Managing Construction Risks
>>
The views and opinions
expressed herein are those
of the author and do not
necessarily reflect those of the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete
Institute or its employees.
Use lean principles
to improve drafting quality
Mike Strain
Certain precast concrete producers have achieved impressive productivity
gains in production through the use of lean-process-improvement methods.
In an effort to become totally lean, forward-thinking producers are using
the same approach to improve all processes, with drafting and engineering
being a top priority. This article summarizes how to use lean principles to
significantly improve drafting quality. Lean methods applied to drafting will
also achieve faster throughput (produce drawings more quickly) and higher
productivity for drafters and checkers.
In this article I use the lean-management definition of a defect. A defect
has occurred any time an output (for example, an erection drawing, a shop
ticket, or a material list) is not 100% correct. This definition raises the bar
for quality in drafting to the level at which a red line on a checked draw-
ing is considered a defect, which is far beyond a more basic defect, such as a
dimension error that is detected during production or erection.
Drawing defects are costly for most precasters. In a typical midsized
precasting plant (one that has about $30 million to $40 million in revenue),
the annual recorded remake and repair costs might typically range from $0.5
million to $2 million, with a portion of these costs originating from drafting
defects. However, the hidden costs of drafting defects in production and in
the field are greater than the recorded costs. Many organizations find what
they term the rule of 10 to be accurate: the cost of correcting a drafting
defect increases by a factor of 10 as the mistake moves from drafting ($1) to
production ($10) to the field ($100).
Examples of the unrecorded costs of drawing defects include schedul-
ing disruptions to daily plant and site activity to resolve drawing problems;
overtime because crews are delayed while dealing with a drawing issues;
defects created by plant or field personnel as they rush to compensate for
time lost while a drawing error is rectified; the extra time required to inter-
pret a poorly formatted drawing; lost productivity because a task is harder
to perform as a result of a drawing deficiency; the extra costs incurred for
materials that have to be rush ordered, both from external suppliers and
from internal steel and carpentry shops; and higher-than-needed levels of
frustration and poor communication among departments.
Drafting-quality improvement is a major opportunity for most precast-
ers, and defect reduction is an important first step toward improving pro-
ductivity and reducing cycle time.
PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 139
 Simplified value-stream map for submittal process

Information-
late,
incomplete Correct
defects

Project Assemble Prepare Drafting

award and information Complete? drawings check Correct?
Y
turnover (RFI, etc.)
N N
1–3 cycles
Multiple cycles
cycles

1–2 cycles

Correct Correct
defects defects

N External
Engineer Prepare
review Correct? and issue submittal Correct?
Y package
submittal
review

Simplified value stream map for shop tickets/material list process

Correct Correct
defects defects
Multiple cycles
cycles
Prepare Check Issue to Correct
shop tickets tickets, Correct? Y
plant plant and
and material material field
lists lists N problems
1–2 cycles

Simplified drafting value-stream maps highlight defects.

High defect • Erection drawings

— The drafting checking process may result in red lines on 25% to
frequency 100% of the drawings.
— The engineering review process may result in red lines on 10%
The figure on the following page to 50% of drawings.
provides a high-level summary of the — The cycle of draw and check is typically repeated at least once
drafting process. Defect frequency is and as many as three times before drawings are approved,
high, as is illustrated in the following though they still might not be free of error.
examples. — Reviewing submittals results in 10% to 50% of submittals either
needing revisions as noted or, less often, revisions and
resubmission.

