2/9 THE TOXIC CULTURE OF STRUCTURAL WATERPROOFING

Article 2 of 9:

Article 1...: WHAT WATERPROOFING IS, AND HOW TO START THE CHANGE

Article 2...: THE GAME AS WE KNOW IT

Article 3...: THE DYNAMICS WHEN STRUCTURAL WATERPROOFING FAILS

Article 4...: THE GAME CHANGER - WATERPROOFING VERSION 2

Article 5...: LIABILITIES AND WATERPROOFING

Article 6...: WHY "STANDARDS and NORMS" WON′T HELP YOU MUCH

Article 7...: WATERPROOFING PRODUCTS... - WHAT CAN WE TRUST?

Article 8...: IS THE PRESENT WAY OF SPECIFYING A SOURCE OF ERROR?

Article 9...: THIS SHOULD BE THE VERY FIRST STEP OF ANY WP PROJECT

(if you want to be notified when following articles are published, click here)

WATERPROOFING PROCESS AS IT IS, STILL

(-in many countries)

In the last video/article, we discussed why there is a need for change in the way we deal with structural waterproofing, and how this change can be instigated.

In this chapter, we’ll have a look at the dynamics of a typical below grade waterproofing project, and we’ll learn why and how the waterproofing becomes the little kid that nobody wants to play with, and because of that, sometimes ends up being a really destructive, and costly, bully.

So let’s give it a shot, and see if you recognise some of these patterns in the market where you are active:

We start by making a frame to illustrate or isolate the waterproofing process.

OWNER / CONSULTANT

And then we present the players in this process, and we start by introducing the Owner.

The Owner, or Client, if you like, is typically not very skilled when it comes to waterproofing, so he, of course, has a consultant representing his interests. (and btw, I use “him or he” as a neutral "gender term".)

CONTRACTOR

On the other side of the field, we find the contractor. The contractor is typically not present at the start of the process, but will be chosen later through the tender process.

THE PRODUCT SUPPLIER

Outside the "playing field", we find the product supplier. The reason we place the supplier there is that he is playing by different rules than the rest of the participants.

All players other than the product supplier play by what we could describe as contracting litigation, and the supplier plays by marketing litigation - and the consequences of this we’ll get back to in the article about the dynamics going on when waterproofing fails.

THE OWNER′S OBJECTIVES

If we take a look at what the owner is looking for, this is, almost always, a balance between quality and price, and he’ll always focus on the lowest price as long as the quality is perceived to be right.

LET THE GAME BEGIN

In the majority of cases, the specifier - and just to be clear we define the specifier to be the general architect or the structural engineer - but the general specifier is not very interested in, nor very skilled at, structural waterproofing, and since the time frame is short and many “more important” topics have to be dealt with too, it has become a somewhat accepted culture to call a product supplier and ask them to design the solutions for this particular project.

In my many years as a waterproofing product sales guy, I have experienced this hundreds of times, and trust me, all product sales people love this - and all waterproofing marketing aims for this to happen.

Getting your products into the specifications - is half the victory.

THE PRODUCT SUPPLIER’S OBJECTIVES

If we look at what the product supplier works for, it is first and foremost to make as much money out of each project as possible - believing anything other than that is naive - thus, the balance between price and quality becomes: not very relevant.

Now, you may wonder if that is really how it is, and if so, how is it even possible? And again, this is something we touch on a bit more in the article about what happens when waterproofing fails, but for now, we’ll just establish the fact that the suppliers are "de facto Untouchable".

BACK TO THE GAME

Anyway, the Specifier has asked the Supplier to make the solutions, and has, of course, promised to defend the solutions as much as possible - and THAT is the part that the Supplier loves - because the Specifier has just turned himself into a co-salesperson.

So the Supplier delivers the solutions (which in most cases are just copy/paste solutions), and the details and descriptions are incorporated into the Project Specifications, which in turn will be sent to the Contractors who are bidding on the job.

