Keep it simple stupid!
We are always taught to KISS in the Army but rarely do we stick to this mantra. Too often it is seen as ‘lacking effort’ to follow what has been done previously and reinventing the wheel becomes a must to be innovative and demonstrate leadership above your peers! The result is mostly a troop of confused chimps trying to understand the intent of the task never mind how to execute it.
As part of the Construction Quality Management (CQM) that USACE use to ensure quality assurance (QA) they employ the Three Phases of Control; preparatory phase, initial phase and the follow-up. The initial phase occurs at the beginning of the task on site and continues each time new work crews are assigned. The follow-up is performed daily to ensure that control established continues. However, the purpose of this blog is my experience with the preparatory phase.
The preparatory phase is performed prior to beginning any work and will review the plans and specification, co-ordinate prelim works, safety and when quality checks take place. How to meet these standards is in the specification and hence my assumption was that this would be a quick final check of a few important details before work was allowed to proceed.
In a pre-construction meeting attended by several experienced project engineers, the client and contractors I was initially concerned that I may be out of my depth having not been a part of the planning cycle. Chaired by the principal contractor (PC), after a few minutes I wondered if I was in the right meetings. I had suddenly either become extremely competent or Americans were a little stupid; given my record I initially went for the latter.
The meeting was about security fencing and the sub-contract (SC) had been awarded to a company who had already been employed on previous National Security Agency work performing well, on time and safely. There were the obvious discussions that I expected about de-confliction with other contractors and site access but then the meeting got ‘simple’.
The PC began interrogating the SC about the fencing and how the corners would be placed, how the connectors would be attached, the testing process and ensuing material was tidy on site. These question would all have been confirmed via the submittals process which itself is monitored by a robust if not longwinded system and therefore already been approved by all parties. Why was the PC questioning such an expert who had already proved themselves previously? At times I thought I could have replaced the SC with Churchill the nodding dog to answer “oh yes” to all the questions. The PC wasn’t asking bigger picture questions; they were questioning the very basic operations of the SC. At what point would the workers put their safety glasses on? Will they use two people when unrolling the fencing to make sure it does not spring back into a roll? The contractor was having to explain a verbal method statement of parts of the work the PC should never need to know. It was akin to a CO confirming where the section commander was going to keep his G1098 tools when on task and if everyone had put 30 rounds in each magazine. I was almost uncomfortable; here was a contractor who has erected fencing at one of Americas highest security bases and the PC was confirming if they were going to wear the correct gloves to handle the razor wire!
How many man-hours was this meeting taking? Are we honestly confirming that the contractor will store the material more than 4 inches off the ground overnight and keep the site tidy! At each stage, stakeholders were jumping in with the simplest of questions to ensure they too got an “oh yes” from contractor Churchill.
But this is the process. USACE insist on it as part of accepting a tender and are rigid with QA business. They have little sympathy for work that is not to the correct specification; it is simply ripped out. Hence the importance for the PC and contractor to get it right the first time: any re-show is at the expense of the PC.
By keeping it simple so that everyone understands and taking the time to “measure twice, cut once” can save days of rework later. The system works if those involved embrace it. The saying “if it’s not efficient, change it” does not exist; there are no promotions for shortening the meeting or changing the process so why reinvent the wheel. Yes, the meeting takes time and is potentially inefficient but the time cost to the PC and USACE is far greater if the sub-contractor delivers a product below quality or compromises safety.
If I had chaired this meeting I would have felt that I was insulting the contractor or at best wasting their time and have felt it necessary to add another dynamic to the meeting to make it worthy of everyone’s time. This would result in ignoring the simple basics and adding confusion to a process they know and find simple, potentially setting the task up for failure. They would then rightly tell me to KISS.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Do you think that the presence of USACE representatives might have generated a bit of showboating? I can imagine that a purely PC and subcontractor meeting might have been made more efficient for the benefit of both parties in terms of avoiding time lost.
I absolutely agree that the need to say more when less would suffice appears to be a military trait. Everyone wants to have their voice heard, everyone wants to say something that all can agree with.
I wonder if, when the contractor is onsite, the level of diligence promised will materialise i.e. how effective is the process in delivering effect (and if effect is delivered can it truly be attributed to this process with any certainty).
It sounds like they expect an extremely high level of quality and I suppose being so thorough with the method statement may help this.
Is this however followed by a intensive quality management process? Or do they just spot check and rip out non compliant work to keep the contractor on their toes? Without a strict inspection/testing regime the detailed pre start may be wasted.
Ah, memories. I, like you, found myself in a few preparatory meetings wondering on the level of detail. However, I did find that for the majority of the time, the level of detail discussed was a useful way to confirm two things
1. that the foreman’s method of works was actually the same as that stated by the subcontractor’s office staff in the submittals, and
2. that the approach to site husbandry and low level health and safety weren’t going to cause problems.
From what I could gather, the USACE staff found the process long-winded also. Did you ask why people had focussed on such detail after the meeting? Had the subcontractor performed work to the required standard but caused concerns in how they’d gone about it? Maybe they hadn’t stored equipment off the ground and the PC was concerned that the risk of damage to material presented a delay in work… Something hat they weren’t prepared to accept and wouldn’t be able to pass on to a small sub contractor?
In opposition to Rich’s thoughts, I tended to find a military influence to meetings generally resolved and completed the agenda quicker and more productively than without. As you gain experience and take the lead in these (from the government perspective) , don’t be afraid to work with, rather than against, the PC’s quality manager and nudge the direction of conversation… Chances are, everyone will be thankfull for it!