The term construction schedule oversight may be defined in somewhat paradoxical terms. It is important to distinguish the difference between standard perceptions. Here are the first two definitions offered by Merriam Webster’s on-line dictionary: over•sight: 1) a mistake made because someone forgets or fails to notice something; 2) the act or job of directing work that is being done. Let us add to this second definition the concept of analytic oversight, or critical scientific methods and macro-tools used to monitor and optimize overall performance. Merriam Webster’s definitions are elementary; however, even so, we see that the former meaning becomes evident in the absence of the latter. Proper, or analytic oversight, is intended to obviate mistakes.
With proper analytic oversight, the incidence of project dysfunction is minimized. Regrettably, analytic oversight is typically invoked reactively, instead of proactively. For example, my landlord prefers to service equipment in my rental only when it breaks down, as opposed to regular maintenance programs. In the long run, there are more breakdowns and outages, and his repair costs far exceed what a prevention program would ensure. The point is that “hindsight is 20/20”: foresight and prevention are the preferred antithesis to reactive measures or responses.
There are two types of construction schedule oversight: as defined above: 1) direction of work and quality control, and our modified definition 2) analytic oversight, which includes mission-critical insight and reporting techniques outside of an average manager or supervisor’s bailiwick. There are many possible permutations of construction industry oversight. Let’s consider five of the most common arrangements:
1. In some cases the mere appointment of a project manager or superintendent is intended to represent sufficient oversight. Yet, this sort of oversight is typically limited to elementary checks and balances of project controls: schedule and budget, contract performance, means and methods, and quality control. Contractors are generally parsimonious in terms of the degree and depth of resources they are willing to devote to such tasks, preferring to only provide the bare essential insofar as they represent their best interests to do so. Moreover, most contractors lack qualified analytic oversight personnel: their in-house team simply doesn’t have the chops.
2. The design team – architects and engineers- often are tasked with oversight duties – or at least they appear to be, or act as if they do- in addition to their basic design duties. However; this sort of oversight is generally limited to quality control, as opposed to analytic oversight. For example, an engineer or architect seldom conducts risk assessment studies, value-engineering, or tracks a CPM schedule: these services simply are not their responsibility. They are contracted to design a project, and subsequently to approve submittals and work-product once the project is awarded to a builder. On the other hand, their input can be crucial to the analytic oversight team effort: oversight consultants do their best work with valuable input form the project team.
Although architects and engineers are sometimes hired to provide oversight construction schedule oversight services, such services tend to be specific to their calling. As design architects and engineers already are part of any project team, I daresay it generally would not occur to an owner to hire another one as an oversight consultant, as that may constitute double-duty in their eyes: many owners mistakenly believe that analytic oversight should be part of the design teams’ basic duties.
3. Just like the design team, construction managers – are also expected by owners to provide the necessary level of oversight so as to minimize delays and budget short-falls on large or multi-prime general contractor projects. However, their position and approach is contingent on their vested interest: whether they are at-risk, or simply agent of the owner. Yet, there seems to be a tacit understanding that analytic oversight is intrinsic to their contractual responsibilities. It is not, and this must never be taken for granted.
Indeed, complex construction management projects are often in need of outside analytic oversight, of which owners are slowly beginning to realize. An at-risk construction manager is less likely than a construction manager as-agent to recommend an oversight consultant. An owner should be conscious that a construction manager may also experience a conflict of interest in conveying analytic oversight, especially on a distressed project, where they stand to lose face. Moreover, they are loath to take their marching orders from what they often perceive of as meddling consultants.
4. For larger and long-term projects, oversight consultants are retained by owners to monitor –among other things, the schedule, budget, and risk factors. These consultants may be thought of as “proper” oversight consultants, because:
a. They are specialists, with specific analytical training
b. They are impartial
c. Their compass – or the depth of insight they provide is substantially more dynamic than most in-house oversight teams.
If the owner is a public entity, it may have in-house oversight department(s) to monitor schedule, budget, and risks. Not infrequently, these departments require oversight themselves, by a third-party. Much of my own work can be described as such oversight.
5. The fifth and final variant of oversight implementation is the misperception, or complete absence, of it. Regrettably, I find these to be the most commonplace circumstances. Many contractors believe that basic project controls – schedule and budget monitoring – are sufficient oversight strategies. This denotes a misperception of what constitutes proper oversight: perhaps the elusive definition of the oversight consultant’s role is what precludes market and owner awareness.
Most owners will realize – usually too late, the need for analytic oversight. Moreover, they may not even realize that oversight specialists even exist. Contractors are typically loath to recommend another layer of management, so they seldom recommend an oversight consultant.
That’s a shame, because third-party analytic oversight can provide powerful and unbiased insight mechanisms that otherwise would not be utilized. Owners should discuss the approach to oversight needs when they select their builders. Optimally, they will find a builder who embraces such a strategy, and welcomes partnership. Those builders who are resilient to it should be re-evaluated for suitability.
