Maybe partnering is not the cause; it just happened to be there.
The type of contract agreement whether traditional Owner/General Contractor or Project Management contract types are key elements to be well thought-out, yes the contract still rules the day.
The whole team is key. Good prequalification requirements play an important role here.
Also alternative dispute resolutions are relevant, at times expensive, at times a blessing, I guess. This is an issue I would like to debate under other thread as not to divert attention from the partnering issue.
In some way this reminds me of when Project Management contract types started to be in fashion. It was a disaster, eventually it proved to be useful under certain circumstances but in the majority of cases the traditional Owner/General Contractor form of agreement proved better.
It seems like Partnering is no magic potion. It is either good or irrelevant, nothing more.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Thu, 2009-07-30 07:06
On the one side there should be less diputes, therefore less work around for forensic planners, on the other side the blurring of responsibility makes partnering contracts when they go wrong a bigger nightmare to sort out than traditional contracts - so it takes more work to sort out.
There is a recent thread on here somewhere concerning someone working under a PPC2000 contract. This is a full blown partnering contract and I wrote in that thread that I was just waiting for one of those contracts to go wrong as sorting it out would be possibly the biggest nightmare you could have.
Probably means more work for the lawyers than the forensic planner though.
This to a large degree is why I’ve always thought partnering should be more as I expressed in my first post on this thread i.e. the contract still rules the day.
Not sure I would go as far as to say that the concept of partnering is flawed or has failed completely, just that it has it limitations and should be viewed maybe more as a principle of the parties acting in "good faith" than the lets all sit round the camp fire and sing songs together approach.
Member for
16 years 3 months
Member for16 years3 months
Submitted by Scarllet Pimpernel on Thu, 2009-07-30 03:29
Now I feel sorry for those copycat, BAA T5, believing "Partnering" is the "all in" solution in project contract.
After all the hip and the bu lah lah regarding partnering, it was proven a failure.
The basic concept of partnering was flawed. How can anyone believe that your partner is not greedy, honest and will offer anything for less fee ???? at the end, the client will pay more and it will be term a "success".
Even in practical matters relating to basic concept of relationship, anyone will grab an advantage if someone see an advantage/opportunity, it is not to be given up.
It is also very hard for a forensic planners like me to earn a living in partnering contract since the boderline of responsibility, contract clause is very hazy.
Thank you,
Scarlett
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Wed, 2009-07-29 06:17
Your understanding is correct - RIP partnering was the title of the article and that partnering was dead in the UK was what the article was hinting at. Personally I don’t think partnering is dead in the UK, just retreating towards a more traditional client / contractor relationship but still maintaining a partnering ethos - just not the all for one, one for all, current ethos.
Toby,
You could well be right, but I guess at least the client agreed too and was aware of any upward revisions - so maybe it is more correct to say it was completed within the clients expected or forecast spend. i.e £4 to 5billion project with no bun fight and unexpected costs at the end, the client agreed to what he had to pay and paid it.
Whether any budget revisions were due to enhancements in the original spec or for other reasons I don’t know.
Picking up on one point in your thread where you said that you understood that T5 was on time and on budget. From what I hear that is because the budget was revised upwards on a number of occassions to match the projected spend. As such, its not all that hard to hit the budget I guess!
Regards
Toby
Member for
16 years 3 months
Member for16 years3 months
Submitted by Scarllet Pimpernel on Wed, 2009-07-29 04:34
Will be interesting to see if others in the construction industry follows suit. The article was about BAA but also said water and electric supply companies were doing similar.
Oil & gas have always done things a bit different to the rest. Sir John Egan, author of the Egan Report that kicked off a lot of the current way of thinking on partnering was Chairman of BAA but had worked for Shell at some point before that - maybe that’s where he got the concept from.
I’m all for partnering but I’ve always seen it as the parties mutually working towards a goal but still being ruled by and importantly, standing by, their obligations in the contract - rather than the we’ll all in this together approach, put the contract in the bottom drawer cosy type relationship where people think it’s not "partnering" if the contractor claims an entitlement for more money, can’t charge LD’s, etc, etc....
Member for
18 years 6 months
Member for18 years6 months
Submitted by Oliver Melling on Tue, 2009-07-28 05:05
In the UK nuclear arena there are many frameworks and partnering agreements in place.
They work well for smaller companies as the virtual entity that is created has a wider knowledge-base and increased capabilites. This in-turn enables the newly formed entities to leverage each others strong points to win jobs that they could not successfully tender on their own.
