OAA Conference 2009 Presentation Recap

by Michael Copas on June 19, 2009
Filed Under: OAA Conference 2009

Shop Drawings/Transmittal Process Flow Chart

On May 8th 2009 at the Where are the Architects? OAA Conference, I presented a paper called Shop Drawing Control Will Never Earn a Design Award, But it Can Assure the Design Awarded. The premise was as follows:

In the 1960's a large firm could have 2 or 3 people dedicated to the receipt, forwarding and issuance of shop drawings. Today that process is barely visible. Each firm and project architect has their own methodology and style of review and delivery.

In considering this matter a participant should ask themselves:

• Do I follow a plan for processing shop drawings?
• Can I find any shop drawing that I have reviewed in a timely fashion after the fact?
• Has a contractor ever claimed that my comments on a shop drawing came too late?
• Have I ever received a shop drawing only to learn the product was already on-site?

The session examined current practises by:

• presenting the documents recommended by RAIC's Canadian Handbook of Practise for Architects for processing shop drawing,
• showing sample manual/spreadsheet methodologies from three architectural practises,
• offering a complete flow chart of shop drawing review, and

demonstrating a database solution that prepares a transmittal and effectively tracks shop drawing status.

"Shop Drawings insure and confirm the accuracy, size, and other specific data about a product or material prior to final purchase, fabrication or delivery". So it is stated in the Canadian Handbook of Practise for Architects (CHOP) - Volume 2, Management - Chapter 2.3.10, Contract Administration Office Functions.

If we accept that the above is a description of best practises for shop drawing review then we can consider that we have defined present architectural practise for the activity. If we then propose a more efficient methodology using technology then we are defining future architectural practise for this activity. This satisfied the theme of the conference - Architectural Practise Present + Future. It is also closely aligned with the theme of BIM + Emerging Technologies.

Participants at the presentation could expect:

• to realize the importance of an effective submission process,
• become aware of an efficient methodology for issuing transmittals
• to learn effective recording both incoming and outgoing transmittals, along with status of the review, and the ultimate return of the material submitted.

Learning Objectives

Participants in this session were be able to:

• be reintroduced to the importance of shop drawing review,
• discover a variety of responses to the work,
• learn how to measure the efficiency of the work,
• establish a successful strategy for dealing with shop drawings,
• how to select a technology that helps.

The questions and answers indicated that the fifty attendees were experiencing difficulty with shop drawing control and in fact control of all submissions process. As in similar presentations in the past there were those who suggested that the shop drawing process itself was flawed. In England and Ireland, for instance it was pointed out by an attendee, Shop Drawings are not required or allowed. The thinking there is that an engineer has already designed the system, to have a second engineer propose an alternate approach is unnecessary and undesirable.

There was an overall view that processing submittal was becoming a greater time consumer than other contract administration activities. Another speaker at the conference from Canon Design had some impressive statistical analysis emphasizing this observation.

This conference was another example that sharing experiences is a wonderful opportunity to learn. Unfortunately we all often tend to be too wrapped up in our own projects to see how it we might be doing things better. ♦♦♦