Above - the Cruzcampo Pavilion construction for the Universal Exhibition of 1992 in Seville, Spain.
Several weeks ago, I was reviewing the case of Jean Campbell[1], the new superintendent of the Bristol City school district, who had to deal with the resignation of two of her immediate subordinates, leaving her with exactly half the associates planned to manage and reform 147 area schools. It was therefore crucial that she analyze stakeholders in regards to their commitment to proposed reforms and utilize effective tools to stop the attrition of key personnel. Within the context of this study, I was introduced to the tools of agreement[2] as defined in the succeeding text. Awareness and utilization of the appropriate tool can efficiently allow groups to work together in a concerted way to get the job done. This added awareness enhances the two most important things that I have learned about project management –attentiveness to the personal motives of individual stakeholders beyond their company’s aims and an understanding of the processes of construction outside of the United States. Therefore, I will use these tools to analyze the project management of the Cruzcampo Pavilion construction for the Universal Exhibition of 1992 in Seville, Spain. I will review the construction project and tenets of the tools of agreement, analyze the environment and effective tools at the beginning, end and key points during the pavilion construction and then offer concluding remarks.
La Cruz del Compo S. A. (hereafter known as Cruzcampo), the largest beer producer in southern Spain and the 9th largest in the world, proposed to construct a pavilion in Expo ’92 which encompassed a restaurant, bar and miniature beer production plant. They asked Spanish architect Miguel de Oriol to design the facility and he created plans for a large copper-clad structure with twin towers linking cables to support the roof. Arguably, detailing in his set of documents was inconsistently adequate for construction. Subsequently, Dragados y Construcciones S.A. was awarded the bid for construction of the facility, submitting a fee that they later regarded as unrealistically low for an unpredictable economy. Therefore, Dragados employed Pedro Alanis to recover costs and litigate if “the owner and architect didn’t contribute to lower costs”.[3] Likewise, Cruzcampo hired Antonio Carranza as the Project Manager to ensure the construction budget would not be exceeded and to maintain a consensus toward successful completion of the pavilion.
Tools of Agreement rely on the concept that good managers can select the best tool to motivate team members to produce efforts toward the intended outcome (See Exhibit 1). The vertical axis indicates the degree to which an individual shares a common vision of the resultant benefits of involvement. Simply put, it measures the extent to which they know what they want. The horizontal axis defines the level of consensus of actions required to achieve the needed results. Rather, it indicates the perceived how to achieve success. The area of these axes can be divided into quadrants indicating effective tools to manage a team member. Therefore, an individual that does not know what they want or the steps to find success can best perform to the intended outcome through threats and coercion (Power tools). Likewise, someone who is congruous with the shared benefit of the project and does not know the steps for achievement can be lead by the charisma of the visionary (Leadership tools). As well, there are efficient tools for team members who do agree on the actions that will lead to the needed results. It is very important to note the adverse prediction of this method, which is that “in a given situation, most tools will not work [effectively]”[4].
Beginning in late 1989 and proceeding for a year, the architect maintained a pre-bid relationship with the owner to design the facility. Mr. Oriol’s vision was in alignment with the chairman at Cruzcampo (and vice versa); indeed the high tech style was embraced because it identified the beer company as modern and innovative. However, from the architect’s perspective, the means to finalize the vision was somewhat incongruous. The building program had already changed several times. Moreover, the British beverage company Guinness was poised to take over the company. Nevertheless, these situations are usual within the course of a design project. So, not surprisingly, tools of Culture –notions that these situations occur and traditional relationships are in placed that regularly handle such concerns are apropos for ensuring success of the pavilion project (See Exhibit 2.).
When Dragados y Construcciones S.A submitted a bid for construction in late 1990, they accepted a discordance of visions. There was the pavilion design created by the architect, the Cruzcompo image value-engineered by the owner and alternately, the innovative construction documents lacking key details and rampant with errors and omissions. The internal departments of Dragados discovered the deficiencies before bid and looked to billing opportunities to create their profit margin. If the ending product was not shared, then certainly steps to acheive a shared outcome were unsure (See Exhibit 2a.) Antonio Carranza, the Project Manager used the Power tool of financial compensation effectively to progress the project.