The important things to consider include;
Agreeing what the vision and goals of your newly formed entity are.
thinking about what makes a sensible share of the work on a project i.e not having a 50/50 split makes it easier to make key decisions. This is done by agreeing on each others strong points/weaknesses.
agreeing upfront what method of disagreement/dispute resolution procedure will be used.
.....some of these appear in contracts and therefore i think the BAA man is right in some respects. The area which probably get forgotten the most are the softer areas, such as agreeing the vision, objectives etc.
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Sun, 2009-07-26 17:55
The idea of good and bad would work under the "partnering" concept. Because the basic idea is for all parties to understand each other and work to the best of the Project.
Maybe it would be a good idea to create a comprehensive brain storming session at the beginning of the project. This would be led by an emotionally intelligent consultant to break the barriers between the parties. During the 3-5 days retreat all parties (top management team) can get to know each other and clear their agendas, during this time, they can decide if they want to continue with the partnering or not.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
20 years 10 months
Member for20 years10 months
Submitted by Andrew Flowerdew on Sun, 2009-07-26 08:34
BAA could be said to have taken partnering to it’s ultimate conclusion when building Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Not the easiest of concepts to explain but let’s say on that contract all the main players were deemed to be part of a single company - the "Terminal 5 Project Company"!
From what Ive been told, (I wasnt on the job), all contractors were paid cost plus, but collectively had to stay within budget. Staff from companies was shared - you could have been the planner for "Joe Bloggs" contracting, but if you were thought to be the best person for the job, you may have actaully been working as the senior planner for BAA, (but still employed by "Joe Bloggs").
It appears BAA have now done their sums and have decided that this way of working doesn’t give best value for money - so it’s changing the way it works to save money. They’re still in my mind "partnering" with contractors but in a more formal customer / contractor style with competitive tendering.
I should say that despite the trouble with the bagage handling system, the building & civil works, etc on Terminal 5 were very successful and I believe completed on time and budget.
Member for
16 years 3 months
Member for16 years3 months
Submitted by Scarllet Pimpernel on Sun, 2009-07-26 05:28
Excuse me for my limited understanding of the partnering process.
On the other hand, I believe in the fundamental of human nature: the good and the bad, the yeng and the yang.
Will the partnering process makes humans all good, by the good, of the good, acts for the good of the project as a whole and individual players of the project teams.
How about the bad side of human nature: greed, immorality, dishonesty? Will the partnering eliminate this in the equation?
It will be to naive to think that parties to partnering contract will really act for the good of the project, for what is good for the project may only be an advantage for a particular party to the contract, but not good for all.
But then, what is good? how to measure project success?
Thank you,
Scarlett
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Sun, 2009-07-26 03:16
Can you make a briefing of what partnering is for the purpose of the debate? If you are referring to NEC3 keep in mind some of us do not have a copy of the NEC3 but still interested in the debate under any type of agreement. My knowledge is somewhat limited as I have been involved indirectly in just one job that had the US concept of partnering; well it was a success but over ten years ago.
What about Partnering and dispute resolution? I believe it is not just about attitudes? Forcing for alternate dispute resolution methods might be against acceptance of the concept, or is it optional?
Can a team-building process that utilizes the same concepts in an informal setting be as good, this without the requirement of neither alternate dispute resolution nor the cost for workshops, facilitator and written charters?
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
17 years 3 months
Member for17 years3 months
Submitted by Samer Zawaydeh on Sat, 2009-07-25 15:48
Several major projects were successful because both parties "Partnered" together and concentrating on completion the project instead of using the Contract time to solve their problems.
The decision was always taken at the top management level to let the teams work together and complete the job, then whatever problems either party had, they can submit for evaluation and decision making.
Adopting a proactive approach to working together from the start of the project can be done with open minded teams. When you have cross cultural teams that can bearly understand each other, it would be difficult.
I am definitely pro this idea. Developing a new system will take years and many rejections before people start accepting it.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
21 years 8 months
Member for21 years8 months
Submitted by Rafael Davila on Sat, 2009-07-25 15:12
BAA’s Capital Programmes Directors statements means partnering with their attitude will never work, they are right in this regard. Most probably their problems are because of their own wrong selection of Project Managers and Contract Agreements.
Only few jobs do justify the Project Management type of agreement. Jobs that you must start prior to a finished design such as pharmaceuticals where every production month you lose mean hundreds of millions lost if a mega drug. This is so because of patent life and generic manufacturers. I don’t blame them for being angry at blood sucking Project Management enterprises and look for another approach to procurement.
Partnering is always a good thing, no matter what type of contract.
I don’t believe others will follow, they are wrong in their attitude toward partnering and not necessarily with regard to a change in contract type.
I would say RIP Project Management approach to procurement (with very, very few exceptions), and embrace Partnering.
