• Newsletter Subscriptions
  • Magazine Subscription
    • Photo 34216831 © Trofoto | Dreamstime.com
    6638f526358e400008258acb Dreamstime L 34216831
    1. Construction

    Identifying Patterns on Electrical Construction Job Sites

    May 17, 2024
    Every project is different — or is it?

    If you have ever solved a Rubik’s Cube, you know the look of awe on faces of those who have not. The ability to go from an orderly, same-colored set of six sides to chaos of unmatching colors and then back to complete order seems to require some fancy wizardry. There are many approaches to unscrambling including:

    • Dedicating hours of your life to work one cube at a time back in its original place.
    • Peeling off and reapplying the stickers so you have a uniform color on each side (however, this leaves some nasty evidence).
    • Recognizing the pattern in a solution, and mastering it in a matter of a few moves within minutes or seconds.

    The time involved with option No. 1 usually reduces interest in trying (at least a second time). The poor-quality result of option No. 2 also leaves little to be desired. Option No. 3 becomes a solution for those who seek to categorize, codify, and find patterns to make their life easy.

    Fig. 1. Understanding and mastering the “work cube” will improve job-site productivity.
    Fig. 1. Understanding and mastering the “work cube” will improve job-site productivity.

    What does this have to do with job-site intelligence? The Rubik’s Cube and the “work cube” (Fig. 1) are the same. There are only so many permutations and combinations of work in electrical construction, so mastery is a matter of pattern recognition, using experience or Agile Intelligence™ with the experience of many. Despite constantly hearing that “every job is unique,” or “we can’t use our normal approach on this job because…,” we will show you that construction jobs have more in common than not.

    A project, by definition, is a temporary endeavor to create a unique product, service, or outcome. Construction projects are often characterized as complex, special, or unique — because the deliverable is one of a kind. As new models for construction are introduced that change the way contractors, owners, general contractors (GCs), and architects interact — such as on IPD or GMP projects, this can add another layer of uncertainty.

    What makes a project special? A unique project for one contractor or project manager may not be considered unique by another. MCA’s research on the Industrialization of Construction® has shown that there have been minimal changes to the construction process over the last few centuries. Yet, contractors struggle to take advantage of learning across projects, practice consistent project management processes, or even avoid expanding into new markets altogether, citing the reason that the project is “unique.”

    While no two projects are the same, ignoring synchronicities and dismissing any means of control because of the project’s uniqueness can be a risky mindset. Vice versa, seeking to standardize every aspect of a project is also not the answer.

    Rather, contractors can successfully expand into new markets, environments, and geographies by implementing flexibility in the organization that allows resources, information flow, and risks to be assessed and responded to across the entire operation, while maintaining control of even the one-off types of projects. Project control is essentially getting the project to go the way it is intended to. Control can be achieved through the application of project management processes and the adoption of a resilient operation.

    By recognizing the common patterns — and checking for these patterns across your job sites — problems or situations that may seem like discrete events no longer have to be resolved and managed that way.

    Job-site patterns

    Like a Rubik’s Cube, construction projects can be unscrambled by finding the patterns. MCA, Inc. has been collecting short-interval scheduling and job productivity assurance and control data from thousands of contractors on construction projects totaling over $3 billion since 2003. The methodology and principles published in EC&M’s 2009 article, “The Secret to Short-Interval Scheduling,” allow contractors to categorize impacts to scheduled work.

    Fig. 2. Four types of job-site obstacles accounted for 60% (cumulatively) of obstacles industry-side: absenteeism, area not ready, trade interference, and material issues.
    Fig. 2. Four types of job-site obstacles accounted for 60% (cumulatively) of obstacles industry-side: absenteeism, area not ready, trade interference, and material issues.

    In 2019, MCA conducted a study to review the codification of obstacles across the projects and identified common reasons for impacts on scheduled work. These job-site obstacles were codified and are now referenceable in the ASTM Standard Practice for Job Productivity Measurement, E2691. Findings from the study showed that the following obstacles — independent of the type of work, contract type, and location — were prevalent and accounted for 60% (cumulatively) of obstacles industry-wide (Fig. 2): absenteeism, area not ready, trade interference, and material issues.

    While your job’s contract, scope, size, location, or other factors may be unique, our data shows that the obstacles above are not, and they are part of the twists that a work cube can encounter, which need to be mastered for unscrambling and reducing wasted time and effort on any project.

