Vision Formers

In recent months there been has much discussion about the Collaborative Working Arrangements (CWAs) used for the Department of Corrections' Regional Prison Development Project (RPDP). Criticism has centred largely on the fact that 60 per cent of total costs of the RPDP were paid to contractors before target outturn costs were finally agreed. There have been suggestions that Corrections was spending blindly on the back of an unproven contracting method before they had any idea of the eventual cost. The State Services Commissioner report on the RPDP found that this was not the case. What these discussions also fail to focus on are the benefits of a partnering arrangement, of which the CWAs used by Corrections are just one example.

The public have naturally focused on money in this case. This is understandable given the lack of awareness of Corrections' likely wider objectives - avoidance of a traditional adversarial approach to contracting in favour of a common goal for delivery that everyone shares in.

Whatever your view on the Corrections outcome and the partnering method applied, partnering is a good idea, and it needs to be remembered that value for money does not necessarily mean lowest cost. At its core is the objective of achieving better project outcomes and success for all stakeholders than is often delivered from traditional adversorial-based contract mechanisms.

True partnering as a concept is not just limited to use in one-off project delivery methodologies - it's about building relationships and a quality and continuity of service delivery. However, the way you structure a partnership is crucial to what you get as an outcome.

At its most basic level, a partnership should be structured so that the client, all the consultants, and the contractors - right down to the sub contractors - share the risk and reward around the project. There also needs to be full transparency and shared understanding around scope and budget.

But there are other key elements too. Currently there are a plethora of so-called "partnership contracts" that not only allow the client to cancel at any time but are also non-exclusive. Exclusivity is critical to ensure real commitment from a supplier.

Agreements also need to be structured so that they give more certainty to the service provider. If the service provider knows what the quantum of work is likely to be, they are better able to commit resource. Without this structure, it will be difficult to develop that true partnership, and some of the key continuity and consistency of delivery objectives that should arise can be lost.

The benefits to clients of a true partnership are immense. Particularly if there are measures of service delivery. This needn't be hard; it could simply be a regular sit down and review session.

For the service provider, and we certainly find this as Vision Formers®, the closer you can be to your client the better. If you really do have a true partnership, your client will be open about their future plans, and trust that you, as a professional, will keep that confidential. If we as service providers know these things about our clients, we can add tremendous value at the front end, which is where it really counts to best ensure the client's vision is delivered.

At the centre of any true partnership, there is an objective to de-risk the project and take collective ownership for its success. In a true partnership everybody wins.