News

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI    

Construction leaders today face a paradox: we’re expected to make confident decisions about a future that feels less predictable than ever. Technology is racing ahead, workforce expectations are shifting, and public projects must meet ever-higher standards for sustainability and community value. Forecasting exact outcomes isn’t realistic—but that doesn’t mean we’re powerless.

What sets great leaders apart is not their ability to predict the future, but their ability to adopt the right attitudes toward it. Nick Foster, Futurist and Designer offers four simple but powerful lenses—Could, Should, Might, and Don’t—offer a way for project teams to explore possibilities, set priorities, and avoid pitfalls together.

Four Attitudes for Future-Ready Leaders

• Could – the realm of possibilities. What innovations, approaches, or opportunities could benefit this project?
• Should – the values filter. Among all the options, which ones align with the team’s shared commitments to safety, sustainability, and community benefit?
• Might – the pragmatic lens. What might realistically work under schedule, budget, and resource constraints?
• Don’t – the discipline of restraint. What should we avoid so we don’t waste energy or create harm?

Used together, these attitudes help leaders move beyond guesswork and instead guide their teams toward decisions that are bold, grounded, and collaborative.

A Project Example

On a recent public works project, the team debated whether to implement a new BIM-enabled collaboration platform.

• From a Could perspective, it promised better clash detection and cost certainty.
• Through a Should lens, the team weighed whether the platform would serve the community’s priorities for transparency and carbon reduction.
• The Might conversation raised risks: training costs, software compatibility, and schedule impacts.
• Finally, Don’t reminded the team not to adopt technology for its own sake—or allow it to create new silos.

By working through all four attitudes, the team decided to pilot BIM on targeted design packages rather than force adoption across the board. The result: lower risk, higher alignment, and a solution that truly served the project.

Where Collaboration Comes In

These four attitudes don’t exist in isolation. They thrive in environments where teams can share ideas openly, debate constructively, and commit to decisions together. That’s exactly what Structured Collaborative Partnering (SCP) creates.

• In partnering workshops, Could ideas are welcomed without judgment.
• The Should questions are surfaced collectively, aligning values across owners, contractors, designers, and managers.
• Might discussions are tested through joint risk assessments and scenario discussions.
• And Don’t is built into partnering charters, where teams commit to avoiding adversarial behaviors like surprise claims or siloed decision-making.

Through partnering, these attitudes become a shared discipline rather than an individual burden.

Why This Matters Now

Construction is a collaborative sport. Adversarial approaches not only generate claims and delays but also burn out the very people we need most in the field. Future-ready leaders are the ones who:

• Encourage expansive thinking (Could) without letting it drift into wishful thinking.
• Anchor decisions in values (Should) rather than politics.
• Test scenarios with realism (Might) instead of blind optimism.
• And practice discipline (Don’t) by refusing to waste time on conflict or outdated practices.

A Call to Action

The future of public works and infrastructure will not be shaped by predictions—it will be shaped by leaders who know how to guide their teams through uncertainty together. The four attitudes—Could, Should, Might, and Don’t—offer a practical framework for doing just that.

At IPI, our mission is to equip those leaders through Structured Collaborative Partnering and the Project Leader Certification program. Both are designed to help project leaders turn these attitudes into action, ensuring not just successful projects but healthier, more resilient teams.

The future isn’t something we forecast. It’s something we build—together.

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI    

Construction projects succeed or fail not because of contracts, schedules, or even budgets, but because of people. And at the heart of every project team are values. You can’t see values directly, but you can see their results. Values create attitudes, and attitudes create behaviors. If a team is going to work collaboratively, it’s the values that matter most. 

From Conflict to Collaboration: Why Values Matter 

Consider a project I was called in to facilitate for, after it had spiraled into dysfunction. Two trailers sat side by side on the jobsite, one for the contractor and one for the owner. Yet the doors stayed locked, and the only communication between the two teams was through emails pointing fingers. The project was millions over budget and months behind schedule. 

When the teams finally came together in a partnering session, the root cause wasn’t technical. It wasn’t scheduling. It wasn’t even money. The breakdown stemmed from an early perceived slight between the leaders that snowballed into mistrust. What followed was defensive attitudes and adversarial behaviors that crippled the project. 

Once the leaders apologized to each other they stopped seeing the other as their “enemy”. They saw they needed the other person (and their team) to get the job done. Attitudes shifted almost immediately. Behaviors followed. The project got a fresh start, proof that values and attitudes are the foundation of performance 

The Adversarial vs. Partnering Mindset 

 

In low bid project delivery, the traditional mindset is “I’ll look out for me, and you look out for you.” I am not concerned about you. Some people think you need to Compromise to not have conflict. But when you compromise all the time you will find that people start to keep score on how many times they have compromised, hardly a recipe for creativity or trust. 

