Watch out – construction creep is as easy as it is dangerous

A little while back, our team was out on site and finished our planned task ahead of schedule. Flights out of site were booked solid so, instead of sitting around playing tiddlywinks, we agreed a useful job would be to gather up all the high potential incident reports (HPIs) and independently confirm that all agreed corrective actions (CAs) had been closed out. To some people’s surprise, (but not mine), we found that while most CAs had been closed out, some were only partially completed, while others had dropped off the radar entirely.

It’s easy to sit back, removed from day-to-day operations, and tut-tut that something as important as an HPI CA is not properly closed out. However, let’s be realistic. Construction and mining sites are dynamic with constantly changing tasks and priorities. I’d be more wary of a project leader who suggested their team never missed a step, compared to one who has the courage to let an outsider see any shortcomings.

So what happened next? We helped get the stalled CAs moving again, and set out a completion plan with timeframes for sorting things out. In the immediate, we ensured there were sufficient risk control protocols in place. And we ensured senior managers knew the original timeframes had not been adhered to (far better for them to hear it in a controlled environment, than after another breach left someone hurt). However, this isn’t a blog about CAs – it’s about something we discovered in the process.

Whose protocols are you following?

One of the CAs revolved around updating some training programs to reflect ‘changes’ in protocols that had occurred in the preceding three years. This was the real learning for me. When we looked deeper, we discovered that not one single protocol had actually changed. What had changed was the people who managed the site. As new managers, supervisors and trainers came and went. They either put their spin on a protocol, or just replaced a documented protocol with one of their own under the belief that the change was a ‘best-for-site’ decision. In short, the site was running with protocols that, in many instances, did not match documented procedures. Some even changed from one team to another!

What out for personality, not protocol-driven site behaviour

In the end, the fix was pretty simple. We identified the key departures and conducted a change management process to bring everyone back in line with the original protocols. Sure, there were some adjustments needed with leaders committed to their way. However, we all know that sites can’t succeed if they are run by individual preferences.

The real takeaway for me was that we all need to be vigilant for ‘creep’ on our sites. A simple and effective way to find and remove creep is to periodically have an independent person review activities and check that they conform to known standards. That person doesn’t need to be an outside consultant, but they do need to be independent from day-to-day operations to ensure you get the benefit of the clearest insights.

Photo by Saad Salim on Unsplash