PARTNERING: BUILDING A STRONGER DESIGN TEAM

By Richard G. Weingardt,1 Fellow, ASCE

ABSTRACT: Dramatic changes are revolutionizing the building process, but a big question remains: "Who getsto be the prime designer?" Consulting engineers and architects are still trying to find a satisfactory answer.Until recently, architects were traditionally the lead designers on all "people" buildings-e.g., health-care,educational, office, residential, and public facilities. Considering themselves "master builders" responsible forthe whole building process, architects relied on consulting engineers to make their aesthetic "master works"functional. Consulting engineers often took a back seat, hidden from public view, except when designing powerplants, water treatment facilities, infrastructure, and other civil projects. That's all beginning to change now. Intoday's sophisticated people buildings, an "aesthetic statement" can no longer be the top priority. Buildingsmust be engineered to be energy-efficient and cost-efficient and cost-effective as much as they need to bedesigned to look good, fit their sites, and blend harmoniously with their surroundings. With increased demandfor multiple-use, environmentally sensitive, people-accessible, andlor"intelligent" buildings, more engineers areassuming the lead design role as catalysts in the problem-solving process. This is especially true when refinedengineering systems comprise a major part of the work-manufacturing plants, warehouses, and parkinggarages-or when an engineer's expertise for project management is obviously the strongest. This is not nec­essarily a design competition between architects and engineers, but a nurturing of broader partnerships betweenmajor players of the building design equation: "partnering" or "teaming" as a means to meet complex designneeds.

INTRODUCTION

In view of changing roles and responsibilities within theruction industry and the emerging importance of stronger de­sign teams, a new era of cooperation and collaboration is tak­ing shape across America.

The American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) andthe American Institute of Architects (AlA) are working to­gether to advance each other's common causes through a part­nering agreement reached in 1993. "A Call for Action: AlAIACEC Joint Statement of Mutual Goals" aims to resolve dif­ferences that divided the two professions and, subsequently,diminished their traditional ability to lead the construction pro­cess. To improve their business environment, professional ca­pabilities, and economic vitality of both memberships, the twoorganizations agreed to:

• Improve communications between the organizations, theirmembers, and the public

• Enhance the leadership of architects and engineers withinthe construction process

• Support increased use of qualifications-based selection(QBS) procedures for procurement of professional ser­vices

• Improve project quality and profitability• Establish a process for problem-solving at the national,

state, and local levels• Encourage joint ventures in continuing education related

to business practices• Enhance respect between architects and engineers and en­

courage an understanding of each discipline's professionalpractice

Subsequently, in 1994, ACEC, AlA, and the National So­ciety of Professional Engineers (NSPE) issued a statement ofinterprofessional cooperation recognizing: "Our common in-

'P.E., Pres., American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC), 101515th St., NW, Washington, DC 20005.

Note. Discussion open until November I, 1996. To extend the closingdate one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managerof Journals. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review andpossible publication on November 22, 1995. This paper is part of the}ourlUll of Architectural Engwerlng, Vol. 2, No.2, June. 1996.©ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431/96/0002-0049-0054/$4.00 + $.50 per page.Paper No. 12061.

terests in protecting the public health and safety by providingprofessional design services to the public. We represent dif­ferent professions responsible for the built environment andspecifically seek ways to work together to reduce conflictswithin the broader community. We oppose interprofessionaljurisdictional disputes between architects and engineers as be­ing counterproductive to the interests of the public and thedesign professions. We do not seek to impose specific solu­tions on state or local situations but stand ready to help me­diate in instances where we can be helpfuL"

WHAT IS PARTNERING?

"The essence of partnering," according to former GeneralHenry Hatch of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "is pro­moting a cooperative attitude and the active pursuit of com­mon goals by all parties involved."

ACEC and AlA define partnering as: "A way of doing busi­ness that helps the providers and recipients of services worktogether to achieve both their mutual goals and objectives."Partnering fosters new attitudes to help both professions pro­vide better value to their clients and meet demanding chal­lenges in the current business climate and global marketplace.Economic, technological, and legal considerations make eachdesign project more challenging to complete on time, withinbudget, and to client satisfaction.

ACEC supports an open-market concept 'whereby the clientselects the best qualified prime designer. We cannot afford touse professional licensing laws as a device to carve up poten­tial markets. Consulting engineers and architects are both li­censed as professionals to protect the public welfare, health,and safety, and we are expected to deliver the highest qualitydesign possible.

ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS BOTH WIN IF WE MENDFENCES, MESH TALENTS

The two professions have always been partners in the build­ing process, but we have not always worked together in har­mony. As a professional engineer for the past 35 years, I havewitnessed firsthand the turf battles between architects and con­sulting engineers, and I think I understand how each one feels.Today, as dramatic changes are revolutionizing the buildingprocess, we need each other more than we are often willingto admit.

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1996/49

J. Archit. Eng. 1996.2:49-54.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

DA

YT

ON

, UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

on 0

6/07

/14.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

If consulting engineers and architects do not work cooper­atively, we run the risk of being hired by someone else assubcontractors and losing control of project design altogether.On the other hand, by banding together we bring the ultimatedesign and management expertise to the table, assuring ownersthat all aspects of the project-engineering, architecture, andthe proper execution of each in construction-receive equaland top-level attention.

RESOLVE TURF TIFFS, LEARN FROM EACH OTHER

AlA's 1995 president, Chester A. (Chet) Widom, SantaMonica, California urges that we: "Forget the turf wars, theconflicting claims of the architect, project manager, owner, en­gineer, contractor, or subcontractor, to be the leader. We're notan accidental collection of warring cells-that's what a cancerlooks like. We must become, by necessity, a mutually suppor­tive, collaborative industry. In this complex society, no singleone of us has the knowledge to do it all. Will there be disa­greements? Of course. But they are, in reality, only a smallelement of our relationship. We must agree to disagree on that5 or 10 percent and then get on with the 90 or 95 percent ofthe issues that relate to our common good."

"We can learn from each other," says consulting engineerGeorge Dunham, Rapid City, South Dakota, past chair ofACEC's Interprofessional Committee and head of a multidis­cipline engineering company. To strengthen ties between thedesign professions, he explains, "We are encouraging liaisonsbetween AlA and ACEC at the local and state levels, as wellas nationally. We believe problems continue because peopledon't sit down and negotiate resolutions."

San Diego engineer-architect Joseph Paoluccio, chief ex­ecutive office (CEO) of PWNA, underscores the need for bothsides to communicate "at a written and oral level, more oftenand better." Consulting engineers and architects must be in­volved in the planning process together, "not from the stand­point of the architect doing a design and the engineer makingit work. It has to be a symbiotic relationship," Paoluccio adds.Mechanical engineers should meet with the owners to under­stand their needs. Architects leading the project must tell theirclient; "If you have humidity-control problems, I'd like youto meet my engineer."

"Wonder teams" of architects and consulting engineers en­joyed a more symbiotic relationship back in the 1950s and1960s, Paoluccio recalls. The building process became morecomplex as more developers entered the picture, paving theway for larger contracting firms to take charge. "Design-buildallowed architects to move from responsibility for what weused to think of as traditional practice," he explains. "Theengineer was pushed out and had to find new markets." Also,demanding clients armed with masters of business administra­tion (MBAs), but less sensitive to the built environment, beganto participate in the process to watch the bottom line moreclosely.

"The traditional team approach built up over decades andflourished until a number of years ago," notes consulting en­gineer Lois Roberts of Westport, Connecticut. "The architectunderstood consulting engineers enough to make it work­and vice versa. Then the team started to unbundle. Engineersclaim that architects who were the leads abandoned their re­sponsibility to others on the team, so engineers went after jobson their own to strike better deals."

Whatever happened, engineers continue to complain that ar­chitects, as lead designers, land their jobs via the preferredQBS method and then select subconsultants (usually consult­ing engineers) by low bid. To an engineer's way of thinking,this defeats the purpose of supporting QBS, which has beenendorsed by both professions as a means of delivering top-

50 I JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING I JUNE 1996

quality design and performance. Both professions suffer aslong as the public perceives architects and engineers as ad­versaries embroiled in petty bickering.

Although both professions are guilty of turf-guarding andego-stretching practices, "the real problem is that everyone issemi-responsible," observes Philadelphia architect Susan A.Maxman, who in 1993 served as AlA's first woman president."It starts with our education. In architecture schools, we'renot trained to think about collaboration with other disci­plines." Adding that engineers, too, have been "brainwashedinto inflexibility," Maxman suggests that engineering schoolsorient students toward architectural considerations. "We needto better understand each other's values," she adds.

