|
Philip Crump 1301 Luisa Street,
Suite E • Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 (505) 989-8558 • Contact
me by email! Partnering - A Better Way Of Doing
Business By Michael J. Bloom Excerpted from Conflict Resolution Newsletter #36: http://www.mediate.com/articles/Bloom.cfm (NOTE: This article has reference to a number of Government programs
and acronyms; don't be put off!) Introduction Partnering in the Construction
Industry The Army Corps of
Engineers Endorses Partnering Benefits of
Partnering Conflict
and How to Deal with It Sources of Conflict The Consequences of
Conflict Conflict Resolution
Strategies Why Partnering Is
Better than Confrontation When Should You
Start? Suggestions for
Better Partnering Is It Working? What to Do if It
Isn't Working with the Contractor What to Do if It
Isn't Working with the Government Stakeholders Incentives for
Partnering Appendix
A:
Recommended Contract Clauses (Section H) Appendix
B: "Is
It Working?" Questionnaire Introduction Partnering is
primarily a relationship in which program stakeholders work, cooperate, and
perform in good faith as a unified team. Partnering is similar to picking
teams for a tug of war at the company picnic. Each team is together for the
duration of the competition and the "partners" know that they must
work together to succeed. If the partners do not pull in the same direction,
hold on to the rope, and dig-in with their feet, the team will not finish
successfully. The program is the
rope that unites the program partners. Accordingly, the partners are required
to put aside individual interests and work together, communicate their
expectations, agree on common goals and methods of performance, and identify
and resolve problems early, before losing the opportunity for success. A brief history of how
partnering came about in our environment starts with the construction
industry, which has used partnering for a number of years. Partnering in the
Construction Industry In 1994, the
Construction Industry Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Task Force (DART)
surveyed 8,000 attorneys, design professionals, and contractors. The design
professionals viewed project partnering "as a superior method" for
achieving desired results, and the contractors were "extremely favorable
toward the prospects of project partnering and tended to view it as a highly
effective vehicle for achieving a host of goals on construction
projects." More than 70 percent of all three groups predicted future
increases in the use of partnering. The design professionals and attorneys
indicated that favorable experiences with partnering outnumbered unfavorable
experiences by five to one. The Army Corps of
Engineers Endorses Partnering Recognizing the
success in the construction industry, the Army Corps of Engineers
experimented with the concept. Their success has prompted them to adopt a
policy of developing, promoting, and practicing partnering on all
construction contracts and to expand the concept to other relationships. The
Corps defines the concept this way: Partnering is the
creation of an owner-contractor relationship that promotes achievement of
mutually beneficial goals. It involves an agreement in principle to share the
risks involved in completing a project, and to establish and promote a
nurturing partnership environment. Partnering is not a contractual agreement,
however, nor does it create any legally enforceable rights or duties. Rather,
partnering seeks to create a new cooperative attitude in completing
government contracts. To create this attitude, each party must seek to
understand the goals, objectives, and the needs of the other -- their
"Win" situation -- and seek ways that these objectives can overlap.
Delivery of an
operationally useful system on time or early, and on or under budget, is a
win situation for the user, the acquisition agency, and the contractor.
