IPD指南 | 第九期《IPD指南》创建集成式项目（6/11）

版权说明：本文来源BIM译站微信公众号，转载已取得授权

公众号名称：BIM译站

公众号账号：BIM2018130

译

文

—续

4.1.7 撤出/分派

如上所述，创建协作团队对于IPD的成功至关重要。尽管团队成员的初选对于IPD项目很重要，但是价值的可持续性和团队成员之间的不变的承诺对项目的最终成功同样重要。与任何项目一样，某一参与方的退出是具有破坏性的，但是考虑到项目团队对于项目成功的重要性，这种破坏在IPD中是加剧的。

失去和替代某一团队成员对团队的必要协作属性是破坏性的。当失去某一团队成员时，新选出的任何潜在参与方都要满足与最初那个参与方相同的准则。进行广泛的过渡以便项目流程高效地持续下去，同时新的团队成员也要和其它成员进行很多团队建设方面的努力。然而，新的替代参与方可能会面临克服成为团队剩余成员们的圈外者的困境，这取决于被替代参与方何时退出团队。

相应地，为了发挥出IPD的最大优势，团队需要作出任何努力以保持其持续性。无论是出于分派还是出于自愿终止的原因，团队成员的撤出都无疑是非常令人沮丧的。在项目开始的时候，项目团队决定可以接受成员撤出的少数实例情况（如果有的话）。任何此类决定都是协议的一部分，而且此协议可包括在某些特定情况下撤出的破坏条款。

4.1.8 团队成员纠纷解决

与充满了太多对抗性关系的传统交付模式相反，基于协作的IPD模式的团队持续性是最重要的。这种工作关系和团队决策流程的实施能避免团队内部大多数纠纷。但是，即使在最有协作力的团队中，也不能忽视团队成员之间出现纠纷的可能性。

当传统项目中出现纠纷时，通常各方唯一的办法就是提出索赔，这会立刻将各方置于对立面并使各方作出只对他们自己有利的行动——采用“独善其身”的本能。如果各方到了这个地步，团队基本就废了。这个时候，IPD的优势就丧失了，并且以后再在团队中取得协作文化氛围就很困难。为了在IPD中保住团队和项目，这些纠纷可以不经过提交索赔和采用对抗性立场而内部消化掉。

内部纠纷是通过项目决策主体解决的，如上所述，该主体基于项目利益的最大化一致做出决议。应用项目决策主体解决纠纷可使团队成员在做出的决策中获得拥有感。为此，掌控项目团队关系的协议注重内部纠纷解决并为实行这种决议提供了具体流程。在某些情况下，参与方同意"无诉讼"条款，该条款免除了其诉讼或仲裁权利。

很大程度来讲，内部纠纷解决的成功不怎么依赖于采用的特定流程，更多的则是取决于团队成员采用IPD团队方案的程度。当某一团队成员坚持责任孤岛的观念时，该项目就会受挫。团队越是更好地一同工作，越是能避免内部纠纷。如果内部纠纷解决失败，各参与方的协议将采用外部纠纷解决的方法，而没有"无诉讼"条款。在这方面，各方可遵从更传统的纠纷解决流程，比如调解，然后是仲裁和诉讼。

IPD中的纠纷内部解决强调了其与传统项目交付的不同以及团队成员之间为行IPD而需要进行的文化变革。传统的合同签订是为了约束各方。精心拟定的传统建设合同明确定义了各方的责任和失败的后果。责任很少重叠，因为这会产生关于正确角色的歧义。该合同的重点在于交易——必须执行的活动。另一方面，集成式合同方案注重对成功完成项目的必要关系。与交易合同不同，此类关系合同在国内设计和建筑行业中非常罕见。因此，存在稀缺的法律先例。所以，如果产生纠纷，很难评估某一方的权力和责任也很难预测潜在的后果。

未完待续—

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 naïve, 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—