下載app免費領取會員
版權說明：本文來源BIM譯站微信公眾號，轉載已取得授權
公眾號名稱：BIM譯站
公眾號賬號：BIM2018130
譯
文
—續
4.1.7 撤出/分派
如上所述，創建協作團隊對于IPD的成功至關重要。盡管團隊成員的初選對于IPD項目很重要，但是價值的可持續性和團隊成員之間的不變的承諾對項目的最終成功同樣重要。與任何項目一樣，某一參與方的退出是具有破壞性的，但是考慮到項目團隊對于項目成功的重要性，這種破壞在IPD中是加劇的。
失去和替代某一團隊成員對團隊的必要協作屬性是破壞性的。當失去某一團隊成員時，新選出的任何潛在參與方都要滿足與最初那個參與方相同的準則。進行廣泛的過渡以便項目流程高效地持續下去，同時新的團隊成員也要和其它成員進行很多團隊建設方面的努力。然而，新的替代參與方可能會面臨克服成為團隊剩余成員們的圈外者的困境，這取決于被替代參與方何時退出團隊。
相應地，為了發揮出IPD的最大優勢，團隊需要作出任何努力以保持其持續性。無論是出于分派還是出于自愿終止的原因，團隊成員的撤出都無疑是非常令人沮喪的。在項目開始的時候，項目團隊決定可以接受成員撤出的少數實例情況（如果有的話）。任何此類決定都是協議的一部分，而且此協議可包括在某些特定情況下撤出的破壞條款。
4.1.8 團隊成員糾紛解決
與充滿了太多對抗性關系的傳統交付模式相反，基于協作的IPD模式的團隊持續性是最重要的。這種工作關系和團隊決策流程的實施能避免團隊內部大多數糾紛。但是，即使在最有協作力的團隊中，也不能忽視團隊成員之間出現糾紛的可能性。
當傳統項目中出現糾紛時，通常各方唯一的辦法就是提出索賠，這會立刻將各方置于對立面并使各方作出只對他們自己有利的行動——采用“獨善其身”的本能。如果各方到了這個地步，團隊基本就廢了。這個時候，IPD的優勢就喪失了，并且以后再在團隊中取得協作文化氛圍就很困難。為了在IPD中保住團隊和項目，這些糾紛可以不經過提交索賠和采用對抗性立場而內部消化掉。
內部糾紛是通過項目決策主體解決的，如上所述，該主體基于項目利益的最大化一致做出決議。應用項目決策主體解決糾紛可使團隊成員在做出的決策中獲得擁有感。為此，掌控項目團隊關系的協議注重內部糾紛解決并為實行這種決議提供了具體流程。在某些情況下，參與方同意"無訴訟"條款，該條款免除了其訴訟或仲裁權利。
很大程度來講，內部糾紛解決的成功不怎么依賴于采用的特定流程，更多的則是取決于團隊成員采用IPD團隊方案的程度。當某一團隊成員堅持責任孤島的觀念時，該項目就會受挫。團隊越是更好地一同工作，越是能避免內部糾紛。如果內部糾紛解決失敗，各參與方的協議將采用外部糾紛解決的方法，而沒有"無訴訟"條款。在這方面，各方可遵從更傳統的糾紛解決流程，比如調解，然后是仲裁和訴訟。
IPD中的糾紛內部解決強調了其與傳統項目交付的不同以及團隊成員之間為行IPD而需要進行的文化變革。傳統的合同簽訂是為了約束各方。精心擬定的傳統建設合同明確定義了各方的責任和失敗的后果。責任很少重疊，因為這會產生關于正確角色的歧義。該合同的重點在于交易——必須執行的活動。另一方面，集成式合同方案注重對成功完成項目的必要關系。與交易合同不同，此類關系合同在國內設計和建筑行業中非常罕見。因此，存在稀缺的法律先例。所以，如果產生糾紛，很難評估某一方的權力和責任也很難預測潛在的后果。
未完待續—
原
文
—CONTINUE
4.1.7 Withdrawal/Assignment
As discussed above, creation of a collaborative team is critical to the success of IPD. While the initial selection of team members is critical to an IPD project, continuity of values and on-going commitment among the team members is perhaps just as important to the project’s eventual success. As with any project, the loss of a participant is disruptive, but in IPD the loss is exacerbated given the importance of the project team to the project’s success.