What's the real difference between architects and consultingengineers, anyway? One civil engineering principal admits thathe perceives architects as problem finders and engineers asproblem solvers. While engineers tend to be linear thinkerswho run things more like a business, he observed that archi­tects were more devoted to their art, which frustrates bothparties.

"Vive Ie difference!" some might say. We should point tothe strengths of each discipline. But that brings us to the ques­tion: "Who gets to be the prime designer? Who takes thelead?"

"Design lead depends on the project and the contractualarrangement," Maxman points out. "I do feel the architect isthe one who should lead the team in a largely architecturalproject. We are the generalists who have to coordinate andbalance every part of the project-landscape architects, me­chanical engineer, electrical, and structural ... But if the ar­chitect and the engineer are doing their jobs in balance, you'llhave a well-coordinated, beautiful project."

Echoing Maxman's sentiments, Paoluccio supports the ar­chitect as prime on public buildings that are "high-profile ar­chitecturally." He suggests that we drop the term "consultingengineers" and become "prime engineers" responsible forrepresenting the owner and hiring the architect. "The largerfirms are doing that almost exclusively and they see no barriersat all," he adds.

Of course, legal requirements can also determine who takesthe lead. Yet, many projects have gray areas that make it dif­ficult to distinguish between "engineering-heavy" and "ar­chitectural-heavy." Such situations exacerbate disagreementsbetween architects and consulting engineers. In most cases,"engineers practice within a single discipline," argues Phila­delphia architect Paul Bott, whereas architects are trained toview design from a much broader perspective, looking at andintegrating all disciplines into the whole.

Yet, value engineering studies suggest that more consultingengineers should be the prime designers, or at least play amore prominent role on the architect's team. Increased use ofthe professional who designed the building's structural, elec­trical, or mechanical systems will decrease the likelihood oflitigation. Stronger partnering and total quality management(TQM) concepts result in longer-lasting buildings and moresatisfied clients, owners, and users.

To build successful teamwork, both professions must re­solve their turf tiffs, reach out to each other and to the public,and jump on the partnering bandwagon. Through partnering,architects and consulting engineers can share ideas better, im­prove communications, and grow stronger together technically,professionally, and personally. In addition, partnering offersthe client the benefit of unbiased design and relieves designprofessionals of having to make compromises with contrac­tors.

In recent years, the two professions have made significantstrides toward attaining mutual respect and understanding. Yet,many architects still believe they must head the design teams

J. Archit. Eng. 1996.2:49-54.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

DA

YT

ON

, UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

on 0

6/07

/14.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

and select their own engineers; some architects maintain theirseal should be the only one valid on the drawings. For obviousreasons, many consulting engineers do not believe this ar­rangement always serves the best interests of the client or thebuilding users. Once again, our concern focuses on our in­vestment in the QBS concept, as well as potential turf battlesthat harm both sides.

NEW TRENDS: WORKING DIRECTLY WITH OWNERS

We are now observing a trend that goes beyond QBS inwhich consulting engineers are contracting directly with own·ers rather than with architects. Among its features are:

• The increased importance and portion of people-spacebuilding design that is, in essence, engineering

• Management tactics such as slow payment (e.g., use ofthe consultant's money) long after the owner has paid

• Unrealistic budgets and schedules and the resistance ofusing consulting engineers to observe construction of thesystems they designed

• Reluctance to credit the contributions of consultants whena project's uniqueness may be an engineering feat

As more consulting engineers are sitting in the driver's seatand taking more control of building projects, we hear morecomplaints from architects that engineers lack design sensitiv­ity, are inflexible, can not articulate designs, and offer littlehelp in obtaining the project's commission. We can fix thesemanagement problems by simply working together.

It is important to understand that many forces outside ourprofessions-political, social, economic, demographic-willshape the future of architecture and engineering. For example,in design-build projects, today's management team may noteven include either architects or consulting engineers. In somenew project delivery systems, the prime may be a constructioncontractor or construction manager. Furthermore, many teamsare more complex and multidisciplinary; they may include so­cial scientists, environmentalists, or economists, according toAlbert A. Dorman, chairman of the architecture/consulting en­gineering firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, Los An­geles.

Dorman maintains that a project manager's discipline is notimportant. "If you are a good project manager, independent,with the ability to lead a team and make a project succeed,then you should do it, no matter what your professional dis­cipline," he stresses. This kind of flexibility may appeal toboth sides, as long as architects or consulting engineers are incharge. But today, many owners may not trust design profes­sionals as team leaders. "They're scanning the team to seewho emerges as the leader," says Roberts.

