Steel fabrication is typically on a project’s critical path, so when steel deliveries are late or when fabrication related field problems cause delays, our industry gets a black eye. To remain competitive with other competing materials, such as concrete, we must work diligently to remove obstacles that cause owners, developers and contractors to question AISC’s mantra that steel is the “Material of Choice”.
As steel is on a project’s critical path, shop drawings are on steel’s critical path. Well prepared, timely shop drawings are a key element of any successful steel fabrication project.
Why then, do we fabricators greatly limit our opportunities for success by accepting less than high quality drawings. When we accept shop drawings that are incomplete, contain ambiguous details or errors, we add unnecessary labor hours to our projects and often delay customer deliveries.
Here are a few reasons why we continue to “shoot ourselves in the foot” in this regard :
Reason 1 – We do not adequately communicate our expectations to our detailers.
Developing shop-specific detailing standards is one of the most effective ways to impart to a detailer how you want your shop drawings to appear. Pictorial examples are the best way to convey what you expect to be shown. Include representative examples of each type of drawing in your standards.
Another way to communicate your expectations is to meet with your detailer in person to discuss job-specific scope and any conditions that should be handled with special care.
Reason 2 – We are afraid to risk using contract detailers that we have never used before.
We are creatures of habit. We want to function in familiar ways. For this reason, we resist bringing on board new detailing firms. Familiarity with current detailers, even when we are regularly disappointed with their quality, causes us to continue to offer them projects.
The detailing world is not as small as it sometimes seems. There are many detailing firms out there. Select those that are most suited to your company. Evaluate the companies using a QBS (quality based selection) approach, including criteria that is important to you, such as:
“How many detailers do you have on staff?”
“How many checkers do you have on staff?”
“What detailing software do you use?”
“Do you have experience with AESS?”
“Do you provide CNC data?”
…and so on.
Once you have found the firms that meet your quality criteria, THEN select from those qualified, basing your final selection on schedule and price.
Reason 3 – We do not know the true cost of our shop drawings.
One of the reasons that we continually select detailing firms based on price is that we do not understand the full impact of poor shop drawings on our bottom line. How many questions must our shop guys/gals ask before we realize that the shop drawings are unclear? How many shop drawing related field fixes must occur before we take issue with the drawings? How many times do we hear ourselves saying “we will try to fix this problem on the next job”.
The true cost of detailing is not easily “visible” because we do not recognize (and calculate) the hidden costs of poor drawings. Therefore, we do not know how much “extra” we should add to our proposals when we use a particular detailing firm.
One of the ways to get a handle on this impact is to see how our current detailers are performing. To do that, just track the number of shop questions and the drawing errors for each job. Using a ratio of the number assemblies per error/question allows a percentage-type comparison of detailers. For example:
Job “A” – Using Detailer “A”
Number of Assemblies = 300
Number of Detailing Errors = 4
Number of Shop Questions = 11
Total Issues = 4 + 11 = 15
Ratio = 300/15 = 20
Converted to Percentage = 20/100 = 5%
Job “B” – Using Detailer “B”
Number of Assemblies = 500
Number of Detailing Errors = 8
Number of Shop Questions = 12
Total Issues = 8 + 12 = 20
Ratio = 500/20 = 25
Converted to Percentage = 25/100 = 4%
Job “C” – Using Detailer “C”
Number of Assemblies = 30
Number of Detailing Errors = 2
Number of Shop Questions = 3
Total Issues = 2 + 3 = 5
Ratio = 30/5 = 6
Converted to Percentage = 6/100 = 17%
Based on this simple criteria, we can evaluate which detailer is providing better drawings and also get an idea of what to add to each detailing firm’s proposal. Though this is just a “rough” guide, it is a good first step to a more thorough evaluation of the true cost of shop drawings.
For your more thorough research, track the errors that result from incomplete or unclear shop drawings. Measure or estimate the cost of fixing what those issues caused. Add it all up and then you will know if the detailing cost you included in your bid was truly sufficient. Don’t forget to include the cost of the missed opportunity of those projects you couldn’t do because of drawing related delays.
When your analysis is complete, you may discover that the full cost of shop drawings is considerably higher than the detailing price you were quoted on bid day. Indeed, you probably will find that you should have included a line item in your bid for the cost of poor shop drawings.
Reason 4 – We believe that shop drawings errors are to be expected.
For some reason, we have come to expect errors on shop drawings – and even provide excuses for them. Excuses such as; “a tight schedule”, “a detailer off work due to illness”, “we forgot to give them our standards”, “I thought we told them about that…”, and on and on.
In contrast, these days we expect our cars to run without breakdowns and our office lights to come on when we hit the switch. In years past, neither cars nor lights worked without some regular tweaking. Now, through continuous improvement efforts, cars and lights have improved to the point that we EXPECT PERFECTION. Why then shouldn’t we expect perfection from our shop drawings – and work to see it become reality?
Conclusion
I didn’t intend this article to be a rant against the detailing profession. It may read like that, but this is a complicated and serious issue for the fabrication community that must be addressed both individually by company and corporately by our industry. Basically, these are just some thoughts on how fabricators can improve on this most critical of project activities.
Let’s keep improving the process and continue to heighten our expectations!