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Maybe partnering is not the cause; it just happened to be there.
The type of contract agreement whether traditional Owner/General Contractor or Project Management contract types are key elements to be well thought-out, yes the contract still rules the day.
The whole team is key. Good prequalification requirements play an important role here.
Also alternative dispute resolutions are relevant, at times expensive, at times a blessing, I guess. This is an issue I would like to debate under other thread as not to divert attention from the partnering issue.
In some way this reminds me of when Project Management contract types started to be in fashion. It was a disaster, eventually it proved to be useful under certain circumstances but in the majority of cases the traditional Owner/General Contractor form of agreement proved better.
It seems like Partnering is no magic potion. It is either good or irrelevant, nothing more.
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
SP
Yes, partnering is a bit of a two edged sword.
On the one side there should be less diputes, therefore less work around for forensic planners, on the other side the blurring of responsibility makes partnering contracts when they go wrong a bigger nightmare to sort out than traditional contracts - so it takes more work to sort out.
There is a recent thread on here somewhere concerning someone working under a PPC2000 contract. This is a full blown partnering contract and I wrote in that thread that I was just waiting for one of those contracts to go wrong as sorting it out would be possibly the biggest nightmare you could have.
Probably means more work for the lawyers than the forensic planner though.
This to a large degree is why I’ve always thought partnering should be more as I expressed in my first post on this thread i.e. the contract still rules the day.
Not sure I would go as far as to say that the concept of partnering is flawed or has failed completely, just that it has it limitations and should be viewed maybe more as a principle of the parties acting in "good faith" than the lets all sit round the camp fire and sing songs together approach.
Member for
16 years 3 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Andrew,
for your Enlightenment.
Now I feel sorry for those copycat, BAA T5, believing "Partnering" is the "all in" solution in project contract.
After all the hip and the bu lah lah regarding partnering, it was proven a failure.
The basic concept of partnering was flawed. How can anyone believe that your partner is not greedy, honest and will offer anything for less fee ???? at the end, the client will pay more and it will be term a "success".
Even in practical matters relating to basic concept of relationship, anyone will grab an advantage if someone see an advantage/opportunity, it is not to be given up.
It is also very hard for a forensic planners like me to earn a living in partnering contract since the boderline of responsibility, contract clause is very hazy.
Thank you,
Scarlett
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
SP,
Your understanding is correct - RIP partnering was the title of the article and that partnering was dead in the UK was what the article was hinting at. Personally I don’t think partnering is dead in the UK, just retreating towards a more traditional client / contractor relationship but still maintaining a partnering ethos - just not the all for one, one for all, current ethos.
Toby,
You could well be right, but I guess at least the client agreed too and was aware of any upward revisions - so maybe it is more correct to say it was completed within the clients expected or forecast spend. i.e £4 to 5billion project with no bun fight and unexpected costs at the end, the client agreed to what he had to pay and paid it.
Whether any budget revisions were due to enhancements in the original spec or for other reasons I don’t know.
Member for
18 years 3 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Andrew
Picking up on one point in your thread where you said that you understood that T5 was on time and on budget. From what I hear that is because the budget was revised upwards on a number of occassions to match the projected spend. As such, its not all that hard to hit the budget I guess!
Regards
Toby
Member for
16 years 3 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Andrew,
As the originator of this thread, What RIP stand for?
Excuse me since the RIP I known means "Rest In Peace".
If this is the case, it may follows: the Partnering type of contract in UK is dead.
Please correct me if Im wrong.
Thank you,
Scarlett
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Oliver,
Will be interesting to see if others in the construction industry follows suit. The article was about BAA but also said water and electric supply companies were doing similar.
Oil & gas have always done things a bit different to the rest. Sir John Egan, author of the Egan Report that kicked off a lot of the current way of thinking on partnering was Chairman of BAA but had worked for Shell at some point before that - maybe that’s where he got the concept from.
I’m all for partnering but I’ve always seen it as the parties mutually working towards a goal but still being ruled by and importantly, standing by, their obligations in the contract - rather than the we’ll all in this together approach, put the contract in the bottom drawer cosy type relationship where people think it’s not "partnering" if the contractor claims an entitlement for more money, can’t charge LD’s, etc, etc....
Member for
18 years 6 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
In the UK nuclear arena there are many frameworks and partnering agreements in place.
They work well for smaller companies as the virtual entity that is created has a wider knowledge-base and increased capabilites. This in-turn enables the newly formed entities to leverage each others strong points to win jobs that they could not successfully tender on their own.