Program success is a powerful incentive for all the partners and eliminates
the disincentives associated with failure to achieve technical, cost, or
schedule goals. Benefits of
Partnering Without some change in
our actions, we may think about a new way, but act the same old way and get
the same old results. The recommended partnering process lets us change our actions
and reap the benefits. Some examples follow: Reduced litigation. The Army Corps of Engineers has
used partnering on large and small contracts for over six years. To date, all
reports indicate that not a single dispute has gone to litigation on a partnered
project. This is in stark contrast to the number of disputes received on
non-partnered contracts of similar size and complexity. Successful,
profitable contracts. Experience within the construction industry has shown that partnering
has resulted in completion on schedule, cost overrun reduction by two thirds,
reduction in paperwork by 66 percent, increased value engineering, no lost
time injuries, and other mutually beneficial performance when compared to the
average contract. The Kansas City District of the Army Corps of Engineers
found that, on average, a partnered contract reduced cost growth by 2.65
percent, reduced modifications by 29 percent, and virtually eliminated time
overruns (averaging 26 percent). Another district, the Portland District Army
Corps of Engineers, discovered a two-thirds reduction in paperwork. Improved morale. Evaluations conducted under
previous Army partnering contracts has shown a distinct improvement in the
morale of the people working on the contract. When people can work in a
conflict-free environment, they can concentrate on the job rather than on
potential claims, and the morale and effectiveness of the whole
"team" is improved. Conflict and How to Deal with It Conflict is a disagreement
between two or more parties. The issues in conflict are typically either
substantive (such as allocation of resources, policies, procedures,
requirements) or over emotional (such as values, culture, management style,
personal preferences, distrust). Frequently, conflicts involve both types of
issues. Conflict can range in intensity from a minor irritant to a major
problem that threatens the success of the entire program. Research indicates
that a typical manager spends 20 percent of his or her time resolving
conflicts and disagreements. The Defense Systems Management College (DSMC)
Program Manager's handbook points out that conflict has been traditionally
viewed as a negative factor, and if it is present, organizational management
has failed. The handbook also points out a new perspective: "The contemporary
view of conflict is that it is not inherently good or bad, but is neutral.
According to this philosophy, conflict is a process in which incompatible
goals, interpretations, or emotions of individuals or groups lead to
opposition. Conflict can be beneficial and productive, contributing to
effective problems-solving and serving as a change agent for the parties
involved." Sources of Conflict Sources of conflict
include: Ambiguous Roles. Inconsistent Goals. Communication Barriers. Delegation of and Limits to Authority. Program Priorities and Schedule. Resource Allocations. Lack of Information Resistance
to Change. The Consequences of
Conflict Conflicts between the user
and the acquisition agency can be caused by incomplete understanding of the
user's requirements, inability of the contractor to deliver the promised
product due to cost growth (under-bidding the contract, unforeseen
difficulties, etc.), changes in user demand for the product, user concerns
about development process efficiency, and user disappointment in the evolving
or final product. Disputes late in the program often force the user to take
an unacceptable system rather than wait for funding and development of
another system. Conflicts between the
acquisition agency and the contractor can be caused by requirements
interpretation, lack of cost-realism during the bidding process, delays in
completion of intermediate milestones, funding fluctuations, overestimated
software productivity, and changes in user requirements. Conflict Resolution
Strategies Five basic conflict
resolution strategies are identified by DSMC: avoiding, forcing,
accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. Regardless of the source of
the conflict, the "competing" or adversarial conflict resolution
strategy typically employed when these conflicts occur, wastes significant
manpower and dollar resources. In addition, it tends to cause resentment in
the other party and a long-term deterioration of the business relationship
among the parties. The only strategy that
optimizes the benefits to all of the parties involved is
"collaborating." "Collaborating is
jointly identifying change opportunities and seeking an integrative solution
-- the "win-win" approach. The conflict issue is clarified,
studied, and even redefined in an effort to give each party a goal and
solution that can be fully supported. Collaborating includes such approaches
as joint problem-solving, consensus-seeking, and establishing superordinate