WHEN THE CONTRACTOR HAS WON THE JOB

When the Contractor has landed the job, he will almost always be contacted by alternative Suppliers, who give a good price on a supply package including screws, nails, and other products, and ALSO alternative waterproofing products.

So the contractor reaches out to the Specifier asking if these alternative products can be used instead of the ones specified.

But the Specifier doesn’t have the skills to make that distinction between the products, and more importantly: he made a deal with the original Supplier to defend his solutions.

So what happens next is again something I have experienced hundreds of times: the Specifier calls the Supplier, and says something along the lines of: ”They want to use these other products, what do I tell them?”?

The Supplier smiles and arms the Specifier with the flipsides of the other products (things he could never say otherwise) - and furthermore, he has just been given a warning, that new players has entered the game, so - being the good salesperson he is -? he calls the Contractor, to ask how he can make the Contractor′s life easier

THE FINAL CUT

At a certain point, the final decision is made, and the solution has been determined for good.

NEXT PLAYER: THE WORKER

At a certain point, the Worker on the job site is handed the waterproofing specification, which is almost always some lines on the drawings, accompanied by some product names, and an instruction to follow the Suppliers guidelines - which is sometimes very detailed, and, to make things worse, written in very long paragraphs.

My more than 34 years in waterproofing have taught me that, very likely, the Worker′s key competencies are NOT: reading long texts, sometimes even in a foreign or complicated language.?

And since they also work within tight timeframes, the waterproofing is now turned into, pure Russian roulette—or, to be more accurate, it now becomes VISIBLE that the waterproofing was Russian roulette from the very beginning.

THE QC INSPECTOR

After the installation of the waterproofing is completed, it will most likely be Quality Controlled by a QC Inspector - who isn't a waterproofing specialist either, and my experiences with this part of the process are that the main focus of this part of the process is to make sure that the correct processes and instructions have been followed - but in reality, it takes much more to figure out if the final product will be successful.

And if this offends you - you just have to face the fact that all the failed waterproofing that is going on - and that is a LOT - but all this failed waterproofing, was given an OK in the QC procedure.

HAVE WE LEFT ANYTHING OUT ?

There is one thing we have not mentioned with a word up until now - one set of interests, that has not been defended:?

The interests of the STRUCTURE

Up until now, everybody has been defending some interest of their own, BEFORE, the waterproofing interests of the Structure

and that is why we have this high frequency of failed projects all over the planet

and all these many failures actually happen for a very few sets of reasons

but they are repeated a lot

and if we look at the things that all failed waterproofing have in common, there are especially three factors worth mentioning:

all failed waterproofing comes as an unpleasant surprise to everybody involved,

next:

the correction of the mistake becomes shamelessly expensive,

and finally:

all the mistakes could have been avoided easily with just a minimum of effort and the correct level of skills.

THE CORE PROBLEM

The vast majority of all waterproofing designs are based on PRODUCT BIAS.?

And the relation between the Specifier and the Product Supplier opens a dangerous gap in the chain of command, so to speak, and it creates a situation where it is the Supplier′s interests that are defended - where it should have been the Owner′s interests getting all the attention - after all think about it, now that the Specifier has left the Owner, who is going to take his place?

Who is going to ensure that the project isn’t subject to underkill, and overkill, and who will ensure the transparency necessary if you want to catch the problems while they are still small?

We’ll get back to this in a later article - but by now, anyone should be able to realize that we have to get rid of - the Product Bias, and replace it with something that aims the spotlight on the interests of the structure, and takes the Structural Specifier back to where he rightfully belongs—back to being the wingman of the Owner.

The good news is that IF the Structural Specifier chooses to play the game the new way, he’ll get a much stronger position and WILL deliver a much more professional product to his client because it all becomes about the structure - 1:1

So, what’s not to like?

NEXT ARTICLE

The next article/video will be about the dynamics that come to life when a waterproofing project fails, which really explains WHY things are as we have discussed in this video.

??