1200

12

TRANSACT IONS KANEY AEROSPACE ACQUIRES BVR TECHNOLOGIES FROM ESTERLINE Kaney Aerospace , an engineering, manufacturing, and technology company serving Tier 1 and airframe prime manufacturers, announced the completion of its acquisition of BVR Technologies Co. from Esterline Corporation. The combined company will operate as Kaney Aerospace with a workforce of more than 120 employees primarily in Rockford, Illinois, with annual sales in excess of $20 million to the aerospace and medical equipment industries. Kaney Aerospace counts industry leaders such as Boeing, Embraer, GE Aviation, Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, Sikorsky, Stryker Medical, and Woodward as its customers.

Kaney Aerospace CEO Jeffrey Kaney stated, “This acquisition is in perfect alignment with our growth strategy of expanding our customer base and market presence with established product lines and proven manufacturing excellence. Our goal is to continuously provide world class value to our customers and our team.” Kaney Aerospace has been headquartered in Rockford since 2006, with additional operations in the states of Ohio and Washington, as well as in the United Kingdom. BVR Technologies, also based in Rockford, is known for its actuation and motion control products. BVR designs and manufactures gear trains, sensors, and electronic packages for

its actuators and servos, as well as the SVO- 5000 autopilot actuator that is a component of Rockwell Collins’ Pro Line Fusion integrated avionics system. Ron Soave, president of Kaney Aerospace, said, “BVR complements and significantly adds to Kaney Aerospace’s engineering expertise in test equipment, system engineering and product development, as well expanding our FAA Part 145 repair station capabilities. The experience and excellence of our combined workforce, along with BVR’s established motion control, indication and sensing products, provides a roadmap for growth that we are confident will be immediate and steady.”

SCOTT JOHNSTON, from page 11

where a third-party “expert” brought in to bolster the team can do more harm than good. Unless the expert can invest the time to prepare with the team, the panel is likely to see that person as disconnected from the team and just a hired gun. “Teams from different firms that prepare together find the investment in time and resources pays off in the form of not just a project win, but a relationship that pays dividends long after the project is over.” 5)Co-present ideas. Continuing the strategy above, members from both teams should present ideas together. While this may seem like a no-brainer, we often see one team do most of the talking while the other team sits on their hands. Team members should speak from their role, not just toss out com- ments. This is especially critical in design-build projects. “In design- build, the client’s goal is a balanced and collaborative team of design-builder and architect. In this balanced arrangement for success, it’s imperative the architect’s design doesn’t drive the process and the design-builder doesn’t squash the design. In this happy medium, the client will achieve design-build’s goals of functionality, creativity, and quality within the budget and schedule aspirations,” says Anthony Gianopoulos, principal at Perkins+Will in Seattle. 6)Show you are more than the sum of your parts. How can all team members use their expertise not just to solve the project needs, but to help the client reach their long-term goals? What can your combined team do that others cannot? Surprisingly, teams often do not explain why the two firms chose each other and what unique benefits they bring. Ask yourself: What is the single biggest advantage we bring to the table? If you don’t ask and answer it, the selection panel will have to figure it out for themselves – and they probably won’t. Teams from different firms that prepare together find the investment in time and resources pays off in the form of not just a project win, but a relationship that pays dividends long after the project is over. SCOTT JOHNSTON is a principal strategist and facilitator at Johnston Training Group. He can be reached at scott@jtgroup.com

project examples and customized content and the other firm’s content is clearly repurposed from other proposals, the client immediately sees that the team is not “together.” This be- comes especially evident because panel members tell us that they often evaluate proposals by laying them side by side. 3)Clarify roles at the beginning of the project – and in the interview. To avoid any confusion or redundant work, set in writing the expectations between the two teams so everyone understands who is responsible for what. “We believe that preparing a formal teaming agreement helps ensure the success of our partnerships with contractors and other design professionals. The process engages us in a dia- logue that gets the key issues on the table and enables us to develop a collaborative approach based on mutual awareness and trust. It can be the foundation of a key storyline in our statement of qualifications and interview that resonates with our prospective client,” says Walter Schacht and Cima Malek- Aslani of Schacht | Aslani , a Seattle-based architecture firm. Clarifying roles before the interview is critical so the selection panel will have a clear understanding of what is to come. It’s also something panels say teams often fall short on. You may know your roles, but the panel needs to understand exactly what the PM on one team and the assistant PM on the other are – and are not – doing. “Teams often do not explain why the two firms chose each other and what unique benefits they bring. Ask yourself: What is the single biggest advantage we bring to the table? If you don’t ask and answer it, the selection panel will have to figure it out for themselves – and they probably won’t.” 4)Work out the step-by-step processes by which the team will make decisions. Selection panels are trying to under- stand how you will work together – and with them. How will decisions be made during the actual project? The PM on one team and the landscape architect from the other should explain the processes that they use to make decisions, to the point of being able to finish each other’s sentences. This is

© Copyright 2017. Zweig Group. All rights reserved.

THE ZWEIG LETTER May 15, 2017, ISSUE 1200

Made with FlippingBook Annual report