A Fine Line: Balancing Standardized Construction Processes With Specific Project Needs

When it comes to the construction process, some general contractor (GC) firms formally adopt a mentality of continuous improvement. But even among those that don’t, construction teams know that getting better at how they do their work yields gains. More accurate estimating, planning and coordinating protect profit margins — and faster, smoother processes make for on-time project delivery.

For all of this, creating more, better processes seems like an obvious way to move the needle. The thinking goes that when teams can consistently replicate work, and identify and implement ways to refine that work, it gets easier to win on schedule, cost or both. 

In some cases, that’s absolutely true. But a rush to implement new processes — particularly in tandem with the explosion of tech — has led to some frustration among GC teams. 

The Challenge With Standardizing Processes in Construction

Companies in a broad range of industries benefit from standard operating procedures (SOPs). Whenever everyone follows the same steps to achieve an identified end goal, it creates consistency while smoothing bottlenecks. SOPs help to guide employees and build in quality control measures. 

In construction, though, having an SOP for every task doesn’t always work. Challenges arise because every project is different. From varying geographies to unique owner requirements and expectations, any given project requires some level of agility and finesse. 

At the very start of a project, owner preferences set it on a unique course. Some owners want to be involved every step of the way, while others only want to be notified of big changes and when project milestones are hit. GCs need their team to understand each owner, then pivot the project communication methods accordingly. 

Then, on any project, those teams need to creatively problem-solve. Hard-and-fast SOPs could prevent an engineer from, say, exploring alternative materials that could best address the issue at hand. When process robs individuals of their ability to tap into their own expertise and ingenuity, it narrows the solutions they can offer. This can compromise project quality. 

In short, construction projects require flexibility. Even if the process was developed to make life easier for the team, it adds a challenge if it’s overly rigid. An excess of processes — particularly ones with strict rules — can make people feel like their hands are tied, preventing them from doing their jobs well. 

That’s not to say there’s no place for standardized processes at GCs, though. 

How Process Can Benefit GCs

While every construction project comes with unique requirements and challenges, some project needs are universal (e.g., communication, safety). That means some areas benefit from standardization. When companies create processes that allow for flexibility, having standardized paths forward can help with the following issues.

Smoothing Bottlenecks

A set process becomes particularly valuable when it solves for a pain point the bulk of the team experiences. Take communication as an example. If some people email, some Slack, some call, some text, and some fax, communication gets dispersed.

People might be asking the same things over and over because the answer isn’t where they need it. Standardizing communication channels streamlines work for everyone. Inconsistent technology can similarly introduce bottlenecks — and having SOPs that identify which tools should be used when and how supports productivity. 

Reducing Latency

As construction timelines tighten, every hour is important. Implementing processes to trigger next actions reduces latency and helps to maintain momentum so teams can move toward on-time delivery. Take pouring a concrete foundation as an example. If teams have a standard process to alert stakeholders when it’s time for next steps, lag between site prep, inspection/approval, the pour, and final inspection can all be shortened. 

Supporting Safety

As a top priority for any GC, safety needs support. SOPs can help here. With checks, documentation, and procedures in place that teams can duplicate across projects, it gets easier to keep everyone safe. 

Verification and Quality Control

Even though teams often need flexibility to manage the varied installation needs of each project, a standardized process to come in and verify completed work supports success.

Routinely confirming that things have been installed correctly supports quality control. Just as importantly, it minimizes rework. Consistent verification efforts mean that issues are caught early — when they’re easiest to correct. 

Brand Consistency

A reliable experience helps build relationships with both owners and subcontractors. Say a GC firm works with the same owner on two projects, one in California and one in Florida. While those different locations probably mean very different teams working on each, the experience for the owner should be consistent. They shouldn’t have to wonder why one project’s change order looks different from another’s, for example. 

Record-keeping & Audit Trails

When SOPs build in a step to log data, it helps teams track what’s been done. If they want to analyze historical data or pinpoint when something went wrong, that audit trail makes it possible. Technology can automate a lot of the record-keeping GCs need to resolve disputes and refine their processes. 

Stay updated on what’s happening in construction.

Subscribe to Blueprint, Procore’s free construction newsletter, to get content from industry experts delivered straight to your inbox.

Subscribe

Finding Balance on a Per-Project Basis

Since SOPs can be beneficial but every construction project requires flexibility, where does that leave GCs?

GCs' pain points are pinpricks of light to point them in the right direction. The challenges their team faces highlight precisely where SOPs might be most advantageous. 

Zoom out to identify areas where projects commonly come up against issues. If something critical routinely gets missed or teams always experience the same kind of delay, that area is ripe for improvement. Implementing process there gives the GC a way to troubleshoot the recurring problem. 

Within those standardized processes, room should always be left to keep teams agile and able to serve the project’s specific needs. Contract documents are a great example here: Having boilerplate language that covers the bases makes sense. But so does having an editable scope section, allowing the contract to speak to that project’s unique requirements. 

In other words, standardized processes usually best serve the teams at GCs when they provide a template but leave room for teams to decide how to fill it in. It may even make sense to include options in the process so teams can choose what’s best for them on that particular project. 

Written by