By contrast, partnering is rooted in shared values: I care about my success and yours. This mindset leads to curiosity, openness, and joint problem-solving. Instead of splitting the orange in half, as in the classic story of two sisters arguing over an orange. The sisters keep arguing until their mother comes in and tells them to stop. Then the sisters actually talked to each other and learned that one sister was baking a cake and only wanted the peel and the other sister only wanted to eat the fruit inside. Partnering works to uncover interests. By partnering, both got what they wanted.  

On projects, the same principle applies. When teams share partnering values of trust, respect, and accountability, they ask better questions: 

• What do you need to succeed? 

• What do I need? 

• How do we create a solution that strengthens the project for both of us? 

This is how partnering values transform into collaborative behaviors that “expand the pie” and create outcomes far greater than compromise ever could. 

Why Leaders Must Start with Partnering Values 

You can’t dictate behavior directly. You can only cultivate values that shape attitudes, and those attitudes show up in daily actions, whether in meetings, on jobsites, or in problem-solving sessions. Leaders who ignore values risk fueling adversarial cycles. Leaders who intentionally anchor their projects in partnering values create the fertile ground for collaboration, innovation, and success. 

That’s why the International Partnering Institute developed the IPI Project Leader Certification Training. It’s designed to help project leaders not only understand the technical aspects of partnering but also master the cultural and behavioral foundations that drive successful collaboration. 

If you want your projects to thrive, not just survive, start with partnering values. They may be invisible, but their impact is undeniable. Train your leaders, invest in the right culture, and you’ll see attitudes shift and behaviors align. 

The next generation of project success belongs to leaders who understand this simple truth: partnering values are the root, collaboration is the fruit.

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI     

The construction industry in 2025 is buzzing with innovation. Generative AI, robotics, 3D printing, drones, and digital twins are no longer fringe ideas, they’re active forces reshaping how projects are planned, executed, and delivered. Yet as these technologies promise greater speed, efficiency, and accuracy, there’s a paradox lurking beneath the surface: technology alone isn’t enough. Without collaboration, these tools can actually increase friction, confusion, and risk. 

That’s why Collaborative Partnering is more critical than ever. New tools require new norms, new workflows, and a culture of trust to unlock their full potential. 

Tech Acceleration in the Field 

Construction is experiencing a digital renaissance. Generative AI is helping design teams model complex structures faster and with greater accuracy. AI-driven tools now flag compliance issues automatically, optimize materials usage, and even predict when a project might go off track. 

Meanwhile, robotics like brick-laying bots and autonomous earthmovers are showing up on sites to handle repetitive or hazardous tasks. 3D printing of components, or even entire walls, is reducing labor needs and build time. And Building Information Modeling (BIM), once a cutting-edge niche, is now foundational to project planning. With the rise of digital twins and IoT sensors, real-time monitoring and predictive maintenance have become everyday capabilities. 

All of these innovations promise better outcomes. But they also introduce more data, more decisions, and more potential disconnects. 

The Collaboration Gap 

Technology doesn't operate in a vacuum. Even the best AI planning software is useless if the field crew can’t or won’t adapt. A digital twin is only as helpful as the coordination behind how it's maintained and used. And robotics, while powerful, require upfront alignment between design intent and on-site execution. 

The reality is that many project teams aren't aligned enough to integrate these tools seamlessly. Silos between designers, contractors, owners, and field teams persist. If trust is low or communication is weak, technology creates more points of failure, not fewer. 

Why Collaborative Partnering Makes Tech Work 

Collaborative Partnering (CP) is the process that closes the gap between potential and performance. By aligning all stakeholders early, CP creates the foundation for adopting and integrating technology successfully. 

Here’s how CP supports construction tech adoption: 

• Shared Vision: Partnering sessions help teams define shared goals, including how new tech will be used, evaluated, and supported. 

• Role Clarity: As roles shift due to automation and digital tools, SCP helps teams adjust responsibilities and expectations collaboratively. 

• Trust Building: Technology requires experimentation. High-trust teams are more willing to try, fail, learn, and adapt. 

• Continuous Learning: Partnering workshops create space for open dialogue, which is essential for working through implementation challenges. 

What You Can Do Now 

Whether you’re a project executive, construction manager, designer, or trade partner, here are five actions you can take this summer to embrace technology the right way: 

1. Conduct a Tech Alignment Session During Partnering 
   Use your CP kickoff to clarify how the team will use tools like BIM, AI software, or digital twins. Make it a standing agenda item. 
2. Invest in IPI Project Leader Certification 
   This training equips your leaders with the skills to foster trust, coordinate across roles, and lead through complexity, essential for tech adoption. 
3. Assign a Tech Integration Champion 
   Identify a person (or small team) to support the rollout of new tools. Give them the authority to connect dots across disciplines. 
4. Pilot, Then Scale 
   Start small with new tech. Use a collaborative approach to pilot a specific tool on a single scope or milestone before rolling it out. 
5. Include Field Voices 
   Tech succeeds when the people using it day-to-day are included in the conversation. Partnering gives field teams a seat at the table to shape how tools are deployed.

