Collaboration Part 7 - Change, Change, Change

by Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT

We've had two collaboration meetings since my last blog posting on the collaboration effort I'm participating in. To recap, our firm is involved in a very large, biomedical research building project at a local public university. The delivery method is CM-at-risk with design-assist for major trades. Looking back through this blog, you can read about the entire process. It all started here.

The most recent collaboration session was last week. Each of the past two meetings also contained a social event. Following our formal meeting, the group went to a local bowling alley for drinks, food and duck pin bowling. If you're unfamiliar with this sport, check out this Wikipedia article. Both times not everyone went bowling, but the group that did had a great time and got to know each other a bit better. I think the social events will become a regular part of our collaboration time together, though duck pin bowling may get old and something else will need to be tried. 

As the title of this posts states, the team continues to change and change. Since my last collaboration post, these are the personnel changes the team has encountered:

• PA for the architect of record retired
• Assistant PM for the AOR has been reassigned to a different project, but has been brought back because two of her replacements have left the firm
• Sr. PM for the CM has been reassigned to a different division of the firm and moved cross-country
• Project Executive for the mechanical design-assist contractor has moved to a different division inside the company
• Project Engineer for the mechanical design-assist contractor started her maternity leave
• Owner's team and CM have accepted new participants due to project phasing

Sometimes it's hard to keep track of who's in and who's out!

But that leads me to this thought: change is inevitable and how we react to it as a team is important. In my last foray into our collaboration process, seen here, I ended with this parting shot: "Recognizing that a majority of this team is in denial gives me a positive feeling. Hopefully, across the coming weeks, the team can move from denial to anger, to guilt, to sadness and finally acceptance that we have a problem and we need to fix it." This was in reference to our facilitator's analogy between team dynamics of change and the work On Death and Dying by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and her 5 stages of grief.

The quarterly surveys we take gives some indication that a majority of the team may be in the anger stage and potentially heading to guilt. If you recall, we fill out a blind, 13-question survey on all the firms on the team using a 7-point scale. The purpose is to gauge each firm's responsiveness, honesty and willingness to work together. Its meant to survey our feelings at a point in time that we can compare against previous surveys to glean some insight into the team dynamic.

This month was the fourth time this survey has been filled out. The number of respondents is up to 78% which is not great, but is better than it has been. The average scores still hover in the 4 to 5 point range and the owner continues to have the lowest average score. This quarter, it was 4.05, down from 4.47 in the last quarter.

While I still find the data to be suspect, for many reasons, I have new appreciation for it as we now have four sets to review. Across the board, the scores for each firm went down. There are two reasons for this. First, we have new team members filling out the survey for the first or maybe second time. Many of these new respondents are field personnel who are having a very different experience than the office staff or the design or owner's team members. I think these new respondents also are not afraid to grade their teammates down, whereas some of the design team members have had trepidation in doing so. 

But, the primary reason, I believe, the scores are consistently lower is in the analogy to the 5 stages of grief. I don't  believe this project is progressing the way that anyone feels it should or hoped that it would. We are being barraged with changes, second-guessing decisions and generally not being allowed by our client to do the work we were hired as professionals to do. While the office staff and design team have been involved in this project for several years, the new field staff have not. I think much of that is related to anger at the situation which has manifested itself in lower marks on these surveys. 

I think this may have been a wake up call to the project managers in the room. For me, my personnel has not changed since Day 1 of the project. But these design-assist contractors are bringing their field staff in and maybe need to spend some more time understanding what they are dealing with. The "short answer" portion of the survey was interesting in that it exposed a very serious problem that the CM has to deal with: their general superintendent. 

I have had very little interaction with the superintendent. As I explained in the collaboration meeting, he's come to me with some portions of the design that he wants changed and tried to couch it as a "problem" for the construction team or longevity of the building. This isn't my first rodeo so in every instance I was able to explain why we did it that way and even throw part of it back on him: "if you're concerned about it, set up a meeting and we can discuss it." Of course, the meetings were never scheduled. He knew he couldn't railroad me and he walked away. 

However, the foremen who have to work with the superintendent every day put things in their short answer responses like "dishonesty," "unprofessional" and "back-stabbing." These were not taken lightly by our group and became a large part of the discussion in our collaboration session. The CM was represented by their regional VP and Sr. PM for this project. To their credit, both men said they were aware of the situation and had already taken the necessary steps to address it.

To date, the superintendent is still on the job, he was not terminated or reassigned. I have, however, noticed a change in his demeanor and in his professionalism. Perhaps that is the best change of all - a man was allowed to keep his job if he is able to change how he accomplishes that job. 

Symbiosis

by Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT

 

My mother is a retired English teacher, so I strive to use exact language in all I do. I think this is part of what has caused me to be as active in the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) as I am. Say what you mean and mean what you say is one of many mantras that flows through our organization. When considering a term or thought I hear in my daily business of architecture, I often look it up in the dictionary. Recently, I looked up the definition of “symbiosis.” In Biology, it means “a close, prolonged association between two or more species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member." 

 

This definition implies an association not necessarily of mutual selection. The biological definition of symbiosis can closely approximate the common construction delivery method of “design-bid-build” where the Owner picks the Architect and then may pick the Contractor. But, if the construction contract is competitively bid, the Owner may not pick the Contractor by name or reputation but by simply accepting the lowest bidder. Regardless, the Architect rarely picks the Contractor, so there is a “prolonged association” between the two but it “does not necessarily benefit each member.” 

 

A more apt definition of symbiosis for construction might be “a relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.” The success of any construction project relies on all three parties - Owner, Architect, Contractor – working together to reach a mutual goal. If any of these parties is obstructive or less than attentive, the work of the other two is magnified or the resulting project jeopardized. Occasionally, all three parties shirk their responsibilities. I call this the “trifecta:” a project with poor or incomplete documents, a bad or inattentive owner, a self-centered and uncaring contractor. Anyone who has spent a long period of time in our industry has experienced the “trifecta” in some form or another.  

 

In construction, the relationships of all three parties involved in the project are defined in the General Conditions of the Contract. There are three commonly used model construction contracts: the AIA Contracts, EJCDC Contracts and ConsensusDOCS. All three generally define the roles and responsibilities of each party in similar ways, though with slightly different slants, as would benefit the entities responsible for preparing the model contracts. These documents are typically prepared by attorneys and can be used somewhat as boiler plate for many different projects. They are, however, contractual obligations and can be cold and insensitive. The trick is to understand their nature but look beyond their coldness and realize there are people behind each role defined and each responsibility created. 

 

To truly create a symbiotic relationship, it is important to understand what each party brings to the table. One of the biggest benefits I have enjoyed by my membership in CSI is a broader understanding and even an empathy for what each person brings to his or her work and therefore to the project as a whole. 

