My busy schedule
continues to thwart my blogging efforts so I’m thankful I can call on others to
provide content for SW Oregon Architect. The
following is another reprint from The Documentor, the newsletter of the Willamette
Valley Chapter of the Construction Specifications Institute. In this
instance WVC/CSI president Steven Leuck
wrote the piece in the February 2015 edition as his “From the President”
message to the WVC/CSI membership.
With Steven’s
permission, I’m republishing his article here on SW Oregon
Architect for the benefit of those who read my blog but do not receive The
Documentor. Steven discusses his experience with the design/build project
delivery method.
Design-Build
By Steven Leuck, President WVC/CSI
Design-Build. What’s the first thing that comes to
your mind when you hear that term? About 20 years ago or so the term was a new
one for me. I had been working for Philips Electric here in Eugene for about 5 years. Up until that time
most of what we had been bidding and performing work on was competitively bid
commercial, institutional and government projects. As it was explained to me at
the time, design-build work
would give us the opportunity to work as partners with the other MEP subs,
architects, engineers and general contractors. This would put us into a better
position to work out issues among ourselves as they arose rather than deal with
them as adversaries. When I heard all this for the first time I was excited
about the prospect of the design/build process.
After completing a few design-build projects,
I realized the method eased some of the anxiety
inherent with the common design-bid-build process. It dawned on me that
with the design/bid/build method, the moment you signed the contract, many
people felt they were all in adversarial positions. The specifications were
often used as guidelines to hammer on each other for either redress or
absolution from responsibilities. None of this is enjoyable and it is certainly
not a good way to spend a lifetime at this job. The contrast from that
viewpoint alone was eye opening for me.
But, is design-build right for every
job and every contractor? Certainly not. Not all contractors, design professionals, and/or
developers are well suited to this kind of partnership. Likewise, just as some
projects by their very nature are better suited to this method, some projects
are not good fits. Wisdom needs to be exercised in deciding which
projects should utilize this method and who the team members should be. We
could spend a lot of time talking about just these decisions alone.
However, after all is said and done,
the ability to work together with other
trades, designers and owners to achieve an effective synergy is very rewarding
indeed. Solutions to challenges are worked out with an eye towards
cooperation rather than fault-finding. Cooperation is the key ingredient in
this method to reach cost-effective solutions for all involved.
All of this reminds me some of the
primary objectives of CSI: “The mission of CSI is to advance building
information management and education of project teams to improve facility performance.”
How do we do that? Much like the design-build
method, we rely on a number
of factors such as team-building, cooperation, education, and constant
development.
Ancient biblical writ suggests that
no part of the church is better than the other but rather we’re all important
parts of the whole. Equally, I’d venture to say that no one part of the design-build
team is more important than the others when considered in the
aggregate. We are all equal in the task of bringing in a successful project. As
we recognize that and work together to find the best solutions to the challenge
that is construction, we will build on what we have done and create the synergy
we need to become better and better at what we deliver.
I am proud to be a part of CSI and
proud of what CSI provides for its membership and others within the design
professions and tradespeople. We make a
difference in how things are done and the products we deliver.
No comments:
Post a Comment