Final Thought: Technology Doesn’t Replace People, It Requires Them 

The myth that construction technology can replace coordination is finally being debunked. Instead, tech demands better coordination than ever before. Partnering is no longer a nice-to-have, it’s the bridge between digital promise and project reality. 

Construction is changing fast. If you want your team to thrive, not just survive, start with the culture that enables innovation. 

Explore Collaborative Partnering and IPI Project Leader Certification to prepare your people for the future of building. 

Connect with the International Partnering Institute to learn how we can help you build smarter, together. 

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI   

In 2025, construction professionals face a clear but pressing threat: the soaring cost of claims and disputes. From skyrocketing insurance premiums to multi-million-dollar legal verdicts, the financial fallout from conflict is growing at an alarming pace. According to the latest industry data, the average value of a construction dispute in North America has surged past $42 million, and it's still climbing. 

Behind these numbers are real consequences: project delays, exhausted teams, reputational damage, and budgets blown apart. Claims related to defects, delays, and contract disputes are hitting more frequently, driven by supply chain disruptions, labor shortages, economic shifts, and a growing legal phenomenon called "social inflation," where jury awards have become increasingly generous. 

If you're a project leader, you may be thinking: "We don't plan for conflict, so why does it keep derailing us?" The truth is, conflict can start anytime and anywhere. It starts in the field, in the ways we form teams, manage problems, and communicate under stress. 

The Root of the Problem: Adversarial Culture 

Many projects still operate under an "us vs. them" mentality. Designers are pitted against contractors, contractors against owners, field against office. These power imbalances and siloed perspectives create tension long before formal disputes arise. In this environment, the moment something goes wrong, everyone starts protecting their own turf. Trust erodes. Collaboration stalls. And the seeds of costly conflict are sown. I saw it just today in a project that is under suspension, and yet because of miscommunication the contractor started working on the job without the owner knowing it. Trust immediately eroded. Everyone is now ready for a fight. It can happen that fast.  

The irony? Every stakeholder on a project typically shares the same fundamental interests: stay on budget, stay on schedule, deliver quality, and keep the site safe. But when fear and blame drive the culture, those shared goals are overshadowed by misalignment and mistrust. 

A Better Way: Collaborative Partnering 

There is a proven antidote to this culture of conflict: Collaborative Partnering (CP). Used successfully on thousands of projects, CP brings all parties together to define shared goals, align expectations, and establish accountability mechanisms before tensions boil over. It includes: 

• Partnering workshops and kickoff sessions 

• Dispute prevention and resolution frameworks 

• Regular facilitated check-ins to stay aligned 

• A performance scorecard to monitor progress 

Projects that implement CP have shown significantly higher success rates—with fewer claims, smoother delivery, and greater profitability for all parties involved. 

Take Action: Ten Ways to Prevent Conflict from Turning Into Claims 

Here is a practical checklist your team can use to prevent costly disputes: 

1. Implement Collaborative Partnering early in project formation. 
2. Train your project leaders through the IPI Project Leader Certification program to establish high-trust norms and resolve issues proactively. 
3. Neutralize power imbalances by setting shared ground rules and ensuring all voices are heard. 
4. Use a structured kickoff session to align goals and identify potential hot spots. 
5. Develop a shared problem-solving approach so all parties co-create solutions, rather than competing for control. 
6. Track project health through real-time trust check-ins and performance scorecards. 
7. Create a learning environment where teams share lessons and continuously improve.
8. Establish clear dispute prevention protocols and revisit them regularly. 
9. Design contracts that support collaboration, not just risk transfer. 
10. Celebrate collaborative wins to reinforce trust and accountability. 

Your Call to Action 

We can't control tariffs, labor shortages, or extreme weather, but we can control how we work together. If you want to protect your projects, your people, and your profits, it starts with culture. 

Collaborative Partnering and the IPI Project Leader Certification give you the tools to build that culture. Don’t wait for a sticky claim (or potential claim) to teach your team a painful lesson. Get ahead of conflict, and set your project up for success. 

Want to equip your team with the tools to prevent claims before they start? 

Explore Collaborative Partnering and register your team for the IPI Project Leader Certification Training today. 

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI  

When a crane operator spots a potential safety issue or an engineer questions a design detail, we stop everything until we get answers. Yet when it comes to the human side of construction, those heated discussions about schedule delays, cost overruns, or design changes, we often charge ahead without the same careful preparation. 

Jeff Wetzler, in his recent Harvard Business Review article "The Right Way to Prepare for a High-Stakes Conversation," argues that business leaders too often enter critical conversations "armed with rehearsed arguments and rebuttals" while missing breakthrough insights that could transform conflicts into collaborative solutions. For construction leaders operating in the partnering environment, this insight couldn't be more relevant. 

