TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT SEMAP
Best practice for project initiation – the strategic front end
W
e have invited an eclectic mix of expertise from across the NHS
‘family’, including Architects, Strategic Health Project leads, and ‘in-house’ NHS Directors of Estates and Facilities to determine how we might define good practice in the early development of a construction project. If we achieve our initial objective, we are
then set the challenge of identifying tools and skills IHEEM can promote, supporting stakeholders in maximising their opportunity for a positive experience in the delivery of a successful project. We launched proceedings in late July 2023
asking a simple question…….’Who is our Client?’
After 90 minutes of detailed,
heterogeneous discourse reflecting over 300 years of combined history, knowledge, and expertise, it became evident (and probably not surprisingly) that we all had differing views on ‘Who is the Client’.
Reinventing the
wheel? As we started to define the emerging themes, it was evident that the fundamental principles of managing an embryonic brief don’t change. We reflected on the multiple areas of good practice developed over several decades, conscious that we did not want to, or indeed need to, reinvent the wheel.
At this stage we recognised:
Paul Holt Workstream 1 Lead
Associate Director @CS2, and part-time lecturer at the University of Bolton
This discovery very quickly then helped
the panel to recognise that there is no single one solution to the concept of ‘Best Practice.’ We accepted that every party/group involved in the development of a project will look through their ‘professional lens’ – reflective of our own behaviours and personal interpretations of a simple question.
Unknown Unknowns
If we accept people apply ‘what they know,’ we then might argue that project attendees apply their conscious or unconscious bias, and with that an unintended application of Donald Rumsfeld’s ‘Unknown Unknowns’ (Feb 2002). A further delve into Rumsfeld’s view on the Iraqi War leads to the ‘Johari Window’ – a model designed to help people better understand their relationship with themselves and others. Whilst we don’t intend to dive into
management psychology and personal behaviours, we started to advance an emerging theme that we may need to develop individual toolkits to help different audience members understand the purpose of the brief. As Group Chair I asked my colleagues why
we build NHS accommodation - my rationale (personal bias) being that construction is an output of the conversation on the needs of the patient/clinical journey. How often have we sat in meetings applying a ‘construction mindset’ (further bias), making the construction process the purpose/focal point? To any construction professional reading
this article, ask yourself how many times you mention the patient, and by association their visitors and staff in the brief? That might give you a sense of whether you see the build project as an ‘output’ or the ‘raison d’etre’ for the project.
The transient nature and understanding of a broad audience/stakeholders, maybe operating at a strategic level (Trust Board) technical level (IHEEM members), clinical level – both strategic and delivery, as professional consultants, as contractors, or as public representatives. How we include 'minority views' (i.e. dissenting or alternative opinions), and subsequently how to ensure that stakeholders are given appropriate voice. The forever changing clinical environment/need. The funding challenges and the ongoing deteriorating estate.
The conflict between central policy control, operational realities of project delivery, and the perception of design change through derogations et al. The changing motivations, capacity, and capabilities of all involved. An opportunity to review how international best practice can positively influence design development and ‘front end planning’ focused on:
Who to involve. What processes should be undertaken. How to think about prioritising and weighing different professional inputs.
12 Health Estate Journal October 2023
THE BIG BANG OF CAPITAL PROJEC TS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
