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.

The Message You Are Sending

By Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT

 

The next several postings to The Felt Tips blog will 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 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, please look for a posting on handling construction administration through email and the respect issues associated with that medium. Finally, 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 are highly plugged in these days. Smart phones, laptops, tablets and other devices make our business and personal email and social media accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. I personally have an iPhone, an iPad and a company-issued lap top computer, in addition to several other computing devices in my home. I have w-fi access in my home and office and I groan when I'm in a long meeting without wi-fi to the point where I commandeered our company's mobile hot spot so I can be wirelessly connected most of the time. It's crazy, I know, but I enjoy the connectivity. My volunteer work not only with CSI but with scouting and our church frequently puts me conducting those types of business after business hours but wi-fi access helps me take care of some things during the spare minutes between meetings.

 

I try to draw a clear distinction between my business and my volunteer activities and the time I spend on each. I typically work on volunteer activities at night and on the weekends, but I try to avoid sending business related emails late at night and on the weekends. I do that primarily to avoid having people I conduct business with thinking they can have access to me 24-7. I have some clients and contractors who already feel that entitlement, but I don’t want to encourage it. From time to time, I wind up working evenings and weekends: writing proposals, reviewing RFP's, marking up drawings, reviewing submittals, etc. When I do send emails at night and on the weekends, they are normally related to management tasks and are internal to our company. That seems to be part of our firm’s corporate culture: our leadership manages our teams and the firm after hours.

 

In the last year, I've noticed a dramatic increase in folks sending emails late Friday night through late Sunday night. In one case, a young architect I'm working with at another firm likes to send emails after 10:00P on Friday and Saturday night! That action begs the question: is that a part of the corporate culture at that firm? Or is her personal situation such that she leaves the office early to care for children and needs to make the time up late at night? I have children and I know that sometimes you have to leave your office to pick them up from day care before the job is done. I also know some younger people feel the only way to get ahead is by making it appear that you put in extra hours and work late at night.

 

As a leader in our firm, these activities both leave me curious and cause me to wonder. What is the message our firm leadership is sending to our young staff? Do we give off the impression that it is necessary to get ahead at our firm by appearing to work 24-7? I don't think we do and I personally make sure that the young architects I work with understand they need to take their accrued vacation and they need to put down the mouse and go home at night and on the weekends. I very bluntly tell the youngest staff to not sync their work email to their smart phones. I recognize that we don't pay them enough for that type of access after hours.

 

A different kind of message that was sent can be gleaned from this story. A number of years ago, I was involved in a large project and sat in some scope review meetings. One particular contractor was a bit down on his luck at the time and took some significant discounts off his costs in order to try to win the job and keep his people employed across the winter. As the scope review continued and his discounts came to light, there still seemed to be about a $1.5M gap between his bid and the construction manager’s estimate. Finally, his chief estimator found her mistake and the contractor hung his head and wrote a personal check for the bid bond: $500,000. Just this week, I was in another scope review meeting with this same contractor. The chief estimator, despite a mistake that cost her boss $500,000, is not only still with the company but is now vice-president in charge of estimating. What message does that send to the other members of the company?

 

What messages do you or does your firm send to its employees? Do you forgive their mistakes? Do you expect them to be in contact 24-7? For your firm, does PTO stand for "Paid Time Off" or "Pretend Time Off?" If you can't answer these questions or don't like the answers, go into the office tomorrow and change it. If you need help answering these questions, invite a younger staff member to lunch and pick their brain. If you want to know what others in your position are doing, go to a CSI Meeting and meet your peers. Visit www.csinet.org and click on the “Chapter Locator” button to find the chapter nearest you. The networking opportunities alone will make it worth your while!

Fire Classifications for Toilet Partitions?

by Mike Clancy, CSI, CDT

Have you ever heard of such a thing? Well, you should have by now because the International Building Code (IBC) 2006 established a fire classification requirement for toilet partitions. The fire classification is to be determined by the ASTM E-84 test, know in layman’s terms as the tunnel test. The International Code Council, responsible for the IBC, decided that toilet partitions should no longer be considered furniture and should now be considered an Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish which require a fire classification.

Fast forward to the IBC 2009 and there was a change in this requirement. The new code requires toilet partitions made from high density polyethylene (HDPE/solid plastic) to pass the NFPA 286 test, known as the corner room test. This is a more stringent test and is a pass/fail test and does not establish a fire classification. All other toilet partition material still needs to have a fire classification based on ASTM E-84.

