Getting Deeper into Quality: Time, the Systems Model, and the Damage Event
Divide
March 2010
In my previous article,
Getting a Grip
on Quality in the Constructed Project: Defining Quality, I discussed the
challenge with creating a workable definition for "quality" within the context
of construction in general. Paradoxically, the conclusion which must be realized,
to both the detriment and benefit of those involved, is that there is neither
a short, specific definition nor a method to create an encompassing general
definition of quality.
by Ron
Prichard, P.E. Ph.D.
Arcanum Professional Services
What this means is that quality is a highly situational variable, which changes
with the specifics of the item (or service) being delivered, the place where
it is delivered, and the time aspect. In this article, we will bring a bit more
focus on the time element and how crucial it is for quality. In addition, we
will examine how this different way of seeing time as a project input and impact
can be translated into specific actions through the application of models.
Quality over Time
Time is a curious commodity, and one of particular importance for construction.
The purpose of any project is to deliver some facility designed to serve some
intended future purpose at a date certain. When the delivery date is important
(and it always seems to be), this is well recognized, with a specific clause
added to the contract to emphasize this: Time is of the essence. Thus, everyone
engaged in a construction project understands the significance of time with
respect to schedule. What few recognize is its value with regard to quality.
Much like schedule, where the activity is geared toward achievement of a
finished project by a certain defined date, judgment of quality by the customer
lies in the future. The schedule is either met or not. During the course of
construction, with the knowledge of this date and the things which have to be
accomplished to achieve it, progress is measured.
This same finality does not hold for quality, thus creating an enormous challenge.
Quality will not be settled on a specified day. Rather, quality will be evaluated
over the course of time as the project is used by the customer for its intended
purpose. The evaluation of quality begins when the facility opens, will continue
during the years of usage, and ultimately will not be settled until many years
after the construction is finished. This creates a dilemma for those performing
the construction work and illustrates why it is so crucial to have clarity with
regard to client expectations before the project starts.
Quality must be put in place, as you go, to some accepted and settled standard.
Yet, it will be evaluated long after the fact, by which time the criteria used
to judge whether quality has been achieved will be influenced and modified by
a wide array of inputs. The standard for deciding whether quality is acceptable
or not can change during the course of construction as established standards
change. Thus, how people view and judge quality shifts with time.
Time
Before continuing this examination of the connection of time and quality,
let us take a closer look at time itself, for the dimensions of it are critical
in consideration of quality. Time, as a commodity, can be very slippery. It
isn't really an object, since we cannot hold it, see it, feel it, or smell it.
As a result, it is ephemeral. Yet, we are constantly measuring, monitoring,
and counting it as it is invariant and unalterable. Time arrives at a steady
pace and is "consumed" (used up) as it arrives. The measure of the effectiveness
of the processes for using it are a constant focus of attention. Without attempting
to get too philosophical, it is essential to understand time, since it has so
much influence on the outcomes we seek to achieve.
Time cannot be stopped, or saved, due to its characteristic of being unalterable.
It comes at us all the same, one moment at a time—no faster, no slower (despite
the occasional moments when it seems to speed up or slow down). Everything we
do "takes time" to get done, and when we are focused on accomplishing one thing,
it is to the exclusion of all the other choices which we could have made. Once
we have done something, the time that was involved in getting it accomplished
is gone and now unavailable for any other usage. Thus, time is a strange, unseen
force with great import for our lives and the things we do.
Time can basically be subdivided into three realms: the future, now, and
the past. See
Figure 1, for a depiction of how these realms interrelate to each other.
Our perspective of things is altered by the distinctions brought about by the
views dependent on which realm we chose to view time from. The value of time,
our views of it, what can be done about it, and the things it affects are all
influenced by the realm of time through which they are viewed. Let us briefly
examine these realms, as their perspectives matter much for quality.
Click here for Figure 1: Realms of Time
First, look to the future. Time doesn't really exist with regard to the future,
since it is imagined, and it always lies "out there." This realm of looking
forward involves the use of imagination and creativity, as well as factoring
in knowledge and experience. As
Figure 1 depicts it, the view of the future is like an expanding funnel,
wherein the possibilities and potentials (including both things which we want
to occur and things we might wish to avoid). The closer future time gets to
the present, the fewer options there are with regard to what can actually occur,
hence the funnel motif.
