Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

This blog discusses a couple of examples of key reflections I have made based of my own actions and decisions on the Perth Children’s Hospital (PCH) project and the Vetwest Animal Hospital project. One describes aspects that went well and the other, although an overall successful project, describes simple mistakes that were made. My overall view is that it actually doesn’t matter if something goes completely ‘pear shaped’ (not that anything has) as long as there are learning points that can be realised, whether through self-critique (reflection) or identified through a more formal feedback process. The key importance to the reflection piece is that once outcomes are reviewed, the point of failure identified and then communicated to those parties involved, it is only then possible to go about seeking ways to implement improvements so they don’t happen again.

PCH – Safety Critical Testing

During Ph2 on the Perth Children’s Hospital (PCH) project I conducted a piece of work involving the tender selection process and procurement of a small works package to conduct safety critical testing. The specifics of this can be found from a previous blog, link below.

https://htstrial.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/oz-pch-commercial-and-contractual-tasks/

In summary, JHG had conducted a theoretical study on the suitability of a number of EEG (brain scan) recording rooms to resist RF/EMF interference from various building sources, internal and external. A further stipulation of the requirement was to test for interference concurrently with a live EEG test being underway. The outcome of this study was that although RF specialists, Faraday, suggested additional screening was indeed required in some locations, JHG decided to value engineer out of the programme the works associated to. Aiding JHG’s decision were EEG equipment vendors who made recommendations that was contrary evidence to Faraday’s findings. This is why the client, not wishing to take any chances on medical examinations, stipulated that practical testing be carried out to confirm if screening was required or not.

I conducted a fair amount of research into the requirement and wrote the scope of works used to go to tender. The important reflection piece was getting the detail of the scope of works right and the decision to include Faraday as a tender nominee. This was so that politically and from a presentational point of view, as they were still contracted on the project under another works package, it would have been unjust to exclude them. However, my view was that we needed to remain cautious due to their position, noting that their theoretical study suggested additional shielding was required and I didn’t want that to somehow influence their testing if selected. That’s because the upshot of the results would have huge commercial implications given that all the EEG recording rooms in question were completed and to add more shielding would require a costly strip-out and re-build, no-doubt including other knock-on issues and more cost.

When I left JHG (Nov 15) the tender selection was complete, bar the confirmation interview, and so it was just a case of waiting for the testing conditions to be co-ordinated and ready to start testing. On my recent visit to site accompanying the CI, the building services manager, my old line manager, informed me of the outcome of the testing. There were a few minor interferences from external systems into some of the rooms; these walls now need to be lined with extra shielding. However, worse still when the live EEG recording was underway there all rooms showed massive interference from something inside the rooms. This has now sparked a new investigation to establish the cause and resolve it. The other key reflection point here is that I made sure in the cost break down section of the works included subsequent rounds of testing should the initial results indicate a failure. This was why we selected EMC Services as the preferred specialist consultants as they were the cheapest over all three rounds of testing (the maximum required) and didn’t charge for additional provision of reports.

NDY – Vetwest Animal Hospital

Like the first example I have already discussed my involvement in my first project leader role on the Vetwest Animal Hospital project, see link below.

https://wordpress.com/post/htstrial.wordpress.com/11190

Now complete I conducted a feedback session on site with the construction managing contractor, Perth Citi Fitout (PCF). The reasons I wanted to do this were threefold: understand what went right, wrong or what could have gone better in order to improve where needed for the two subsequent projects that I was informed we’d most likely win; allow me to properly reflect on my first project leader role for self-appraisal; and finally to retain any lessons learnt to ensure corporate knowledge is not lost when I leave.

Overall the project was a success, testament being a number of conversations with PCF’s managing director who has praised my work and co-ordination of project leading and is looking to conduct two further Vetwest projects with NDY as the design consultants.

The biggest issue, which wasn’t really that big a deal and which was easily resolved and done so promptly, was the missed deconfliction between the supply air diffusers and light fittings. Although the lights themselves were not included in the scope of works we did have the CAD file of the ceiling plan. It wasn’t until the lighting sub-contractor began installing the lights did it become apparent that the diffusers were already installed and in some but not all cases they were where the lights should have gone. A phone call to me explaining the issue was enough to quickly go about resolving the issue. This was a chat to the CAD department requesting that the electrical ceiling layout and mechanical layout be deconflicted. There were a few knock-on effects, mostly being a number of supply air grilles that required blanking plates to avoid cold air hitting and dumping down wall surfaces in some of the smaller consulting rooms where it would be noticeable; also, the time to source and fit them. One unaffected outcome was that moving the diffusers by a ceiling tile or two was practically very simple as mech sub-contractors love to use flexible ducting running off the indoor units and they always allow a metre or so spare capacity.

The reason this issue slipped through the net was due to me making an assumption that the CAD draughty would have done this check when overlaying the various discipline layers in Revit – lesson learnt, don’t assume, ask and get confirmation.

Other smaller issues were some of the technical specifications of fixtures and furnishing were the incorrect type, for example, the back of house laundry sink didn’t fit in the cabinet as it was too deep and the sensor activated scrub sink taps were apparently the wrong type. This was again a case of not checking that the tech spec brochures provided were correct, although you could argue that this should have been a check conducted by the managing contractor when they were reviewing the design drawings. Another issue, from an aesthetic point of view, was the medical oxygen supply pipe running from the cylinder cage outside to inside was installed running up the inside of the wall from ground level to through the suspended ceiling. The core through the outer brick wall should have been located in the ceiling void and the pipe run down the outside of the wall where no one will see it. Having chatted this through with the hydraulic design engineer he said he accidently omitted the pipe dropper symbol on the CAD dwg and so the hydraulic sub-contractor literally followed the dwg – which I suppose you can’t blame him for but maybe he might have seen this type of arrangement before and should have least had a chat to the on-site PM.

As part of the same feedback session I also had the opportunity to ask questions of the clinic team manager, as Vetwest were moved in and the practice was in full swing. Astonishingly, none of the staff were consulted by the Vetwest project manager. She was shocked when I told her that this level of stakeholder management was an absolute must and should have been conducted. It transpired that on her initial induction walk round her and her staff pointed out a number of incorrectly located equipment including the unnecessary installation of a hose cock tap and floor waste bucket trap for the Cattery. Their SOPs are to simply sweep out. There was also the requirement to fit an extra oxygen pipe branch into the X-Ray room. This was something I recall having a telephone conversation about with the Vetwest project manager and remember getting it confirmed in writing. It was to be included then it wasn’t then obviously it was. The issue with it was that the terminal out the wall was in the wrong location for their trolley to connect onto and reach the dog/cat when positioned on the X-Ray machine.

A lot of this is down to a lack of internal Vetwest stakeholder engagement and is a valuable lesson learnt.

What Now?

Having conducted the feedback session I am presenting these findings to the design team involved in the project and therefore closing the loop on the continuous improvement process. It also highlights the issues mentioned above and aims to ensure that whoever project leads the next two projects, they understand where to find particular information. An example being: the Australian Veterinary Association Accreditation Scheme that Vetwest was seeking to highlight to their customer base and regulatory inspectors of their attainment of best practice animal care. I achieved this through understanding the technical implications of accreditation, like ensuring cleanliness standards are as high as possible. To strive for best practice here meant installing HEPA filtration in the Surgery room.

From this….

…to this.

In Other News

We’ve seen a fair amount of aquatic life, and swimming with Whale Sharks was definitely one of the highlights of our time out here.