 

The Owner brings the idea and the need for the project. Without that idea or need, the project would never get off the ground. The Owner also brings the money for the project. Ideas and needs are fine, but without financing, the project goes nowhere. It stands to reason then that the Owner also has the goals or the “big idea” and a desire to see that vision realized. This sounds like some sort of lofty or inspirational rationale, but it could be a financial goal. It’s not up to anyone else to judge the Owner’s goals or desires, but to simply understand them and try to reach them. 

 

The Architect is responsible for delivering the building design to the Owner. The Architect must gain an understanding of the client’s needs and desires and then work to develop a design that is both beautiful and functional to meet these needs and desires. In terms of the construction phase, the Architect has a pre-existing relationship with the Owner. These two entities worked together during the design phase, so they can occasionally have a leg up over the Contractor who comes in only during the construction phase. The Architect’s ultimate desire is to see his or her beautiful design come to fruition in a built form. It is nice to make a few bucks profit when the project is finished, but most architects just want to see their designs built. 

 

The Contractor brings knowledge and expertise in construction scheduling and building. They also bring man-power and material supplier connections. Overall, the Contractor takes a set of construction documents and physically builds them into reality. They want to make a few bucks and maybe a few more bucks if the opportunity arises. Believe it or not, Contractors normally enjoy seeing the design come to fruition almost as much as the architect does. It may not always seem that way, but I believe it to be true.  

 

Its important to understand that these ideas are NOT mutually exclusive. If the Owner has communicated to the Architect adequately, their goal or big vision will be documented appropriately and can be built. If the right amount of money is available, the vision will be realized. If the communication has been clear and the Architect has done their job, cost overruns are minimized. If the Architect has created a beautiful design and then adequately documented it, that design will be built. If they are efficient in their processes, they’ll even make a few bucks along. Conversely, if the Contractor takes care of their business, the schedule is managed, man-power and materials are available and they make money. 

 

My belief is that every project has the opportunity to end as the paragraph above describes: everyone is happy and made some money on the project. It is also my firm belief that this only occurs when a handful of simple ideas are followed. First, expectation must be managed. We are all human, we all make mistakes and we all are entitled to change our minds. I think this is most important for the owner to understand. As architects, we do not pretend to deliver perfect documents that will be built without incident or change order, but I have encountered clients who complain about even a small number of change orders on a project. Our industry's standard of care is 3-5% of the construction cost in errors and omissions change orders. I tell every client that if my change orders total over 2%, I'm more upset and frustrated than they are.  

 

Conversely, architects should offer that same measure of understanding to the contractors. They are humans who employ large numbers of humans to perform physical labor in risky areas in all weather conditions. I recently had a project where the first floor slab concrete finish was of fairly poor quality: light pocking, some skreed marks, some trowel marks, etc. That slab and the second floor slab were to receive a high performance coating, so the slab needed to be smooth to prevent telegraphing and failure of the coating. I did not get upset with the GC or concrete sub, but put together a field report noting my observations and concerns. I reviewed those observations and concerns verbally with the GC before submitting the field report. I was promised better results on the second floor. Sadly, in this example, that did not occur. The second floor was worse than the first! That's when I brought in the owner and coatings representative to assist, but my first move was to work with the contractor to solve the issue.

 

That leads me to the next simple idea: work together. As noted prior and codified in the model general conditions, all three parties are bound together in a symbiotic relationship. Understand that and embrace it! Use the owner-architect-contractor meetings to seek and resolve issues rather than just review work progress and outstanding RFI's and submittals. Become true partners with your owners and contractors in solving problems, eliminating conflict and making sure everyone is working efficiently and effectively. That might mean mentoring of the contractor's staff or educating the owner in certain ways, but I know that your projects will go more smoothly and produce better results in the end.



Collaboration Part 6: Denial is Not a River in Egypt

by Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT

As I logged into blogger to do this post, I realized that I'm a couple of posts behind on the collaboration effort I'm engaged in on a large project. I wrote a 2-parter on the opening session (here and here) and a follow up called "We Were Not One and Done" on the 2nd effort. I seem to have not described the 3rd effort or at least not published it and then I missed the 4th (daughter's graduation) and 5th (CSI Convention) sessions. Tuesday was our 6th session and it offered some interesting insight into the work of our team.

The biggest take away from session 4 was the creation of an 11 question survey that the team will fill out quarterly. It contains questions about how the team is doing, who's working well, who is communicating well, the timeliness of team members, that sort of thing. Responses are given on a 7 point scale with 1 being "Not At All," 4 being "Average" and 7 being "To a Great Extent."

There are a couple of good things about the survey and a couple of not so good things about it. The survey is taken anonymously. The responder receives an email with link to a "Survey Monkey" on-line survey. Upon taking the survey, you identify yourself only by the organization you are associated with. That's the bad thing: I work for the associate architect but I'm lumped in with the architect of record. The client, with at least 5 different heads, has a single category but the CM and each design-assist contractor is listed separately. Guess who created the survey?

The survey was first taken prior to the 5th collaboration session. To my mind, the results were inconclusive as nearly every organization's aggregate score was somewhere around 5 on the 7 point scale, meaning all team members are performing "above average." To further the inconclusiveness of the data, only 13 of 25 people responded: 8 from the building team and only 3 from the A/E team and 2 from the Owner's team. Hardly a fair representation of team members.

The second round of the survey was probably less conclusive than the first round. Of 25 people who were invited to take the survey, only 10 did so - that's 40%. One of the design-assist contractors had no one respond, the architects had just one response (me) and the owner had 1 response of 5 invitees. We brainstormed ways to increase accountability and participation and we'll see how that goes on the next go around of the survey.

With the low participation, I can't really see much in the data itself. The high average score belongs to the concrete design-assist contractor at 5.6 and the low score again belongs to the Owner at 4.88. As with the first survey, most scores on individual questions fall in the range of 4 and 5 points on the 7 point scale.

Of concern and discussion in our meeting is the response to the question "Overall, how would you rate this organization's timeliness on matters relevant to the project?" The average score for the team on this item was 4.44 with the Owner receiving 3.55 on the low end and no team member scoring higher than 4.75 except the concrete design-assist contractor who scored 5.22. Throw out that score and the average drops to 4.34. Still "average" but not where the team wants to be. Some discussion was held regarding an owner-mandated software program and attempts were made to seek solutions. Several of us pointed to enhanced communication recently that has improved the inner workings of the team, but that occurred after most had filled out the survey.

The survey also has a "free response" category where participants can write in what is "going well," "not going well" and "can improve." The facilitator pointed to one response under "not going well" for further discussion. The comment was "For a project that has "design-assist" contractors, we are seeing a tremendous number of RFI's. In previous collaboration meetings, we agreed to pick up the telephone - that NEVER happens." This comment was authored by me and was intended to elicit a response from the team, hold everyone accountable and hopefully spur discussion. I succeeded.

When asked, I did own the comment but an interesting thing happened: the entire construction team denied that this situation actually exists. They to-the-man said they frequently call each other, call the engineers and call the CM. I pointed out that no one calls me and I get to process the RFI's. They all then denied that this is a problem because they only want to involve the architect when they deem the architect needs to be involved. I told them that is unacceptable: nearly every situation has architectural ramifications and the architect needs to be involved as I am the only one who has been involved in every meeting on the project from the beginning.

