I have been moved to the construction department of our firm and have been assigned as an architectural inspector. There's plenty of new things to learn from such an experience for me, since it's only been 2 years since graduation ( spent that time in the design department). But I often get the feeling that I'd rather be spending time at the desk solving design issues.
Here's where things get kicked to the eleventh gear. It's a housing project which is done using the modular precast method, so now I'm spending my entire day at the factory inspecting panels, which feels like a complete waste of time for me.
Since I'm such a rookie, I wanted to know the thoughts of the community to see if there's any light at the end of this tunnel. Does this happen in other firms? What would your preference be?
Thanks!
Steeplechase
Apr 6, 18 12:34 pm
Sounds like a good opportunity to learn how things get built.
Non Sequitur
Apr 6, 18 12:50 pm
It's not a waste of time, it's an excellent learning opportunity. Stick to it, take it seriously, and you'll surpass your design colleagues in no time. You can't figure things out at your desk if you don't know what goes on on site.
thisisnotmyname
Apr 6, 18 1:03 pm
In what way is the assignment a "waste of your time"? Are all of the precast panels coming off the production line absolutely perfect and your firm shouldn't bother monitoring them?
At two years in, you need to make whatever assignment you have into a learning experience. Learn everything you can about the factory and its methods. Talk to the people that run it. Learn the ins and outs of the material and what it can do.
Unless they are amazingly talented and hardworking, most people are still mainly doing pretty basic and dull work assignments at two years in. Its easy to feel stifled and bored. Ask yourself why your firm's management gave you this assignment. Maybe you need to seek out a new employer. Having a variety of employment experiences in your early years is not necessarily a bad thing.
Aldea
Apr 6, 18 1:26 pm
@thisisnotmyname I wouldn't say it's a waste of time as much as I think it's not the best job for an architect. I mean, checking if all the panels have the right dimensions, reinforcement and have a level finish is more and more a quality concern, isn't it? It does get repetitive very soon. I mean it's the same thing for a few months straight.
They've started assembling the boxes so it will be a welcome distraction every time I have an inspection for one of those.
Non Sequitur
Apr 6, 18 1:47 pm
What country is this in?
Bloopox
Apr 6, 18 3:14 pm
So... whose responsibility do you think "a quality concern" should be? It's definitely a concern of the panel fabricator too - but you know all those many places that architectural specifications say "to the satisfaction of the Architect", or "replace materials and components with new if finish is not acceptable to the Architect"... well how can all those statements be enforced if the architect doesn't check the materials? If you just want to relinquish all quality decisions to manufacturers and fabricators they'll probably be happy to see you go back to your office - but you may not be happy with the end results.
Aldea
Apr 9, 18 12:35 pm
@Non It's UAE. @Bloopox I see your point, just that my concern was more about my growth as an architect. A comparison between growth on site as an inspector and that of a desk job.
Aldea
Apr 6, 18 1:33 pm
My time at the construction department has taught me plenty. I didn't know the first thing about the whole client/consultant/contractor interaction bit. Coordination with the engineers for designers is another thing I've gotten better knowledge of.
@thisisnotmyname I do talk to the people in the factory and get as much info as possible. After all, I don't know squat about precast.
And by the way, wouldn't you guys think the whole modular/boxes precast method is an overkill and doesn't offer much in terms of time saving? Not to mention the absurd equipment required to lift and transport these boxes...
Non Sequitur
Apr 6, 18 1:38 pm
No, I would not say it's overkilled. I think it's under-used.
Aldea
Apr 9, 18 12:41 pm
Here's how I came to think the idea was overkill. Or perhaps not as efficient as standard precast where you just assemble each building element on site instead of entire rooms. The chance of damage during transportation. Lifting elements at 2 more instances than normal precast, another chance of damage. That and the electrical engineer saying to me that he'll have to do his "tests" twice, once for a single room/box and once they connect all these boxes to form the end product. I don't know what these tests are that he's referring to but he said the same applies to the mechanical systems as well.
James Petty
Apr 9, 18 4:05 pm
You are forgetting a lot of the advantages of precast units. Especially in cities where there is a high cost associated with being on-site for a long duration.
