For design-build, we have a design studio with an extremely knowledgeable and creative team. This format can actually help the client and usually the end user. It allows us to get closer to the end user and allow them to design systems and a building that will perform the way they intend to within a certain budget. There are multiple benefits to using that approach.
The other one is that our design team is obviously within our organization. So they’re very connected to how we will sequence the work, how we can pre-fabricate the components that we will deliver to the job site and how the work is going to get installed. So having that internal connection to all the different aspects of the work and to all the different departments within our organization really gives them an advantage in being able to deliver on that.
As I mentioned, we have a very experienced and very knowledgeable team. And that has worked very well for us. This team actually doesn’t just do design-build for us. We actually work even on projects that are not designed well. We try to apply the same concepts. So, some projects may use more of a design-assist format, where we get documents that are not fully complete. They’ve reached a certain level of completion, and then it’s our job to get them to 100 percent. We can still have influence that way.
And there are times when, in theory, the building is designed more as a glance-and-spec delivery method, and we can still provide some inputs and we do so. That’s what we do on the design-build side of things.
Work packaging goes to what I was describing earlier in terms of having the right processes. As I mentioned, our trade is very complex and has a lot of different components. If you take a hospital, for example, I mean the systems have a lot of parts. What we try to do is to take the project and break it down, sometimes by zone, sometimes by system and sometimes by trade, into manageable components. There’s not a set of the same type of quantity. For this, we tried to use a rule of thumb so that we maybe don’t have more than a crew of five people for two weeks for a management unit, usually smaller than that.
That allows us to set objectives that the teams can understand and comprehend. It makes it very easy to measure progress on a directive. This fits into our cascade of scheduling tools, which goes from the master plan to a look-ahead plan that rises to our weekly work plan.
And within that weekly work plan, we have those work packages. Each group knows exactly what they’re supposed to do over that time period. We can get feedback very quickly and adjust our plan if things deviate one way or the other. It’s a concept that is not novel in general. But I think what we’ve done differently is to apply this to our trade and to our type of projects because, as I said, the level of detail and the variety make applying that concept more difficult than what we do. And it’s worked very well for us.