The ironic part of all of this denial came later in the meeting. The facilitator is interested in providing some sort of professional development in each meeting. In this meeting, he spoke on "change management." Not managing change orders on the job site, but in planning for and handling organizational changes that come about in everyone's lives. He drew an analogy between reactions to change and the 5 stages of grief first captured in the seminal work On Death and Dying by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in 1969. If you're familiar with this work, you'll know that the first stage of grief, and to the facilitator, the first reaction to change is denial.

I filled out the survey a few days before what I would characterize as a "Come to Jesus" phone call between the CM's senior project manager, the architect of record's senior PA and myself. On that call, the CM expressed some concerns that he was hearing from his team and I expressed my frustrations with his team, their response to questions and how they are conducting their business. It was ultimately a productive call that has reaped benefits in the weeks since then.

I told the facilitator after the meeting that I wrote the comment after I gave a presentation at CSI Convention in September on this collaboration process. I came out of that presentation realizing that I could either continue to complain about the team and the process or do something about it. That comment, and another even MORE critical comment, came out of the desire to do something to make the team better. Recognizing that a majority of this team is in denial gives me a positive feeling. Hopefully, across the coming weeks, the team can move from denial to anger, to guilt, to sadness and finally acceptance that we have a problem and we need to fix it.

We Were Not One and Done

By Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT

This is the third in a series of blogs that will recount/investigate a collaboration exercise undertaken by a large and diverse project team involved in a large and complicated biomedical research building. I intentionally do not mention the project, client or team members because their names are not germane to the discussion and because I did not ask their permission to use their names. 

As the title implies, we met again for our team collaboration session. This session was held six weeks after the original session and was shorter than the initial full day affair. The group met for just three hours in the afternoon. We had targeted to meet again in two months, but the moderator and the CM’s project manager looked at the project status and the calendar and decided to shorten the duration between meetings. This session was held on November 21, exactly one week before Thanksgiving and three working days before the design development cost estimates were due to the entire team. This appeared to be a critical juncture in the project, so we reconvened. 

Though this session had some of the same players as the initial, it was intended to be just the project manager level folks. We  were asked to grapple with the four problems that were identified by the larger group as being the most critical: 

• User Changes
• Coordination
• Decision Making/Communication
• Design-Assist Procurement/Funding Impact

The idea being that this PM group would discuss the problems, create solutions and measurements and then report to the full group on January 7, 2014. The lead moderator from the original workshop, was back but his assistant moderator was not. We had the senior PM from the construction manager, the main PM from the owner (but not his newly assigned assistant PM), the PM’s from the four design-assist contractors (concrete, glazing, electrical and HVAC/plumbing), the assistant PM from the architect of record and myself, the PM for the associate architect. We also had senior managers, if not PM’s, from the primary engineering firms. This time, we were joined by the Director of Operations from the school that will be the primary tenant of the building. I’m not sure why he was not at the original session, but it was good that he was included for this session because when we tackled “user changes,” he represents the user.

The moderator brought the Ops Director up to speed on what happened in the first session. The group then reviewed the four problems and discussed in what order they should be tackled. I offered that this group is not in a position to solve the "Design-Assist Procurement/Funding Impact" issue because none of us are with the university’s procurement department and none of us are state legislators, so our possible impacts on that issue are minimal if they exist at all. The idea that this university is new to the concept of design-assist and is somewhat distrustful of the process was expressed. After some discussion, we all agreed that the best way to show the university that design-assist works is to perform well as team.

When considering the procurement process as a whole, regardless of our individual role in it, our moderator cautioned us to not escalate emotion. Remember that the moderator is an employee of the CM but is also a psychologist. Several attendees expressed frustration with the procurement process. The design-assist contractors are under contract for “pre-construction” services only and have no contractual guarantee of being awarded the construction contract. The moderator said a real or perceived lack of trust exhibited by the university is not personal and should not be taken personally. All participants must control their frustration and be as calm and level headed as possible when dealing with the team.

With the expressed goal of discussing issues and creating measurements to gauge success, an order of discussion was presented that the group might use to reach that goal:

• Defining the problem should be first. The team must consider the current problem and what the teams aspires for the outcome to that problem to be.
• The team should next analyze how the team is currently performing and what might a Team Oriented Solution (T.O.S.) look like.
• Performance improvement will be considered next or what is the agreed upon solution to the problem.
• Patterned performance must be discussed and used to determine if the Aspirational Goal, as defined by the team, is actually achievable.

Considering these ideas in order might lead the team to the expected solutions to the four problems and how they might be measured to gauge team success. To be fair, the group did not expressly follow that order of discussion in this session. The team very quickly identified problems and analyzed current performance, but fell short in how to improve performance or discussion of aspirational goals.

To better focus the group and because the Ops Director had to leave early for another meeting, the group decided to tackle the problem of User Changes. Unfortunately, the process quickly broke down into a complaining session, which the moderator let continue for too long. Frustration was expressed with changes that cost the entire team in terms of design and engineering time. Some specific examples from this project were given that all agreed were troublesome. The moderator pointed out that if any individual is frustrated, then so are other members of the team. None of us are alone in the project so none of us are alone in our frustrations. It was noted that an aspirational goal could be doing cost reduction exercises without redesign of major systems and components which would cost the entire team more money with design and engineering effort.

It became apparent that the group was grappling with two different types of changes. All realize that minor changes happen at the end of large and complicated projects. This particular facility is intended to be used to recruit new faculty researchers, so once those faculty are on board, minor changes should be expected: electrical outlet moves, additional IT drops, etc.

The PM for the CM noted that the changes the team is currently encountering are semi-normal. Again, this is a very large and incredibly complicated building being built in a dense urban environment in an existing campus context. The myriad of players from the university side each come with their own thoughts, opinions and ideas on the best direction of the project. Change is inevitable in that environment, but the team must not get too frustrated and must deal with these changes as judiciously as possible. Finishing this blog post over four months after this meeting, I'm remembering that many of the frustrations and thoughts expressed came from the construction team, not the design team. While the design team was frustrated as well, I think designers are more used to these types of systemic changes during large projects with sophisticated clients.

It became apparent that the team was making a distinction between project requirements and actual changes. If the team does not meet a project requirement, a comment made during a submission review is generated that may cause a change to the documentation, but that is not a true change. The team merely missed a project requirement. There are some actual owner or user driven changes to the project that may cause the team to go in a completely different direction. Those are the types of changes that are most troublesome to those present.

It was suggested that a few items need to be defined by the team moving forward. The client should be given what they want and need, which is why this team was hired in the first place! This takes on a number of different ideas as there are university standards to meet as well as preferences on individuals who will work in, maintain and use the building. Sometimes these will conflict, but our job as professionals is to help the university work through those conflicting ideas reach the best solution.

