Ep 103 - Pragmatic Approaches to Construction Productivity

Adam Jones (00:03):

So thanks so much for coming on the podcast. Phil, can you just start by telling us a little bit about yourself and who you are and what you do?

Phillip Tondl (00:38):

Yeah, no, no problem. Thanks for having me Adam. So yeah, look, I'm Phillip work for Lipman. I lead the design and in innovation function for the Lipman group. So I've been doing that for about seven years. Prior to that, I actually owned my own business, which was a design and construct business. I got a builder's license for that business. I've spent my fair share of time on the tools and then prior to that I worked as an architect after training to be an architect that's Sydney the university. And I maintained that as well. I maintained an a architectural registration. So we're a few different hats. I've had a crack at the industry from a few different angles.

Adam Jones (01:28):

Yeah, fantastic. And we're looking at the new way of building today and it brings about new sorts of challenges. So I'd like to just pick your brain on say if we are designing offsite construction and timber falls under that overall banner, what are some of the new dynamics at play that are really important to get right at for a project?

Phillip Tondl (01:50):

I think if we're talking about modern methods of construction in general and timber in particular, I think that team formation is really critical. So building anything these days is a highly collaborative endeavor and it takes large multidisciplinary teams for types of projects that we do to realize those projects. So I think team formation is a really deliberate strategic, well, it's a strategic moment in the life of a project. It needs to be handled with great care and with very deliberately to make sure that you're getting the right mix of expertise and even personalities in those teams to help make these projects a success. I also think that, yeah, sorry

Adam Jones (02:46):

You go. No, you go. If Jan can just add this bit to make it smooth, please Jan, but you go Phil.

Phillip Tondl (02:53):

Yeah. I also think that one thing we need in those teams is an integration skillset. And so what I think that looks like in our context is a really good awareness of all the various players that have expertise to contribute in this market outside the consulting disciplines. I'm talking about people who make things, so who are those players, what are their capabilities, how market ready is their offering, and then how do we combine those things. I think some players have got more of that integration skillset than others, but I think we're looking for that in teams to make these projects a success. Yeah.

Adam Jones (03:34):

Do you think, I mean for traditionally choosing your team, maybe everyone knows everything about say concrete construction, so you just race to the bottom and go to the cheapest sort of bit. But for consultants, do you have to be prepared to pay a bit more for the right people and do you look at hiring in those sort of in that sort of way?

Phillip Tondl (03:57):

Yeah, my immediate inclination is to answer yes, I think you do. We're casting teams I guess from a smaller pool and so the expertise that I guess the most capable players have sometimes comes at a little bit of a premium. But I have to say we often don't have that luxury. Often in a contracting business like Lipman a lot of our best opportunities are usually eci. So there's some kind of alternate procurement model, but oftentimes or more innovative procurement model. But oftentimes things are one at the tender box too. And so we are competing on price and so that's where the hard work of that type of procurement is actually, is to find people that are both capable and competitive.

Adam Jones (04:50):

So you mentioned casting, so continuing that analogy, who are we casting say at the beginning of the production?

Phillip Tondl (04:59):

I think there's a few disciplines that are just really key to timber projects. I think you're looking for an architect that is willing to go into the detail required to resolve and understand these buildings. Certainly, you're looking for a structural engineer that's got the competencies to design and timber, which is certainly different to designing and other materials more specialized. It's a constant challenge to find the right combination of fire engineer and BCA consultant. Often there's a lot of responsibility that moves left and right between those disciplines, but ultimately we've got to be on the same page at the end with an agreed list of performance solutions that we're going to put into a fire engineering strategy before we deliver the building.

(05:49):

So those two are really key disciplines. And then I think there's not so unique to timber, but I think facade engineers are increasingly essential to resolved building delivery. And usually I think timber buildings have often have another set of aspirations. People want really transparent glass often to see the timber and show it off, et cetera. So finding people who can realize those aspirations but also resolve the technical requirements to keep the water out and then sign off on it. For FP 1.4, I think they're probably a really key ones off the top of my head but there's often a list of 25 consultants that we need to realize these projects.

