Answer all questions completely
No Plagiarism
Cite all resources used and use in-text citations
Read the case study titled “Building of Memory: Managing Creativity Through Action” before starting this assignment. (reading material copied below with cite info)
Review the Week 10 Individual Assignment in which you develop a Personal Leadership Plan.
Write a four to five (4-5) page paper in which you:
1. Suggest three (3) specific change management techniques that Shimon Kornfield should have used in order to manage the morale of the team assigned to the Yad Vashem memorial site project.
2. Outline the essential steps that Shimon Kornfeld could have taken in order to ensure that all team members learned of any proposed changes. Provide the rationale and justification for each step outlined.
3. Assess the criticality of the timing of communication in the success of the Yad Vashem memorial site project. Support the response with three (3) specific examples.
4. Assume that two (2) key members of the team were replaced during the executing phase of the Yad Vashem memorial site project due to family crises. Discern actions Shimon Kornfield could take in order to establish trust and gain credibility with the remaining project participants.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
· Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
· Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
Laufer, A. (04/2012). Mastering the leadership role in project management: practices that deliver remarkable results, 1st Edition. [Strayer University Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://strayer.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323079362/
Building of Memory: Managing Creativity Through Action
by Alexander Laufer, Zvi Ziklik, and Jeffrey Russell
Initial Stages: Making Progress by Splitting
Yad Vashem is a memorial site to the six million Jews killed by the Nazis. The 45-acre site located near Jerusalem contains several museums and various research and educational centers. The largest museum on site is the new Holocaust History Museum, which opened in March 2005. The architect of this museum, Moshe Safdie, who is a leading international designer, concludes his book Yad Vashem—The Architecture of Memory as follows: “No design I have ever undertaken was so charged with symbolic associations. It seemed that every move, form, shape, and sequence elicited multiple interpretations and endless debate. Now that the public has possessed the complex, I am amazed at the diversity of interpretations and reactions. When I am there, I often become a voyeur and watch visitors’ reactions and listen to their conversations. I have always wondered if architecture is capable of evoking the same emotions that we experience listening to music. At Yad Vashem, I am constantly aware of how intensely personal the feelings provoked are and how individual and particular. It is at these moments that I feel architecture can, however rarely, move us as deeply as music can.” Shimon Kornfeld, the project manager of the Holocaust History Museum, recalls another kind of music that prevailed when he was appointed to lead the project from the early stages of the design. Loud voices and even shouting were known to accompany the passionate and intense debates about the fundamental concepts of the design that constantly took place between the chief curator of the museum, Avner Shalev, and the architect Moshe Safdie. Shimon was already an experienced project manager at the time and was used to internal conflicts in his project teams. Over the years, he had learned to appreciate such conflicts because of their eventual positive impact on the quality of the team’s decisions. But this time was different. These conflicts often sounded more like a competition between two fierce opponents rather than a healthy debate between two members of the same team. Shimon was worried that such rivalry would hurt collaboration between the other members of the project team and that it would eventually hamper project progress. It was also difficult to reconcile diverging opinions in an analytical way because at this creative stage of the project, most decisions were based more on ideas and less on facts. Shimon realized that navigating between these two strong personalities and their respective teams would require a great deal of creativity on his own part as well. It should be noted that both the chief curator and the architect enjoyed a unique and powerful status in the project. Avner, the chief curator, also served as chairman of the Yad Vashem Directorate of the Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority. That is, he was a member of the project team and head of the client organization at the same time. Safdie, who is regarded as a world renowned architect, had been awarded this project through an international competition, and his proposal had been selected by an independent committee composed of highly esteemed experts and public figures. Thus, Shimon, the project manager, could not have dealt with these two designers like he would have any other member of the project team. They were simply too powerful. Because of the nature of this project—remembering the Holocaust—both designers were totally committed to the success of the mission, but each one felt that the other side was somehow attempting to “own” the entire project. The concern on the curators’ side was