincoln, Churchill

These are people who want to improve society and their environment for the benefit of all. They would not sacrifice their principles for their personal gain. They are the people who are always looking to do the best for the underdogs, go beyond legal minimums, and use the broadest definition of constituents that they serve. For example, they are politicians who serve “the public” beyond those who vote for them. For a corporate manager, it might be to serve the customer not only when they buy, but later after the warranty has expired because the product failed to live up to its advertised promise or brand.

For Level 2s, it means to serve all of the people in the broadest definition of their constituency. Level 2s are concerned with “Best Practices” as they fit their total environment- the public, their superiors, peers and employees. They also create and react to ideas based on how it may improve the public’s position first and not their peers or themselves. Very often level 2s are trying to lead an organization away from “the rules” or advocating changing the law for the purpose of improving the position of a group that is being forgotten or shortchanged.

Level 2 examples might be:
Politicians who are concerned more about the effects of selecting a contractor on the customers and the community, than what it does directly for their voters or party.
Government Managers who advocate that the “public trust” needs are met first, the entity second, and their peers and superiors are third.
AEC Leaders/Managers see the need to go beyond the rules and be fair and honest to all the interested parties – their clients, their stockholders, their employees above the limited personal goals of their superiors and themselves. Thus, a warranty might be extended because of fairness to the situation. An employee might be given extra sick days because of extremely stressful project circumstances. Finally, a superior might be challenged on a need for a “rules change” based on the need to be fairer to a vendor, customer, or employee.

Although they might be profit driven they will no sacrifice the principle of fairness, personal integrity, etc… They have a dilemma, for example when they see a project conflicts with the publics need or right. Consistently, they will negotiate from a win – win perspective.

Level 3- “Maintainers”
Examples: Eisenhower, Taft

These are people who want to maintain the existing body of rules and laws and are most concerned with how the people who have direct power and influence will be affected.

Level 3s are functionaries. They act very much within the legal system and institutional rules or the rules of their entity. They will accept change and better practices only if all the powers and influencers will also accept a new practice without any significant loss. Everything is seen through the eyes of their superiors, peers, and (for politicians) voters. Maintainers believe and rely heavily on the existing body of rules and laws and see themselves as bound and restricted by them.

Level 3 Politicians usually tinker around the edges of moral issues; balancing what small changes can be made to help them to get elected, to obtain tenure, all without offending any of their other constituents. Rarely do they lead on controversial issues- they champion only what is popular. Although they would never break the rules or laws, it is rare they would push for major changes to improve society.

Level 3 managers are caught between hierarchical- often autocratic systems. Level 3s seek their superiors’ approval and try to avoid peer disapproval. They often function well but rarely lead, usually considering their or their boss’s position before the “public trust.” Once something is approved and accepted, they can be vigorous implementers. They do, however, tend to slow down potential new improvements.

AECs that are level 3s feel they must get along at all costs by doing everything “by the book”, rarely leading but being strong advocates of the needs of their clients versus other higher or lower values changes.

These are people who will always stay within what is legal and defensible with their companies or entities. They will typically argue for what is legal and within the body of rules and may not care if it is morally unfair. An example might be an owner or AEC who might argue for extras to be done based on an unclear verbal misunderstanding or unclear documents even though it is very unclear who caused the problem.

Although the scope is contractually clear, the verbal instructions were not. Level 3s will typically lean on what is legal and not take the change of upsetting their own organizations despite the fairness of what might have been a 50:50 split of the cost. Gray areas are typically interpreted heavily to their own organization’s legal or written understanding

Level 4 – “The Scratchers”
Example: Nixon

These are people who are recognized as having few principles outside their own self-interest- their careers, re-election, money, etc. They usually stay within the boundaries of the law and rules but are driven by “what is in it for them.” They will scratch your back only if you scratch theiers first. They may speak of the public’s trust as a cover but are seen as self-centered. Level 4s can be labeled “scratchers” because they are driven to achieve only for themselves and their causes by scratching other people’s backs with the expectation of reciprocity. With most discussions, the over riding factor, sometimes masked, sometimes not, will be how it affects them personally or indirectly, affects their boss.

