Survey Shows Construction Documents Often Miss the Mark
Accurate and functional construction documents are a professional necessity to architects, engineers, contract managers and others involved in a building project. Yet, according to an industry survey, working drawings and specifications often miss the mark, leading to cost overruns and construction delays.
The annual survey isconducted by the Department of Engineering Professional Development in the College of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. As part of a course for professionals on detecting deficiencies in construction documents, the surveymeasures feedback in three key areas:
- Who or what is the source for the majority of change orders?
- Where do document deficiencies have the greatest impact?
- What strategies are used to improve construction documents?
Survey respondents made it clear the value of well-crafted drawings, specifications and contracts cannot be overstated. When asked to rate the quality of construction documents today, nearly 60 percent of owners, architects, engineers, planners and construction managers surveyed said quality was “deteriorating.” An additional one-quarter of those who responded rated document quality as no worse but no better than in the recent past.
Top Sources for Change Orders
The survey found that change orders can be a tangible measure of the quality of construction documents. When asked to rank the source of changes, respondents ranked changes requested by owners as number one and those generated by design consultants (architects/engineers) as number two. Further down the list were a variety of other sources or factors that lead to change orders–from regulatory agencies and contractors to unforeseen conditions.
Where the Flaws Show Up
Ultimately, while the quality of construction documents cannot be held accountable for every change order, survey respondents struck a theme suggesting flawed documents play a significant role.
Respondents identified many reasons why construction documents are faulty in the first place. Working too fast, however, was at the heart of many comments. From initial planning to final inspection, the professionals surveyed said compressed project schedules and cost constraints served to undermine the ability to create and maintain effective documentation.
Another factor listed as contributing to substandard documents was poor coordination between disciplines. Respondents indicated that faulty documents contained deficiencies such as incomplete plans and drawings and missing information about codes, existing conditions, and critical timing.
Strategies for Change
Survey results indicate changing the status quo is an active goal for many design/construction professionals. The group surveyed offered a long list of strategies they use to reduce construction document deficiencies. In addition to providing adequate time to develop quality documents, respondents recommended the allocation of resources to:
- Conduct an in-house peer review of working drawings, specifications and other key documents
- Scrutinize drawings closely from project concept to the final stage and invite outside review
- Organize a meeting of key players in advance, including the general contractor and subcontractor
- Keep communications open with ongoing, on-site project meetings
- Involve a quality assurance/quality control consultant
- Review and revise critical documents several times during the life of a project
- Create a quality assurance studio to streamline standard details, drawings and specifications
- Create functional checklists and use them
- Participate in workshops and training related to improving document quality
- Establish accountability for everyone at every stage of document development
- Update any system that obstructs development of quality documents
- Carry out a timely project postmortem to identify problem areas
Rigorous Approach
Construction document quality continues to be a serious issue for many in the industry. It is, in fact, undeniable when the surveyed group reports an average of 56 change orders per project and a high of 800 change orders on one job alone. Apart from increased project costs due to mistakes and delays, poorly executed construction documents invite litigation because agreements and expected outcomes often are unclear.
Beyond the numbers, survey respondents agreed that individuals and companies must upgrade their capabilities for developing good construction documents and detecting flaws in bad ones. Efforts of industry groups and professional education programs that focus on a rigorous approach to improved construction documents give owners and building professionals the resources they need to make such change happen.
Current views on correcting this industry shortcoming are the focus of “Preparing Design Professionals and Owners to Detect Deficiencies in Working Drawings and Specifications,” a four-day course sponsored annually by the Department of Engineering Professional Development. Developed by professor and architect, Philip Bennett, the course features leading experts who are active in the field. It also provides a forum where a broad cross-section of industry practitioners comes together to learn and compare notes.
For more information and to enroll, visit our Courses or call 800-462-0876.
Written by Mary Maher
This article is based upon work supported by the University of Wisconsin–Madison Department of Engineering Professional Development. It is for general information and distribution. It is not intended to provide specific solutions or advice for specific circumstances, which should be sought from appropriate professionals.