They haven't worked together for several years, but as soon as they walk into the room it is clear that Kevin Thomas (GlaxoSmithKline), Mark Perkins (SES Ltd – formerly with Haden Young), Roger Parker (Roger Parker Associates) and Jim Small (Wates Construction) are a team. In thirty seconds flat they separate the chairs – provided by the venue in rows – that the delegates have been struggling with. "We're a team!" they pronounce. "We can do anything!" And we all believe they can… we're hooked before the presentations even begin.
Kevin Thomas starts the workshop by describing the dilemma faced by GSK (then Glaxo Wellcome) in 1995. The pharmaceutical industry was under pressure to shorten product life cycles and keep up with technological and scientific developments in a rapidly evolving market place. This requires innovation, which in turn requires flexible and adaptable facilities. The industry's requirements are complex, and likely to change during the design and construction process – so their suppliers have to be flexible and willing to adapt to their needs as projects develop. Thomas compares GSK's needs with the reality he found in 1995 which was, among many things, cost focussed and inflexible (see box overleaf).
He realised that GSK's needs could be better met by the industry if they took a new approach to working with their suppliers. His vision was for an ethical and equitable approach to working that developed a rewarding environment: creating one team where people could contribute to their full potential and individual and corporate needs were satisfied. Based on his vision for a new way of working, Thomas developed Fusion – a set of values to turn his vision into practice. The Fusion values are fairness, unity, seamless, initiative, openness and no blame.
Adding value
Fairness means fair treatment and reward for all parties. In practice, this meant selecting the team on merit rather than lowest cost and appointing early so that everyone had an equal opportunity to contribute to the work. Profit was ring-fenced, then the team worked together to drive down costs. Internal pressures meant that a contract was needed – but once agreed, it was left in the drawer.
Unity refers to a single team with common aims and values, focused on delivery of clearly understood objectives. To achieve this meant adopting a task force approach, in which the team agreed goals and objectives and decided who would do what. To foster teamwork, all team members worked in one room.
Seamless means no barriers between team members. Partners in Fusion projects work across corporate boundaries and act on behalf of the team. This maximises capabilities and means roles can be allocated to the best suited team members. It also eliminates duplication – and with one budget, one programme and one team, no man-marking is needed.
Initiative means that everyone contributes to solutions, and decision-making is delegated to the person closest to the problem. In practice this meant that site operatives were encouraged to make design changes if they could see a better way of working, everyone was encouraged to question and challenge, and problems were treated as opportunities.
Many companies are keen to embrace the benefits that partnering and supply chain management have to offer, but selling the concept to others can be a challenge. BSj kicks-off the first in a series of articles on how to overcome the barriers to partnering.
Openness refers to honest and open communication between team members. Everyone was encouraged to share information, aspirations, strengths and weaknesses, and to explain why decisions were made.
No blame means just that. In a Fusion project, people trust that other team members are doing what they believe is best. Mistakes are welcomed and explored to share learning, and problems are resolved without recrimination. The focus is on preventing problems recurring.
Implementing Fusion
Apart from the values-led culture, two things set Fusion projects apart from traditional construction contracts. The first is the procurement process. In a traditional procurement process the client identifies the need for the work, appoints designers to develop a specification, then appoints a different team to carry out the work. Procurement is generally by lowest price, and inevitably leads to arguments over changes that occur during the design and construction process.
The Fusion approach tackles things differently. The client identifies the need for the work, but then appoints the whole team to help develop the specification and undertake the construction in parallel. This early involvement means that everyone understands the client's needs and can contribute fully to the project's development. It creates a team focused on the client's needs from the outset, which makes it possible to absorb changes as the work progresses.
The second difference is in the way decisions are made and communicated. By adopting a parallel design and construction approach, decisions are targeted to the needs of the installation programme rather than all being taken unnecessarily at the beginning. A project board made up of users, site specialists, company advisors and project managers works with an implementation team to manage the scope of the project, based on the client's evolving needs. The implementation team develops, implements and manages expectations. Close collaboration between the two groups ensures that the implementation plan meets the client's objectives, and that changes in scope are readily taken on board. Cost certainty is assured by everyone having access to a single project budget, which dynamically reflects decisions as they are made.
Fusion in practice
In 1995, Glaxo identified the need for a new laboratory and office building in Ware, Hertfordshire, to enable rationalisation of r&d functions following the merger of Glaxo with Wellcome. Kevin Thomas took the opportunity to put the Fusion principles into practice for the first time, and appointed partners including Wates Construction, Haden Young, and Roger Parker Associates.
The results speak for themselves (see right): all critical business deadlines were met, with the required relocation taking place in February/March 1997. A £3 million reduction in the initial estimate of works was achieved. Flexible and adaptable facilities were produced, which completely met the needs of the users and have continued to meet their changing needs. No claims or contractual correspondence were produced. The project resulted in about one twentieth of the normal level of paperwork. Getting it right first time saved some 15 000 man-hours and associated materials, and an estimated £3-4 million was saved in variations and claims. Final accounts (with no retention) were agreed before project completion, and all team partners made a profit.