The Hidden Cost of Certainty in Construction 

Picture this: Your electrical subcontractor is three months behind schedule, and you're convinced they're just making excuses. You've prepared your talking points about liquidated damages and calling their bond company. Or consider when the owner rejects your change order for unforeseen site conditions, you're certain they're being unreasonable and you're ready to defend every line item. 

Sound familiar? This is what Wetzler calls operating in the "Zones of Certainty," where confirmation bias kicks in. We seek information that confirms what we already believe while filtering out anything that might challenge our assumptions. This mindset kills the collaborative spirit that makes projects successful. On construction projects, our interests are interdependent, and this makes this approach a lose/lose every time.  

The Construction Curiosity Check 

Wetzler's solution is surprisingly simple: a five-minute "Curiosity Check" before any high-stakes conversation. Here's how it works for construction scenarios: 

Step 1: Check in on Your Mindset - Ask yourself honestly: "If I encounter pushback in this conversation, will I jump to 'they're just covering their mistakes' or am I genuinely open to learning something new?" Most of us, when we're honest, start in what Wetzler calls "Confident Dismissal" or "Skeptical Tolerance." 

Step 2: Set a Curiosity Intention - Commit to moving one or two steps toward genuine openness. If you're starting from "They're clearly trying to hide something," aim for "Maybe there's something I don't know about their situation." 

Step 3: Spark Your Own Curiosity - Before entering that difficult conversation, consider these targeted questions: 

• What site conditions or technical challenges might they be facing that I'm unaware of? 

• What legitimate concerns about safety, quality, or schedule might be driving their position? 

• How might my previous decisions or communications be impacting their ability to perform? 

• What expertise or insights might they have about this issue that I haven't considered? 

• What collaborative solutions might emerge if we focus on the project's success rather than assigning blame? 

Real-World Results 

Consider Sarah, a project manager preparing to terminate a "underperforming" mechanical contractor. Using the Curiosity Check, she shifted from "They're clearly not managing their crew properly" to asking, "What might they be struggling with that I don't see?" 

The conversation revealed that the mechanical contractor had been dealing with critical equipment failures from a key supplier, information that hadn't made it up the chain. Instead of termination, they developed a joint action plan with alternative suppliers and adjusted sequencing. The project finished on time, and the partnership grew stronger. 

The Competitive Advantage of Curiosity 

In an industry where relationships often span decades and reputations matter enormously, curiosity isn't just nice to have, it's a competitive advantage. As Wetzler notes, "In a world where information is abundant but insight remains scarce, curiosity may be the ultimate competitive advantage." 

The next time you're heading into a difficult conversation about a delay, dispute, or design issue, take five minutes for your own mental preflight check. The question isn't whether you'll face disagreement, it's whether you'll be mentally prepared to transform that disagreement into collaborative problem-solving that strengthens your project and partnerships. 

Based on concepts from Jeff Wetzler's "The Right Way to Prepare for a High-Stakes Conversation," Harvard Business Review, July 2, 2025. 

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI     

There’s a truth that every experienced construction leader knows, even if they haven’t named it: teams reflect their leaders. How you show up, on good days and bad, ripples through your crew, your project team, and even across your organization. This isn’t just about leadership style. It’s rooted in neuroscience. 

It’s called the Law of Replication, and it’s driven by something extraordinary: your team’s mirror neurons. 

The Leadership Contagion Effect 

In a Yale study on emotional contagion, 50% of employees exposed to a visibly stressed leader began showing measurable stress responses within 30 minutes, even if the leader never spoke about their stress. 

Source: Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, 2020 

What Are Mirror Neurons and Why Should Construction Leaders Care? 

Mirror neurons are specialized brain cells that fire both when we perform an action and when we see someone else perform it. These neurons help explain why yawns spread in meetings, or why tension, urgency, or calm can cascade across a jobsite. 

When leaders demonstrate frustration, disorganization, or blame, teams absorb that energy. When leaders model presence, poise, and accountability, those spread too. 

The Mirror You Create Becomes the Culture You Build 

In construction, especially under pressure, teams follow what leaders do, not what they say. That’s why this “mirror effect” is so powerful, and dangerous if left unchecked. 

Ask yourself: 

• Do I model the mindset I want replicated on my project? 

• Do I approach tough conversations the way I want my team to? 

• Do I recover from mistakes in a way that invites others to take responsibility? 

Leadership is the culture's reflection, and project culture drives everything, from risk management to retention. 

Four Ways to Build a Mirror Worth Reflecting 

1. Start with You 
Reset before site visits or high-stakes meetings. Teams take their emotional cues from you. Center yourself to center them. 

2. Demonstrate, Don’t Just Direct 
Model what respect, preparation, and solution-orientation look like, especially when things go sideways. 

3. Live the Values 
Posting values in the trailer isn’t enough. Consistently embodying values like “trust” and “collaboration” is what creates real change. 

4. Use Partnering Tools to Guide the Reflection 
Structured Collaborative Partnering (SCP) gives leaders clear, repeatable ways to model collaboration, ownership, and high performance. The tools are mirrors themselves, reinforcing the leadership example through practice. 

