Dietrich Kretschmar

 

Overview
Wishing to work cooperatively with investors and architectural firms on future projects, a large con­struction group had entered into construction partnership agreements. Many everyday problems that arose during construction needed to be discussed, negotiated, and resolved. The employees involved had previously tended to work in a confrontational and profit-maximizing manner – and were now expected to communicate and cooperate differently to ensure a profitable win-win for all parties involved.

 

Topic
At a kick-off event with many field reports and technical presentations, the aim was to conduct a small hands-on activity in which the colleagues were placed in a workplace setting involving negotiations. Managers, project managers, site managers, supervisory, and procurement staff were to exper­ience cooperative and partner-like behavior. The StackMan learning project was to be used to set an emotional anchor that could also be recalled later on back in their daily working lives.

 

Staging
a. Preparation
40 participants were divided into five groups. Each team was to work with a StackMan set and was accompanied by a person who observed the group dynamics, the negotiations, and actions of the “construction team,” took notes on the teams and contributed them to the subsequent reflec­tion. An observer sheet (see above) containing the desired top­ics for reflection helped them to focus their observations. The entire project was managed technical­ly and commercially by two project man­agers.
The briefing consisted of a written assignment for a test project: “A major client is interested in partnering with you to implement a project. ­Before awarding the contract, the client would like to test your understanding of cooperation in a smaller project and get an impression of how you understand and apply the phrase “built-in partnership.” So far, the client has always commissioned contracts for work on an individual basis.
The test project is as follows: Five contracts for work (i.e. one contract per group) are to be completed simultaneously. The framework conditions for the contracts are all the same except for possible differences in the size of the groups. The client’s wish is that all contracts are completed to the highest quality, on time, and within budget.
Should you wish, you can leverage synergies between the individual contracts for work. The teams can hold construction meet­ings in the client’s office, which are to be organized and carri­ed out by the teams themselves. It is recommended that only one representative from each team is sent to the construction meetings. In the client’s office, the “show house” (the completed StackMan puzzle) can be viewed in the original size. The client is always open to discussions and can also be reached in his office.
You need to create a puzzle from 15 planks of wood. It is to be built according to the specified drawing. The construction time agreed so far is 40 minutes, which includes trying out and organizing the construction teams. At the end of the 40 min­utes, each team must be able to assemble the puzzle without a technical drawing in less than one minute (performance time). The individual performance times of the construction teams will be added up and form the basis for the target agreement of the live performance. For this purpose, the wooden planks must be placed on top of each other at the start in such a way that the longest plank is at the bottom and the shortest plank is at the top. The planks in between are also sorted by length (from the longest to the shortest plank).
The client will be very happy if you complete the construction in less time. He has indicated that other companies have already achieved significantly shorter times than one minute, particularly during final acceptance. He spoke of possible times of less than 30 seconds per construction team. Possible construction time extensions (lengthening the 40-minute test phase) would result in significant losses in ‘performance time’ and thus also impact on the planned profits/earnings.”

 

b. Performance
The project manager took on the five construction teams. The teams were located in five separate rooms, where they often immediately started “beaver­ing away”: After all, they wanted to get a move on, time was short, and feasibility of construction needed to be ensured. Regular construction meetings of the subproject managers preceded the negotiation rounds with the client. After 30 minutes (i.e. ten minutes before the end of the construction period), the five construction teams had to submit a final offer to the client setting out the time required to carry out the live performance. And, during the negotiations with the project manager, the client demanded greater efficiency in order to improve the results.
The participants appointed as observers watched the process and took notes. They didn’t intervene in the task, but shared their observations with the group or individuals in the subsequent reflection. In the process, they observed the feedback rules, formulated in I-messages and avoided you-messages. Observers often benefited greatly from the personal learning effect of this task.

 

Transfer to the real World

Elements in the learning project	Elements in the real world
Role distribution	Organizational structures in construction projects
Time pressure	Deadlines for completion have an impact on profitability
Construction meetings	Daily/weekly construction meetings to ensure quality, optimize costs, and plan the schedule
Negotiations within the construction teams and with the client	Negotiations with the client about supplementary clauses to safeguard profitability for all partners involved in the construction projects
Planning, coordination, and construction of the puzzle	Different construction teams must be well coordinated, which leads to the overall success of a construction project; planning and preparation are an elementary prerequisite for success; The use of Lean techniques (Takt planning) ensures an effective and efficient construction process
Identifying synergies individual construction teams give	Optimization to reduce costs and safeguard profits; offset unforeseeable cost increases by reducing costs

 

c. Progression
The tension generated by this new and unfamiliar task was clearly palpable. Everyone was trying their best. Some had no issues relating to spatial awareness and retaining complex sequences. Others quickly realized that they could only contribute their skills to the team by taking on “simple” tasks. Everyone was needed. If the “boss” came to check the results, there could also be confusion in the team if the advice given was well meant, but did not suit the structure of the team.
The situation was similar in character to the reality of construction projects. All employees were called on and could be deployed according to their different skills and abilities: creativity, motivation, spatial thinking, negotiation skills, goal orienta­tion, ability to work in a team, structured work in processes, willingness to cooperate, ability to reach a consensus, dexterity, etc.
Toward the end with time running out, a flurry of activity ensued, and the construction teams came under time pressure. Communication, dealing with errors or uncertainties – everything had to be structured in such a way that the employees enjoyed their work, and conflicts within the team and with the client were avoided.

 

d. Finish
In the end, the time goals agreed between the project manager and the client for the five groups deviated only slightly in total from the live performance. Over-achievement is just as bad as non-achievement of goals, because the aim is to achieve a win-win for all parties. The result was communicated to the teams by the project leaders and recognition and praise was given for achieving the goals. Had the goals not been achieved, the project managers would have opted to continue working on optimization and developing improvement processes.

 

Reflection
The observers reported back to the whole group and gave feedback to all participants. The use of the “fish bowl technique” during reflection allowed them to ask specific questions about how to transfer what they learned to their daily working lives:
• What was communication within the team like?
• Were all resources used?
• How were time constraints handled?
• What was willingness to negotiate and openness like?
• Were all negotiation opportunities and options utilized?
• Were the agreed rules adhered to?
• What was the balance between securing and maximizing profits like?
• How were conflicts within the team and with the client managed?
• What was the mindset of the employees, their belief in success?

 

Conclusion
The “built-in partnership” behavior required by the client was experienced with all senses in this learning project. It had a sustainable impact on all participants (project management, construction teams, observers) and remained fresh in their minds for a long time. This setting can be used to mobilize and sustainably engage 50 people in a project.