|
Question for discussion
What are the current problems of interaction between designers and installers? In particular, we are talking about situations when the customer orders a project from one organization, and installation from another? And even in cases where designers and installers represent different divisions of the same company, disagreements often arise…
Alexander VOLGIN:
Of course, such conflicts take place in real life. The designer works, so to speak, with the virtual world of solutions, the installer solves practical problems.
This is especially evident when these services belong to different organizations. Installers may not have practical skills in working with new equipment, which takes away their strength, and most importantly, time, which can directly affect their pay. Disagreements of this kind are a direct consequence of the process of specialization, which is generally inextricably linked with human activity in any society. There are only two options for resolving the conflict — improving the skills of the installation organization's employees or choosing the installation organization itself, which already has installers on staff who are familiar with this type of equipment.
Viktor ANISIMOV:
I would highlight three main points. Firstly, a common misunderstanding: the customer cannot provide a technical assignment that would take into account all the features of the project, the designer carries out the project, relying on existing experience and using template solutions that do not take into account all the features of the object, the installer implements what was designed, but taking into account new requirements from the end customer.
Secondly, the designer often does not have a general idea of the real state of affairs at the facility. On paper, the building has walls, ceilings, passages between floors, utilities, but in reality, the existing structures and engineering systems of the building have already undergone changes. The solution to this situation may be as follows: conduct an audit of the technical documentation of the facility. Or get acquainted with the facility in reality before designing.
Thirdly, different levels of technical knowledge — designers are specialists in drawing up technical documentation and carry out the project taking into account and observing design standards. Installation specialists often optimize the project completed on paper in reality. And it turns out that this optimization leads to a result that is different from what was envisaged at the paper stage. The customer discovers the results of such inconsistency already during operation.
Galina EGOROVA:
Many hardware installers have developed a dismissive attitude towards projects, and this is no accident.
To ensure that the project is not perceived as a stack of wasted paper, it is worth finding out from the installers what they want to see in the project and what documents are of interest to them, and which are ignored as unnecessary.
Often the stumbling block is difficult-to-read drawings. Sometimes not every designer will understand the creation of his colleagues, not to mention an installer who is not familiar with the intricacies of design. An inconvenient format also does not contribute to the correct perception of the project: it is difficult to keep track of the connections that are piled on top of each other and placed on one huge sheet. In my opinion, it is better to make diagrams on small formats, if possible dividing them into units.
An internal corporate standard that takes into account the specifics of the installers' work, as well as feedback, in order to promptly make explanations and adjustments to the project, will not hurt.
Sometimes designers do not have the opportunity to visit the site, and this entails design inaccuracies: some building structures (niches, projections, columns) may remain unaccounted for, due to which deviations from the project are inevitable at the installation stage. Obviously, such a project will be perceived by installers at best with leniency.
The designer is familiar with many pieces of equipment only from descriptions, which are not always exhaustive. Therefore, the project includes drawings, which, when compared with the actual equipment, the installer will hardly recognize the latter. In addition to the fact that such a drawing is useless, as a result of discrepancies, the installers may not have the materials necessary for the work. This is another reason for the negative attitude towards projects.
In order for designers to earn the respect of installers, they should strive to eliminate shortcomings in their work and bring projects as close to reality as possible.
Evgeny KIN:
I would like to say right away that I will express the opinion of a person with experience working for a company at the other end of the existing chain supplier — end customer, i.e. the supplier company. In my opinion, one of the most painful aspects of interaction at the level of designer — installer — customer is the time delay with which each of the participants in this chain performs their work, moving (it would seem) towards a common goal — to fulfill the customer's wish. Often, the intervals between the formation of technical requirements and the preliminary selection of equipment by the customer, the implementation of the project on the selected equipment by the designer and the receipt of the technical specifications for the installation of the object by the installer are so large that the general idea laid down by the customer several months (or years!) ago in the requirements for the system becomes practically impossible to implement. There are a great many objective reasons for this state of affairs, here are just a few:
search for funds by the customer (or their unexpected end) for the implementation of the approved project;
coordination of the project with the proposed equipment supplier and its installer;
obtaining the necessary visas for the project from various regulatory authorities;
search for an installer willing to meet the budget allocated in the project for installation work.
Even in the case of a virtually complete absence of political disagreements between all interested parties (also, in general, an ideal case), the equipment supplier, having received an approved estimate, is not always ready to deliver it exactly according to the assortment and within the due time, because:
the equipment included in the estimate simply stopped being manufactured during the period of its selection and approval;
the time for delivery of some items is too short due to the complexity of their manufacture or the required quantitative volume;
at some stage of the project approval, the correct algorithm for the operation of the entire system was distorted and the specification requires revision.
When these or many other factors arise, the project begins to move backwards according to the domino principle, when each of the project participants tries to reach the previous authority with arguments that are quite obvious (for the one knocking).
Among the possible reasons for the increase in project implementation time, I deliberately did not mention the problems of coordinating the necessary functionality and the algorithm of the software that controls the system at the facility, if the supplier company is also the software developer. This topic, in my opinion, is worthy of a separate discussion, and the above reasons are quite sufficient for our conversation.
Question for discussion:
The problem of project redundancy. That is, those that could be reduced several times to fully solve the customer's problems. Who and how could solve this problem?
