#3: Is The Fox Guarding The Hen House? [on the job]

I heard a top executive for a 500m GC say to a large state client: Having the CM team manage the CPM Schedule was like letting the fox guard the hen house!

That got my attention…

He continued: Even my own construction managers will spin the project to highlight owner-side delays and hide builder-side delays. In the mean time, the very issues that need to be highlighted on the schedule for the good of the project are hidden or never added. They are never given proper attention and grow into larger problems. That’s not good for any of us. You could have heard a pin drop.  I’m thinking – this guy not only knows, but he’s secure enough to say it. And the State client is all ears.

The executive finishes by saying that he would just as soon bring in an independent, unbiased scheduling consultant to build and manage the schedule. He went a step further and said that he would be fine with the owner holding the scheduling contract.

Is this a random case, a random opinion? Or does this executive speak for many others? His firm’s reputation is outstanding.

Everything he said was in-line with what I have seen in my 23 years of combined experience as a carpenter/superintendent/project manager and project controls consultant. Yet, that is the first time I have ever heard it said out in the open.

I met with the GC executive after the meeting. He went on to say that sometimes we are our own worst enemy. And that transparency in the schedule is not only the best way to keep track of all the various activities and challenges that are ever changing on a project; he said it is also the best way to build trust with the client.

I could not agree more. When the owner’s CM sees you highlighting project risks on the schedule that were caused or perpetuated by your own forces, he believes your serious about managing the project. Consequently, you will find him less resistant to take responsibility for owner-side disruption / delay issues.

GC team’s that focus on hiding their mistakes and highlighting the mistakes of their owners are distracted from the main work at hand – producing a successful project outcomes.

After more discussion with the executive, I found out what had driven him to this position: His company had a high profile project that was currently finishing up. He just found out that they may not be able to make their deadline. When he did some digging, he found out his Superintendent has been bullying his scheduler to misrepresent the status of a few critical activities. He said this was not the first time he has run into such a scenario. Now he is ready to make a change to their system.

As a scheduling consultant, we are susceptible to similar pressures from the PM teams.  Sometimes we run into a forceful and creative PM team member that wants to impose his will on the schedule. We have to explain that there are professional and ethical standards that we are bound to follow. We are not builders, we are schedulers; so if our schedules lack integrity, we have nothing. To think that an in-house scheduler could withstand similar pressures is not realistic. This is particularly true, when the scheduler may be a direct report to the manager that is telling him to change the schedule.

Both, the in-house scheduler and the scheduling consultant that lack extensive construction experience are susceptible to another type of manipulation. Sometimes PM teams intentionally report progress inaccurately; the scheduler without extensive construction (trade) and construction management experience fall as easy prey.

The scheduler has to be capable of updating the CPM Schedule by walking the site. If the scheduler cannot walk the site and quantify activity progress, he/she is likely going to be part of the problem, not the solution. Unfortunately, this is the situation, more times than not. Hence, the fox may be the one guarding the hen house.