O5 The Integrated Enterprise
The Integrated Enterprise
Peter Beck, Beck Technologies
Mr Beck introduced his stimulating presentation by proposing that Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is halfway there (only and not already halfway). My having witnessed the professional conversation on this topic grow over the past few years, this came as a challenging introduction.
In defining integration, Mr Beck indicated that how is it practiced is an alignment of incentives through contract or a business model based on risk and reward… this ideal notion has its limitations in practice.
It was noted that Beck Technologies has extensive experience in both design build as well as construction only projects where teaming with several firms has proven successful. Beck does not work on public projects where a Design Bid Build (DBB) contract or method is required. Penn State studies on the DBB method clearly illustrated it as being the most expensive…
Integrating at the project level is about sharing risk and rewards, utilizing knowledge earlier in the process (see amended Macleamy curve) and retaining independence between firms.
Integrating at the enterprise level incorporates all the benefits of IPD with a common motivation of a single bottom line and internal investments which can be amortized over many projects and without waiting for common industry standards or solutions (see project vs enterprise diagram).
Technology also has a recognizable footprint in this practice conversation, especially with collaboration and integration in mind. The light table did not enable collaboration and better design is one of the realized results today--there are better buildings today. Mr Beck took this idea further suggesting that evidence based design may even be possible through new tools and practices.
Further describing the integrated enterprise concept, important non-project specific investments were:
- cross-training
- aligning the interfaces across a variety of technologies
- developing common mapping protocols, databases, and customized API's
- creating preferred design components that are pre-engineered, pre-estimated, and field proven (from all disciplines!)
- improving the coordination & completion of documents
- long-term supplier agreements
Some of the advantages of the Integrated Enterprise:
- easily accepted by clients
- mutually guaranteed performance across disciplines
*** guarantees the client no change orders plus reduced risk ***
- reduced subcontractor contingencies
- modifying interfaces between technologies and amortizing the cost over many projects
- leveraging knowledge based investments versus transferring data… with no ramp up on each project
What can we learn from others?
- pain is fertile ground for change
- new tools and technologies enable change
- change is driven by lower prices, greater quality, and/or greater convenience
(disruptive examples such as credit cards and ipods were discussed in this light)
There is a recognizable transformation in the AEC industry where BIM enables far more complete and coordinated documentation.
Who is motivated to improve the process (see change drivers above)? Contractors and architects are motivated to trade risk and reward. Contractors seek to mitigate their risk and will strive for control of the coordination and completeness of documents. Architects will seek to reduce their risk and improve margins by delegating document production. This is a classic up-market disruption wherein one player is delighted to assume the least desirable responsibility of another…
Beck's forecast: Ultimately, architects and contractors will specialize by product type or service… or seek to merge in a myriad of ways.
Peter Beck, Beck Technologies
Mr Beck introduced his stimulating presentation by proposing that Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is halfway there (only and not already halfway). My having witnessed the professional conversation on this topic grow over the past few years, this came as a challenging introduction.
In defining integration, Mr Beck indicated that how is it practiced is an alignment of incentives through contract or a business model based on risk and reward… this ideal notion has its limitations in practice.
It was noted that Beck Technologies has extensive experience in both design build as well as construction only projects where teaming with several firms has proven successful. Beck does not work on public projects where a Design Bid Build (DBB) contract or method is required. Penn State studies on the DBB method clearly illustrated it as being the most expensive…
Integrating at the project level is about sharing risk and rewards, utilizing knowledge earlier in the process (see amended Macleamy curve) and retaining independence between firms.
Integrating at the enterprise level incorporates all the benefits of IPD with a common motivation of a single bottom line and internal investments which can be amortized over many projects and without waiting for common industry standards or solutions (see project vs enterprise diagram).
Technology also has a recognizable footprint in this practice conversation, especially with collaboration and integration in mind. The light table did not enable collaboration and better design is one of the realized results today--there are better buildings today. Mr Beck took this idea further suggesting that evidence based design may even be possible through new tools and practices.
Further describing the integrated enterprise concept, important non-project specific investments were:
- cross-training
- aligning the interfaces across a variety of technologies
- developing common mapping protocols, databases, and customized API's
- creating preferred design components that are pre-engineered, pre-estimated, and field proven (from all disciplines!)
- improving the coordination & completion of documents
- long-term supplier agreements
Some of the advantages of the Integrated Enterprise:
- easily accepted by clients
- mutually guaranteed performance across disciplines
*** guarantees the client no change orders plus reduced risk ***
- reduced subcontractor contingencies
- modifying interfaces between technologies and amortizing the cost over many projects
- leveraging knowledge based investments versus transferring data… with no ramp up on each project
What can we learn from others?
- pain is fertile ground for change
- new tools and technologies enable change
- change is driven by lower prices, greater quality, and/or greater convenience
(disruptive examples such as credit cards and ipods were discussed in this light)
There is a recognizable transformation in the AEC industry where BIM enables far more complete and coordinated documentation.
Who is motivated to improve the process (see change drivers above)? Contractors and architects are motivated to trade risk and reward. Contractors seek to mitigate their risk and will strive for control of the coordination and completeness of documents. Architects will seek to reduce their risk and improve margins by delegating document production. This is a classic up-market disruption wherein one player is delighted to assume the least desirable responsibility of another…
Beck's forecast: Ultimately, architects and contractors will specialize by product type or service… or seek to merge in a myriad of ways.
Comment
About
© 2009 Created by Katherine Gupman on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Changing Times - Time for Change to add comments!
Join this Ning Network