The loss and replacement of a team member is disruptive to the necessary collaborative nature of the team. When a team member is lost, any potential new participant is selected to meet the same criteria as the original. Extensive transitioning takes place so that the process may continue effectively, and many of the same team building efforts occur with the new team member. However, depending on when the participant is lost, the replacement participant may face an uphill battle overcoming the feelings of being an outsider to the remaining members of the team.
Accordingly, in order to glean the greatest benefit from IPD, every effort is made to maintain the continuity of the team. Withdrawal of team members, whether through assignment or voluntary termination, is highly discouraged. At the outset of the project, the team decides the few instances, if any, where withdrawal is acceptable. Any such decisions are made part of the agreement(s) in place and the agreements may include damage provisions for withdrawal in certain circumstances.
4.1.8 Team Member Dispute Resolution
As opposed to traditional delivery approaches where adversarial relationships abound, IPD is based upon collaboration in which team continuity is of the utmost importance. As a result of this working relationship and implementation of the team’s decision making process, most internal disputes among team members are avoided. It would be na?ve, however, to ignore the possibility that disputes may still arise among and between the team members, even within the most cooperative and well meaning teams.
As disputes arise throughout a traditional project, often the parties’ only recourse is to submit claims, which immediately thrusts the parties into adversarial positions forcing them to act in their own best interest – adopting the “hunkering down” instinct. If the parties reach that stage, the team is crippled. At that point, the benefits of IPD are lost, and it is very difficult to regain later the collaborative culture within the team. To preserve both the team and the project in IPD, these disputes are resolved internally without the necessity of filing claims and adopting adversarial positions.
Internal disputes are resolved by the project’s decision-making body, which, as stated above, makes decisions unanimously in the best interest of the project. Utilizing the project’s decision making body to resolve disputes provides team members a sense of ownership in the decisions that are made. To this end, the agreements controlling the project teams’ relationship emphasize internal dispute resolution and provide for specific procedures to effectuate such resolution. In some cases, the participants agree to a “no suit” provision, which waives their rights to litigate or arbitrate.
In large part, the success of internal dispute resolution will depend less on the particular procedures employed and more on the degree to which the team members have adopted the team approach of IPD. When a team member hangs on to the notion of separate silos of responsibility, the project suffers. The better the team works together, the more likely it is able to survive internal disputes. Should internal dispute resolution fail, the participants’ agreements address methods for external dispute resolution, absent a “no suit” provision. In this regard, the parties may follow more traditional lines of dispute resolution, such as mediation followed by arbitration or litigation.
The internal resolution of disputes under IPD emphasizes the difference between it and traditional project delivery and the need for cultural change among the team members to effectuate IPD. Traditional contracting is about creating boundaries. A well-drafted traditional construction contract clearly defines the parties’ responsibilities and the consequences of failure. Responsibilities rarely overlap as that creates ambiguity as to the correct role. The contract’s focus is on the transaction – the activity that must be performed. Integrated contract approaches, on the other hand, focus on the relationships necessary for the successful completion of the project. Such relational contracts, unlike transactional contracts, are quite rare in the domestic design and construction industry. As a consequence, a scarcity of legal precedent exists. Therefore, if disputes arise, it may be more difficult to evaluate one’s rights and responsibilities or predict potential outcomes
TO BE CONTINUED—
本文版權歸腿腿教學網及原創作者所有，未經授權，謝絕轉載。
上一篇：BIM 手冊 | 第四十五期《BIM 手冊》第二章_2.5.2節——作為BIM平臺
下一篇：BIM 手冊 | 第四十六期《BIM 手冊》第二章_2.5.3節&2.6節——作為BIM環境&BIM平臺
推薦專題
