Who asks the builders also gets an answer

Yes, but with a year of planning for that.

[...]

One example: Our heating engineer later chipped a passage for the underfloor heating pipes into a wall after the plastering. In doing so, he hit an electrical cable. If he had just called briefly and asked, I could have immediately told him where the cables run at that point, but he just started chiseling.

Basically, I totally agree with you that when there are uncertainties or simply missing information, it’s better to ask. In another thread, there is currently a situation like this, namely missing information about the depth of the window sill. So something was installed without consulting the customer/building owner, and now it looks bad and the customer doesn’t like it. A 2-minute phone call would certainly have saved a multiple of the costs and hassle here.

I have some difficulties with your example insofar as the routing of the basic installation should actually be part of the execution planning. I would wonder what you were planning for a year beforehand if not considering where which WD, DD, and BD should be placed. Partly, rough builders/structural engineers also need this information for the ceiling elements and the reinforcement design. In this specific case, the planning was rather neglected... and the tradesperson on site has to be able to rely on something; otherwise, it is exactly as writes. Then, consultations would have to be held at every tool use. One could then indeed ask what execution planning is for at all...

What rather annoys me is the thoughtlessness/carelessness towards other trades. For example, screed was laid in the morning, I went to the construction site again in the evening to check and had to see fresh footprints in the screed. It turned out the drywall installer had forgotten to take a measurement that could have waited at that time. But no, who cares, it’s not their own trade. And then I’m no longer so relaxed and don’t see it that only the end result matters. The way there is important to me as well, and I want to know (understand) why a tradesperson thinks they have to do it differently/better than stated in the plan. If nothing is stated or it can’t be done as planned -> call the site management (architects, building owner... whoever does that — in our case the architect), explain the problem, suggest possible solutions, briefly explain advantages and disadvantages, let the site management decide, and then implement accordingly. Everything else is questionable to me.

We built with GU, but of course there were subs. Overall, it worked very well. The trades worked together on equal footing.

I would recommend everyone to show up on the construction site once in the morning and talk to the people on site. For me, it also helped that I spent two weeks helping to lay cables during the first interior finishing phase. By the way, anyone can do that, and it saves a lot of work time. That obviously helped with communication. Every evening I looked at what had happened during the day. Balancing that with my work was not easy.

I always wrote my phone number huge on the wall: "Bauherr: 0123 4567 Call me! :)" It was mostly the younger ones who actually called or sent a WhatsApp message. But a few of the old-timers noticed it too.

Also, of course, respect and communication on equal footing. So everyone was already on a first-name basis. Work pants are worth more than a suit and tie. Whoever assumes that craftsmen are just stupid will probably get exactly that.

I believe there needs to be a change of mindset in construction. You cannot plan everything in advance. In business, more and more places are moving away from waterfall planning with eternally long planning phases, execution times, and acceptance at the end, where after half a year it is found that you actually wanted it quite differently. Instead, it is moving towards more agile methods, where requirements are worked out jointly at short notice and the work results are discussed together shortly thereafter. This way, problems and changing requirements can be responded to much faster and better.

We also sampled before each trade. I wouldn’t have been able to choose my tiles just based on the plans. It was great to do that in the almost finished house.

What annoys me more is the thoughtlessness/don’t-give-a-shit attitude towards other trades.

I know that too. Often problems were then pushed onto the next trade. I think this is even more the case with us because we had commissioned the companies completely independently of each other, as they were not under one roof (general contractor).

Maybe it reads wilder than it was, but with us not every cable and every opening was planned from the beginning. During the construction phase, we were also inspired by good ideas, partly through recommendations from craftsmen.

When you are facing a problem and there is more than one solution, I wish as a contact person (and payer) to be asked.

I always wrote my mobile number huge on the wall: "Client: 0123 4567 Call me! :)

Top.

