Project Management: Whats most troublesome? 7

[Qshake]

All,

Amoung the many things that factor into project management, what do you find most troublesome? In basic management you learn about the triangle: resouces, budget, and time. But what in particular? Sometimes I have experienced other issues like "scope creep" which are detrimental to a project. Scope creep, btw, is when the client asked for many tasks to be completed which were never in the original scope of work. In fact, some clients seem to be rather well versed in this.

Sound off. What else is out there?

 

[JAE]

Q

I sit on both sides...sometimes as PM and sometimes as Engineer. One aspect of design projects that I've seen develop over the last 15 years or so has been the shortening of the design time available on a project.

Maybe I'm dreaming of greener grass in those good ole times but I've been amazed at how fast projects are churned out these days. Most everyone today has email, pager, cell phone, faxes, etc. and have been brainwashed into thinking that everything they deal with in this world can be provided instantly. Instant gratification.

With this mindset, I believe that engineers are now in a position where the client doesn't believe that good engineering takes any time at all. Just plug it into the computer and GET ME MY PLANS!!!

With this hurry-up mentality, errors, omissions and badly checked plans have become the norm. We hear this from the AGC all over the US. They complain about the poor quality of design plans and how the A/E firms are dumping design responsibility on them in greater amounts.

As a PM, you're put in a vice between the client who demands quick response and the engineers who claim they need more time to do it right.

We've found ourselves asking if the quality of our plans should be considered "Caddilacs" (sp) or "Chevys".

Computers have helped...but also hurt as they demand precision previously not included in the design effort.

That's my beef for today.

 

[FSS]

Here is both a beef and a question for others. In line with the above comments regarding how fast things are now seeming to progress, how do others handle clients who think you can take drawings for existing structures and just copy or slightly change them to fit a new site installation? In this case I mean light industrial structures, especially telecommunications stuff.

I have seen clients give us cad drawings of existing designs and expect us to change title blocks along with a minor site specific change or two, and of course do so almost overnight. I don't mind using good ideas as a basis for my design, but simple copy and paste is just asking for trouble. It's as if they think our engineering seal is as convenient for them to use as a notary's.

 

[JAE]

We get the same issue, FSS, that you describe. The difficulty is that the owners tend to think that they are buying labor from engineers and not service or value. When I seal a set of plans and specs, I am providing a professional service to the client that gives him

1. A well engineered structure
2. An economic design that helps his budget
3. A level of protection against liability
4. A design that responds to the immediate site issues that are always totally unique.

A few years ago, we had designed a warehouse in Pennsylvania for one of our best clients. A few months after our design was complete, he came to us and asked us to "site adapt" the design for a site in Georgia. I knew my structural design required a full redo because the wind, seismic, soil, and snow load paramters were all different. He thought that we would simply shallow up the footings, change the title block, and call it good. He was shocked at our fee request for the project. It was difficult to tell him that the details were probably very similar, but a re-engineering was necessary due to the different loads and parameters.

It basically all comes back to the public's lack of understanding of engineering principles and processes. He didn't want to give us a full fee. We had lowered the fee, but not as much as he demanded. We still carried the same liability as the first project as well.

 

[Qshake]

JAE, That is an all too familar story! Why is it that people assume they can get something for nothing? You really have to work hard to educate the client and in some cases they wind up going with someone willing to risk their reputation and integrity.

 

[JAE]

That's right, but I also just thought of another issue. This particular client happens to be a shrewd businessman who probably had some idea that we still carried the same liability and had to do a lot of the same calcs for the new project as well. I'm sure he was just playing his part as a good negotiator should, pushing his buttons where he thought he could get some leverage.

We engineers tend to be truthful, fact oriented, and unbiased even toward issues that would benefit us in the pocket. Negotiating isn't always are strong suit. If it were, we might have approached him with a whole list of unique issues in the Georgia area that we would have to include in our services, thus requiring more fee, not less.

 

[RMCNORTHEAST]

My largest client is a multi national oil company. We do a considerable amount of work for them in the permitting and design for retail location development. I think that there has been an assumption made by clients, particularly large retail clients, that the civil engineering profession has adopted the "customer is always right' philosophy. Well I will have to say that the statement is far from true, and as long as the profession continues to allow itself to be thought of as a "service Industry" instead of a "professional service industry" we will continually be pushed into committing to time frames and fees that are not feasible, setting ourselves up to fail, because that is what the client wants. I have heard some interesting statements from clients in the past like:
-You cannot change our design, if it does not meet zoning get a variance (like those are handed out whenever you want one).
-To save cost, we will have our central design staff do the site plans and we will just have you stamp them (not going to happen).
- I am the customer and this is what I want so you are expected to give it to me (try this with your doctor if you do not like the medication he or she is prescribing)
We have had some success in overcoming this type of directive but the problem is that "Perception is Reality" and our refusal to compromise or ethics have more than once put us in an adversarial position with our clients. I am a firm believer in the concept of "the customer is more often than not wrong" but this is why clients need professional service firms to guide them. If we tell client what they want to hear, it is my opinion that we lower our selves to being drawing production firms.
Thank you for the opportunity to rant.