This is not to say that our thoughts with regard to the future do not impact
us. Clearly our views of future time do affect us, and, when we examine the
systems model (in the next section) which underlies the premise of quality management,
we will see how and why this is so. The opportunity value of future time is
significant, for, since it is still out there waiting for arrival, anything
can be done with it. The basis of planning is that we are looking ahead (using
the future) to make choices about what actions will be taken, when, and in what
sequence to deliver the completed tasks we want to accomplish.
The second realm is now, the present. This is the realm where we actually
interact with the reality of time. This is the dimension of time in which we
can actually experience time as a real force. The difficult aspect of it is
that, as is it occurring, it is disappearing as well. The visual for this is
a dot.
As this transition from now occurs, time enters the third realm, and again
transforms into an intangible element. Time doesn't really exist in the past,
but, unlike the future (where we were imagining what might come to be), with
the past, we have a trail of actual moments to trace a path backward. Since
time has come and gone in the past, and things happened, we can follow the sequence
of history like a line.
In the same way, the past creates a different view of time. Also, as one
reflects backward in time, the impacts on our lives are both remembered and
often visible. However, while future is always open to selection, the past is
always closed. This is an enormously important aspect of time, and fundamental
to understanding the value of quality in the constructed project. Once something
has "slipped into the past," it becomes unalterable. There is nothing which
can be done by anyone, even if they had access to unlimited resources, to change
what occurred. This is reflected in W. Ross Ashby's First Law: If you do not
do step one right, nothing you can do in any subsequent step will make step
one right.
Therefore, future and past time do carry weight, but we can only experience
and use time in the present moment, the now. How it is used, now, is always
a function of the choices (which, at the time were done looking out into the
future) which were made (and are now part of the past). Thus the actions of
now are always constrained by the legacy of past decisions. If the choices did
not serve or resulted in outcomes that were not sought, choices must be made,
now, to affect what comes next. It is through this continually cycling process
that we use and experience time. The difficulty with this is to get people to
understand that you can alter neither the past nor the now, since both represent
a product of the choices and actions already taken. We can only alter next,
by making different choices now.
Thus, time can best be viewed as a one directional arrow, moving across the
stage from left to right, with left representing the past, center being now,
and the right moving into the distant future. This arrow of time, and the implications
of the realms which it crosses, is fundamental to understanding quality.
The Systems Model
Humans use models, representations of things, as ways to help our brains
process information and act upon it to make appropriate selections. Models,
by describing how the world works, both help us to "make sense" of what is happening
(and why) and to efficiently employ the resources available to us to accomplish
tasks we seek to complete. Systems science is the fundamental model for understanding
the construction process in general, and with it, the quality process. This
particular branch of science is based on control theory and is fundamental to
all aspects of projects: from planning and organizing, to constructing them
and their usage. Thus, the delivery of quality outcomes is clearly linked to
this model as well. The systems model is particularly useful, and applicable,
as we will see. It is also linked directly with time, being inextricably intertwined,
as the model represents actions across time as it depicts events from left to
right.
The model, in its simple form, is composed of a few key components, shown
in
Figure 2. The first aspect is to understand that it operates across time,
as noted above. As time is viewed from left to right, the activities of the
model are linked in a sequence. As the model shows, the system exists within
a context—the environment, which can (and does) impact the functioning of the
system. The system is contained, within some boundary, which distinguishes between
what it controls (elements within the boundaries) and the things it does not
(elements outside the boundary). A system requires inputs, which it then transforms
into outputs, and some control module, which monitors and makes necessary adjustments
to inputs and the transformation process to direct outcomes toward a desired
goal. This is the essence of a system.
Click here for Figure 2: Systems Model
The value of this model is that it both depicts the essence of construction
and scales well. By scaling, it means that one can use this model to describe
activities from any level of examination of construction, from the actions of
an individual worker to the overall project, and any layer in-between. To demonstrate
how effectively it models construction, let us examine how its several different
layers apply.
First, from the perspective of individual work, the system is the person
himself. The boundaries are the skin covering his body, the inputs are nutrients,
water, and information, the transformation process is either thinking or physical
action, the outputs are ideas or tasks accomplished, and the control module
is the human brain. The environment is the entire world surrounding the person.
Next, look at the model from the level of a subcontractor crew. The environment,
in this case constrained to the immediate zone around the crew, is the project
site. The input is the materials, equipment, information (plans drawings, directions,
etc), with the transformation process being the work methods used to perform
the work. The output is the completed tasks that result from the work activity.
The control module at this level is the foreman, adjusting inputs, monitoring
the work processes, and gauging the output. Recognize that one crew's output
becomes part of a downstream crew's input.