Make Replication Work for You 

Whether you're leading a crew of five or coordinating a billion-dollar program, the law of replication is already at work. The only question is whether you’re leading it intentionally or letting it lead you. 

As a leader goes, so goes the team. And as the team goes, so goes the project. Choose the mirror you want reflected. 

Ready to Level Up Your Leadership Mirror? 

The IPI Project Leader Certification Training equips construction leaders to master the behaviors, tools, and presence needed to set the right tone, day in and day out. 

Lead with intention. Replicate excellence. 
Learn more and register at partneringinstitute.org 

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI  

In construction, we measure success in concrete deliverables: schedule adherence, budget performance, and quality metrics. Yet the most powerful tool for achieving these outcomes costs nothing and requires no special equipment—the ability to ask good questions. According to the Construction Industry Institute, poor communication contributes to 57% of project failures, while effective partnering can reduce change orders by up to 40%. The difference often lies not in having the right answers, but in asking the right questions.

Beyond the Defensive Response

Too often, project conversations become exercises in position defense rather than problem-solving. When a contractor asks, "Why didn't you catch this in design?" or an owner demands, "How could costs increase this much?" the natural response is defensive. These questions, while understandable, create adversarial dynamics that shut down collaboration before it begins.

The challenge isn't that team members don't communicate—it's that they talk at each other rather than with each other. Each party advocates for their position without truly understanding the constraints, pressures, and perspectives driving other stakeholders' decisions. This leads to what partnering experts at the International Partnering Institute call "listening to reply" instead of "listening to understand."

The Anatomy of a Good Question

Effective questions in construction partnering share three characteristics: they seek understanding rather than assignment of blame, they explore the "why" behind positions, and they open pathways to collaborative solutions.

Consider the difference between "Why is this late?" and "What challenges are you facing that we might help address?" The first question implies fault and triggers defensiveness. The second acknowledges complexity and invites partnership. Both seek information, but only one builds the foundation for co-creation.

Good questions also demonstrate curiosity about constraints and motivations. Instead of "Can't you just expedite delivery?" try "What would it take to accelerate this timeline, and what trade-offs would we need to consider?" This approach recognizes that every stakeholder operates within real limitations—budget constraints, resource availability, regulatory requirements, or organizational policies.

Questions That Build Bridges

The most powerful partnering questions help stakeholders step into each other's shoes. Project managers should regularly ask: "From your perspective, what does success look like on this project?" or "What concerns keep you up at night about this phase?" These questions reveal underlying priorities and fears that rarely surface in status meetings.

When conflicts arise, resist the urge to immediately solve. Instead, ask: "Help me understand how this impacts your ability to deliver" or "What options have you considered, and what makes those challenging?" These inquiries transform adversaries into advisors, creating space for team members to share not just their positions, but their underlying interests.

From Understanding to Co-Creation

True partnering occurs when teams move beyond understanding different perspectives to jointly crafting solutions that work for everyone. This requires questions that explore possibilities: "What if we approached this differently?" or "How might we redesign this process to address everyone's concerns?"

The construction industry loses approximately $177 billion annually to poor project performance, much of it attributable to communication breakdowns and adversarial relationships. Yet research consistently shows that projects using “formal partnering” approaches achieve better outcomes across all performance metrics.

Implementing the Question Advantage

Start small. In your next project meeting, replace one accusatory question with a curious one. Instead of asking who's responsible for a problem, ask what factors contributed to it. Rather than demanding explanations for delays, explore what support might accelerate progress.

The goal isn't to avoid difficult conversations—construction projects will always face challenges. The goal is to approach those challenges as partners rather than adversaries, using questions as tools for understanding rather than weapons for blame.

When project teams master the art of asking good questions, they transform conflicts into collaborations and problems into opportunities for innovation. In an industry built on relationships and trust, this may be the most valuable skill a project manager can develop.

Ready to strengthen partnering skills across your organization? Join the International Partnering Institute to access proven frameworks, best practices, and a community committed to collaborative project delivery. You can join IPI here.

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI 

Collaborative Partnering has become essential for construction project success, yet many teams struggle to move beyond basic conflict resolution. Understanding where your project team sits on the partnering spectrum—and how to advance to higher stages—can transform not just project outcomes, but profitability for all stakeholders.

What Is Collaborative Partnering?

Collaborative Partnering is a structured approach where contractors, owners, subcontractors, designers, and construction managers commit to working together as allies rather than adversaries. It involves establishing shared goals, open communication protocols, and joint problem-solving processes that benefit the entire project rather than individual parties.

The Four-Stage Journey

Not every partnering session is the same. It should not be the same, because your objective for the session varies depending on how the team is operating. Every project team exists somewhere along one of four-stages. Each stage has a distinct objective, based on what is going on within the team and what needs to occur to achieve the objective. Let’s look at the four stages.