that the spectacular design of the building would be so dominant that it would stand by itself as a memorial and would overshadow the central role of the exhibitions. Ironically, therefore, the unique shape of Safdie’s structure worrying the curators was the very reason that his design had been chosen. The truth is that Shimon himself was also very concerned about the design of the structure: “The museum’s central bloc was designed as a prism that penetrates into the ground and ‘erupts’ from it, at varying angles, as an unsupported protrusion. The walls of the prism envelope had a unique architectural design based on ‘exposed concrete’ elements with no external cladding or coating. We were worried that certain components of this unique and extraordinary monument might be impossible to execute.” The architect explained his radical demands: “I was determined to cast the entire museum monolithically, jointless, unadorned—without any exterior waterproofing or cladding or any interior insulation or finishes. I wanted just the basic structure—concrete walls and floors and glass to let the light in from above.” Thus, it is no surprise that Shimon came to the following conclusion: “The contractor will be required to ‘sculpt’ the concrete elements in order to realize the architect’s wild dream.” Shimon approached an expert in executing complex elements made of “architectural concrete” and asked him to examine the feasibility of executing the proposed design. The expert provided a list of recommendations to render the execution more feasible, but only a few of his recommendations were accepted by Safdie. Safdie reiterated his opinion that the project must be imparted with a unique character and that he himself, as well as other leading architects around the world, had designed buildings of similar character that had been successfully executed and that served as a source of inspiration and a place of pilgrimage. In an attempt to convince Shimon, Safdie suggested that they visit a few of these sites abroad. Undertaking this tour, however, did not alleviate Shimon’s concerns: “On the tour, we saw structures that were amazing in their complexity, but the structure designed for Yad Vashem seemed to me to be more problematic than they were. I really did not know how one can build the external envelope of this unique building.” Even the director general of Yad Vashem, Ishai Amrami, was not fully satisfied with the design of the building: “During the project, I had some harsh arguments with Shimon and with Shimon’s predecessor about the management of the design and particularly about our proceedings vis-á-vis Safdie. I felt that they avoided confrontations with the famous architect and in several cases, chose to ‘sacrifice’ the functionality of a certain area for the ‘benefit’ of an ‘architectural whim.’” Still, despite some discomfort on the part of the client, the curators, and the project manager with some aspects of the design, the architect seemed to have the power and the determination to stick to his design. Although the new Holocaust History museum was the heart of the new development at Yad Vashem, it was only one component of it. The project that Shimon was managing was much larger and covered additional buildings and infrastructure work throughout the Yad Vashem site. The cost of the entire project was estimated at 100 million dollars, but at that time only 45 million dollars had already been procured. Given that the estimated cost of the museum building was about 40 million dollars, Ishai requested that Shimon split the construction of the museum building from the rest of the project and issue the tender for it as early as possible: “I was aware that the design of the electrical, mechanical, and other systems in the building had not been completed. However, Yad Vashem finances all its projects from donations, and accelerating the beginning of construction was crucial for obtaining financing for the project. Potential donors tend to respond more favorably to our appeals when they can see real action on site and when the actual structure starts rising on the site.” Surprisingly, Shimon responded favorably to Ishai’s request. Even with the difficulties of starting construction on the building before design of all the systems was complete, Shimon felt that creating a fait accompli would put a quicker end to the bitter conflict between the curators and the architect. Moreover, Shimon explained that decoupling the building of the museum from the rest of the project would allow him and his team to focus all their attention on execution of the most difficult component of the entire project, the one with the radical design and stringent requirements. Thus, the gap in needed resources and the splitting process unexpectedly turned out to be a huge help for Shimon, enabling him to cope better with the many unique challenges posed by execution of the design. Middle Stages: Making Progress by Uniting Shimon surprised Ishai again when he insisted on an unconventional process for selecting the contractor who would build the new museum. Yad Vashem, like most public organizations, generally chooses its contractors via the traditional process, in which any and all contractors are invited to submit their proposals, and the one with the least expensive proposal is the one selected for the job. That was exactly what bothered Shimon. He was worried that for such an extremely