MGMT 307 Fleming College Merck Innovation Centre Case Study Worksheet

Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
DECISION SCIENCES INSTITUTE
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships: The Merck Innovation Center
(Instructional Case)
ABSTRACT
The management of relationships has been acknowledged as a crucial element of project
success. However, agency related issues such as goal conflict, information asymmetry or
opportunistic behavior can make this a real challenge. Steven and Mark – program
managers for One Global Headquarters at Merck – developed their own way on how to deal
with this challenge in a complex and uncertain environment. This case study will provide
unique insights into their approach and motivation.
KEYWORDS: project management, agency theory, project success, principal agent
relationship
Fig.1 Merck Innovation Center and Emmanuel-Merck-Platz in Darmstadt, Germany (reproduced with
permission from Esch (2018))
1
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
A FACELIFT FOR A 350-YEAR-OLD COMPANY
In 2015, after several large acquisitions transformed its businesses, Merck KGaA1 underwent
a re-branding into the single brand Merck. Merck is a diversified pharmaceutical, life sciences
and chemicals group founded in 1668 and ever since headquartered in Darmstadt, Germany.
The company employs approximately 52,000 people around the world, with 11,000 in North
America and about the same number in Germany (Merck, 2019). The company invested
US$ 565m in Capex world-wide in 2015, including a large number of construction projects
(Merck, 2016).
The new brand was designed to position the organization as an innovative science and
technology company as prior analysis suggested that its culture had to undergo a
transformative change. It was also recognized that architecture, in particular at the
headquarters, conveys a strong message to customers, partners, the community, and
employees and that the architecture needs to represent the transformative change as well.
On this basis, the program One Global Headquarters (OGHQ) was initiated in 2014 with the
aim of completion by 2018, when the company celebrated its 350-year anniversary. The
program consisted of about 90 interdependent construction projects of various sizes, shapes
and forms at the headquarters in Darmstadt with a total investment of more than US$ 200m.
The program was led by two internal managers – Steven and Mark – who mainly focused on
strategy and governance issues and were supported by a program management team of
internal and external experts to oversee the high number of projects. External experts were
hired in all cases, in which internal resources were considered inadequate or insufficient to
stay in control of architectural quality, schedule and budget, all of which were non-negotiable.
At the heart of the program was the development of the Innovation Center and the adjacent
Employee Restaurant (Figure 1 and 2), which was described by its architects Henn as
follows (Henn, 2019):
“The Innovation Center will be used to cooperate temporarily in interdisciplinary
teams and to communicate both internally and externally. While the newly developed
public square (…) orientates the company towards the city, the Innovation Center
opens it to the interior. There are three levels which are set back from one another so
that they are to a large extent visually linked. Levels can be changed using arched
ramps. These connections, like the bridges joining the segments at individual levels,
are highly frequented meeting places where the direct exchange of information
among knowledge holders is encouraged. In passing, building users can be inspired
by the work of their colleagues and prompted to engage in discussions. Different
demands on the workplaces – concentration, communication, cooperation – find
spatial expression in a flowing transition. Team communication takes place in the
spacious internal area on each floor. Single-person office cells along the façade
provide space for activities requiring concentration and intensive thought. The
company restaurant is connected to the Innovation Center on several levels. It will
assume essential functions on the currently decentralized staff canteens, some of
1
Founded in 1668 in Darmstadt, Germany, Merck is the world’s oldest pharmaceutical and chemical company. In the 19th
century, the success of its export business to the United States led to the establishment of an office in New York in 1887, which
gave rise to the establishment of a separate entity four years later. In 1917, during World War I it was expropriated. Ever since,
there are two different, unaffiliated companies that use the name MERCK. Globally, except in the United States and Canada,
Merck KGaA, and its affiliates are named simply “Merck”. In the United States and Canada, Merck KGaA uses its firm name
“Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany,” and its businesses operate under “EMD Serono” in biopharma, “MilliporeSigma” in life
science and “EMD Performance Materials” in the materials business. The other company, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, US
holds the rights in the trademark MERCK in the United States and Canada. All references to the name Merck in this case study
refer exclusively to the former.
