Defining Roles in Your Project

Contributed by Jake Ortego

Construction projects can be highly complex and unique endeavors. A successful project relies on each person/company performing their function as required.  However, in many cases the exact roles and responsibilities of each entity is not mutually agreed upon, nor understood. Consider the following contrasts in expected functions.

• Some architects say that their function is only to “convey design intent,” while many contractors and owners assume that the architect’s role is to design every nut and bolt on the project. 
• There are contractors who only install what is shown in the design while there are architects and owners that believe the contractor should “know” what it takes to build something and account for inferable efforts in their contract price. 
• A number of owners expect their architect and constructors to know what they want.  In many cases, however, the owner’s involvement is so great that it impacts the project.

 
Chances are that you have an opinion for each one of these examples.  These examples focus on the architect, owner, and constructor.  But that is only the tip of the iceberg.  There are many more parties involved in the construction process and each major group can be made up of multiple professions with a wide range of functions, as well as approaches, to accomplish their scope. This includes estimators, schedulers, specifiers, owner’s reps, material reps, accountants, and legal counsel to name a few.
 
As you read this, you are probably thinking that you already know who does what for the entire construction process.  And it’s possible that your views are shared by people within your company or some of your local professional groups. But the standards can vary between industries, geography, project complexity, corporations, and even between two people sitting next to each other.  To be clear, the primary definitions of many project roles can be agreed upon. Estimators estimate, schedulers schedule, engineers engineer, and so forth.  But gray areas of responsibilities do exist, and it is these areas that may be the root of disagreements that can derail a project.
 
So, what is the solution?  A universal standard may seem to be the easiest answer.  But imagine the complexities of having one standard that covers every possible industry, culture, and available resources for each project. Ideal…but probably not achievable.

A more practical approach is to take the time to talk through expectations and gray areas that exist for the project team members.  These discussions can address concepts such as:
 

• The obvious triangle of cost, schedule, and quality – This seems so cliché, but it is rarely discussed by a project team.  Defining the priority of these items can greatly affect how problems are approached and who provides the solutions. 
• Roles and Responsibilities - Another seemingly obvious discussion that does not often take place because everyone assumes they are all in agreement.  The major items are easy, but it is the little things that can turn into problems.  
• Expectations of deliverables – The final construction product is more mutually understandable as it is a tangible object. The differences in opinion can vary widely for less tangible things such as as-built drawings, quality logs, monthly pay applications, details in change orders, review comments for the same change orders, submittal documentation, return comments for submittal documentation, and so on.  One of the biggest differences in deliverable expectations is in the design that is issued for construction (“IFC”). Architects, owners, constructors, subcontractors, bonding carriers, and legal counsel all have different thoughts on IFC. Potential ambiguities arise from the differences in what these less tangible products need to be and who is responsible for the pieces that may have crossover.

 
Discussions about the items above should not just happen once, but instead be part of continuous conversations throughout the project.  They are not always easy conversations to have, as many times it requires exposing a potential issue that one or more parties do not want to talk about. Many project teams may need to have formally scheduled deep dives into these topics.
 
Does this all sound like Projects 101?  Sure it does.  It's an easy, yet often skipped best practice.   Perhaps it is human nature to assume that we are all smart enough to skip the basics.  Many project teams do not develop a mutual understanding as it seems obvious and a waste of time.  The reality is that by skipping this step they are most likely missing an opportunity to create a more efficient team and have a reduced risk of disagreements.