Sprinkler Age A Publication of the American Fire Sprinkler Association
IT’S ALWAYS A DESIGNER’S FAULT; JUST ASK ANY FITTER
If I had just one penny for every time I heard this, I would be writing this article from a privately owned beach with an umbrella drink in my hand, and not much else.
Over my years in our industry, I have had a chance to evaluate this statement from all sides of the coin. And I have concluded that this statement is 100% true. It is ultimately design’s fault for the product that is produced.
That caused me to wonder. Why is this so? I do not know exactly how many fire sprinkler designers there are on this planet. But I have had the opportunity to know and work with and train many of them. And, they are extremely dedicated, intelligent, and passionate people. So, how could all of these professionals be responsible for repeatedly and seemingly producing the same mistakes over and over?
To fully understand the answer, it is important to know exactly what design is, what it takes to produce a qualified, self-operating fire sprinkler designer, and what is required for them to be successful. This process takes years of time and a lot of money. The learning curve is very steep, and, in this day and time, operating at the speed of business makes it even more difficult. And I know there is a concern about spending all this time and money only to have the designer move to a different job offering. While this is true, I have found it to be the exception and not the norm.
The first part of this consideration and process is whether we equipped the designer with the tools and knowledge required. In this modern age, everything is done with computers and highly sophisticated software. I understand; we are all aware of the costs associated with advanced computers and software. But, if we consider the costs of the designers’ pay, the difference in savings in lost time working with less than adequate equipment costs us far more per year than the equipment and software itself. We should be mindfully conscious of this as we consider these costs.
Then there is the knowledge. If we think about this, designers are required to learn a large variety of things in a highly compressed schedule. Among these are a new language, highly sophisticated software, constructability, codes and standards, and their relationships to each other. The list goes on.
The traditional method of bringing in someone from the field with a couple of years’ experience helps with a few of these items. But more and more, we are bringing on completely green individuals, and in many cases, with a level of higher education. This produces an even greater upfront cost. But the returns are well worth the price of admission.
How do we train these individuals? What is the best approach? Did we hand the new designer a computer and a copy of NFPA 13 and expect them to learn it? In my early days of training, there were not very many resources to help with this. The learning was one-on-one. Today, there are great organizations and schools specifically dedicated to reducing training time. While the costs of participation and use may seem high, I cannot stress enough how beneficial they are!
Will we ever close the gap that exists between the designer and the field? I do not think so. And honestly, I hope not. I think some level of accountability is very healthy. But there are steps we can take to close this gap.
Are you a foreman who consistently gripes about the designer running the pipe into the steel? Or did you sit down and explain to the designer how they were hitting the steel and what steps to take to avoid it? I often say that meetings are among the most inefficient things we do. But I did not say that they were not beneficial, because they are. To that end, there are a couple of meetings you can hold that produce not only great training for the designer but also far better results for your bottom line.
The first is a job turnover meeting. Have the designer and foreman sit down together and go over the project. The designer can explain their approach and why, while also identifying any areas of concern. The next meeting should be after the job is installed. Do like the military and have an after-action report. Go over what worked. Go over what did not work. The designer craves this feedback. It cannot be overemphasized how beneficial this training is for the designer. Remember, many of these young designers have never even held a tape measure, much less a wrench.
How about a drawing review? A big part of my training was my mentor reviewing my drawing, redlining, and then going over it with me. Do you take the time to fully review the designer’s drawing and then sit down and go over the observations with them? I realize this takes time. But it is highly effective in producing a successful designer.
I always tell my new designers, “You are here to learn. I am not here to teach you.” Once they fully understand this concept, their learning deepens. When a new designer asks me a question, my response is always the same. “That is an excellent question! What does the book say?”
I require my new designers to come up with a solution to a problem they are asking about. I also require them to come with the book open to the appropriate section. This gives you insight into how they arrived at their decision. This helps you fine-tune the training to each different individual. Remember, every person learns differently.
Next, did we give the designer everything they needed to make decisions and produce a working design? I am speaking about construction documents—a full set of drawings, not the five pages that were used to estimate the project. If the designer does not have this information, how can we then expect them to make proper decisions?
It is imperative, even at the speed at which we operate, to get this information. Often, we are in such a rush that we force the designer to deliver a design with limited information. This normally results in a very upset labor superintendent and/or job foreman.
How about background files? Did we just get the reflected ceiling plan to use in the software? Then the designer just starts putting circles in squares? While it may seem like a waste of time, let’s keep in mind that much of this stuff is done in 3D today. Having these files loaded into the software allows the designer to make informed decisions on a global level. So, please do not just dismiss the importance of getting everything we can for the designer. We are paying for these expensive computers and software. We might as well use them.
Lastly, and this one is the most important one, did we equip the designer with the time to do the job properly? Did the designer have time to thoroughly review the construction documents? Were they able to spend time and drill down into the details? Study the elevations of the steel and duct so they can decide where and how high to run the pipe. Or, did we throw them a design, tell them it is hot, and expect them to produce something in a couple of weeks? Do we hand a foreman a new job with 300 heads and tell them it must be roughed in in one week? Sure, maybe it can be done. But are there going to be any mistakes and or leaks? So, why would we expect anything different when we rush a designer to do their job?
So yeah, it is ultimately the designer’s fault. But why? The words of the great Sun Tzu keep ringing in my head. “If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.” Simply put. We, as managers, are solely responsible and accountable for the success or failure of our soldiers (aka designers), not the soldiers themselves.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Matthew J. Willis is the engineering manager for the southwest region of Ferguson Fire Design, LLC, A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Ferguson Fire & Fabrication, LLC. He is a long-time frequent contributor to the AFSA SprinklerFORUM and an alternate committee member for NFPA 170. Willis has served as a life safety inspector for the state of Louisiana, and worked within all areas of inspections, testing, and maintenance including fire sprinklers, fire alarms, extinguishers, hood and pre-engineered systems. He is a former shipboard fire marshal in the U.S. Navy. Willis can be reached at matthew.willis1@ferguson.com.