2
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
which are to be decommissioned. The restaurant will become a meeting place for
numerous employees from the various parts of the site.”
Fig. 2 Typical floor space in the Merck Innovation Center (reproduced with permission from Esch
(2018))
EUROPE’S LEADING CONSTRUCTION MARKET
The context for this case study is Europe’s leading construction market with the continent’s
largest building stock: Germany. The construction sector in general is one of the largest
contributors to the world economy and a key industry in most countries. A recent global
survey found that the productivity of the sector has by far trailed that of almost all other
industrial sectors over the past decades, thus offering huge opportunities for improvement
(Barbosa et al, 2017). While it was found that low productivity performance in construction is
not uniformly distributed, with big variations between countries and subsectors, there are still
common reasons for it. Among those reasons stands the observation, that
“Construction is highly fragmented. Contracts have mismatches in risk allocation and
rewards, and often inexperienced owners and buyers find it hard to navigate in an
opaque marketplace. The result is poor project management and execution,
insufficient skills, inadequate design processes, and underinvestment in skills
development, R&D, and innovation.” (Barbosa et al, 2017, p. 8)
The study concludes that market failures and external factors compromise how the industry
functions and result in low productivity of firms of all sizes. Overall, low labor productivity, as
3
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
well as poor project management can be directly linked to project failures in terms of cost
overruns and delays that are often observed in construction projects.
The German construction sector is a good representation of this situation. The abovementioned study finds it to be almost average-ranking in terms of both construction labor
productivity and its growth. In 2018 the industry’s added value contributed US$ 178bn or
5.3% to the German economy (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2019). During the past decade,
after a cyclical downturn of the industry, many large national construction firms, whose core
competence was the efficient execution of large turn-key construction projects, left the
market and their place was taken by medium-sized, often family owned, companies
specializing in particular trades such as concrete works, façade-works or interior fit out.
Architects typically work in small- to medium-sized specialized practices and subcontract
engineering design work to specialized engineering firms. Deliverables, their quality and, to
some extent, the fees of architects and engineers are regulated by national legislation.
It has been widely argued that contractors, like all other partners in a project, should become
fully involved as early as possible in order to participate in the evolution of the final design by
contributing their knowledge and expertise and become an integrated network partner.
However, many public and private clients defer the final investment decision by means of
their corporate governance until basic design is completed and cost estimates by the
consultants become firmer. Hence, only after the final investment decision is made by the
client, the architect and engineers start to prepare the tendering documents for all trades and
procurement packages in order to avoid sunk costs in case the final investment decision is
negative. Various different procurement models are available, whereas the traditional
competitive tendering is still prevalent. More innovative methods like open book contracts are
in its infancy in Germany and many clients and contractors do not know how to
accommodate them in their corporate governance and are not familiar with the required
changes in behavior and attitude.
Many spectacular project failures both in the public as well as in the private sector have been
credited to an adversarial and fragmented project environment based on suboptimal
contractual arrangements that often resulted in claims and litigation. Major customers and
powerful players of the German construction industry have recognized the necessity of better
collaboration and better contracts with their initiative TeamBuilding under the slogan “For a
Better Collaboration in the Construction Industry”, which was started in 2017 (Initiative
Teambuilding, 2019).
ONE GLOBAL HEADQUARTERS – THE MAIN ACTORS
As previously mentioned, the OGHQ program was led by Steven and Mark. Steven is a
program and project manager with more than 30 years’ experience. He is a chemical
engineer with a PhD by training, however moved into the management of major projects
within Merck several times during the past 20 years. Since then he has been responsible for
R&D, construction and organizational projects ranging from tens to several hundred million
US$ with the OGHQ program being the largest and most important so far. His background
gives him a very good understanding of the client’s organization as well as project
governance. Mark is a qualified architect and joined Merck only shortly before the program
by direct initiative of Merck’s CEO. He has a long career in the construction industry with vast
experience as architectural lead for a major contractor in Germany. This gives him specific
expertise in architecture as well as in the nuances of the German construction market. He
likes to stress the need for a good start in any project and compares it to a 100m sprint that
4
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
is always lost, if the runner doesn´t get a good start. This theme became a proverb in the
program.
