Métricas de software

This is not a repeat of 7.2 with its almost identical title. In that clause we looked primarily at supervision as the hierarchical conduit for the flow of instructions, some of which found their origins in inspection. There is a certainty that the client and DT representatives will be issuing instructions under a contract. There is less certainty about their roles in inspecting the works, and it is this that is given further examination.

A quick skip through the different terms of engagement for BS designers used in the industry gives rise to an ‘optional service’ feel about inspection. It is unwise for the site manager to make assumptions as to what level of inspection to expect from the client/DT. At the same time as he explores the division of responsibility for supervision (see section 7.2.1) he should find out what inspections the client/DT representatives will be making. There should be no surprise if upon raising questions it is found that greater clarity attends the right to issue instructions, but exposes some vagueness around planned inspections.

Some of that vagueness will be removed if clerks-of-works are appointed. Their inspection lists carry with them the implied instruction for corrective action.

The site manager may find it helpful to create a matrix of responsibilities for supervision and inspection similar to the example in Table 7.1, which ties in three levels of control for QA, management, and supervision and inspection on a management contract. Under the terms of the contract and in the preliminaries and preambles of bills and specifications client/DT representatives will have set out some of their assigned duties for inspection of information delivered by the BS contractor, e.g. in relation to working drawings, QPs, safety and environmental plans, etc. These will receive comment, if not outright approval. The inspection of samples and mock ups submitted or constructed before the ‘in place’ construction occurs are usually clearly defined hold points for Client/DT approval. This applies also to offsite manufacture and testing.

The BS designer’s responsibilities for inspection on site could be as Clause 2.8(f) in Appendix 1 of the ACE Conditions of Engagement, 1995, Agreement B(2):

Attend relevant Site Meetings and make other periodic visits to the Site as appropriate to the stage of construction or as otherwise agreed to assist the Lead Consultant to monitor that the works are being executed generally in accordance with the contract documents and with good engineering practice and advise the Lead Consultant on the need for instructions to Contractors. The frequency of Site Meetings and periodic visits by the Consulting Engineer shall be as specified in The Memorandum of Agreement or as otherwise agreed between the Client and the Consulting Engineer.

The Process of inspection 165

Table 7.1 Responsibilities matrix—supervision and inspection for a management contract Note: Where DT specify they require to be represented to witness tests they will be the 1st lead in that aspect of the package works.

What you get with that is ‘a look’ by the designer when he is on site.

The ‘look’ will be sharper if it has been focused by the designer’s site staff who may be a BS clerk-of-works. The value of these ‘looks’ by visiting designers can be variable and questionable in their contribution to the management of the project. For the small BS job, say up to £0.25 million located no more than one hour’s travel from the representative designer’s office or home, and with Site Meetings starting mid-morning, the designer, limited by appointment to a monitoring role, might just make a useful contribution through the observations made on a walk round the job prior to the site meeting commencing. Appointed with the same monitoring role to a larger job or even the small job which is located so far away from office or home base the designer’s contribution may be of negative value:

1. Unable to take a pre-meeting ‘look’ the designer may feel he has got to say something and raises matters that he thinks are relevant, but because he is out of touch do nothing but waste time.

2. The designer may be inadequately represented. The fee bidding by multi-service designers precluding the attendance at site meetings of adequate representation for all BS disciplines. The attending representative is asked questions which are answered inappropriately, inaccurately, or time is lost in their referral ‘to the office’.

3. After the site meeting the DT representative takes a look at the job and tries to raise matters of concern with anyone who will speak to him, not always observing the contractual routes, before making tracks for home. The difficulty the DT representative faces in trying to get to see the architect or site manager is that they are tied up in the usual structured sub-meetings and inspections that have arisen out of the site meeting held earlier in the day. The services designer returns to the office and possibly up to the time of the next site meeting creates a misconceived air of efficiency by telephone, fax and letter as the issues of the site meeting and ‘look around’ are addressed.

The above criticism of the design engineer should not be directed at them but those clients, cost consultants and PMs whose concern is lowest cost rather than the value they may get from money spent on purchasing meaningful inspections. Years ago when buildings and services technology were simpler, the ‘look around’ visit by an experienced multi-service engineer was of value. The advances of technology embodied in widening ranges of systems, many microprocessor controlled, more closely integrated with building structure and fabric and needing to comply with care based safety and environmental legislation, have diminished the value of the ‘look around’. Applying their talents on a quick look around in the spotlight

The Process of inspection 167

168 Supervision and inspection

of today’s stage even the best multi-service engineer is ‘hanging by the fingertips’. Any inspector can only take to the job that combination of knowledge and experience of his personal track record. Some inspectors recoil at the enormity of what is expected of them, others accept the challenge, are of a questioning mind and can sort and concentrate on the key issues. These comments are made as guidance for the site manager who having discovered the assigned roles for inspection learns to judge and trust those that bring reliable information.