Why Mechanical & Electrical Department always get abandoned or treat like a stepson in site project? Somehow, if the M&E department delay their progress within 3-4 hours or 1 day, the C&S team or Archi team will never wait and proceed with their concrete or wall plaster.
Yes really understand the progress of work and claims but did you notice caused of impact at the quality of works and M&E services cover almost all parts in building? Not all people know how to touch up properly and make goods and not all cases can get the smooth results. Some other projects until now yet done rectifying by others even after 3 years CMGD. So how did you guys manage if its happen to your project? Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Peter RapinSubject Matter Expect; Project Delivery| Independent ConsultantOntario, Canada
The problem is not the treatment of mechanical and electrical by other disciplines. The problem is coordination and integration. It seems like you are working in silos, each working independent of the others. It has been shown repeatedly that projects cannot achieve success with this management model. Fix the model!
In my opinion that responsibility is with the Project Manager. I don't manage it when it happens, I manage to avoid it happening.
...
1 reply by Mohd Azmirul Adha Azmir
Dec 22, 2020 4:11 AM
Mohd Azmirul Adha Azmir
...
Hi Peter,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Actually I do involved in this situation on each site project, I do taking and try whatever methods to manage the projects and seem like not up to follow your standards and I do pass to all stakeholder the Project Quality Plan after I complete it and endorsed by S.O. (Architect) and consultant engineer as a guidelines for each particular expertise and highly mention the punishment, summon, backcharge Form and etc. However, they are not fully take as serious and at last using our rare method (crazy enforcement + to take action from the smallest issue + penalty and at the beginning stage before distribute PQP, I do provides all of them to sign off (director level) the Form that we call acknowledgement letter and the item listed in the Form is formal, specific and details as it would be to let us easy to make a lawsuit if they failed to follow and comply, then suddenly all followed and we manage to complete within the time and haven't yet overdue the completion date. Early stage not so easy to convinced them to sign off but with this pyscho word "if you are not doing something wrong, why you guys afraid of it". So to prove that they are good and committed for team works, all signed.
When I've encountered this problem in both construction and large scale manufacturing, it has to do with ensuring finish to finish scheduling relationships are enforced, and conflicting interests of the various technical teams not managed adequately at the project level.
When I worked construction the general contractor would bring the drywall/plaster in while the work inside the walls was partially complete. This assumed we would finish our work before the next crew came in to hang the walls. A large crew would arrive to hang the drywall, were paid by the square meter, and work through the night completing their work whether or not the preceding jobs were complete.
There were not controls such as an inspection to ensure the work inside the walls were complete, before it was sealed up. The FtF relationship was not enforced. Also the drywall team was incentivized to complete their work ASAP, regardless of whether that interfered with other teams.
I've seen the same in manufacturing where a group building enclosures around electronics was measured based on whether or not they finished a job in during their shift. The panels team didn't care if the electronics were complete, and we would then have to disassemble completed work, to finish the electronics later.
Both situations involved insufficient time for the first team to complete their work. It allowed no float or slack to account for contingencies. They also incentivized the 2nd team to finish regardless of the situation, which drove costly rework to the project as a whole.
The problem is not the treatment of mechanical and electrical by other disciplines. The problem is coordination and integration. It seems like you are working in silos, each working independent of the others. It has been shown repeatedly that projects cannot achieve success with this management model. Fix the model!
In my opinion that responsibility is with the Project Manager. I don't manage it when it happens, I manage to avoid it happening.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Actually I do involved in this situation on each site project, I do taking and try whatever methods to manage the projects and seem like not up to follow your standards and I do pass to all stakeholder the Project Quality Plan after I complete it and endorsed by S.O. (Architect) and consultant engineer as a guidelines for each particular expertise and highly mention the punishment, summon, backcharge Form and etc. However, they are not fully take as serious and at last using our rare method (crazy enforcement + to take action from the smallest issue + penalty and at the beginning stage before distribute PQP, I do provides all of them to sign off (director level) the Form that we call acknowledgement letter and the item listed in the Form is formal, specific and details as it would be to let us easy to make a lawsuit if they failed to follow and comply, then suddenly all followed and we manage to complete within the time and haven't yet overdue the completion date. Early stage not so easy to convinced them to sign off but with this pyscho word "if you are not doing something wrong, why you guys afraid of it". So to prove that they are good and committed for team works, all signed. Saving Changes...
When I've encountered this problem in both construction and large scale manufacturing, it has to do with ensuring finish to finish scheduling relationships are enforced, and conflicting interests of the various technical teams not managed adequately at the project level.
When I worked construction the general contractor would bring the drywall/plaster in while the work inside the walls was partially complete. This assumed we would finish our work before the next crew came in to hang the walls. A large crew would arrive to hang the drywall, were paid by the square meter, and work through the night completing their work whether or not the preceding jobs were complete.
There were not controls such as an inspection to ensure the work inside the walls were complete, before it was sealed up. The FtF relationship was not enforced. Also the drywall team was incentivized to complete their work ASAP, regardless of whether that interfered with other teams.
I've seen the same in manufacturing where a group building enclosures around electronics was measured based on whether or not they finished a job in during their shift. The panels team didn't care if the electronics were complete, and we would then have to disassemble completed work, to finish the electronics later.
Both situations involved insufficient time for the first team to complete their work. It allowed no float or slack to account for contingencies. They also incentivized the 2nd team to finish regardless of the situation, which drove costly rework to the project as a whole.
Agreed.. Similar like my ones. Saving Changes...
Asif GulConsultant Project Manager| Energoprojekt EntelMuscat, Oman
In my opinion in any Project, the Sponsor is very much interested in things or aspects of Project , which are either taking much of project time or cost. Hence the importance is given on these basis.
Like in my case where the projects are construction of utility electrical girds, the civil & mechanical is treated as stepchild (as you put it). Saving Changes...
