THE BUSINESS CASE
for Integrated Collaborative Working

Why do it?

Integrated Collaborative Working has been proven to deliver......
•   outcomes that better meet the needs
•   faster, safer and more sustainable delivery methods
•   lower capital and/or lower whole life cost
•   major reductions in waste and inefficiency
•   significantly improved  predictability in time, cost and profit
•   shared risks and rewards
•   continuously improving longer term  relationships
•   enjoyable and fulfilling experiences based on trust and respect
...when compared to ‘traditional’ methods

“The group has been persuaded by the weight of evidence that material benefits have arisen in almost every instance where the parties have taken active and purposeful steps to collaborate.”

Profiting from Integration: Report of the Strategic Form Integration Task Group November 2007

On the following pages the business case tests and confirms a simple “cause and effect” proposition:

“The more integrated and collaborative your team is, the more successful your projects will be and the more benefits they will deliver for you all”

Alternatively...

“If we do what we’ve always done we’ll get what we‘ve always got.”
Sir Michael Latham

Measuring integrated collaborative working – using the maturity matrix:  the heart of the business case

How do you determine how well integrated you are and how collaboratively you are working?

A simple maturity measure assessment matrix (below) has been developed drawn from the maturity assessment in the Strategic Forum Integration Toolkit and the Constructing Excellence Tracker Tool.

The maturity measures matrix enables the collective team maturity to be scored.  Team members representing all parts (or tiers) of the team privately review and decide which level box for each attribute best represents the project from their perspective. These scores are collected together and averaged to give a team attribute score. The project score is the sum of the six attribute scores, converted to a percentage of the maximum (36).
Maturity measures matrix (click here for a full page printable version)

For example, if team of 9 members scored “Selection by Value” with 5 team members selecting Level 3 and 4 team members selecting Level 4, then the  team score for “Selecting by Value” would be 3.4. Supposing the scores for the other attributes were 2.9, 3.1, 3.9, 4.7 & 3.6 then the project score would be 21.8 out of 36 which is 60%.

For this score to be truly representative it must include team members from the whole supply chain and scores should be collected anonymously, ideally using an independent third party.

Measuring success of the achieved outcomes – using the success matrix

A success measures matrix has also been developed to enable project performance to be measured, shared and compared. When the integrated team is assembled, right at the start of the project, the objectives need to be agreed and weighted (prioritised) and entered into the matrix.

The attributes of success, the objectives, are collectively agreed by the team from client through all key supply chain members, ideally in an open facilitated workshop environment.  Each attribute is assessed by the whole team and allocated a maximum weighting of 30% and a minimum of 5% except safety and sustainability which should each be a minimum of 10%.

Project success matrix (click here for a full page printable & usable version)

To enable comparison with others, industry ‘standard definitions’ of attributes are used, with the exception of the “success” and “sustainability” attributes which will need to be defined by the team.

On completion project performance is assessed by the same team who developed the matrix and have been evaluated for maturity. As with the maturity matrix, performance for each attribute is evaluated by each team member privately and averaged before inclusion.  Again the use of an independent third party to collate and return team evaluations is recommended.  A poor (1) to exceptional (10) scale of evaluation is used.

Once the team performance evaluation is available this can be converted to success scores using the measurement tools found on KPI Zone (www.kpizone.com) the pan industry comparator database maintained by Constructing Excellence. 

Evaluating performance and comparing it with others

So you have a percentage score for maturity and a percentage score for success.  How do you use these scores to evaluate your performance?

The Strategic Forum called for analysis of case studies in integrated collaborative working where sufficient historic data is available; so far 14 studies have been completed and plotted on a graph (below).

Case studies - demonstration of cause and effect

As can be seen, the more integrated and collaborative these projects have been the more successful have been the outcomes for all parties. Simply by plotting your team scores on this graph you can see how you compare with the best.

Knowing that project success is directly linked to maturity means you do not need to wait for completion to look for improvements.  By focussing on improving the integration and collaboration as you go you can improve the likelihood of success. Most notable is the mid range effect where even a small improvement in maturity leads to a major improvement in success. 

More case studies are ongoing but why wait? The message is already clear: Integrated Collaborative Working delivers greater success.

Why does integrated collaborative working deliver when other methods do not?

There are lots of reasons for this and they are well documented; better  planning, process improvements, parallel working, waste elimination are just a few of these, but the single most significant element is the early assembly of the whole team.  Take a look at the following example:

On the left hand side you can see the timeline to procure using the “historic” traditional sequential appointment method for a conventional project.  It takes some seventeen months to start on site.

Using “aspirational” integrated procurement you can see on the right hand side how this can lead to a significant reduction, in this case it takes ten months to start on site – more than six months earlier.

This shows how committing to the team right from the start leads to impressive savings in time alone and some projects will fare even better, commencing physical works right from the start and saving much of the remaining 10 months.  We all know that time and cost are interlinked and so time saving means cost saving too.

But that’s not where the benefits end, indeed the most valuable effect of early involvement is the collaboration between team members from all parts of the supply chain.  This leads to better solutions being adopted, the elimination of the wasteful processes and procedures traditional fragmented protectionist methods have created, and the full engagement, commitment and ownership of an integrated team - paid for its collective contribution for the duration and with one planning and one commercial focus, able to deliver right first time installation, prefabrication, off site manufacture and assembly etc. all leading to yet further reductions in construction time on site....

Quite simply it’s time to change the way we get the team together.

For more guidance look up the following:

CIC’s “Selecting the Team” tool which gives step by step guidance on how to select and appoint an integrated team in a way which provides a justifiable and auditable trail.

The Strategic Forum’s Integration Toolkit which, drawing on the experiences of leading practitioners, gives guidance on how to integrate and collaborate from the earliest identification of a business need through to project proving and operation.

OGC’s Achieving Excellence in Construction guides which provide an explanation of how to achieve the common minimum standards for government procurement.

All of which confirm.....

“The more integrated and collaborative your team is, the more successful your projects will be and the more benefits they will deliver for you all”
Case proven! Will you ignore it?

Also look out for the following plain English Guides which are being developed to support your transition to integrated collaborative working
•           Best Practice Construction Procurement
•           Early Contractor and Supplier Involvement
•           Collaborative Contracts
•           Fair Payment in Construction
•           Training for Integration
•           Integrated Project Insurance

Business case developed and drafted by Kevin Thomas CCG supported by Jaz Vilkhu CPA, Martin Davis SEC Group, Mark Wakeford CC and Peter Cunningham CE as part of the Strategic Forum’s Integration Task Group.

For a printable version of this document Click here