Is there a vocation with a wider scope in applied capacity, than builders? Is there any other group of workers banded together whose task definition can be as varied? A ‘builder’ can be running a multi-million dollar company, or may be a rogue with an old van and a spare hammer who says he knows how to fix up your back door. He could be running a crew of builders, but never have built himself, or owns the finest tools available yet barely knows what to do with them. He could be academically gifted and certified, yet impractical and slow, or, he could be dyslexic, innumerate and barely literate, however is an enthusiastic, passionate builder, and amazing at putting things together. Opposites and variations apply to all of these hypothetical situations, yet all occur within our field.
So when it comes to the builder you hire, whether an individual, or part of a team, the variability can be high, yet the price you pay will be within a standard range. That person, calling himself a builder and varying greatly in skill, aptitude, and kit, falls loosely into the following categories:
“I can” - occasionally is exactly what it says on the label, a great builder, but as often, is flying by the seat of his pants, and usually just scraping by, …until he isn’t.
“I know I can” - the potential hazard, telling himself and anyone silly enough to listen, that he knows exactly what he is doing.
“I’m not sure” - skilled and may be slower, but generally will not cause chaos or require damage control to follow thru behind him.
“We can sort it” - …often will use the expression, “no worries”, which is cover for “I have no accurate plan, but if I muddle thru, at least I’m getting paid”. Low trade skill, no cost consideration, little vision for the project, and has to bluff his way along.
These categories can apply to established companies, as comprehensively as they do to freshly minted tradies, and all types across every level of the industry. The variability can be as broad as human nature itself. A building company may be fronted by a good keen man, and staffed by clowns, or alternately, could be a few good tradies in the keep of a business oriented professional, such as a quantity surveyor for example, which is becoming common in the industry. Or, it could be some parallel of Auf Weidersehen Pet, a bunch of geezers, filling in the day, til the whistle blows, n it’s time to head back down the local.
Knowing the calibre of the individual contributors within any given project is generally only known by those on the inside. Equally, the value paid for work done, is not a linear product of competence, it can as often be a baseline manpower requirement, with trade knowledge as a bonus.
Derivation of pay scales throughout the industry is a function of the two-tiered reward system, full price contractors, versus hourly rate workers. Those who provide full price contracts, will quote at a price which is highest in the industry, then are motivated to carry out their work in good time to maximise profit. They effectively provide the upper bound of hourly rates. What they are able to achieve by way of output is the best in the industry, by way of quantity at the very least. A good man, skilled and motivated with good kit, will produce more trade-acceptable output than that of 2-3 lesser motivated ‘chippies’. The proficiency of these contractors provides an industry standard rate(which varies by location). This rate of pay is going to be charged out by any contractor who can secure cost-plus contracts, regardless of the proficiency of his staff members. The game then becomes making sure any incompetence is not perceived by the client. The rate of pay is somewhat obscured from the level of competence, to the untrained eye at least.
Then there is the crossover between production and management. A small outfit is always looking to grow, which means delegating authority to the next best man to step into leadership, liaison and ordering capacities. That person is learning on the job, effectively doing a ‘second apprenticeship’, at the expense of the client, carefully managed by the main contractor who is covering for any ‘oversights’. In a charge-up arrangement, the client will be paying this person a higher rate, while the wage amount paid to the foreman is often dialled down by the main contractor, acutely aware of the new leader’s shortcomings, The client will be paying more, for the learner to ‘have a go’, whether they are up to it, or not. Once again, the variability across this scale, ranges throughout the industry.
Moving upward from the small operators, it becomes like any bureaucracy, having potential to become bloated with management, and plagued by inefficiencies. Providing efficient middle management is the greatest challenge for this industry, which is renowned for low scholastic education levels. Scaling up is the challenge, which provides a generous layer of cream to those who can cleverly herd the cats, sufficiently that each project invites successive opportunities.
That said, a bigger the company is no guarantee better value, nor quality. Group housing companies guarantee a price by keeping the design and materials within a given range, hence the building is kept simple through repetition, meaning less problem solving required throughout the build. They are however known to build a lesser quality product, no matter what the glossy add may be professing. Bespoke building teams often require key individuals to lead the process, hopefully backed up by proficient carpenters who will complete the hard graft of putting the job together. More common in todays build landscape which is struggling to attract labour, is a high number of apprentices, coupled to very few indentured tradesmen. Unfortunately, this game is not like buying a product off the shelf at Mitre10, quite the opposite, and if the product is unreliable, in the building game it will not be refunded at the front desk. Likewise, the average build may take between 9-15 months. Coincidence of needs, between a clients expected start date, and a builder’s availability, means there is rarely an ideal ‘time fit’ in which the two parameters sync. This can be a boon for the less attractive contractor, who moves up the chain and is give a chance to prove himself. The bigger companies have greater flexibility, but with that comes higher overheads, and higher charge out rates, with no connection to on-site competencies.
I cannot conclude this piece without noting where I see myself among all of this. I place myself across two categories, “I can”, and “I’m not sure”. With 30yrs of industry experience, 20yrs as principal of my companies, I have competence across many facets of construction, yet have no illusions that there are many ways of achieving the same thing. This in turn renders me amazed at how each project can be so different, and how the industry is constantly(though sluggishly) improving. I’m also acutely aware of my own fallibility, and know there will always be mistakes, from the design side, and the build side. The moment I pull on my apron and attempt to manipulate physical things, the gorgon of needless fuck-ups will strike the instant I’m telling myself I have everything under control. One moment of conceited self assurance is the precursor to that pesky error which renders good wood, to firewood. While it’s easy to sit in the pious position of the critic upon those who labour with physical objects, it’s another thing entirely to be toiling in the realm of unredeemable errors. “Doctors get to bury their mistakes” as Frank Lloyd Wright said, and its the permanence of tangible things which can frustrate even the most saintly among us. This crossover, between the tangible, and intangible, is the builders lot, and it’s no easy road.
Does any other field have this broad a scope within it’s employee range? Doctors are doctors, some better than others, but must have a base level competence which has been rigorously examined. A machine operator operates a machine, and turns out a product, for which his performance is measurable. School teachers do their thing, unfortunately paid a menial sum, with little scope to be recognised for better than average performance. This is all to point out, there is a vast range of competency, tucked into a narrow band of price scaling, which may or may not serve the end user all that well?