Bart and three truckloads of asphalt

A few cold winters ago, Main Street of Colwell (North-East Minnesota), got pretty much destroyed by water freezing over in already existing little cracks (see above). When spring set in, Bart was contracted to repair the damages.

This is the story why Colwell's Main Street is still in a really bad shape.

Bart is the general contractor for road repair works in and around Colwell, so he's handed the job of repairing Colwell's Main Street.

However, this time, budget cuts and cost pressure leave him quite unsatisfied. There's

• only two days alotted for the job;
• plus: material costs allow for only three truckloads of asphalt to be put into the huge amounts of potholes.

A tightly scheduled fixed-price project

Bart already suspects that this won't be enough - neither in time nor in asphalt - to repair approx. 3 miles of Main Street.

However, Bart has a reputation of always delivering excellent work so he just gets started and meticulously repairs the potholes of Main Street, beginning at the Town Center, working his way North East.

Unfortunately, 500 yards further , three truckloads of asphalt have been put into holes - there is neither any asphalt left nor any budget to buy more.

So what Bart leaves behind is 500 yards of a perfect road followed by a two and a half miles of pothole track.

Reactions...

Understandably, Colwell City Council is not amused. 500 yards of perfect road is fine - but compared to untouched two and a half miles of potholes this shiny piece of roadwork pales in comparison to the work not done.

Needless to say, the general contract with Bart has not been prolongued at the end of said year...

But what has Bart done wrong?

Obviously Bart has delivered excellent work - however this was not recognized by Colwell City Council.

The key to understanding why Bart has done wrong lies in the focus Bart took: It was not about understanding the problem - but all about focussing on a brilliant solution too early:

Bart's understanding was solution-oriented: "The surface needs to be renewed!" - however at the point of taking the contract, a problem-oriented mindset would have helped the case: "It's not possible to go three miles without running into a potholes which definitely will kill your vehicle. Do something about it!"

How might he have approached this in a different way?

Looking at the contract this way might have given Bart a hint as to how to work on the road - perhaps like this:

1. Examine the 3 miles of road and find the deepest 10 potholes.
2. Fill them up - but only just enough to not kill cars anymore.
3. Repeat from no. 1 until all asphalt has been used or time's up.

I've made the experience that the story of Bart and his failed road repair project can be used very effectively towards project sponsors who have an "all or nothing" mindset. The danger of over-engineering things early on and having no time or budget left for essential things which are discovered just later beomes quite obvious - plus: it's transferred into a different setting where there is no loss of face to be expected for anyone around the table.

Do you have similar stories?