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:
-
Design
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
-
Project Field
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?
-
Project Structure
Owner information
Project resources
Schedule and seasons
Contracting strategy
Contract language Contract administration process
Roles, responsibilities, and authority
Goals, expectations, and requirements
Dispute resolution and change control
Partnering
-
Project Geography and Logistics
Project location vis-à-vis workforce and key parties
Accessibility
Adjacent facilities
Climate
Terrain
Regional market
Site details
Local building code officials and permits
Site utilities
-
Project Team
Philosophy, approach, and autonomy
Level of owner participation
Composition
Number, knowledge, and experience
Location and set-up
Attitude
Resources and support
Knowledge and understanding of project requirements
Craft labor source and supply
-
Preconstruction Activities
Contractor qualification
Bidding process
Selection and notification
Project requirements review
Premobilization activities
Submittals
Performance measures and other project controls data
Site planning
-
Course-of-Construction Events
Project communications and information flow
Team turnover
Work coordination activities
Progress monitoring
Problems solving—identification and solution
Project change management
Payment process
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:
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)