goals (higher-level goals on which all can agree) in order to achieve full
cooperation. The major advantage of collaborating is that all parties may be
very satisfied with the way the conflict was resolved. A disadvantage is that
collaborating is likely to be more time-consuming than the other (conflict
resolution) approaches." Why Partnering Is
Better than Confrontation If a program office
refuses to recognize changes in the operational environment and insists on
delivering a product that is not operationally useful, the user will stop
supporting the program and the funds to complete the program will be
reallocated to other programs. If the program office puts a quality
contractor out of business, or backs them into a corner by creating
unnecessary financial hardships, the contractor may strike back with
increased claims, or the industrial base may deteriorate when the contractor
refuses to bid on future contracts. Similarly, a "grab what you can
get" attitude by the contractor will not sustain a contractor's long
term business with today's emphasis on past performance. All three parties
have a vested interest in mutual cooperation and meeting the needs of their
program partners. An adversarial relationship may hinder or destroy these overriding
interests. Accordingly, it is mutually beneficial to establish and maintain
an "us," rather than an "us vs. them," attitude that
supports the efforts to make it "faster, better, and cheaper." To make "faster,
better, and cheaper" smoother, we should work with them, rather than
against them. (Them, in this case, is the user and the contractor and any
other major stakeholders in a system acquisition.) Not only should we (the
program office and its support contractors) work with them, we should make them
part of us. This effort involves the concept of partnering and the formation
of the program team. The time-frame for this relationship begins with
requirements definition when the user (and any other government stakeholders)
becomes one of us and continues through contract award when the winning
contractor becomes one of us. The relationship terminates when development,
production, and major system modifications are complete. An organization is the
shadow cast by its leader. If the program manager is not committed, the rest
of the organization will only give lip service to the concept. However, if
the program manager is committed to the partnering concept and demonstrates
that behavior in dealing with the user and the other stakeholders, the
program office organization will follow. When Should You
Start? A program should be
formed early (prior to requirements definition and acquisition strategy
definition) as the basis for an on-going partnership for the duration of the
program. This partnership initially involves all of the stakeholders in the
program except the potential development contractors. The formal partnering
process begins after contract award with an initial training workshop that
includes the key personnel for all the participating organizations. This
workshop helps establish commitment from the key players. Subsequent
workshops are held to involve all the team players at the working level and,
as the program evolves, periodic follow-up workshops are held to reinforce
the desired behavior and introduce new team members. The use of
facilitators is also recommended to establish and maintain a common
culture and working relationship for all of the program participants. Since
the participants on each program are unique, each program will develop its
own set of specific methods. The lower level
monitoring is not established until after the contract is awarded and the
contractor's proposed IMP is adopted or modified to suit all the key players. Suggestions for
Better Partnering Select the contract
to partner. The
extent of the interaction with the contractor, the complexity of the
contract, its importance to the stakeholders, and the duration of the
contract seem to be the most significant factors in making the decision to
partner. The higher these factors, the more profitable the partnership can
be. Obtain top
management commitment. The subordinates in all of the stakeholder organizations watch what
their management does rather than what it says. If it is obvious that the top
management is supporting the partnering effort, it will be easier to get the
resources necessary to do the job or change the established way of doing
business. Obtain the
necessary resources to partner. Initially it may be beneficial to overestimate the
resources necessary to implement and maintain the partnership. The costs
involve the time and funding necessary to train all participating personnel,
to attend workshops, and to effectively communicate with the other parties. Encourage
continuity.
Supporting organizations are expected to commit team members for the duration
of the activities. Provide overlap between old and new members when change is
unavoidable. Select champions, one
at top level and one at working level. These individuals carry the partnering philosophy
throughout the organization and help the key participants learn how to change
their actions to implement partnering. Communicate with
the offerors.