While working to make sure the team gives the client what they want, we must all work to minimize costs and impacts to schedule. We are all under contract for a scope of work, schedule duration and fee or guaranteed maximum price. When the university asks for something that we believe the project cannot afford, we need to raise the flag for further discussion of that item. But above all, the team must be fair to all parties. Team members must avoid finger pointing and work together to reach the ultimate goal.

Ways to analyze the performance of the team against the coming changes was discussed, but the team wasn’t really focused on that yet. I suspect that focus will come only when faced with substantial changes, user directed or otherwise. We talked about ways to ensure that each of us works to match the design to the budget. We also discussed the sequencing of the fit-out of floors to maximize efficiency of the construction team and not the whim of the university. That means the construction team should work as efficiently as possible and not let the university dictate what floors are fit-out when, unless absolutely necessary. Some team members have worked on projects where a schedule for fit-out was stymied because the client was considering a particular tenant for a particular space. This team should stay the course for efficiency until that becomes an untenable solution.

Some metrics for issue tracking that are easily measurable were discussed and some durations agreed to. Suffice to say, that those in attendance agreed to quicker turn around times for issuance of change documentation, pricing and review and approval of pricing than is typical. The problem being, several members of the procurement team were absent and so the success of these metrics lies with folks who did not agree to these durations.

Finally, the next meeting was discussed. The idea of convening a smaller team to grapple with the issue of coordination was discussed. This would involve members of the A/E team and the MEP design-assist contractors but no decisions were reached. I think most realized this meeting was more venting than substance and with the holidays approaching, no one was willing to commit to a date. All  had January 7, 2014 as a hold on their calendars so it was decided that would remain as the next meeting. The agenda for that session would revolve around what happens during the DD pricing, reconciliation and value engineering/cost reduction exercises.

The Moderator gave a closing shot: give other teammates the benefit of the doubt. I think that’s something that most teams should do.

Mentoring Opportunity

This blog post comes to us from the School of Architecture and Planning at Morgan State University in Baltimore, MD. Professor Sanjit Roy is seeking professionals to help with his course "The Integrated Intelligent Detail." I've participated in this program in the past and find it to be a great way to meet the next generation of architects and be involved in their education. Please consider taking some time to help this fantastic students.

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
February 20, 2014

Whether you are a veteran mentor for "Architecture at Morgan", or brand new, I hope you will consider this opportunity to work with our graduate students of architecture.

Architecture at Morgan offers an innovative graduate-level course developed with the support of an NCARB grant known as: "ARCH.541: "The Integrated Intelligent Detail."

Would you be interested in mentoring a student in this course? The course runs from January to May, and the course requires students to investigate architectural detailing by working with a practicing architect as a mentor. The mentor contact with students involves three campus visits, and one or two meetings at your office.

This year the focus will be on the exterior envelope, including at least one fenestration detail. The participating mentor selects a project from their office with an interesting detail (built or proposed). The detail should present some challenges for alternative study by the student. Your student will create a BIM model of the detail, and then transform the detail using their research, design and BIM skills.

If you are able to serve a mentor you will work with 1-2 students guiding them as they develop a wall section/ detail for one of your current projects. You will be presenting the project t the students on either 25 Feb or 4 march, whichever date is convenient for you. Subsequently the students will meet with you at your office as they develop the details under your supervision.

The four on-campus dates that involve the mentors are:

1. Introduction of your architectural project to the class: on one of the following dates:

     a. Tuesday, February 25: 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm (one hour) OR

     b. Tuesday, March 4: 7:00 pm to 8:00 pm (one hour)

2. Tuesday, April 1: individual desk critique between 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm with your student mentee/s (allow about one hour)

3. Tuesday, April 22: individual desk critique between 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm with your student mentee/s (allow about one hour)

4. Tuesday, May 13: 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm FINAL REVIEW OF ALL STUDENT WORK (two hours) hosted at an Architecture office.

Thank you,

Sanjit Roy
Assistant Professor
School of Architecture & Planning
sanjit.roy@morgan.edu
443-228-8777

Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT

It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT, an occasional contributor to this blog. Ralph's weekly per-SPEC-tives email newsletter was welcomed reading in my inbox each Wednesday morning.

Ralph died on February 9, 2014, leaving behind a wife, a daughter, a son and a granddaughter.

Tom Hellmann, AIA, Senior Vice President and Director of Architecture and Interior Design at Hixson Architecture, Engineering and Interiors said, "He was a great associate and even better man." Hear, hear. Ralph's intelligence, humor and home-spun wisdom will be missed by all who knew him. There is a giant hole in construction knowledge left by his passing.

Here is a link to his obituary and final arrangements. http://www.boltonandlunsford.com/obituaries

Submittals and The Client

by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
 
This post was borrowed from Ralph's weekly per-SPEC-tives email column. If you don't get this weekly writing on all things CSI and specifications, contact Ralph. I'm sure he'll be happy to add you to the distribution!
 

The title seems to indicate a rather strange and innocuous discussion. How many clients really care about submittals on their construction projects? Some will be quite interested; others will take little if any interest.

Many clients still see the submittal as the verification of what they will receive on their project—a “checks and balances” ensuring the true value received for dollar spent. Some see the submittal as the record of what is placed, for future reference, maintenance and replacement or trouble shooting. This of course, really is part and parcel of the Operating and Maintenance Manuals required on most projects.

Well, a big part of the answer may lie in the adverse impact of submittals when they disrupt the project schedule, and completion of the project. Yet there are other considerations. Some people has professed that submittals are useless, needless and obsolete. Is that true? Or is there a valid and proper place for submittals—properly requested, produced, processed, and utilized?

There is need to address several issues with the Owner, so there is full understanding of all circumstances surrounding submittals;

- Submittals will be requested ONLY to ensure that the Contractor[s] understand the requirements of the contract;

- Only a minimum number of submittals will be required;

- Requests will only be required for those submittals containing crucial information;

- The Contractor is responsible for the “means and methods of construction”  and is therefore the primary reviewer of submittals and their  compliance with the contract documents; erroneous, incomplete, and non-compliant submittals are to be returned to the preparer by the CONTRACTOR [all in accord with AIA A201, General Conditions of the Construction Contract];

- The Contractor is to review all submittals, check for errors, and stamp them with an approval stamp, PRIOR to submitting them to the design professionals [complies with A201];

- The design professionals ARE NOT responsible for an extensive review, not  for any information other than pointing out errors-- NOT correcting them [in accord with A201];

- Reviewed submittals will be returned in a prompt manner;

- Submittals sent to the design professionals without proper Contractor review and approval, will be DISCARDED/Returned with no further action [complies with A201];

- Any schedule disruption[s] attributable to faulty processing of submittals accrue to the Contractor [NOT the design professionals].

A conversation, with the client, on this topic is most important--and strongly urged and advised. It lays the groundwork for the procedures to be followed on the project that will ensure compliance with the project requirements and will give the full value of the work to the client. That context and conversation falls within the purview of the design professionals.

