PREMISE #1: Excellence in steel detailing reduces costs in steel fabrication and erection.
PREMISE #2: Defining and understanding what internal processes undermines excellence and quality in the detailing product becomes elemental to achieving the aims of PREMISE #1.
PREMISE #3: Developing the metrics for supporting PREMISE #1
IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES: It is important to note that the reason there is a Steel Detailing Industry to begin with, is that steel subcontractors identified the “time sink” of preparing their own shop and erection drawings, as fraught with risk and uncertainty. Steel subcontractors are experts at fabricating and erecting custom fabricated structural and miscellaneous steel, and essentially do not want the added risk and complexity of preparing shop detail drawings. Progressively, over the last 5 or 6 decades, there have been several factors that have plagued shop drawing production and thereby substantiated the decision that major steel subcontractors made sometime in the mid-1950’s to subcontract this aspect of their contractual responsibilities to service vendors, i.e., steel detailing firms. Some of these factors are:
- Advancements in engineering design technology and increased yield strength in structural steel profiles have led to more precise and sophisticated structural analysis. As a result, the steel fabrication industry has been able to produce more “pieces” and cover more “floor area” with progressively less steel weight, year after year. This has also resulted in more complex and less repetitive structural components in each project.
- Fabrication production technology has advanced to meet the increasing demands of project schedules, and detailing technology has evolved alongside it. While automation and robotics have made great strides in fabrication, the industry’s belief over 30 years ago that “the computers would do it” now seems shortsighted. It’s clear today that skilled training, education, and ongoing learning for steel detailers, as well as shop and field personnel are essential. Steel detailing remains a vital skill for ensuring profitable production success.
- The presentation and communication of design intent have been compromised by the pressures of project acceleration and expedited delivery systems, which prioritize shortcuts and increase risks and liabilities for subcontractors and vendors. As a result, the once-clear distinction between design and execution has become an increasingly blurred line of data exchange. Consequently, “design” and “detailing” have often been merged without a well-defined framework for adjusting the project delivery system. In traditional project delivery, the “debugging” of design detail is often treated as a downstream responsibility, rather than an acknowledged and structured function.
- Technological developments in the steel detailing process, have resulted in steel detailing firms being able to process and produce greater output and greater results, for somewhat the same percentage of client-contract price for the last 30 or more years. Each iteration of production capability having only resulted in detailing firms “pedaling faster and faster” rather than enlarging their piece of the project development “pie”, that is merited by their contribution to the project’s success.
- Advancements in technology led to the misconception that with the right software and a trained “operator,” high-quality detailing could be easily produced. This myth gained traction within the steel fabrication industry, which, while highly experienced in steel fabrication, is not as familiar with the intricacies of detailing. As a result, some competitors in the detailing industry have adopted a strategy of relying on “blended” labor rates to address project challenges, essentially throwing more resources at problems. However, the reality is that quality detailing requires a deep understanding of fabrication, erection, and detailing craft knowledge, combined with proper training and experience. Simply put, detailers must be more than just “machine operators.” Despite the rise of AI and automation, these foundational skills remain essential and are unlikely to diminish in importance anytime soon.
- To further skew the playing field, the contracting and policy practices of these firms often diverge from industry norms. For example, they may absorb the costs of project changes and revisions, implement non-standard policies for back-charges, or deliver highly stylized products that fail to meet the client’s detailing standards.
The issues outlined above have burdened the steel detailing process with variable effect on the work product. Substantiation of PREMISE #1 is largely anecdotal, subjective and not supported by the weight of metrics and academic studies. However, there is little attention given to the experiential evidence that demonstrates how excellence in detailing overcomes these obstacles and contributes to a successful and profitable project. It is a hard sell to convince clients that quality detailing, generated from well-trained and well-qualified detailing firms is worth a cost premium without objective evidence to back up the claim. This is largely due to the lack of objective metrics to support the premise.
It is also worth noting, that for the meantime, any discussion of “excellence” must be based on 2-D drawing presentation and data files that are model generated, as well as accurate data output. Looking beyond 2-D, it is fair to say that the concerns for accurate and complete data files and transfer is going to increase substantially when and if, the industry moves to 100% data driven processes.
