Questions About the Drawings
Have you ever wondered, “Why are construction drawings so cluttered and hard to read?”
It seems almost inevitable that young employees, unable to interpret those drawings, will sometimes make terrible mistakes.
As a construction manager in civil engineering, I find myself wondering every day why we have to interpret drawings that are so difficult to read.
People in the industry might say, “Are you kidding me?” but there are a few points that really make me wonder.
Extensive design review work
To me, the drawings provided by the client are nothing more than ”scribbles.”
When the dimensions in the floor plan and cross-section clearly do not match, it indicates that the design is impractical; in most cases, layout drawings for blocks and the like show that construction cannot be carried out based on the original design.
Once we receive the sketches, a massive amount of design review and revision work awaits us. Isn’t the accountability for the fact that the order drawings are a complete mess far too light?
Inequality in Responsibility
I also find myself questioning the inequality of responsibility on a daily basis. Once a consultant has drawn up the plans and handed them over to the construction manager as the official construction drawings, they are almost never held accountable.
Unless we’re drawing completely nonsensical drawings, even if we make a few errors here and there, they’re not only overlooked as careless mistakes—if we in construction management proceed with construction based on those drawings and make a mistake, we’ll be criticized for not thoroughly reviewing the designs.
It's strange that this is accepted as common practice in the industry.
I'd like you to pay me separately.
A long time ago, I had to make corrections to a massive number of order drawings. I remember spending every day poring over those drawings to the point where it was interfering with my other work.
After I had finished making all the corrections, I showed the revised drawings to the client and asked, “To be honest, this design work goes beyond the scope of our contract, so could you please consider paying us separately for it?” The client replied, “Those design review fees are already included in the construction contract,” and brushed me off.
From my perspective, it was like, “Huh?” I almost blurted out, “If the order drawings are meant to be revised by us, then why do we even need a consultant in the first place?”
If they can’t draw up the blueprints, just think how much more efficiently the construction would proceed if we designed everything from scratch to make it easier for us to build… I’m also constantly puzzled by the fact that we don’t get paid what we deserve for the work we’ve done, all because of these blueprint issues.
All I want is to get the correct drawings…
Personally, I believe that “revising drawings is not part of a construction manager’s job.”
We in construction management believe that our job is to manage the construction schedule, ensure that the work is being done according to the blueprints by monitoring quality and workmanship, and generate a solid profit from the project.
Just because the consultant made a mistake on the blueprints, isn't it unnecessary for us to redesign them?
As long as we receive detailed drawings, all we should really have to do is figure out the processes needed to complete the project.
Anyone who works in the construction industry knows that blueprints are quite complex. The higher the project cost, the more complex they become, and just reading them takes time. Furthermore, if there are errors hidden within them, the time required to review the design becomes enormous.
I think it’s precisely this design review work that’s creating the conditions that lead people to call the construction industry “exploitative.” I’m not saying all design firms are like this, but consultants who come up with ridiculous designs are, quite frankly, a huge nuisance to us!
In a previous actual case, the bolts used to secure the support piles, girder supports, main girders, and bracing on a temporary pier were designed to use standard steel rather than high-tensile bolts. After discussions, we made a design change and re-selected the materials. Additionally, for the same temporary pier, only the starting point had been bored, The section beyond that had been designed based on estimates. Since the support piles did not reach the bearing layer, we discussed the matter and placed a provisional order for additional piles, which were then installed on-site to fit the actual conditions. Because the provisional order for support piles resulted in more excess material that had to be cut, which impacted our profits, I was quite annoyed.
He was still grinning during the three-way meeting with the client and the consultant afterward, so I was so pissed off I wanted to hoist him up with a crane. If we hire a consultant who won’t look into anything further as long as the numbers add up, we’ll be stuck dealing with the consequences for years to come, so I wish they wouldn’t even take on the project in the first place.