We have all heard the expression that the three most important aspects of construction management is “documentation, documentation, documentation”. Well I am here to tell you that it is better to have no documentation than to have bad documentation.
It is often the task of the entry-level project engineer to ensure the project is documented fully. This usually involves taking meeting minutes, progress photos, and keeping track of the requests for information (RFI’s) and contract change orders (CCO’s). In many cases, this task is assigned without proper, if any, guidance. Too often the young project engineer is told WHAT to do but not HOW to do their job. It is not uncommon to hear superintendents and managers grumble that “No one showed me how to do my job, I had to learn it the hard way, and so should these kids”. Passing along the bad management practices of past are not going to help the manager or the new project engineer. Mentoring, or lack thereof is a topic for another day, however it is the responsibility of the supervisor to make sure the project engineer does know what they are doing. When a lawsuit is filed, a defense of ‘the person responsible for documentation wasn’t trained’ is not a successful one.
The two most common types of project documentation, progress photos and meeting minutes, are the most susceptible to poor quality control (QC) and frequently lead to bigger problems than the documentation was intended to prevent. .
It has also been said that, “He who writes history, controls it”. What should the person responsible for the meeting notes and progress photos understand?
Meeting notes can be the basis of or the evidence against claims and CCO’s. I have seen notes that when written show little regard for this fact. The meeting notes should be more than a repetitive document of boilerplate information. They should record the substantive conversations held at the meeting. Without this information the meeting notes are only proof that a meeting was held and who attended with a nod that the boilerplate information was discussed.
Worse than no information in the notes is bad information. For example, one set of meeting notes I reviewed for a claim stated the following:
“Any subcontractor who misses a scheduled meeting will have to wear a pink tutu at the next meeting.”
This was a notation that went into the project document archives. What is more egregious is the fact that the statement was said by the manager and the project engineer was told to put the notation in the notes. What the team failed to realize is that the short term questionable humorous notation can be interpreted later without the “humorous” insight. It could be taken as an indication of the manager’s attempt to bully. In some cases this could also be the basis for a sexual harassment claim. This is not what the manager or the company he represented intended to have read in court.
Which brings me to the next point regarding ANY written documents. The preparer must always assume that the document will be read in open court and therefore must be cognizant of the document’s grammar, spelling, as well as content. They should also be written in such a way that a person unfamiliar with the situation would be able to read the information and follow what is going on. Last names (and their positions) should be used when discussing people. References to specific versions of plans, CCO etc. should be listed. If the trial were to go to a jury, make it easy for John Q. Public to understand what is happening.
It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. The intent of the job progress photograph is to document accurately the progress of the project. Again, the one who photographs the events controls history. Photographs should tell the whole picture in a way that John Q. Public would be able to see what is going on. One should be careful to review all the daily photos to ensure that they are accurate and complete, and not contain images that may cloud an otherwise clear depiction of the historical fact
An example of bad photographic history is when a picture of a construction defect (as interpreted by the photo) is taken just prior to the construction operation that would in fact address the “defect”. A way to correct this type of situation would be to ensure a photograph of the corrected “defect” is also on file.
Another poor choice is to not photograph the entire subject matter and only a portion that depicts a flaw. This is both dangerous to the party photographing the subject by providing information that may support an opposing side of a claim (or CCO) and it is unethical. If the point of the photos is to show defect, by taking a complete array of photos of the specific area of the defect as well as the surrounding environment will, if in fact a defect exists, better prove the point and eliminate the specter of deceit.
In conclusion, the best policy is to 1) train the person charged with project documentation and 2) review of the documents by the manager prior to them being entered into the project history. Remember, “he who writes the history controls it”, and it is the manager’s job to ensure the history is correct, complete, and able to withstand the scrutiny of open court.