In our last column we clearly distinguished that design-build is not just tweaking design-bid-build, but asserted that it is different in every way. We also indicated that probably the single toughest nut to crack when trying to transition from doing business in the design-bid-build mode to the more collaborative design-build mode is the “mental challenge” associated with the different roles and responsibilities. In other words, it’s much easier to adjust to the different technical clauses, terms, and conditions of the design-build contract than it is to actually “make the mental shift” from a segregated services mentality, where positioning and power reign, to an integrated services mentality, where trust, collaboration, and cooperation are required.
After years of research and study, I believe the one thing, more than any other, which makes the biggest difference between design-build success and design-build failure is “attitude.” If you look up the word attitude in the dictionary you’ll find a definition that reads something like this: “a state of mind or feeling with regard to some matter.” Well, the typical state of mind or feeling in regard to the matter of designing and building projects is often one of frustration, aggravation, and disappointment. There are many reasons for this and we will address several of them in future columns, but for now we will focus on defining the attitude itself.
Where does this negative attitude come from? From the very beginning of our formal education as architects, engineers, and construction managers, we are often taught to be leery of one another, to be suspicious, to be skeptical. We are taught “not to trust.” The stereotypes about “how architects are” and “how contractors are” are fully ingrained into the psyches of the newly minted AEC professionals upon graduation. Before the CM graduate delivers her first bid proposal, or the architecture graduate completes his first set of contract documents, they are anticipating a battle with the enemy. They are not preparing to be partners or collaborators as is critically important in design-build. Instead, they are preparing to interact as adversaries. And, on top of that, add owners who are well versed in the “do not trust” attitude when they solicit our services. And although this mindset is not always the norm, unfortunately it has become the model under which most of us have been trained.
Our “hole in the boat” cartoon does a good job depicting the wrong attitude for design-build. Let’s pretend that the boat represents your design-build project and the four guys represent your team of designers and contractors. If your team is operating with an attitude represented by the statement, “I’m sure glad the hole isn’t in our end,” and the people on your team are not responding to the situation because “it’s not their problem,” the reality is that you have a BIG problem. Your team members have not made the mental shift necessary to perform design-build at its highest and best potential and the project is at risk. To put it simply, if there’s a hole in your design-build boat, everybody on the team is going for a swim!
So how do we “un-train” the attitudes of architects, engineers, and construction managers so they can perform at their highest capabilities under a design-build contract? Believe it or not, there are ways to transform people’s attitudes and develop trusting relationships among project team members.
Fundamentally, the best way I can describe a design-build attitude compared to a design-bid-build attitude is to compare dancing and marching. Although both activities require coordinated action, dancing (design-build) is much more responsive in nature, whereas marching (design-bid-build) is much more reactive in nature. Take for example the common occurrence of a schedule delay. The reactive approach calls for making a demand such as, “I don’t care what you do, but you better do something, and you better do it fast!” Compared to the more responsive approach, “what can I provide that would help you get back on track?” To be responsive means to focus on solving the problem rather than protecting your own position or ignoring the problem all together. Design-build requires learning how to “dance” without stepping on each other’s toes or laying blame. By its very nature, the single-source responsibility characteristic of design-build requires a responsive attitude. And the good news — it can be learned!
Bottom line, we believe that “making the mental shift” is so vitally important to successful design-build that we have developed a new one-day elective course dedicated entirely to it. This course will be offered three times in 2006 in three different cities. The course is also available as a corporate/agency course. To learn more please check our website or 2006 course catalog.
Dr. Barbara Jackson is a Professor of Construction Management in the College of Architecture and Environmental Design at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, CA. She also serves as Chair of DBIA’s Education Committee.