For my entire 57-year career in steel detailing, excellence has always been measured against the standard of “zero-defect drawings”. Poor quality has always been measured by the degree by which the product fails to meet that standard. In theory, using zero-defect shop drawings, would enable the fabricator to have complete control of their profitability through the fabrication phase of the project. In reality, we often fall somewhat short of that standard. Anything less than 100% results in assumptions, deliberations and guess work. When that occurs, a shop phone call, an email or a personal visit from an enraged ironworker usually ensues! To the production personnel in the shop, whatever problem has surfaced is the “detailer’s fault”. The “detailing deficiency” has disrupted the flow of work. Often, the fabricator’s project management or independent owner’s inspector will be engaged to create a clearer understanding of the bigger view of the issue.
Detailing Deficiencies need to be tracked internally within the detailing company. While the client may or may not be forthcoming about their contribution to the issue, the incident itself represents an opportunity to collect objective metrics about our performance. But the collection methodology needs to avoid tedious text descriptions, lengthy explanations and biased conclusions. What can happen, is that a few broad categories of deficiencies can be identified, coded and entered into a simple spreadsheet with brief references to identify the issue. Almost all issues that arise in the shop can be hacked down to one of the following “codes”.
DEVELOPING SUPPORT FOR PREMISE #3
CLASSIFICATION OF DETAILING DEFICIENCES:
- Is the deficient detailing complaint the result of a previously undiscovered design “error” or poor communication of design information or intent. (In accurate, incomplete or incorrect communication of intent)
OR
- Is the deficient detailing an inconvenience? (Undermining efficiency in the shop and/or field: Example: Noncompliance to client shop or detailing standards)
OR
- Is the deficient detailing an error? (An incorrect, additive or poor interpretation of the design intent and a subsequent “drafting” error)
OR
- Is the deficient detailing complaint an error of omission (Detail information or condition that is left out of the detailing execution.)
While each may result in a potential cost impact to the shop or field, not all impacts are created equal. Since the shop and erection drawings represent instructions to the shop and field, in a perfect world, each and every detail presented would result in unhesitating action during the fabrication process. So, let’s look at these items in more detail.
Deficiency 1: Interpretation or miscommunication in the design details and their intent, can result in serious impacts, if not discovered during the detailing process. AISC acknowledges that in order to create a level playing field, bidders, may assume that the contract documents are complete and correct. Within the “restraints” previously outlined, the matter of “completeness” begs the question: How complete? While detailing industry practices advocate extensive quality assurance procedures in detailing, we are likewise NOT responsible to “find” errors in the contract documents. It does occur, that an owner’s inspector, a welding inspector, or others that are on the scene, may expose such errors through the execution of their duties. These may have varying levels of impact, but should be set aside in the analysis of detailing performance
Deficiency 2: There are lots of ways that detailing practices can make life harder in the shop, but may not be ultimately construed as “errors”. Weld symbol in the wrong view, a dimension that is misplaced, etc. may create hesitation in the shop. Such moments, while frustrating, do not constitute a case for summary execution of the detailer! Is it an “error”, or an inconvenience? The “filter” in this instance may simply be: Can experienced and properly trained shop personnel make the product from the information provided?
Deficiency 3: Despite checking and reviewing and all of the model enhancement we may choose to include in our processes, there may still be detailing errors. It is extremely important for the integrity of the metrics, that these be analyzed and coded accurately. Knowing the frequency of such errors and their nature, is essential to evaluating our quest for excellence.
Deficiency 4: These “interpretive” misses are often very severe, but not always attributable to poor detailing. They can occur because of insufficient communication through the contract documents, poorly presented drafting or misleading and conflicting information in the contract documents. Additionally, these deficiencies can be the result of being “overlooked” or “misinterpreted” during the detailing process. These conditions, when identified as detailing deficiencies, need to be recorded and frequency noted in order to accurately assess performance.
Once data from this exercise has been accumulated, the foundation is formed to substantiate assumptions about quality issues within your organization. This approach is not intended to be “complete”. There exist a number of types and occurrences of “Detailing Deficiencies” that might be included in a schedule or spreadsheet. Clearly, it does not apply “weight” of resultant costs, potential back-charges or other organizational impacts. Areas of weak performance can be calibrated and targeted for tutoring or learning processes. Keeping it simple avoids the pitfall of over-stimulated data gathering! However, processed over a number of detailing projects there is a data trend formed can bolster the organization’s claim to excellence.