專案成功之團隊精誠合作（轉）

為了迅速有效地開展工作，建築專案干係人正在尋找團隊合作的創新方法。

在大規模建築專案裡，承包商、分包商、顧問和業主也許是第一次和最後一次合作。在很多情況下，團隊成員對將要與他們合作的人有很少決定權，實際上，他們有時甚至被要求與競爭對手組成臨時的團隊。面臨著快速跟進的最後期限、複雜的工程和公眾壓力，你會陷入一種團隊很難平和相處的境地。

瞭解到專案挑戰後，專案業主試圖尋找合作的新方式。“現在許多業主的公司在經驗和人力上已經萎縮到無法有效管理建築專案的程度，所以他們必須外包專案。”萊斯·普呂多姆說。他是PMI職業道德審查委員會主席和位於美國德克薩斯州奧斯汀市的美國建築工業院的研究主任。

普呂多姆認為，隨著外包變成一種必要的手段，軟體技術可以用來促進溝通並且增強團隊責任感，但專案經理必須掌握活躍氣氛的技巧。畢竟，工具只有被正確使用的時候才會起作用。

夯實基礎

“在任何一個主要的合同專案裡，你會面臨50到400個有著各自實施計劃的公司。而問題在於，你如何將它們整合到一份實施計劃裡。”格雷琴·麥考布說。她是美國科羅拉多州丹佛市FMI公司業主服務部門的常務董事。

造價3.84億美元的Invesco Field的完工給出了關於最高層團隊合作的一個案例，建造Invesco Field是用來替代丹佛野馬隊前主場Mile High體育場。1998年專案啟動時，業主要求在2001－2002賽季前完工。由丹佛市的六個縣組成的大都會足球場區選擇了德克薩斯州達拉斯市的特納公司來領導體育場的建設，並選擇了密蘇里州堪薩斯城HNTB公司建築師工程師規劃師部門來設計體育場。工程的進度安排迫使此專案使用一種在體育場建設專案中從未使用過的“設計－建造”方案。

“之前，我們並不知道我們要與HNTB公司合資，但一旦業主意識到要按時完工就必須使用“設計－建造”方案，我們一致認為：我們別無選擇。”特納公司建築專案經理查理·桑頓說。

很明顯，特納公司與HNTB公司會按80：20的比例分擔專案風險。“在這樣的專案裡，設計單位承擔風險這種做法是很少見的，但是我們都認為這是團隊建設的良機，並且向市場展示“設計－建造”方案是開展此類專案的積極手段。

合資公司的下一層面是主要的建築公司和設計公司，他們缺乏經驗和彼此的瞭解。在這一層面團隊成員會對每個專案所需的時間和費用達成一致，但他們不會承擔任何風險。在設計和施工的任何階段，專案中會有75到80個承包商和最多1200到1300名勞動力。

為了保持溝通順暢並統一目標，專案團隊採用了一種多層次的會議流程（參見附文《接力團隊》）。對於大多數專案成員來說，這是一種他們從未經歷過的合作層次。

“關於如何實現這套複雜的流程，特別是當分包商和初級員工參與了每兩星期一次的業主/合資公司會議時，合資公司願意承擔風險。但這對他們真的很管用。”比爾·斯普拉金斯說。他是FMI公司的一名總監，負責領導專案協作流程的開發工作。

後來，體育場在野馬隊新賽季開幕前按時投入使用，現在其他體育場建設專案正在考慮把“設計－建造”方案作為一種快速跟進專案的方法。“這種合作的基礎是信任和主要專案干係人建立的那種文化，如果業主或主要承包商的管理者不能合作，那其他團隊成員也不能。”麥考布說。

國際專案的實踐

上述原則同樣適用於國際專案，艾哈邁德·阿非非如此認為。他是亞塞拜然巴庫市麥克德莫特里海承包公司的升級專案經理。阿非非領導者一個團隊重建裡海岸邊的一個被廢棄13年之久的預製件工場。這件工場原來用作建造海上平臺的上層建築。

重建工場的工作已經是一個巨大的挑戰了，而且阿非非的團隊包括了蘇格蘭人、羅馬尼亞人、印度人、巴基斯坦人、埃及人、菲律賓人、英國人和亞塞拜然人，而且專案領導要協調來自土耳其、英國、芬蘭、新加坡、中國、馬來西亞、臺灣和亞塞拜然的分包商、工程師和供應商們。此專案中，語言和文化的衝擊是可想而知的。

