In my office I get deluged with information from all the members of the team. The problem is that there is not one point of contact so I get conflicting information, duplication and omissions.
How do you guys deal with this issue?
Is it realistic to ask that only the project architect and interior designer give me information?
Is it realistic to ask that only the project architect and interior designer give me information? 
We often have specs flying out the door for a dozen or more projects. People say I need a sign over my desk to point to that says “What project is this for” because I seem to say it 5 times an hour. I love to return to my desk and find a photocopy of some obscure product cutsheet with a scribbled note that says “I think we need this”.
My formal response to project teams is to request:
One prime contact for Core and Shell (building envelope) items.
One prime contact for interior items.
The Project leader MUST review DIVISION ONE with the Owner (and Contractor if applicable). Things found later in DIV ONE not to their liking is not an error if this review is not completed.
Each lead person has a copy of the previous spec with three hole punch binding and tabs for Sections. They neatly insert cutsheets in the proper locations with the needed info highlighted and the Project Name written on the cutsheet in case it gets seperated from the binder.
One thing that has helped a bit with me is to have ONE redline project manual at my desk. I am discouraging the use of e-mail except to answer my questions. E-mail gets buried and I don’t get to it. I green highlighter out the redlines so that anyone and everyone knows that I have picked up the comments.
I often have the same problem with multiple decision-makers on a project team. And it is made worse by the fact that the key project team members often tend to also be the ones that are constantly in meetings, out of the office, on the phone, or hiding somewhere. So, I have adopted the role as a kind of inter-office project coordinator, when necessary. For every project, I determine who is involved in the decision making process. Then I ask the same questions of each of them and let each of them know what the others told me. Then they all know about the conflicts and I wait for them to resolve the conflicts. This not only helps me to avoid having to rewrite spec sections, but it helps the whole team to avoid ploblems and wasted time drawing things that don’t apply.
When people bring me information, I am always glad to accept it. It doesnt happen enough to be a problem for me. But I also make sure that the person coordinates their information with the other decision makers. I always have to be careful about those rogue interns who try to sneak their own personal agendas into the project or the lazy people who just do whatever they want and expect other team members to figure out what they did.
I draw the line at actually looking over drawings to look for coordination issues. I believe the Project Architect should be doing that. They should be completely aware of what is in the drawings and specs for their project. If I handle all the coordinating of drawings with specs, then I have no one to double check my specs before they go out. I never trust any system that does not allow for checking human error. If the project architect assigns someone to coordinate drawings and specs, then I make sure that all information is bounced off of that person.
I also discourage e-mail. I find that if I allow a design team to send me e-mails with product info, all I do is make a record copy of their design process. I have a September-Blue, October-Green, November- Blue/Green, December-Blue again complete set.
We have a process within the office - no mulitple decision makers. Or if different people are working on different parts of things, it all goes back to one person, the project architect.
And that even includes me. I won’t talk to consultants separately, or it goes through the PA. I don’t want them to send me anything separately, if they do, I take the transmittal to the PA. They know they are in charge of the project, coordination is their responsibility entirely.
Steven, you lost me on the blue/green record copy process. Can you explain?
John,
I was speaking in metaphor, the colors were shorthand for any spec item. If you allow team members to e-mail you, they tend to overdo that and send you an e-mail at every time they have an (almost)idea along their path to a design decision. So, per may example, you have an e-mail where they chose the color blue, the color green, the color blue/green and then blue again. A big collection of garbage that you now need to verify. You only needed the last e-mail.
I know with the younger staff who work more in the electronic world I have set up an electronic project binder. For each division I have a folder called 'research’and a folder called ‘final answer’. If I start to see to much junk in the ‘final answer’ folder I have them edit.
I assign one team member (the PM usually) as the central clearing house for product data decisions used for basis of design, with attributes highlighted. PDF versions are placed into a child folder under the parent specificatons folder. Hardcopy is scanned by me and placed in same folder structure.
It was better when it was hardcopy only in a dedicated binder with tabs for each division. Some team members bought in with relish and gusto, while others relied on my clairvoyance to pick up vibes.
When I was with Media Five in HI, I created “Attribute Capture Forms” for mostly interiors products (ceramic tile, carpet, wall coverings, etc) that were organized the same as my schedules in the individual technical sections. I received them either in electronic form or hand lettered hard copy form. It worked well.
I admire those of you who have been successful at requiring anything of PM’s. In this firm they do not seem to have any obligations to lowly spec writers, including even letting us in on new projects’ schedules. I imagine every day they are making more new deals with clients without checking whether we can live up to them.
A while back William wrote “Every project manager is required to obtain a checklist at the time a project is assigned…
As soon as they have a schedule, project managers are required to coordinate with me.” - hats off to you man!
I know it is possible but no one in this firm would listen to me or back me up.
Now that I am quitting they are all ears, but before I was told the unlimited OT was what we had to do to keep our jobs, and deadlines were absolute. No opportunity to influence schedule creation, and requests for additional personnel not really acted on for month after month. I still can’t understand why this is called “management”.
I’ve long thought that CSI could capitalize on this kind of collegial exchange and with the help of some more experienced members turn CSI University into a true professional leadership training ground. For now, it is largely focused on training for chapter volunteer leadership - which does have its spinoffs into our work lives. But what could help draw professionals into CSI is the idea that CSI offers valuable professional leadership and team management training that no one else in the industry offers. Especially the firms that many specifiers, contract administrators, and project managers work for, where on-the-job training consists of reading dull firm manuals and being hurled to the wolves.
