VINCENT VERNAY

A case of best intentions gone awry

A long overdue and apparently necessary parish project was considered worthy of being undertaken. Therefore the Parish Planning and Building Committee (PPBC) developed a scope of work and proceeded to hire an architect. Bids were requested from a number of architects and an adequate number were received. Because the lowest bid was considerably less than the other bids, it was vetted to ensure that all of the elements the parish wanted were included in the bid. Determining that the low bid was inclusive, the PPBC selected it.

The architect and PPBC were now in agreement that they had a common understanding of the scope and breadth of the deliverables; they were on common ground and ready to proceed.

The architect signed a contract for services and returned it to the PPBC for approval by the parish finance council and the pastor’s signature. This process was in accordance with normal diocesan requirements.

At this stage, the project came to a halt because the finance council determined it would not forward the architectural contract to the pastor for signature. The amount of time and talent expended by the PPBC was enormous. The amount of time and effort put forth by all the bidders, and especially the winning bidder, was also significant. The additional time volunteered by the selected architect was wasted, and his actual costs were real and not recoverable.

Why did this case turn out as it did? What lessons can be learned?

Identifying stakeholders. Bringing a project from the initial idea stage to final completion can be delicate at times. It involves stakeholders — individuals or organizations with varying degrees of responsibility and importance who enter and leave the process at various stages and may influence the project in negative or positive ways.

A successful project team knows who the stakeholders are from the outset. They also are alert to new stakeholders who emerge as the process moves forward. For example, stakeholders could include:

n   Various departments of the State of Hawaii

n   City and county councils, building departments, and permitting and other agencies

n   Neighbors, neighborhood boards, and neighborhood associations

n   Parishioners and parish councils, ministry members and leaders, other parish bodies, and parish administrative staff

n   Various diocesan offices

n   Architects, consultants, contractors, and vendors

Not identifying or ignoring a stakeholder is extremely detrimental to the success of a project. In the case shared here, not fully communicating with every member of the finance council in a timely manner brought a worthwhile project to a halt; it also involved a loss of time, talent, and a significant amount of money (tens of thousands of dollars). Unsuccessful projects such as this one often mean that critical stakeholders will hesitate to get involved in future projects.

Communicating with stakeholders in a timely manner and appropriate format is essential. Attention should be given to a stakeholder’s level of influence. Communication can take the form of letters, reports, memoranda, meetings, e-mails, and carefully noted telephone calls. Communication also requires consideration of how often, when, and what to communicate (schedules, cost, available funding, etc.). Different stakeholders will have different information needs. Providing extraneous information can lead to unnecessary, time-consuming replies. It is critical to focus on providing the information that is requested.

The project team needs to periodically reconfirm that stakeholders are receiving the information they need and are supporting the project. Influential stakeholders who raise concerns must be engaged to resolve their issues before a project proceeds. The fundamental lesson learned from this case is that successful projects have well-informed and on-board stakeholders. This is an important lesson for parish leaders to keep in mind as they work to implement our Road Map by maintaining and repairing facilities.