Adam Jones (06:39):

I'll drill down in one of them. So you mentioned fire engineer and building surveyor. Do you find that sometimes subjective and from project to project or have you actually got a team in place that maybe can sort things out? Because some things might be a bit more subjective it seems in the fire engineering space, and you got different buildings with different levels of plasterboard and seemingly similar buildings that are fully exposed. Yeah. What are your thoughts around that?

Phillip Tondl (07:06):

Look, we've got a pretty good sense I guess in our market up here in New South Wales or down here depending on where you're listening from. But we've got a pretty good sense of the players in those disciplines in our market that have experience with particular types of buildings and particular performance solutions. I guess given the design intent. So sometimes people will want to expose  timber feet in a structure. We've got a pretty good sense of the ones who have done that before and have been able to support it and those that haven't so or are reluctant to. So without naming names, we tend to use those ones I guess that have got a proven track record in a particular area or with a particular system. We're working with a hybrid floor system at the moment. We chose, so it's a timber concrete hybrid and we chose timber concrete steel hybrid to be accurate. And in this particular instance we chose a fire engineer that we knew had worked on the one previous project that has used that system.

Adam Jones (08:08):

Yeah, right. More generally in regards to team, is there any sort of lessons learned that painful lessons you can pass on to anyone listening of some issues in this space generally, or maybe take that question a bit broader from team if you like.

Phillip Tondl (08:24):

Look, the lesson learned that comes to mind is I think that often when projects are procured price is weighted such that it's prioritized. And I'm really fortunate to be working in a team at the moment where our client, to their credit, actually decided to pay a premium to retain incumbent consultants that were performing well and all that historical knowledge that had been gathered and acquired in these projects before we were involved in them was retained in the project team. And I just think that has been immensely valuable. It's not always the case, but that's kind of so valuable or essential. But in this case it was. And I think too often in our industry we step over the incumbent for a lower price and we lose the benefit of that experience. So I think that's worthy of consideration for particularly for clients who are making those decisions.

Adam Jones (09:28):

Yeah. One of the things I want to ask you about is standardization more generally across projects. How do you approach this topic be throughout the project cycle?

Phillip Tondl (09:41):

Well, I'm a big fan of it, Adam actually. So when clients come to us and they're able to articulate an intent to standardize something, we're quick to get on board with that. We find it pretty elusive to be honest. We're working with some government agencies at the moment which have genuine intent to standardize the product that they're engaging us to deliver. But I think the product and the system is still kind of in its early stages of development. So it does tend to change and improve and refine a little bit each time we look at one of these projects. So it's not yet standard. So I think standardization is something that actually takes quite a long time and it needs several iterations of continuous improvement to get to something that then is standardized. It might be classrooms. That's a current example for us. So we're big fans of it.

(10:43):

I think you've just got to work from the generals to specifics. So where we are seeing some good standardization and consistency is around the structural grid now. And that's really helpful for timber buildings in particular to start to get that consistency all the way back at master plan stage because I guess with knowledge of various products in the market, we start to have be able to size structures and members pretty quickly and that gives us a fairly good indication of what the likely connection types are going to be, which enables us to start to mess up buildings and systems fairly accurately, fairly quickly. So I think it's a noble aspiration. I think it's got a long way to go in a small market like New South Wales, but I think it unlocks a bunch of potential efficiency for more manufactured buildings, which Timber is ideally suited to. But it takes a big program of works to get there. I mean to think, look at standardizing, you need a large portfolio and a large pipeline for that to be feasible.

Adam Jones (11:52):

And is that what guess the school infrastructure, neNw South Wales, which I believe you've on some of those projects, I mean taking that big leadership step, which it seems from a government from the public sector mean does that help push things along and move the industry forward in this sense and at least get us a bit better on that topic?

Phillip Tondl (12:13):

Yeah, I think it is helping. I think it's a really meaningful example to other government agencies and other clients with large portfolios of, I guess some of the benefits that it could help to unlock. So I think we really commend that work that the school Infras infrastructure team has done and we're excited to see what further standardization beyond structural grids and the light can be achieved.

