Accident reflection: Does “compressing the construction period” seriously violate the laws of project construction?

Thread Content

Many years have passed, yet the shadow of the planned economy has not completely faded away. Certain powers remain insurmountable barriers in the field of engineering. On the morning of November 26, the investigation team for the particularly serious accident of the collapse of the construction platform at the cooling tower at the Jiangxi Fengcheng Power Plant on November 24 was officially established. The first plenary meeting was held in Fengcheng City, Jiangxi, to arrange and organize the investigation work. An emergency video conference on work safety held on the 25th by the Office of the State Council’s Work Safety Commission indicated that, based on the preliminary findings, the accident was related to factors such as the project owner and contractor cutting deadlines, rushing the construction process, inadequate organization of construction activities, and chaotic management. A tragic accident that resulted in the death or injury of over 70 people has once again brought the widespread practice of \"compressing project timelines\" – a practice that seriously violates the principles of engineering construction – to the center of attention and discussion across society. Some argue that it is interests at play – only by rushing the timeline can more profits be generated in a short period of time ； Some believe it is the problem of the project owner, or even more so, of the construction company, as they have violated scientific principles… Who exactly is responsible for shortening the construction timeline? The claim that \"all parties are at fault\" seems like an attempt to shift blame indiscriminately, and it is an irresponsible response. To compress the project timeline, it is necessary to identify a primary leader. At present, in various fields such as transportation, energy, electricity, and communications, as well as in local infrastructure development, everything is essentially under the control of large enterprises. These enterprises’ management systems always have elements of power at play; some employees have no knowledge of engineering practices, and decisions are made arbitrarily at any time. It’s impossible to compress the project timeline, and it can easily become a matter of \"just one sentence\" for some employees. In the face of certain powers, there is no real “Party A”. In the field of project construction, the project owner is the so-called “Party A”, while the construction contractor is the so-called “Party B”. However, at the actual decision-making level, especially in front of certain *officials from various departments and units responsible for this project, both the project owner and the construction contractor, as well as entities such as supervisors and cost estimators, are essentially considered to be the \"Party B\". Faced with unrestrained administrative power, and in an environment where every construction task is treated as a \"top priority,\" all parties involved—including project owners, contractors, and supervisors—can only suffer under the pressure of constantly having to adjust project timelines. Many years have passed, yet the shadow of the planned economy has not completely faded away. Certain powers remain insurmountable barriers in the field of engineering. In the field of engineering construction, we only have external mechanisms such as bidding and supervision; we still lack a genuine operational framework that respects the laws of construction. If slogans such as \"overcoming the UK in 15 years\" or \"working hard to reach a certain stage quickly\" that we used to hear frequently have been proven to be incorrect, then slogans like \"decisive battle in 90 days\", \"100-day campaign\", and \"80-day effort to achieve the goal\" – which are essentially no different from those earlier slogans – also hardly conform to market principles. Certain powers lie in planning and acceptance, and some leaders need to conduct inspections; it is impossible for there to be a failure to meet deadlines. In the face of all-powerful authority, it is quite common to see interference in engineering projects as well as in other professional fields. All of this shows that there is still a long way to go in terms of delegating power, and it remains a lengthy process to keep power within the framework of institutions. Source: Beijing Youth Daily, November 28, 2016