 Reforming Project Management |
||
|
|
||
|
Thursday, September 02, 2004
GAO Says OSHA Needs Better Oversight of Fines
The GAO just finished an investigation of OSHA. It concluded that fines are not imposed consistently and follow-up is lacking. John L. Henshaw, OSHA Deputy Secretary, responded saying, "The agency needs some flexibility in assessing final penalties to reward the willingness of some employers to abate a hazard quickly and produce a safer workplace." One finding showed big companies paid $1,097 more in fines than small companies. Yet small companies are more likely to ignore hazardous work situations. BLR.com reported in OSHA Faulted on Oversight of Fine Calculations, "The GAO reviewed audits from the five regions with the most inspections and discovered that some area offices miscalculated penalties and failed to conduct required follow-up inspections." OSHA drives me crazy. Our industry (construction) is doing a terrible job with safety. Our friends are dying at a rate that far exceeds other industries. We've made virtually no progress in the last 12 years. We can stop this. We need to study the very best contractors and we need to impose stiff penalties on the worst. Nothing less than a change in our view on the situation will fix our problem. We need to cut our incidence rates by 75%. Is that possible? Not with the current thinking. But firms are doing exactly that. They are changing their approach and systems of planning by adopting a lean approach. See the full text of the GAO Report on OSHA. Read Safety Everyday's construction safety in the news sideblog. Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Lean Projects -- Impossible Thinking
I've been reading a new book from a new publisher. The Wharton School (U Penn) is getting into the publishing business. Their first book co-authored by one of their faculty is a winner. The Power of Impossible Thinking, by Jerry Wind and Colin Crook, has as its premise, "If you can think impossible thoughts, you can do impossible things." Last week Chuck Frey did a quick book summary at the Innovation Weblog How to See Differently. Chuck did a great job. He captured eight practices for impossible thinking from the authors' text.
What we think is what we see One of the more important parts of the book is the 18-page appendix The Neuroscience behind Mental Models. Bear with me. I know the title can be off-putting. The authors do a very good job explaining why they say it is possible for impossible thinking. In a nutshell, what we think is what we see. If we want to see something else or something new, then we must adopt a different mental model. What does this have to do with lean project delivery? People tell me it is impossible to think we can do projects with strangers without waste, delivered on time and on budget. The authors would argue that those people are right. They will not deliver projects with strangers without waste, delivered on time and on budget. However, there are numerous companies and project teams who think the impossible. They think they can. And they are also right. A division of one company delivered 29 projects in a row on time or early AND at or below budget. Now that's impossibility thinking! Two days ago I introduced you to one of the better papers from the 11th IGLC Annual Conference, Achieving Change in Construction. One of the conclusions in that paper was the mental models are getting in the way of change. Our approach has been to fix the problems we encounter through automation, motivation, and process improvement. It hasn't worked as evidenced by productivity and injury rates that are stagnant. Achieving change in construction must start with changing our own mental models. Learn how by reading The Power of Impossible Thinking. Monday, August 30, 2004
Update to Securing Reliable Promises on Projects
When I wrote the paper I was attending to a missing skill I observed on project teams implementing the Last Planner System™. People on the jobsite didn't have the habit or the skill of making commitments. I wrote the paper to aid the project manager and the superintendent to get promises where they are needed. Later, I developed a clearer interpretation of planning and control on projects: planning is conversation that both prepares performers for action while dealing with uncertainties and activates the network of commitment. With this interpretation securing reliable promises is more important. Take another look at the paper. Make copies. Share with your team. And, here's access to Securing Reliable Promises on One Page. Hang it where everyone will see. Sunday, August 29, 2004
Achieving Change in Construction Is a Matter of Mental Models
In the summer of 2003 three authors presented their thoughts on the nature of the breakdown delivering projects in the construction industry. Lauri Koskela took the lead writing with Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell. The authors analyze the current situation for making change, present the conventional solutions, propose a systemic approach, and outline a four-part approach to change. You can find their paper Achieving Change in Construction along with the other IGLC conference papers introduced on this site. People throughout the construction industry acknowledge that projects are routinely late, over budget, fail to satisfy the customer in some significant way, create strains on project team members, and injure and kill workers along the way. News of any of these circumstances no longer surprises, nor are we moved to action. The authors characterize the situation with the question, "Do we need a problem-solving approach or systemic change?" After examining the changes underway they conclude: "The limited impact of structural, behavioral and IT related initiatives to date points to the same limit to change -- the current mental model of production." So the mental model(s?) are to blame. That on one hand seems to be on the mark, but what are the prevailing models and what might we change to? The prevailing model of construction projects has been well-described as transformation of information and material, a.k.a the input-process-output (IPO) model. Activities are identified in a reductionist fashion breaking down milestones into activities and activities into tasks. Tasks are assigned to tiers of experts individually contracted and left to manage their work by themselves. And the new mental model(s)? The authors fail to offer proposals saying instead, "(T)he switch from the transformation model (of production) to the flow model is just one, even if important, part of the paradigm shift needed...new distinct elements of the theoretical foundation have been progressively found...and we anticipate a quest for unification of theory of production and production management." My friends conclude the dilemma of construction is an issue of the unification of production theory. I do believe they see the limitations of current mental models. However, in this paper they limited their view on what mental models are in question. They may be making a starting-out error by characterizing construction first as production rather than as project. This leaves out of the quest a look at the examination of project management, communication theory, approaches to design and engineering, and education, just to name a few intersecting mental models. Lauri, Glenn, and Greg suggest there are two complementary approaches for achieving change. The first has to do with producing economic value. They argue that people will adopt an approach that produces higher value. They couple this with a high involvement high learning organizational approach. High involvement will bring about the change. Yet they finish this wonderful paper with, "(T)he sluggishness of change in construction is due to limited understanding of change needed and resulting confusion regarding means of change." Can we make the change to new mental models? Certainly our current mental models have tremendous inertia reinforced by computer systems, contracting practices, the organization of the industry, and our education systems. But change we must. I think the authors are right. Change is limited to understanding of the current situation. Read Achieving Change in Construction to learn from three of the best minds on the subject. Visit the Archives for more postings |
 Reference Papers
|
|
| ||
Securing Reliable Promises on Projects