Webinar Summary: The Benefits of a Coordinated Design Approach

BVT Webinar - 21 May 2020 Presented by Brett Noy Introduction  Everyone is working to complete jobs faster, with less waste and better margins, especially in our current climate. Brett Noy and webinar attendees talked about the benefits of a coordinated design approach. Brett Noy shared successful examples of this in New Zealand and Australia, and led a discussion on: Reduced costs Material Optimisation Labour reduction Minimising variations Timeframes Summary of key points from the webinar presentation and discussion Brett Noy opened the meeting with reference to this article written by Jordan Kelly on the growing need for design collaboration and construction coordination. In particular, the large number of players in the interior design space, and the fact most are operating in their own silos. So, what can we achieve with more collaboration, and earlier conversations?   A perfect example is the Commercial Bay tower in Auckland. For this project, the services and ceilings contractors talked to each other and realised they were both going to have to put in more structure and bracing material for the project. However, if they treated it as one system and worked together they could essentially halve the amount of work to be done, and the extra material that had to go in. In this example, we can see material costs, labour costs and time were all saved by early collaboration. A contrasting example was a project where the design was completed and the project started before consideration was given to the seismic engineering requirements. At a late stage, BVT were brought in and it was identified the walls needed to be larger (90mm stud compared with the planned 64mm). The doors had already been ordered and were 30mm too wide. In this example there wasn’t enough discussion with the local designers on the structural adequacy of the components they were specifying. This headache could have been addressed at an early stage of the project by involving specialists at the design stage . This would have saved on time and resources. How can we achieve greater collaboration? Early conversations reduce complexity The further down a project chain you get the more people are involved and the more difficult it becomes to coordinate. Everyone has their own agenda to work to, their own budget, and they have each tendered the project on a set cost. They are each focused on meeting their own objectives and there is no motivation to coordinate. Flipping these engagements by having early conversations around design and construction collaboration is essential, along with highlighting the benefits to the project.  Who benefits from a coordinated design?  Essentially everyone - architects see less variation from the original design, subcontractors have more practical plans to build from and head contractors are left with far fewer  complications on site. What prevents it from happening? It sounds really obvious, and the benefits are significant, so what is preventing this from happening. At the end of the day, someone has to take accountability. Each firm has their own expertise and they each stick to that. Between each silo it gets contested and the party with the least experience often gets left with the liability. Final liability falls down to contractors. By having an experienced engineer own the accountability across disciplines and trades is the most effective way to mitigate the ‘silo’ effect we see within projects. The issue with tendering for jobs A number of examples were discussed where aspects of the design process were excluded from quotes in order to keep them competitive. This also has the effect of the specialist design requirements not being identified and planned for early in the project. An example from Queensland with four tier one parties tendering for a large job demonstrated this. Each company had quoted on the project, and three of the four were in the ballpark of each other. However, one quote was $3m lower - a significant difference. Further questioning revealed they had left out the seismic design component from the tender. Had the CMP contractor not asked the right questions and the lowest quote had won the work, the project would have needed to find the additional money later in the process to include the seismic design. This is also being seen on smaller projects, even when the requirements are in the tender documents they may not include it to keep quotes competitive. This is one of the reasons projects have come to a halt, it may be left out but it still needs to be done and there is a lot of resultant running around and stress. Removing the need for this is critical, by having the design completed earlier in the process and clearly defining the requirements. This means subcontractors are tendering on an apples for apples basis, rather than incentivising ‘tagging out’ of certain items. Seismic design specifically - If we haven’t experienced it, it’s not real New Zealand are no strangers to earthquakes, having seen first hand the devastation that can be caused, and the need for seismic engineering, however this is not the case across the Tasman. Last week, Adelaide had their largest earthquake in 30 years a couple of days ago, yet it’s not on anyone’s radar, people don’t think about Australia having earthquakes. The sense is, if you haven’t felt it for yourself, it hasn’t happened. People are often unaware there is a surprising amount of seismic activity happening in Australia and it does have the potential to cause significant damage to Non-structural building elements. However, the need for seismic design has been acknowledged at a regulatory level. The NCC and QBCC have made it mandatory in Queensland with a push since May/June 2019.  Since the increased level of enforcement for seismic compliance, particularly in Queensland, the feedback has been that many contractors were unsure what this meant for them and are still trying to find out what they needed to do to get seismic design.This increased the need for more collaborative design. Being clear on the requirements is the first step, but beyond that how any design changes can be practically adopted to achieve the design intent while still being practical to build. Summary In summary, a lack of coordinated design or design at the later stages adds unnecessary complexity, hold ups and cost to a project. Value engineering with material optimisation and labour reduction goes hand in hand with minimising variations by designing at the initial stages of a project. This comes down to having clarity at the top levels of planning, by both architects and subcontractors. Our next webinar is titled: Seismic Hazard in Australia and New Zealand for Non-structural Building Elements. Click here to find out more and book your spot. We look forward to seeing you there.