140 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

 • Shop tickets and material lists doesn’t review the order to determine
— A drafting check, performed by a checker, of shop tickets may if key information is missing until well
result in red lines on 50% to 100% of shop tickets. into the widget process. With incom-
— The drafting check, performed by a checker or peer, of material plete information, widgets are often
lists detects many errors. produced incorrectly and late.
• Plant and field Even though information is criti-
— Drawing and material-list errors typically occur daily in pro- cal, the process for receiving informa-
duction and the field. From 5% to 50% of shop tickets and tion from the customer is not clear
material lists may have defects. and often results in finger-pointing
— Typical examples of errors include elevation errors; missing or among sales/estimating, project man-
inaccurate dimensions; material quantity and selection errors; agement, and operations.
reinforcement placement conflicts; and format shortcomings
Quality problems with incom-
such as too much or too little information on the drawing, draw-
ing information Often, only partial
ing complexity, and key information not being highlighted.
information is provided to the widget
maker. For example, information
related to a color or a detail pertain-
Sources of defects ing to the shape of the widget may be
missing. This becomes even more of a
Drafting defects arise from a wide variety of sources: problem when, as in many instances,
• inexperience and lack of training the widget requirements change
• poor planning during the process. As a result, work
• information that is incomplete, incorrect, or late on the widget is often stopped while
• incorrect assumptions the widget manufacturers wait for
• lack of attention or poor work ethic information. Each time work restarts,
• poor self-check process time is wasted on determining the
• time pressure status of the job when it was stopped.
• overreliance on checker to find mistakes In addition, the widget maker needs
to continually make sure that it has
up-to-date requirements. Often, the
Insights to improve drafting quality widget maker has to backtrack and
Although they are not directly comparable, a comparison of the drafting
rebuild portions of the widget as new
process and the manufacturing process is a helpful way to illustrate methods
information is introduced. Because of
to reduce defects. The comparison demonstrates the numerous common-
this disjointed information flow, a key
sense approaches to quality improvement that can readily be applied to
piece of information might be over-
drafting processes.
looked or misinterpreted, resulting in
The widget manufacturer’s goal is to produce defect-free widgets on time
a defective widget.
and at the lowest possible cost. The drafter’s goal is to produce defect-free
drawings and material lists on schedule and within the prescribed number of Unrealistic schedules, poor plan-
hours. In the following examples, a widget is comparable to drafting output ning, lack of resources The schedule
and an order from a customer is equivalent to a project. for an order is unrealistic. For
I have already noted that in a typical drawing or shop-ticket checking example, the widget maker’s process is
process, from 50% to 100% of the drawings might be returned with red set up to produce 10 widgets per day,
lines that require correction after the first pass of checking. In our widget but in order to meet the customer’s
example, that would be similar to making a widget where more than half of schedule for a particular order, 15
the output is defective. A factory with that first-pass quality performance widgets per day are required. Through
would take urgent action to reduce the defect rate to an acceptable level, a lack of planning, the scheduling
which might be as low as 0% for some manufacturing processes. conflict is not detected and no extra
Consider the corrective actions that would be implemented if some or all resources are assigned to this order.
of the following were observed in widget production. As a result, when it becomes evident
that the order will be late, the widget
Lack of information-management processes The widget factory makes
maker rushes, quality deteriorates, and
custom widgets and customers can place orders for their widgets without
the schedule is not met.
providing all of the specifications and information. Some customers place or-
If a widget maker is asked to pro-
ders to reserve capacity and delivery dates but are slow to provide the infor-
duce 100 widgets, at a rate of 10 wid-
mation needed to produce the widget. In other instances, the widget maker
gets per day, 10 days will be required.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 141

