‍ OPERATING CODE 014

FIND WHAT’S DIFFERENT

Experience is one of our greatest advantages in the field, but I've learned that it can also become a liability if we're not careful.

The more times we perform similar work, the more familiar everything becomes. We recognize the drawings, understand the sequence, know what the details usually mean, and have a pretty good idea of what the customer expects. That familiarity makes us faster and helps us recognize problems before they happen.

But it can also make us complacent.

Sometimes the danger isn't that we don't know how to build the job. It's that we've built enough similar jobs that we think we already know everything we need to know. We start relying on what we've done before instead of paying attention to what's actually in front of us.

And that's when we miss something different.

Familiar Doesn't Mean the Same

After enough years in construction, a lot of jobs start looking familiar. The structure might be different, the customer might be different, or we might be working in another market, but much of the work follows patterns we've seen before.

I believe that experience should help us know where to look, what questions to ask, and where problems are likely to be hiding. What it shouldn't do is give us a reason to assume everything is the same as the last job.

When I receive drawings from a new customer, I spend time reading the fine print. I review the general notes, specifications, revisions, and the sections people are sometimes tempted to skip because the information looks familiar.

And then I go back through them again.

I don't expect my first review to catch everything, especially when I'm looking through a large set of construction documents. Sometimes something that didn't stand out the first time becomes obvious when I review it again.

I take a similar approach with closeout photographs. I normally review the entire package at least twice. The first time gives me an overall understanding of what's been completed, and the second gives me another opportunity to catch details I may have overlooked.

That's not because I don't understand what I'm reviewing. It's because I know how easy it is to see what you expect to see, especially when you've looked at similar work hundreds of times.

Look for the Exception

Most customers share many of the same construction standards, but almost every customer has something they do differently.

It might involve grounding, labeling, conduit, cable support, sealing, testing, restoration, commissioning, or closeout requirements. Sometimes the differences are significant, and other times they're small details that can be easy to overlook.

The graphical portion of a drawing often makes the physical work fairly easy to understand. You can look at it and recognize what needs to be installed and where it belongs.

But the smaller notes and specifications frequently tell you something the picture doesn't.

The picture shows us what we're building. The fine print tells us how this customer expects us to build it.

That's why I believe reviewing a familiar set of drawings should involve more than confirming that we recognize the work. We need to identify what's different about this particular project and make sure those differences are understood before the crew gets started.

Not Everything Is on the Drawing

I remember a project where we needed to trench and install conduit from a utility pole to a five-gang meter enclosure.

The construction drawings called for three-inch conduit, and three-inch conduit met the applicable code requirements. But the serving electric utility required four-inch conduit for that installation.

They weren't going to connect the service unless we installed four-inch conduit.

I didn't need to understand every reason behind the utility's requirement to recognize what it meant for the job. They controlled the connection, and four-inch conduit was what they required.

We could have followed the construction drawing exactly, installed three-inch conduit, and still ended up with work the utility wouldn't accept.

Think about what happens if that requirement isn't discovered until after the material has been ordered, the trench has been dug, and the conduit has been installed. Now we have additional material costs, labor, possible rework, and a delay in getting the service connected.

Looking at the situation afterward, somebody might call it a construction mistake because the wrong conduit was installed.

But the problem actually started before construction, when the utility's requirement wasn't identified and reconciled with the drawings.

That's an important distinction. The crew can install exactly what they're told to install and still end up with a problem if the information they were given wasn't complete.

Find It While You Still Have Options

The best time to discover a conflict is before we've committed the labor, ordered the material, or started installing something that may need to be changed.

Before beginning familiar work, I want to understand which requirements apply to that particular project. That means reviewing the current approved drawings, specifications, and customer standards, but it can also mean checking utility requirements, local inspection requirements, existing site conditions, landlord restrictions, and whatever will be required for commissioning or final acceptance.

Sometimes all those requirements agree, and the work can proceed exactly as planned. Other times, something doesn't match, and we need to get clarification before moving forward.

I'd much rather discover a conflict while the solution is still a phone call, a drawing clarification, or a different material order than find it after the installation is complete.

The drawings tell us what was designed, but the field tells us what actually exists. And the people responsible for connecting, inspecting, commissioning, or accepting the work may have requirements that aren't fully reflected in the construction documents.

We need to understand those requirements before making decisions based on incomplete information. When they conflict, the answer isn't to guess which one takes priority. It's to get the appropriate people involved, resolve the difference, and make sure the work proceeds under the correct requirements.

Experience Should Change Where We Look

I believe experience becomes more valuable when we use what we've learned to recognize where problems are likely to occur.

We pay attention to the fine print because we've been caught by something buried in the notes before. We verify utility requirements because we've seen them differ from the drawings. We review something a second time because we've learned that even experienced people can overlook details on the first pass.

Those experiences should make us more disciplined, not more comfortable.

I don't want to lose the advantages that come with familiarity. Experience helps us work more efficiently, recognize problems, and make better decisions. But we have to be careful that it doesn't turn into assuming we already know what a job requires before we've taken the time to review it.

The more familiar the work becomes, the easier it is to overlook the one detail that makes this project different from the last one.

And sometimes that one detail is the difference between a job that goes smoothly and one that costs additional time, money, and frustration.

So when something looks exactly like a job we've built a hundred times before, I believe there's one question worth asking before we get started.

What's different about this one?