    Identifying patterns on your job sites

    While every project may have a unique deliverable, the construction process and obstacles encountered along the way are common from job to job. Rather than treating each issue as a discrete event, contractors can start looking for patterns and use tools like short interval scheduling to measure and then design solutions to manage, respond, and resolve these common causes across projects company-wide.

    If you aren’t using Short-Interval Scheduling (SIS®) and want to see these patterns with your own eyes, visit a job site. While on site, ask yourself the following questions about each type of common job-site obstacle.

    Labor/absenteeism

    • Does the labor on site match the planned work and schedule for the day?
    • If people are off, what was the reason given?
    • Does the labor schedule need to be updated to account for school and training schedules of part-time members of the crew?
    • Are prefab or vendor services in use on the job, which can help level the onsite labor requirements? Are there opportunities to put this in place to reduce the impact of absenteeism on site?

    Material

    • Where is on-site material stored/staged?
    • Where are the tools and gang boxes located?
    • Is the material organized, labeled, and staged near the installation location?
    • How much material is lying around the job site?
    • How much movement of material is required?
    • Are deliveries managed at a scheduled time?
    • How often do you expect deliveries? Can this be reduced to minimize the time spent handling material?
    • Are deliveries from the distributor on time?

    Area not ready/trade interference

    • How many other trades are on site? Where are they working?
    • Are the other trades working according to the GCs schedule?

    Additionally, ask yourself: How does coordination take place between the trades? Is there a daily huddle? And do you foresee any trade interference or delays in the ability to work in one area due to the schedule being off track?

    Labor is often so busy doing the work that they don’t see the obstacles. They only report problems half of the time and encounter them in nearly 90% of their work activities, as outlined in “Exploring Information Generation and Propagation from the Point of Installation on Construction Jobsites: An SNA / ABM Hybrid Approach” by Dr. Heather Moore in her PhD dissertation at Michigan State University. The SIS process solves this, with a proven process for daily scheduling of work and scoring the results. Obstacles reported become visible in real time for managers to monitor and respond to.

    Fig. 3. Data shows that change-order behavior is similar no matter the size, scope, or type of job.
    Fig. 3. Data shows that change-order behavior is similar no matter the size, scope, or type of job.

    Another pattern across construction job sites is change-order management. With data from several electrical contractors, we have measured that projects “expand” 30% to 40% from changes — some attributable to contract changes (i.e., change orders) and some due to changes in scope and misses in estimating and planning. Managing these changes is challenging, no matter what size, scope, or type of job you’re running. Figure 3 shows how similar the change-order behavior is across 200 projects spanning four years. Notice that change orders are recognized very similarly at each stage of project completion — almost independent of job size.

    Solving the cube

    While a single project may seem unique, keep in mind that there are limited maneuvers to get a scrambled cube back in order. By studying the patterns across all your job sites with data — and backing them up with your observations on job sites — you can focus on the common pain points and be prepared to take advantage of the solutions on projects of all shapes and sizes.

    About the Author

    Sydney Parvin

    Sydney Parvin is associate data analyst at MCA, Inc., Grand Blanc, Mich. She can be reached at [email protected].

    Email

    Voice your opinion!

    To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of EC&M, create an account today!

