Proving or Proofing?
I am currently working as part of SWC’s (contractor) design team on the Melbourne Airport Terminal 1,2,3 ‘Elevated Road Network’ and have been managing the proof engineering process. Under the D&C contract, SWC have traditionally acted as an intermediary for information exchange between the principal designers (PD) and the proof engineers (PE), with limited direct communication between the 2. This information comes in the form of a PE ‘comments register’ which goes through a continuously cumbersome back and forth issuing process. Furthermore, the volume of comments on the registers can be unmanageable and it is often the case that high priority design concerns are lost amongst a sea of quick and easy fixes, such as minor drafting errors.
This is further compounded by a culture of ‘one-upmanship’ between the PD and PE, with accusations of pedantic commentary and inadequate justification coming from both sides. The sceptic would say that this is amplified by both having a desire to partner with SWC on future D&C tenders, both keen to ‘prove’ themselves as competent designers. The dangers of such a culture spreading are obvious and it is paramount that the proof engineering process is returned to its original intentions i.e. ‘to verify the integrity of complex engineering systems for compliance with the NCC. In the context of the building environment, verification means review of calculations and design documentation prepared by others and may also involve checking by independent calculation’.
To aid with this, I have been chairing regular PE review sessions which allow for open and frank discussion of previously agreed and prioritised review items. This is helping with the integrity and efficiency of the process and decreasing the level of ‘keyboard warrior’ critique that had been taking place on the Excel registers. However, there is still a deal of sensitivity around certain items which can be challenging to resolve.
I wonder if anyone else has experienced something similar? I should stress that overall, the value of the PE process is still being realised and some good design refinement has come as a result.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
The PD/PE process is very similar to the UK Cat 1, 2 and 3 checking process for highway structures. I absolutley concur that there is a temptation to become a ‘keyboard warrior’ (not an expression I have heard before but the cap fits…) The NEC requirment to act in a spirit of mutual co-operation frequently requires riteration but this is better than the other extreme of breaching the professional relationship and becoming familiar/friendy wherby there is a risk that errors are ‘sorted out quietly before anything becomes a problem’. The latter situation leads to lack of audit trail and a risk of errors passing without correction and no clear line of responsibility.