Adam Jones (12:40):

Yeah, I won't name names.

Phillip Tondl (12:41):

Remind me of the second part of your question.

Adam Jones (12:44):

Oh, I've forgotten already. I was just going to say, because I won't name names, but I remember being part of a project and I was trying to get a social housing, so trying to get the most cost-efficient for the sustainability, the benefits of sustainability. And then I looked at the architectural plans and it was just, there seemed to be a bit of a disconnect about those goals of a timber building with cost effectiv-eness and then the curved facades and transfers up the building and all that. And it seemed to be very late down the path. So I know what your thoughts are about just general knowledge of what the starting point needs to be and what actually standardization means pragmatically. So from your perspective, can you just drill down a bit further on what does actually standardization do and how does it achieve more cost-effective outcomes?

Phillip Tondl (13:40):

So standardization brings consistency into the product that we're delivering and it drives more cost effective outcomes by allowing to allowing teams to move from a project mentality to a product mentality. So as we move to a product mentality, we're thinking less as builders or designers and we're thinking more as manufacturers. And so we're looking for continuous improvement, improvement and efficiency. Many have made analogies to automotive man manufacturer. I think that's helpful to a point. So more like a maker would. What they've got is enormous repetition once they set a model up for production and standardization when it's mature allows us to do that. So I think that's the simple answer to your question.

Adam Jones (14:41):

That makes sense. Absolutely. Phil

Phillip Tondl (14:43):

Project to product.

Adam Jones (14:44):

Yep, yep. Productization, I like it. What about we've spoken about the team and standardization about documentation? How is it different in with modern methods of construction and how is it different?

Phillip Tondl (15:03):

Well, I think I guess the key difference from more traditional construction methods is that ultimately the documents that are produced, or at least the models that sit be behind them they drive machines. And so there's a level of precision and accuracy. Accuracy. There's an understanding of tolerancy that needs to be brought to bear in our documentation and our modeling of these buildings. And that is a new and a learned skill for most people who are designing buildings in our experience. And they need to be pretty heavily hopped because there's just so many interfaces that need to be resolved and coordinated into those models. So I think certainly the teams I'm working with, that's a new experience for most players there. The detail that we have to capture into the model is enormous, and therefore that front-end effort has to be it takes much longer and it has to be resourced differently. It takes heaps more effort, heaps more hours to build it in the model first where the cost of change is low and then we build it in reality really quickly where the cost of change is high, but we don't have any change because we've already planned it down to the screw.

Adam Jones (16:29):

Who do you think's best off captaining this process? I mean, some projects you might have multiple suppliers with their own shop drawing process, but they might come on a bit later in the piece. So it's a few moving parts there. Who's the best way to captain it from the start and how is it the best way to get it to l o d 400 and beyond?

Phillip Tondl (16:52):

Wow. I think it's a capable contractor with a capable team because

(17:08):

My experience is that it's very difficult for design teams to make binding decisions about procurement and commitments about price. My experience in the Australian market is that the builder tends to be the one that makes those commitments. So that's why I work for Builder, I guess. And I think they are best placed. That's a little bit difficult for me to say for somebody who's trained as an architect. And yeah, I guess given my background, but what I see in industry now in New South Wales is that I think the builder is best placed to captain that effort. But we rely so heavily on the capability and competency of the team that we've spoken about prior to this point. I think a builder's not able to do it effectively if they're together with the wrong team. And I think what we do see is there's a quite a dynamic need for others to influence the direction and input really heavily. And I can't overstate that enough. I think what we do see as manufacturers have got very real constraints that it would be arrogant to think we can vary on a whim for a project. These are expensive investments that are set up to manufacture a certain way, and those constraints need to be acknowledged in the design, therefore they need to influence the design completion very, very heavily.

