{"id":49685,"date":"2018-11-30T09:19:36","date_gmt":"2018-11-30T09:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/?p=49685"},"modified":"2018-12-03T16:30:34","modified_gmt":"2018-12-03T16:30:34","slug":"improving-project-outcomes-through-effective-requirement-authoring","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/digital-construction-news\/bim-news\/improving-project-outcomes-through-effective-requirement-authoring\/49685\/","title":{"rendered":"Improving project outcomes through effective requirement authoring"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"projectWriting project requirements well is not as easy as you think. How do we get it right to improve outcomes? Chris Needham, BIM advisory consultant for AECOM, takes a look<\/h2>\n

When we want to procure a new service or product, if we want good project outcomes we need to get a few basic things right. If we don\u2019t, we run a high risk of regretting our purchase or not achieving the outcome we want. It\u2019s not rocket science, but it\u2019s very common to overlook what these are.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a great quote that summarises the challenge: \u201cIf you\u2019re not careful, you\u2019ll end up getting exactly what you asked for, but not what you wanted\u201d.<\/p>\n

In this article, I\u2019ll be focusing on goods and services examples that are related to Building Information Modelling (BIM)<\/a>. If you\u2019ve ever struggled to articulate what you want around this subject, or if you\u2019ve ever had to respond to a request for goods or services in relation to BIM, then this article should be helpful.<\/p>\n

Writing precisely<\/h3>\n

Firstly, understand that many contracts are adversarial and do not incentivise initiative, innovation or collaborative behaviours. You need to understand that what and how you write tender questions impacts how your supply chain responds.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t presume it\u2019s always appropriate to be precise or prescriptive. Neither necessarily means you have certainty. If you\u2019re prescriptive but your requirements are wrong, unclear, conflicted or impossible to satisfy then your efforts are in vain. By their nature, prescriptive requirements need a decent amount of understanding of the subject matter. The more you know about what you\u2019re asking for, the more precise and prescriptive you can be.<\/p>\n

Be open-minded and willing to learn<\/h3>\n

If you don\u2019t possess a thorough knowledge of what you\u2019re seeking, start by asking open-ended, exploratory questions. Consider inviting an expert to spend some time with you to help. These exploratory questions may be well-suited to market enquiries (eg an Expression of Interest (EOI)); designed to elicit a direction or prequalification of some sort, rather than a definitive, detailed, priced and contractually binding agreement.<\/p>\n

Be open to receiving new information. Whether you\u2019re exploring or seeking a detailed proposal; unless you\u2019re extremely well-rehearsed, you\u2019re going to be prone to the odd mistake, or learning something new. In fact, invite contributions where respondents see opportunity. When you receive a clarification or an exclusion, read it with open eyes and explore what merit there is in it. Sometimes a question in response to what you\u2019ve sought can reveal depth of knowledge of the respondent.<\/p>\n

Engage with your supply chain regularly. Host workshops and cater for them. Use it as an opportunity to get them to volunteer ideas to you and to share more with them about what\u2019s important to you and your business. Be clear in defining what is important to you and how you recognise it \u2013 both in objectives to be achieved, but also in expressions of value (Bain\u2019s Elements of Value is a great tool for this).<\/p>\n

The art of the question<\/h3>\n

There is a lot to be said for asking a great question. Some are designed to provoke thought, consideration and contemplation. Others are much simpler, designed to elicit a very clear response \u2013 yes or no. The purpose of a question must be understood and should be clear. If a question doesn\u2019t make sense, how can it be answered appropriately, if at all? A lack of coherence or the abundance of conflict in a question can encourage respondents to employ \u2018creative licence\u2019.<\/p>\n

In the context of a Request for Tender, the goal of the respondent is typically to be compliant with the requirements and to impress; to come across like they have all the answers and are the best option for undertaking the work. So naturally, they\u2019re prone to exaggeration of the truth if the questions afford that opportunity.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, if tackling a subject you know little about, it\u2019s up to you to change this. It\u2019s your business that stands to be impacted by the results, so you can\u2019t palm it all off to someone else. You will have to engage to some level.<\/p>\n

The image below shows the safest path (in green) to achieving certainty, balancing the level of precision of the requirement against how much the author knows about what they\u2019re asking for. Level of knowledge should determine the appropriate mechanisms for achieving certainty of outcomes.<\/p>\n

\"project<\/p>\n

Soft landings<\/h3>\n

In the UK, a key document supporting this paradigm is British Standard BS 8536-1:2015 Briefing for Design and Construction, which is one of a suite of documents pertaining to BIM Level 2. It is centred around BIM-enabled Soft Landings, predicated on better outcomes and alignment between those that deliver and those that operate assets. Key features worth consideration include:<\/p>\n