So the next time you are writing your toilet partition specifications make sure you include these requirements and documentation from the manufacturer that their material meets the current codes.

The Importance of Mentoring

Lately, I've been thinking about mentoring. I moderate the mentoring program at our firm and from time to time give presentations to other groups on the "Nuts and Bolts of Mentoring" which includes a case study of the successful program that our firm enjoys. I recently submitted that presentation for a "Call for Presentations" to a large convention of architects in Virginia. As I was filling out the application, I realized that I probably needed to add some content. The current presentation is about 45 minutes with Q&A and I need it to be over one hour long for this particular convention. I found myself thinking about two important mentors in my life, which might add some fuel to the presentation.

I began my career working for a small firm in Jackson, MS. Like most recent graduates, I was terrified of my employers, mostly because they were rarely in the office and I simply did not know them very well. I was immediately assigned to work closely with one of the two partners of the firm, so I was able to get to know him fairly quickly and get over my fear. The other partner, was more difficult to approach, mostly because of his appearance. He is tall, slender, wears tailored suits almost exclusively, slicks his hair straight back and wears round glasses that partially obstruct his pupils. He rarely smiles and has a sarcastic sense of humor. He can be very intimidating, but once you get to know him, he's not intimidating at all and is quite engaging and personable.

After I had been with the firm for about a year and a half, I began working on a project with the other partner, Skip. The project was about a 2-1/2 hour drive away from the office. The meetings were scheduled at 9:00 AM meaning we left the office around 6:00 AM. That first car trip, I learned a lot about Skip and we never talked architecture the entire drive up. Across the next several months, he became one of my first and strongest mentors. I learned much from him about life, architecture and business, some of which I find myself teaching young people in our office today.  One lesson in particular was when I was asked if we worked together. I responded that I work for Skip. Skip stopped what he was doing, looked at me, and then said to the person who posed the question, "no, we work together." I've never forgotten that lesson and try to pattern my own career and interaction with folks at our office in the same manner. Architecture is a group effort and when one personality dominates that effort, it is more difficult to reach the goal.

The hardest decision I have made in my career was the decision to leave his firm and move to Baltimore, MD.  That move occurred in 1999 and though Skip and I have spoken on the phone a few times across the years, I had not seen him since 1999. A mutual friend let me know Skip was coming to Baltimore, so I reached out to him and we had dinner this past Monday evening. It was as if I had last seen him last week. We talked shop, we talked kids and grandkids, we talked about sports and scouting. It was a delightful evening and one I won't soon forget. As always, he picked up the check without even a thought to let me help.  What struck me most about this encounter was the timelessness of it. It had been years since I had seen my mentor but we fell right back into an easy conversation and the learning continued. Part of that was due to the friendship that we built in addition to the mentor-protege relationship we had built.

About the same time last week that I was contacting Skip, I was asked to write a Letter of Endorsement for another mentor of mine for her nomination for Fellowship in CSI. I am honored to do so and quickly agreed to write the letter. The interesting thing about this mentor relationship is that it started when I was 40 years old! You are never too old to learn and never to old to have a mentor. She and I worked on a CSI committee for three years while she was chair and I am now chair of that same committee. When we started in FY2010, it was my first experience on a national committee. I had been a member of a large task team, but never a working committee. My mentor showed me how to organize myself, plot the work of the committee and encourage the other members to participate. She essentially showed me how to be a good leader. I have now found that it is easier said than done to write a letter about someone who has meant so much to me.

From this mentorship lesson, I've taken away the need to pay it forward. That line has become almost a cliche in our society but I wholeheartedly believe in it. We all have been blessed with something: intelligence, work ethic, design ability, people skills, leadership skills, whatever. However, God-given talents only takes you so far. Education, experience and hard work are required to hone those talents into skills. Part of that education usually comes through relationships with one or more mentors. I was a passable leader at the chapter level. I didn't do so well at the Region level and without my mentor, I would have failed at the national level. However, by watching, listening and learning from her as well as having a constant dialogue and brain-storming of ideas with her, I was ready to assume the chair of that committee this past July.  I am already trying to figure out who is the next chair of this committee and how I can help them become my replacement and help put them in a position to succeed, just as I was placed in a position to succeed.

