Keeping pace with changes Man vs. Machine

[rockstar.esq]

Yesterday I had three completely different jobs all suffer from the same basic problem.  The designers weren't updating their design to include changes from people outside their office.

One job had all the HVAC equipment located in the middle of every partition wall in the project.  If the Mechanical engineer had bothered to consult the floor as well as the ceiling plans, they might have avoided this rather obvious problem.

Another job came in over budget so we came up with a cheaper lighting package.  The architect never updated their plans to include the new fixture specs so when the city planning and zoning department approved their exterior plans, they committed to using overpriced fixtures.  Now we have to figure out if it's cheaper to resubmit for permit, or to simply buy the overpriced lights.

Finally, we have a job which has a complex ceiling system with custom-made light fixtures that must fit perfectly.  This system is compartmentalized so that there are seven variations of the same theme.  The Architect provided a single "typical" detail giving the component dimensions in Feet, Inch, and Fractional inches.  This Architect didn't give overall lengths for the assemblies with one exception.  When I had to calculate the fixture lengths, I used all the component dimensions to arrive at my total.

When the ceiling installer laid out the system, he used the only overall length dimension that this Architect provided.

There's a 1/4" difference that "stacks up" due to the compartmentalization.  The largest assembly generates several inches of difference which will be visible from some distance away.

I've spent the last two days trying to get "professionals" to stop converting the measurements into decimal feet so they could use an excel spreadsheet to do the math.  It only takes a moment to do these calculations by hand, but everyone is so afraid of appearing incompetent that they're spending hours trying to get a computer program to do the math for them.  

Everyone is assuming that CAD generated drawings can't have dimensional mistakes.  I suspect it hasn't occurred to these folks that Architects might find it's easier to adjust the labeled dimension, than to actually change the length of a drawing.  Taking that shortcut on a component dimension was easy.  Calculating the overall length wasn't.  

 

 

[CMS3900]

In the world of CNC machining, I add in time to very job to verify the integrity of the customers drawing if it is complex.  We have had dimensioned drawings from engineers needing ISO certified parts that submitted drawings where angles were wrong or did not intersect and lines didn't meet. CAD drawings received in CAD format are usually "dirty" and have to be reviewed and cleaned up before using.  The CAM software hates lines on lines and non-intersecting lines, so most of the time you end up redrawing the customers drawing. I took a couple of semesters toward a Civil Engineering degree and the CAD we did in those classes drove me insane.  The engineers with the degree's teaching made me wonder if they thought that walls, floors, and ceilings contained the same internal quality as doctor who's phone booth and a electrician, plumber, or HVAC guy had unlimited space to shove stuff in them.  I have a few friends in the electrical trades and they tell me all the time about change orders where the print is messed up, or the print telling them conduit should go through someplace where a structural steel beam is occupying.  From what they say it amazes me how a print on a job goes from "that's how we need it done" to "They're more like guidelines anyway, as long as I have the devices I want in the right places".

[rockstar.esq]

CMS3900

The ISO comment reminds me of "best practices".  In theory, everyone knows that "best practices" should be followed.  In practice, everyone games the standards in proportion to their status in the hierarchy.  

For example, quality control is mostly citing "design intent"  whenever production-level work descends to design-level quality.

[ThomasPowers]

I was in one of the first software houses to be ISO certified and so got to spend a lot of time on it.  At least back then it was NOT a quality system; it was a repeatability and documentation system.  Your processes could be terrible; but if they were documented and repeatable and followed you passed ISO with flying colours.

For example: if your documented process for dealing with customer complaints was to send out a couple of Bruisers with baseball bats to break their kneecaps and you could show that all complainers were in wheelchairs you passed ISO!

Malcolm Baldrige was a system that worried about how good your processes actually were rather than if you followed them *exactly*.

Of course repeatability is a major first step for increasing quality; but by itself it does not increase it.  (Statistical Quality Control goes back nearly 100 years now: "Statistical process control is often used interchangeably with statistical quality control (SQC). A popular SPC tool is the control chart, originally developed by Walter Shewhart in the early 1920s." https://asq.org/quality-resources/statistical-process-control

[Kozzy]

I run into many similar issues of people compartmentalizing their portion of designs and just letting the next sucker try and fit them in...and on down the line.  In my business, that results in things like bolts that don't have enough clearance to be inserted or get a wrench on or no way to get a machine to the location it needs to be installed because something else (someone else's portion of the job like steam piping)  blocks the path  The "not my problem" thing is strong fu in many companies.  

In terms of the stacking error problem,  I battle that in the fabrication and assembly end (outside fabricators).  For instance, There may be a series of holes to drill...say, 30 on 12" centers along a length.  Someone who should know better will measure 12" and mark, then another 12" and mark down the line rather than marking them from a fixed datum point.  By the time you get to the end of the string, those holes will definitely be waaaaay off.  Similar with aligning parts like cross braces or pulleys--they measure from a framework on the left side and set, then measure from the frame on the right and set--you CANNOT assume that the machine is perfectly symmetrical in fabrication left/right:  You need to do all those alignments from a fixed datum or you will definitely end up with wonkiness.