The Contractor may well have a very different “take” on submittals and the whole of the process. AIA Document A201, however, makes the submittals program and process quite clear and directed. It delineates the responsibilities of the various parties, and denotes a very specific progression of preparation, processing, review and approval—by several parties and with certain specific guidelines.

It is most important that the client be aware of these provisions so the work of the process will not be a surprise or an irritant to the client. Being made fully aware of the reason for, the background of, and the inner-working of the process is important, not so much in the minute details, as in the overall value and correct operation.

The submittals program is in place for good reason, and is time tested in the results it produces. Obviously, it is wrong to obviate or ignore this program for any reason or changed condition in a project. Of course, the client does have the right to pursue the project as seen fit-- hopefully this determination does not involve elimination of this clearly directed and helpful process.

Its value directly contributes not only to project success, but to value given to the client!

Building a Highly Collaborative Team, Part 2

by Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT

This is Part 2 of a blog about a collaborative team-building event I attended on October 8, 2013. Please read this post for the opening thoughts and action that occurred in the morning on the day of the event. This post will continue with what occurred following lunch.

The afternoon was spent in both small group discussions and large group discussion combined with reporting on the small group work and reaching consensus in the large group discussions. The afternoon opened with a large group discussion of the desired team working environment. The CM is hoping to build a true "co-location" environment where CM staff, design assist contractors and architects and engineers all work together in the same space. The problem is that the A/E contracts do not envision that level of effort until construction starts and I do not believe the CM has configured their co-location space with the infrastructure necessary to make that level of involvement available and efficient. Providing desks, wifi and coffee does not equal a successful co-location space. Moreover, contracts must be in place to ensure all parties understand their involvement, equally assess and accept risk and professional licensing concerns are eased.

At the collaboration event, we discussed behaviors that contribute to a healthy and collaborative working environment. The moderator was careful to call them "behaviors" to keep the conversation general enough to be useful and to differentiate immediate actions from long term behaviors. Things like bringing enthusiasm and cheerfulness, truthfulness, listening, consistency and accountability were discussed. Additionally, all parties must be respectful of each other but mindful of the delivery method to avoid honesty that is too brutal and might become hurtful. Team members should also come to discussions with solutions and not just problems.

The environment all would like to see has give and take in all situations. The "I win, you lose" type of attitude is not welcome nor healthy to the team. Members should be assertive with regards to their thoughts and ideas but not too aggressive. At the end of the day, the team should have fun and be "jocular not jugular:" all should watch out for sarcasm.

Confidentiality is also of critical importance. What is said in the room and among the team must stay in the room and among the team. That's why I'm being careful in authoring this blog. I want to describe the discussions, but not call people out or relay their attitudes or frames of mind. Twice, the moderator went around the room and asked if each team member, individually, accepted the idea of confidentiality. He waited for each member to verbally acknowledge their acceptance, similar to the flight attendant waiting for verbal acknowledgement from someone sitting in the exit row of a plane.  All of these behaviors were noted on flip charts and then pinned to the wall for all to review during the rest of the session and beyond.

Similarly, the team discussed behaviors that indicate regression or the team moving away from collaboration and returning to how things were in a non-collaborative environment. Team members not making meetings and missing deadlines indicate the metrics used to measure team success are trending in the wrong direction. If team members begin to suspend trust and poorly communicate or begin to point fingers, the team is regressing in their behaviors.  If there is an absence of fun and if team members avoid one another and frequently pull out contracts to review their scope, the team may be regressing. Understanding unhealthy behaviors is just as important as understanding the healthy behaviors teams should engage in so that all can embrace the healthy and avoid the unhealthy.

The first small group session was spent identifying current or anticipated issues the project team is facing or may face. The moderators split us into groups, making sure the groups were sufficiently diverse. For example, the first group I was in contained one engineer, two members of the owner's group, one member of the CM group and two design assist contractors but from different firms. There were three groups and three architects in the meeting, so we were split up in all groupings.

As our group discussion began, we tried to move beyond the usual issues of "budget," "schedule," and "quality" broad picture statements, although each of those ideas appeared in the overall discussion of the issues facing our project. We tried to get more specific to the nature of this project and the culture that has already begun to take form. Concern was expressed over the protracted funding schedule from the legislature, concern over the contractual arrangements of the design assist contractors and coordination of design and construction efforts by the A/E team, design assist team and CM staff.

Not so shocking, all three teams identified the same issues. Not shocking because the groups were painstakingly organized to maximize the interaction among all team members. Each team contained members of the A/E team, owner's team, CM staff and design assist contractors. Once you start to think beyond the usual or generic problems that all projects face and get into the nuts and bolts of the project at hand, I would expect all three teams to identify similar issues. Sure the wording was slightly different and they were in slightly different order but they were essentially the same issues.

Once we returned to the large group setting, each smaller group presented their thoughts and the rest of the team was allowed to ask questions.  As there was much consensus on the issues, the only questions were clarification of thought and terminology. The groups presented their thoughts on flip-chart pages that were pinned to the wall. This made locating commonalities easy: the moderators used red markers to circle or place asterisks next to common themes on the group pages.

At this point, the groups were shuffled and the discussion continued with the idea of prioritizing the top three to five issues and beginning to think about how to address each of the top three issues. This session was not as successful as the first for several reasons. Many of us chose to take a break for rest rooms and phone calls so the sessions were a bit late starting. Next, the groups were interchanged, so their members had some ramp up time, same as in the first break out sessions. Lastly, the prioritization discussions required more discussion than the issue listing so the session was more about finesse and than brain-dumping, as the first session had been.

This time, each group had a slightly different priority listing but three rose to the top. Coordination between A/E and design assist contractors, the protracted funding schedule and the contractual arrangements of the design assist contractors were clearly on everyone's mind. The initial solutions offered were all over the board and not clearly defined. The questions were more numerous and generally focused on specific ideas related to proposed solutions.

My group for this second break out included two senior members of the owner's team, the project executive from the CM, one design engineer and several members from various design assist contractors. While the project exec from the CM was vocal, the senior owners were not. I think they were trying to listen and learn. I bring up the group make up because of what happened in the third break out session. 

The moderator wanted the third session to feature the same groups as the second session. However, the most senior members of the architect of record, CM and owners team broke out into a separate session to discuss a decision making matrix thus leaving my team short three members. The remaining members split up and joined the other two groups to discuss real solutions to the top three issues. This proved to be a good start which left several action items for the owner, CM and A/E. I don't think the moderators expected concrete decisions to come out of this session as they were not surprised that we left with action items.

The discussion of the decision making matrix was interesting on two levels. The matrix was set up with five levels. Many of the people listed on the matrix were in the room and did not seem to agree with their slotting in the levels, even though those slots were set by senior project staff and in some cases, the person’s employer. The Level I slot is for the most senior, executive level people in each organization. Level II is reserved for the project manager level people and Level III for one step below that. The second thing that made this discussion interesting is, to my way of thinking and considering my project and team knowledge, Levels IV and V have no decision making ability: they are too far down the chain and quite frankly, not given the authority by their respective firms. This is evidenced by the owner and CM groups leaving these levels blank in their columns. Only the A/E team firms and design assist contractors had names in these slots.