complicated project, selecting the least expensive contractor rather than the most suitable one would not only severely compromise the quality of the product, but would lead to disastrous financial results: “It was very clear to me that not every contractor would be able to cope with the ambitious and intricate design of the building and its stringent and ‘quality-based’ requirements. As a matter of fact, I was sure that only a few contractors could meet these extremely radical demands. Moreover, I envisioned that the contractor would have to cope with endless changes during construction—changes because more than a few components in the architectural design were simply not feasible, and the architect refused to change them and changes because the design of the building systems was far from ready and would inevitably call for changes in the current design of the building. Also, the curators were still debating fundamental conceptual ideas regarding the design of the exhibitions, and it was clear that the late submission of their detail requirements would lead to additional changes in the design of the building. The chances that a contractor selected on the basis of cost alone would be able and willing to stay responsive to such a stream of changes and still maintain high-quality requirements would certainly be extremely low.” Shimon recommended that the client embrace an unconventional approach for selecting the contractor. According to this approach, various criteria for prequalifying the bidders would have to be met, and the winning contractor would be selected on the basis of multiple factors, not only the total cost of construction. He presented his ideas to the client, explained his rationale, and shared his successful past experience with unconventional approaches to selecting a contractor. Yet, the client preferred to stick to the traditional approach, primarily to avoid taking any risks. Shimon was fully aware that this unconventional approach was not free of risk and that he would be blamed in the case of failure. Nevertheless, he was determined to reverse the decision: “After several fruitless meetings, I realized that more arguments would probably not help me change their minds. I decided to try a new approach by providing them with concrete evidence through observation. This required my finding a site where selecting the contractor based on cost alone was clearly detrimental. The search turned out to be very quick.” Shimon organized a visit to a nearby large construction site, the Ben-Gurion International Airport, and invited the client to join him. They met with site management and learned that all the contractors had been selected strictly on the basis of cost, which enabled many unqualified contractors to join the project. Many contractors had declared bankruptcy, with extremely negative outcomes for both project quality and schedule. Shimon had the satisfaction of getting approval for his unconventional approach from Yad Vashem’s management, who were convinced of its virtues after observing firsthand the poor results of a project that had considered cost alone in selecting a contractor: “Where endless solid arguments in the office failed, one brief site visit did the trick. Apparently, seeing is believing.” The first tender to get underway was also the largest and most important one in the entire project—the tender for execution of the skeleton and structure envelope. The selected contractor was supposed to function as the “general contractor” for the project and coordinate the activities of the various electrical, mechanical, and other specialty contractors, who would be appointed later to work in parallel with the general contractor. Shimon understood the pivotal role of selecting the general contractor: “I was of the opinion that selecting the right general contractor was by far the most important factor for the success of the project. I was therefore determined not to err in this selection process, and I was prepared to invest every effort necessary to make it work.” Thus, Shimon carefully designated a three-stage selection process: Preliminary screening: Criteria included the bidders’ financial robustness, experience with similar projects, recommendations from former clients, and a presentation by their proposed management team. Only those bidders who met the criteria continued on to the next stage. Implementation test: The bidders were required to present their proposed methodology for construction and to execute a sample mockup of the special concrete elements of the structure (a small model that included an exposed concrete wall, door, and window details). Monetary bid: Only those contractors who successfully passed the first two stages were granted the right to continue to the final stage and to submit their monetary bids. Both the client and many of the competing contractors did not fully understand the purpose of the second stage, which is exactly why Shimon included it: “It was important to me to see whether the contractor was treating the project and the mockup as an important engineering challenge or just as a folly of the client’s which could be changed later on. I knew that for this challenging project to be successful, the contractor would have to demonstrate an extremely high degree of competence, commitment, and flexibility. I also knew that the best way to learn about these attitudes and capabilities would