此專案得以成功的做法是頒佈合作的標準並就其在專案團隊上下進行充分溝通。阿非非解釋道。“借用麥克德莫特的團隊合作原則，並將其銘刻在團隊成員心目中的做法為分包商提供了一個良好的案例，並將他們融入進來。”他說。此原則根植於員工人身安全、員工發展、公平對待和以身作則，甚至當符號語言成為唯一的溝通手段時，此原則仍有效地幫助團隊成員團結一致。

數年前建立起來處理此類複雜專案的核心標準被寫入麥克德莫特章程，並被張貼在工地上。阿非非說：“任何合作努力的第一步是管理層接受。開始時，公司管理層必須認同它，然後承諾實施它。”

新技術登場

由於建築行業仍舊被家族經營和小公司支配，所以其他行業的專案經理經常使用的協作軟體在建築行業裡很少被採用。托馬斯·赫南德茲說，他是美國紐約州紐約市的建築/工程/建設行業的技術顧問。“早在網上競標得到大力推廣時，我們就看到了這種勢態的跡象。建築行業卻沒有準備採用它。許多合同的簽訂還是基於長期的合作關係和麵對面的談判。

面臨著複雜的建築流程，對於尋找能夠將小型商業環境中的重要流程隔離和自動化的易用軟體的工作，專案經理們可能會感到手足無措。然而，軟體開發人員開始瞭解到這個行業的需求，他們逐漸引起專案業主特別是那些別無選擇的業主的注意。這是哈德遜河公園專案的案例，這個專案耗資3.83億美元，需要重建毗鄰紐約市曼哈頓西區的13個公共碼頭和550英畝的公園。紐約州和紐約市於1998年建立了哈德遜河公園託管會作為此專案的業主。

“現在存在一種誤解，即人們認為納稅人的錢會被花費在修建一個過於龐大的工程。實際上，我們的小工程中的每個人都有一大堆的職責。而這套軟體的目的是幫助我們管理部分的職責。”託管會負責公司事務及溝通的副總裁亞歷克斯·達德利如是說。

託管會選擇了一款專案管理軟體來幫助他們促進專案合作、提供對資訊徵求書（RFI）的訪問，管理信函、申請、會議紀要、變更請求和報告等。此專案涉及了超過50個承包商和150名建築師和工程師。

託管會的資訊長麥克爾·布林稱，許多團隊成員起初對使用該軟體表示懷疑。“但他們沒有選擇，這使得我們的工具最有效的發揮作用。”他補充道。

每位成員參加了為期兩天的培訓，補償專案時間的損失只花費了很少的代價。布林說。“舉例來說，現在我們已提交超過200份RFI，每份有最長14天的週期。如果給每份RFI的週期加14天，總的時間會變得很可觀。”透過這套軟體，每份RFI被分發給了正確的人員，這促使他們對要完成的職責負責。

當承包商提交一份RFI之後，建築經理會閱讀以確定其有效性及緊急程度，然後發給建築師。此時，建築師必須要回復承包商，這都需藉助於軟體的監控功能。

基於Web的軟體會跟蹤何人在何時提交了RFI，何人開啟並閱讀過，還有履行情況。“軟體為我們節省了用來跟蹤被遺忘履行的RFI的額外資源。”布林說。此軟體還有報告功能，例如確定每位建築師的彙報時間。

然而，軟體卻不能取代人與人的溝通。專案組仍然要每週開會討論專案進展和未解決的事務。布林表示：“但是即使現在的那些會議變得更加不正式，我們還是可以清楚地獲得進度和事務資訊。”

接力團隊

Mile High的Invesco Field專案團隊使用瞭如下的多層次會議流程：

1.管理層

合資公司的關鍵成員與業主參與了微型合夥會議（mini-partnering）來討論關鍵的事務，如“設計－建造”流程、角色與職責、干係人風險和業主期望等。

2.現場層

分為四個分類領域的經理們會見合資公司的管理層來討論會議運作方式及管理層期望。現場層的經理們每六個星期向合資公司和業主彙報一次專案進展。每次會議提出分包商需要合資公司/業主提供的幫助以確保專案成功。

3.責任層

每個分類小組的經理在會議上擔負領導職責。他們要確保事務最終被解決並且跟蹤學習到的經驗教訓。


作者簡介：Monica Williams是美國德克薩斯州奧斯汀市的自由撰稿人，Civil Engineering前編輯，她已報導建築行業七年。

原文:

　　　　　　　　　　　　　Clever Collaboration

By Monica Williams

To work both smart and fast, construction project stakeholders are finding innovative ways to come together as a team.

