1. Preamble
When deciding on an implementation model, this should be based on an assessment of what serves you as a builder best, and what serves the project. We have written about the traditional options in the article “Standard Contracts and Implementation Models” that can be read here.
These are proven models and one has good knowledge of the success criteria and risk elements in their use.
If one considers the use of interaction, such a decision should be based on an analysis involving a number of points. The decision should not be made on the basis that interaction is “new and exciting” and/ or “popular” (Concept Report No. 74, Our summary page 2).
In this article, we have tried to collect moments that should be included in an analysis before making a decision on interaction. The other two articles are also relevant because they deal with moments that one will have to decide on when interaction is chosen.
2. For what types of projects is collaboration suitable?
It is clear from the research reports that interaction has been considered particularly”suitable for projects that have a relatively high degree of uncertainty and complexity”, and as examples are mentioned “rehabilitation missions and listed buildings”.
At the same time, the latest report clarifies that the interaction models may not have been exploited to the fullest, and sometimes it is also chosen indiscriminately.
The latest study was based on 105 interaction projects carried out over a period of 20 years “from smaller school buildings and swimming pools in the 100 — 200 million class to large projects such as the Tønsberg project and E6 Helgeland-Sør”.
If we use SSB's building cost calculator, Residential Buildings and calculate the price increase from November 2004 to November 20024, it shows that a cost of NOK 200 million increases to NOK 414 million.
We assume that “smaller school buildings and swimming pools in the 100-200 million class” was completed about 20 years ago, which means that projects currently worth about NOK 400 million are considered as “minor”. However, this must of course be taken with great caveat since we do not know when these smaller projects were carried out.
The point is nevertheless to bring out some pegs for what level there should be on the project in order for interaction to be a relevant implementation model.
Interplay places a number of demands on the builder's own organization and implementation that entails costs that are not necessarily incurred in the traditional implementation models.
These inputs are supported by findings presented in Concept Report No. 74 p 47, which states that projects should be of a certain size and/ or complexity in order to use interaction.
In our summary, we cite that interaction requires a lot of the builder organization in terms of “skills, staffing, and resources for follow-up”. Furthermore, it appears that interaction is an “relatively resource-intensive implementation model for the building organization”.
3. “It Takes Two for a Tango”
In Concept Report No. 61, the researchers had studied six interaction projects where all involved considered the interaction a success.
Despite this, it was pointed out that interaction “places great demands on the actors in terms of leadership, cooperation and transparency between the parties”.
Further to this, the same report highlights that “(S) amspill models do not represent a “quick-fix” on the implementation process or the gain realization”.
We have also pointed out that the studies show that great demands are placed on the building organization when interacting, and there is a cost that must be taken into account in their analysis before deciding on any interaction.
The developer must know what is desired, have knowledge and expertise so that the builder is able to participate as an active participant in the interaction.
If the developer does not have the skills and qualifications to know what one wants, and the range of decisions taken in an interaction with regard to road choices, solution proposals, qualities, functions, etc. in phase 1, one will in effect “abdicate” and neither the builder nor the contractor will benefit from this.
Interaction presupposes equality, and we believe that lacking this balance increases the risk of conflict in a way that no one is served by.
4th. Does the builder/project owners have an adequate organization for the interaction?
We have already discussed this in the points above and in the article “Parent on Interaction” point 5 that you will find here.
If you are a professional multiple time builder, you will most often have an organization consisting of many experienced employees with heavy project expertise. Likewise people with different professional backgrounds who are of relevance.
The problem is that they are often busy with a number of other projects running in parallel.
This may result in both multiple-use builders and one-off builders without a corresponding internal organisation having to engage contractors to assist in the interaction.
In the type of projects where interaction is a current model, many different subjects will be needed. Besides experienced project managers, architect and consulting engineers will also be required. This is no different from a situation where one has decided to use a traditional implementation model, but the point is that one should not abandon such an organization because one would rather leave this to the contractor in case of interaction.
It is no coincidence that this point comes in the extension of paragraph 3 “It takes two for a tango.”
In Concept Report No. 74, paragraph 4.1.2, it is emphasized that interaction is a “relatively resource-intensive implementation model for the builder organisation”, and interaction represents no “quick-fix”, the same report paragraph 5.1.
Our purpose in promoting these inputs is to warn builders against entering into interactions in the belief that one can leave all, or most, professional questions to the contractor and his helpers.
The builder must also have the expertise with him—either as an employee or as a hired employee.
Consequently, the builder himself must be very conscious of why he wants to bring the contractor into the interaction, and refine his tasks according to what he wants to achieve.
5. Motives for considering/choosing interactions
In our view, the builder's basic motive for choosing interaction should be to optimize his engineering in light of the knowledge and experience the contractor has from having completed a number of projects of varying complexity and difficulty.
If the contractor provides his experienced people from the operational phase and these are given the necessary resources by his employer to really get to know the project well, then the contractor can be a very valuable resource for the project team.