As our competitive market changes each day, it is moreimportant now than ever before for architects and engineers towork together as partners-both on a profession-wide scaleand on a project-by-project basis.

PARTNERING MUST BE PART OF OUR FUTURE

In his inaugural address as AlA president, Widom (1995)observed: "A funny thing happened on the way to the 21stcentury-partnering." He stated: "American business discov­ered W. Edwards Deming, and TQM became more than justa buzzword: It became a way of thinking in those businessesthat had a commitment to success." As clients began scruti­nizing architects more closely, Widom realized the importanceof partnering in rebuilding the owner/contractor/architectlen­gineer relationship. Partnering must be part of our future if weshare the commitment to success that is driving our clients, headds.

Widom observes that collaborative leadership is not onlyapplicable to our individual practices, it works equally well inour relationship with our partners in the construction industryand in the AlA itself. "Individually, we must always be onthe lookout for new forms of practice that encourage collab­orative leadership among the full spectrum of architects withinindividual practices as well as among separate practices. Atthe same time," he adds, "the Institute has its own role toplay on our behalf collectively. The AlA must develop andnurture the concept of partnership among the design profes­sionals, the contractors, and all those other entities that are somuch a part of what we do today and what we will be doingtomorrow.' ,

"Partnering is more than a synonym for cooperation," ac­cording to the AlA. "It is a principle of leadership; Le., dif­ferent professionals take the lead at various times during theconstruction process. They are all, therefore, equal partners."

"The AlA and ACEC strongly support the concept of part­nering and the proactive role design professionals can play inthe process," according to their 1993 joint publication, A Pro­ject Partnering Guide for Design Professionals: Working To­gether to Ensure Effective Project Management Achieve Qual­ity Results (Kern 1993). "The benefits are clear: projects thatare completed on time, within budget, to high standards, andto the satisfaction of everyone."

For public projects, AlA and ACEC believe that successfulpartnering begins with the use of QBS. They also believe that:

• Partnering is a cooperative relationship between the pro­viders and recipients of a product in which a team attitudeis established and a successful outcome is achieved.

• Partnering does not establish or replace the legal or con­tractual relationship between the provider and recipient ofproducts and services.

• Partnering is a way of doing business that enhances thedesired project result within the legal or contractual re­lationship.

The 1993 ACEC-AIA guide, prepared by ACEC projectmanager Kern (1993), cite three key ingredients to successfulpartnering:

• A positive attitude that promotes commitment, trust, un­derstanding, and excellence

• Preparation that establishes clear expectations and mutualgoals and objectives

• Perseverance, in which partners commit to execution, re­sponsiveness, open communication, and feedback

For partnering to work, participants must:

• Undertake early preparation and education• Secure management commitment• Conduct a joint preproject workshop (or retreat) to create

a partnering charter• Establish regular, open communication• Conduct final evaluation and reach project closure

Partnering holds great promise for preventing disputes, em­phasize ACEC and AlA. However, because a partnering re­lationship is "extra-contractual," it cannot deal with risk al­location. All partners in a relationship must understand thatagreements reached on a particular project relate only to thatproject. Conscious efforts must be made to involve all stake­holders, even if it complicates the interaction and the protocolsestablished to manage it. Another important caveat: attitude iskey to partnering.

The practice of partnering has emerged as a project admin-

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1996/51

J. Archit. Eng. 1996.2:49-54.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

DA

YT

ON

, UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

on 0

6/07

/14.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

istration concept intended to restore the team rapport neededto deliver a project on time, within or below cost, at intendedquality levels, and free of unresolved claims, according toPhoenix consulting engineer Ewing (1992), former chair ofACEC's Quality Management Committee. In many ways, itplays directly into the construction industry's move towardTQM. Overall, partnering reinstates the respect, flexibility, andopen communications that characterized so much of the con­struction industry before the era of litigation, adds Ewing. "Itmay yet become the building industry's cornerstone for a re­incarnation of traditional values."