Don't get bogged down by the supposed monotony of it. As someone said before, at two years, most people are doing crap stuff and not getting to see much past their cubical walls. Seeing anything in progress, even if it's just doing QC, is going to teach you so much. You'll be able to detail and specify exactly what you want on projects moving forward. Don't think about what you're losing. Think about how this is a unique experience and will give you the leg up, especially if you ever want to change firms.
joseffischer
Apr 6, 18 4:20 pm
I've inspected quite a few hotels with precast elements (property condition assessments). I've done PCAs for precast and tilt-up warehouses and for parking decks as part of apartment wraps. I've done my 2-ish week or sometimes 1/month site visit with corresponding field report documenting my OBSERVATIONS during contract administration. I've never been on a construction job where as architect I was supposed to inspect anything, and while I've been to some factories (to confirm a good galvalum bonding on some 60 foot columns for instance, that couldn't be hot-dipped and to make sure there was no striping in the finish) I've never been asked to check out a precast factory. The stuff shows up on site, and if my structural engineer doesn't like it, or if I see voids or obvious problems, we mark it in our field report and if egregious enough it gets sent back/redone.
Aldea
Apr 9, 18 12:43 pm
Yeah. Inspecting precast elements daily seemed like a job for a civil engineer, thus the reason I'm asking here to make the most of it instead of treating the job as if it's beneath me. Or switch firms.
N.TW
Apr 10, 18 12:13 am
I am pretty new to architecture as well. I work at an office which is extremely meticulous about construction from what I can tell. I have treasured the experience for a few reasons. The main reason is probably cost. I work with a lot of designers who are really hung up on cost but do not have the knowledge of construction systems to understand how the specified system will relate to cost (or they cannot hold it in their heads). Your point about transport and damage is an example of cost that is probably overlooked frequently. Also my office is religious about mockups, which impact cost. With your experience you will now really understand all the things you are asking of the contractor by specifying precast panels. Sounds like invaluable time to me. I have seen a lot of situations already where the client got burned on cost because we were not knowledgeable enough to be absolutely explicit about what is required for the project. Now you will have a have a big advantage in specifying precast panels and maybe some related concrete products. Concrete is an art and a science in itself. We should all respect that. Have fun with it if you can.
A605
Apr 13, 18 2:19 am
As architectural inspector, you can see many errors with current products of your company, right? Have you thought of new design or any changes to fix that? It is an opportunity for creative thought, right?
Aldea
Apr 13, 18 3:37 pm
It's not the products of my firm, but the contractor's. The thing I learned is the changes involved in the transition, which in this case are provided by the contractor for our approval. Opportunity for creative thought? I'd call that a big stretch.
I have been moved to the construction department of our firm and have been assigned as an architectural inspector. There's plenty of new things to learn from such an experience for me, since it's only been 2 years since graduation ( spent that time in the design department). But I often get the feeling that I'd rather be spending time at the desk solving design issues.
Here's where things get kicked to the eleventh gear. It's a housing project which is done using the modular precast method, so now I'm spending my entire day at the factory inspecting panels, which feels like a complete waste of time for me.
Since I'm such a rookie, I wanted to know the thoughts of the community to see if there's any light at the end of this tunnel. Does this happen in other firms? What would your preference be?
Thanks!
Sounds like a good opportunity to learn how things get built.
It's not a waste of time, it's an excellent learning opportunity. Stick to it, take it seriously, and you'll surpass your design colleagues in no time. You can't figure things out at your desk if you don't know what goes on on site.
In what way is the assignment a "waste of your time"? Are all of the precast panels coming off the production line absolutely perfect and your firm shouldn't bother monitoring them?
At two years in, you need to make whatever assignment you have into a learning experience. Learn everything you can about the factory and its methods. Talk to the people that run it. Learn the ins and outs of the material and what it can do.
Unless they are amazingly talented and hardworking, most people are still mainly doing pretty basic and dull work assignments at two years in. Its easy to feel stifled and bored. Ask yourself why your firm's management gave you this assignment. Maybe you need to seek out a new employer. Having a variety of employment experiences in your early years is not necessarily a bad thing.
@thisisnotmyname I wouldn't say it's a waste of time as much as I think it's not the best job for an architect. I mean, checking if all the panels have the right dimensions, reinforcement and have a level finish is more and more a quality concern, isn't it? It does get repetitive very soon. I mean it's the same thing for a few months straight.
