 |
Abstract for the American Institute of Architects
2 July 2008
Mitigating Risk in AEC Project Execution: Perspectives from
Principals, Counsel and Insurers
Architects, engineers and constructors have compartmentalized their
responsibilities to protect themselves in the event of lawsuits.
But a new white paper from Spar Point Research of Danvers, Mass.,
suggests the opposite policy may be a better way to reduce the risk
of problems with a project.
“Mitigating Risk in AEC Project Execution: Perspectives from
Principals, Counsel and Insurers” was commissioned by
Newforma, Inc. (www.newforma.com), a developer of project
information management software with an interest in the
intersection of project information and project execution.
Spar Point President of Research Bruce Jenkins conducted the
interviews and organized the findings. “We heard clearly that
the industry is fed up with the current culture of adversity,”
Jenkins wrote. “The status quo must change – principals,
counsel and insurers were in unison on this.”
The research involved in-depth conversations with 11 AEC industry
thought leaders:
A/E firm principals
- Burns & McDonnell Vice President & Chief Technology
Officer Greg Gould, P.E.
- Walter P Moore & Associates Senior Principal & Chief
Information Officer Jim Jacobi, P.E.
- HOK Chief Executive Officer Patrick MacLeamy, FAIA
- Perkins+Will Principal & Chief Information Officer Rich
Nitzsche, AIA LEED AP
- NBBJ Principal & General Counsel Tom Owens
Counsel
- Hanson Bridgett LLP Partner Howard W. Ashcraft Jr.
- Barry B. LePatner & Associates LLP Partner Barry
LePatner
- Noble & Wickersham LLP Partner Chris Noble
Insurance professionals
- Ames & Gough Executive Vice President & Partner Gregg
Bundschuh, J.D.
- Victor O. Schinnerer & Company Vice President & Manager
of Risk Management Service Joe Jones, Esq., AIA
- XL Specialty Insurance Company Director of Industry Relations
& XL Design Professional Albert J. Rabasca
Spar Point’s Jenkins summarized the cause of much of the
problem: “Engagement models, contracting arrangements and
project execution practices whose original purpose was to shield
A/Es from risk by shifting accountability to other parties in the
asset-creation value chain have, instead, had the unintended effect
of fragmenting that value chain in ways that increase the odds of
things going wrong in a project,” he wrote.
“Risk management was staying in your corner,” said HOK
CEO Patrick MacLeamy, FAIA. “How many times I’ve heard,
‘You can’t do that because it would void our
insurance.’ It was all about managing risk by limiting the
amount of cooperation or helpfulness we could give to people
outside our firm.”
The new risk management model breaks down barriers that had been
erected between disciplines in the service of collaborating sooner
in the process to avoid problems. “Greater exposure to
liability can in fact reduce the likelihood and severity of
problems,” Jenkins said.
As Hanson Bridgett’s Howard Ashcraft Jr. put it, “In
collaborative environments, the exposure increases but the actual
risk decreases – because there is better control over whether
a failure will occur.”
How does this increased collaboration come about? Technology offers
one means. Culture offers another. Jenkins said, “If there are
two pillars to which interviewees are looking for greater
transparency and deeper engagement in their project and business
processes to reduce errors and omissions, one is BIM and the other
is more effective project management.”
The white paper organizes interviewees’ comments around the
technology of building information modeling on the one hand and the
culture of project management on the other. And it closes with
interviewees’ speculations on how project information
management technology may be employed to mitigate risk and minimize
claims. “We found strong awareness of the need for such
solutions,” Jenkins wrote, “ and an immediate willingness
to imagine all the things they should be able to do.”
The full research paper may be requested at the Newforma
website.
|
