Teambuilders, Inc.


BUILDING SUCCESSFUL DESIGN ALLIANCES I recently moderated a Roundtable and led a Masters' Seminar on improving the chances of successful teaming with new design partners-one of the more challenging issues facing design firms these days. The participants in the Roundtable, among them principals from major New York firms-unearthed some significant issues-which I believe may further the cause of "design team formation" as a deliberate, rather than accidental mating process. At the Roundtable Brad Perkins, FAIA, of Perkins Eastman; Karen Boyd, AIA, of Helpern Associates: Jim Sawyer, AIA , of Richard Meier and Partners; and Paul Manning, CEO, of Barney/Skanska, told stories of design alliances they had experienced and shared lessons learned. Their experiences suggested that successful partnerships involve: Developing clearly defined roles and responsibilities Sharing common goals for the project Understanding each others' strengths and weaknesses Defining and using clear lines of communication Structuring written agreements early on that set the groundwork for partnering Not all the experiences were success stories. Failures appeared to result from inadequate communications at the introductory stage. This problem was compounded when the design team participants did not develop an effective (or in some cases, any) agreement before the job was awarded. This suggests that an effective process for identifying, interviewing, and negotiating roles and responsibilities of potential team members must be utilized to insure success in teaming. At the subsequent Masters' Seminar, "Design Team Formation: A Workshop for Principals," I explored why firms get together and how to partner once the project has been awarded. Inventorying your own strengths and weaknesses before going after a major job is an important first step. Having clarified your needs, it becomes crucial to evaluate the compatibility of potential teammates' technologies, values, goals and interests. Discovering and evaluating differences is often a key to understanding each other. The group analyzed a "Values/Technology Matrix", developed by the Harvard School of Business, for guidance in better understanding the cultural differences of design firms and how such differences can impact production capability, design process and client service. Re-visiting the definitions of the "practice-centered" versus "the business-centered" value systems driving firms reminded participants that such forces can't be ignored in developing alliances and may provide an early warning sign that there are fundamental issues to be resolved. Participants then explored "Responsibility Charting", a useful technique employed by management consultants to define roles and responsibilities of team members. This technique is particularly useful when several firms with different- organizational structures get together for a major project. If used as a follow-up to the general understanding of roles coming from the discussion of capabilities and needs, the process will surface issues of control and authority which might otherwise go undetected until the project is well underway. The key to this approach is the recognition that decisionmaking often involves several layers of control, including: Authority for Approving, Responsibility for Doing, Need to be Consulted, and Obligation to be Informed. Much is gained when team members mutually identify the key decisions that the team will be confronted with, list the key participants who will lead, manage and do the work; and then explore the degrees of responsibility each participant requires in order for the team to be effective. What makes teams work ? The following ingredients were identified : Common Goals; alignment of individual interests with overall team goals Commitment; all parties at all levels, through team building Clear Procedures; clear lines of authority and responsibilities Coordination of Services; internally and externally Clear Financial Agreements; distribution of fees versus payment from client Continuing Assessment; discuss the process regularly, address differences when they occur Partnering; through a design team partnering agreement articulate common team goals, establish team structure, promote a collaborative working relationship, and provide a protocol for communications a Consensus Building; address differences in individual firm interests, goals and culture, though developing processes for resolving them in the best interests of the project and the stated team goals. Dispute Resolution Procedures; develop them early to manage conflict A useful observation coming from both sessions was: Most collaborations are founded on differences, not similarities. Teams need mutual respect for their differences to hold them together.

BUILDING SUCCESSFUL DESIGN ALLIANCES

I recently moderated a Roundtable and led a Masters' Seminar on improving the chances of successful teaming with new design partners-one of the more challenging issues facing design firms these days. The participants in the Roundtable, among them principals from major New York firms-unearthed some significant issues-which I believe may further the cause of "design team formation" as a deliberate, rather than accidental mating process.

At the Roundtable Brad Perkins, FAIA, of Perkins Eastman; Karen Boyd, AIA, of Helpern Associates: Jim Sawyer, AIA , of Richard Meier and Partners; and Paul Manning, CEO, of Barney/Skanska, told stories of design alliances they had experienced and shared lessons learned. Their experiences suggested that successful partnerships involve:

Developing clearly defined roles and responsibilities
Sharing common goals for the project
Understanding each others' strengths and weaknesses
Defining and using clear lines of communication
Structuring written agreements early on that set the groundwork for partnering

Not all the experiences were success stories. Failures appeared to result from inadequate communications at the introductory stage. This problem was compounded when the design team participants did not develop an effective (or in some cases, any) agreement before the job was awarded. This suggests that an effective process for identifying, interviewing, and negotiating roles and responsibilities of potential team members must be utilized to insure success in teaming.

At the subsequent Masters' Seminar, "Design Team Formation: A Workshop for Principals," I explored why firms get together and how to partner once the project has been awarded.

Inventorying your own strengths and weaknesses before going after a major job is an important first step. Having clarified your needs, it becomes crucial to evaluate the compatibility of potential teammates' technologies, values, goals and interests. Discovering and evaluating differences is often a key to understanding each other.

The group analyzed a "Values/Technology Matrix", developed by the Harvard School of Business, for guidance in better understanding the cultural differences of design firms and how such differences can impact production capability, design process and client service. Re-visiting the definitions of the "practice-centered" versus "the business-centered" value systems driving firms reminded participants that such forces can't be ignored in developing alliances and may provide an early warning sign that there are fundamental issues to be resolved.

Participants then explored "Responsibility Charting", a useful technique employed by management consultants to define roles and responsibilities of team members. This technique is particularly useful when several firms with different- organizational structures get together for a major project.

If used as a follow-up to the general understanding of roles coming from the discussion of capabilities and needs, the process will surface issues of control and authority which might otherwise go undetected until the project is well underway. The key to this approach is the recognition that decisionmaking often involves several layers of control, including: Authority for Approving, Responsibility for Doing, Need to be Consulted, and Obligation to be Informed. Much is gained when team members mutually identify the key decisions that the team will be confronted with, list the key participants who will lead, manage and do the work; and then explore the degrees of responsibility each participant requires in order for the team to be effective.

What makes teams work ? The following ingredients were identified :

Common Goals; alignment of individual interests with overall team goals Commitment; all parties at all levels, through team building
Clear Procedures; clear lines of authority and responsibilities
Coordination of Services; internally and externally
Clear Financial Agreements; distribution of fees versus payment from client Continuing Assessment; discuss the process regularly, address differences when they occur
Partnering; through a design team partnering agreement articulate common team goals, establish team structure, promote a collaborative working relationship, and provide a protocol for communications a
Consensus Building; address differences in individual firm interests, goals and culture, though developing processes for resolving them in the best interests of the project and the stated team goals.
Dispute Resolution Procedures; develop them early to manage conflict

A useful observation coming from both sessions was: Most collaborations are founded on differences, not similarities. Teams need mutual respect for their differences to hold them together.