Since taking the reins of the project management firm RF Walsh, Jack Hobbs augmented the firm’s name, narrowed its focus and relocated into new digs in Boston’s Seaport. “The name Collaborative Partners was something we all believed really represented what we do,” Hobbs says. “That commitment we bring to the table, the way we do business, who we are – clients pick that up, and they hire us again and again.”
Jack Hobbs, FAIA
Title: President and CEO, RF Walsh Collaborative Partners
Age: 57
Experience: 40 years
What’s it been like taking over, altering the name, changing the identity of the firm, and making it your own?
It’s been a blast. We thought our issue was going to be getting past Bob Walsh the personality, but that just kind of happened. It was seamless. The clients probably saw immediate improvements because we tried extra hard. When we took over the company, we got rid of all the related activities. We were construction managers, we were building buildings. We dissolved that. Because we’re very service-minded, where we were always best has always been project management. So, unlike a lot of companies in our business, that’s the only thing we do. We don’t have to be brokers or construction managers or anything else in order to show a good balance sheet.
The other key was – and I know that’s why we needed to change our name – I could not do this by myself. Joe [Naughton, the company’s COO] and Donna [Camiolo, the CFO] are key and integral to this partnership. Each of us brings a unique perspective to the table for our clients, and I think they see that right away when we sit down with them. Donna brings a keen management and financial perspective; Joe is right on top of technical issues and controls; and I’m the good looks. How we manage, how we focus, the nature of our focus, it comes from this type of group. That partnership goes all the way through the employees.
Why get out of construction management?
The risk is so high, and the return is so little. The kinds of fees you get in construction are minimal, just minimal. We’re so service-oriented that we can’t compete on fees and rake the owner over the coals on change orders and maintain a relationship. So it just didn’t compute for our company. I don’t think it’s in our personality.
What we’ve done here is clarifying, simplifying and being very focused. We take our contracts very seriously, like they’re our buildings: It’s our money, our vision and we make sure we implement that vision for the client and protect their money as it gets invested in their project. They get a real sense of predictability. At the concept level of a project, you should know what your budget is and what your schedule is and what your scope is – and that should hold.
Is it making the budgets more realistic from the outset? Or getting people to hew to the budget?
They may tell us we have a $30 million project. The first thing we’re going to do is go through the process they’ve already gone through, because if we can’t agree that it’s $30 million, we’re not going to be able to help. We have to agree with the client that they can get their vision for $30 million. Then, we can hold it. You sit down with the team, delineate what the vision is. Everybody says, “Yes, we can do it. We’re on this team. We’re going to do it.” And if somebody starts to deviate, you bring them back to the charter. It sounds very simplistic. It is. It’s just like saying, “Here are the rules we’re going to play with in this game. Don’t break the rules.”
You co-developed the Penmark condos in the South End. Is that something you’ll return to once the market for those types of projects rebounds?
I don’t think so. Again, a development company is different in nature from what we do. That can divert valuable resources away from what we do, and divert our focus. I don’t know if we can afford to do that. We spend so much time and effort staying sharp about what we do. I would hate to see that dulled by lack of focus. And it’s going to be a long time before development comes back.
Once financing returns, do you see a demand for overhauling, in a significant way, the quality of green space in existing buildings?
There should be pressure from federal, state and local governments to make that happen. There should also be some private interest in it. The utility companies ought to be more active than they are. One thing we do with clients is look at how they behave, energy-wise, and help them make some of those decisions, whether it’s seeking money that will pay for changing out light bulbs, or looking to put in a [cogeneration] plant. I think that’s a big market.
Jack Hobbs’ Five Favorite Artists:
1.) John Singer Sargent
2.) Emile Gruppe
3.) Charles Sovek
4.) Charles Movalli
5.) Aldro Hibbard
