Collaboration Results in Better Project Outcomes

The construction industry needs to move beyond being a siloed and adversarial industry, where incentives lead stakeholders to preserve their own self-interests and priorities. The traditional chain of command that was instituted to avoid or mitigate risks has hefty costs in terms of delays and inaccuracies. Common goals are the solution, because synergies between team members can produce quality products more efficiently. Genuine collaboration results not only in improved outcomes for the owner, but in more successful projects for all parties involved. It leads to less friction, improved relationships, safer jobs, better quality and higher profits.

For years, construction has had extremely low productivity growth compared to other industries.

Fragmentation within the industry is often cited as the primary cause of this. While other industries have been incentivized by the economies of scale they could realize by putting together large teams and sophisticated processes, such economies have been rarer in the construction industry because each project has a unique set of challenges and opportunities. This has had a detrimental effect on many aspects of project delivery and on overall project success. But new workflows and technologies are enabling the construction industry to achieve greater alignment across projects, with both information and relationships having broader reach than were once possible.

Traditionally, phases of work have been competitively bid. Architects, engineers, general contractors and subcontractors are typically part of different companies that have different—and often conflicting—goals and objectives. Furthermore, the goals for individual projects are short term: the multiple firms that come together to construct a single project move on after it is complete. In this scenario, it is too easy for the companies to become aligned against one another.

In response to competing interests, hierarchies form. Subcontractors are typically the most affected. Seen as being at the bottom of the chain, they are not treated as equal partners. However, subcontractors are often able to provide great perspectives, ideas, approaches and solutions to a project. If their input is not considered during project planning, this expertise goes untapped, leading to errors and delays as the project moves forward. This is a direct result of competitively bidding the phases of the project.

While competitive bidding may result in lower costs to the owner, it can lead to disputes and conflicts as players seek to shift risks. The litigious nature of construction fuels a risk-averse culture, and a downward spiral is perpetuated. Contract structure and wording tend to reinforce individualism and competitiveness. This translates into unforeseen costs that are passed along to the owner, negating the low prices that seemed to be the benefit of a competitive bid.


Read Article in Construction Executive