be by observing the contractor in action.” Based on these criteria and after reviewing all of the proposals received, Shimon selected the company most likely to be awarded the job as contractor. However, beyond the selection of the contractor, it was important to him to participate in the determination of the contractor’s management team as well. He selected Israel Chaskelevitch, the project manager proposed by one of the earlier bidders (whose offer had been rejected for financial reasons) as the person most suited to be project manager: “Israel was the same concrete specialist who we had approached in the initial stages of the project for a professional opinion as to the feasibility of the architectural design. At this early stage, he gave us feedback on the design as well as ideas for changes in the design to render it more implementable. I recalled that I was very impressed with his competency as well as with his creativity. I felt that I could rely on his professionalism, resourcefulness, and integrity. Based on my early and current impressions of Israel, I indicated to him that he should try to join the company that seemed to be the winner. At the same time, I applied pressure on the director of the company and informed him that his chances would increase if Israel were to be included in their team as project manager. To my delight, I got a positive response from the company. Apparently, at this stage, he was willing to agree to any request of ours as long as he was awarded the project.” Ishai, the Director General, was also concerned about the issue of staffing the contractor’s management team and supported Shimon’s intervention: “I had already failed in the past with large and promising contracting companies that chose to assign unsuitable project managers at the head of the pyramid. The project manager on behalf of the contractor must be a person with a ‘head that doesn’t stop working.’ I fully trusted Shimon. I did not rush him, and I gave him a free hand in his efforts to shape the staffing of the contractor’s management team.” The contractor’s on-site preparations for the onset of the work brought into sharp focus another key problem: how to enable visitors to continue touring the Yad VaShem site without affecting or being affected during the intensive construction activity. The original solution called for a step-wise execution of the museum complex, with relocation of the visitor access roads accordingly. Yet, realizing how taxing this solution would be on site management time and focus, a second solution was adopted. Two temporary overhead pedestrian entrance bridges were built, enabling visitors to come in ‘above the construction.’ Ishai explained that “this solution not only prevented safety hazards; it eventually saved the project a great deal of money and endless headaches.” Yet, Shimon’s headaches were only just beginning: “Now that I was able to select a contractor and a project manager that fit the unique challenges of the project, I was supposed to be relaxed. However, I was not. With the ambitious architectural design, many building details remained unclear or were especially expensive to execute, and some were even impossible to execute. I did not have any doubt that we would have to cope with a stream of design changes during construction. I realized that we would be unable to provide the contractor with execution drawings for all the project areas, and I knew that entering into the execution stage in such a state would open the door to monetary claims by the contractor. But I was counting on Israel to refrain from abusing the situation.” For his part, Israel observed: “Shimon was in great distress due to the extensive design changes that the architects could not seem to stop introducing. I knew that I could easily confront Shimon and demand supplements to the contract for all those changes. Yet I decided not to do it, at least not for the moment. I tried to persuade the architect to change some especially complex and problematic execution details, but did not succeed. The architect suspected that I was trying, from the very beginning, to ‘pull’ the project in directions that were undesirable for the client and refused to cooperate. I estimated that the client, although he approved the drawings, did not in fact understand what he was signing.” Two camps were actually forming, with the designer on one side demanding absolute adherence to the original design regardless of whether it was at all feasible, while the contractor on the other side was adamant about his inability to execute many of the design details. In between the two was Shimon, the project manager, who was trying to reconcile both sides without compromising the project. Israel himself was also looking for a creative way to put an end to the conflict: “I was debating as to how to help the architect off his high horse without offending him or damaging the project. I understood that in order to ‘remain viable,’ I had to make a move as soon as possible to gain the trust of both the architect and the client. I was constantly seeking creative ideas for alternative solutions that would protect the interests of all those involved—solutions that would not be inferior to the original design, but that would, at the same time, allow us to shorten the execution time and reduce the financial cost. I chose to first tackle the issue of the architectural concrete elements