Steven and Mark are supported by a team of internal and external experts. Within the
program, Claire is the project manager for the Innovation Center and Employee Restaurant.
Claire is a qualified architect, who worked as an independent architect before joining Merck
20 years ago. She has been trusted with major and important construction projects since.
Based upon her track record, Steven had lobbied hard to have her assigned to the program.
Other key players were Peter, the architect’s project leader who had the overall responsibility
for the design of the buildings as well as the construction management, and John, the
structural engineer, who had to find ways to make Peter’s ambitious design feasible and
affordable while also complying with building regulations. John heads the Berlin office of his
structural engineering company, which is one of the best in the country with a vast
experience in challenging designs. Peter led many ambitious construction projects for large
corporate clients in Germany and China and is supported by Paul, a civil engineer by
training, who successfully acted as a construction manager for various projects.
Worth mentioning here are also Frank, who is Merck´s procurement manager for the
program with an engineering background, and Lilian, a civil engineer and quantity surveyor,
who is part of a team of external specialists from the project management consultancy Drees
& Sommer. She and her team were specifically hired for the program to complement all
required competences of the program management team.
CONCRETE AND STEEL WORKS – BACKGROUND
Considering the general environment outlined earlier, Steven and Mark were faced with a
dilemma: they either follow the traditional way of procurement through competitive tendering,
which is likely to create the basis for an adversarial environment with all its negative
consequences, or they use more innovative forms like open book contracts, which are
difficult to accommodate within Merck’s corporate governance and the industry isn’t very
familiar with them either. However, they did not want to adopt an only partially suitable
solution and decided to explore new collaborative ways of selecting contractors. They were
conscious of some of the issues often present in client-contractor relationships like goal
conflict, information asymmetry, trust or opportunistic behavior and tried to identify ways to
overcome these. They assumed that these issues contribute to the adversarial environment
and hence, are inhibitors of project success. As the OGHQ program had very high strategic
importance within Merck, Steven and Mark did not want to risk the project being late, over
budget or of mediocre quality. Based on the procurement of concrete and steel works for the
Innovation Center and Employee Restaurant their approach to collaborative procurement is
explained in the following.
The tendering package for concrete and steel works was chosen for two reasons: Firstly, the
intricate architectural design was highly challenging as it required complicated and fair-faced
concrete surfaces, wide ceiling spreads, and floors resting on very few supporting pillars (see
Figure 3a to d). To build such a complex concrete-cum-steel structure without flaws requires
a tremendously high quality of craftmanship in formwork, ironworks and concrete works,
which only few contractors are able to deliver. In such a case it is paramount for the project’s
eventual success, that the bidding contractors do not under-estimate the complexity and
difficulties of the required work and erroneously bid too low or beyond their capabilities.
Hence, Steven and Mark concluded that in such a case tendering cannot be conducted
based on price only, but that a collaboration based on trust needs to be developed with the
contractor to manage the complexity of the project. Secondly, requirements the structural
5
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
design for the tendering documents was based upon, were exacerbated at a late stage
during the procurement phase, rendering several requirements and material take-offs2
obsolete in some parts. As the timely laying of foundations was imminent, certain structural
design questions relevant to pricing had to be put to rest during the procurement process
under the mutual understanding that they were to be sorted out fairly later on. Steve and
Mark were confident that their collaborative approach would be able to accommodate this
difficult situation. Otherwise an incomplete design basis would result in extensive claims or
overpricing due to incalculable risks, which they obviously wanted to avoid.