Imagine working on a construction project in a culture of mutual support and encouragement, innovation and enjoyment. The client is delighted that all their needs are being met and everyone is making a profit. This isn’t a post-Egan pipedream. This was ac
Mark Perkins, who worked for Haden Young on the early Fusion project, remains a strong supporter of the approach. Traditionally, m&e contractors are seen as second tier and rarely get the opportunity to participate in partnering programmes. "Our initial reaction when we were invited to join the first Fusion project was shock, followed by disbelief", says Perkins. "Then we realised it was a challenge: an opportunity to put up or shut up."
Perkins found the approach different from any project he had worked on before. There was no man-marking, a single programme, and engineers were able to do engineering. People with ideas came to the forefront – site workers came up with innovations, and problems were faced up to because there was peer pressure to be honest when facing difficulties.
Having experienced this way of working and by feeling part of a team, staff were reluctant to return to traditional types of project. "The main problem at the end of the project was keeping staff happy", says Perkins. "Unfortunately there are not many jobs like this around."
The commissioning manager's role is to advance an installation from static completion to an operational state. Roger Parker finds the reality rather different. "In practice we have to drag an installation, in varying stages of incompletion, through to an operational state as close to the design intent as possible – with the minimum of information and co-operation."
One of the reasons for the gap between theory and practice is that commissioning managers are usually appointed late in a project – often when it has all gone wrong. On the Ware project, at the recommendation of the principal partners, Parker was appointed six months into a two-year project. Appointment usually involves two or three months of negotiation and a mountain of paperwork. On the Fusion project, the appointment was made by e-mail and Parker started work the next week. A method of payment was agreed before he started work, with no reference to a contract (although for due diligence this was subsequently confirmed with a purchase order).
When Parker joined the project, he found the whole team on site, including the architect, and received a warm welcome – very unusual for a commissioning manager. Roger found the whole experience refreshing. An integrated commissioning programme was agreed early on, which meant that problems were identified sooner. The focus was on value rather than cost cutting, and although more was spent ironing out problems than the budget originally allowed for, the problems were solved before they caused more unnecessary costs later.
The contractor's perspective
Although they had not worked together before, Wates and Glaxo Wellcome shared a common vision for the construction industry and had built a relationship through regular meetings. Wates created an action plan:
- Give extraordinary value to owners and customers.
- Make Wates the best place to work in the industry.
- Base communications on trust and openness.
- Base responsibility deep within the company.
- Give staff the freedom to take initiatives in a no blame culture.
Wates was selected to join the Fusion team because of the values it shared with Glaxo Wellcome, and because of its commitment to teamworking. They were invited to produce a cost plan in which their profit was set aside.
Like the other Fusion team members, Jim Small found the whole approach refreshing. He particularly liked the shared office, which enabled all the partners to develop face-to-face relationships. Daily meetings were held over breakfast to discuss how the project was progressing, and because of the no blame culture people felt able to own up when things had gone wrong. A great deal of trust developed throughout the project team, led by Glaxo Wellcome – who demonstrated trust by undertaking to settle invoices within fourteen days provided this was pushed down throughout the entire supply chain.
Small comments: "The main reason for the success of this job was a cultural shift by the project participants. The team understood that there was a need for them to be flexible in the programme and this was achieved."
Like other global businesses, construction needs to keep up with increasing complexity and rapid change. We have entered an era of innovation in which successful organisations need to form partnerships to exploit their knowledge and skills. For complex projects with changing requirements, Fusion provides a set of guiding principles backed up with practical experience. As Mark Perkins puts it: "It really is cheaper, better and quicker. Why wouldn't everyone want this?"
What GSK needs from the construction industry
- Flexible and adaptable facilities.
- To maximise the value of what we’ve already got.
- To move fast – start immediately and finish early.
- To minimise wastage – time, effort, materials, defects.
- Lower whole life cost.
- Greater predictability.
- Proactive questioning and challenging to understand our needs.
- Involvement
How the company found the construction industry in 1995
- Inflexible
- Reactive
- Cost focused
- Insular
- Contractual
- Claims conscious
- Inefficient
- Poor profit margins
Summary of outcomes for the laboratory and office buildings in Ware, Hertfordshire
- Savings of 18% on cost and 40% on time
- All business needs and objectives met – and end users delighted
- Snag free handovers
- A focus on teamwork, added value and mutual benefit to partners
- Greater commitment, involvement and initiative from individuals
- Genuine support, encouragement and enjoyment of individuals
Source
ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½ Sustainable Design
Postscript
Judy Payne leads ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½ Services Best Practice (BSBP), which is part of Constructing Excellence. BSBP exists to encourage and facilitate business improvement in the building services sector. Visit www.bsbpp.org.uk
No comments yet