Practice pathogen

The practice of poor assumption during decision making has caused significant disruptions to the public projects, This is prevalent especially in public infrastructure projects delivery. Understandably, given the nature of highly complex engineering projects, many assumptions have to be made during the initial planning and design phase. This evidence is based on Consultant CS1’s experience in dealing with a bridge project. In this case, the public organisations initially wanted to utilise an existing bridge and upgrade it into a main road instead of building a new road, in order to reduce costs. Although this practice was seen as a way to save money, the initial estimates for the existing bridge failed to consider the high traffic load that would come when the bridge became a main road.

The existing bridge is used mainly by the local people to commute to their plantation farm. If we were to modify this existing bridge to become the main road, there would be significantly more traffic. These costs unfortunately were not captured during the award stage.

The consultant stated that the estimates were based on basic upgrading works which were not sufficient to the project. Further inspection, simulation and projection of the traffic load over 10 to 20 years had to be conducted by additional specialists to ensure the bridge could carry the expected high loading, which subsequently added to the budget. It can be seen here that poor assumption by the public organisations on the costs of reusing the bridge had increased their vulnerability to budget overruns. In making such decision to save costs, additions to the design and resources when reusing the bridge went unnoticed throughout the planning stage, causing a significant increase in the project budget. This shows that the practice of satisfying cost-saving goals could result in being pathogenic to the public organisations. In this case, the public organisations’ decision to conform to the lower-cost solution of reusing the existing bridge instead of building a new one further increased the budget due to the current condition of the bridge. The consultant’s practice of outsourcing work to assess the bridge could also be pathogenic to the project budget as additional external parties need to be engaged to execute the design work.

Expert PO2 addressed a similar pathogenic practice of poor assumption in decision making. During the construction of a roadwork project, a utility was discovered on-site that could not

the planning and design phase. The practice of poor assumption by looking at design drawings in the initial phase without actual verification on-site had a pathogenic effect on the subsequent construction phase of the project. However, Consultant CS2 argued that such carelessness in assumption can not be predicted as an error until an actual disruption occurs on-site. It was noted that while some risks can be identified earlier, underground utilities such as water pipes and piling can only be identified later during excavation on-site.

Because we are dealing with a very long highway, we can not afford to survey all 50 points of the site due to the limited cost and time imposed by the public organisations. So we can map only 7 to 8 points or locations in our design. (CS2)

Thus, it might be that the public organisations not wanting to spend much money and time on the planning phase contributed to their vulnerability to the utility disruption in the first place. Expert PO1 also acknowledged that despite having a project management plan, the public organisations usually rushed things and did not work according to plan. This acceleration in delivering plans is usually due to the added pressure by top management, leading to the consultant proceeding with tentative assumptions based on the limited time and resources available for producing the final design. Examples of these disruptions and the pathogens that contributed to their occurrence are represented in Figure 5.3a below.

Figure 5.3a: Underlying practice pathogen that caused disruptions

On the other hand, Expert PO3 stated that sometimes disruptions arise from the bottom tier of the supply chain (i.e. sub-contractors, suppliers). He highlighted that even though the public organisations have identified the list of qualities or the checklist of specifications beforehand, the team or sub-contractors selected by the contractors may not comply with the government

Pathogens

• The practice of poor assumption by looking at design drawings at the initial phase without the actual verification.

• The practice of acceleration and cost saving at planning phase by the public organisations.

Disruptive Event

• Budget was not sufficient to cover the costs of reusing the bridge

• A utility was discovered on site that could not be replaced due to high costs of replacement

•

Disruption Effect

• Budget overruns • Delay in operation • Increase in the costs

of operation due to rework

Supply Chain Vulnerability

• Additions to the design and resource went unnoticed

• High reliance upon specialty sources by consultant

• Consultant proceed with tentative assumptions due to limited time and resource

standard. This is attributed to the fact that the sub-contractors want to cut costs, for higher profit. This shows that the practice of cost saving is prevalent not just in the contractor’s operation but also by the sub-contractors at the bottom tier of the supply chain. This act is perceived as pathogenic to the project manager as it could ultimately disrupt the quality of the final product. Furthermore, the practice of cost saving by sub-contractors was also perceived as pathogenic to Contractor CO4. He stated that the main contractor ultimately bears the loss when they outsource their work to such incompetent sub-contractors or suppliers, as the schedule and timeline are under the control of the main contractor. He further argued that it was hard to predict that the cost saving act by his sub-contractors could lead to disruption in his operations, until his sub-contractors made the actual mistakes on-site. Consequently, this pathogen of cost saving by sub-contractors causes loss of productivity and profit on the contractor’s side and affect the public organisations’ ability to get the best value of money from the project due to the poor quality of work. Nevertheless, Contractor CO2 found that such pathogen arising from sub-contractors can ultimately be controlled by the main contractor by ensuring timely payment to the sub-contractors.

The practice of prioritising projects by their prominence in the public organisations was also perceived as pathogenic to the consultant’s operations. Consultant CS2 reflected on cases where such prioritisation had halted the design phase of another public roadwork project. The consultant emphasised that as the same people in the public organisations handle multiple projects at a time, the projects have to be narrowed down and prioritised. The project that the consultant was specifically involved in, however, was not under the priority category, further drawing out the decision-making process. The slow decision-making process had subsequently caused disruptions and delay to the design process of over a year, when initially the consultant was supposed to be contracted for only one year. This also caused loss of productivity on the consultants’ side of the work. The consultant expressed their predicament that they still needed to continue with the design despite the halt of this phase as they still needed to submit a monthly progress report to the public organisations to show progress. For the consultant, this was a waste of time, as necessary design work could have been done during that time if the public organisations had made a decision. This shows how the public organisations’ practice of prioritising projects is seen as pathogenic to the consultants as it could disrupt their ability to design the roadwork progressively and on time. Indeed, Expert PO2 from the public

pathogenic practice of prioritisation of projects was preceded by the public organisations’ poor utilisation of additional resources, as the same professionals in the firm handled multiple projects at a time and their consultant was left waiting for a response. This ultimately affected the project team’s efficiency in delivering the project on time. The subsequent construction phase of the roadwork project then faced significant delay because the preceding design work had been halted.

The summary of the pathogens that contribute to the supply chain’s vulnerabilities from the abovementioned cases are highlighted in Figure 5.3b below.

Figure 5.3b: Underlying practice pathogen that caused disruptions

Next, the circumstance pathogen highlighted by the respondents is discussed below.