Breaking New Ground—Stories from Defence Construction Breaking_new_ground - Page 79

DCC ’ s Management Team in the 1980s included , from left to right : Ronald Lachance , Terry Kelly , George Moennich , Trevor Heavens , Pierre Galiungi and Lorne Atchison .
When I first started dealing with DCC in the late 1970s , it was very much separated from DND , he recalls . The projects were taken to a certain point by DND and then handed ‘ over the fence ’ to DCC .
This compartmentalized approach , in which DND did everything they were required to do for a project and then handed it off to DCC to get the work completed , often required change orders and even delays as the project progressed and the vision for the project hit the reality of it . The joint project office recognized the need for efficiency and speed , bringing DND and DCC together at the very beginning of a project . In this way , potential problems could be identified by both sides right from the outset — there was little risk of a “ them versus us ” attitude developing , because everyone was “ us .”
It worked well for both sides — DCC ’ s client relationship became even more one of allies , and the expertise that DND was losing in-house at the time was replaced , in part , by DCC .
Now , it ’ s essentially a single team that carries the projects through , Steve Irwin remarks of the dramatic change in the DCC-DND relationship . In effect , the previous approach saw DCC being told what DND needed , and then doing it to the best of their ability . Today , the two organizations work much more closely as true partners , with their efforts aimed at the same goal .
Consultant involvement and the matrixing of DCC systems and staff were also put to work for NAADM and the NWS . In 1986 , Lorne Atchison noted at a meeting that with respect to the NWS project , “ strong messages were apparent from government to privatize and in this case a combination of both DCC forces and consultant services were being used .” Project management services , estimated in 1987 to cost $ 35 million overall , were contracted out rather than being provided in-house , which enabled the project to proceed more quickly than usual .
DCC under review — again . And again . In 1986 , the Task Force on Program Review ( referred to as the Nielsen Task Force ) brought more high-level discussions to bear on the future of DCC . Its report noted DND ’ s importance as a government property holder and made a number of observations about the Department ’ s acquisition and management of real property , which it described as fail-safe but overly elaborate . The team also acknowledged that both DND and DCC were happy with their current relationship and
BREAKING NEW GROUND DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION CANADA
69
DCC’s Management Team in the 1980s included, from left to right: Ronald Lachance, Terry Kelly, George Moennich, Trevor Heavens, Pierre Galiungi and Lorne Atchison. then doing it to the best of their ability. Today, the two organizations work much more closely as true partners, with their efforts aimed at the same goal. When I first started dealing with DCC in the late 1970s, it was very much separated from DND, he recalls. The projects were taken to a certain point by DND and then handed ‘over the fence’ to DCC. Consultant involvement and the matrixing of DCC systems and staff were also put to work for NAADM and the NWS. In 1986, Lorne Atchison noted at a meeting that with respect to the NWS project, “strong messages were apparent from government to privatize and in this case a combination of both DCC forces and consultant services were being used.” Project manage- ment services, estimated in 1987 to cost $35 million overall, were contracted out rather than being provided in-house, which enabled the project to proceed more quickly than usual. This compartmentalized approach, in which DND did everything they were required to do for a project and then handed it off to DCC to get the work completed, often required change orders and even delays as the project progressed and the vision for the project hit the reality of it. The joint project office recognized the need for efficiency and speed, bringing DND and DCC together at the very beginning of a project. In this way, potential problems could be identified by both sides right from the outset—there was little risk of a “them versus us” attitude developing, because everyone was “us.” It worked well for both sides—DCC’s client relationship became even more one of allies, and the expertise that DND was losing in-house at the time was replaced, in part, by DCC. Now, it’s essentially a single team that carries the projects through, Steve Irwin remarks of the dramatic change in the DCC-DND relationship. In effect, the previous approach saw DCC being told what DND needed, and BREAKING NEW GROUND DEFENCE CONSTRUCTION CANADA DCC under review—again. And again. In 1986, the Task Force on Program Review (referred to as the Nielsen Task Force) brought more high-level discussions to bear on the future of DCC. Its report noted DND’s importance as a government property holder and made a number of observations about the Department’s acquisition and management of real property, which it described as fail-safe but overly elaborate. The te [H[XۛYY][\H\H]Z\\[[][ۜ\[