Fig. 3 a and b: Concrete ramps in the MIC during construction and upon completion (reproduced with
permission from Esch (2018))
Fig. 3 c and d: View into a stair well during construction and upon completion (reproduced with
permission from Esch (2018))
2
Material take-offs are used in engineering and construction, and the term refers to a list of materials with quantities and types
(such as specific grades of steel) that are required to build a designed structure or item. This list is generated by analysis of a
blueprint or other design document.
6
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
CONCRETE AND STEEL WORKS – PROCUREMENT PROCESS
During the pre-contract phase Steven, Mark and Claire put a high emphasis on the quick
build-up of project knowledge with the potential contractors who were about to join the
bidding process. Naturally, there is a big information asymmetry about the project and the
nature of the task between the principal partners, i.e. client, architect, engineers – who have
worked on the project for months or even years – and the incoming bidders – who are just
familiarizing themselves with the material provided – which puts the latter at a disadvantage.
Steven, Mark and Claire had planned to overcome this information asymmetry through a
dedicated information exchange including discussions with all bidders on an individual basis
throughout the procurement process, which is summarized in Table 1. This also allowed
them early on to build a collaborative relationship based on trust with the bidders which they
hoped would be carried through to the post-contract award phase of the project.
Stage
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(1)
(2)
8
9
(3)
10
11
12
(4)
Tendering activity
Bidders
Request for interest in bidding
Distribution of original tender
documents
Individual workshops – workshop 1
Submission of quotes
Individual workshops – workshop 2
Revision of quotes #1
Amendment of tender documents
based on new regulatory
requirements and
Submission of indicative quote
Individual risk mitigation workshops
– workshop 3
Revision of quotes #2
Contract negotiations
Contract signed
Table 1. Procurement process; disturbance symbol (
23
14
Calendar week
2015
4 – 12
13
8
5
5
5
2
16 – 17
22
23
25
27 – 29
2
2
30
30
2
1
1
33
36
38
) represents changed requirements.
Steven, Mark and their team intended to achieve the following objectives with this approach:
x
x
x
x
x
Build a mutual understanding of technical and qualitative building requirements.
Familiarize bidders with the planning content of the previous design work as well
as its limits and challenges.
Clarification of technical issues and time schedules for both sides.
Preparation of a common basis for realistic and comparable pricing.
To become mutually acquainted with the acting persons and creation of a mutual
base of understanding and trust.
Claire and Frank identified 23 pre-qualified contractors who they provided with a brief
introduction to the project and asked for an expression of interest for inclusion in the bidding
process (stage 1). They received 14 positive responses and sent the full tendering package
to these contractors (stage 2). Upon closer inspection of the information provided, six
contractors decided not to engage in the bidding process any further and the remaining eight
were invited to individual day-long workshops (stage 3). During the workshops (workshop 1),
7
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
Claire explained rationale and situation of the project, in particular the challenging time-line
that was given the highest priority by Merck, as well as the organization of the construction
site; Peter explained building concept and design and presented examples and challenges in
making the fair-faced concrete surfaces; John explained the structural design concept and
Paul and Lilian captured feedback on a previously drafted schedule considering site logistics
and interdependencies with other contractors. After this introduction, technical questions by
the bidders were addressed and discussed extensively.
This workshop was specifically designed to establish a good working relationship and
demonstrate the collaborative approach chosen for this project. However, discussions on
pricing were completely excluded at this point and the bidders were asked to prepare their
quotes under due consideration of the workshop results.
Three bidders refrained from submitting a quote after the workshops, whereas the remaining
five submitted their quotes on time (stage 4). As shown in Figure 4, quoted prices were
spread out significantly at this point (t=1) with a variance of more than 50%. After evaluation
of the quotes the bidders were invited to another set of individual workshops (workshop 2),
which were centered around the results of the Lilian’s and Peter’s check and individual items
of the quotes, where pricing appeared to be off or inconsistent (stage 5). As a result, the two
lowest priced bidders raised their price, whilst the most expensive one lowered his, and the
spread in pricing of the now technically comparable quotes had fallen by half (t=2; stage 6).
