In a recent webinar RedTeam brought together 3 industry experts to discuss the less glamorous side of construction—where things go wrong despite everyone’s best efforts. During the “group therapy session” the experts share a few of their project nightmares and explore how—and if—construction technology could have prevented them.
The webinar was hosted by Hugh Seaton, CEO of The Link and features candid conversations with JJ Levenske, Founder of Bleuwave General Contracting, and Will Carpenter, Senior Project Manager at Bleuwave.
Let’s dive into some of their key insights on proactive risk management and project collaboration.
Construction risk management starts at preconstruction
Risk mitigation in construction is complex. Seemingly small issues can avalanche quickly, making it challenging to keep projects under control. So, what causes these “minor” problems in the first place and why do they snowball once they start?
Levenske suggests that many construction challenges begin during preconstruction. These challenges often stem from disconnects between owners, architects, engineers and contractors.
He gives an example of a multiphased, multicontracted project that he worked on recently.
The problem: Lack of alignment during preconstruction
The owner and the consultants for the project couldn’t come into harmony from the beginning. As a result, the specs were in their thirteenth revision during early construction. By the project’s end, there were nearly 1,000 RFIs from that project. All the change orders and RFIs created a viscous circle of delays that knocked the project off track.
The plans and specifications were so poor that Levenske’s experienced team couldn’t catch up—even while using a robust construction technology solution. Plus, the project was so siloed that it created hostility between stakeholders and impeded project success.
The solution: Established collaboration from the beginning of the project
He advocates for more negotiation and better conversations in the earliest stages of projects to combat these issues.
“We need to come back to the centric view of [construction],” says Levenske. “How do we collaborate? How do we work together?”
“As a collective whole, can we do a better job up front of identifying problems and putting [them] out into a conversation? Then, can [we] extrapolate that into better contracts and communication around those contracts?”
Inaccurate construction specs are a leading cause of project management challenges
Frank Lloyd Wright famously said, “You can use an eraser on the drafting table or a sledgehammer on the construction site.”
That quote still holds true. It’s much easier to make corrections with a pen at the planning and spec stages than to fix mistakes with a jackhammer later. However, issues exist in the architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) industry that impede the creation of valuable specs during the design phase.
The problem: Lack of education and training for specifiers
One issue Seaton sees is that people who aren’t specifiers are being tasked with writing specs. For example, specifications often fall to Architects-in-Training (AITs) or Engineers-In-Training (EITs) who may have never been trained on writing specifications.
“Often, when it comes to specs for MEP, they’re written by an engineer who no one has ever told how to do a spec,” Seaton explained. “No one has ever said, ‘You don’t have to write General Conditions for the electrical trade.’” So, he sees unnecessary General Conditions in electrical specs a lot.
But there’s no bashing here.
Both Levenske and Seaton agree that subpar specs aren’t a result of laziness. They result from a lack of experience and limited knowledge bases to draw from. Neither of these issues are the specifier’s fault.
Yet, when specifiers lack the practical experience of seasoned professionals, they inadvertently create incomplete or impractical specs. These poor specs start projects off on the wrong foot.
The solution: Leverage technology to help automate the spec review process
However, if you pay attention, you can spot bad specs early and find ways to overcome them.
Carpenter shared a story about a recent project where conflicting specifications would have led to significant cost increases. The specifications called for TPO roofing, but the drawings called for coated foam. Those are completely incompatible specs.
Carpenter recognized the conflict early and had a conversation with the owner. He suggested the project be driven by the specs instead of the drawings. The owner agreed and saved $150,000.
How construction technology can help GCs spot poor specs more quickly
Seaton stresses that construction software solutions, like RedTeam and The Link, can help GCs address problems that arise from poorly written specifications. By automating parts of the review process or organizing information in a more accessible way, these technologies make it easier to check specifications and catch mistakes. This helps to save time and effort.
For example, specifications for an 11-story building could be 2,000 pages or more, depending on the type of building. That’s a lot to process manually, especially when you consider there can be 7 or 8 different types of content within one spec section. Construction technologies are essential in helpingGCs and project managers accomplish these types of tedious tasks quickly.
Construction technology has opportunities and limitations
While construction technology offers many tools that improve project management, the panelists are honest about its limitations. They agree that technology is a valuable tool in construction, but it can’t replace the need for human experience.
Seaton explains that AI and automation are really good at “automating a lot of the really dumb stuff.” But they’re not good at self-assessing and making the right judgment calls.
The goal with construction technology tools is to free up valuable time for construction professionals. So they can spend more time on the things only they as humans can do well.
Always keep a human in the loop
Seaton also points out that while AI and software tools can automate some tasks and identify potential issues, they still require human oversight to catch nuances that technology might miss. He stresses that technology should be viewed as a valuable aid rather than a replacement for human expertise.
The best project outcomes happen when construction technology is used to support, rather than replace, the expertise of construction professionals.
As Levenske so aptly puts it, “Technology is here to help us, but it’s the relationships and the trust we build with our clients and partners that really drive success.