Alexander VOLGIN:
The problem of redundancy is actually closely related to the functional insufficiency of equipment. Here it can be noted that a small redundancy is only beneficial. At least so that the system could have the ability to expand in the future, if the customer has such a need. The limiting factor from above can be the competitive basis for reviewing projects and the customer's own funds.
Victor ANISIMOV:
A well-written technical assignment for the design and an expert assessment of the completed project guarantee the absence of redundancy.
Galina EGOROVA:
The project must contain a set of documents prescribed by GOST, otherwise it is no longer a project. If an examination and approval by authorities is required, then you cannot avoid unnecessary paperwork.
Sometimes there is a case when the customer does not need a project at all, but only a few schemes for operation are enough, or a project is needed, but without details. This happens when the approval bodies are their own and the approval process is simplified.
Standard projects allow to reduce the time for design. But they are appropriate for standard objects, which are usually small, since the larger the object, the more unique its structure, and a universal solution is not applicable to it.
When designing, a lot of time is spent on design: endless adjustments to stamps, replacement of fonts, editing of inscriptions. This can be avoided if the company develops uniform templates for the main drawings and frames with stamps. But this is no longer a question of project redundancy, but of the organization of the work of the design department.
Evgeny KIN:
If we discard the topic of taking into account the private interests of all participants in the chain from our discussion in advance, then the problem of project redundancy, in my opinion, is precisely a kind of defensive reaction of design and installation companies to the existing state of affairs. Work on a project, in addition to taking into account all sorts of GOSTs, SNiPs and other regulatory documents, requires developers to have truly extrasensory abilities due to the problems described above. Ideally, it is necessary to take into account all possible options for the nearest changes in the market in terms of the lines of equipment used, possible changes in customer requirements during the course of the project (in terms of the composition and functionality of equipment, length of cable routes, etc.), which, in my opinion, is impossible in principle. This is where the desire of the design company to cram as much equipment, consumables, and man-hours as possible into the proposed project comes from (as is known, the main task of the customer accepting the project is to reduce costs, not increase expenses). There is no point in indiscriminately accusing design and installation companies of excessive greed; each link in the chain simply tries to insure its risks by making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. Uncertainty of input data from the customer and uncertainty of the state of affairs in the security market over a certain time interval.
|
Question for discussion The problem of designers and installers being tied to some specific equipment. On the one hand, such narrow specialization facilitates detailed familiarization with all the features of installation and operation of the equipment. On the other hand, this equipment does not always have the functionality required to solve the customer's problems. And this is probably only the visible part of the iceberg…
Alexander VOLGIN:
Yes, such problems exist. The design organization uses the equipment that they know well enough in their solutions. The number of alternatives in this case is insufficient to adequately meet the customer's requirements. Ultimately, the system may be redundant in some parameters, and in some other respects not fully suitable for solving current problems or those that may arise in the future. It should be taken into account that the designers' main competence lies in the area of system configuration, assessing the possibility of interfacing various modules and connecting them, i.e., related to hardware issues. But they may have gaps in their detailed knowledge of the functional features of the system. A way out of such a situation may be closer interaction between the design and technical services at the stage of developing the technical specifications from the customer. Here we can mention another problem that the installer may encounter already at the stage of project implementation. For example, when, due to some reasons, it becomes necessary to replace the entire system or its individual components. The designer often cannot suggest how this can be done, since this issue is beyond his direct knowledge. Installers start contacting various equipment suppliers, having already agreed upon the estimate and equipment specification with the customer. The situation may enter the area of unpredictable consequences for the customer and the installer. To avoid such a scenario, it is necessary to pay close attention to the very first stages of design and not forget to work out such issues with the technical service.
Victor ANISIMOV:
But is being attached to one brand bad? If the equipment has advanced functionality, and the designer and installer know all the intricacies of working with this equipment, then everyone wins, including the end customer.
Galina EGOROVA:
About the invisible part of the iceberg.
Undoubtedly, it is always more convenient to work on well-trodden rails: there is a list of well-studied, proven equipment, using which projects are easily and quickly released.
But a universal solution often costs the customer more. For example, a recorder with a set of boards providing minimal functions is enough for an object, but the designer's favorite recorder is capable of more. By choosing a higher-level recorder, the designer does not deviate from the technical specifications, which often do not stipulate the inappropriate redundancy of the quality of the equipment used.
Another disadvantage of being tied to certain brands is when it is necessary to build a system on unknown equipment. The first to feel this problem are designers: lack of technical information and lack of time. The one who negotiates with the customer, as a rule, includes in the contract a term that is normal for the tested equipment, but unacceptable for new equipment.
The next ones who will have to face difficulties are the employees of the purchasing department. New equipment — new suppliers. Delivery times — as luck would have it. On top of all this, there are no discounts.
Therefore, you should not limit yourself to one line of equipment, but study new ones regardless of the need.
Evgeny KIN:
I am not ready to call this a real problem, rather it is an alternative to the very redundancy of projects. It is no secret that the business of any serious company — equipment supplier, operating in the B2B market, is aimed precisely at creating a dealer network of designers and installers tied to this equipment, returning again and again to the supplier company for a proven and understandable product. The strength of the market position of this or that supplier is determined, in my opinion, by the number of such tightly connected chains, competently built by the management of the supplier company. For example, it is into the hands of these design and installation companies that the end customer, who has directly contacted the company — supplier of equipment and solutions, is carefully transferred. The task of decision-makers on the project on the customer's side is only to competently select one or another existing chain built on the market for the optimal implementation of their project.
|