Stage I: Controlled When chaos has erupted or conflict looms, and some teams bring old baggage from past projects. Stage I partnering focuses on getting control. The primary goal is reducing conflict by getting agreements on how we are going to work together. Small agreements lead to alignment and defuse the need to protect your interests. Team members agree on basic working protocols to prevent conflict from escalating. A team at Stage 1 needs to focus on negotiating ways of working together and resolving past issues.

Stage II: Cooperative Here, team members begin knowing each other as people and are less adversarial. Focusing on trust-building allows the team to increase their level of cooperation. Focusing on measurable goals and consistent follow-through helps. Exhibiting trustworthiness by achieving promised deliverables creates the foundation for genuine cooperation.

Stage III: Collaborative The breakthrough stage occurs when the project team develops a successful working history together. The lines between different parties blur as everyone joins the same side of the table to examine project challenges collectively. The project itself becomes the focus rather than protecting individual interests. Trust runs high and communication flows freely across all team members.

Stage IV: Creative This pinnacle stage transforms teams into innovation engines. Creativity drives decision-making, with goals focused on achieving what others might consider impossible. Teams move fluidly to meet new challenges, making obstacles work for the project rather than against it. Here, true quality improvement and breakthrough solutions emerge.

The Reality of Progression

Understanding these stages reveals a crucial truth: real quality improvement happens in Stages III and IV, where creativity and innovation drive the team. Stages I and II, while sometimes necessary, focus primarily on preventing or resolving conflicts – sometimes unavoidable, but not the end goal.

Teams don't always progress linearly. Projects can regress to earlier stages when new challenges arise, team members change, or external pressures mount. The key is recognizing these shifts and making sure that your partnering focus is appropriate for the stage the team is experiencing.

Moving Forward

Progression through partnering stages isn't automatic—it requires intentional effort and regular reinforcement. Teams must honestly assess their current stage and identify specific actions to advance. This might involve establishing measurable trust-building goals in Stage II, or implementing joint problem-solving protocols to reach Stage III.

The investment pays dividends. Moving through partnering stages isn't just fulfilling—it's highly profitable for all parties involved. Projects that reach Stages III and IV consistently deliver superior outcomes: better quality, reduced conflicts, improved schedules, and enhanced innovation.

Your Next Step

Successful Collaborative Partnering requires ongoing commitment and the right frameworks. The International Partnering Institute provides resources, training, and community connections to help construction professionals master collaborative partnering at every stage.

Ready to advance your project team's partnering capabilities? Why not have your team become IPI Certified by taking the three IPI Project Leader Certification Trainings together!!

Take time this week to evaluate which stage your current project team occupies. Then identify one concrete action to begin moving toward the next level of partnering excellence.

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI     

Real Story: The owner says to his GC, “We need to resolve these issues. We’ve been unable to over the past several months, and now the dispute plays out everyday on the project”.  

Every construction project leader faces a harsh reality in 2025: claims are increasing both in frequency and dollar value. Despite innovative delivery methods designed to boost collaboration and reduce disputes, the construction industry continues to grapple with conflicts that can derail project momentum and damage critical working relationships. What should be collaborative problem-solving often becomes adversarial positioning that benefits no one. 

Facilitated Dispute Resolution (FDR) offers a powerful alternative that's transforming how the construction industry handles disputes. Used successfully on billions of dollars of construction projects across diverse sectors, from transportation and utilities to commercial and institutional work, this process has proven its effectiveness with facility owners nationwide who now routinely include FDR provisions in their contracts. 

The Problem: When Issues Fester During Construction 

The construction industry has long struggled with a fundamental challenge: how to resolve disputes while projects are still active. Traditional approaches often let issues simmer unresolved, creating mounting tension that can derail project momentum. By the time formal dispute resolution kicks in, problems have often escalated beyond simple disagreements into entrenched positions that damage working relationships. 

When disputes remain unresolved during active construction, the consequences multiply rapidly. Project teams spend valuable time documenting positions rather than focusing on completion. Decision-making slows as parties second-guess every choice through the lens of pending disputes. Trust erodes between team members who need to collaborate daily. Most critically, unresolved issues create uncertainty that can impact project schedules, budgets, and quality. 

A Different Approach: Teams Resolving Their Own Disputes 

Unlike dispute review boards (DRBs) or arbitration, FDR doesn't hand decision-making authority to outside parties. Instead, it creates a structured environment where the actual project stakeholders, those who lived through the issues, can work together to find solutions. This approach produces more durable agreements because the people who must live with the results are the ones crafting them. 

The process maintains collaborative relationships while providing the framework needed to tackle complex disputes. Because project teams retain control over outcomes, they can craft solutions that work for everyone involved. Most importantly, the team collectively understands what constitutes a "fair" resolution given the specific circumstances and project realities they've experienced together. 