Move this model up to a still higher level and make the entire project the
system. In this case, the physical perimeter of the project site defines the
boundary of what is in and what is out. The inputs are the subcontractor crew,
with several more additions, such as people, different crews, contracts, code
officials, owner agents, and on and on. The transformation is the construction
process itself, where the site and the contract documents guide the process
of installation, with the construction manager, or general contractor acting
in the role of control module, and the output being the completed project.
In each of these cases, and every level in between, the same basic system
functions occur. From the perspective of quality, each of these stages matter.
The input, the quality of that material (both physical objects and information),
the effects of the transformation process, all must be monitored throughout
to see that they pass the established criteria for acceptance. During the transformation
step itself, the methods must pass muster by meeting the established standards
of "normal and customary" to deliver the required levels of craftsmanship in
the "doing" as well as affecting the output resulting. Once the actual output,
the completed results of the work activities of the construction project personnel,
is available for evaluation, it is compared to the standards defined and the
client expectations (both explicit and implicit) and is judged to be acceptable
or not. If these comparison points pass, the model moves on to the next cycle.
If, at this point of evaluation, the items being judged do not meet standards,
the system must recycle to make a correction of some sort.
Damage Event
As was noted in the Time section, and is reinforced by the systems model,
events—large and small, of great import or triviality (system outputs)—occur
in the now, and, as they do so, they immediately become part of that unalterable
commodity known as history. Although this may seem like a relatively fine and
minor distinction, that is far from the reality of the significance of this
concept for quality. It is the most important distinction, for it means everything,
as we shall come to understand while we explore the third of the fundamental
quality concepts: the Damage Event Divide model.
The value of the Damage Event Divide (DED) model, like that of the systems
model discussed above, serves to represent reality in such a way that it can
facilitate action. The best way to understand this is to reflect on the output
aspect of the systems model. Through each step of the construction process,
transformations are continually occurring, as individuals, crews, and trades
or subcontractors work to complete their assigned portions of the work.
The output generated represents something physical and tangible, which can
then be measured against predefined standard for acceptability. If the output
matches, it passes, and things continue. If, on the other hand, the output is
not acceptable, then further action must be taken to adjust the output so that
it does achieve a passing mark with respect to defined standards. Depending
on the significance of that output, this can be a relatively minor inconvenience,
or it can represent a major setback for the project.
It is those items falling within this second category, by virtue of the serious
negative consequences for the project, which can be classified as a damage event.
By this, we mean that rather than being something which can easily and quickly
be corrected, it has a more serious effect on the project. This also has implications
for control as well. Since this output, which can be classified as damage, is
the product of the workings of the system upstream from it, the control of that
system is clearly, by implication, flawed in some manner. Thus, when a damage
event occurs, control of the situation must shift from the system which produced
it to a larger system which encompasses the lower level system. This is depicted
in
Figure 3. Once this occurs, the system producing the flawed output can only
be responsive to the higher directions. The currently evolving situation of
the Toyota vehicle recall for the sudden acceleration is an illustrative case
study of this happening now.
Click here for Figure 3: Damage Event
Damage Event Divide
The final stage of this examination of quality is to bring together the three
concepts discussed above: time, systems model, and the damage event. This connection
creates another model, which is crucial to understanding quality implications
for construction work (and which will be the basis for future articles examining
quality). This model, shown in
Figure 4, is the Damage Event Divide.
Click here for Figure 4: Damage Event Divide
It recognizes that outputs, stemming from the systems model, are the objective
of the construction process and the intention of those engaged. It illustrates
that outputs occur "across time" and are the result of the combination of the
inputs (of various types) through the methods in the transformation process.
It also incorporates the irreversibility aspect of the realm of time, in that
once something has been delivered, the moment of "now" in which that was done
has already occurred, and time has "moved on. Finally, if, in considering the
outcome, the consequences are serious enough to classify it as a damage event,
resolution becomes significant. The problem with a damage event is magnified
by its linkage with the inexorable arrow of time moving irreversibly in only
one direction.
Once a damage event has occurred, that event becomes an unalterable component
of history. At this point, one has "crossed over" this metaphorical divide,
where all that was is now changed by this unalterable event. This aspect of
the event being unalterable is represented by "crossing over" the Damage Event
Divide (DED). Again, the reality of this is best illustrated by examining the
impact on Toyota, of the "damage event" which occurred as a result of the accelerator
pedal. It happened; it was significant; and it changes the situation for the
entire organization—and it customers—going forward.
The DED is an importance concept for approaching quality and the methods
for its management. In the next article, we will begin to examine those implications.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are
not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles
and other IRMI Online content do 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.