Tell the offerors at the pre-solicitation conference, tell them at the
bidders conference, and put it in the cover letter for your RFP. Putting a
provision in the contract lets the contractors know you are serious about the
partnership. The language in Appendix A can be inserted in a Section H clause
in the contract to advise the contractor of the government's intent and to
provide the basis for implementation of the partnering concept after contract
award. Agree to
partnering. All
of the processes must be mutually agreeable to the parties. The basic
approach may be outlined in the IMP and the IMS, but it is essential to
establish executive-level personal relationships and obtain their commitment
for success at the initial workshop. Plan kickoff
workshops. Plan
to hold an initial partnering workshop to ensure that all key personnel and
senior management understand the concept of partnering and are committed to
its success. Hold subsequent team building workshops to orient all program
participants. If a large number of personnel are assigned to the program,
hold workshops based on anticipated membership. Obtain a
facilitator for the workshops. The recommended contract clause in Appendix A has
provisions for a third-party facilitator, however an internal government,
FFRDC, support contractor, or development contractor facilitator will work if
he or she is trusted by all the parties involved. The important thing is to
get someone who is qualified, experienced, trusted, and "fits well"
with the parties. The facilitator should actively participate in the initial
workshop(s) and any additional training sessions, be available to help any
teams that are experiencing difficulty in getting started, and conduct
remedial training when a group begins to backslide. Prepare for the
workshops. Make
sure all top management participating in the workshop understand the goal of
partnering so that they actively support partnering at the session. Ensure
that all participants understand the basics of partnering. Identify all the
players participating in each workshop (the initial workshop is for key
personnel in the program and their senior management). Conduct the
workshops.
Clarify the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of all key players at
each workshop. Combine the initial partnering session with a post-award
conference within a month after contract award to identify areas of
confusion, potential problems, and risks in addition to the
"normal" post-award conference objectives. Conduct the subsequent
team building workshop within two months after the initial workshop so that
all parties get started on the right foot. The following items are
recommended for the agenda: Define partnering
and process expectations. Explicitly address the government's position on constructive changes
to the contract and indicate that the partnering process or team
participation is not intended to facilitate constructive change. Identify the
pitfalls associated with the government's insight role. Indicate the
expectations each party has for the partnering process. Get to know each
other. Provide
detailed introductions for all participants. Have the facilitator use an
industrial psychology instrument to indicate communication styles of the
participants. Conduct team-building exercises and work on empathy and
listening skills. Clearly indicate each individual's authorities and
responsibilities and delegate responsibilities as low as possible
(empowerment). Identify common program goals. Establish
procedures for sound administration. Identify potential program problems and establish a
regular problem identification and resolution procedure. Identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the parties to the partnership. Establish a fact
documentation procedure--if facts are not in dispute, most disputes are not
pursued. Have legal counsel participate and help identify what is, and what
is not, important. Develop open, honest, and regular communication channels.
Review the contract requirements and provisions to identify any areas of
confusion or differences of opinion. Establish methods
of resolving conflict. Develop a conflict resolution process such as automatic conflict
escalation to prevent the festering of problems. Agree to use alternative
dispute resolution processes when good faith disputes arise. Generate a
Partnering Charter.
The charter should set forth the intent of the parties to work together
towards a successful project, commitment of the parties, and common
measurable goals. All parties should sign and display the charter. Generate a
meaningful evaluation process. The process should measure the success of the parties and
reinforce the partnering attitude. The questionnaire in Appendix B could be
used as the basis for the evaluation process. The evaluation should be made
at approximately six-month intervals. Establish targets. Exercise care in ensuring
realistic expectations, goals, and objectives early in the partnership. Set
sights high, but make the targets achievable so they can endure throughout
the project. Minimize risk. Strive for solutions to problems that
minimize the risk of system or program failure. Celebrate
successes.
Recognize and reward those who took the initiative to partner--whether
successful or unsuccessful--with formal presentations or informal
celebrations. Initiate newcomers. Make provisions to train and
orient newcomers to the program. Don't assume they will be familiar with the
partnering pattern. Reinforce training. Conduct follow-up workshops
periodically to reinforce the partnering concept. This is necessary to
prevent old bad habits from reemerging. Communicate. Communicate regularly with the
parties to the partnership. Regular meetings to discuss progress, problems,
and solutions are recommended. Face-to-face or video teleconferencing is
recommended if possible. Hold open discussions
with no secrets.
