There is an unique and deeply embedded culture & practice of the AEC industry in the Lower Mainland as well as all over Canada and North America. A deeply embedded culture and practice that throws up tripping hazard in the project journey resulting in the lack of Accountability and Transparency. This is achieved through the transferring risk downstream resulting in higher project cost and innumerable change orders and request for alternatives to materials specified.

On one of my ongoing building servicers project, I got a call from the General Contractor’s PM recently who indicated that their Demo contractor has realised once the project was awarded that their price did not include a certain portion of the demo as the scope of work of the removal of the existing ceramic tiles in the reception was not shown on the demo drawing but on the finishes drawings as requiring new finishes. 

What became quickly apparently in this conversation was:

 A:            The designer’s drawings were:

  • Not accurate for scope and reliability of information.
  • Wherein the scope information was not readily apparent and
  • The drawings lacked clarity; are incomplete

 B:            A confirmation of a general (no pun intended) practise:

·         The tender’s drawings are divided up as Demo; Flooring finishes; Drywall, partitions; Electrical; Mechanical; Plumbing etc. and sent to the relevant trades.

  • The prices come in from the relative trades and the lowest and the appropriate trades price is selected
  • These prices are cobbled together and management and supervision fee together with overhead; margin are added up and a bid is submitted.

 This process is common among most general contractor. The General Contractor has not enough or only minimum time spent in understanding the scope nor devoting enough time to understand the scope.

 The lack of transparency and accountability leads to many and change orders and protracted timelines on the project and risk is transferred downstream

 A study carried out by A Weippert & S. L. Kajewski at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia titled: AEC Industry Culture: a need for change highlights some of the issues in the industry which are

"Four decades of international Architectural, Engineering, and Contractor (AEC) industry publications reinforce poor communication and information transmission; coordination; and teamwork issues, are the cause of countless performance problems on numerous AEC projects.”

On another project a few months ago I got an email from the General Contractor on the project who indicated that the drawings for the main door of the suite/office is incomplete. The drawings list out a requirement for a power door operator for handicap access but does not indicate how it would be installed in a restrictive space above the door frame nor how it is going to work with; card reader; mortice lock.

What become apparent in the brief conversation was:

  • A lack of coordination between architecture and electrical discipline
  • The drawings were just a bunch of instructions
  • Lacking the method or solution to make the different requirement work
  • Risk is transferred downstream

On another project - an EPCM project for a Genset Enclosure package was provided with a set of electrical drawings where the equipment of a particular type and capacity would go and what gets hooked to it etc. What was missing and is common for engineering drawings in the building industry and the EPCM industry is that:

  • The drawings are just an set of instruction
  • With no information to map out the linkage between the different elements / equipment
  • For the particular design / performance requirements
  • It is left up to the electrical contractor (the foreman generally) to work it out an make it functional.

This lack of finality in architectural and Engineering drawings issued to contractors and packagers result in transferring risk downstream. These and other issues in the industry comes from lack of accountability & transparency. It is not that the practitioners of the industry are highway robbers or robber barons but rather it is an accepted industry practice is not necessarily leading to accountability & transparency.

The AEC Industry culture and practice is inherently resistance to change. Before I get hit by virtual brickbats from my AEC contacts in the LinkedIn network I need to clarify that the industry has change in many ways by adopting both a cultural and technological driven change over the past couple of decades.

However, these changes are related to innovative, sustainable materials usage as well as technological advances such as REVIT; BIM and other such technologies. These changes and advances in the industry are advances in a predictable linear fashion and not sufficient enough to transition to a global digital economy nor meet the demands of a digital economy wherein technology is advancing exponentially and converging.

These linear technological advances in the AEC industry has further not lead it to innovate or redefine the business / project delivery of built environments.  You may ask why must these process change? The reason is that the digital economy is about driving change and cutting complexity, while our project intuition has been formed by a set of experiences and ideas about how things worked during the Industrial and Knowledge economy where changes were incremental and somewhat predictable.

These linear technologies adapted by the architecture, engineering and some in the construction industry can resolve the issues of lack of transparency and accountability. Software already in use by architects such as REVIT / BIM have the capability of:

  • Create efficiencies in design and detailing by passing on 3D models directly to fabricators, more or less eliminating the need for 2D detailing leading to a convergence of detailing & design. (The Next Evolution in Building: The Convergence of Structural Detailing and Design
  • Creating Bill of Quantities -BoQ - to determine the scope of the project that ensure that the scope is identified and project specific measured quantities of the items of work identified by the drawings and specifications in the tender documentation ensuring all tendering contractors will be pricing the same quantities for a fair and accurate system for tendering.

 With these fundamental change the drawings become more complete and detailed and pricing becomes more accurate project cost is predictable, contractors and fabricators become more interchangeable, and their business models will change becoming more transparent and accountable.

 As mentioned in my blog: Disrupting the AEC Industry - these changes to the process naturally will require making changes that require new workflows, new / some training, and evangelism and commitment to from designer; engineers; contractors / builders and owners to achieve the long-term benefits of transforming how we deliver projects.

 This unique and deeply embedded culture and practise of transferring risk downstream is of serious concern for Project Managers such as myself who are contracted to deliver projects on time; on budget and on scope. A few who I conferred with in my network in the AEC Industry clear understand the benefits of changing this process which results in transparency and accountability in the industry. I will be implementing these changes on my next project in the New Year and will report back on the benefits of the changed- Changed Thinking leading to a Changed Outcome.

 The AEC industry is entering an era of transformation where it has to address some of antiquated and wasteful business / project delivery processes and burst open the silos that are deeply embedded in the industry.

What is your opinion on this? I will love to hear from you.