The important things to consider include;
Agreeing what the vision and goals of your newly formed entity are.
thinking about what makes a sensible share of the work on a project i.e not having a 50/50 split makes it easier to make key decisions. This is done by agreeing on each others strong points/weaknesses.
agreeing upfront what method of disagreement/dispute resolution procedure will be used.
.....some of these appear in contracts and therefore i think the BAA man is right in some respects. The area which probably get forgotten the most are the softer areas, such as agreeing the vision, objectives etc.
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Hi,
The idea of good and bad would work under the "partnering" concept. Because the basic idea is for all parties to understand each other and work to the best of the Project.
Maybe it would be a good idea to create a comprehensive brain storming session at the beginning of the project. This would be led by an emotionally intelligent consultant to break the barriers between the parties. During the 3-5 days retreat all parties (top management team) can get to know each other and clear their agendas, during this time, they can decide if they want to continue with the partnering or not.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
20 years 10 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
All,
BAA could be said to have taken partnering to it’s ultimate conclusion when building Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Not the easiest of concepts to explain but let’s say on that contract all the main players were deemed to be part of a single company - the "Terminal 5 Project Company"!
From what Ive been told, (I wasnt on the job), all contractors were paid cost plus, but collectively had to stay within budget. Staff from companies was shared - you could have been the planner for "Joe Bloggs" contracting, but if you were thought to be the best person for the job, you may have actaully been working as the senior planner for BAA, (but still employed by "Joe Bloggs").
It appears BAA have now done their sums and have decided that this way of working doesn’t give best value for money - so it’s changing the way it works to save money. They’re still in my mind "partnering" with contractors but in a more formal customer / contractor style with competitive tendering.
I should say that despite the trouble with the bagage handling system, the building & civil works, etc on Terminal 5 were very successful and I believe completed on time and budget.
Member for
16 years 3 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Dear Andrew,
Excuse me for my limited understanding of the partnering process.
On the other hand, I believe in the fundamental of human nature: the good and the bad, the yeng and the yang.
Will the partnering process makes humans all good, by the good, of the good, acts for the good of the project as a whole and individual players of the project teams.
How about the bad side of human nature: greed, immorality, dishonesty? Will the partnering eliminate this in the equation?
It will be to naive to think that parties to partnering contract will really act for the good of the project, for what is good for the project may only be an advantage for a particular party to the contract, but not good for all.
But then, what is good? how to measure project success?
Thank you,
Scarlett
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Dear Rafael,
Instead of the DAB = Dispute Adjucation Board,
We can talk about creating a new entity called
DAPSB= Daily Active Problem Solving Board
With Kind regads,
Samer
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Andrew,
Can you make a briefing of what partnering is for the purpose of the debate? If you are referring to NEC3 keep in mind some of us do not have a copy of the NEC3 but still interested in the debate under any type of agreement. My knowledge is somewhat limited as I have been involved indirectly in just one job that had the US concept of partnering; well it was a success but over ten years ago.
What about Partnering and dispute resolution? I believe it is not just about attitudes? Forcing for alternate dispute resolution methods might be against acceptance of the concept, or is it optional?
Can a team-building process that utilizes the same concepts in an informal setting be as good, this without the requirement of neither alternate dispute resolution nor the cost for workshops, facilitator and written charters?
Best regards,
Rafael
Member for
17 years 3 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Dear Andrew,
Several major projects were successful because both parties "Partnered" together and concentrating on completion the project instead of using the Contract time to solve their problems.
The decision was always taken at the top management level to let the teams work together and complete the job, then whatever problems either party had, they can submit for evaluation and decision making.
Adopting a proactive approach to working together from the start of the project can be done with open minded teams. When you have cross cultural teams that can bearly understand each other, it would be difficult.
I am definitely pro this idea. Developing a new system will take years and many rejections before people start accepting it.
With kind regards,
Samer
Member for
21 years 8 monthsRE: UK - RIP Partnering?????
Andrew,
BAA’s Capital Programmes Directors statements means partnering with their attitude will never work, they are right in this regard. Most probably their problems are because of their own wrong selection of Project Managers and Contract Agreements.
Only few jobs do justify the Project Management type of agreement. Jobs that you must start prior to a finished design such as pharmaceuticals where every production month you lose mean hundreds of millions lost if a mega drug. This is so because of patent life and generic manufacturers. I don’t blame them for being angry at blood sucking Project Management enterprises and look for another approach to procurement.
Partnering is always a good thing, no matter what type of contract.
I don’t believe others will follow, they are wrong in their attitude toward partnering and not necessarily with regard to a change in contract type.
I would say RIP Project Management approach to procurement (with very, very few exceptions), and embrace Partnering.
Best regards,
Rafael