The parties must have full and open discussions with no secrets. All facts
must be on the table for each team member to understand and assess. Each
member brings unique expertise that needs to be recognized by all, and his or
her views are important in developing a successful program. Each view has to
be heard but not necessarily acted on by the team. All members of the team
must feel that their contributions are important to the process and were well
considered. Encourage team members to explore all alternatives to system
problems. A sense of ownership is not developed if the team is expected to
"rubber stamp" a decision or a document prepared in a different
setting. Keep promises. Speak with one voice on settled
issues and keep promises made to the team. Select qualified,
empowered team members. Empowerment is critical to making and keeping the agreements
essential to effective partnerships. All representatives assigned to teams
must be empowered by their leadership. They must be able to speak for their
superiors, the "principals," in the decision-making process.
Although team members cannot be expected to have the breadth of knowledge and
experience of their leadership, they are expected to be in frequent
communication with their leadership in all cases and ensure that their advice
is sound and will not be changed later, barring unforeseen circumstances or
new information. The team members must also be aware of any limits to their
ability to speak for their principals. The agreements they make cannot be
binding if they exceed the limits of the members' empowerment. It is
important for the team leader to stress at the outset that, in general,
agreements reached in the team are binding. The only exceptions are when new
information becomes available and it is significant enough to warrant
revisiting a prior agreement. Escalate reasoned
disagreement. The
team should not be searching for "lowest common denominator"
consensus. There can be disagreement on how to approach a particular issue,
but that disagreement must be reasoned disagreement based on an alternative
plan of action rather than unyielding opposition. When an issue cannot be
resolved by a team, the team leader should raise the issue as quickly as
possible to a decision-making level where resolution can be achieved Is It Working? If it becomes obvious
that performance expectations are not being met, schedules are slipping,
costs are increasing, data is not being kept up to date, overtime is
increasing, risks are not being tracked or mitigated, the government is not
being kept informed, requirements are changing but the program isn't, the
budget is changing but the program planning isn't, the goals being pursued
are not those in the SOO, action items are growing faster than they are being
closed--there may be a problem. It is time for a "tune up" or
problem-solving session to get things back on track. Even if there are no
obvious signs of a problem and the metrics look "OK," it is still a
good idea to periodically stop and assess the health of the relationship. To
determine if the partnership is working, the questionnaire in Appendix B
(based on worksheets from a couple of different Army organizations) should be
completed by all participants at the periodic training sessions or partnering
workshops throughout the project. Any negative responses indicate problem
areas that need additional effort. What to Do if It
Isn't Working with the Contractor When the government insight
is perceived to be ineffective, or program risks are not being managed, and
the partnering arrangement between the program office and the contractor is
in serious difficulty, the government program manager should advise the user
that the government is planning to implement (or increase) oversight.
Following notification of the user and stakeholders on the integrating-level
team, the government program manager should inform the contractor's senior
management that one or more serious problems exist, that the relationship has
deteriorated to the point where the "normal" level of government
involvement is not working, and that he or she intends to increase government
insight (or oversight. The government program manager should attempt to resolve
the difficulties before proceeding with further actions. If a significant
change has not occurred within 30 days, the government program manager should
implement increased oversight, which may involve: An increased government presence
in the contractor's plant The use of an external "red
team" to review the program Expertise provided to assist the
contractor in critical areas Formal meetings to track
performance More cost and schedule metrics Formal correspondence
should be sent to the contractor's parent organization advising them that
increased oversight is being implemented and the next steps to be followed if
this effort is not successful in resolving the problems and restoring the
relationship. The government program manager should schedule a formal review
with contractor senior management within three months of starting the
increased oversight (or within three months since the last formal review) to
determine (with the user) if the government should return to the
"normal" level of oversight; continue the increased level of
oversight, or begin reviewing the program for termination. The contractor
should be advised of any such decisions by the integrating-level team within
a week following completion of the review. The meeting should
result in a decision to continue the program with the present level of
increased oversight, continue the program with government oversight above the
program office level, or terminate the program. If the government team
decides to initiate termination proceedings, a "show cause" letter
is sent to the contractor, progress payments are stopped, and "stop
work" orders for portions of the work are issued. Although it is
possible to restructure the program after the termination proceedings begin,
the process is usually very lengthy and expensive. What to Do if It
Isn't Working with the Government Stakeholders If teamwork begins to
deteriorate within a group, it may be necessary to conduct an additional
training workshop or to assign a facilitator to the group. If stakeholder
issues can't be resolved at the program level, they should be elevated to the
program manager and the integrating-level team for resolution. For example,
issues might be the introduction of unfunded requirements or refusal to
compromise on requirements in the trade space. Many of these are coordination
issues within the stakeholder's organization and may require the development
of a single position from the stakeholder's headquarters. Some may involve
personnel or assignment changes if the individuals involved cannot work with
the team. Most of the unresolved program-level issues should be resolved at
the integrating-level team. If an issue involves an alteration of the
Acquisition Program Baseline in terms of performance, cost, or schedule
requirements, it may be necessary to convene the team to resolve the problem.