I’m not sure what will become of this decision making matrix. It was stated that all decisions should be made at Level II and Level III, but the culture has already been set that this will not occur. The folks listed in Level I are too powerful and too entrenched in the process. The culture has already been set that these folks are the ultimate decision makers and they frequently insert themselves into decisions that could be made at a lower level. I am a strong believer in the power of project or corporate culture. Once a cultural moray, whether positive or negative, has been set on a project, it is incredibly difficult to break it. An example is meeting culture: if the meetings are allowed to start late, few will arrive on time as they know the meeting will not start on time.

The session came to a close with a discussion of next steps. The dominate view of partnering sessions in the introductions of the morning was that the “one and done” events do not work. Either immediately or over time, the participants return to their unhealthy behaviors. All team members need to be reminded of the importance of team work and collaboration. It was agreed that for follow up meetings, monthly was too often and quarterly might be too infrequent. It was decided that the team will reconvene every two months across the next six months, which are critical months in the overall project schedule. After the first six months, the meetings will be held quarterly. The follow-up meetings will be shorter: probably three to four hours initially and then maybe only two hours as time goes on.

I took a couple of things away from this day. At some point, someone from the contracting team asked about integrating additional team members into the collaborative environment. This session included all key members of the A/E team, owner’s team and CM team but only four of the trade contractors who will actually be contracted to build the building. What happens when the masons and other skin contractors as well as the interior fit-out and finish contractors join the team? That was the parting shot of the whole event that was left unanswered. Some noted, and I agree with this, that the behavior model we created starts at top of each firm and filters down through all team members. If the leaders can maintain the collaborative spirit, the rest of the team will fall in line.

The quote of the day came from the PM for the architect of record. He said, “this is a large, complex project. You either run away from it or you run to it. Today, we all agreed to run to it.” I hope that is the case. Only time will tell.

Building a Highly Collaborative Team, Part 1

By Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013, I spent all day in a partnering or team building event for a large biomedical research project I'm involved in. I wrote a few quick paragraphs before the event started bemoaning the possibility of wasting a day in "touchy-feely" type discussions with equally uncomfortable construction professionals. As the event wore on, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the program and the caliber of the moderators. For those who follow me on Twitter (@BaltoCSI), you've seen many tweets lately related to ideas that came out of this session and there are more to come. However, I felt that I should expand beyond 140 characters and give a more comprehensive description of the event and my thoughts on it. I wrote the whole post at once, but will split it into two parts as it became quite lengthy!

Construction projects of any size are not easy. That is part of what appeals to me about my profession and our industry. I focus primarily on projects at institutions of higher education and research or teaching laboratories, at that. At any given time during the design phases on projects I’m involved in, there may be six or more architects, 12 or more engineers and other consultants and as many as 20 or more owners personnel involved in the project. Once under construction, the project team can balloon to 10 members of the contractor’s team, 50 or more workers on site and untold numbers of people involved in the raw material extraction, product manufacture and distribution of materials and equipment to the site. With all of those people, each with a small part and each with their own agenda, the complexity of even the smallest project can be enormous.

The particular project I'm currently involved in is a 400,000 GSF, $218M behemoth. The A/E team features three different architecture firms plus a laboratory design firm, five primary engineering firms and six more specialty consulting firms with close to 50 design professionals engaged in the design and production of contract documents. Our internal team coordination meetings routinely feature 15 or more people in the room and another six to eight on conference call. Right now, at design development, the drawing set is four volumes of over 200 drawing sheets each and two volumes of specifications at about 500 pages each. My firm is the associate architect, working closely with the architect of record and the rest of the team. I am our firm's project manager and assistant PM for the whole team.

The owner has retained the services of a construction management firm to perform both pre-construction and construction management services, including managing a design-assist process. For those unfamiliar with that delivery method, the CM has contracted with sub-contractors to assist in the design of the concrete structure, glazing and metal panel systems and HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems. This is a new process for me and my firm as well as for the owner, which is a long time client of our firm. Please follow this blog as there will be more postings related to that effort coming in the next few months. In the early stages of the design-assist effort, I’m finding it to be a fascinating process, but one where mistakes have already been made.

I'm going to try to keep the names of the owner, A/E and contracting firms and individuals inside those firms confidential. Their names are not germane to the discussion and provide unnecessary information. I have not asked permission to use anyone’s name and we agreed to confidentiality during the collaboration meeting, so I must respect that. With that said, I'm sure anyone who follows design and construction in my area or knows me personally will no doubt be able to figure out who some of these players are, but my purpose is to relay my experiences and thoughts, not point out the mistakes of others. 

It took over a month to organize this collaboration event. Given there were about 30 people invited from a dozen different organizations, finding a suitable date was difficult. The owner and CM finally agreed to hold it on a Tuesday and cancel the regularly scheduled design meetings that would have normally occurred on that day. The owner has given the CM shell space in a building near the construction site for staff office space, so that was the venue for the event.

The moderators of the event were from the home office of the construction manager. This CM is a large, nationally known firm which is headquartered in a major midwest city. These two people apparently run similar collaboration sessions for this CM all across the country. They were incredibly friendly, highly organized and seemed comfortable working with such a large and diverse group of professionals. They were also incredibly focused on the project, the collective team and our needs. They were not trying to make their firm look good but were incredibly focused on making the team better. That was an important thing to happen: adults, especially seasoned construction professionals can see phony a mile off!

The invited parties included several tiers from the ownership team: an Assistant VP, several directors and the owner's project manager and assistant project manager. In attendance from the A/E team was the architect of record's PM and project architect, myself and the principal's in charge for the structural engineer and HVAC, electrical and plumbing engineers. The CM was represented by their project executive, PM and assistant PM. There were also the four design assist contractors, each bringing project executives and one or two other people. On the day of the event, there were 26 people in the meeting plus the two moderators. It was a large group, all from diverse backgrounds and all bringing something different to the table.

I have to question some from the ownership group. The event was scheduled for 9:00A to 4:30P. At the beginning, the lead moderator asked if there were time constraints for anyone in attendance. Due to scheduling conflicts and miscommunication, there was a telecomm and audio-video design meeting in the afternoon. The architect of record’s PM and I had discussed who should attend and ultimately decided this event was too important, so he sent a junior project architect to that meeting. The owner's AVP said he had a conference call at 3:00P but would return for the conclusion of the session. The architect of record’s PM asked to be excused at 4:00P to beat the traffic back to the District of Columbia where his office is located. The moderator said he would work with that. Two people from the owner's team remained silent at this point but left after just one hour of the event. Two others from the owner's team arrived late but did stay for the duration of the event.

