Construction Management – Is it right for your project? Part 2

Posted by admin on October 31, 2010
Stored in Blog

Last week we looked at the 3 primary forms of Construction Management in Part 1 of this series. We established a couple things right off the bat…

The first was that I (and possibly many others) had a gross misunderstanding of what Construction Management is and how there are variations that could be utilized depending on the “risk and reward” temperament of the church.

Secondly, we identified the 3 primary types of Construction Management which are:

1. Construction Management 4th Party

2. Construction Management “Agency”

3. Construction Management “At Risk”

With any and every construction delivery method, there will be pros and cons. Most of these are accentuated (more pro or more con) depending on the paradigm from which the church and/or its leaders are operating from. If you have been burned by one methodology or have witnessed a bad situation or your church’s bylaws say this or that, you will tend to make the judgement that a particular method is the right or wrong way to handle your project. The same thing applies if you have had a favorable experience or know of a positive experience from a close friend or colleague. That is just human nature…which is why we have so many types of construction methods (and why we have so many types of churches and denominations).

With that said, let me give you my opinion of the pros and cons of these 3 methodologies. I will try to be unbiased…but I am human even though my paradigm has definitely shifted over the past several years. (By the way…I am going to use CM for Construction Manager…just being lazy)

Construction Management – 4th Party:

PROS –

1. There is a party designated primarily as the Church’s advocate with the mitigation of almost any self-interest in the project. Their primary interest is in the well being of their client. Now, many contractors and design professionals will say this is exactly what they do…and that may be the case for some, but in many cases, they have a slightly tainted perspective as their fee and profit is based on their participation and success of their part of the project.

2. The design professional and contractor may also have an advocate (if the CM is functioning in an IPD type manner). If the CM is truly looking out for the best for the project…then they should be able to serve as the construction/design “translator” for the entire team. You may recall in an earlier blog that I made the case that I believe churches need a translator as they generally do not understand “construction-ese”. The CM can do a lot to reduce the amount of misunderstandings.

3. Again, if the process is implemented in an IPD methodology, the CM can become the voice of reason with the rest of the team. After nearly 25 years of being in this industry, I am yet to see the perfect construction project or perfect set of design drawings. Projects are subject to human error as well as system failures and there will be issues. If you do not think there will be issues on your construction project, then you may want to get some therapy as that is delusional. The best projects I have been involved with are those where “cooler heads” prevail during these times of challenge and conflict. The CM can fill that void.

CONS -

1. There can be added cost to the project. If the contractor and the design professionals are all getting a reasonable and fair fee, then the cost of the CM may be added cost to the project. This is not always the case as a good CM should be able to help the team to reduce the potential of cost overruns as well be the catalyst for proactive value management initiatives to actually reduce scope or cost.

2. If the CM is trying to justify this added fee by busting knuckles or getting a pound of flesh from the other partners, then an adversarial tenor can ensue…thus creating an “us and them” relationship which is not healthy for a project.

3. If the CM sees their role as the Gatekeeper for the church and does not want the rest of the team to communicate directly with the church (or each other), then there will be a sense of isolation from the church and the other team. This is not the best for a project. In many cases, the potential best ideas of the team do not get shared or shared at the right time. Now, with that said, it is important to keep the whole team informed , so copying and communicating in a proper manner is important…but if the communication gets bogged down through a tight conduit of communication that has to flow only through the CM, there can be challenges.