Invest in training and competence to reduce errors

More investment in training and competency for key roles could reduce many errors in construction, Dr Gavin Ford, Costain’s quality and handover manager for Transport for London framework projects, told GIRI’s spring members’ meeting. Gavin was the winner of the inaugural Tom Barton Award for his PhD research project into non-conformances and rework in construction, the results of which he shared at the meeting.

In 2020, Gavin was commissioned by Costain’s technical director to do a PhD research project to help the business understand the causes of non-conformances on its project, and to identify the mostly costly causes of rework on which to focus improvement efforts.

He explained that the research was divided into two phases. “Phase one involved a quantitative  root cause analysis on 1,260 non-conformance reports (NCRs) to identify the most frequent and most costly causes of error. In phase two, we engaged with key members of projects via a 30-question survey to understand their views on the findings and ensure we got a rounded view of the situation.”

Quantitative analysis

Of the NCRs analysed, the top three identified root causes were materials management (19.6%), workmanship/poor quality execution (14.8%), and supervision issues (11.2%). Competency and training was identified as an issue in only 2.1%, but Gavin explained that it was hard to pinpoint this as the root cause in many cases, as there was often not enough information in the NCRs. ‘However, all the top root causes have recurring themes of competence.’

In terms of cost, workmanship/poor quality execution was found to have the biggest impact. “While this is not a root cause in itself, this was as far as the data set could be taken at the time. And there were quite staggering figures in terms of money spent on rework. There are also snagging defects that are not even in this data set, which brings the cost of error in line with GIRI’s assessments.” 

Qualitative research

Once this quantitative analysis had been completed, the research turned to the qualitative phase. “There were two groups we wanted to engage with – the project management team for a generalised view of the project as a whole, and the quality community. Of the 30 questions we sent them, question 20 was about the three most prevalent root causes – materials management, workmanship/poor quality execution, and supervision issues – and we asked what they thought were the focus areas to prevent repetition of these errors. The top answer for both groups was workforce competence.”

Suggestions of where to improve included competency checking for key delivery roles, including engineering, quality and supervision roles, and highlighted a lack of site-based training for these roles. “Education seems to be a particular weakness in the industry, especially the back-to-basics learning on the job for engineers and understanding how things are actually built. Another weak spot is following this up with coaching, mentoring and apprenticeships.”

A further question focused on potential solutions to supervision issues. “Common themes among contract and quality leaders included greater investment at an industry and company level in workforce competence and gap analysis to ensure we have the right skills in the right roles. Respondents also mentioned lack of resources at the coalface and people stretched too thin. And, unsurprisingly, there was a focus on programme pressures. Time allocation to construct projects is clearly a weakness that needs to be considered more heavily at the tendering and planning stages.”

He added that another suggestion from the surveyed groups was quality awareness sessions. “We have done great work in the last five to 10 years on safety and identified that it is paramount that we get things right or stop work. There needs to be the same kind of awareness around quality. The statistics show that if we have a quality incident and go back and do rework, we are 70% more likely to have an accident. If we bring this back to safety, this will get people thinking about doing the right thing.”

Competency and training

“Why is it important? Why do we need to make a change? There is a lack of specific training, mentorship and coaching across the industry and one of the suggestions from my research was greater investment in training practices and education sessions. My advice for companies would be to also have a competency assessment for key delivery roles, from project management all the way down to ground level. That way we can ensure that we are putting the right people forward for the right roles and ensure they have a good understanding of what they are asked to deliver.”

Another of Gavin’s recommendations is site-based and environment-based training at sector, company and project level. “This is something we have started to implement more at Costain, because some of our graduates and junior engineers lack back-to-basics learning and are pushed too quickly into project management.”  

Then, linked to competency assessments, Gavin recommended mandating role-specific training and educational sessions on quality and continuous improvement. “Coaching and mentorship syllabuses would be very useful, and we have started trying to do this at Costain, but it has been quite slow and there is a lack of investment in apprenticeships. If we can move forward with apprenticeships, developing those skillsets early on for different elements of the work, that would be helpful.”

Finally, he recommended ensuring there are clearly defined roles, responsibilities and expectations in line with the competency assessment matrix. “This would give those doing recruitment a clear baseline as to the skills that are suitable for our roles and what we need as an organisation.”

Become a GIRI member