 The widget maker is busy with other not communicated back to the widget maker. Therefore, not only is account-
orders and doesn’t start this activ- ability lacking, but information needed to improve quality is not available.
ity until 5 days before the due date.
Lack of uniform work practices In this factory, 10 people make widgets.
Again, because of planning and sched-
Each has invented a process that suits his or her personal style so that the
uling process weaknesses, the delay is
widget manufacturing method is different for each widget maker. Therefore,
not detected or communicated. On
the team can’t share best practices and process variability contributes to vari-
the due date, the parties expecting the
ances in the final product and to quality problems.
widgets are disappointed.
Lack of time standards The widget maker is asked to make 100 widgets,
Lack of training Widget makers are
but few time standards are used to guide how long the process should take.
provided with training and a process
With the lack of such standards, a poorly motivated widget maker takes 50%
designed to produce error-free output.
longer than a more-motivated widget maker. These differences might be
Once widget makers have demon-
noticed internally, creating frustration among the more-motivated members
strated the required proficiency, they
of the team.
are accountable to produce widgets
correctly the first time and every time. Interruptions, distractions Accurate widget making requires high levels
During a busy period, an experienced, of concentration. However, the widget makers are regularly interrupted or
fully trained widget maker is not avail- distracted in the work area for various reasons, including phone calls, noise,
able, so a new order is assigned to a far social conversations, or work discussions. These all break concentration and
less experienced widget maker. Even contribute to defects.
though this inexperienced widget
Lack of performance measures The widget factory does not track qual-
maker does not yet have the expertise
ity, productivity, or cycle time. This provides little incentive for the team to
to produce an error-free widget, no
improve or to better plan its work.
additional supervision or guidance
is provided. Not surprisingly, the Poor aptitude, attitude About a third of the widget makers are viewed as
widget quality declines dramatically. having either a poor aptitude for widget making or a don’t-care attitude.
When the junior widget maker’s work Even though this opinion is shared by department managers and others with-
is checked, extensive reworking is in and outside the department, no action is taken to improve the situation.
required. The quality control checker
Poor morale, communication The widget assemblers experience low mo-
is frustrated because of the extra time
rale, often feeling that they are in a no-win position regarding schedules and
required to check and explain all of
quality. In their view, they are left to deal with poor-quality information and
the defects, and a step sometimes must
tight schedules. Their customers regularly express dissatisfaction with timeli-
be repeated two or three times before
ness, quality, communication, and planning.
the widget is right.
Supervision, organizational-structure weaknesses The organizational
Overreliance on quality checking
structure of the widget department is flat, with 6 to 12 people reporting to
to find defects The widget factory has
their supervisor, the chief widget maker. The chief widget maker is often
developed a culture in which the wid-
overwhelmed attempting to meet tight schedules and resolve a high number
get makers have low accountability for
of quality problems, even sometimes jumping in to make or correct widgets.
their own quality. They pass partially
A significant amount of department time is spent reacting to problems. As a
completed or poor-quality widgets to
result, the supervisor is described as working “heads-down” on daily activity
quality control, where the defects are
rather than truly managing the department.
marked and then returned for correc-
tion. This cycle is often repeated two
or more times. Sometimes the original
widget makers aren’t required to make Defect-reduction principles
their own corrections and are even less
accountable for their quality. Many effective tools have been developed to reduce defects in production
and other processes that also readily apply to drafting.
Lack of feedback and account-
ability A widget maker regularly
produces defects. Some of these Error-proof the process
defects are detected by quality control, A major principle of lean manufacturing is error proofing the process.
while others pass through to the next In other words, analyze, then modify, the process to reduce or eliminate the
process where they cause significant root causes of a defect. In modern manufacturing, a variety of lean methods
disruptions. However, the nature and are used to reduce defect rates, but the focus is on process improvement.
frequency of the defects are generally Process improvement efforts focus on examining each step required to make