    Continue Reading

    Sponsored Recommendations

    Latest from Construction

    ID 301427529 | 2024 © ali bin mousa | Dreamstime.com
    The 5 Most Memorable Moving Violations Videos of 2024
    In the typical facility, the plant manager has X amount of discretionary spending power that can be directed toward a single purchase. At each level of management down, discretionary spending is stepped down into smaller amounts. Anything beyond a given manager’s limit must be appealed to the next level up. For example, the Plant Engineer can’t quite swing a purchase of $5200 but the Plant Manager can approve it. This informal arrangement reduces corporate overhead and improves operational efficiency. It does not address whether the spending decisions would make financial sense to the Chief Financial Officer, but the cap at each level keeps any mistakes to a reasonably acceptable loss or misallocation of resources. Beyond the Plant Manager’s limit, there is usually a formal process for getting spending approval. It typically involves filling out a Capital Request (or similarly named form). In well-run companies, the form is very structured. It mostly wants some basic information that will give the reviewer(s) the ability to justify not just the purchase but also the cost of acquiring the capital to do so. Because the funds will typically be borrowed by the corporation, the cost of capital must be balanced against the return on investment. There will be at least one person crunching the numbers to make what is called “the business case” for the proposed spending. Making the business case is something you should do, in some way or another, when considering spending within your approved limits. If the spending is above your approved limits, then the manager above you will need a bit beefier of a business case. The business case must take into account the value obtained versus the money spent. Consider the purchase of a thermographic camera. If you intend to purchase a mid-range camera but nobody at your facility is trained and certified in its use, the purchase is probably a waste of money. You’d be better off getting an entry-level camera and then arranging for a path toward certification if you intend to have that ability in-house and it makes operational and financial sense to do so. And generally, it makes sense to have a person or two with Level I certification so they really understand how to get the most out of a camera system that’s beyond the basic level. On the other hand, if you were a manager at an electrical testing firm with several Level III Thermographers you would be wasting your thermographers if you decided to “save money” by equipping them with only basic or even intermediate camera systems. Your firm needs to be able to troubleshoot problems when that important client calls in a panic. Your thermographers need the tools to do that job, and “cost-saving” on camera systems won’t cut it. Presumably, your clients are smart enough to already have basic camera systems; they just don’t have the expertise to use advanced systems. Sometimes a different logic applies to other types of test equipment. In the typical plant, maintenance electricians need sophisticated DMMs. If they lack the training to use the features that are needed for most effectively keeping equipment running, simply choosing a less capable DMM they already know how to use is not the answer. They need the appropriate DMM along with the training on how to use those features correctly. So far, we haven’t looked at the need to crunch any numbers to make the business case. What we have done is think about the match between the purchase, the problem that needs to be solved, and the ability of the user to solve the problem using that purchase. This sounds like a common sense approach that everyone would naturally take, but people often lose sight of the reason for the purchase in the first place. The tendency is to either go all out on something they can’t use or don’t need, or to “save money” by shortchanging the end users with something that doesn’t allow them to do what they need to do. What about those numbers? When you do a purchase request, a bean counter is going to try to determine the cash flows involved (typically in monthly periods). If you write something like, “The payback period is three years,” they don’t find that helpful. Lenders care that a loan can be serviced, and cash flow is the critical factor in calculating whether it can. Thus, beancounters don’t use payback to determine whether they can afford to borrow. They use the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) or Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR). Formulas for both IRR and MIRR have been in spreadsheet programs for over two decades, but before that they were determined using a Business Math Calculator (about $150 in 1990). And before that, they were laboriously calculated by hand. The cash flows that are charted will be either additional revenue generated or losses prevented. To help the person who figuratively wears the green eye shade, tie the use of the test equipment to a revenue stream. A major appliance plant in Tennessee has several production lines that collectively produce $1,560,000 per hour of revenue. Thus each minute of unplanned downtime is quite costly. If the plant electrical engineer there wanted to upgrade test equipment in a way that exceeds the Plant Manager’s spending authority, he needs to help the green eye shade guy do the math. He can cite short case histories from the past two years and briefly explain how having X capability (present in the new equipment, absent in the existing equipment) would have saved Y minutes of downtime (which the green eye shade guy will calculate out in terms of revenue and cash flow). The green eye shade guy also needs to know whether each case history is a one-off that will never recur or if it’s representative of what to expect in the future. You can settle this question with a brief explanation. For example, “The responding technician did not have a [name of test equipment]. Consequently, he had to arrive at the same conclusion by other means to the tune of 24 minutes of downtime he would not have incurred if he’d had a [name of test equipment]. This problem occurred once on Line 2 and twice on Line 4.” Now the green eye shade guy can simply add up the downtime, monetize it, and create the cash flow analysis. And it’s really good for something like a power monitor. For example, “In this particular case the plant did not have a monitoring system capable of detecting short-term bursts of power, which we call transient spikes, and alerting us. Transients happen with no notice, and usually without being detected. The motor shop forensic report shows the main motor failed due to winding insulation failure caused by transients. With a power monitor detecting and reporting those transients, we would have been able to intervene before outright failure, on a scheduled basis. That would have reduced downtime by 57 minutes twice last year alone.” Making the business case for your smaller purchases means simply thinking about what you are trying to accomplish and then making sure you are spending the funds correctly to achieve that goal. But as you go up the food chain, you need to make the picture more clear. And when you appeal to corporate for approval, you need to provide reasonably accurate downtime savings numbers that can be converted by them to revenue loss prevention in specific dollar amounts.
    Man staring at wall with hand-drawn question marks and money bags on it
    mike_xmas_v1

    New

    Sponsored