Disrupted works: assessing the options
When a mistake is discovered on site – a wrong delivery, work not matching the order, a clash with another trade – there is pressure to decide immediately. This guide describes the opposite: a sequence that prepares the decision instead of pre-empting it.
The sequence in six steps
What is notable in practice is that the order stays the same across very different disruptions – whichever trade is affected:
- Stop work in the affected area before the mistake carries on.
- Inform the contractor and establish the cause.
- Document the extent of the mistake – component, location, scale.
- Work out options instead of proposing a single solution.
- Obtain the decision from the client.
- Implement the chosen solution and update the schedule.
The first step is the most uncomfortable and the most important: letting work continue while the cause is still open enlarges the damage and closes off options that were available before.
Options rather than a solution
The real substance lies in the fourth step. Site management does not propose what should be done, but sets the possible routes side by side – usually three or four. Among them there is almost always the one nobody likes writing down: the condition is accepted, compensated by a price reduction and not corrected.
The other options range from correction within the running sequence, through later replacement, to stopping until the defect is remedied. They differ not in whether they solve the problem, but in what they cost – and that in three different currencies.
The three axes: quality, cost, time
Every option is judged on the same three axes. Only this makes routes comparable that at first sight have nothing in common:
- Quality: does a visual or functional defect remain? Do downstream risks arise, for instance when replacing a component already installed?
- Cost: price reduction, additional effort for corrections, extra scaffolding or coordination, claims from affected neighbouring contractors.
- Time: does delay arise for following trades? Do dependencies shift? Does completion have to be compressed?
Revealingly, the axes often point in opposite directions. The option without consequences for the programme is regularly the one that leaves a lasting compromise in quality; the one that preserves quality brings acceleration costs with it. Looking at a single axis makes a solution appear obvious when it is not.
Why site management does not decide itself
Weighing a remaining defect against extra cost and a later handover is not a technical question but an owner’s question. Site management assesses technically, classifies and prepares the matter to the point of decision – the decision rests with the client.
That is more than a question of competence: site management that decides for itself takes away a choice the client will later pay for. A properly prepared overview is therefore also the most effective protection against the charge of having acted unilaterally.
What belongs in the schedule
In scheduling terms, one question is worth asking before the decision: which work can be brought forward that does not depend on the disrupted area? Often part of the delay can be absorbed by changing the order – but only if the dependencies are visible in the plan and not merely in the head of site management.
In Menira the options can be laid side by side as schedule states: dependencies show which tasks a shift pulls along, the critical path whether the project end is affected. The basis for the decision becomes visible instead of estimated.