FDR functions as an extension of the issue resolution ladder established during project partnering sessions. When disputes escalate to the highest levels, the senior executive for owners or the principal for contractors, FDR provides these decision makers with a neutral forum for working through difficult issues based on facts and merit rather than adversarial positioning. 

The FDR Process: Structure That Works 

At its core, FDR brings all stakeholders together with a trained, neutral facilitator in an informal setting. Each side presents their story, supporting facts, and documentation. The facilitator helps break complex issues into manageable sub-issues, allowing parties to resolve disputes piece by piece rather than getting overwhelmed by the entire scope of disagreement. 

The process works because it creates specific roles for each participant. Presenters, typically field team members from both sides, prepare and present the facts for each issue. They know the project best and can tell the real story of what happened. Experts provide technical analysis when needed. Decision Influencers offer oversight perspective without making final calls. Most importantly, Decision Makers, those with actual authority to commit their organizations, focus on understanding issues and crafting fair resolutions. 

Preparation proves critical to success. Each issue requires identification of the core problem, chronological development of events from all perspectives, relevant specifications and documentation, and clear explanation of how work was actually performed. Presentations should match the quality and completeness of formal dispute proceedings, complete with visual aids, highlighted documents, and supporting exhibits. 

Real-World Application: What to Expect 

FDR sessions typically run full days, though complex issues may require multiple sessions. The first meeting often focuses on discovering what the real disagreements are, something that's not always obvious when disputes have festered for months or years. Facilitators assign "homework" between sessions, allowing teams to gather additional information or perform specific analyses. 

A typical session follows a structured flow. After introductions and ground rules, each side presents their perspective on the first issue. Questions and clarifications follow. Decision makers may call individual caucuses to discuss their positions privately, then reconvene in joint sessions to work toward resolution. The process continues until agreement is reached or impasse declared. 

The informal setting proves crucial. Unlike formal hearings or litigation, FDR sessions encourage open dialogue. Decision makers can ask direct questions of field personnel who witnessed events firsthand. Technical experts can explain complex issues without formal rules of evidence getting in the way. Most importantly, parties can explore creative solutions that might not be available in more rigid dispute resolution forums. 

Strategic Implementation: Real-Time Resolution During Construction 

Today's most successful FDR applications occur during active construction rather than at project closeout. Smart project teams don't wait for issues to accumulate, they address brewing disputes immediately when they arise. At major milestones or when specific problems emerge, teams can quickly convene FDR sessions to resolve issues while everyone is still engaged on the project. 

This real-time approach offers tremendous advantages. Facts remain fresh in everyone's memory since events just occurred. Key personnel are still on-site and available to explain what happened. Project momentum continues because disputes don't fester and spread to other work activities. Most importantly, teams can implement solutions immediately, often preventing smaller issues from escalating into major problems. 

Consider a typical scenario: three months into a major infrastructure project, unexpected subsurface conditions create disagreement about changed work scope and compensation. Under traditional approaches, this issue might simmer while work continues, creating ongoing tension and uncertainty. With FDR, the team can convene a session within days, present the facts while they're fresh, and reach resolution that allows work to proceed smoothly. 

Of course, FDR can still prove valuable during project closeout when multiple unresolved issues remain. However, its greatest power lies in preventing that accumulation of disputes in the first place. 

Building Better Relationships 

Perhaps FDR's greatest benefit isn't just faster resolution, it's preserving working relationships. Traditional dispute resolution often creates winners and losers, burning bridges between parties who may need to collaborate again. FDR's collaborative approach allows all parties to save face while finding solutions that work for everyone. 

The process also provides valuable education for less experienced field personnel. Junior engineers and project managers get to see how seasoned decision makers work through complex issues. They learn what documentation matters, how to present technical information clearly, and how to separate personalities from problems. 

Making FDR Work: Critical Success Factors 

Success with FDR requires commitment from the top. Decision makers must actually participate, not delegate authority to subordinates. The neutral facilitator must be truly skilled in dispute resolution, this isn't a partnering session or team-building exercise. Preparation must be thorough and professional, with each side ready to support their positions with solid documentation and clear reasoning. 

Cost sharing between parties, typically split equally as part of the partnering process, ensures both sides have skin in the game. More importantly, it reinforces the collaborative nature of the process rather than making it feel like one party is imposing dispute resolution on the other. 

The Path Forward 

Twenty-five years after its development, FDR remains a powerful but underutilized tool in the construction industry's dispute resolution toolkit. Its success depends not on complex legal procedures or outside experts, but on bringing the right people together in the right environment with proper facilitation. 

For owners, including FDR provisions in project specifications signals commitment to collaborative problem-solving during construction. It demonstrates understanding that disputes are often inevitable in complex projects but that immediate, collaborative resolution is possible. For contractors, FDR offers the opportunity to present their case directly to decision makers without layers of bureaucracy, getting issues resolved quickly so work can proceed efficiently. 

