The property owner, the design institute, and the construction company all “look” the same
Thread Content
I wonder if anyone has been in contact with the design institute during the construction process, and how often? Was the problem resolved quickly enough? A project has been under construction for six years now, with slow progress – whose fault is that exactly???
The owner has no money problems and paid the design firm in advance; now there are many design issues, and the design firm has had several people change over – some of these problems originated from earlier stages. What should be done?
A project takes 6 years to complete; it’s unclear whether the progress meets the initial plans. If there are significant deviations, then there are problems with project management, at least in terms of progress control and cost control. The completion of a project depends not only on the construction contractor, but also on the owner and the designer; all three parties share responsibility. Whether the communication mechanisms and systems for coordination among them are sound is also a key factor that affects the progress of the project. For large projects, design representatives from various specialties are stationed on site during construction to address issues. For smaller projects, the project manager can handle most problems on site; for more detailed issues, a design liaison form must be submitted on site, and only in cases where changes are needed will the design firm issue a change order. In addition to regular phone calls and document exchanges, regularly held project meetings are also the main channels to ensure smooth communication among the three parties. In engineering, technical expertise is only a small part; communication and coordination are far more important. If everyone sticks to their own small sphere of influence and won’t take a single step forward, it will hinder the progress of the project.
It’s still a matter of money; changing something also requires funds, and the design institute probably thinks the same way.
Well! Everyone has seen the problem. Since no one knows how to deal with it, its existence is justified.
It really does look like that, in other words, it’s just that appearance
There are several issues related to the current state of this project that cannot be ignored: 1. During the initial research phase for the project, were the aspects such as manufacturing processes, products, and scale sufficiently considered? In other words, was the plan chosen before starting the project mature enough? 2. When selecting a design institute, was it thoroughly understood what its track record, capabilities, and even work style were like? Whether the history of cooperation has been pleasant, etc. Is the qualification valid? 3. During the project design phase, did the owner make many modifications to the design, or did the provider of the process package make numerous changes? 4. Is the owner familiar with the processes, equipment, and operations related to this project? By clarifying the above issues, it becomes clear where the problems lie, and solutions can then be found.
Under the current regulatory environment, as long as it complies with the standards, design institutes are willing to make the necessary changes; it is only fair to charge a fee if the scope of the changes is substantial. They end up shooting something that doesn’t meet the specifications, yet the client insists on making changes; if the design team doesn’t make those changes, the client does it themselves, and in the end the actual result is completely different from what was designed. There are way too many such things. . . .
To be honest, there are usually two reasons for this situation: either the client has too many ideas, or it’s a money issue. We had a project like that as well – the client started by purchasing a technical package from foreigners, and after five years, things were still not resolved. During this protracted process, the client changed three project managers, the construction team also had three different managers, most of the designers left, and the supervisors kept changing as well. In fact, designers aren’t afraid of difficult tasks; what they fear is having too many demands from the client – changes to the design plan one day, a change in location the next, careless review of the blueprints, constant requests for modifications once they’re received, meeting minutes that serve no purpose at all. Whenever there’s a problem, it’s blamed on the design firm for not thinking things through properly or for failing to optimize the design. There’s no such thing as free lunch. Schedule delays lead to problems with payment deadlines, insufficient payments from purchasers, suppliers refusing to deliver goods, or purchases made at low prices resulting in poor quality of the goods, leading to repeated returns. The subcontracting arrangements for construction are unclear, payments aren’t made on time, and there’s endless arguing among the various construction teams~~~
What you said is spot on; it’s exactly the same here too. There’s no saving it