When I returned home after the dinner with my mentor, my daughter asked who I had dinner with. I told her it was my version of her drama teacher at high school. She nodded thoughtfully and recognized the parallel. Her teacher is her friend, her educator, her advocate and her mentor. The teacher sees herself in my daughter and desires nothing more than for my daughter to succeed.  Similarly, when a Boy Scout earns his Eagle Badge, the highest honor a Boy Scout can earn, he is presented with three lapel pins: one for his mother, one for his father and one for his Eagle Coach, his mentor. It is a touching part of the ceremony because this person is typically not a blood relative, but merely someone else in the boy's life who made a difference. The recipient of the coach pin is a decision made solely by the Eagle Scout.

Who in your life was your strongest mentor? I suspect if you are highly successful, there may be more than one. I have more than these two, but these two made a huge difference in my life and my career. Now, let's turn the tables: who in your day-to-day work is your protege? If you do not have one, why not? If you have one, or more than one, think about this: are you doing everything that you can to put that person in a position to succeed? 

Life Performance of Truncated Dome Warning Devices on Curb Ramps

by Scott Sider, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA




They are almost ubiquitous on sidewalk curb ramps. They warn people with vision impairments that they are about to cross with a vehicle path, usually a roadway. They are mandated by the Accessibility Guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act. They reflect the budgets and design criteria established for the places where they are used. Many materials are used for the truncated domes: Cast plastic sheets, cast concrete, molded bricks, precast concrete pavers, quarry tile, and carved stone. Have you ever wondered how they weather over time?

 



Cast plastic tactile warning pad, cast into concrete base



A typical curb ramp having precast concrete pavers for the
tactile warning

Precast concrete pavers

Truncated domes on these bricks provide tactile warning for people
with visual disabilities

The question occurred to me a few months ago while walking around a neighborhood in Downtown Baltimore and I noticed that the truncated domes had appeared to have worn off several curb ramps which had beige colored brick. Most, but not all, of the curb ramps had the same condition. The domes were worn off the base brick. It made me wonder, is there was a defect in these beige colored brick?

Now how did that brick in the middle of the field loose all of its
domes while the surrounding brick are mostly intact?

Notice how many of the truncated domes are worn down or missing
with the only thing left being the circule from where they were located.

Red-brown pavers with all domes intact

Further excursions around Downtown Baltimore and Downtown Washington seemed to reinforce the idea that the beige colored brick seemed to have an inherent wear defect. A cast plastic sheet across the street from the beige bricks seemed fine. Two shades of red

and brown brick used commonly elsewhere in Downtown Baltimore were mostly fine; only missing an occasional dome. Precast pavers of different colors used in Downtown Baltimore and Downtown Washington seemed unworn. The granite stone in the federal area around the White House and around several Class A buildings in DC's "Golden Triangle" weren't showing any signs of wear.

Red brick pavers, with some of the truncted domes worn

Red-brown brick pavers, with some worn truncated domes

Precase concrete pavers

Granite paver

Then I walked in front of the DC Convention Center and saw a clue. The precast pavers in one of the curb ramps had a distinct pattern of missing domes which looked like they had been shaved off, possible by a snow plow blade. Had the beige colored bricks been shaved of their domes? Maybe. This brought several questions:



It looks like something slid in from the roadway
(to the left) and sliced off the dome in these
precase concrete pavers



• Who is responsible to maintaining the domes in functioning condition? Probably the adjoining property owner, since they usually have responsibility for the maintenance of the sidewalk in front of their property.

• Should property maintenance personnel be trained in how to remove snow and ice from truncated dome pavements? This seems like a reasonable probability, since different flooring materials require different cleaning techniques. If you have ever cleaned smooth vinyl or rubber flooring and then cleaned seamless aggregate surface flooring, you know that cleaning the seamless aggregate surface flooring needs brushes rather than a sponge or cloth mop used for smooth vinyl or rubber flooring.

• When does the truncated dome paver lose its effectiveness as a tactile warning surface? If one dome is missing on a paver, does that render the paver in violation of the ADA? At what percentage of lost domes does the paver need to be replaced? Sounds like questions for the Department of Justice responding to a civil rights complaint.

• Should a test method be developed to determine the resistance of the dome against shear?