in the prism structure.” Thus, the prism design for the museum’s central hall, which was to be cast entirely of special architectural concrete, was the first problem to put the architect’s versatility to the test. Due to the massive quantity of concrete required, the contractor needed a very large number of special and expensive forms in order to execute the castings within the set time schedule. But, as Israel explains, even the most expensive forms did not yield a final product of the quality anticipated by the architect: “All of my attempts and efforts to find an applicable and economic solution for the prism’s concrete elements were in vain. At that critical point in time, it was important for me to check the architect’s willingness to compromise, and this time I was ready to fight if my demands were rejected. After much exploration, I decided to request that the architect move from a conventional execution of the prism walls by on-site casting to a pre-cast execution. I proposed that the pre-cast elements be made separately at a makeshift factory and be assembled using joining bolts. “In order to enable the architect to experience the proposed solution, I built a mockup of the proposed pre-cast solution. The joining bolts that protruded from the pre-cast panels initially bothered the architect. After a week of deliberation, however, the bolts started to grow on him and he even became ‘enamored’ with the solution. Finally, my proposed solution was unanimously approved by the architect, the client, and the project manager. “We all benefited from the change. The client benefited from a shorter execution time; the project manager benefited from easier on-site supervision made possible by the simple pre-cast execution; the architect benefited professionally from adopting the solution (several months later, he presented this solution at an international architecture conference); and we all benefited from saving a great deal on expenses.” The contractor’s success in persuading the architect, at this early stage of the project, to agree to such a fundamental change in the execution details of the prism walls was a kind of “decisive event” in the project in terms of developing a trust-based relationship between the contractor, the architect, and the client. Israel took this success and ran with it: “The successful solution for the execution of the prism’s architectural concrete elements made me try and dare again, this time with respect to the synagogue building. The circumferential concrete wall of the main prayer hall was originally designed to be executed in a unique conic manner. Despite our many efforts, we could not succeed in casting this concrete element at the required level of quality. I proposed to the client to change the design and substitute the concrete wall with a drywall-clad steel structure, the final result of which would be identical in shape to the original concrete wall design. To my delight, the architect again agreed to my proposal after being convinced that his original design simply could not be executed. Again, all of the parties benefited from my proposed solution, since I agreed to significantly decrease the unit price on this item following the change in execution method.” The concrete work took about a year and involved 240 different castings. Throughout construction, several mockups, some full-scale, were tested to make sure that the casting process and concrete quality met specifications. Israel recalls the difficult environmental constraints of the work: “We had to embrace a mindset of ‘versatile’ formwork. For example, we had to build a scaffold system up to 80 feet high to support the cantilever over the forest and access road during construction. We had to work above the Jerusalem forest without damaging it, and we were allowed to cut down only three trees.” Another example of the contractor’s creative thinking that eventually led to a brilliant solution was seen in the Hall of Names, situated at the heart of the museum. In this hallowed hall, the names of all the communities annihilated in the Holocaust are commemorated on the peripheral walls. The architect treated this room with the appropriate reverence, and the complex itself was designed as an architectural focal point of extreme importance. In the middle of the floor, there would be a deep conic well whose walls were to be made of special architectural concrete castings. The well walls were to be illuminated with special lighting, and so the execution had to be meticulous and the joints between casting interruptions had to be highly accurate. However, Israel again anticipated problems with executing the design: “In my opinion, it was impossible to execute the concrete walls at the depth of the conic well according to the architect’s design. Even had we gone to extreme lengths, we would not have achieved the required accuracy. I proposed an original solution: to carefully excavate the conic well in the rock and leave it in its natural form, without the concrete cladding. The proposed solution initially led to serious arguments with the architect, but the final result, after the peripheral lighting was completed, was so impressive that the client and architect not only approved the solution, but also thanked us for our initiative.” If at the beginning of the journey, the architect and client had been reserved and suspected that the contractor’s primary purpose