Transcript Slide 1
CII Annual Conference 2005: Research Presentation
Commodity vs Value-Added Services: Lost in Translation
presented by Commodity vs Value-Added Contractor Services Research Team
Commodity vs Value-Added Contractor Services Research Team (RT 205) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Jose A. Buitrago Jim Early Tom Garrett Barry Hall Jim Hershauer Mark Loper Dan Martin Robert McManus Robert Nartonis Kevin O’Leary Stan Schaffer Don Sutphin Graeme Telford Travis Twardowski Jack Wacker Robert Wasmund Ken Walsh CSA Group BE&K, Co-Chair Honeywell International Lockwood Greene Arizona State University AZCO WorleyParsons Group Southern Company M.A. Mortensen HATCH Anheuser-Busch, Co-Chair Baker Concrete GlaxoSmithKline Rohm and Haas Arizona State University DuPont San Diego State University
Research Team Project Objectives
• Develop precise
definitions
of terms.
• Develop understanding of owner and contractor
marketing and procurement strategies
in capital project delivery process.
• Develop and test
conceptual models
for use by owners and contractors.
• Develop
implementation materials
to support deployment of the models.
Findings
•
Common definitions
are critical in order to overcome communications barriers.
• Owners looking for
net
value-added services.
• More investment in front-end loading increases
net
value-added to owners.
•
Perceptions
drive responses and
net
value-added.
Recommendations
•
Owners and Contractors
Ensure you understand each other (definitions).
•
Owners
Use bid selection tool understood by both parties. Identify commodity vs net value-added services.
•
Contractors
Provide net value-added proposals.
Understand when providing commodity vs net value add.
Use available tools to differentiate services.