What It Takes to Win

By Ted Garrison

The author discusses his impressions from serving as a judge for this year's "Best Of" contest, and critiques the manner in which contractors attempt to differentiate themselves from the competition.

Several thoughts crossed my mind while judging Southeast Construction's "Best of 2005" entries this year. The reality is many people fail to appreciate the value that contractors deliver. The result is many people think of construction services as a commodity and award contracts based on the lowest price. I'm the first to defend the contractor's technical skills. In fact, I even defended one contractor's technical competency even though I thought it was a terrible company to deal with. The problem is that technical competence isn't sufficient.

It turns out that I was the toughest grader, not because the contractors didn't display great technical competence or build some outstanding projects, but because in my mind they failed to explain why their project was unique or different. For example, all the judges laughed about how many contractors said their project was unique because it had to deal with three hurricanes. A close second was a tight site - another hardly unique challenge. (Besides, this is the Southeast - how about downtown Manhattan for a tight site?)

Everyone in the industry appreciates the challenges the above examples imposed. However, every good contractor should be able to work through those challenges and if performed properly the client would not even notice. So why should the judges notice? Of course tight sites and unprecedented weather conditions present unique challenges. Yet, every contractor has had to deal with these issues. In other words, it's not the challenges that matter, but what is truly unique and outstanding about a contractor's performance that defines a great project. By definition there is only one "best," therefore to be "best" the contractor must be different.

In defense of the contractors who entered the contest, I'm sure their projects had unique factors. So why didn't most of them explain them? As judges, we were forced to rely on their written presentation. Therefore, instead of describing what made their project challenging, the contractor should have explained how they exceeded expectations and added extra value for the client. If the contractor can't do this, then why should they think they are the "best"?

Why is this important? In essence, the contractor's contest entries were similar to the marketing efforts they direct to business prospects. If a contractor can't differentiate itself from its competitor in a way that provides greater value to the prospect, why should the prospect select that contractor? The answer is, the prospect won't unless no other contractor differentiates themselves and the first contractor has the lowest price.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether a firm is marketing to judges or a business prospect - the best chance for success is for a company to differentiate its services in a way that demonstrates higher value for the owner. That means not looking or sounding like the competition.

For example, stating that your company conducts safety meetings or that the site was restricted doesn't work. Every contractor should manage those issues. In contrast, one contestant explained that it used an innovative approach to deal with a restricted site that actually saved time and costs. This is something different, because usually tight sites increase time and cost.

In short, successful contractors must define the situation. This means the contractor must be proactive in finding innovative solutions that add value for their clients. The problem with construction solutions is they are driven by the specific project; therefore it's difficult for the contractor to be proactive.

In contrast, innovative project management processes or added client services that increase the value delivered to the client offer situations where the contractor can be proactive. These situations allow the contractor to seek out prospects for which the contractor can provided added value that its competition can't. Since most of these options may not be required to complete the "construction" many contractors avoid them in the misguided belief that cheaper is better, instead of seeking ways to differentiate themselves by delivering greater value to the client.

In a changing environment only those that adapt will survive. This creates opportunities. First the contractor can adapt to its changing environment. But the real opportunity is to find new solutions for its client's changing environment. Contractors that do this will win more contracts and will be prime candidates for next year's awards.