The real gripe here is that many of those who are plenty smart enough to understand the why of this just don't seem to "get it"...the notion that nothing in the real world is square or level or of an exact size and precise location so you need to lay out from a defined perfect start point rather than the work from something that is worked from something else that was worked from something else....lather rinse repeat.  It's a form of willful ignorance so that they can pass the buck.

[Marc1]

I worked for a long time in an office that processed pensions for the federal government. The software used for many years was dos based and written in Cobol language.  When the new management in Canberra decided to retire the programmers that knew how to maintain the system with complete disregard to the consequence of such action, the mainframe started to fall apart, so it was time to build a new one with all the new wizbang features.

Of course the team in charge of building this new era marvel, did not ask the workers , those bottom feeders ignorant peasants, but only rubbed shoulders with those of equal stature who had only a vague idea of what was expected and no idea how it was done. 

Long story short, the average worker would process 5 to 7 pensions a day with the old mainframe. The new super dooper "system" was able to process from zero to one a day. In 5 years since this happened, the number of workers had to be doubled and the waiting time for a pensioner to have his pension went from a few weeks to one year. No one acknowledged the mistakes, managers are recycled and moved along just to make room for new managers who have an even more patchy idea of what to do. No one asks the workers who have detailed inside knowledge of what is necessary and how to do it.

The new system still does not work despite large consultancy fees paid to gurus from Germany and hundred of millions spent on local gurus of very high status. When the complaints and newspaper headlines become too much, the old mainframe is unblocked and the workers are allowed for a few weeks to use the old system that works like a charm after a few of the old timers were called back from retirement to patch it up and the backlog is cleared once more.   

[Latticino]

4 hours ago, rockstar.esq said:

Yesterday I had three completely different jobs all suffer from the same basic problem.  The designers weren't updating their design to include changes from people outside their office.

Dealing extensively with the opposite problem lately: contractors ignoring or "improving" the design documents to save on installation cost without fully understanding the overall design.  Had a large geothermal heat pump project for a high profile client.  The winning mechanical contractor came back with a proposal to switch both the indoor conditioning heat pumps and the outdoor ventilation units to an alternate manufacturer.  We had a face-to-face meeting where the manufacturer's reps assured us that both types of units (two different manufacturers and representatives for the indoor and outdoor systems) would fit into the space available, meet all performance criteria, be able to follow the control sequences needed for operation and interface seamlessly with the Building Management System.  When the formal submittals came in I reviewed them and specifically noted that the units were different configurations and the contract or was responsible for all coordination as well as ensuring correct interface and performance of the control sequence.  3 months after occupancy we are still struggling to get the performance promised due to the ventilation units not being able to interface with the HVAC controls, fit correctly onto the site, or perform the correct sequence on their own, and the 110+ indoor units being installed configured for the wrong circulating fluid temperatures.  And this is working with a premium, respected contractor that I've worked very successfully with in the past and helped out throughout this project as well.

I've been on both sides of the fence, and I can tell you that on the design side we rarely get the time or budget to make multiple document updates after the construction package goes out.  That is typically the contractor's responsibility in the "As-Built" set, unless a formal, paid Value Engineering phase is authorized by the owner (hint, that very rarely happens).  Those initial construction budgets they go to their board with are usually built on best guesses during the schematic phase, and rarely include the accuracy and detail that a professional estimator uses (I know, I was a mechanical estimator as well for many years).  These days the design phase is so compressed that it is a miracle that contractors get anything but a general outline to work from. Doesn't excuse the dimensional SNAFU you noted, but in that case I'm surprised that the ceiling contractor didn't measure the actual devices they were to install before laying out the  grid for installation.

[rockstar.esq]

Kozzy,  I have a lot of moments at work where I ask myself why some obviously necessary bit of information wasn't provided.  Back when I was starting out, I used to assume it was just an oversight or an unintentional omission.  As time went on, I noticed patterns in what was and wasn't revealed.  One day I was discussing this problem with a client and I joking asked "why is this a secret?".

That thought stuck with me because it changed my perspective of the whole situation.  Really often, it's a "secret" because the missing information would reveal something inconvenient about their motivations.  

I've discovered quite a few nasty surprises by asking myself; "What if they're hiding something?".

[rockstar.esq]

Latticino,

Most of the design-build projects I've done suffered from poor time management.  There were long pauses in productivity while the client and Architect met weekly to talk over different options.  All the engineering disciplines were expected to attend these meetings but nothing in their scope was allowed to progress for fear of conflicting with a future resolution.  If the design schedule was ten weeks total, we'd feel lucky to get two and a half weeks to complete the electrical design. 

There are engineering consultants who barely look up from their computer during a meeting.  I've seen some of them working on a completely different project during the meeting.

[Kozzy]

1 hour ago, rockstar.esq said:

Kozzy,  I have a lot of moments at work where I ask myself why some obviously necessary bit of information wasn't provided. 

The only thing worse than not getting all the information is having it trickle in one drip at a time.  Clients here are notorious for that.  "Didn't we mention that it's not just 1200 degrees, sometimes we run at 1500?" with a new drip the following week that again changes the necessary specs.