142 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal

the product but also include other critical factors, such as the process of
training employees who will then be expected to produce error-free output.
Corrective actions
Error-proofing tools include standardized work practices, checklists, tem- to reduce defects,
plates, standard libraries, and training. Simple techniques, including the five
whys (a method used to explore cause-and-effect relationships by asking five
improve drafting
different why questions), are used to understand not just the symptom but quality
also the root of the defect.
Lacking information-manage-
Shut down to identify and correct cause of defect
In very lean organizations, the process is shut down when a defect ment processes
is observed. A team then analyzes the cause of the defect and corrective A well-defined, streamlined pro-
action—a process change—is implemented. Then the line is restarted. Each cess is needed to facilitate the flow
defect is highly visible and quick action is taken to identify and eliminate the of information to drafting. Rate the
underlying cause. quality of the information for each
project at key stages: during the sales
cycle, as the project is handed off
Build quality into the process to operations, and finally as draft-
The best measure of quality is first-time or first-pass quality performance.
ing begins. Use the ratings to drive
Producing high quality after two or three passes is wasteful. The common
appropriate action to assemble needed
drafting cycle—with multiple rounds of check, red-line, correct, then
information.
recheck—needs to improve so that a higher proportion of drawings are
Improve sales processes to assem-
accurate on the first pass.
ble more-complete information earlier
and to communicate to customers the
Do not pass defects to next process importance of providing information
Defects should never be passed from one process to the next. The sup- on time. Have absolute clarity at each
plier process must ensure 100% quality before passing items to the next stage in the project regarding who is
processes. To further ensure quality, the receiving process should confirm responsible for getting information
incoming quality. (sales/estimating, project manage-
ment, drafting). Ensure that those
charged with getting information
Take measurements and give direct feedback have the right skills. Protect draft-
Defects must be measured and real-time feedback must be provided
ing from low-quality information,
when defects are detected.
when necessary provide additional
drafting-schedule time to compensate
for poor-quality information, or delay
the start of the project until adequate
information is supplied. Within draft-
ing, implement information best prac-
tices to speed the flow of information.