In his opening remarks, the owner’s AVP discussed how important he feels this type of event is but was unable to garner the same focus from some on his team. To be fair, many of us have had negative experiences with these types of events which may cause some to be less than interested in attending them. However, the other 22 participants were able to give their attention for a full day, so I believe the entire ownership team should have been able to do so as well. The two individuals who left after one hour were directly involved in one of the issues the group identified and discussed later on in the session.

The printed agenda was somewhat difficult to understand, hence my trepidation before the event started.  However, the agenda proved to be very simple. We introduced ourselves and discussed our experiences with partnering sessions. We then discussed personality or communication styles and took a quiz to help determine our own communication styles. We discussed definitions of each of the four styles and how best to communicate with persons of that style. After lunch, we left the generalities and philosophies behind and focused firmly on our project. I think that was the critical move that made a huge impact on the team and the success of the event.

I have mixed experience with partnering type events. The ones I have attended in the past were not terribly successful. They seem to always start with participants sitting around tables filled with Matchbox Car construction toys: bulldozers, dump trucks, road graders and the like. They seem to focus on heady philosophy or touchy-feely discussions that make professionals uncomfortable. As we began our session, I did not see any construction toys around and we were sitting in a circle so already the mood seemed different. When it came my turn to describe my partnering experiences, I said that I find it insulting to put construction toys in front of construction professionals. That elicited laughs from all and quick agreement from the moderators.

I think I'll save the conversation of the personality styles for a blog by itself, but essentially, this particular personality style indicator focuses on four styles: Producer, Planner, Promoter, Peacekeeper. In our room of 26, there was one Promoter (one of the moderators), one Peacekeeper (HVAC engineer) and the rest of us split between Planner and Producer. One of the characteristics of Planners and Producers is that they sometimes have difficulty communicating with each other as the Planners like to have all information required, in a high level of detail and the Producers want to act quickly, based on just the most important facts. That information by itself probably justified most of the day's expenditure!

As we broke for lunch at this point, I think I’ll break the blog here. Please return in a week or so to learn about the rest of the event. I found it highly successful and I hope the benefits continue to be reaped as the project moves forward.

Can a Day Long, Formal Meeting Foster Better Collaboration?

By Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT

In about one hour, I'll enter a day long meeting entitled "Building a Highly Collaborative Team." This meeting has been  organized by the construction manager for a large biomedical research building that I am involved in. The meeting will be attended by members of the design team, ownership team, construction management team and design-assist contractors. It will feature a moderator who I'm told is a psychologist. In one day, can this group of individuals build a "highly collaborative team" as the meeting title suggests?

I've attended similar "partnering" sessions before and in one word to answer my own question, no. Typically, these moderators come in with high energy and put construction toys on the tables, play ice breaker games and generally make highly skilled professionals feel childish and like they have wasted an entire day. I hope this one is different, but I'm not sure. The CM's project manager asked my advice and I warned him I against the usual moderator, toys and ice breakers. I think he heard me, but he has to answer to bosses just like I do, so we'll see.

In September of 2011, I posted an article on this blog entitled "A Decent Meal" where I described an end of project luncheon that might should have occurred at the beginning of the project. I suggested to the CM that maybe a long luncheon or barbecue type event might be a better way to foster collaboration. In my view, collaboration starts with familiarity and understanding. There is no better way to get to know people than to share a meal and each other's company. Talking about sports, children or other interests is great way to get to know people and better understand who they are and what they bring to the project team. When we better understand each other, our strengths and weaknesses, we can work better together.

Spending a day in a conference room, feeling like you should be somewhere else might foster resentment and force some to put up their defenses. Important things might be said that aren't heard because of a lack of attention being paid to the meeting. Childish, ice breaker type games are rarely taken seriously by professionals and provide little if  any true understanding of anyone or anything. In construction, we need to understand each other, understand where each of us is coming from, what our motivations are, and work together to reach a common goal.

I'll report back after the meeting with how it went, what we did and other thoughts on building collaboration. Wish me luck and follow me on Twitter @BaltoCSI.

The Angst with Codes and Documents

I know that I promised you the final post in the 3 part series on "The Golden Rule" but Ralph Liebing's weekly "PER-SPEC-TIVES" article spoke to me this week and I wanted to share it with you all. If you don't follow Ralph's work, you should! Feel free to email webmaster@csibaltimore.org and I'll put you in touch with Ralph.

 

THE ANGST WITH CODES AND DOCUMENTS

By Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT, CPCA, CBO [former]

 

In the face of what appears to be a growing expansion and to some an intrusion, of code officials into the process of documenting projects, there is need for open, free and collaborative discussion. Both sides must understand the other-- fully-- and be ready to discuss, accommodate, compromise and resolve the entire issue, with mutual respect and conclusive results.

 

Two primary issues have impacted the code situation. First, cuts in agency personnel have caused offices to require "easily reviewed" documents-- i.e., documents where the information is obvious, "pops out at you", and is complete in one place. Two electronic documents and code applications and forms often are not easy fits. Word processing is most common, but code personnel do not "wish" or have time to search for pertinent information in specifications—the very place where a trove of information is easily placed. These factors, [and perhaps the wide differences—many appearing as unreasonable or unnecessary-- in local code regulations and review procedures] serve to confound quick and accurate plan reviews and prompt permit issuance, and create unfortunate raw nerves between design and code personnel.

 

The adoption of the International Family of Code has given a tremendous boost to codes, relieved much of the parochial codes and provided a more dynamic code change process. Overall this status change has also empowered code agencies to increase their impact technically and has caused most to change administrative processes, requirements and fees. To alleviate economic troubles in local governments, fees have also risen while demands of "more" information, and easier access to information have taken quite a turn. Here angst and "raw nerves" have become more prevalent and problematic to both sides—the code side and the design side. The resulting angst, unwavering absolutes and "unilateral "demands cannot stand in a rapidly moving construction world.

 

Building codes and other regulations need to be turned into "positive" elements of practice, and reduced to a functionally minimal process; i.e., the importance and need for regulation is valid, but researching and resolving the issues within a project should be reduced to a minimum time frame. There may be too much time spent either avoiding the regulations entirely, or in efforts to circumvent, or obviate them.

 

Design professionals cannot directly control the code agencies and personnel, but they can make comment and influence the political entities that enact the codes, etc. Here is where we need to get over the threat of retribution and work in concert for the common goal of safe construction. To make the code and permit process a confounding, and needlessly convolute, messy and elongated process is no advantage to any of the parties.

 

Perhaps a proposal, or a solution, is to start at the highest levels and begin to engage the processes of documenting and code compliance as they "should" interface. Might look good for progress there, but the final arrangement may well still lie in overcoming local and personal attitudes, expertise and summary judgments

 

We need meaningful discussion and facts-- we don’t need venom, nastiness, knee-jerk solutions and flat out anger. We do need incisive notes, situation citations, examples, and other forms of questionable requests. Of course, universal adherence to the results is necessary to eliminate the localized differences and demands for added documents goes without saying.

 

Interested in talking and truly discussing?