Through May and September of 1991 Pedro Alanis continued his actions (sometimes harshly) on behalf of Dragados to seek direct reimbursement for work not included in the construction documents. Mr. Carranza, selecting the Power tool of compensation to leverage movement from the GC, therefore negotiated with the architect to remove copper plating from the building exterior to reimburse Dragados. By September 1991, it was obvious that the project would not reach a phase of shared efforts toward joint vision. Again, Mr. Alanis demanded immediate delay expenses, overhead and rework costs. Mr. Carranza returned to the architect to reduce the quality of building finishes and he initiated a plan to subcontract some of the HVAC work himself enabling him to direct his salary to the GC. While it appears that Power tools are most effective to progress the project from the GC impasse (See Exhibit 3a) the PM’s handling of the architect may be characterized as shifting to the Management tool of measurement. This method can be described as “agreeing to work together toward a specific goal in the belief that if they achieve the particular measure then the project will be successful”[5] (See Exhibit 3). Indeed, near the end of the project when the emblematic tower and cable system was rendered impotent by the placement of columns in the interior, the architect relented the design allowing that after the exposition the columns would be removed (They are still in place).
Finally, at the end of 1991, near the culmination of the project, Mr. Alanis requested additional money to settle the accumulation of error and rework claims. But this time, with process for completion set and the pavilion almost realized, the General contractor did not threaten to cease work on the jobsite pending payment (It is important to note that the owner had not fulfilled this payment request more than 2 years later). Perhaps the realization of project end allowed the PM to utilize the Culture tool of ritual, that is, one grounded in consensus with the imminent procedure and outcome of the project (See Exhibit 4).
Of course, good project management does not require that one has to deal with the team as it is. Various strategies exist to instill a sense of vision to the group or outline a strong procedure to move group member to areas where tools of agreement can be consistent among different players. Perhaps a lot of stress could have been avoided by actively indoctrinating the general contractor to be in consensus. Fair compensation is due to that company, but the manner, time, attitude and negotiated amount might have supported the team project had they been more “on-board”. In addition, it is important to note that companies are made up of individuals with agendas. Even Cruzcampo was acquired by Guinness during the process of building the pavilion and their new owner held priorities that affected this project. Cruzcompo (presently owned by Heineken) has a mission statement that embraces culture with their slogan “100 years of living your life with all your heart”[6] while Guinness (presently owned by Diageo) touts leadership with “Leadership teams, who involve key functional representatives in developing best practice and supporting strategic agenda, oversee our global functions”[7](See Exhibit 5.).
As is the case with all good managers, Jean Campbell, the new superintendent of the Bristol City schools saw the challenge ahead of her. Does she proceed ahead; utilizing effective tools for agreement based on the existing staff, or re-shape the environment to make the entire team receptive to a particular tool of agreement? Regardless, she knows that a good project manager must act. --Mikael Powell
----
[1] Bristol City Schools (BCS), R. Elmore, A. Grossman, M. Akinola (Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University #PELP-04-001), May 27, 2004.
[2] The Tools of Agreement, C. Christensen & H. Stevenson (Harvard Business School Press #9-399-080), Rev. May 13, 2001.
[3] Harvard Design School (Center for Design Informatics,CDI#9301-01-011), 1993, page 21.
[4] The Tools of Agreement, C. Christensen & H. Stevenson (Harvard Business School Press #9-399-080), Rev. May 13, 2001, page 3.
[5] The Tools of Agreement, C. Christensen & H. Stevenson (Harvard Business School Press #9-399-080), Rev. May 13, 2001, page 5.
[6] Heineken N.V. Annual Report, 2004
[7] Diageo Careers, Working at Diageo, Professional Growth, http://www.diageo-careers.cm/WorkingAtDiageo-ProfessionalGrowth.asp
.
No comments:
Post a Comment