That was the climate at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) when Boyd Black assumed the post of director of Project Management Services in January 1999.

"When I started here, I was told that there were a lot of areas that needed improvement?budgets, change orders, delivery schedules, as well as our relationships with some contractors and architects," says Black, a registered architect who has logged more than 20 years in general contracting and construction management. "We established that our number one goal is to improve both the physical project and the process by which it is bid, approved, and delivered."

Perception vs. Reality

Black realized very early in his tenure that perception can be quite different from reality. While it might appear that a contract is taking a long time to be approved, or that a project is generating multiple change orders, the facts do not always bear out this impression.

"Sometimes people think that we have a lot of user changes on a particular project, but when we look at the facts we see we have very few change orders," he says. "That means we're not communicating well enough."

To correct misconceptions and identify areas where deficiencies actually occur, the Office for Capital Programs (OCP) decided to create evaluation forms that would measure and record specific criteria at various points in the project.

"I was used to working with measures to gauge how things were doing," explains Black. "So at the University we adopted new types of measurement tools that would help us solve our problems."

Unrelenting Evaluation

UIC now uses three different evaluation forms, one each for contractors, professional service providers, and the OCP itself. Each of the vendor forms asks the project manager to assess performance according to pre-defined standards. For example, the contractor evaluation covers the categories of quality of work, timeliness, relationship, and warranty response. The relationship category hones in on five specific targets:

• assignment of a qualified project superintendent,
• coordination of work and schedules for all trades,
• availability of sufficient personnel and resources to properly execute work, and
• cooperation with and responsiveness to the architect and the University representatives.

Using a scale of one to four, UIC project managers measure performance in the different categories at various stages of the project.

As a sign of the University's sensitivity to its vendors, the forms have evolved through several iterations. They will continue to change over time as the program office establishes new targets or uncovers additional needs to address.

"They're not the same forms we used six months ago, and they probably won't be the same ones we use six months from now," says Black. "Initially we met with some skepticism from contractors who thought that these forms were just more paperwork that would not get much attention. But as contractors become comfortable with the process and see that we are serious about using the evaluation forms, they become stakeholders in their content and implementation, often giving us suggestions about adding or changing ways to measure performance.

"Of course, we constantly seek ways to improve the process, too," he continues, adding, "We're not trying to measure things we don't need to measure."

Planned Intervals

While the design or content of the evaluation forms may change, Black stresses that it's important that the intervals between evaluations remain constant. For contractors, the ratings are done at four stages of the project?shortly after beginning, halfway through, on substantial completion, and at the end of the warranty phase.

Admitting that it's a challenge to get the University's project managers to take the time or remember to do the evaluations repeatedly throughout the project, Black notes that the mangers who do complete the forms often have better success.

"Without the planned intervals, the project managers wouldn't know the milestones that we wanted to evaluate," says Black. "Now because we've established planned intervals it's easier to track. It's also easier to make comparisons from one project to another."

Communication and Expectations

The evaluation forms are as useful for communication as they are for identifying areas of improvement. At the beginning of a project they are instrumental in setting expectations.

"Rather than coming in at the end of the job and pinpointing areas of weak performance, we're telling contractors what to do upfront, measuring them as they proceed, and keeping them informed," says Black. "That helps communication back and forth."

The measurement process proved its utility in helping OCP deal with one contractor whose past performance left much to be desired. When the contractor was about to begin a very high-profile project, an OCP team, armed with the new evaluation form, approached him to address quality issues.

"We told him that to survive in business for 30 years he must be a decent contractor," says Black. "Since he was a decent contractor, the only explanation for poor performance was that he must not know what we expect, so we reviewed with him both our general expectations and what we expected for this particular project."

Yet about halfway through the job, the contractor poured a concrete foundation wall for a seating area in a very visible location without vibrating it.

"It looked like a honeycomb," Black recalls. "He thought he was going to finish it off, but we made him tear it out and re-pour it. We said to him: 'Remember what our expectations are?' Today he's an improved contractor, and we give him feedback all the time."

Sanctions and Rewards

The measurement system includes a twin scheme of sanctions and rewards to discourage sub-par performance and recognize high achievers. In addition to its performance ratings, each evaluation form asks project managers to recommend whether OCP continue to work with the vendor, impose reservations, or flat-out disqualify the firm for a specified period of time.

"Showing our contractors what they have to do and enforcing our standards has raised the bar," says Black. "If they don't meet the criteria we have set, then they can be excluded from bidding."

The new system has not only promoted adherence to construction schedules and reduced change orders (which, Black points out, contractors frequently regard as an opportunity to offset a low bid), but has also enriched the bidding pool.

The flip side of the sanctions is a program that recognizes contractors and professional services consultants who show great improvement or surpass expectations. Although the tangible rewards might be limited to a plaque or a framed certificate, the positive reference and credibility they impart are appreciated by the vendors, Black says. The end result is that UIC has become a place where contractors want to work.

Turnabout Also Generates Improvement

Acknowledging its role in project delivery, OCP also developed a form asking users to evaluate its own performance in the process.

"If users on the campus don't think we're doing a good job, then we're not, even though the facts may say otherwise," observes Black.

OCP's form includes 11 different categories, ranging from responsiveness and ability to listen to input regarding workmanship, budget, and schedule. Users are also asked to note any areas in need of improvement.

The forms have been the catalyst for several changes in the program office. For example, the inclusion of the workmanship criterion reminds project managers that they are ultimately responsible for the quality of the physical product. Scores in the responsiveness category indicated a need to streamline the project approval process.

"We found that while it was taking eight to nine months from the time a user requested an estimate to the time the project was approved, half of that time was just waiting," says Black. "Users didn't understand that."

One of the steps to improve responsiveness was a University effort to raise the dollar value thresholds for Board of Trustees' approval to a level more in keeping with similar institutions. The higher dollar limits mean that the vast majority of OCP projects no longer have to undergo this time-consuming review.

More accurate documents have also accelerated the process, eliminating delays caused by missing or incorrect information.

"We also modernized the work practices of our administrative assistants," says Black. "Prior to these changes in procedure, approximately 35 percent of our contracts were returned by the business office for correction.  Since we implemented the changes, 163 contracts have been submitted to the business office, with only one returned for correction."

Milestones and Legacies

A software upgrade has also made a big impact on project delivery. When Black came to the University, OCP was laboring with an old campus legacy DOS database program. Even though it had been updated over the years, the program did not provide the functionality and ease of use offered by currently available products.

With added features that include enhanced communication tools, a Web page interface, and an improved user interface, the new application, Projecto, has been enthusiastically adopted by OCP's project management and accounting staff, as well as others on campus who rely on the information it provides.

"If we see something that deviates from the acceptable norm, we can look up all sorts of data and see where the problem lies," says Black. "Then we can figure out how to fix it."

By Lawrence A. Howard

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894