With regard to the building example and concurrent design/construction, we see this method frequently with design-build delivery projects. Unfortunately, in many cases the need for assigning financial accountability results in the usual layers of bureaucracy and slowing of the process (shop drawing reviews, etc.). IPD (integrated project delivery) attempts to solve this, and does in many ways, but is very cumbersome to set up, and is therefore effective on only very large projects. In order to take the risks inherent with concurrent design and construction, the “owner” has to be willing to fail (at least in small ways).
An aside, we tout BIM (building information modelling, usually using Revit) as a solution for better coordination and smoother construction, when it usually results in the opposite, due to increasing project complexity. Making the building simple, with repeated components (the window example was a great one) is a better answer.
Making the building simple, with repeated components (the window example was a great one) is a better answer
Yeah… I was once working on a remodeling project, and had the “clever” idea that we could save time by only selectively demoing certain sections. “Tear down this wall, but leave this window-sill, and this doorframe looks good, leave that too, oh and maybe leave this section of drywall which looks fine”…
Terrible idea. Crews got confused and paralyzed. I now believe it’s much faster to just give clear and simple instructions—“tear it all down to the studs”. In the chaos and complexity of dealing with a building, simple instructions allow crews to move more independently and make their own decisions, and also makes it more feasible to deploy more labor (as it’s easier to onboard and delegate).
Even when you build alone. Let’s say you’ll redo the tapestry in one room, with four nice regular walls, but in one corner there’s an ornamental stone pillar. Then you can spend one day doing the four walls, and three days just getting the details right near the pillar.
Regularities save time. Each irregularity is a massive delay.
With regard to the building example and concurrent design/construction, we see this method frequently with design-build delivery projects. Unfortunately, in many cases the need for assigning financial accountability results in the usual layers of bureaucracy and slowing of the process (shop drawing reviews, etc.). IPD (integrated project delivery) attempts to solve this, and does in many ways, but is very cumbersome to set up, and is therefore effective on only very large projects. In order to take the risks inherent with concurrent design and construction, the “owner” has to be willing to fail (at least in small ways).
An aside, we tout BIM (building information modelling, usually using Revit) as a solution for better coordination and smoother construction, when it usually results in the opposite, due to increasing project complexity. Making the building simple, with repeated components (the window example was a great one) is a better answer.
Yeah… I was once working on a remodeling project, and had the “clever” idea that we could save time by only selectively demoing certain sections. “Tear down this wall, but leave this window-sill, and this doorframe looks good, leave that too, oh and maybe leave this section of drywall which looks fine”…
Terrible idea. Crews got confused and paralyzed. I now believe it’s much faster to just give clear and simple instructions—“tear it all down to the studs”. In the chaos and complexity of dealing with a building, simple instructions allow crews to move more independently and make their own decisions, and also makes it more feasible to deploy more labor (as it’s easier to onboard and delegate).
Even when you build alone. Let’s say you’ll redo the tapestry in one room, with four nice regular walls, but in one corner there’s an ornamental stone pillar. Then you can spend one day doing the four walls, and three days just getting the details right near the pillar.
Regularities save time. Each irregularity is a massive delay.