Gain Buy-In and Communicate

Consensus-building, a hallmark of campus culture, is not currently embedded in most P3 projects due to the risk transfer of design and construction to the Developer. In addition, P3 projects move fast, with decision-making happening at a speed that precludes extensive engagement. However, University staff and faculty are accustomed to a high level of stakeholder engagement. Address this cultural expectation and embedding consensus-building within the P3 model. This approach will result in more clearly defined goals, campus assets that better support the institutional mission, and greater efficiencies in project delivery. Stakeholder engagement workshops and meetings should be prefaced with a reminder of the risks and responsibilities that were transferred to the Developer, versus responsibilities that remain under the University’s purview.

“At most universities, consensus-building is expected, especially around significant capital investments. Yet under P3, decisions are often made early and quickly. A strong and well-executed stakeholder engagement plan can help set expectations and gain buy-in for this new approach.” — Margaret Saunders, University of California, Merced

Create a Governance Board

A Governance Board, a University group comprised of P3 project champions, is highly recommended. Ideally comprised of campus leadership across functions — Academic, Administration, Finance, Student Affairs, and others — the Governance Board manifests leadership commitment and involvement, defines project goals, helps ensure that the goals are codified in the Technical Requirements (TR’s), and manages expectations around change, quality, and schedule (and the cost implications thereof). The Governance Board is critical for maintaining control over the temptation to make changes during the Design phase, as often as happens under other delivery models. Identification and engagement of the Governance Board should happen during the development of the Business Case and continue through the life of the project.

Develop a Communications Plan

The Governance Board should craft and implement — in an ongoing manner over the life of the project — a communications plan to educate peers and colleagues about advantages to using P3 per the Business Case and to set and maintain expectations. The vision, goals, and objectives that are cemented during the development of the TR’s and the nature of a P3 transaction relative to process, roles, schedule, and cost should be clearly and regularly communicated. At every single opportunity, especially during development of the Business Case, Procurement, and the Design and Construction Phases, the education process should be managed and implemented.

“The traditional decision-making processes within academic institutions have a legacy—a shift in mindset is required for P3. As team members, we have to be even more committed to data-driven decisions, clarity in documentation and communication, and expediency in problem-solving as these are critical success metrics. It requires a tremendous amount of discipline to move from the P3 organizational matrix to the actual fulfillment of its multivalent outcome.” — Lilian Asperin, WRNS Studio

Engage Stakeholders Early to Craft Technical Requirements

One of the key components of a successful P3 project is the skilled and accurate translation of University Stakeholder input by the Technical Advisors during the development of the TR’s. This requires in-depth engagement with Stakeholders and Building Users during the time the TR’s are being drafted. Stakeholder engagement occurs again during the Design phase, however the ability for stakeholders to make revisions to the project requirements may be limited, and can result in additional cost or schedule delays.

A key component of a successful P3 project is the skilled translation of user input during the development of the TR’s such that there is a clear understanding of performance and functional requirements.

Efficiencies in Delivery

By engaging Stakeholders and Building Users early in the development of the TR’s, the Technical Advisors can properly identify objectives and goals, and embed this information in the TR’s to deliver the highest value to the University. The effort required on the part of the University to engage Stakeholders during this period will pay off during the Design phase in the form of a more streamlined process that eschews significant design changes, while honoring the University’s consensus-driven culture. This front-loaded approach also helps to minimize conflicts and errors within the TR’s, resulting in fewer Requests for Information (RFI’s) during the Design and Construction phases, which in turn helps to avoid Technical Requirement Deviations (TRD’s), which can have cost and schedule implications.