was to find shortcuts and cut costs, Israel managed to win their favor after proving himself to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Cooperation and mutual trust continued to increase as work on the project progressed. Shimon was thrilled with Israel’s contribution to the project: “Early on, I worked tirelessly to ensure that the prequalification process would help us to select a contractor high in competence, commitment, and flexibility. We were very lucky and got them all. Israel excelled in that he managed to identify the architectural design problems and, in parallel, present us with proposals for their solution. He invested time and money in finding practical solutions, which were often crucial for transforming challenging design concepts into reality. I felt that the brilliant solutions Israel proposed were considerate of the architect’s extreme sensitivity about the unique design and at the same time met the client’s expectations regarding the quality of the final product.” Safdie himself praised the contractor’s commitment and creativity: “It would take many experiments, mockups, novel engineering techniques, and a dedicated contractor to realize the building. The stainless-steel buttons that conceal the post-tensioning anchors at both ends of the prism are visual testimony of the ingenuity involved.” Final Stages: Making Progress Through Versatility Avner Shalev, the chief curator of the Holocaust History Museum, describes the underlying concept for the design of the exhibition: “My starting point and basic assumption was that as the years advanced, individual mourning would dissipate, the feeling of severed limbs would become dulled, and the memory of the Holocaust would become like that of any other historical event. In order to prevent this drift and enable future generations to connect to a memory with inherent significance for their identity and values, a memory with the capacity to shape the future, I realized that we would have to place educational work at the center of our endeavors.” The group of curators embraced this vision and developed a very ambitious and innovative objective: educating the young generation by personalizing the abstract concept of the Holocaust. Thus, unlike the exhibition in the old museum at Yad Vashem, which was primarily composed of photographs, the new exhibition would be composed of a multimedia presentation incorporating personal artifacts. It was designed to span 10 exhibition halls, each devoted to a different chapter in the history of the Holocaust. The exhibits would be set up chronologically, with the testimonies and artifacts accentuating the individual stories. All together, the museum would present the personal stories of 90 Holocaust victims and survivors and would include approximately 2,500 personal items, such as artwork and letters. The curators focused on preparations of the various exhibits, and only on them. They behaved as if there were two different and quite independent projects: the building and the exhibitions. As a result, they treated the exhibitions as a ‘once in a lifetime project’ without any regard for time constraints in their decision-making process. It did not take Shimon long to realize that the curators did not care much about the project schedule, even though he needed their timely input in order to maintain construction progress: “Infrastructure preparations for the exhibitions and displays required joint teamwork between the exhibition curators and the construction designers, since various kinds of piping (electricity, lighting, communications, computers, security, etc.) had to be passed through the structure’s floors and walls. The piping had to be positioned in its final locations in the forms before the walls and floors were cast; otherwise, excavation or sawing of the concrete would be required. But the curators wished to maintain as much flexibility as possible in light of the fact that the exhibition program was still being worked on.” However, as the project advanced, the flexibility and degree of freedom remaining for the curators gradually declined. Before each of the critical stages (casting of walls and floor, closing of roof openings, tiling of floor, and so on), the struggle between the curators and the project manager flared up anew. As Shimon recalls: “I tried to leave the curators enough time to make decisions right up until close to casting time of the various concrete elements, when I had to get the data and force a decision.” Just leaving the curators enough time, however, was not always enough. When Israel, the contractor, realized that some of the curators had difficulty in reading architectural drawings, he took the initiative to assist them. Shimon describes how Israel’s versatility contributed to expediting their decision making: “Some of the curators did not understand the complicated design of the spaces designated for the exhibitions. In order to help the curators familiarize themselves with the relevant spaces, Israel prepared computerized simulations as well as 1:1 mockups made of wooden boards and geotechnical fabric. These models clarified, in a tangible manner, the joining of the portable partitions, the hanging of the pictures, the hanging alternatives of the lighting fixtures, and so on.” Ishai, the director general, highlights another example in which Israel went out of his way to help the curators: “One of the