Construction projects can become notorious for conflict between the parties in the project, with designers, architects, engineers, and general contractors in a tug of war over who actually seems to be in charge. IPD was introduced as a mechanism for integrating the contributors and for creating a “cradle-to-grave” continuity in how the client work would be delivered. Although IPD preaches collaboration the reality is that this is a control tool for General Contractors. TaskMaster is a natural paradigm for what IPD is intending to achieve – unlike IPD it has a complete system to support the concept, and it could be useful for General Contractors.

What makes CCPM a more compelling methodology compared to IPD is that it is client-centric from the outset: the client is the one who has things at stake and needs to remain in charge of what work is to be done. From a project management point of view it makes no difference who is in charge so long as the project objectives are economically achieved. It is generally recommended to provide project management oversight as an agency relationship for the customer who takes on the control over a “gating” process and helps the customer decide on critical decisions that should never be delegated to any of the development partners.

Accountability for quality of work delivered is a driving force for IPD and CCPM: the difference is that with IPD the General Contractor tries to avoid getting stuck with poor design and/or engineering decisions. Even if at the end the GC has to figure out a work-around to overcome issues, with an integrated process we can keep track of where the problems are in the delivery process: that is more than an issue of pride – it can be an issue of legal liability for cost overruns.

With CCPM the project manager / agent keeps track of where issues arise and which account needs to be charged with fixing the problem. It is based on the origins of Toyota Production System which has a focus on eliminating waste in the process: this is not a bad perspective for saving the client money where possible. So instead of having the GC raise costs because of a poor design decision, we need to engage the designers that should consider more economical alternatives. Waste involves people, materials, and time waiting for client decisions with people on the clock. If work must be scheduled around access restrictions, for example, this needs to be organized to minimize idle time,

With a project manager to oversee the full project using TaskMaster we can integrate the use of resources and resolve problems before they lead to cost escalation, while giving the client more control over contract and delivery issues. The project manager could be associated with one of the collaborating firms, but really that firm should then assume a role of general contractor to manage the delivery over the full life cycle from the start of the initiative until the final commissioning. Conflicts can best be prevented if the project manager seeks input from selected parties in advance of asking those parties to commit to their proposals.

The CCPM model represents a collaborative venture whereby parties are selected up-front and engaged in “gate” decisions on requirements, design, implementation, and commissioning. Nothing is “thrown over the fence” for someone else to clean up: the designer/architect gets an early feedback from the engineer(s) and contractor(s) that collectively can evaluate alternatives that could lower cost, improve functionality, or deliver a combination of different benefits to the client. This is in stark contrast to the conventional “design-build” model where contributors are selected based on confidential bids. The problem with that method is that it is too late in the process for bidders to have a significant input in how to improve the design for the benefit of the client: they want the project and they are not about to raise red flags.

The bids should be proposals that enable prospective participants to highlight their capabilities in the context of a general (high-level) design, and in their ability to manage their responsibilities in a joint venture with a facilitator/project manager (which does not preclude their own team management). Instead of conflict there must be consultation focused on consensus building rather than a tug of war to maximize revenues. The venture contract locks the selected partners into the project based on an accepted proposal that sets the stage for the budgeting process.

TaskMaster is the ideal vehicle for establishing a collaborative plan that incorporates distinct accountabilities for different participants. The facilitator/project manager is a service provider focused on consensus to gain commitment and to minimize the overall cost of the project. They do have a commitment to the venture partners to keep the client honest through change management because late changes generally drive the cost higher and/or extend the delivery date. The client will have control over approvals and can formally accept the impact on the project.

The CCPM venture collaborates throughout the project from design through implementation and closeout. Gates replace the handover for moving forward subject to joint reviews to make sure the materials are ready to support the next step in the development. While this appears to increase the total workload with reviews, the reality is that problems can be prevented and so the total cost of work can be reduced. Design and implementation share the same resources from a different point of view, but in a way that allows contributors to collaborate to solve design problems during implementation: many challenges are difficult to deal with until you actually get into the actual work that must be performed.

TaskMaster-CCPM represents a complete set of tools and methods to govern collaborative projects in an effective manner. It covers most of the standard contracting provisions except that there is a commitment to a collaborative venture that cannot be sidestepped. It incorporates a detailed accounting process to make sure that costs are accounted for, and to make sure that budget surpluses are set aside according to what is agreed upon in the joint venture arrangements.

CCPM introduces some new legal challenges in contracting that can affect insurance and other liabilities for the partners. In most traditional projects the parties are almost adversarial: they do their work for a given price and hand over the results to the next party in line. Each party tries hard not to get stuck – the General Contractor usually incurs the greater risk by virtue of holding the ball in the end. It may take time for brokers to understand that CCPM is a new ballgame in which everyone remains at risk until the work is completed, and the final rewards are assessed, so everyone can claim their fair share of the profits.

Clients have a better opportunity to get the results they want since a venture partner cannot walk away from responsibilities by blaming some other party that was holding the ball at the zero hour. It means that the designer cannot shun responsibility for a workaround that drives up the costs when the general contractor discovers the real in-situ conditions. Designers, engineers, architects, and contractors alike are bound to find solutions regardless of who ultimately has to do the work. Each party is entitled to charge T&M, but surplus can be declared only when the work is completed: the client is typically contractually bound to share savings with the venture based on the risk sharing arrangement governed in the initial contracts established when the venture is formed.

Learning Formats       PMBP_CCP

This course is currently available in a classroom setting (public or company private) with approximately 30 contact hours (5 days).

PDF – Certificate Of Completion

Each course offers a certificate of completion that identifies the course, the student, and a brief description of the course. To receive a certificate the student must have attended at least 80% of the course sessions. This personalized certificate is forwarded to the student by Email.

PDF – Course Notebook

Each course includes a notebook in PDF format that provides the minimum knowledge the student must master in order to obtain the certificate. In the notebook you will find references to other study materials. Students receive the notebook by Email when their registration is confirmed.

PDF – Program Overview

An overview of this study program can be downloaded from the website by right-clicking on the program link on the enquiry page.

PDF – Current Training Schedule

A list of upcoming training sessions can be downloaded from the website by right-clicking on the schedule link on the enquiry page.

Registration – Service Providers

To register for any training course please look on the enquiry link page of your service provider (from where you accessed this website). On the page you will find a registration request form where you can order the course that you are interested in. The availability dates will be provided to you, along with payment instructions if you decide to go ahead.