Thoughts?
Phil,
What a great idea! Right now, it seems that Region Conferences somewhat duplicate CSI University efforts with chapter leadership training. I know of no organization that actually teaches leadership for the construction industry. Theoretically, who is responsible for what is all listed in the documents, but since we already know that no one reads those documents, here’s an opportunity. You should propose your idea to the education committee.
I’ve had good success over the past by making the project people responsible for their schedule. I tell them something like “if I don’t have information by Wednesday by 4 pm it will not get into the spec” and then copy their boss, the managing partner, and anyone else on the project. if the spec goes out unfinished, I make sure that everyone knows that, too – and why. it usually only happens once per project manager and then it comes up in their reviews. of course, I also get to review the project managers at the year end review (or did in my old job) so schedule issues aren’t issues very long and never more than once with any particular person. (its like talking to little kids: " if you don’t eat your vegetables, you can’t have dessert." “if you don’t get me information, you won’t get a finished job”. of course, if they don’t really care if their job is finished, that’s a whole other issue.
With all due respect Anne, you’re not being a “team player” That’s what I’ve encountered when trying to invoke such “deadlines”; I consistently rec’d pleas that “it just has to get in the specs or the client will be @#$@#%…” or words of similar import. I’ve even rec’d info AFTER I’ve “delivered” the specs…with the typical plea “is it too late?”
My year-end reviews were consequently affected…negatively…as not being the “consummate team player”.
Anon. - I think you are on the wrong team.
In support of Anne, you have to draw the line somewhere. If you’re always accommodating their last minute “adds” to the spec, they’ll continue to do so. Forcing a date upon them will, 1) get them thinking about products/materials they want sooner rather than later, and 2) ensures a better-coordinated set of documents (drawings and specifications) when you’re not having to rush at the last minute to squeeze things in.
Anne’s system is somewhat similar to mine. Though I go a couple steps further with a custom web site that shows all the milestone events for all projects that I am aware of.
A project gets on the calendar when the PM is assigned the project, he is supposed to come by for a checklist and give me the projected dates for the 75% review (we produce a draft spec at that point, not an outline, but true production draft) and the final.
I put those 2 dates up. And then 3 weeks in front of the Draft there is a milestone that is the checklist interview, and 2 weeks prior to that is a ‘check in’ date which asks to verify the dates again and if still correct that they need to see me for specific thngs required immediately.
After the draft is published, a reminder goes out 4 weeks before the scheduled final to verify the dates. Most of the time, some it has shifted. Then when it is official, 2 milestones go out. 4 weeks before the final, it says, this is the first day you can give me your completed package of all comments, markups, new information, etc. from everyone. A package, not random bits. I don’t take odds and ends, they would get lost with all the projects for 2 offices coming across my desk. The other milestone is 2 weeks before the final, and it says, this is the last day you can give me your package, and anything not in the package may not make it.
There are a few specific named items that have dates later, but very little.
Sound nasty?? Actually it works really well for all concerned. They all know exactly where the status is all the time.
And the real purpose of the web calendar? No one is permited to set dates for their projects in isolation. Rule of thumb is '3 blank work days between any 2 projects. Finals trump drafts, but even so the 2 PMs have to agree in advance to it, and if they can’t, it goes to the principals in charge.
And of course, only I can access the data for the schedule.
You have to come in with ground rules. I was never going to be anyone’s slave, I have a life, they have a life.
It works, and like I said everyone likes it and it has operated somewhat this way since I came to WDG in 1983 and set up the program. Even when I was just coming in to head up the program, it was a gound rule in advance before I accepted the position.
Sure, I still get the plea, I just found I need this and forgot to tell you. But it comes to me with the attitude, ‘can we do it or is it addendum 1?’, not as ‘here is this stuff that has to get in.’
As long as someone wants to act like I am supposed to be chained to the oar, they are not going to get much result. Act professionally and responsibly and great things can happen. When someone wants to say that is not being a team player, they are immediately told that they are wrong, that IS the definition of a team player and if they can’t act professionally and responsibly they are not worthy of he amateur leagues.
AND YES - this is the stuff that should be at CSI University. There is mentoring the leadership of the organiztaion, but there is also mentoring the leadership of the profession. I would have no trouble at all laying out all the details of how organizing projects is done. How to convince others that this is a good way (and there may be other good ways) to do things. I think some of us who have good systems for their office like Anne, myself and a few others could provide a valuable program.
William
I used to get that “you’re not a team player” stuff, until I realized that I was the only one who was expected to play by the rules, so I made up my own rules. turned out that since there weren’t many rules out there, I could ease into the vacuum. the other side of the rules I give the team is that I follow some of my own:
I return all phone calls and emails within a 4 hour window… unless I’m on vacation. (and I tell people ahead of time when that happens). the ONLY exception is if I’m on a 4 hour flight and don’t have access to blackberry or cell phone.
I try to anticipate what the team might want and provide that to them. I provide a table of contents as early as possible and establish delivery dates for them and for me.
I am very clear that I prioritize projects under construction first in ALL cases – those delays cost money. then comes projects with real deadlines, and in order of the deadline.
I agree with William: people do better with more information rather than less, and with a known status rather than an unknown one. that includes me. If I don’t get information, I just move onto the next job.