Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

42 4.1 Introduction This chapter describes in detail two key components for successful partnering implementation: • Utilization of partnering facilitators to ensure effective use of the partnering tools detailed in Chapter 2. • Effective management of stakeholders’ involvement to align their goals with those of the owner, design, and construction teams, and improve their satisfaction. 4.2 Partnering Facilitators A partnering facilitator’s role is to lead the collaborative partnering process during project delivery (Figure 6). Key responsibilities of the partnering facilitator include the following: • Based on the project’s collaborative partnering intensity level (see Chapter 3), ensure that: – The required collaborative partnering tools are used, and – Evaluate whether the recommended tools are needed to improve project and team performance. C H A P T E R 4 The Pilot and the Crew: Partnering Facilitators and Project Stakeholders YOU ARE HERE Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Effective Implementation Optimal Implementation Learn about COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING TOOLS SELECT tools and START using them at the right time in project delivery Manage KEYTOOLS effectively: PARTNERING FACILITATOR and STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Assess and improve ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS to use Partnering Learn about COLLABORATIVE PARTNERING and its BENEFITS, and obtain TOP MANAGEMENT support Navigating through the guidebook—Chapter 4.

The Pilot and the Crew: Partnering Facilitators and Project Stakeholders 43 • Adapt the collaborative partnering tools to team and project risks and characteristics and changing project demands. • Continuously assess the effectiveness of the collaborative partnering tools (i.e., their positive impact on project and team performance) and modify their use and frequency when needed. • Ensure that partnering scorecards are utilized on the project in the right fashion. It is impera- tive that confidentiality of individual responses is respected and that overall results are pre- sented in a neutral fashion. • Identify threats to the project and implement corrective action as required using the available partnering tools. The research team also identified various types of partnering facilitators and selection criteria. 4.2.1 Facilitation Types The organization can choose from among three types of collaborative partnering facilitation: • External Third-Party Facilitation: A neutral, external partnering facilitator, ideally selected jointly by the project team members, leads the partnering process. • Internal Partnering Facilitation: An airport, contractor, or designer representative takes on the role of partnering facilitator, and his or her only duty in the project is to guide the partnering process and development of the Partnering Charter. This type of facilitation typically is used on small, low-risk projects because the facilitator is not a true “neutral” party. • Self-Directed Partnering: A project team member (working for the A/E, contractor, design- builder, or construction manager) guides the partnering process in addition to his or her regular project duties related to construction, design, and so forth. Project team members create the goals and a Partnering Charter on their own. This process is typical for very small projects (e.g., projects under $5 million). The individual assigned to act as facilitator may change during various stages of project delivery, reflecting the need for the team lead to have expertise in that phase of the project’s needs and goals. The main drawback of using internal partnering facilitation or a self-directed process is that the facilitator might not be neutral to all team members. The project team must ensure that the Partnering Facilitator Responsibilities Adapt the collaborative partnering implementation to project characteristics and needs. Ensure that required collaborative partnering tools are implemented. Evaluate whether recommended collaborative partnering tools are needed. Assess the effectiveness of the collaborative partnering tools and process. Figure 6. Responsibilities of the partnering facilitator.

44 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices facilitator is perceived as neutral to all team members. This can be achieved by evaluating proposed facilitators’ past performance and securing their endorsement from the other members of the team. The level of project risk dictates the type of partnering facilitation required for a project, as seen in Figure 7. The partnering intensity levels and the coordinating risk level information (Chapter 3) indi- cate the partnering facilitation type required by the level of project risk. 4.2.2 Timing and Criteria for Partnering Facilitator Selection Involvement of a partnering facilitator early in the process is critical because all of the part- nering tools (except for partnering specifications) require a facilitator’s lead. Suggestions for the optimal time during project delivery to adopt Collaborative Partnering and assign or employ a facilitator are: • Regardless of the project delivery method, project teams ideally should start partnering facilitation early in the design process to optimize performance outcomes. This is especially helpful if none of the team members have prior partnering experience. • When problems arise during a project, partnering can be activated at any time as a remedy. • Project teams following DB and CMR/GC should: – Select a partnering facilitator early in the design phase, as soon as the design-builder or general contractor is hired. The kick-off partnering meeting should be held no later than the start of design development. • Project teams following DBB should: – Select a partnering facilitator early in the design phase, as soon as the A/E is hired, and hold two kick-off partnering meetings: � One meeting at the beginning of the design phase (preconstruction); and � A second meeting after the general contractor has come on board (after bidding or at start of construction). External third-party facilitation: • Ensures neutral partnering facilitation. • Helps optimize outcomes in medium- to high-risk projects. • Leads to use of higher number of Collaborative Partnering tools to achieve improved project performance. Ideally, partnering facilitation starts early in the design phase regardless of the project delivery method. Type of Facilitation Required Skills Required to Successfully Implement these Partnering Tools Number and Complexity of Partnering Tools Required Level of Partnering Intensity Required Project Risk Figure 7. The relationship between risk and type of partnering facilitation in projects.