Adam Jones (18:55):

Interesting. So I've got a question probably loops in a few of what you're talking about there and we're talking about more generally, and that is when would you say is the best time to bring in suppliers and navigating that with maintaining competitive tension and what sort of the best cost-effective way from a builder of managing say that dilemma, which seems to come up a bit as well,

Phillip Tondl (19:19):

Say. Look, if we sketch, sketch out a pretty typical design program, depending on the value of the project, it probably sits at something like 12 to 16 weeks. It usually elongates a little bit. I'd say by week three we need to have, having really serious conversations about who's manufacturing and really setting up design effort, design program design trajectory with a clear understanding of which, where we want that to land. Yeah. Now that's difficult if you don't have price certainty at that point, but that's what I think 16 weeks, week three.

Adam Jones (19:54):

Awesome. So looking forward now, what do you see is the offsite construction ecosystem more generally looking like what is it evolving towards and technology and just general trends, where is it all heading

Phillip Tondl (20:08):

Excitingly? Look, I think we're starting to see governments ask for more of it. I don't think it's going away. I think yeah, it's a key part of the answer about how we as a so society and an industry that hasn't really innovated very much over the last couple hundred years, it's a key part of the answer to the question of how we deliver more with less. What I mean by less is less people being recruited into the industry perhaps levels of training aren't what we've seen in previous decades. So I think that it's a massive part of how we become more efficient. So I think we're seeing governments realize that I think we're seeing them start to ask for more of it. I noticed as recently, as earlier this week that we now have a manufacturing commissioner in New South Wales largely with a strategic remit. So that will be interesting. But yeah, I think and a bunch of other things have really made us want to make Australia make, again, I think there's a bunch of things that are looking for our increase in our sovereign capability to make stuff. So I think that manufactured buildings and components of buildings are part of that. So I think we're going to see more of this, not less.

Adam Jones (21:40):

Pardon a final question for you, Phil. If I'm sort of someone just starting out my career as a grad or something, can there- say a moving park, what sort of things would you recommend, say younger people entering the industry be learning to really best position themselves where everything's going?

Phillip Tondl (21:57):

That's a good question. Nothing's static, right? Everything's moving, changing all the time. Businesses come and go succeed and fail, et cetera, et cetera. Technology change happens, certain material, kind of natural resources are unlocked, locked up, so nothing is static. So I think young graduate moving park, I think what I'm looking for in that cohort is people just with a really genuine curiosity to go and find the information, to find the answer, the question they have, and to be willing to work to satisfy that curiosity, to make the trip, to meet the supplier, to go through the factory, to understand the manufacturing constraint, to read the research paper, that hunger for knowledge that leads you to closer to a potential solution to a problem. And through trial and error, you find the best one at that moment in time for that set of constraints. That's a general answer to a specific question, but I think that curiosity is, it's not a common trait.

(23:19):

I've probably interviewed 50 people over the last couple of years that have got an interest in this space and I would say it's a rare, an interest in working in an organization like ours in my functional team. And I would say that that curiosity is a rare trait. To be more specific in answering your question, I look, I am a believer in pre-manufactured van value generally, and so I'd be a bit material agnostic in that belief. But I do like timber. I'm working with precast concrete at the moment. I'm working with steel pre-fabricators at the moment. But I think what is unique about timber is the sustainability fundamentals and credentials of that material. And so I'd also say keep a finger on the pulse of what's happening with that. Because I think as organizations think about the governance and environmental and sustainable policy, these things are being elevated. And so timber's got some really unique attributes that other materials don't have. Other materials have lots of relevance to our industry, of course, but Timber's got some unique benefits. So be curious, keep a finger on the pulse of timber.

Adam Jones (24:37):

Awesome. Love it. That's great advice. Well, it's been phenomenal being able to speak to you today, Phil. If people want to find out more about yourself or Lipman, where should they be going to learn a bit more about what we're speaking about?

Phillip Tondl (24:49):

Oh look, if you want to find out more about me I'm on LinkedIn. My profile's probably different, an update, but you can find some general stuff there and check out Litman online. There's a fair bit on our website. You can reach out to me directly, drop me a line through LinkedIn, mention you've seen the podcast and I'll jump on it and respond.

Adam Jones (25:14):

Awesome. Well, thank you so much, Phil. We'll leave it there. It's been great to chat to you.

Phillip Tondl (25:19):

Good on ya, thanks, Adam. Thanks for having me.