EVP Strategic Workforce Solutions

Ron Caccamese

In 2019, Alterman took a deep dive into the declining productivity that the construction industry has experienced over the past few decades. We evaluated the productivity levels of a select group of electricians and compared the data against the branch installation estimate to identify any training or coaching opportunities. It was our initial premise that the problem evolved out of the inability of less experienced electricians to perform the tasks at the same level of productivity compared to more experienced electricians. Our concern was the average age of our workforce and the continued departure (retirement) of our tenured employees.

To perform the evaluation, we sectioned off an area of our warehouse and set up two metal stud mock offices. Both offices consisted of the necessary branch piping to include power, lighting, and miscellaneous special systems, with each one set up to utilize a different style of branch wiring. The first consisted of electrical metallic tubing (EMT) while the second utilized metal clad (MC) cable. We set up the test and invited electricians with various levels of experience to perform the installation while we video recorded each installation. To our surprise, all participants exceeded expectations and performed the installation within a few percentage points of one another.

Our original premise was to identify a means to bring our least-experienced individuals (C-players) up to midlevel (B-players) and to advance our B-players into our top performers (A-players). However, because each level of electrician exceeded expectations and performed the work in a similar fashion for a similar duration, we initially felt that the experiment was a failure.

After further consideration and evaluation of the installation videos, we discovered that we had inadvertently set the parameters in such a way that an electrician with any amount of experience would be successful. Therefore, to keep the playing field level and equal for each participant and evaluate only their capabilities, we staged the necessary material and tools and consolidated the information from three or four pages of drawings down to a single sheet of paper. Under these circumstances, each employee, regardless of experience level, was able to exceed expectations and perform the installation at approximately 60 percent of the estimated hours. It should be noted that we excluded material handling and drawing review and layout from the estimated time, focusing on installation time only.

The next step was to ask ourselves “how do we replicate this atmosphere on all our projects?” This resulted in the development of the Packaged Alterman Construction Kit (PACK). 

It is an intentional approach to the prefabrication process that begins with project design, prefabrication, and field installation. It starts with identifying phases of the project where the PACK process can be most advantageous. We then turn this information over to our design team and they begin the process with an intentional layout and design that identifies material quantities and layout while following established standards. Then the project designer coordinates with a BIM technician to prepare and forward the drawings to the prefab shop for implementation. Each PACK is designed to align with a designated work package, with estimated hours separated into three categories: design, prefabrication, and field installation. When the work package is received by the field installation crew, it includes all the necessary materials, detailed installation instructions, and even a tool PACK that corresponds with the installation requirements.

Since implementing the PACK process, we have performed timed studies that have demonstrated 10 to 15 percent savings in labor when compared to a traditional installation approach. We are currently evaluating the labor breakdown to allocate the appropriate hours for each work package category, design, prefabrication, and field installation. We expect that this breakdown will differ based on the work phase being evaluated. For example, branch breakdown will differ from feeders, which in turn will differ from lighting, and lighting will differ from duct banks.

A feedback loop allows for continuous improvement following the PDCA (plan, do, check, act) process and a PACK coordinator helps to ensure that the PACK is received in good order and is delivered to the correct area, and that we maintain the proper flow with the job site schedule to ensure just-in-time deliveries.

Our next challenge is to scale the process and implement PACK on all projects and all phases of work. Thus far, we have prepared construction kits for branch conduit, feeders, cable tray, duct banks, light fixtures, and gear. We are also expanding the process to our technology group and are currently evaluating structured cabling, audio visual, and security.