This is in turn related to the fact that interaction is particularly relevant in complex projects and/ or projects with a relatively high degree of uncertainty.
The builder's motive for choosing interaction should not be a possible desire to reduce cost use. This is warned against in, among other things, Concept Report No. 74.
It is also a pervasive feature of the various reports that interaction is demanding. When something is demanding, overcoming what is demanding will also incur costs.
One motive highlighted in Concept Report No. 61 is that interaction reduces the risk of legal conflicts. This is certainly a weighty argument, but it is not a given that the argument is valid.
First, contradictions will arise in an interaction. It's naive to think otherwise.
In our article “Parent on Interaction” item 6, we deal with possible reasons why there are not so many legal disputes about interaction, including due to assessments of procedural risks. In interaction, liability relations are easily fluid and then it can be very difficult to win a judicial victory. However, cost overruns and unforeseen circumstances will still be experienced in the interaction.
Secondly, it is not a given that disagreements and disputes arising in projects where an ordinary implementation model is used must find their solution through a legal dispute. Today it is becoming more and more common to resort to extrajudicial mediation, We have written about this topic in an article that can be read here.
Finally, we want to highlight a motive or argument we often encounter in terms of interaction. It is often said that it is “the people who depend” when arguing that interaction is a good alternative to the traditional models of implementation.
But, people are so numerous and the chemistry between otherwise well-qualified people can get bad without anyone being reproached for it.
In our view, the strong focus on “people” as an important success factor for interaction is essentially a recognition that interaction is risky. The reason this is risky is because the lines of responsibility often become more blurred in interaction than when using the traditional implementation models.
Secondly, we would like to point out that one also benefits very well from the “right people” in the traditional implementation models.
A large number of construction or construction projects are carried out in Norway every year where traditional implementation models are used. Only a few of these projects end in legal disputes.
To summarize, we believe that the main motive for choosing interaction should be the desire and the need to bring the contractor early into the design process so that he can contribute his knowledge and expertise from the operational phase of projects. With the right resources from the contractor, you can find smarter ways to build, simplify work operations, increase the quality of solutions and, in sum, achieve a better end result.
6. Recognize that everyone involved has their own special interests
The builder must understand that the contractor participates in an interaction in order to make money, and create a financial profit in his enterprise.
The same goes for the advisor group, architect, etc.
None of the groups participate to help the developer so that they can complete a project at the highest possible quality and lowest cost — at the expense of their own interests.
In other words, a builder considering interaction should not be “blue-eyed.”
By recognising that everyone has their own motives and desires to participate in an interaction, a builder will also be able to ensure good interactions — because mutual recognition is a key element when it comes to bringing out the best in the people at their disposal.
By extension, it is essential that the employers of the people who participate are willing to put on the resources that are needed. They need to build up below the goal by the interaction. You do this if you are recognized, and you do it when the framework conditions for ensuring good interaction are in place.
7. Documentation requirements
In the traditional implementation models, the requirements for writing are relatively strict and one is concerned with documentation in the form of minutes, notices, responses to notifications, etc.
This applies both when designing and using, for example, NS 8402, and it applies in the implementation phase where, for example, NS 8407 is used.
One should not drop these documentation requirements even if one implements the project collaboratively.
We have experience that some people give up on these demands and switch to relatively informal dialogue among themselves when interacting.
It doesn't make sense.
By sticking to the writing requirement, everyone involved will know that there will be full traceability about all decisions, choices, notifications, requirements etc in the project and we believe this will seem both disciplining and motivating for everyone.
No one will be able to hide away, and we believe that we can help create a good culture of “rake pucks” in the sense of openness, honesty and trust in each other.
8. Do not use “No Sue”clause
This point is closely related to other things we have written about in this article.
We include it because in Concept Report No. 74 there is mention of an example where the parties in an interaction had agreed on a so-called “no sue”clause.
A builder should not choose interaction if the motive is to avoid (legal) disputes, cf paragraph 5 of the article above, and in any case not desire this so badly that one enters into a provision in the contract that one cannot sue each other.
Concept Report No. 74 describes the unintended effect of two parties in a concrete interaction having agreed on such a clause.
It is described that one observed that one party began to redeploy its crew so that skilled people who participated in the interaction were transferred to other projects. Projects where one would have to assume that there were none “no sue”clause in the contract.
9. Summing up
When choosing a method of implementation, it is important to understand that interaction is not “quick fix” -solution, but that is also not the case with the traditional forms of implementation.
You don't automatically get good people by choosing a particular mode of implementation.
All forms of implementation produce better results for all when positions are held with good, professional and conscientious people.
Interaction should be a good option if you have a project that is complex, where the risk of unforeseen situations is considered particularly high and/ or the project is particularly large and where this in itself indicates that the risk is higher than usual.
In projects like this, interaction can be a good option if people from contractors with long and heavy experience from the operational phase of projects (phase 2) are brought in to assist the design team in optimizing solutions.
