Stephen Coppin – Next steps from DCW roundtables

Stephen Coppin - Next steps from DCW roundtables

Post DCW Feedback

Stephen Coppin

Stephen Coppin - Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220609

STEPHEN COPPIN thought that DCW went very well, despite his opinion that there was too much background noise as the space was too open and busy.

RICHARD says that people do appreciate the face-to-face meetings, even if it’s just every few months. GEORGE interjects to say that Scott from PRP has offered his boardroom for meetings. STEPHEN was on the construction team at DCW. he though the format was OK, but missing some information they got through in the end to realise what should be focused upon. People approached it with their different knowledge fields and looking at it from their specific angle. Ultimately, they realised there were implications outside of their little silos/their projects. RICHARD said that’s partly due to the new participants on the roundtable.

STEPHEN’s group did not get through the RACI (matrix) dues to some peoples misunderstanding. They realised it was about the what, when and how of procurement - it needs to come back to ‘how is a project is set up regarding strategy, who is responsible for what? what information needs to be captured (re design)?’. You need to capture design change information and consider degrees of risk. Things need to be logged and categorised.

Builders are not as good at maintenance/operation/use of assets as they are at build-ability, they have to pressurised to that. They need to log things and be aware of where the information is. STEPHEN is very enthusiastic about RACI from his time in procurement - it ensured people consulted and informed each other. It took 10 months of RACI workshops etc to make it part of the culture.

Stephen now designs risk management with RIBA and ICE training courses to get designers to be more organised with their spreadsheets. BIM also helps with this process of ‘visualisation’. Identify the significant risks and break it down to build-ability, maintainability and usability of the assets. Also, now, building safety regarding structural and fire - it’s all about life safety (as developed on building projects in the middle east).

STEPHEN thinks they should finish off the exercise from DCW at the next construction meeting, it will help to clarify what it’s supposed to be. The methodology can then be applied to other assets, as RICHARD says. GEORGE thinks it’s worth setting up a construction meeting to deal with completing the DCW exercise specifically. STEPHEN says he’ll be able to shorten his meeting that clashes with the next scheduled construction meeting in order to attend it.

GEORGE, regarding the format, says that in principle the idea of RACI is of value. They should use the example of the flat layout again. Also, take the questions about two of the asset types (doors/floors/walls)…the relevance of whether the things that were going into the walls were of the right specification. GEORGE thinks that all of the information that there are RACIs against should be turned into questions. e.g. type of the door is a reasonable question, and also the age of the door. Actually, George says, a lot of them are already questions…

STEPHEN says they are prompts and if they are not there something will be missed.

GEORGE says that to create machine readable data they are going to need material call and a list of answers. This was a problem at the DCW that everyone was concentrating on the ‘compromised’ tab.