Level 4s are usually seen as manipulative. They can function well, aided by mentors, whom they can serve with a sycophants’ zeal. Level 4s act without breaking the law; however, they stretch the truth, attack their “enemies” in ways that are legal but clearly exaggerated and often inappropriate. Level 4s commonly will manipulate the need for change by offering personal gains to others in exchange for later favors. Politically, these are people who leave and join causes based on expediency or their own gain.

Level 4 Environmental Engineers might fight for a legal but widely recognized inappropriate rezoning that is even against their own espoused values. It is done strictly for a paycheck or as a “scratcher” with the hope of getting more work. They might even make a private horse trade with the zoning body to give up on one threatening project in order to get another project approved.

Level 4 “Politicians” offer want to appear to be on a higher value level, using the language of higher levels but in fact might be motivated chiefly by their own career advancement.

Purchasing/Facility Managers on this level care only if the selection will personally benefit them but not any other stakeholder. They will commonly exaggerate or bureaucratically snuff out what is not in their immediate interest.

Scratchers will typically do what is expedient for themselves. For example, they will marshal arguments to get 80% of additional cost when fairness will dictate 20%. They are seen as purely advocates for their organization and not easily will see a design and construction team’s cohesiveness as a goal unless it suits their particular purpose at the moment. Thus, on AEC might do something to protect the possibility of getting more work but it would not be based on fairness or the otherwise accepted rules of responsibility.


Level 5- “Good Tools”

These are people who possess no “moral compass” but act based on orders from superiors. They commit illegal or immoral acts because they are told to do them. They may have only their order-givers approval and will often act as a “henchman” to carry out deeds their superior may not have wanted to be personally associated with. They can be corrupt, unnecessarily cruel or insensitive. They can also inadvertently serve as the “fall guys” when something goes wrong.

Politicians and Purchasing Agents on this level can be bought by vendors and general contractors. An example of a level 5 Owner or General Contractor, for example, could knowingly issue “trust me” change orders with no intention of ever paying.

“Good Tools” are owners and AECs who pass on all moral and ethical responsibility to their superiors. Although they occasionally might see the “grayness” of the issue, they will consistently argue for whatever their organization wants and not even acknowledge grayness of the issue.

Now that you have assessed where you fit what do you think of being in this industry? What can you do about it?

Improving Vendors by Making Due Diligence No Joke

July 22nd, 2008

How much does requiring all relevant past projects and an in-depth history of the suggested PMs change my existing RFP and other processes?

 

The owner simply expands the requirement for client lists with the rationale that references constitute a partial answer to being “responsible”.  Rather than ask for four or five references, I suggest that you ask for a complete project list over the last three to five years that is relevant to the type of planned project and a similar PM history.  There is nothing illegal or immoral in asking for a complete picture.

 If we are doing a good job now and our vendors are good, why do I need Selection process improvements? Unless all your vendors are 9s and 10s, your due diligence can now focus on the most important identified weaker criteria that checking complete past client references uncovers.  Rather than make four or five calls as required in most situations and generalizations, a diligence process will provide a menu for in-depth, quick and timesaving incisive.  Isn’t it worth taking the risk out of the potential slippage of a firm or assuring all parties and the public that due diligence was truly performed.