The Pilot and the Crew: Partnering Facilitators and Project Stakeholders 45 – If the team plans to hold only one kick-off partnering meeting, it should be held when the contractor has joined the project team. Before the meeting takes place, the project team should work jointly with the general contractor to select the partnering facilitator. Selecting the right partnering facilitator is vital to collaborative partnering and project success. How well the facilitator fits with the team’s culture can have broad ramifications, and it is recommended that facilitator selection should not be based only on cost. This section presents criteria for facilitator selection and guidelines on how to apply them. • External Third-Party Facilitation: In identifying potential facilitators, project teams can scan publicly available databases of qualified facilitators and their experiences. Resources such as IPI can provide information (see Appendix C). Project teams also can issue solicitations to select the right partnering facilitator for their projects via RFQs and/or RFPs. The following criteria can be listed in RFQs for facilitators: – Training received, such as the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) Endorsed™ Training Program. – Certifications received, such as the IAF’s CertifiedTM Professional Facilitator (CPF) or one of the three levels of certification offered by IPI (IPI 2018): � Certified Partnering Facilitator (IPI): The professional has facilitated at least 25 sessions. � Senior Certified Partnering Facilitator (SIPI): The professional has facilitated at least 100 sessions. � Master-Level Certified Partnering Facilitator (MIPI): The professional has facilitated at least 250 professional sessions. – Style and relevant experience in problem solving and resolving conflicts. – Project-specific facilitation experience, including the types, sizes, and durations of projects and the number of sessions facilitated. – Prior positive experience or excellent (verified) references. – Current workload. No matter how good they might be or how highly recommended they come, facilitators who already have too much on their plate will not be available to devote the necessary attention to the project and should be avoided. – A Partnering Facilitation Plan/Proposal that outlines a project-specific strategy for implementing collaborative partnering on the project and that includes: � Steps intended to be used for partnering implementation. � Reporting details. � Materials to be utilized. � Documentation details. � Access to other partnering resources, and other details. In the RFQ or RFP, the owner organization also can provide information and criteria, including: � Owner organization’s mission. � Project team culture. � Project background. � Scope of services required. � Anticipated project risk level. � Anticipated partnering tools. � A statement regarding the desired strategy for implementation of partnering tools. � The facilitator selection procedure. If available, team members’ experiences working with potential facilitators should be collected. To find the right fit for the team and the organization’s culture, interviews should be integrated into the selection process, and insights regarding the facilitators’ communication, conflict resolution, and problem solving skills should be collected from key personnel and senior Regardless of project size or complexity, the first time an organization’s project team uses collaborative partnering, the team should work with an external, third- party partnering facilitator. See: Tool 2: Partnering Facilitator– Resources in Appendix C

