The former is very focused on one building type. They want to be
the premiere designer and builder of hospitals in the U.S. They have worked on
(if not completed) more than 1,000 projects on hospital campuses across the
country. The later is more diverse. It counts among its areas of expertise, the
ability to design and construct large warehouse/distribution facilities. It
isn’t the building type that defines these two firms, however.
The hospital builder is closely held and tightly controlled.
This company’s founder occasionally points out, with a chuckle, that he and
Fidel Castro came into power at the same time -1960. The other firm is
more collaborative and is open to growth via strategic business units (SBUs)
and more flexible on choices among a variety of project delivery methods. Both
companies are among Engineering News Record top contractors year after year,
and both offer employees opportunities to work on projects of which they can be
proud.
Neither is fully good or evil. Both organizations have strong
points. Both places offered me opportunities to present powerful stories of
expertise, processes and best practices. In both cases, I found editors willing
to publish stories of success in design and construction. Interestingly, the
stricter/more rigid culture has its perks: a formal work schedule with no more
than an hour for lunch usually means rational work hours most days. The later,
on the other hand, allows people the flexibility to participate in industry
functions/events and get an early start on holiday vacation time and time off
for family which can mean some disruption in scheduling/planning at that firm.
The
point, if there is one in this posting - Culture is important. There is
probably more than one right answer. There are always trade-offs. If you are in
the C-suite, you might be in the best position to set the tone and think
through the implications.
No comments:
Post a Comment