A Big Joke - Handpicked References

July 22nd, 2008

Handpicked references allow the poor performers to hide and the mediocre ones to duck behind the veneer of a few good clients.  The truth of consistently good or excellent performance is lost in fog of selectively picked predictably favorable references.  In recent studies of facility managers, 56% of the respondents felt very or somewhat skeptical of the existing references and rating process.
When “handpicking” is permitted it is a joke, the concept of “responsible bidder” or selecting the best A/E/C is often sacrificed.  How else could a firm that causes budget overruns on a third of their projects, late delivering 25% of their projects, and/or with major quality issues in 33% of their projects become “responsible”?
The obvious answer to most handpicking reference RFPs or bids is to show only the good and hide the rest.  Why not?  If we redefine “responsible” or the best firm (AE) to mean some of the time then allowing hand picked references would be fine.  Where else in commerce is “some of the time” an acceptable standard or responsibility?
However, negating what is a fair representation of a firm’s record and not leveling the playing field truly punishes good and excellent firms.  The results, owners get short changed and often punished with performers who are high risk in accomplishing the project goals.
The solution is simple.  Require a total list of relevant projects or dollar amounts, size, going back X amount of years depending on how relevant dated experience is today.  Additionally, RatingSource suggests you score the PMs as they are 50% of the success of the project.  It is important to get a past history of the suggested PM.
Once you have the responses to your RFP with its new requirements, it is critical to follow up with each of the references.  Equally important is to have a set number of criteria or questions that can be quantitatively answered, scored, measured, probed, and compared easily.  Remember, people who give references are interrupting their extremely busy days.  Do not abuse their time.  Be comprehensive but not time intrusive.
The result should be given to the selection committee a few days in advance of “the meeting” with explicit instructions to review carefully and develop their questions on strengths and weaknesses.  It is also helpful to have the members of the committee prioritize the questions or criteria based on what is most important to them.
In sum, by using the new more expanded interpretation of “responsible” and “best” and requiring complete lists of references, owners will end the joke of handpicked references get better teams and project managers. It will end with truly better players being rewarded for past superior performance. 

Laughing at “Updating Software?”- Architects, Contractors, Engineers

July 22nd, 2008

TIP: Updating Software Strategy – If you don’t want to be laughed out of a new client meeting, don’t tell a new client your software is totally updated.Two-thirds of the public and private marketplace is obsessed with the need to update existing software. They expect you to be updating. They are laughing at their own obsession.

Additionally, this statement should be coupled with a strategy for entrée (new clients) and for getting more work on (existing clients). Strategically, offering new updated software that integrates to the client’s database would create a long-term benefit for both parties. The client would first have to come to you to find specific solutions.

What Makes a Happy Partnership Laugh?

July 22nd, 2008

I was asked once at the end of a speech, what made a happy partnership? Not meaning to make a joke or be humorous, I said ” Being happy is having supportive, thoughtful, focused partners in another city.”

A Difficult Project

June 2nd, 2008

The old developer and founder was always eavesdropping on the interviews.  He died at the beginning of the project but at least then we knew exactly where he was… in the conference room in an urn.
His son succeeded him. Have you ever kept working for a client because you didn’t have the energy to commit suicide?

Client Satisfaction - Contractors

June 2nd, 2008

I would be a great for me if I could treat my contractor like my doctor treats me, “I’m busy. Go back to that small room, take your pants off and I’ll be there.”

Architects and Success - 3 Ways

June 2nd, 2008

1) If an architect can make one developer happy  , if you can make one project great, if you can make one project in a career…

2) An architect prides himself on living within his income even if he has to borrow in order to do so.

3)  An architectural triumph in his own words: Success is when we celebrate this office building’s finish in an old fashioned way. We invite the whole team including the new owners. We have a  great feast of lobsters and steaks…
and then we killed them and occupy the building.

Client Satisfaction Interviewing

June 2nd, 2008

My company did 4,000 - 6000 third party client satisfaction interviews per year for our clients -which was very dangerous. You see… almost weekly, I had to tell a client that one of their clients had “shish-kebabered” them. One client’s client said” that, “It was hard to believe that YOUR client had beaten out 1 million other sperm.”  I personally felt it was my duty to deliver the client’s clients  messages as softly as I could to avoid the effect-embolisms, coronaries.  After all… I had not been paid yet. Otherwise, you can imagine this scene: “Your client told us that you were the biggest poophead he has ever seen.” You owe me - $2500.”

OH! During this time my staff created the terms SPORE which stood for “SOOO p*ssed off retention eliminated”

My perspective is that it is good thing to do post -project interviews but a vastly better thing to have a real time AND quarterly formal feedback mechanism in place. Empowering your client and critical team members  with simple to use feedback systems is critical if your firm is going to claim excellent client and team success. Most other methods are fraught with risk and hot air. Roger Pickar

Meeting Success

June 2nd, 2008

Regarding Meeting success:

If you want to be seen – please keep standing.

If you want to be heard – please speak up.

If you want to be successful – please shut up

What else makes a great meeting?