All these intensive discussions also provided interesting insights for Steven, Mark and their
team into competence and general attitude of the bidder and their representatives, who were
about to become future partners in the project. This allowed them to draw conclusions on the
contractors’ collaborative approach and how it developed over time, i.e. they could see if
collaboration is really engrained in the contractors’ thinking and doing or if it is just a
marketing approach.
relative quoted price
160%
140%
Bidder A
Bidder B
120%
Bidder C
Bidder D
100%
Bidder E
80%
20
t=1
25
t=2
30
t=3
t=4

Week of 2015
Fig. 4 Pre-Contract phase: Development of quoted prices for the concrete and steel works package
(normalized with the final contract price = 100%) over the year 2015.
8
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
Shortly after the project had reached this stage, additional regulatory requirements were
issued by the building authority in terms of unexpected explosion events3. These
requirements had not been known earlier and several parts of the tendering package had to
be re-worked by the planners (stage 7). This was a major issue for Steven and Mark as they
were aware that Merck would not accept any delay of the set completion date due to the
celebrations planned for the company’s 350-year anniversary. Work on foundations had to
start soon, and hence, they decided together with Peter and John that further talks should
concentrate on the two most promising bidders – namely Construct (A) and Build (B).
Construct and Build were asked for indicative quotes based on some initial information (t=3;
stage 8). Afterwards, both were invited to individual risk mitigation meetings in order to
explore the most suitable way forward to minimize negative consequences of the re-design in
a collaborative spirit (stage 9). These face-to-face meetings were centered around:
x
x
x
Full disclosure of the regulatory situation and their influence on the building
structure
Request for ideas and optimization potentials with respect to works preparation
and sequences in order to accelerate construction.
Options to bring materials purchases forward on the basis of draft material
takeoffs and fair allocation of corresponding risks as well as shift work on site.
During the workshop the bidders were also provided with the revised material take-offs and
other documents that had changed. Based upon all available information, the final quotes
were submitted by Construct and Build (stage 10). As indicated in Figure 4, the final quotes
were higher than the previous, indicative ones because quantities and qualities of steel and
concrete had increased due to higher design loads (t=4).
In parallel, Peter, Lilian, and Paul adjusted the time schedule accordingly under inclusion of
optimization proposals by the bidders in order to evaluate the consequences on other
contractors. Steven, Mark and their team then evaluated the two quotes with Construct
offering the best value. They visited an example project of Construct and decided to move to
technical contract negotiations with them. During these negotiations they agreed the
following:
x
x
x
x
x
Planned delivery and contract dates
Concept for organization and sequence of construction
Site organization
Contingencies in case of adverse weather conditions
Secondary offers for optimizations
Only after these conditions were fixed, the price was negotiated, as per Merck’s corporate
governance under Frank’s lead, and subsequently the contract signed. These negotiations
were conducted in a constructive atmosphere of mutual respect and fairness. After signing
the contract, Merck offered Construct unilaterally additional bonus payments, if certain
milestones were met. The idea was to motivate them to achieve targets and to demonstrate
goodwill and good intentions for further collaboration by offering a bonus which could not be
interpreted as a withheld portion of the earned payment for services. The bonus arrangement
gave Claire a lever to directly influence Construct´s management with regard to directing
3
For these particular buildings, an additional regulatory requirement was imposed by the local building authorities owing to the
fact that the buildings are placed close to chemical plants that pose a potential danger from industrial accidents. One such
scenario required the buildings to withstand blasts of defined strength, which constitutes a highly unusual load case for buildings
in engineering terms and had to be investigated thoroughly by highly specialized expert engineers before the tangible
consequences for sizing façade and structural work became entirely clear.
