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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Case 080707-01
What NOT to do with a cutting torch

CDS Construction Verification Technicians never know what they are going to find on a job site. In this case, a roaring cutting torch caught the attention of our CVT, Bob Gross. Bob noticed a worker who was cutting holes in the columns of an outer wall that CDS had verified two months earlier. Upon closer inspection, Bob observed that each time the torch punched through a column it also burned a hole in the water barrier behind it.
Management learned of the damage through CDS’ project update. Repairs were scheduled and completed for less than five thousand dollars.

We can’t speculate what the repair costs might have been without CDS’ alert. However, once the finished wall started leaking water, the fix would have included leak detection and repair plus the replacement of damaged drywall, flooring and personal property. Of course, there would be added insurance and legal costs as well.

It is worth noting that the wall damage occurred after the waterproofing inspection had taken place with none others scheduled before a concrete pour later that week. Also, there were roughly 30 construction workers working nearby that day. Each kept to his own business as their misguided comrade blasted away with his torch. That is, until one noticed Bob the CVT and said with a jerk of his head “can you believe that guy?”

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