Why, Oh Why, Can't We Have Better Metrics? Sales Puffing Division.

Why, oh why, can't we have better metrics from public projects.

Developing good metrics entails some work.  Private owners usually don't have multiple projects to compare, they may want to keep their cost information private, and they don't want to pay to gather meaningful information after the fact.  Once the project is done there is no glory in second guessing that it could have been done better some other way.  So private owners are left to the hype of contractors touting their pet delivery model to gain a competitive marketing advantage.

It shouldn't be that way on public projects.  Universities, cities, states, federal agencies, all should have strong incentives to develop metrics and develop data bases to compare projects and what really works best.  University construction management programs and engineering schools are in a prime position to develop this data.  They should have a mandate and receive funding to do it.  They should compare notes, and they should publish.  It's not happening.   So we are left to the hype of contractors touting their pet delivery model to gain a competitive marketing advantage.

Take the construction of a new $58 million clean technology laboratory building at Washington State University in Spokane.  Dave Harrison, Sr. VP at Skanska, has an article in the Daily Journal of Commerce today boldly claiming how "Design Build Cuts Costs for WSU Lab."   Harrison is an alumni of the WSU construction management program back in 1983 and has had reason to pay attention to the campus.

Here's Harrison with the wind-up:

Fortunately, we’re seeing some of the institutions in Washington’s university system start to turn to construction-delivery methods that align with their goals better than the traditional design-bid-build model. This is especially notable at a time when every dollar of public spending is under scrutiny.  Fortunately, these construction methods can also deliver the best value to universities.   A tremendous example is about to get under way at Washington State University. Together, with LMN Architects and other members of the project team, we’re preparing to deliver the new Clean Technology Laboratory Building. ... 

I must say, with that headline announcing cost savings for design-build, and the breathy introduction, I'm looking for some hard data here.  Something more than sales puffery.  We're not getting it ....

In the past, an architect would be retained by the school, designs agreed upon and then handed to the selected contractor to execute. That system often led to conflicts regarding designs and how to execute them, putting all parties at a disadvantage as they scramble to build lines of communication, slowing the entire delivery process. ....  For the clean-tech building, WSU is utilizing design-build and it will make a significant difference for their project, helping head off some of the traditional construction trouble spots. By working together as one team, the contractor, architect and key engineering partners can identify constructibility issues in the design well before they become an issue in the field.   This means fewer uh-oh moments where a contractor has to tell an architect and a client that the design they each love needs adjustment. Instead, we are working together to make sure everyone is on the same page before a shovel ever hits the ground. 

It’s easy to see how working this way has the potential to speed up the schedule. It also gives everyone from the board of trustees to taxpayers peace of mind that they are getting the best value for their dollars.  ....  

In other words, hire us and trust us!

Alternative delivery methods have been put to use at the University of Washington as well. The GC/CM method was used to deliver the renovation of the Husky Union Building last year. That project required a significant amount of preservation of the original building. Additionally, by bringing more parties to the table to plan, we were able to minimize campus disruption while the project was under way. GC/CM also allowed us to significantly increase the efficiency of delivery. 

What can work at the UW and WSU can work in other places. All universities should consider the value of alternative delivery methods and see how they can be put to use for the benefit of their campus communities. This is especially true of public institutions at a time when funding is as tight as ever.  Schools, contractors, architects and other stakeholders all stand to gain from the right kind of construction-related collaboration. 

Hire us and trust us.  Skanska, of course, is a great builder and they'll do a good job no matter which delivery system a University may employ.  Will the promise of cost savings and schedule savings be realized in this case?  Or are these just noises from a good contractor touting the latest delivery model to get a leg up in marketing for the next job?  How will we ever know?

Washington State University in this case, and public owners on all jobs, should gather the data, they should share it, and they should publish it. Put those construction management departments to work to study these projects and separate the hype from reality.