 

[TWong]

How about the good ole boy's triangle? Good, fast and cheap. Pick only two because you can have it good and fast but not cheap, or fast and cheap but not good, or good and cheap but not fast.

The biggest factor in my experience is communication. We could solve 50% of our problems if everyone understood that good communication is essiential for a project's on-time completion. Prior to the submittal of the salesman's bid, a contract review is performed for any engineering hick-ups that might arise, production scheduling, and availability of labor and resources. That's what's missing in this equation.

As far as "scope creep" is concerned, as long as the salesman goes back to the customer to push back the delivery date, it should not be a problem. The biggest issue then is the money you have tied up in the job for the 3-4 months it is in your shop.

 

[RDK]

In a previous post it was stated that "I sit on bith sides, sometimes as a PM sometimes as a engineer."

I believe that this all too common mindset is part of the problem. A PM can be an engineer. In my home province the practice of professional engineering is well defined and includes the management of the engineering process.

If we started to think of the PM process as being part of the total engineering process, from need identification to project conception, requirement defination, option analysis, detailed design, tendering, construction, commissioning, warranty period and use and occupancy by the owner, then we can better sell the total professional package to clients.


IMHO the biggest problem in project management is overselling the client by not only the engineers but also contactors and suppliers. The client gets an idea that he can have time,budget and quality in the same package. When the reality sets in then the lawyers get called.

 

[andyhh]

In my opinion, the most critical thing in managing a engineering/construction project is the control of the quality AND contractual aspects of the design and engineering work. It is very important to know and understand what your engineers do and also which contractual consequences engineering decisions may have.
The PM shall rule the job as engineer by always thinking each step as if all the mess would end on lawyers desks!
If you do this you will have nice calm sleep in the night, the job will be satisfactory for your client and it will not be the last one for your company.

 

[Strawb]

Another slant on this: I find myself in adverserial relations with the client on every project. (Oil Construction industry). Contracts always seem to have ambiguities which are exploited by hard nosed clients. Who does what is the commonest problem. We argue of course but the tension created does not help co-operative relations.

I have read a great deal about 'partnering' whereby risks and rewards are shared by both Contractor and client - so mutual interest enables each to see the other's problems - and participate in solving them. I haven't been fortunate enough to work on a partnering project. Any comments?

 

[habrecea]

The most basic problem in Project Management during the design stage is the contractual definition of work for the design engineers, I know sometimes the design engineers works under the blanket of the architect but if the design engineers has his own contract for the design it is not well define as the contract for the Contractor who will be doing the construction of the design.

If we first define the reality of the complexity of the design process to the client by defining it within the legality of the contract documents maybe the client will understand the whole process which cannot be done overnight. The design engineer should be given the benefit of time in parallel to the construction of the project, as previously mentioned in one of the post engineers are rarely negotiator. I think the engineer should first inform the client that based on the client wish list and the scope of the work for the design of a certain project give the client a timetable that is workable for both ends without trade-offs in quality and constructability of the project design.

 

[John3p]

One of the most troublesome aspects of the projects I manage is incomplete specifications. If the clients would spend the same time and energy specifying complete design conditions and scopes of supply as they do preparing contracts designed to indemnify themselves against any and all contingencies, everything would proceed a lot smoother - for all parties involved. A well defined problem is half solved.

 

[MadMango]

You could demand that specifications be identified and inplace before committing to a completion date. There are bound to be some speficiations that will be overlooked, but if you can identify the majority of them, even the common "easy" ones, you should add these to your project. As they all take time and resources. "Happy the Hare at morning for she is ignorant to the Hunter's waking thoughts."

 

[isa2000]

I think that one of the most important factors that can affect a project schedule is the design review stage. Both the designer and the client are responsible for that. The designer has a major contribution to that by not adhering to the project specs and the standards that to be followed. This in turn will require the client to spend more time reviewing the drawings, calculations, etc. Moreover, the designer makes some mistakes by copying from similar projects just because it worked there then it should work here!. On the other hand, the client has some negative impact on the schedule by doing some changes to the design during the design review stages or sometimes during the project construction.