A Strategy for Issue Resolution on Mega Projects
Quick, efficient decision-making on construction projects is key to minimizing cost and schedule. To facilitate this process, we establish dispute resolution ladders as a best practice in Partnering. These ladders identify counterparts between the contracting parties (for example the owner and the contractor) starting at the lowest levels in the organization — the field — to the highest. Another best practice is to establish target resolution times — typically from 24 hours to 2-3 weeks, depending on the level. This clear delineation of decision-makers empowers the team to resolve issues if they can and elevate issues when needed. When used effectively, the dispute resolution ladder helps teams keep issues from languishing and turning into moldy oldies that impact momentum and morale.
Mega projects, such as a multi-billion-dollar transit project, have multiple teams working concurrently on multiple scopes of work, requiring hundreds of decisions each day. Successful project implementation may require more than a simple dispute resolution ladder with one person at each level to support the pace of decision-making required. For mega projects, we have helped teams develop an expanded (and detailed) Dispute Resolution Ladder that identifies counterparts for certain scopes of work at Levels I and II (field and management levels), and transitions to a single point of contact for senior leadership and executives (Levels III, IV and V in the sample “zipper” used by a transit mega project team below). To streamline implementation, use the seven guidelines provided below.
Guidelines for Zipper Implementation on a Mega Project
1. Remember It Takes a Village. Mega projects take hundreds of people for planning, design, construction and commissioning. Control freaks beware – delegation is essential because centralization of all decision-making will literally stall the project and result in higher costs, longer schedules, and poor team morale. Success requires establishing clear expectations about roles, responsibilities, and authority for work areas by name and counterparts.
2. Establish a Framework. Clearly communicate the process and authority levels (cost, schedule, and functional elements) with the team. Include guidance on when team members should coordinate with other departments, experts, or leadership before making commitments. Consider establishing checkpoints that require immediate elevation (such as potential dollar values, schedule impacts, or safety, quality, or functional concerns). In the beginning, discuss potential solutions and share why you would choose one option over another. And better yet, demonstrate collaboration by conducting these learning sessions with your counterparts in the room!
3. Provide Extra Empowerment. Team members may require additional encouragement to learn that they are empowered and responsible for decision-making, deal-making, and solutions development in their assigned areas. For example, on a recent mega transit project, issues were stuck at Level I because teams held on to them until they could completely resolve the issue. Alternatively, Level I teams elevated issues prematurely. We held two focused Partnering sessions on zipper implementation and the Level III senior leadership (both contractor and owner) reinforced expectations that the Level I and Level II teams do what they could do expediently and efficiently resolve items (perhaps just the technical solutions) and immediately elevate issues or portions of issues (perhaps the business aspects) that they could not quickly solve. The leadership team emphasized the importance of moving undecided issues (or elements of issues) quickly to keep the Level I team focused and available for the new project demands of the current day.
4. Reinforce Behaviors with Escalation Meeting Structure. Maintain an Issues Log that identifies the counterparts responsible for resolution and have them jointly present status and sticking points at a regularly scheduled Level III elevation meeting. (Hint: many issues get resolved the day before the meeting.)
5. Create Durable Decisions. Avoid undoing decisions made by the team, even if they are different than you would have made. Durable decisions matter. Tolerate risks and mistakes because they will likely cost less in the long term than the cost of delayed decisions. Initially, people – even seasoned veterans – may lack confidence in their ability to resolve items. Help them trust (and build) their problem-solving skills by working with them individually and guiding them to solutions they can present to their counterparts.
6. Encourage Creativity. Provide an environment where your full team co-creates solutions by integrating diverse opinions and disciplines to take advantage of the creative wisdom of the group. Reward outside-the-box solutions that minimize cost, schedule, quality, safety, or operational impacts. Recognize and celebrate these creative solutions publicly.
7. Fix It. Inevitably, some decisions will require additional action or mid-course correction. New facts or events that become known after decisions will need integration. Just fix it, whatever it is, and appreciate your team for doing their best to solve a problem, even if it resulted in a suboptimal outcome. Remember, analysis paralysis often causes greater costs/delays than the corrective actions. Help your team recognize the lessons learned to minimize repeated occurrences and move on.
The bottom line: For a mega project, delegation of authority is a must. Successfully delegating decision-making requires a formal structure and process, along with an empowered team who knows that they will be supported for doing their best to keep the project moving.
Reach out if we can help you with your mega project decision-making structure.
Good luck!
~ Cinda
Cinda Bond, MIPI, has been an OrgMetrics partnering facilitator for more than 10 years. She has facilitated more than 500 sessions for teams throughout the country. She also collaborates with engineering and construction teams to develop large documents containing hundreds of pages for construction contracts and proposals.
For more information please contact Cinda Bond, CindaBond@Orgmet.com / (925)640-9007 (cell), or OrgMetrics RobReaugh@Orgmet.com / (925)449-8300.
Cinda Bond, MIPI, has been an OrgMetrics partnering facilitator for more than 10 years. She has facilitated more than 500 sessions for teams throughout the country. She also collaborates with engineering and construction teams to develop large documents containing hundreds of pages for construction contracts and proposals.