spaces in the exhibition area was designated for a re-creation of the death train that transported victims to the gas chambers. I was not really clear on what the curators wanted to create in this space, and it seemed to me that it was not clear enough to them either. The contractor decided to take the initiative and, early on, proposed to bring the original train car and tracks and display them so that their true dimensions could be experienced. The effect of the physical model was especially great, and it enabled the curators to reach timely decisions regarding the design of this sensitive space.” Israel’s commitment to the success of the entire project, of serving the needs of the client, was again demonstrated in the conflict between the curators and the architect over lighting. The architect, striving toward controlled and constant lighting, had designed the structure’s envelope so as to allow only a minimal amount of natural light to penetrate into the interior spaces. The curators, on the other hand, were interested in installing large skylights in order to get as close as possible to the natural state in which light, with all of its variability, penetrates into the structure throughout the entire day. However, this time, Israel decided that the best way to expedite progress would be to wait: “The issue of the skylights troubled me greatly. I had in my possession supposedly approved execution plans, and I could have gone ahead and ordered all of the special glass components. I was witness to the vigorous and incessant confrontations between the architect and the curators regarding the desired amount of light, and it was clear to me that if I progressed with my approved plans, I might ‘trip up’ the client. I preferred to wait with the execution, and this ended up saving the client a lot of money since the design of the skylights changed drastically later on.” Ishai noted that: “One can’t overemphasize the extreme importance of the teamwork between Shimon, Israel, and me for overcoming or eliminating problems, and eventually for the success of the entire project.” However, when it was time to begin the finishing work in the exhibition areas (including multimedia, construction of displays, acoustic ceilings, and other special infrastructure elements), the curators persuaded Ishai to entrust this activity to their exclusive care, releasing the project manager from any involvement. Under pressure from the curators, the client informed Shimon that he would be taking this issue upon himself and did not require Shimon’s services. This time, due to the unique stage of the project, Shimon did not put up any resistance and respected the client’s decision. The utmost commitment and intensive involvement of the curators was required for the finishing work, and Shimon felt that without the client’s support, he was not in a position to impose his own participation on them: “It was clear that at this stage, Ishai could not overcome the curators. Thus, I did not object to Ishai’s suggestion to leave the responsibility for the finishing work in the exhibition areas in their hands.” After about two months of status quo in this matter, Shimon realized that the client was having difficulties making decisions. The issue of the construction of displays had become critical and was starting to delay the envelope contractor of the building: “Only after I explained the grave situation into which we had got ourselves to Ishai, did he manage, after much effort, to persuade the curators to transfer this area of responsibility over to Israel and so, in fact, opened up the bottleneck that had formed.” After the problem of the construction of displays in the exhibition areas was solved, Ishai continued to manage the other components of finishing work. When another four months had passed and the work was still not progressing according to schedule, Shimon warned Ishai that the execution of the elements was moving slowly and in an uncontrolled manner. In the end, the client finally decided to entrust Shimon with the responsibility for managing the unique elements and the area of multimedia. The outstanding versatility and commitment to the success of the project on the part of the execution team paid off. On March 15, 2005, the dedication of the new Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum in Jerusalem, Israel took place, with leaders from 40 countries attending the inauguration. Glowing reviews applauded “the supportive and complementary relationship between the architectural dimension and the exhibition design.” Another remarked on the fact that “the collaboration and counterpoint between curator ship and architectural design remain admirably balanced and harmonious.” Shimon reflects on the long process to completion: “The visitor sees the end result, the harmony, the music that Safdie was talking about in his book, unaware that it all started with an extremely noisy and squeaky music of endless shouting and conflict. It appears that the two designers, the architect and the curators, must have worked together in great harmony all along, when in fact this transformation was accomplished only through the constant dance between ideas and action. It was the ingenuity, and indeed the creativity, of the implementers, who enabled each creative entity to flourish and nurtured the fusion of the two separate disciplines into a united and eternal cradle of memory.”