Partnering (or managing problems together) is based on theconcept that disputes stem from confrontational relationships.It is essentially a project-specific business plan incorporatinga process of constant improvement, problem solving (beforethe attorneys), and team building, explains Brasher (1995) ofthe Effectiveness Institute. He suggests five major ingredients(or players) for successful partnering: leaders, champions, vol­unteers, fringe players, and facilitators. Applied from top tobottom, this management/communications process addressesall of the issues with all of the players right from the start. Inaddition to reducing paperwork, partnering means faster de­liver, fewer arguments, and greater rewards.

Former ACEC President Paul Sprehe, director of mechani­caUelectrical engineering at HTB Inc., Oklahoma City, shedsmore light on partnering. "It is a form of teamwork in whichall members, although diverse in their viewpoints, agree intheir roles to give their best efforts to complete a project suc­cessfully for the user, who should also be a team member,"he explains. "The process is not meant to subvert the interestsof individual partners but to retain integrity and promote in­dividual efforts."

This brings up a potential downside to partnering, Sprehepoints out. Some members might see it as a threat to theirleadership, forcing them to relinquish their role or place in aconstruction project. "It's a matter of someone's ego beingstronger than the good of all," he adds. "Sometimes the leaderof a big firm is used to being the big boss at all times. Part­nering doesn't work unless all major players-the architect,engineer, general contractor, construction manager, key sub­contractors, consultants, client, user-buy into it. After all,"he notes, "one bad apple can spoil a bushel." Other thanbruised-ego problems, partnering has no economic, profes­sional, or liability disadvantages, according to Sprehe.

A small federal project at the HTB-designed Oklahoma CityAirport succeeded, Sprehe says, "because all partners, includ­ing the owner, bought into the team process-they underwenttraining together, managed the project carefully, and main­tained communication lines. When it was allover, they shookhands bearing no grudges and having no loose ends."

Partnering was just coming into vogue when Sprehe headedACEC in 1993. Now, he worries that it is "no longer a bigdeal," and enthusiasm for it is beginning to wane. Observingthat TQM seems to be losing its luster, he fears that somepeople might slip back into old habits when roles and respon­sibilities were more clearly defined. Citing the Corps of En­gineers as a strong proponent of partnering, Sprehe commendsthe Corps' continuous efforts to push this trend nationwide.

"Arguably, partnering is the hottest construction industrytrend of the 1990s," according to Partnering in Design andConstruction (Godfrey 1995). In the introduction, Godfrey, ofthe Institute of Management & Administration Inc. (IOMA),explains that partnering can refer to many different relation­ships, including: single-project partnering; multiproject, stra­tegic partnering between a contractor (or prime designer) anda client; and several nontraditional approaches of the "we area family" idea at the heart of partnering.

"Partnering between contractors and private clients is as old

52/ JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1996

as construction itself" (Godfrey 1995). The lOD-year-old Cin­cinnati construction firm Al Neyer attributes its success in sin­gle-project partnering to its "client-first" attitude, accordingto President Don Neyer. "If you serve your clients' best in­terests, you'll create a friend. They'll come back to you whenthey need to build."

CASE STUDIES: SUCCESSFUL PARTNERINGPROJECTS

In single-project partnering with public clients, constructionchief Dan Burns of the Corps of Engineers recalls: "Wewanted to clear the [emotional, human-relations] decks so pro­ject problems could be addressed." If the Corps could trans­form each person from an individual to a member of the team,he notes, "it stood to benefit from . .. better answers, lessdefensiveness." Burns adds that partnering can make workmore satisfying. "Before, it there was a problem, a personwould say, 'I've got a problem-got to solve it myself.' To­day, if anyone on the team has a problem, it's everyone'sproblem."

Remarkable success stories are outlined through case his­tories illustrating various ways of partnering. For example, a$4,000,000 tieback contract on the Bonneville Lock project onthe Columbia River is among the smaller jobs on which part­nering has been applied, according to Godfrey (1995). Theproject's subcontractor, Donald B. Murphy Contractor of Fed­eral Way, Washington, admits that partnering on this job notonly saved his company, but also changed his attitude towardwork and business. While his firm lost money on the Bonne­ville contract, Murphy claims its partnering attitude has paidoff at the bottom line. "Successful negotiations and early pay­ment of equitable adjustments has improved the firm's liquid­ity 50%," he says. "Sales have risen 40%, and margins areup 10% despite increased competition."