On large-scale construction projects, contractors, subcontractors, consultants and owners may be joining forces for the first and last time. In many cases, team members have had little say in whom they will be working with and, in fact, may even be required to form a temporary alliance with a competitor. Throw in a fast-track deadline, complicated engineering and public pressure, and you create a situation in which few teams can survive peacefully.

Project owners who understand project challenges are seeking different ways to collaborate. “Some owner companies today have downsized to the point where they may not have the level of expertise or manpower to effectively manage construction projects,” says Les Prudhomme, chair of the Project Management Institute’s Ethics Review Committee and director of research for the Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, USA. “So they out source it.”

As outsourcing becomes a necessity, software technologies can ease communication and increase accountability among teams, but project managers must possess the skills to keep things humming, he says. After all, tools only work when in the right hands.

Building on a Solid Foundation

“On any major contract project, you could have anywhere from 50 to 400 different companies, each with their own game plan,” says Gretchen McComb, managing director of the Owner Services Group, FMI Corp., Denver, Colo., USA. “The question is, how do you bring them together with one game plan?”

Completing the $384 million Invesco Field at Mile High, which replaces Mile High Stadium, the previous home of the Denver Broncos football team, was a lesson in teamwork at the highest level. When the project was initiated in 1998, the owners requested completion for the 2001-2002 season. The Metropolitan Football Stadium District, which consists of six Denver counties, chose Turner Corp., Dallas, Texas, USA, to head construction of the stadium and HNTB Architects Engineers Planner of Kansas City, Mo., USA, to design it. The schedule forced the project on a design-build path, something that no previous sports stadium project had ever tried.

“Coming into it, we didn’t know we were about to enter into a joint venture with HNTB,” says Charlie Thornton, Turner’s project manager for construction. “But once the owner recognized that, to complete the stadium on time, we would have to use design-build, we all realized there would be no other way to do it.”

It also became obvious that Turner and HNTB would have to divide risk on the project 80/20. “It’s pretty [unusual] for a designer to hold any risk on a project like this, but I think we both saw it as a great opportunity to build a team and show the marketplace that design-build is a positive way to move these projects forward,” says Thornton.

The next tier below the joint venture consisted of major construction and design firms, each with limited experience and knowledge about each other. At this level, agreements were made about the number of hours and fees per project, but none of these team members held any risk. At any time during construction and design, there were 75 to 80 contractors on the project and a maximum labor force of 1,200 to 1,300.

To maintain communication and align goals, the teams embarked on a multilayer meeting process. For most project team members, this was a level of involved collaboration they’d never experienced.

“The joint venture was willing to take some risks with how this comprehensive process would be implemented, particularly in terms of how subcontractors and junior staff were involved with the biweekly owner/joint venture meetings,” says Bill Spragins, a director with FMI Corp. who led the development of the collaboration process for the project. “But it really worked for them.”

In the end, the stadium opened in time for the Broncos’ season opener, and now other stadium projects are considering design-build as a way to fast-track projects. “The foundation to this kind of collaboration is trust and the culture the major stakeholders create on a project,” McComb says. “If the owners or major contractors’ executives aren’t capable of collaborating, then no other team member will be either.”

Global Proportions

The same principal applies on global projects, according to Ahmed Afify, project manager of upgrades for McDermott Caspian Contractors Inc., Baku, Azerbaijan. Afify leads a team to restore a fabrication yard on the shore of the Caspian Sea after 13 years of neglect. The yard was to be used to build the topsides of offshore platform.