46 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices team members in the organization. Critical to project success is bringing a facilitator on board who has an appreciation of the characteristics and propensity for vicissitudes of the airport environment and business. • Internal Facilitation: Evaluate facilitators’ partnering experience based on the number of times they have facilitated partnering sessions for similar projects. This experience may be documented by certifications such as those offered by the IPI. Projects with higher levels of risk, complexity, and required team coordination need facilitators with higher experience. An owner, designer, or contractor representative can be appointed as the partnering facilitator provided he or she: – Can function in the role as a neutral party (i.e., the facilitator can evaluate project and team situations in an unbiased and objective way). – Is empowered to call out sources of conflicts when they arise. – Is acceptable to the project team, given the culture of the project and the organization. – Does not execute any other function in the organization during the time of the project. In the event that such a representative is not experienced with collaborative partnering, the designated facilitator can attend training sessions to learn more about partnering and its implementation practices. For example, the IAF Endorsed™ Training Program is intended for new facilitators or people who want to strengthen their facilitation knowledge and skills. Owners should note that it is highly suggested to work with an external, third-party partnering facilitator on the first (pilot) partnering project, irrespective of project size and complexity. • Self-Directed Facilitation: Assess potential facilitators’ partnering experience: – As described for internal facilitation. – Based on the facilitator’s ability to understand the team/project-specific needs and goals at each stage of project delivery. Self-directed facilitation may involve having several team members take on the facilitator role at differing points in the process. For example, an A/E representative might act as the partnering facilitator during design, whereas a construction manager might take over during construction. 4.3 Stakeholders Aviation construction projects involve various stakeholders whose inputs into design and construction processes are crucial for project success. It is vital to effectively manage their engage- ment via partnering. This section defines stakeholders and describes their types, contributions to project outcomes, and involvement via key partnering tools. 4.3.1 Stakeholders: Definition, Types, and Contributions In aviation construction projects, stakeholders are key airport business units and other entities who work directly with the design and construction teams and/or who are end-users/ maintainers of the final product. Internal stakeholders belong to the airport organization. External stakeholders do not belong to the airport organization, and may include several groups. Types of Internal Stakeholders • Airport Business Units: These internal stakeholders include but are not limited to operations and maintenance, environmental systems, community and government relations, properties management, and other internal units’ personnel; airport fire and safety officers; and executive, maintenance, operations, finance, and planning/engineering directors.

The Pilot and the Crew: Partnering Facilitators and Project Stakeholders 47 Types of External Stakeholders • Airport Users and Tenants: These external stakeholders include commercial service and charter airlines, air cargo airlines and operators, concessionaires, rental car and parking lot operators, aircraft fueling and storage operators, ground transportation companies, airline maintenance base operators, hangar owners, tenants, and flying clubs. • FAA Offices and Regulators: These external stakeholders include the Airport District Office, Air Traffic Organization, Airport Traffic Control Tower, Regional Flight Standards, Flight Procedures Office, and Runway Safety Office. • Resource Agencies and Other Governmental Units: These external stakeholders include TSA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Federal Inspection Services (FIS), federal and state agencies, state and local environmental regulatory agencies, state and local transportation, and law enforcement. • Other Interested Groups: These external stakeholders include public media, the local tourism board and authorities, private land developers, airport hotels, neighborhood associations, and the city disability advocates. Stakeholders’ Contributions Stakeholders’ influence on and contributions to project outcomes depend on two factors: • Financial Contribution: Stakeholders that provide funds to a project (e.g., FAA or TSA) have a strong influence on the design and construction outcomes. For example, projects funded by the FAA via Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants will involve FAA representatives to ensure that design and construction outcomes comply with the standards in the FAA Airport Design Advisory Circular. • Project Type: Stakeholders’ expertise may be important, depending on project type. For example, airline representatives’ input might be important in projects developing new gates in a terminal because the airlines will be the end-users. Moreover, ATCT representatives’ expertise and FAA risk assessment input might be highly important in airside construction projects that may interfere with air traffic. Airline stakeholders’ contributions might be less important to construction projects that affect airport security checkpoints. In the latter projects, TSA representatives would strongly contribute to design development to ensure it complies with the TSA Checkpoint Design Guide (CDG). Two complicating factors may decrease stakeholders’ partnering efficiency: • Stakeholders that are making a significant financial contribution might lack the expertise to efficiently collaborate with designers, or they might have the expertise but lack the time to get involved in the project. For example, airport operating and maintenance representa- tives might lack the expertise to understand design and construction drawings and schedules; alternatively, airline headquarters staff might possess this expertise but be unable to devote sufficient time to day-to-day project demands. • Involving too many stakeholders in the collaborative partnering process might cause practical difficulties in managing the process that negatively impact project outcomes. For example, construction projects at large airports might involve 50 or more air carriers whose interests and schedules might be hard to coordinate or reconcile. To overcome these complications, effective partnering might require establishing a liaison office staffed by technical experts, such as qualified architects and engineers. The technical experts in the liaison office would report directly to the stakeholders and would review or supervise project design and construction processes on behalf of the stakeholders. When many stakeholders are involved, the technical experts also can represent more than one stakeholder, including by attending the kick-off meeting and partnering workshops. In this way, the liaison