I believe construction needs a rethink. You can’t plan everything in advance. In business, more and more places are moving away from waterfall planning with eternally long planning times, execution times, and acceptance at the end, where after six months it turns out that you actually wanted it quite differently. Instead, the trend is towards more agile methods, where requirements are developed together on short notice and the work results are discussed together shortly thereafter.

Oh dear, oh dear, as a big fan of agile methods, I can only shake my head here. The methodology must fit the problem and the type of problem. Agile methods are particularly hoped for because we increasingly operate in rapidly changing markets and have to quickly adapt to changes in direction. Disruptive processes no longer allow you to predict the direction of market development in advance through analytics and prepare early accordingly for market changes. According to the Cynefin framework, cause-and-effect relationships are not “simple” or “complicated,” but “complex” or even “chaotic.” And for these types of problems agile approaches promise faster responsiveness. A PDCA approach, which underlies many agile methods, is in my opinion counterproductive on construction sites and leads to project delays and increased costs. On the one hand, you have lead times and (concrete plants currently don’t deliver your ceiling elements just in time but sometimes need four to six weeks lead time) setup times. On the other hand, in house construction nothing is complex or chaotic in the sense of the Cynefin classification. Rather, the cause-and-effect relationship is well understood, so at best the problem type is “simple” or “complicated.” Here, proven approaches (best and good practices) work excellently. Furthermore, when transferring methodologies that come from the development of intangible products into the world of tangible products, caution is advised, for example due to supply chains or simply because virtual things can sometimes be changed more easily afterward than real things. In my opinion, the greatest need for agility is not in a specific methodology but in internalizing the values and mindset that form the basis for it, namely showing flexibility (not categorically saying “no, that’s not possible, it’s not in the plan” upon a change), transparency (“making consequences of changes understandable,” “showing what the actual goal is: no heating engineer has a passion for a 50x10 wall breakthrough at a specific point, but wants to lay the underfloor heating to the heat exchanger via the shortest path possible”), continuously questioning one’s own ways of working to improve, and last but not least interacting with each other on equal footing. And I can apply this mindset very well also with the waterfall model; I don’t need Scrum, Kanban, you-name-it for that. There is nothing wrong with waterfall if it fits the problem. For example, I would not want to see Scrum in the emergency room. And a screwdriver is still the best tool to screw screws into the wall; you can also drive in nails with it, but there are better tools for that. Sorry, this got a little bit OT [emoji51] I can only agree with everything else, especially the thing about equal footing. There is quite some catching up to do on construction sites, that’s my impression. By the way, not only on the construction site, but already earlier in the process, between clients and architects/general contractors/subcontractors whoever. Basically, I consider respectful interaction essential, and nothing else is meeting on equal footing. Unfortunately, in many areas I have the impression that development is going in the wrong direction.

Maybe it reads wilder than it was, but with us not every cable and every breakthrough was included in the planning from the start. We were also inspired by good ideas during the construction phase, partly through recommendations from craftsmen.

I completely agree with what you write (meaning the entire post). Only when it comes to breakthroughs I am skeptical, since ceiling breakthroughs have structural relevance and you can’t just say: oops, there’s a missing breakthrough, I’ll just quickly grab the Hilti. Even with silly recessed spotlights you can’t say, “I’ll take a look at how the rooms are first and then drill the holes.” The concrete plant and structural engineer want to know in advance where the ceiling structure will be weakened. Adding a light switch there or one more socket with conventional wiring certainly isn’t a problem, but spontaneously adding one more heating circuit could get interesting if the breakthroughs don’t fit, not to mention that it would also affect the heating load and overall energy balance. Or put another way: local changes are rarely problematic later on, global changes are usually problematic and/or expensive—and should therefore be treated accordingly in the execution planning. [emoji4]

Only when it comes to breakthroughs am I skeptical, since ceiling breakthroughs have structural relevance

you are of course right. However, in this case it was only a 20x4cm opening in the floor, because we or rather the heating engineer shortened the path of the underfloor heating pipes from the manifold. Structurally everything according to plan :-)