In this article, Ron Prichard examines the questions that need to be asked during an initial construction site assessment to determine how the site is meeting both safety and development goals.
In part 1 of this series, we examined the "infostructure": the underlying concepts behind the assessment process. This installment will examine the application of this model in performing an initial site assessment.
Tackling a First Visit to a Site
The initial visit to a construction site always initiates more questions than any subsequent visit. Also, the scope of inquiry is broader. This does not mean, however, that if new safety issues arise on subsequent visits, that the scope of inquiry cannot be broadened.
In the initial visit, the main goal is information collection—gathering information about the basic scope of the project. This creates the "base case" for the project, against which the state of affairs on subsequent visits is compared. Initially, the base case is project data is compared with a project standard to gauge the team's application of Ashby's First Law of Systems: A project must start properly if it is to finish properly.
The lead members of the project team should be the primary source for information. By setting the priorities for work and directing the course of events, these lead members set the stage for project outcome. Their sense of what they have to do, and the resources available to them to accomplish it, are instrumental in driving the project. While it is important for the subordinate members of the project delivery team to have a full and sufficient understanding of the mission, their errors can, usually, be easily corrected by the lead project team members.
The purpose of the initial assessment is to gather enough information to develop a complete, comprehensive picture of the project. This preliminary picture forms the basis against which the assessments on subsequent visits are compared to detect improvement or deterioration. Indications of deterioration can serve as clues for investigation. Project success depends on early detection and correction of problems while the costs (in terms of time and resources) are low and before the problem becomes difficult to resolve. Thus, the assessor examines many aspects of the project, and makes two determinations. The first is the existing state and its relationship compared to a best practices standard. The second is to project into the future, an expected state, where the job should be at the next checkpoint.
On subsequent visits, the assessor evaluates the progress of the project team. This includes determining that the project purpose is still on track. Next, the assessor determines what changes have occurred in the project since the last visit. The focus is to identify those elements that have changed, how they have changed (e.g., what is the trend of the change), and the reason for the change (e.g., what drove the change). This lets you hone in on key indicators of emerging strengths, of growing risks and difficulties, and of potentially serious problems.
How the team sees its own progress-both in identification of issues and their proposed solutions-provides insight into the team's problem-solving methods and management decision-making processes. A construction project is an open system. This means that it is affected by events in the surrounding environment, not just occurrences on the project itself. Thus, team awareness of what is happening on the job and off is crucial. The context of the project is dynamic and changing, and the project approach must be evolving, based on feedback, if it is to achieve its stated purpose.
The Key Elements
The key tool in performing the site assessments is the standard question base. This is built from research and refined over the course of use in the field. The question set is never complete; modifications must be made based on what is seen or heard during the site visit. There are seven key elements to be considered over the project assessment. Not all elements need to be evaluated each time the project is visited, but the more information gathered, the better the diagnosis.
These elements and their essential functions are as defined below:
Translation of vision into defined goals
Completeness and documentation
Complexity Coordination of systems
Value engineering and constructability
Consideration of environment Special materials and equipment
Particular features or performance specifications
How do people talk about the project?
What do they say about the project progress?
What do they say about other project team members?
How does the job appear?
Schedule and seasons
Contract language Contract administration process
Roles, responsibilities, and authority
Goals, expectations, and requirements
Dispute resolution and change control
Project Geography and Logistics
Project location vis-à-vis workforce and key parties
Local building code officials and permits
Philosophy, approach, and autonomy
Level of owner participation
Number, knowledge, and experience
Location and set-up
Resources and support
Knowledge and understanding of project requirements
Craft labor source and supply
Selection and notification
Project requirements review
Performance measures and other project controls data
Project communications and information flow
Work coordination activities
Problems solving—identification and solution
Project change management
Project progress—actual versus anticipated
Contract closeout process
Commissioning, startup and turnover
Subsequent Site Assessments
The utility of these questions comes from compiling the information gathered into a coherent set of specifications. A pattern then emerges by comparing data obtained from previous visits. It's not the direct answers to the above questions that matter so much, as they represent raw data which, taken alone, point nowhere. Rather, it's the evaluation of the responses, gauged in context, which generates useful project assessments.
The full four-part series on site assessments includes:
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. 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.