Error reduction in construction - the US perspective

Sue Klawans from the US Design and Construction Excellence Exchange demonstrated collaboration in action with her presentation to the GIRI members in February that shared the US approach to quality improvement and DCX initiatives that have helped move the needle on error reduction.

The Design and Construction Excellence Exchange (DCX) began life in 2008 as the Construction Quality Executives Council, an ad hoc group of quality leaders from different organisations who wanted somewhere to come together to discuss pains and find a way to share gains. 

Sue Klawans, who became involved with DCX while working in a corporate leadership role in the construction sector, explained that the group formed against the backdrop of a construction industry in which the term ‘quality’ had become devalued and was seen as something that the client wouldn’t pay for. “The new terms were ‘operational excellence’, or ‘efficiency’, or ‘lean’ – but we were all talking about the same thing, and it had become a source of frustration.”

The DCX focuses on four value streams: 

1. 1. the individual
2. 2. project teams
3. 3. organisations
4. 4. the industry 

The intention is to provide everyone from the individual up with actionable insights that can be used to drive improvement at every level. “We do that through interaction and work sessions ‒ people of different generations and experiences coming together to share their views ‒ through data sharing and analysis, and through the development of resources for our members.”

The face of the work

The organisation began by concentrating on quality assurance and control at the trades level and day-to-day management of the trades. “We gained traction by fostering a culture of trust and building relationships so that members were comfortable sharing their data within the group, knowing that it would not be used by industry peers to gain competitive advantage. Then we began to attract interest from designers, clients and trade contractors, and we rebranded as the DCX to be more inclusive.” 

They started by aggregating data from members, said Sue. That data came in different forms, because every organisation tracked different things, and included things like non-conformance reports (NCRs), warranty calls, and data from lessons learned and risk management. It was also incomplete. “Generally, people in the group considered that they were capturing maybe a third of NCRs, for example, and we had to decide what we could extrapolate from that data.

“We started by tracking lagging indicators of error – what had gone wrong. Next, we looked at error rates and used the data that most companies could get their hands on. Not all our members were able to share data, and some of them weren’t tracking, but we got to a critical mass.”

Data insights

That data, in 2010-2012, revealed the highest severity/highest frequency errors were with cast-in-place concrete. Other areas of concern were plumbing and leaks (moisture events on site other than the building exterior), plaster board and gypsum, and structural issues related to a building’s exterior walls. While concrete remains high in the latest data from 2020-2025, Sue explained that DCX has expanded in the intervening years to encompass more civil works members doing lots of concrete work. But in other areas like plumbing and leaks and exterior walls and roofing, the data reveals these errors are no longer featuring among the high severity/high frequency events.

“So, what happened? We started small by producing resource guides. We sat down together and looked at what the data was showing us and what we could do about it, including developing guidance about what should be happening at each stage of a project to reduce these kinds of risks. And in an area like plumbing and leaks, for example, we would have a company share a framework they had developed to reduce these errors, from which we could not only create a framework for use by the group, but which also provided members with learnings they could take back to their own organisations.”

This work coincided with what Sue described as an industry sea change since 2007, a progression from ‘I guess this just happens’ to carrying out design and constructability reviews and hiring third-party experts with the aim of reducing things like exterior wall and roofing issues. “Would I like to think that DCX was a part of that change? Sure, of course.”  

Upstream impact

These initiatives to respond to the data took DCX from an organisation focused on the face of the work to looking at opportunities to make an impact upstream. “Private construction in the US operates on a ‘whatever the client wants’ basis, which changes daily, so we looked at what we could do further up the chain, recognising that we don’t really have a system that is working because of all the distractions, changes and problems.”

Based on the RIBA plan of works, DCX attempted to define the major gateways of projects such as between early design decisions and definitive design decisions. “We tried to think in terms of creating ‘valves’ between each stage, and backflow prevention. So, for instance, if design decisions aren’t definitive, you cannot pass through the gate, because going backwards is very costly and disruptive to schedule and morale.”

In each of those stages, DCX began to put together the areas where it could influence change. “Basically, it was about ensuring certainty in terms of what needs to be done when the trades are ready to start. It is a form of way-finding for us, and as we do new initiatives, we are now looking at each of these stages, not simply at the face of the work. Our members have taken this back to their companies and that constructability review is an initiative that many companies have put in place, and it has turned quality from a compliance issue to a support department helping the project team’s success.”

Flipping the script

But it isn’t only about error, said Sue. “The best teams flip the script. They don’t just collect data about what went wrong but also about what went right. For example, if we’re getting something 95% right, let’s learn from that and do a root cause of success. And what we found is that the data captured by our systems doesn’t tell the whole story. It doesn’t capture things like behaviours. So we sent our members back to their companies to find out their critical-to-success factors – those things that enable us to identify that a project is going well – and we are trying to make these objective so we can track them in a system.”

Takeaways

“Enhancing productive collaboration starts with people and building mutual trust,” Sue said in conclusion. “Trust is essential if we are to get data and use it powerfully. And we need to engage current leaders while bringing in the next generation. Embrace data sharing; this is imperative. But don’t act solely on the data you can get. Just because I can extract something from a system about checklists or NCRs doesn’t mean I should stop there.

“And we are stronger together. I am here today because I think there is benefit to be gained from organisations like ours collaborating and by our members working with each other. I hope that together we can yield some productive results.”

Become a GIRI member and attend the next members' meeting.