Partnering on a
government multiple award Task or Delivery order contract can be similar to a
manufacturer-supplier relationship in industry. However, the typical research
and development contract involves the competitive selection of a single
contractor who works with the government stakeholders to produce a system.
The incentives discussed here are for a typical development contract and not
a task or delivery order arrangement. The positive
incentives for partnering are not part of the contract and not really part of
the partnering charter for the program. If the partnership results in the
delivery of a successful program, most of the major stakeholders in the
program will be bathed in the light of this success. The successful
representatives of each participating organization are usually rewarded by
their respective organizations, which may include cash bonuses, medals,
promotions, plaques, dinners, better work, newspaper articles, and peer
recognition of the success. The type of recognition depends upon the
organization (MITRE, military, civil service, user, contractor, test
organization, etc.), but it will come. In a failed
partnership, everybody loses. The end product fails to materialize or is a
scaled-down version of the intended product because the funding wasted on
unsuccessful efforts and the restructuring activity is rarely restored. The
unsuccessful representatives of each participating organization are usually "punished"
by their respective organizations, which may include transfers, terminations,
demotions, poor work, and peer recognition of the failure. This type of
recognition too, depends upon the organization, but it will also come. Thus, the future of
the major players in the program (and their subordinates) is tied to the
success or failure of the program. The program success is usually the
strongest available incentive to making the partnership work. Reductions in budgets,
rapid changes in technology, pressure to field systems more rapidly, public
and congressional pressure for the use of commercial products and standards,
pressure to achieve interoperable systems among the services, and the program
delays caused by adversarial relationships and claims have caused us to
question how we conduct business with our customers and suppliers. With the changes
taking place in our environment, we cannot continue with "business as
usual." By working in a collaborative fashion we can reduce the energy
loss due to friction. Although collaboration may take a little longer at the
beginning of a program, the remaining energy can be directed jointly and
efficiently to produce "better, faster, cheaper, smoother" programs
in today's environment. Since it is legal, encouraged, and it makes sense,
the NIKE slogan is appropriate--"Just Do It." Appendix A: Recommended Contract Clauses (Section
H) H.1 Partnering
Workshop Within thirty days
after Contract Award, the Contractor shall host a "Partnering"
workshop at an off-site facility. The contractor shall provide a
third-party facilitator to conduct the workshop. The contractor attendees
shall include senior agency management, the program manager, the program
manager's direct reports, designated system level senior members, and key
subcontractor management personnel assigned to the program. The Government
personnel will include senior user personnel and supporting command personnel
in addition to the Government program manager and his/her key staff, key
support contractor personnel, senior government on-site representatives, and
any designated system level leaders. The Government complement will not
exceed (n) personnel. The workshop shall consider the following topics as a
minimum: §
Commitment of user, acquisition agency, and contractor senior
management to the success of the project and alternatives available if
relationships deteriorate at the program management level on the program; §
Statement of user, program office, and contractor interests and the
creation of a written set of mutual program goals; §
Establishment of an approach to assure a common understanding of the
requirements and the clarification of second and third tier requirements
[contractor Concept of Operations briefings, prototyping, mission profile
scenarios, etc.] §
Establishment of personal communications and steps to build mutual
trust and respect; §
The development of joint strategies for implementing mutual goals
