• Keynotes
• Management Programs
• Project Management Programs
• Consulting

• NCS Radio: Construction 3.0 Audio Files
• Garrison Report: Monthly Newsletter Signup
• Ted’s Blog: Discussing critical industry issues

Technology is wonderful and can be very helpful. However, Jim Collins advised in Good to Great, "Technology and technology-driven change has virtually nothing to do with igniting a transformation from good to great. Technology can accelerate a transformation, but technology cannot cause a transformation."

Technology's primary role is improved communications. Unfortunately, the opposite is often the result. In the ancient days before cellular phones and the Internet, most time-management books said don't answer your phone except between 11 a.m. and noon and 4 and 5 p.m. Yet today people are often expected to be connected 24/7. The communication systems might improve the efficiency of the originator, but it is destroying the efficiency of everyone else and the overall system. I can't tell you how many times I've been on a job site where a superintendent was talking on his cell phone while several people were standing around, waiting to talk to him. This phone call was costing hundreds of dollars per hour, yet the accounting department was concerned only about reducing the phone charges by a few cents per hour. It's not the cost of the phone service that's killing us, but the ineffective use of the phones.

The idea of using technology to improve communication has been around for a long time. General Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, "In night fighting, then much use of signal fires and drums, and in fighting by day, of flags and banners, as a means of influencing the ears and eyes of your army." While Sun Tzu's definition of technology in 500 BC is obviously different from today's definition, the intent of its use was the same -- better communications.

Looking at the common software applications in use today, one observes they are designed to improve communication. Accounting software produces better communication of a company's financial situation. Estimating software produces better communication of a project's costs. Building information-modeling software produces better communication of the project's design as no one intended to create a design with conflicts.

It's not that technology is not a great tool, but it's a question of whether we use the tool smartly or become a slave to it. Technology changes the way we work. It allows us to process information faster, more accurately, and with greater flexibility -- if we use it properly and are not seduced by it.

This includes avoiding the seductive trap that everything can be done better with technology. This can result in wasteful thinking. Toyota has invested heavily in technology, but it moves to new technology cautiously. It suggests you ask yourself the following questions before investing in a particular piece of technology:

• How will technology contribute to the value-adding process?
• How will technology help eliminate waste?
• Will the technology contribute to a flexible system that can economically adjust to ups and downs in demand?
• Will the technology support people doing the work in a continuous improvement process?
• Have the people in the system challenged themselves to accomplish the goal with the most flexibility and least complex technology?
• Are people using the technology as a crutch to avoid having to think deeply about the process?

The last question, I think, is critical. Too often we see people hide behind the technology when the desired results are not being achieved. Technology is supposed to help us, not turn us into automatons.

Another major problem with technology is making it too complex. A perfect example is the use of scheduling software. I agree scheduling software is wonderful. It certainly beats drawing bar charts on drafting tables. The problem is when it goes off the deep end in the other direction because that is just as bad.

Too often owners hire construction managers or scheduling consultants who force complex scheduling formats on the contractor under the guise of protecting the owner. Unfortunately there is no evidence that more complex schedules improve a project's scheduling performance. Instead the complex schedules that are presented to owners make them nervous because they don't understand them, thus forcing them to pay high consulting fees to the very consultant who recommended the scheduling format.

I'm not suggesting that today's scheduling software doesn't offer some features that can be very helpful to a contractor. But let the contractor figure out what he needs. Don't trust a consultant who wants to make it more complicated than necessary to justify his existence. Competent, high-performing contractors don't need someone telling them how to schedule their projects. Complex schedules only make the poor contractor worse.

The contractor should be required only to demonstrate on a monthly basis that he is on schedule and if he is behind schedule, to provide a recovery plan. That's all the information the owner really needs. If he wants to have a third party review the recovery plan, that's fine, but producing a pile of scheduling documents every month for someone to review is ridiculous unless there is a problem.

Scheduling software, like all other technology, should follow this simple concept: more isn't better; less isn't better; only better is better. Let the person responsible for maintaining the schedule determine what he needs; anything else is ineffective micromanagement.