Construction Contract Administration Via Email: The Recipe for Confusion

By Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT

 

This is the second of several postings to The Felt Tips blog that deal with the umbrella topic of The Golden Rule: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. This post deals with the problems associated with conducting construction contract administration via email in the age of smart phones and other hand held digital emailing devices. The last post titled “The Message You’re Sending” dealt with the messages that you send in how you handle your business and more importantly the messages sent to employees of companies. In a couple of weeks, I'll present some thoughts on how attention to detail, or lack thereof, can affect your business dealings and the folks you hope to do business with.

 

Most of us involved in the construction industry have at some point received an email with the subject line “FW: (insert vague subject here)” and then the body of the email says “See below” with the sender’s signature line, probably followed by either “Sent from my iPhone,” “Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone” or some similar signature. I seem to receive several of these a week if not several a day. I usually look at who the email was sent to in the “To:” line and am dismayed to see that it’s me, the engineers on our team, the client and several levels of the contracting team. Which one of us is to respond?

 

That’s always the $6M question: when 12 people are in the “To:” line, who is responsible for the eventual answer? If the question comes from the field, the superintendent or some other member of the contracting team, I usually assume that a member of the A/E team should provide the appropriate response. As I am the architect who usually holds the contract with the owner, at the onset of construction I always let the consulting engineers on the team know that I am to review any response prior to it going back to the contractor. This isn’t a control issue but a way for me to ensure that all issues are resolved and coordinated with other members of the A/E team. For example, a suggestion from the field to suspend the electrical transformer on Unistrut by drilling through the flanges of structural steel beams is easy for the electrical engineer to agree to, but I need to make sure the structural engineer accepts this damage to steel that he designed and specified.

 

The situation gets more complicated when one of three things happens. The first being the contractor forwards an email from the sub-contractor without fully reading or fully grasping the situation. I call this type of contractor either a “buck-passer” or a “paper-pusher.” That’s probably an unfair characterization because all general contractors are simply trying to finish their contracted work in the best and most judicious manner, but part of their duty to the owner is to fully understand all the issues circulating through the construction site and fully coordinate the work of all of their subcontractors. The example above with the electrical transformer and Unistrut actually happened to me recently. Unfortunately, this project was a tenant fit-out of an existing building and we do not have the services of a structural engineer on our team. If the contractor had taken a moment to look at the cover sheet of the drawings and see there is no structural engineer on our team or better yet call me, his response to the electrician might have been to consider a different attachment method. Instead, we had some back and forth through email and then finally we reached resolution only after I phoned the site superintendent to fully understand the electrician’s intentions.

 

The second complicating factor is when the body of the email below the “see below” comment is unclear. I recently became involved in a complicated issue surrounding a smoke damper. To be fair, I didn’t get involved early enough, choosing to let my engineer handle it, but all the team got from him was more questions. It was only when the owner phoned me to ask a very specific question about the building code and corridor walls, was I able to get to the bottom of the situation and answer the question for both the engineer and contractor.

 

Shame on me for not acting earlier, but I tend to be a creature of culture. This particular owner has severely limited our CA scope. They are seasoned professionals who choose to handle most issues in the field themselves. We are only contracted to review submittals, address RFI’s and perform a punch list at the end of the project. That has set the culture that at some point, the owner steps into the email fray and says, “this is what needs to happen” and the issue is resolved. I’m sure several nationally known bloggers are alternately cringing and spewing coffee over their screens as they read this. I do not like these sorts of contractual arrangements, but certain business decisions are made from time to time that I have to live with. I don’t like having our fee reduced or our influence during construction diminished, but it’s not always my call.

 

That is the third complicating factor: owner influence or obfuscation. Most of the work I do is for institutions of higher learning. Nearly all of them have architects, engineers and other construction professionals on their staffs which handle a wide range of issues and have opinions just as strong as mine in how the projects should progress and how situations should be resolved. The complication comes in when either standard AIA contracts or a reasonable facsimile of the same are used. The standard AIA contract assumes an unsophisticated owner who requires the advice and services of an architect to help negotiate the murky waters of design and construction. When an owner who is more sophisticated breaches their duties as prescribed in the AIA contract, a culture may be set that allows the contractor can circumvent the architect to suit his own needs.

 

That has happened to me on a recent renovation project. I received a change notification for an exorbitant amount of money to move sprinkler heads. As I eschewed email and spoke directly with the contractor I learned that as the ceiling grid was going in, the owner’s representative visited the site and directed the ceiling grid installation to move forward and the sprinkler heads would be moved later. This owner’s rep is very young and did not realize the ramifications of selecting the most expensive course of action. In most cases, shifting the grid less than 6” would have eliminated the conflicts. As I spoke with the contractor and portrayed my displeasure with being eliminated from the discussions, he realized an alternative solution. A minor change from 2’ by 2’ ceiling to 2’ by 4’ ceiling tile in certain locations would alleviate relocation of all but one or two heads. Unfortunately, it took an irate architect holding a “Come to Jesus” phone call with the contractor for the right decision to be made.

 

A worse situation is when the architect is excluded on purpose by a sub-contractor who has a prior relationship with an owner. On a different project but with the same owner and same young owner’s rep described above, I was pulled into a dispute between the general contractor and a sub-contractor who knew which buttons to push with the owner. The sub-contractor had exclusions in his bid that the general contractor did not catch on bid day. Rather than working it out one-on-one, contractor to sub-contractor, they both dug in their heels and the sub-contractor ordered a meeting on-site with the owner, the maintenance shop and the general contractor. The architect was excluded from this meeting and summarily blamed for the problem. The documents were clear but the inexperienced owner’s rep did not know this and the general contractor chose to avoid conflict and blame the person who was not in attendance. It took me several phone calls with the owner’s rep and the general contractor to solve the problem by pointing out the correctness of the documents.

 

These are a few examples that I’ve encountered recently. There are many, many others. Many of these problems can be avoided with a few simple ideas:

 

1.    Use the telephone whenever possible. Email and an RFI attachment can always be used to finalize the answer to all parties.

2.    Use email only for clear and concise communication.

3.    When email is used, make sure you completely read the entire message and understand the question before responding.

4.    When forwarding an email, make sure you have completely read the entire message for acceptability for all parties to read. It will save you or other team members embarrassment later.

5.    When email is the best solution, only include those who need to be party to the question and answer. The email blast and “reply all” is the scourge of humanity and tends to only create more confusion.

6.    When the architect and engineer are on-site, review every possible condition and question the contracting team has at the time. Make sure when you leave the site, you completely understand all conditions that affect the question and ultimately the answer.

7.    When a contractor knows the architect or engineer will be on-site, be judicious with their time. Make sure all sub-contractors are available to ask their questions or make sure you understand them well enough to discuss them with the architect or engineer.

 

Construction is confusing enough without adding to it via email. Design intent, incomplete documents, inaccurate bids and other items all add to that confusion. By adhering to these suggestions, many of the problems created by email can be avoided and the work allowed to move forward to everyone’s satisfaction.