48 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices office can smooth the partnering process by providing focused representation that helps keep partnering meetings efficient and productive in relation to project outcomes. In summary, stakeholders’ contributions to aviation construction projects primarily depend on their financial contribution and the importance of their expertise based on project type. Stakeholders might need the assistance of technical experts to efficiently contribute to project outcomes or to represent them in the partnering process. 4.3.2 Stakeholder Involvement in Relation to Partnering Tools Stakeholders’ role in aviation construction projects ensures that design and construction processes utilize their input to satisfy their interests or the interests they represent. Aligning stakeholders’ goals with those of the core design-construction team is vital for project success. Table 7 shows how stakeholders were involved in partnering in the case studies reviewed by the research team. Stakeholders are primarily involved in partnering processes in connection with the following partnering tools: • Tool 3: Kick-off partnering meeting—Stakeholders take part in developing a Partnering Charter with team goals and a follow-up plan. • Tool 5: Issue resolution process—Stakeholders help devise and update issue resolution processes and participate in the process during project delivery. • Tool 11: Multi-tiered partnering—Stakeholders are involved as a “tier” in the partnering workshops. Their level of involvement varies according to the project’s risk and partnering intensity level (Low, Medium-Low, Medium, Medium-High, or High). For example, stake- holders typically are involved at the field level for Level 1 (low-risk, low-intensity) projects and typically are involved at the executive level for Level 5 (high-risk, high-intensity) projects. Table 7 outlines the varying degree of stakeholder engagement. • Tool 10: Partnering workshops—Stakeholders attend the partnering workshops and collabo- rate with project team members to solve current project issues, evaluate past team and project performance, and update team goals. • Tool 8: Partnering scorecards—Stakeholders provide feedback via partnering scorecards that help track and assess team goals and project performance in a formal or structured procedure. • Tool 12: Focus groups—Stakeholders take part in temporary groups formed during project delivery to address very specific project issues as they come up. Recall that Table 3 (in Chapter 3) suggested varying levels of stakeholder engagement based on different levels of partnering intensity. Table 7 summarizes stakeholders’ degree of involvement on a project and the corresponding use of partnering tools to enable the level of involvement.

The Pilot and the Crew: Partnering Facilitators and Project Stakeholders 49 Stakeholders’ Level of Involvement Stakeholders’ Involvement in Relation to Partnering Tools H ig h • Tool 3: Kick-off partnering meeting—Stakeholders participate in the development of a Part- nering Charter with team goals and a follow-up plan. • Tool 5: Issue resolution process—Stakeholders give feedback on and approve many major project tasks during project delivery or participate in developing systems for issue resolu- tion. • Tool 11: Multi-tiered partnering—Stakeholders participate as a tier at all levels (executive, core, field levels) to contribute to design and construction. • Tool 10: Partnering workshops—Stakeholders must participate in the partnering workshops on a monthly basis. They must also participate in weekly project meetings to speed up the issue resolution process. • Tool 8: Partnering scorecards—Stakeholders provide feedback on the performance of part- nering on the project on a monthly basis. M ed iu m -H ig h • Tool 3: Kick-off partnering meeting—Stakeholders participate in the creation of key goals. • Tool 5: Issue resolution process—Stakeholders participate in small task-force teams to track and solve specific issues when needed (i.e., they could meet weekly, monthly, or quarterly as needed). • Tool 11: Multi-tiered partnering—Stakeholders participate as a tier at the field or executive levels. • Tool 10: Partnering workshops—Stakeholders participate in the partnering workshops on a monthly basis. • Tool 8: Partnering scorecards—Stakeholders provide feedback on the performance of part- nering on the project on a monthly basis. M ed iu m • Tool 3: Kick-off partnering meeting—Stakeholders help to create mission and project goals. • Tool 5: Issue resolution process—Stakeholders participate in the creation of issue resolu- tion tools. • Tool 11: Multi-tiered partnering—Stakeholders participate as a tier only at the executive level if this tool is used on the project. • Tool 10: Partnering workshops—Stakeholders participate in the partnering workshops on a bi-monthly basis. • Tool 8: Partnering scorecards—Stakeholders provide feedback to evaluate project goals during every partnering workshop. M ed iu m - Lo w • Tool 5: Issue resolution process—Stakeholders participate in the issue resolution process even if not formally structured (For example: unplanned team meetings when issues come up). • Tool 10: Partnering workshops—Stakeholders participate in the partnering workshops on a quarterly basis. Stakeholders help to create mission and project goals during the workshops. Lo w • Tool 5: Issue resolution process—Stakeholders participate in the issue resolution process even if it is not formally structured (e.g., through unplanned team meetings set up when issues come up). Table 7. Suggestions for various levels of stakeholder involvement.