Knocking Down the Silos

A recent article by Eric Anderson and Mark Wagner discusses the success that can be achieved when the silos of Architects, Engineers and Contractors are removed through the use of the integrated practice process.

As someone who comes from manufacturing and has seen firsthand the benefits of the Design for Manufacture I say here, here! When I joined the workforce in the mid eighties as a newly trained engineer, pumped up with information on the latest cutting edge practices and technologies, DFM was a new concept that I embraced and promoted. I was working as a manufacturing engineer for a company that produced military electronics at the time. This company had been in business since the 50’s and still manufactured products from that era, while also manufacturing products that were designed more recently using DFM.

When comparing the paper trail for old design products vs. DFM products there was a marked difference in the number of change orders issued during the first year of production. The change orders for the older designs had a much higher frequency of changes that were necessary in order to improve (or even allow) manufacturability. The DFM products, however, had much fewer changes during the first year and the changes that were made were dictated by technology or performance improvements, not to improve process.

So I anticipate that as the Westlake Steps* project progresses, the construction team will experience fewer change orders that originate from a problem at the jobsite. This should contribute to better budget and schedule performance. I would also suspect that reduced strain on the schedule should lead an overall improvement in quallity and eventually a reduction in disputes after the completion of the project.

*As far as I can tell, there has been no formal announcement of this project. But it appears to be destined for the Casey Family Building and adjoining parcels that were purchased recently by CarrAmerica. I suspect the A&E article, unknowingly spilled the beans.

Rework Ruins JobSite Morale

There are few management decision that can crush the morale on a job site more than excessive major rework orders. I’ve sat in too many management meetings where major demo/rebuild changes were discussed without any consideration given to communicating the reasons for the change to the responsible work crews. In these instances management focuses on the economic and design considerations of the finished product without sharing that information with the workers. The folks on the ground are left to interpret their own reasons for the change: Management doesn’t value our work.

I’ve seen this happen time and again and the outcome is the same every time. Morale on the jobsite goes in the tank taking productivity and attention to detail with it.

Culture and a Bridge collapse in Vietnam

This article covering the tragic bridge collapse in Vietnam will be an interesting story to watch and contrast with the treatment/investigation of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis.  Aside from the design and workmanship issues, I’ll be paying attention to the role that culture played in the events leading to the collapse and the aftermath.
If you may recall, an avalanche trapped 20 people in a tunnel in Japan in 1996 stirred up a discussion of the cultural obstacles that hindered any decisive moves to begin rescue efforts.

AIA Makes the Right Move

The changes being made by the AIA are welcome and long overdue. However, they are only one part of the solution. In order to implement the post of IDM, the IDM must have objective and specific information gathered during construction as part of the dispute resolution process. In fact, accurate, timely information may lead to dispute avoidance, save time and money and negate the need for dispute resolution. This contemporaneous information must be of evidentiary quality and retrievable for all parties to begin meaningful dispute avoidance and resolution.

Note: If you are an ENR subscriber and still can’t access the article using the link above, you may contact ENR’s third party tech support, ECNext at +1-614-682-5105. Initially, we had a problem accessing the article ourselves.

Is Being Unproductive Contageous?

We’re trying to link to a Viewpoint article from the ENR website for our next blog post, but their finicky member log-in app is making things very difficult for us.

It strikes me as ironic that in this instance, the practices of one of the main media outlets of the construction industry are inhibiting our productivity as we try to shout out to the world about the productivity problems of the construction industry itself. (I think I hurt myself just typing that.)

In any case, we’ll keep working with the ENR folks and do our best to get the intended post online next week.

Update 10-22-07 – After a couple of phone calls I resolved the issue with ENR’s third party tech support (ECNext +1-614-682-5105). There is a bug in their online registration (hint: add a leading “0″ to your subscription number) that allows magazine subscribers to register for an online account without giving them access to all of the online features. I’ve provided the phone number for those who may be experiencing a similar problem.

The Factory Worker vs. The Construction Worker

The Factory Worker shows up to work every day ready to put in a hard day’s work.

The Construction Worker shows up to work every day ready to put in a hard day’s work.

The Factory Worker reports to the same building every day. That is unless his job has been outsourced to some far away land where the same job can be done at a fraction of the cost.

The Construction Worker reports to a job site or a union hall or a day labor center every day. His job can’t be outsourced, but he does depend on a growing economy to provide the finances that enable new development.

The Factory Worker has a relationship with his employer that continues on for multiple product cycles. Their relationship is stable enough to encourage the employer to invest in training and systems that make the worker and his team more productive, which contribute to profitability which can then be re-invested.

The Construction Worker has a relationship with his employer that continues on for no longer than the length of one construction project. The employer invests in individual skills (sometimes) or but rarely invests in job site systems because it’s impossible for an employer realize any return on his investment.

The Factory Worker is proud of his work and does his job to the best of his ability. If he notices a defect he is empowered to correct that defect and initiate a process that will prevent similar defects in the future.

The Construction Worker is proud of his work and does his job to the best of his ability. If he notices a defect outside his trade he keeps it to himself. After all, it wasn’t from one of his guys and he doesn’t want to be the one who gets chewed out by his foreman for slowing the job down. And when some manager eventually notices the defect, he might even get paid overtime to get it fixed before the concrete pour that is scheduled for next week.

The Factory Worker is motivated to work hard so that he can provide for his family and keep his company competitive in the marketplace. He identifies with the company and is proud of its products. He can advance and prosper by continuously improving his company’s productivity.

The Construction Worker is motivated to work hard so that he can provide for his family. His allegiance is to his trade first and his union after that. His allegiance to the company that he works for falls someplace behind the guy who delivers coffee and donuts to the job site. He can advance by putting in more time and he will get paid whether or not this building succeeds. As a matter of face, he will probably make more money in overtime if the schedule slips. If things don’t workout at this particular job site, the worker will head to the one down the block, in the next town or state.

The Factory Worker goes home at the end of the day, exhausted from a hard day’s work. He cracks a beer, complains about his boss, but knows in his heart that he helped to make things a little better today than they were yesterday.

The Construction Worker goes home at the end of the day, exhausted from a hard day’s work. He cracks a beer, complains about his boss, but knows in his heart that he’s perpetuating the same practices and traditions that have been in place for the last hundred years.

What NOT to do with a cutting torch.

CDS Construction Verification Technicians never know what they are going to find on a job site. The full case study will tell you the whole story.

 

50% Waste

This recent report from Marketplace bowled me over. It really highlights the inefficiency of major construction because of the disconnect between those who plan and design and those who are on the ground.

Here we go

Welcome to the CDS blog. As we launch the blog, we have a vague idea of what is to come, but I’m sure we will all share in the learning process along the way. As the newest addition to the company and someone from outside the construction industry, I’ve been trying to educate myself using the web and found the content to be light years behind what I’ve grown accustomed to from other industries. We hope that the CDS blog will allow readers to view construction through our eyes, as we re-examine things from the ground up and try to contribute whatever we can towards improved productivity and accountability.

Major construction is the same now as its been for the last hundred years. That’s about to change.