Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Building: A Mystery
Imagine that you’re buying a new car. You start with an optimistic but not ridiculous budget. You want something to haul the kids around, with a good reliability record and up-to-date safety features. You live in a region where both defrosters and air conditioners are pretty much mandatory.
You find a model you like. In the name of fiscal responsibility, you ask the dealer how much it would be without air conditioning, airbags, or an automatic transmission. You buy the stripped-down model, on the theory that you can always retrofit later. It has to be special-ordered, so it comes in after the rebate offer expires, but you figure you’re still coming out slightly ahead.
For the next two years, you pay out-of-pocket to add aftermarket options, one at a time. Each repair costs far more than the original option would have, and takes the car out of commission for days at a time.
Two years later, you’ve spent thousands more adding aftermarket products than you would have if you had just bitten the bullet the first time. (Air conditioning as a dealer option -- $800. As a retrofit, $2500. It takes a week to install, adding another $250 in rental car costs. And so on.) The car has spent lots of time in the shop getting things added, so you’ve paid for rental cars. Some of the aftermarket products aren’t really all that satisfactory, but you’ll take what you can get. You’ve spent considerable time driving around without air conditioning, airbags, and whatever else. And you probably wind up doing without a few of those options altogether, to compensate for spending too much on what you actually got. Your spouse criticizes you for pouring so much money down a rat hole; you respond, correctly, that you’ve paid careful attention to costs every step of the way, and that the costs couldn’t be helped. That’s pretty much how we do construction projects.
It’s easy, in the short run, for a college to decide to scale down a proposed project to cut costs. The problem is that the people charged with scaling it down are often not the end users, so much of what gets cut eventually finds its way back in, by necessity, leading to the dreaded-but-ubiquitous ‘overruns.’ (“Where are the electrical outlets?” “D’oh!” I’m not making that one up.) Too, price inflation in the construction world is rampant and rapid, so a project cut into ‘phases’ is guaranteed to cost more, in the end, than a project done whole-hog. What looks like prudence at the initial stage actually winds up costing much more, and yielding less, than just jumping in with both feet. And by the time the later phases roll around, the pressure to cut costs is usually even greater. So the later phases are broken into sub-phases, resulting in higher costs and lower functionality, leading to still more cost pressures. Inflation-by-penny-pinching.
(Renovation, which is often embraced as the less-expensive alternative to construction, brings its own unique nightmare: finding space for the displaced offices and people while the work is done. Storage is usually the first thing sacrificed, which is understandable, but which leads to equipment damage, trailer rental fees, and tremendous (and usually unbudgeted) diverted staff time. And has anybody ever seen ‘temporary’ storage trailers actually go away? Me neither.)
Yet the same mistakes keep happening, over and over again.
I’m all for deliberate consideration, measure-twice-cut-once, inclusion, etc. But there comes a time when someone has to make the call to pull the trigger. It takes calm nerves, a willingness to take risks, and an endurance for the inevitable Monday Morning critics. It takes the political skill and will to sell the relevant stakeholders on the wisdom of getting over the upfront sticker shock, which is considerable. It even involves a willingness to tell certain stakeholders that no, they won’t get everything they want, even if that was the original purpose of the project. It can’t be easy, or more colleges would do it.
I once heard a very experienced administrator talking about construction projects, and his advice struck me as brilliant in its Zen-like simplicity: only hire firms that have built something almost identical elsewhere, and tell them just to give you version 2.0 of what they’ve already done. Instead of doing the knee-jerk “we want to be on the cutting edge” thing, be the “fast follower” who gets the debugged version of what someone else has already spilt the requisite blood, sweat, and tears. This wouldn’t work for some very high-end, very specialized research facilities, but for teaching colleges, it struck me as retrospectively obvious. (Has anyone ever built an auditorium, smart classroom, or hockey rink before? I’m guessing ‘yes.’) Let some other college drop bodies on the barbed wire, so you can climb over those. Makes sense to me. Invest the saved millions (and we’re talking millions) in operating budgets – hiring faculty, providing financial aid to students, even marketing.
I haven’t cracked the nut of explaining why the same mistakes keep happening, though it’s not for lack of trying. Has your college found a way to avoid these same mistakes?
They were supposed to be adding an entrance to the building through ours, but they forgot about the handicapped accessible entry they needed to be up to code and so our entrance got nixed.
it's a three-story building, so they made room for an elevator. then they started digging...and discovered that the electrical conduits for the building I'm in...are where the elevator was going to be.
so no elevator, just a staircase in a very strangely wide stairwell.
(and if you need an elevator, you have to go all the way to the old side of the building. not that I'm bitter about it from when I injured my knee or anything....)
Of course, I didn't learn my lesson well enough, so now I'm in the middle of a house expansion / rehab! This time, the microfilm machine is wrapped in plastic as is the 'puter), some 4,000 books are boxed and my daughter thinks that Dad the Historian and Mom the Librarian aren't having enough fun with the mess.
The lesson here is that money can create its own set of problems! Moderation in everything, grasshopper.
Some remodeling problems affect every school, regardless. Asbestos, anyone? How about lead paint, chemical waste, radioactive materials, mercury and PBCs?
-I'm accounting as fast as I can
I’m a contributor for The Blog Reader, a new website that posts interview-based features about compelling blogs and bloggers. The site's constantly searching for new bloggers to interview, and we really like your blog; it's very well-written and originates from a unique viewpoint
I am wondering if you would be willing to participate in a phone interview? We feel that phone interviews are the best way to capture a blogger’s personality. I would call you at your convenience and, following the interview, we would notify you of the date your blog is to be featured on the site.
Please email me if you're interested in being profiled on the site. And either way, keep up the good work; we really enjoyed your blog.
As far as I know, nothing ever came of the idea, and every school is still custom-designed -- sometimes by people without any idea how children behave.
DD and Anonymous said it well when they commented about how each building is a brand new model, never designed before. That's where the car analogy fails.
Perhaps phased building occurs so often because the alternative is no building at all? If a project requires $x to be built but only 0.8x is available, then the choices seem to be 0.8x or 0x (no new building at all).
DD, your willingness to make the call in the absence of all data is part of what makes you a good dean.
This is always the correct answer. N-1 is where the sweet spot lives.
The second, is more or less the first. A well known Catholic football factory I was at wanted a new classroom building, so they got the plans for a school building from a local diocese. Unfortunately they forgot to upscale the fountains and bathrooms.
The third was a huge new university in Germany that I went to work for. Sensibly, they hired the theoretical physicists first, before the building was built. So the architects went to the physicists and asked what do physicists need, and the physicists said, a couple of plugs for our computers, a place to brew coffee, that should be enough, and it was, until us experimental types arrived.
If there is a moral in this it is that anyone considering building should hire a consultant who ramrodded a similar building through the process. Pay them what they want. It will be inexpensive.
My CC is located next to one of the most populated high schools in the city and we already have a serious traffic/ parking problem. People would wait 2 hours sometimes to find a spot! Public transportation in this city does not care if their schedule does not work. The CC made the money to build a parking garage. Their timing sucked. They started excavating the first week of fall semester when of course everyone's there, people tend to drop out the closer it gets to x-mas. They then were building throughout the wettest winter we've ever had, we had more rain then seattle for instance.
They then kill the commute just walking around campus by begginning to build a library. A huge three story library, right in the middle of campus. They started building these literally weeks apart from each other. I can't wait to use the library, I think the parking garage is a joke. Being a liberal college they should have endorsed carpooling and alternative transportation, maybe pushed the city to improve the public transportation.
But besides that the timing stinks...