Quality – just one day a year?
On my Phase 2 at Victoria Square, Woking quality sits second on our client’s priorities after health & safety but above programme.
A lot of my time here has been spent addressing quality issues and it’s management. Having not long heard of this incentive on the project I wonder if anyone else has heard about it? And if so how our respective projects and offices across Ph 2 & 3 and the world are spending/investing in the World Quality Day?
At VSW we’re getting a presentation from the Project Manager and some light nibbles, well for the office staff anyway. Posters and graphics on the rolling screens in the welfare for the site teams… Priorities arguably a little off.
I did spot this on site however – a useful incentive to learn more than just swear words from the guys on site!
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Interesting concept but haven’t seen it used with Laing O’Rourke.
My project are trying to include an emphasis on quality as part of RAMS briefings – again, yet to see much of this.
Has there been any conflicts surrounding your priorities of quality over programme? With some of our big concrete pours we have frequently ‘horsed it in’ and then dealt with consequences afterwards…
…HD bolts, cast in items etc.
I recall the ‘introduction’ of H&S as important and remember that it was mandated to become the first item on all meeting agendas. This had the interesting effect of the reluctant adopters mocking mildly and beginning with trite remarks along the lines of the agenda is on paper so beware paper cuts but the more visionary embracing it to the point that significant H&S concerns were dealt with before any other business got transacted. Those who just wanted ‘to get on with it’ quickly realised that if they squared away H&S better it allowed them to get on with more business than iof they didn’t. I wonder if a similar approach to quality would work? If you get bogged down in H&S and Quality and need to meet again and again to try to make progress on other matters do you start to try to ensure H&S and Quality are squared away at all times so they don’t ‘get in the way’?
Joe, there are absolutely conflicts. Of the 6 major RC superstructure elements on the project they vary from 0-12weeks behind programme, average 5 weeks. So the RC frame subcontractor is under real pressure to make that time up. To do that they are driving forward to get pours complete no matter what size. In the words of their Construction Manager ‘just in time’ preparation is his excuse rather than effective planning. We are stopping pours when really not good enough but being understanding and supportive to help them get pours complete. A few examples are: not offering pours for pre-inspection to us the PC or clients resident engineer (RE), not learning from mistakes/issues previously identified, slab pours starting without all additions (stop ends or 30+ cast ins for cladding, balconies or building services) set out or fixed in place, forcing column pours at the end of the day and running out of concrete, poor slab finishes exceeding the SR2 spec and even a beam being missed by their engineers. Once relationships build on site I found quality improved but as soon as those ended it would return to poor practice and quality. I have raised over 30 NCRs, countless ‘surveillances’ (not quite NCRs but record good or poor practice) against the s/c and over 200 site diary entries to build up the evidence including a delays and even favours trackers. The s/c is the only significant subbie on site at the moment but 3no cladding and blockwork s/cs arriving on site imminently their ability to utilise hook time and therefore output is going to drop off drastically. Programme and making up the critical path is the driver not quality so an interesting one to watch…
Rich, you are right it is almost as if Quality and its management is a new concept. Progress meetings have addressed quality firstly more by accident rather than intention but it is just a subject that continues to be discussed rather than addressed. It has to be deliberate but the s/c are not interested in management and planning but capture delays etc against us systematically. The s/c claim to have a Quality Manager but don’t. I feel SRM are reticent to place a firm enough hand upon them. We have had numerous meetings, of which I initiated within weeks of arriving, but this got lost amongst other meetings, conversations and others making half-arsed agreements (rather than decisions or plans). This is much to the frustration of myself and the other engineers who are on site dealing with the same issues repeatedly. Having been through MSs there is a focus on H&S rather than delivery i.e. sequence and quality. ITPs also have little detail or reference to ISO 9001 quality control procedures. The client has recently sent a letter to the PM demanding more stringent management procedures of which they are obviously refuting. There are many contributory reasons including lack of s/c engineers and quality managers, lack of black hat interest/responsibility for quality, long term relationship management with s/c, personalities, management styles and lack of use of financial penalties/tools against the s/c.
Is this laissez-faire approach remain common across other packages, like steel or is in-situ RC inherently one of the largest quality risks than other superstructure methods?
Longer than planned and a bit of a rant but a little window into some of the continuing quality issues here. However has given me lots to talk about for review…
James, is the PM SRM or another company? This reads as if there is extremely weak leadership in that direction on governance and approach is poor/lacking. The client would seem to be trying to push for a greater focus on quality. QM is the obvious way towards this and, one might argue, also towards reduced re-work, quicker processes and therefore programme regain and cost control… If the PM is promoting World Quality Day, perhaps they do get it but I would stick with one of your forebears remarks on delegation – “nice to trust, better to check”.
The Project and Package Managers are SRM. The Project Manager gets it but I agree there could be a lot stronger leadership and firmer management in the package management domain. I tried targeting this in the QM area making numerous attempts and produced documents to formalise the checks, specifically the ITP. But subsequent ‘formal reviews’ became informal meetings/conversations and no deliberate action plans came from it. Its blinkered to downplay the situation and address the symptoms, not the cause.
I think it is local to this package. I believe it is not a corporate shortfall as there is a comprehensive CMS (Corporate Management System) with a thorough QMP including flowcharts, guidance notes, technical notes, toolkits and forms. CMS and quality training has been delivered but time available for the engrs to research and employ these is the main hurdle, especially when it has been agreed to use some of the subcontractors own forms e.g. pre-pour inspection forms. I would agree with our forebears – the balance of trust and checks is key however this is more difficult for the newer, more junior and inexperienced members of the team.
I am addressing the quality lessons learnt on the slipform by developing guidance for SRM to avoid this for the future…but I fear it may again just sit on the CMS.