Drafting evaluation for medium-risk project

Evaluation factor Rating

Completeness of information (good, average, poor) Average

Complexity (low, medium, high) Low

Schedule (reasonable, tight, problem) Reasonable

Personnel (highly experienced, experienced, inexperienced) Experienced

Overall project risk rating (low, medium, high) Medium

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 143

 Drafting evaluation for high-risk project
Evaluation factor
Completeness of information (good, average, poor)
Complexity (low, medium, high)
Schedule (reasonable, tight, problem)
Personnel (highly experienced, experienced, inexperienced)
Overall project risk rating (low, medium, high)
Incoming information quality
problems
Improve information-flow process.
Unrealistic schedules, poor
planning, lack of resources
Improve planning to more accu-
rately assess the time required for the
project. Evaluate the capability and
availability of personnel assigned to
the project. Ensure that the scope of
each project is reviewed at an early
stage and a credible plan is in place. If
a resource problem is detected, devel-
op a solution (for example, reallocate
resources from other projects or use
subcontractors to handle the over-
load). Depending on the magnitude
of a schedule challenge, support from
upper management may be needed to
identify a solution. Individual drafters
should manage their own schedules
and be accountable for detecting and
reporting schedule problems for their
projects.
A credible project plan begins with
an accurate evaluation of the project.
Key evaluation factors include the
following:
• information quality, com-
pleteness
• complexity
• schedule
• personnel
• overall project rating
144 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal
Rating
Poor
High
Problem
Inexperienced
High
Two examples of a project evaluation are shown. One shows a medium-
risk project, while the other shows a high-risk project.
The high-risk project will require additional supervision and resources
to compensate for anticipated challenges related to information, less-expe-
rienced personnel, and a tight schedule. The key to success is to identify the
risk factors early, then build solutions into the project plan. For example,
assess options and then provide answers to critical questions such as: What
is the plan to deal with the poor information? What is the plan to deal with
the less-experienced personnel assigned to the project? How will we deal
with the tight schedule?
Often, higher-risk projects with a profile such as the one in the table are
managed no differently from lower-risk projects. When these projects run
into trouble, significant amounts of time are required to get back on track
and customer relations are damaged. An up-front assessment is a sound tool
to ensure more proactive planning and to highlight the actions needed to
reduce the frequency of problem projects.
Lack of training and proficiency evaluation
Assess drafter proficiency for each project. Assign drafters to projects that
match their proficiency levels. Then hold the drafters accountable for their
performance to ensure that expectations are met.
Implement a structured training program to increase drafter proficiency.
If the drafter is not fully proficient, recognize this up front and provide
appropriate levels of guidance so that expected quality levels are main-
tained, rather than let the drafter produce poor-quality work that requires
extra effort to rectify. The senior drafter assigned to provide guidance then
becomes accountable for quality until the junior drafter is judged to be profi-
cient and able to accept full accountability for quality.
Low first-time quality rates, overreliance on quality control
Clarify the expectation that each drafter is responsible for quality and
that drawings should be thoroughly self-checked and produced correctly
the first time. Use checklists to assist with self-checking and error detection.
Error proof the process. Examine the frequency of defects, determine the
root cause, and implement corrective action.
Red lines caught by checking should be an exception rather than the
norm. Defect rates should be recorded using visual management tools.
Lack of feedback, accountability, and quality performance • Adopt error-proofing tech-
niques.
measures • Hold individuals accountable
Record and communicate defect frequency, typically by type of defect.
for their quality, and reduce
Provide timely feedback on quality at each checkpoint: checker to drafter,
reliance on checking.
engineer to drafter, and production and field departments to drafting
• Improve project assessment
department. A best practice is for individual drafters to take ownership of
and planning.
their quality and their quality measures.
• Improve training and profi-
Measure quality at all steps in the process:
ciency evaluation.
• Erection drawings: number of drawings with red lines, source and
• Implement standardized best
frequency of defects, and number of times the draw-check cycle is
practices for drawing and self-
repeated
checking.
• Engineering review of drawings: number of drawings with red lines
• Strengthen department super-
and number of times the draw-check cycle is repeated
vision and management skills.
• Submittals: number of revisions to submittals
• Deal with poor attitudes or
• Shop tickets: number of drawings with red lines, source and fre-
aptitudes.
quency of defects, and number of times the draw-check cycle is
• Measure defect rates.
repeated
• Material lists: number of defects per material list Typical goals for high-performance
• Production and field: percentage of drawings and material lists with drafting and quality are to:
errors and source and frequency of defects • reduce defect frequency to a
rate of 25% to 50% annually
• target no more than one cycle
Lack of standardized work practices of checking and correction
Develop and enforce the use of standardized best practices. Then work to
• reduce checking efforts by sig-
continually improve the standard process.
nificantly improving first-time
drawing quality
Interruptions and distractions The payback for low-defect,
Analyze the work area and reduce interruptions and distractions. Assess higher-quality drafting is large, with
the work environment to identify opportunities to reduce noise. Reduce savings in drafting costs in addition to
social conversations if they are a source of distraction. Drawing-quality hundreds of thousands of dollars in
improvements will reduce the number of urgent interruptions from produc- production and erection benefits. In
tion and field. addition, reducing the frequency of
the draw, check, and correct cycle will
improve drafter productivity and lay
Poor aptitude and attitude
the groundwork for producing draw-
Take appropriate management action.
ings more quickly.

Poor morale and poor communication

The recommendations listed previously will improve drafting perfor-
mance and help to improve communication and morale.

Supervision and organizational-structure weaknesses

Strengthen department management and consider alternative organiza-
tional-structure options.

Conclusion
Defect-reduction techniques utilized in drafting processes will result in
much higher quality levels. Key action items include the following:
• Improve information quality and information flow process through
the combined efforts of sales/estimating, project management, and
drafting. Implement best practices for information flow.

PCI Journal | Wi n t e r 2010 145

 About the author

Mike Strain is president of MJS Management

Services, a management-consulting firm dedicated
to assisting precasting management teams with the
transformation to higher performance and profit-
ability. The group consults for a wide range of pro-
ducers and provides solutions for strategy and
business planning, productivity improvement, lean
manufacturing, high-performance organizations,
sales, technology, and operations.

Synopsis
The payback for low-defect, higher-quality drafting is large. In this column, procedures for reducing errors
and catching errors early are described.

Keywords
Drafting, management, productivity, quality control.

Reader comments
Please address any reader comments to PCI Journal editor-in-chief Emily
Lorenz at elorenz@pci.org or Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, c/o PCI
Journal, 209 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60606.

146 W int e r 2 0 1 0 | PCI Journal