Site Assessments: An Informal Process of Questioning (Part 1)
August 2001
In this, the first in a series of articles
defining the models used in conducting periodic site safety audits to assess
the performance of construction project management teams, Ron Prichard examines
the general concepts behind the model and its structure.
by Ron
Prichard
Aon Worldwide Resources
This is the first in a series of articles defining the models used in conducting
periodic site safety audits to assess the performance of the project management
teams. In this series, we will not focus on the direct front-line contractors,
who, with their craftsmen, actually perform the physical construction work.
Rather, we will examine those with responsibility for administering multi-employer
programs, either construction managers or general contractors.
Part 1 will address the general concepts behind the model and its structure.
Subsequent articles will delve beyond the abstract into the components of the
model.
The Objective: Preemption of Mishap
Intelligent intervention to avoid mishap is the purpose of preemption. This
is accomplished through pattern detection, anticipating emerging problems while
they are still minor. Dealing with problems on a construction project is like
dealing with cancer in the human body. The earlier a pattern can be detected,
the higher the probability of success, the less invasive the procedure, and
the lower the cost (both to the patient in terms of health and finances).
Site assessments can be performed by those directly associated with the project
team in some manner and who bear responsibility for its successful outcome.
While these project "insiders" can perform assessments up to a point, their
close involvement in the project can hamper their ability to judge how the project
is progressing. These assessments are best performed by "outsiders" who can
be more objective in their assessments. Familiarity with the other parties in
the process or the project will not sway them one way or the other.
Process Background
The purpose of conducting periodic site assessments is to gauge the "wellness"
of the project. Periodic on-site visits and project reviews help ensure that
the health of the project is as it should be. It is important to walk through
the site, evaluate what work is occurring (or not occurring), listen to what
is being said of the progress, and absorb the attitudes of the various parties
involved in the construction.
Site assessment is a two-stage process. The first stage is accelerated information
collection. The goal here is to gather as much information as possible on project
performance through questions, reading, and observations. As Yogi Berra is once
alleged to say, "You can observe a lot by watching."
The second stage is to develop this information, through synthesis and comparison,
into a composite pattern of project performance. Data, by itself, points nowhere.
Context is crucial, and meaning is determined by transforming data into information.
Information, as defined by Gregory Bateson, is a difference that makes a difference.
Determining how the project elements and team members interact, along with
schedules, costs, and other environmental elements, helps create a project risk
profile. Significant changes in a project risk profile over the course of the
project delivery should be a red flag that safety performance can and perhaps
will disintegrate. This is the purpose of a site assessment: to identify a pattern
in time to rectify a downward slide. To connect with Bateson's definition, to
detect such changes is to recognize a difference that makes a difference.
Where such patterns are not identified and resolved, additional risk is introduced
into an already risky venture. Site safety performance is a result of project
management. A lack of safety is the first indicator of a project in trouble.
Accidents and injuries manifest themselves long before cost or financial issues,
productivity issues, schedule problems (delays), or quality problems.
There are two areas the project review needs to focus on: control and anticipation.
By control, we mean assessing the team's control of the project in general.
Gauge the team's mastery of the details. Seek to discover how well are they
able to discuss the project and their handle on the things which can be controlled
(project elements in particular).
Anticipation is the ability to prepare for future events. It is gauging how
well the team identifies project related events that are likely to occur, both
intended and unintended, and determining—and preparing for—their consequences.
Try to assess the project team's reaction to the unexpected. Are they surprised
by? Did they realize that things were likely to go awry over the course of construction?
Are they ready to deal with whatever issues arise?
During the project walk, a list of key areas should be kept in mind to elicit
a full and accurate picture of project status. This requires asking questions,
weighting the responses, and comparing what is said with what is actually happening
on the job-site. It is important to note that not all areas are equally important.
Some items are significantly more important than others. This is why weighting
their importance is crucial. What is more, it is important to remember that
the weight of a factor can change, depending on the context of the project and
its relationship with other factors. Since the factors that can affect a construction
project are constantly changing, depending on the project's status, one must
gauge a project's status based on past, current, and future happenings.
Management processes must adapt to the content of the project and the context
in which it is built. There is no "silver bullet" or standard practice that
works in every situation. Projects must be continuously monitored, as they will
change over time. The state of affairs will determine how many questions have
to be asked and answers verified, and what information can simply be detected
through observation.
Project Assessment: General Information
The primary model for developing a structured approach to conducting a thorough
project assessment is the Warfield set. This model defines the dimensions of
the space (geographic, social, environmental, and temporal) that a project occupies
and examines content (what the project is about), context (the environment),
and process (the means and methods). The assessment involves evaluating the
project's key elements against this structure, keeping in mind each element's
importance or significance across the life cycle of the project.
These questions are not about gauging Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA) compliance. OSHA requirements are but one set of performance specifications
defining the rules of the game. Rather, the project assessment focuses on determining
overall project readiness for accomplishing the assigned tasks while dealing
with the inherent uncertainty surrounding a construction project.
In order to promote thoroughness in an assessment, an infostructure and an
infrastructure for inquiry is necessary. Similar to the manner in which infrastructure
(the underlying physical systems that promote and enable societal functioning),
an infostructure does the same for promoting development of knowledge. "Info"
in infostructure comes from information. The structure provides the mechanism
for linking elements, a method to create comparative assessments of importance.
and a way to organize the content for completeness. This is the goal of a thorough,
and successful, project site assessment.
The full four-part series on site assessments includes:
An Informal Process of Questioning (Part 1)
Initial Assessments (Part 2)
Conducting a Site Assessment (Part 3)
Some Final Thoughts on Completing Site
Assessments (Part 4)
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author’s employer or IRMI. This article does not purport
to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice
is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.