While refurbishing the yard was enough of a challenge, Afify’s team consisted of Scottish, Romanian, Indian, Pakistani, Egyptian, Pilipino, British and Azeri leaders coordinating the work among Turkish, British, Finnish, Singaporean, Chinese, Malaysian, Taiwanese and Azeri subcontractors, engineers and vendors. The clash of languages and cultures on such projects can be overwhelming.

What made the project work, says Afify, was establishing and communicating collaboration standards up and down the project team. “Putting to work McDermott’s teamwork principles and establishing them in the hearts of the team members provided a good example to the subcontractors and got them to join in,” he says. The principles – grounded in employee safety, employee development, fair treatment and leading by example – helped the team members bond “even when sign language was the only means of communication.”

The core standards are built into the McDermott “charter,” established years ago to deal with such complicated projects, and then posted throughout the worksite. “The first step on any collaboration effort,” says Afify, “is management buy-in. It has to start with company management coming on board and committing to turn it to reality.”

Technology Marches On

Because the construction industry still is dominated by family-run and small businesses, it has been slow to adopt the collaborative software project manager use in other industries, says Thomas Hernandez, a technology consultant for the architecture/engineering/construction industry in New York, N.Y., USA. “We saw evidence of this a few years ago when there was a big push for online bidding,” he says. “The industry wasn’t ready for it. Many contracts were awarded through long-term working relationships and over a handshake.”

Faced with complex construction processes, project managers may be at a loss to find easy-to-use software that isolates and automates the processes important in a small-business environment. But as software developers come to understand the needs of the industry, they have begun to get the attention of project owners across the country, especially when those owners have little other choice. This is the case with the Hudson River Park Project, a $383 million effort to rebuild 13 public piers and 550 acres of park along Manhattan’s West Side in New York, N.Y., USA. In 1998, the city and state of New York created the Hudson River Park Trust solely to serve as owners of the project.

“One of the concerns was that there would be a misconception that the peoples money was going to creating a overly large staff,” says Alex Dudley, vice president of corporate affairs and communications for the Trust. “Each person on our small staff has to have a large number of responsibilities. And what this software does is help us manage some of those responsibilities.”

The Trust chose a project management software that would help them collaborate on a project this size, offering access to requests for information (RFIs), transmittals, submittals, meeting minutes, change orders and reports. The project involves more than 50 contractors and about 150 individual architects and engineers.

Michael Breen, chief information officer for the Trust, says many team members initially were hesitant about using the software. “But they didn’t have a choice,” he says. “I think that’s what made this tool most effective for us.”

Each team member underwent two days of training – a small price to pay for the project’s overall time savings, says Breen. “Today, for instance, we have well over 200 RFIs in submittal,” he says, “each with a 14-day maximum turn-around time. If you start adding 14 days to each of those, the time really adds up.” Using the software helps each of those RFIs to get through to the right people, and it holds them accountable for fulfilling their responsibility.

Once a contractor submits an RFI, the construction manager reads it to determine its validity and urgency and passes it to the architect of record. At that point, the architect is bound to respond to the contractor, thanks to the software’s monitoring capabilities.

The Web-based software tracks when and who submitted the RFI, who has opened it and read it, and its progress to fulfillment. “This saves us, as the owner, from putting additional resources into tracking those RFIs that have fallen aside,” says Breen. The software also features reporting functionalities that can determine, for instance, the average report time fro each architect of record.

No software can take the place of human contact. The project team still holds weekly meetings to discuss status and pending issues. “But not, even those meetings are more informed,” says Breen. “We have clear information about the issues and schedule.”

Relay Team

Teams from the Invesco Field at Mile High project used a multi-layer meeting process:

1.Executive Level

Key members from the joint venture joined in mini-partnering sessions with the owners to discuss critical issues such as the design-build process, roles and responsibilities and the risks of the stakeholders as well as owner expectations.

2.Field Level

Managers divided among four disciplinary areas met with executives from the joint venture to discuss how meetings would run and what was expected. Field-level managers reported their progress to the joint venture and owners once every six weeks. Each session stressed what that subcontractor needed from the joint venture and/or the owners to ensure success.

3.Accountability Level

Managers from each discipline group were assigned to serve as captains at meetings. They ensured that issues were eventually solved and tracked lessons learned.

Monica Williams is an Austin, Texas, USA-based freelance writer and former Civil Engineering editor who has covered the construction industry for seven years.[@more@]