They've started assembling the boxes so it will be a welcome distraction every time I have an inspection for one of those.
What country is this in?
So... whose responsibility do you think "a quality concern" should be? It's definitely a concern of the panel fabricator too - but you know all those many places that architectural specifications say "to the satisfaction of the Architect", or "replace materials and components with new if finish is not acceptable to the Architect"... well how can all those statements be enforced if the architect doesn't check the materials? If you just want to relinquish all quality decisions to manufacturers and fabricators they'll probably be happy to see you go back to your office - but you may not be happy with the end results.
@Non It's UAE. @Bloopox I see your point, just that my concern was more about my growth as an architect. A comparison between growth on site as an inspector and that of a desk job.
My time at the construction department has taught me plenty. I didn't know the first thing about the whole client/consultant/contractor interaction bit. Coordination with the engineers for designers is another thing I've gotten better knowledge of.
@thisisnotmyname I do talk to the people in the factory and get as much info as possible. After all, I don't know squat about precast.
And by the way, wouldn't you guys think the whole modular/boxes precast method is an overkill and doesn't offer much in terms of time saving? Not to mention the absurd equipment required to lift and transport these boxes...
No, I would not say it's overkilled. I think it's under-used.
Here's how I came to think the idea was overkill. Or perhaps not as efficient as standard precast where you just assemble each building element on site instead of entire rooms. The chance of damage during transportation. Lifting elements at 2 more instances than normal precast, another chance of damage. That and the electrical engineer saying to me that he'll have to do his "tests" twice, once for a single room/box and once they connect all these boxes to form the end product. I don't know what these tests are that he's referring to but he said the same applies to the mechanical systems as well.
You are forgetting a lot of the advantages of precast units. Especially in cities where there is a high cost associated with being on-site for a long duration.
Watch this:
https://vimeo.com/gluckplus/fa...
And check out: https://gluckplus.com/project/...
Nice. Why's your name in blue though?
Don't get bogged down by the supposed monotony of it. As someone said before, at two years, most people are doing crap stuff and not getting to see much past their cubical walls. Seeing anything in progress, even if it's just doing QC, is going to teach you so much. You'll be able to detail and specify exactly what you want on projects moving forward. Don't think about what you're losing. Think about how this is a unique experience and will give you the leg up, especially if you ever want to change firms.
I've inspected quite a few hotels with precast elements (property condition assessments). I've done PCAs for precast and tilt-up warehouses and for parking decks as part of apartment wraps. I've done my 2-ish week or sometimes 1/month site visit with corresponding field report documenting my OBSERVATIONS during contract administration. I've never been on a construction job where as architect I was supposed to inspect anything, and while I've been to some factories (to confirm a good galvalum bonding on some 60 foot columns for instance, that couldn't be hot-dipped and to make sure there was no striping in the finish) I've never been asked to check out a precast factory. The stuff shows up on site, and if my structural engineer doesn't like it, or if I see voids or obvious problems, we mark it in our field report and if egregious enough it gets sent back/redone.
Yeah. Inspecting precast elements daily seemed like a job for a civil engineer, thus the reason I'm asking here to make the most of it instead of treating the job as if it's beneath me. Or switch firms.
I am pretty new to architecture as well. I work at an office which is extremely meticulous about construction from what I can tell. I have treasured the experience for a few reasons. The main reason is probably cost. I work with a lot of designers who are really hung up on cost but do not have the knowledge of construction systems to understand how the specified system will relate to cost (or they cannot hold it in their heads). Your point about transport and damage is an example of cost that is probably overlooked frequently. Also my office is religious about mockups, which impact cost. With your experience you will now really understand all the things you are asking of the contractor by specifying precast panels. Sounds like invaluable time to me. I have seen a lot of situations already where the client got burned on cost because we were not knowledgeable enough to be absolutely explicit about what is required for the project. Now you will have a have a big advantage in specifying precast panels and maybe some related concrete products. Concrete is an art and a science in itself. We should all respect that. Have fun with it if you can.
As architectural inspector, you can see many errors with current products of your company, right? Have you thought of new design or any changes to fix that? It is an opportunity for creative thought, right?
It's not the products of my firm, but the contractor's. The thing I learned is the changes involved in the transition, which in this case are provided by the contractor for our approval. Opportunity for creative thought? I'd call that a big stretch.