Another case study shows how a contractor once labeled a"claims contractor" was converted to partnering. After filingdozens of claims on a Corps of Engineers military job, MCIConstruction of Woodbridge, Virginia, was terminated for con­venience by the owner. Subsequently, MCI President ClementMitchell met with Col. Richard Sliwoski of the Corps, the twohit it off, and MCl's business approach was transfored fromconfrontational to partnering. As a result, the two agreed towork together as a cohesive team to produce a qualityproject-a Fort Dix (New Jersey) wastewater project-in ac­cordance with the contract, on time, within budget, and safely,while enabling the contractor to earn a fair profit. "Membersof the partnering team agreed to deal with each other in a fair,open, trusting, and professional manner," Godfrey (1995) re­ports. "In that spirit, they agreed to communicate openly, re­solve problems, and make decisions at the lowest level pos­sible."

Can architects use partnering as a vehicle for "getting backon the construction site?" Yes, suggests Denver architectBradburn (1995). He describes how partnering transformed theconstruction of Washington State's Natural Resources Agen­cies Building in Olympia.

The project had reached a point where all parties-theowner, the constructor, and the architect-felt disenfran­chised from the process and powerless. The constructor wasclaiming he was incurring extra costs, for which he wantedreimbursement. The owner felt that the economic value ofthe project was declining due to threatened claims. The ar­chitects felt powerless to force the contractor to respect thedesign intent. Then they tried partnering. The results werespectacular. After the initial sessions and buy-ins, commu­nications returned, solutions (rather than defensive postur­ing) were promoted, and the sticky issues of cost overruns,

J. Archit. Eng. 1996.2:49-54.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

DA

YT

ON

, UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

on 0

6/07

/14.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

budget, schedule, and maintaining design intent weresolved to mutual satisfaction (Bradburn 1995).

"The process was hard. It required strong commitments byall the parties and reinforced the need for the architects to takea strong and useful role in solving construction-related prob­lems. Today, the Natural Resources Agency Building is anaward-winning building, viewed with pride by all the partici­pants in the process of its design and construction" (Bradburn1995).

Partnering in Design and Construction (Godfrey 1995) ex­amines the many ways that partnering helps a project. It seemsto help expedite the project schedule more than helping anyother measure, Godfrey reports. For example, on a $9,600,000city sewage-plant upgrade in the Dallas suburb of Garland,Texas, general contractor Martin K. Eby Construction Com­pany of Fort Worth was able to finish the 18-month job in 15months-a 16% time savings. The early completion resultedlargely because the three key parties-the contractor (Eby),the owner (the city of Garland), and the engineer (Black &Veatch)-had become teammates.

Other parties may agree that partnering helps constructionsafety more than any other aspect, says Godfrey (1995). Forinstance, on the construction of a sewage-treatment-plant ad­dition in Clark County, Nevada, the owner-contractor-engineerteam exceeded its extremely aggressive safety goals: 300,000h of field labor with zero lost-time accidents, Godfrey reports.In another safety success story, Colorado steel-erection con­tractors teamed together with the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) in a win-win deal to slash ac­cidents and workers' compensation premiums by almost one­half, according to construction management consultant SteveMiller of Thornton, Colorado. Other advantages to partneringare:

• Project budgets are controlled better, according to resultsof a 1993 national survey on the impact of partnering onmore than 100 projects, as reported by Lou Bainbridge ofPMI Corporation, Denver.

• Better decisions are made on partnered jobs largely be­cause of coworker empowerment and structured issues es­calation.

When the Associated General Contractors (AGC) awardedits first Marvin M. Black Excellence in Partnering Awards in1993, the eight recipients were asked: "How can partneringbe improved on your next project?" They replied almost unan­imously: "Be more inclusive." Other tips for successful part­nering are:

• Start partnering at the beginning of the design process.• Invite key subcontractors, superintendents, foremen, and

rank-and-file coworkers to participate.• Include process parties not yet on board at the time of a

preproject partnering retreat.