(consider using the IMP as a starting point); §
The identification of potential program problems, strengths,
weaknesses, and risks(consider source selection debriefing material for the
winning contractor and the program risk matrix for the Government perspective
and solicit the contractor's perspective for the same items) §
The establishment of rapid and effective joint problem-solving
mechanisms; §
The establishment of a set of methods to measure the relationship; §
A plan for the conduct of follow-up workshops for senior personnel at
six-month intervals over the life of the contract H.2 Team Building
Workshop After the conduct of
the "partnering" workshop and within ninety days after Contract
Award, the Contractor shall host a working level "Team Building"
workshop at an off-site facility. The contractor shall provide a
third-party facilitator to conduct the workshop. The contractor attendees
shall include all contractor and subcontractor members and the contractor's
program manager. The Government personnel will include all Government and
support contractor team members and the Government program manager. A
separate session shall be held for each team. The workshop shall consider the
following topics as a minimum: §
Statement of commitment to the program by the contractor and
government program managers and the senior user representative and guidelines
for the conduct of the teams; §
Statement of the written set of mutual program goals agreed upon at
the partnering workshop; §
Establishment of a subordinate set of mutual team goals; §
Establishment of personal communications and steps to build mutual
trust and respect; §
The development of joint strategies for implementing mutual team goals
(consider using the IMP as a starting point); §
The identification of potential subsystem problems, strengths,
weaknesses, and risks(consider material from partnering workshop as a
starting point) §
The establishment of rapid and effective joint problem-solving
mechanisms; §
The conduct of team building exercises; §
A plan for the conduct of follow-up workshops for team personnel at
six-month intervals over the life of the contract Appendix B: "Is It Working?"
Questionnaire To determine whether
the partnership is working well, answer the following questions. A negative
answer indicates an area that must be improved in order to maximize the
benefits of partnering. §
Are the partners sharing one or more common goals? §
Are each partner's expectations clearly stated initially? §
Are the partners' actions consistent and reliable? §
Is there a real willingness from each partner to make the necessary
commitment to the partnership in terms of time and energy? §
Are the partners accountable to each other for their actions? §
Do the partners understand and respect each other's responsibilities
as well as honest differences between them? §
Is the partnership achieving synergy (the whole is greater than the
sum of the parts)? §
Does each partner expect excellence from the other and give it in
return? §
Has communication among the partners been better than
"typical" projects? §
Has communication among partners been open, honest, and free-flowing? §
Have concerns and problems been acknowledged at first sign? §
Once recognized, have concerns and problems been dealt with quickly
and directly? §
Have the techniques and methods developed for problem-solving and
evaluation been helpful and productive? §
Has cooperation among the partners characterized all phases of the
work? §
When issues are raised is each partner's response noticeably better
than on "typical" projects? §
Do partners respond as a team when issues are raised? §
Is this project moving along noticeably more smoothly than similar
projects? §
Were team members who joined the team after the project was started
effectively integrated into the partnership? §
Has the team constructed a quality product, on time and under budget? §
Has the team succeeded in developing a mutual, trusting and
cooperative relationship during the project? §
Has the user received a meaningful operational capability and has the
contractor received a fair and reasonable profit? Michael J. Bloom works in the Systems Engineering
Process Office of the MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts. Contact Philip Crump
at (505) 989-8558 or Contact
me by email! Return to About Commercial & Construction
Mediation |
|
|