For project leaders tired of disputes that disrupt construction progress, FDR offers a proven alternative that resolves issues in real-time. For owners seeking to improve project outcomes while maintaining positive contractor relationships, FDR deserves serious consideration in project specifications. For an industry that's built on collaboration and problem-solving, FDR provides a way to resolve disputes during construction that honors those values while keeping projects moving forward. 

Written by Sue Dyer, Founder, IPI    

At the heart of the International Partnering Institute’s (IPI) Collaborative Partnering Framework lies a powerful principle: aligning teams around a common purpose and shared goals within a high-trust environment, where communication, coordination, and innovation can thrive. Rather than relying on top-down directives or isolated expertise, the Framework recognizes that project success emerges when all participants, owners, architects, engineers, contractors, and suppliers, co-create both objectives and processes from Day 1. Over years of working with hundreds of A/E/C teams, IPI has distilled eight interlocking theories in six categories, into a unified system that consistently generates alignment, accountability, and breakthrough performance on construction projects. Below, we explore these foundational concepts and explain why IPI is the ideal environment for you to connect with peers, sharpen your partnering skills, and build projects that exceed expectations. 

1. Aligning Around Common Purpose and Goals 

A core tenet of Collaborative Partnering is that high-performing teams must begin by defining a shared vision. When stakeholders co-create success criteria, risk registers, quality metrics, target budgets, and schedules, everyone feels a sense of ownership that fuels commitment. This collective alignment isn’t merely about checking boxes; it establishes a high-trust environment where communication flows freely, coordination becomes seamless, and innovation naturally emerges. By jointly articulating “what winning looks like,” teams avoid hidden agendas and friction, focusing instead on a unified mission. 

2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence 

The Delphi Method (Wikipedia) and The Wisdom of Crowds (Wikipedia) both demonstrate that a group’s aggregated judgments often outperform individual experts. Within IPI’s Framework, initial partnering workshops gather diverse voices, field superintendents, design leads, project owners, and specialty subcontractors, to brainstorm potential risks and ideas. This broad input yields more robust solutions than any single viewpoint. By soliciting input from every team member early on, IPI cultivates an environment where communication, coordination, and innovation can thrive. Teams learn to listen actively, value differing perspectives, and blend insights into a cohesive strategy. 

3. Building Consensus Through Cooperative Games 

Modern Negotiation Theory, as pioneered by Harvard’s Negotiation Project (Harvard PON), emphasizes that true leverage is found by uncovering mutual interests. In construction, interdependence is inevitable: an owner’s success depends on the contractor’s ability to perform, just as a contractor relies on timely design input. IPI’s Framework ingrains the mindset that “if one loses, all lose.” When teams shift from adversarial bargaining to a “team first”, collaborative problem-solving, they forge high-trust bonds, eliminating costly disputes and claims. 

Game Theory (Wikipedia) further reinforces this concept, proving that cooperative strategies yield greater collective benefit than zero-sum competition. In construction we have overlapping interests. The potential of a team is exponentially greater when the team works together versus protecting individual interests. This win-win approach accelerates schedules, reduces rework, and maximizes overall project value. 

4. Consensus Decision Making & Divergence/Convergence 

Consensus Decision Making (Wikipedia) highlights that even the most brilliant idea is futile unless the team commits to action. IPI embeds structured consensus processes into its Framework: issues ranging from constructability challenges to change-order resolutions pass through facilitated workshops where everyone voices concerns, questions assumptions, and proposes alternatives. The facilitator guides participants until they reach a solution everyone can support, building both alignment and trust. 

Complementing consensus, the Divergence and Convergence model (explained at ChangingMinds.org) helps teams “go broad” before “going narrow.” First, brainstorming captures all potential options; then, prioritization exercises focus energy on the top strategies. This ensures that no viable idea is discarded prematurely and that the eventual decision reflects collective buy-in. 

5. Optimizing Throughput by Uncovering Constraints 

Instead of analyzing isolated tasks, IPI’s method considers the entire project delivery process to identify and alleviate hidden bottlenecks. Theory of Constraints (Wikipedia) teaches that productivity is governed by the slowest link—be it permit approvals, design iterations, or material deliveries. In partnering workshops, facilitators use Socratic questioning to guide teams in uncovering root-cause constraints. Once identified, participants collaborate on remedies, adjusting workflows, reallocating resources, or creating parallel processes, to boost overall throughput. By fostering a high-trust environment, teams feel safe sharing vulnerabilities, leading to more rapid constraint identification and resolution. 

6. Cultivating Critical Thinking & Creative Problem-Solving 

Complex construction challenges demand more than technical know-how; they require imaginative, critical thinking. Drawing on Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats (Wikipedia), IPI facilitators encourage participants to adopt different mental “lenses”, objective analysis, emotional perspective, caution, optimism, and so on, when tackling issues. By explicitly shifting between these modes, teams avoid groupthink, consider risks and opportunities from multiple angles, and devise robust, innovative solutions. This structured approach to creative problem-solving ensures that decisions are both visionary and practical.