How to Fail a System

When we talk about project delivery systems like IPD, design build, or CM at risk, the danger is not in the concepts themselves but in how people misuse them. These frameworks are powerful, but they can easily be undermined by practices that hurt both contractors and owners.

One of the worst examples I see is the competitive design proposal process. On paper, it sounds like a good way for clients to get the best deal. In reality, it forces multiple contractors and design teams to spend millions of dollars producing detailed proposals, only for one team to be selected. The stipend offered never comes close to covering the cost. Worse, the client often takes the best elements from all submissions, leaving two contractors out millions of dollars and months of wasted effort. That is not fair, and it damages trust in the system.

True design builds work differently. The RFQ focuses on qualifications, team history, and capability. One contractor is selected with their design partner, and only then does design move forward. This avoids wasted time and resources while ensuring the owner still gets a qualified team and a strong design.

Another harmful practice is poorly executed phased design. Done well, phased design can accelerate delivery by overlapping certain design packages with early construction. But too often, teams rush ahead without a complete kit. Structural packages are issued without coordination for MEP systems, embeds, or critical supports. The result is constant rework, wasted money, and frustration in the field. Phased design only works when packages are fully coordinated with the systems that depend on them.

All of these examples point back to a bigger issue: a lack of systems thinking. As Deming warned, organizations often fail because of their best efforts. People try to optimize parts of a process without understanding how the whole system works. They take a framework like Last Planner or takt and adapt it incorrectly, skipping crucial steps or layering it onto CPM, which directly violates the principles that make it effective. The intention is good, but the outcome is chaos.

We have to stop approaching construction as if every system is optional or customizable at will. There are fundamental principles, Goldratt’s Rules of Flow, the 14 principles of the Toyota Way, the 3M framework of waste, unevenness, and overburden, that do not change. Ignoring them leads to failure. Systems like takt, Last Planner, and IPD have correct ways to be applied. The idea that “one size fits none” is a myth. Some principles really do fit all.

The deeper problem in our industry and in our culture is arrogance. We resist learning from history. We resist cooperation. We put up paywalls, compete unnecessarily, and treat knowledge as something to hoard instead of something to share. Meanwhile, other countries are outpacing us because they cooperate, they train, and they build systems that everyone participates in.

Lean construction is not about individuals showing off ideas or monetizing every new framework. It is about continuous improvement, total participation, and respect for people. That means bringing in trade partners, training teams, and making sure the systems are implemented as designed. It means being willing to update and improve, not clinging to outdated methods because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”

If we want construction in the United States to thrive, we need humility and collaboration. We need to stop failing in spite of our best efforts and start succeeding because we are willing to work together in systems. The truth is simple: no contractor, no consultant, no country can solve this alone. Cooperation is the only path forward.

Key Takeaway

Delivery systems like IPD, design build, and CM at risk succeed only when applied with systems thinking, cooperation, and respect for people. Misuse, arrogance, and competition turn powerful frameworks into wasted effort.