A number of successful, high-profile projects have involvedpartnering by design giants like Hellmuth, Obata & Kassa­baum (HOK), the St. Louis-based architecture, engineering,interiors, planning, graphics, consulting firm. For example, apartnering strategy is paying off in the new 1,700,000 sq fthome of the National Archives and Records Administration inCollege Park, Maryland, in which HOK's Washington officeformed strong bonds with the General Services Administration(GSA), the National Archives, and other members of the de­sign and construction team, including the construction qualitymanager (CQM), Gibrane Building Company, and the maincontractor, George Hyman Construction Company, Bethesda,

Maryland. As a result, the sprawling suburban project is: "Hit­ting most safety, budget, time, public-image, and zero-litiga­tion goals set at a kickoff meeting attended by Archivist ofthe United States Don M. Wilson and chief executives of thefirms involved," Ichniowski (1992). With no claims on themain $139,000,000 contract, "the project is going very well,"ENR (lchniowski 1992) quotes James C. Megronigle, assistantarchitects for management and administration. Dubbed Ar­chives II, the world's largest archival facility-half the sizeof the Pentagon-provides a climate-controlled environmentfor 766,000 cu ft of materials.

"Partnering has become a buzzword with positive yet hazyconnotations," says Walsh (1995). "But before the conceptwas popular-and without knowing what the word meant­the Archives II building team did it successfully. Now itsmembers are lecturing industry groups on the concept."

HOK is also involved in a partnering effort on the Scott M.Matheson Courthouse Complex in downtown Salt Lake City.Ground was just broken August 10, 1995 on this 418,000 sqft facility, which is being designed and constructed by the teamof MHTN Architects of Salt Lake City, HOK's San Franciscooffice, and Big D Construction of Odgen, Utah. The client isthe State of Utah Division of Facilities Construction and Man­agement. One of the remarkable facts about this facility is thatit is being built at a construction cost of $133/GSF, which issignificantly less than comparable facilities nationwide, ac­cording to Jamie Gagliarducci of HOK, St. Louis. "I wouldimaging that the partnering efforts contributed to this accom­plishment."

Partnering with engineers has really paid off for Philadel­phia-based Susan Maxman Architects. Although the small firmhas no formal team-building process, explains President Max­man, "we keep an open attitude-it's just the way we work!Getting input from engineers right from the start-even beforethe onset-is incredibly useful and creates a smoother pro­cess," she says. For example, working on a tight schedule,Maxman's firm pulled in consulting engineers very early inthe design process of its $14,000,000 renovation of an aca­demic/dormitory complex at Kutztown (Pennsylvania) StateUniversity. Using computer-aided design (CAD) while work­ing closely with the engineers, the design team was able toweave an all-new energy-efficient system into a late 19th-cen­tury structure "without intruding on its historic character."The mechanical and electrical engineers helped figure out verydifficult fire-protection, heating, and cooling needs. "Workingtogether as a team produces good results," Maxman adds,"keeping us on schedule and within budget."

By blending our creativity and talent, architects and con­sulting engineers will be able to function in partnerships thatconsistently satisfy client expectations, schedules, and budgets.Through cooperation, mutual respect, and a shared commit­ment to problem solving, today's design team will be able tochart new standards of excellence for the design professions.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

Apelt, B. (1995). "A dream team." American consulting engineer, Am.Consulting Engrs. Council, Washington, D.C.

Bradburn, J. (1995). "Can architects return to the construction site viapartnering?" Partnering in design and construction. McGraw-HillBook Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.

Brasher, T. (1995). Consulting engineer international. Int. Federation ofConsulting Engrs.• London, England.

Ewing. R. (1992). "Partnering procedures aim to avert litigation." Amer­ican consulting engineer, Am. Consulting Engrs. Council, Washington,D.C.

Godfrey, K. (1995). Partnering in design and construction. McGraw-HillBook Co., Inc.• New York, N.Y.

Ichniowski, T. (1992). ENR, (Aug. 2).

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1996 / 53

J. Archit. Eng. 1996.2:49-54.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

DA

YT

ON

, UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

on 0

6/07

/14.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Kern, T. (1993). A project partnering guide for design professionals:working together to ensure effective project management achieve qual­ity results. Am. Consulting Engrs. Council and Am. Inst. of Architects,Washington D.C.

Walsh, M. B. (1995). Building design & construction. Cahners PublishingCo., Des Plaines, m.

54/ JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING / JUNE 1996

Weingardt, R. (1994). "Building a better design team." Civ. Engrg. News.Widom, C. (1995a). "A funny thing happened on the way to the 21st

century: partnering." Constructor, Associated General Contractors ofAmerica, Washington, D.C.

Widom, C. (l995b). "Defining leadership,''' A/Architect, Am. Inst. ofArchitects, Washington, D.C.

J. Archit. Eng. 1996.2:49-54.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

DA

YT

ON

, UN

IVE

RSI

TY

OF

on 0

6/07

/14.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.