9
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
extra effort towards meeting important and evolving milestones at her discretion, which is
otherwise difficult to do under German law.
CONCRETE AND STEEL WORKS – EXECUTION
During execution of the contract Claire, Lilian and Paul regularly met with Construct´s project
management and monitored the work done on site. Technical and organizational issues were
discussed as were progress, obstructions, safety and order on site, as well as logistics.
Solutions to problems were sought jointly, and if unavoidable, intermediate milestones were
adjusted and individual bonus payments offered, whilst keeping the project end date fixed.
Additional work requests were regularly negotiated in a mutually fair manner.
The contractual work had been delegated to the Construct team who remained fully
responsible for execution and output. John regularly supervised critical stages of structural
work and Mark, Claire and Peter checked the critical fair-faced concrete surfaces. Steven
kept loose contact to the senior management team of Construct and got slightly more
involved in rare cases of dissent between the two project teams. He chose this approach to
keep both parties focused on work execution, rather than on questions of accountability or
individual contractual interpretations.
REFERENCES
Barbosa, F., Woetzel, J., Mischke, J., Joao-Ribeirinho, M., Sridhar, M., Parsons, M., Bertram,
N. and Brown, S. (2017) Reinventing Construction: a Route to higher Productivity. McKinsey
Global Institute. (Available at www.mckinsey.com/mgi; accessed: 22. May 2019)
Esch, HG (2018) Merck Innovation Center, Wasmuth Verlag, Tübingen.
Henn, G. (2019), private communication
Merck (2019) Corporate Responsibility Report. (Available at: https://www.merckgroup.com;
accessed 22.05.2019)
Merck (2016) Annual Report 2015 (Available at: http://ar2015.merckgroup.com; accessed
22.05.2019)
Statistisches Bundesamt (2019) Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnungen –
Inlandsproduktsberechnungen. (Available at: https://destatis.de; accessed: 22 May 2019)
Initiative Teambuilding (2019) Initative Teambuilding (Available at: https://initiativeteambuilding.de/; accessed: 22. May 2019, German only)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research team is grateful to all informants of this research who provided support for the
advancement of knowledge. In particular we would like to thank the client, Merck KGaA, the
external project managers, Drees & Sommer AG, the architects, Henn Architecture and the
photographer, HG Esch.
COPYRIGHTS
Copyright Photographs ©2018 Hans Georg Esch All Rights Reserved; Contents and
compilations published in this case study are subject to German copyright laws.
Reproduction, editing, distribution as well as the use of any kind outside the scope of the
copyright law require a written permission of the authors. Copies of the material are
permitted for private and educational use only. The commercial use of our contents without
permission of the authors is prohibited.
10
Resolving agency issues in client-contractor relationships
22
MGMT 307
Week 10 Seminar Assignment
Group Assignment – Submit Individually
Team Number
Student Name
Student number
Review the article Merck Innovation Centre Case Study and answer the following questions. Each team
member is to answer one of the following questions.
1. Do you think the way Steven and Mark addressed the agency related issues was
appropriate and effective? Why?
2. Steven and Mark decided to develop their own collaborative way of procuring concrete and
steel works. Do you think their model should be recommended for
replication for other projects? Why?
3. Due to the introduction of additional requirements by the building authorities a major
disruption of the procurement process occurred. Do you think Steven’s and Mark’s strategy to
postpone this issue post-contract award is suitable? Why?
MGMT 307
Week 10 Seminar Assignment
4. Post-contract award the client offered bonus payments to Construct. Why did they choose to
spend extra money if they are not contractually obliged to do so? Do you think it paid off?
5. Would you have done anything differently to Steven and Mark? Why? In your opinion, is it
likely that Steven’s and Mark’s approach contributes to the success/failure of the project? Why?
You may review the following videos/ articles
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/negotiating-project-outcomes-develop-skills-6781
https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/negotiate-success-element-communication-managers-6504



Purchase answer to see full
attachment