Tuesday, March 3, 2020

The Chicken or the Egg?

A couple of years ago, following two horrendous flooding events in a row in a small, historic town here in Maryland, I drafted a piece focused on the need to address priorities in renewal.  Sometimes, the most obvious choice isn’t the right choice for first place on the funding list.  At that time, I noted that a “triage approach” is needed. 

In an interesting article comparing the use of a triage approach in disaster recovery to that of an IT systems manager, author Mike Talon notes that:

Modern military, relief, and medical organizations have practiced a workflow management technique known as triage for nearly a century now. The idea is that the appropriate amount of effort should be put forth for each situation, but before that can happen, the situation must be defined and classified to ensure it receives the proper treatment. Triage is the process of placing situations into those classifications, and the practice of triage can be quite valuable in planning out Disaster Recovery operations as well.

He lays out various stages of his approach. I would expand the final stages of Talon’s triage designation beyond simply addressing the current problem to include the period of rebuilding and planning.  His comment that Tier 5 requires “careful consideration of future events that are likely to occur at any moment,” is particularly important here. 


At one point in my career, I was worked with a major university as a project manager. Faced with a massive deferred maintenance backlog, I was tasked with helping our Board make informed decisions in terms of using our finite resources to make the highest priority repairs first, thereby preserving as much function as possible from the buildings we had. Typically, this meant first repairing the building “envelope” (such things as roofs, windows, walls, etc.) to reduce the impact of weather and water infiltration.  Only then, once a building was watertight and structurally sound, we would make repairs to systems and interiors without fear of further damage.

One project involved a historic theater facility that had deteriorated badly over the years.  As our budget was limited, we set about establishing a scope of work for an initial phase to repair a seriously leaking roof, securing windows and doors, and repointing the masonry walls to preserve the structural integrity of the facility.  A second phase would include interior reconfiguration and improvements that included accommodating the requirements of the newly established Americans with Disabilities Act. Finally, the interior would be refurbished and refinished with new seating, etc.

Shortly before work was to begin, a visitor to the theater threatened a lawsuit related to the new ADA law, citing the difficulty in accessing the more desired seating in the facility by the disabled.  The university took the complaint very seriously and worked through the complaint successfully.  In the interim, however, we were directed to cease work on the facility until the complaint could be resolved.  Ultimately, the work did commence, but not until after significant additional funding had been secured so the accessibility improvements could be made as part of the same contract.   

Ironically, the logical progression of construction still required the exterior envelope improvements be made first.  Unfortunately for the theater, however, the delay made the whole project more costly, as the leaky roof continued to damage the interior for an additional year.


Which reminds of of another excellent example that comes from a mold removal and remediation project we undertook over the last few months in the archives in the basement of our administration building.  The facility is notorious for its water infiltration problems and multiple corrective actions have been taken over the years.  None have worked, though a radical rebuilding of the exterior wall and adjacent plaza drainage system is in the works and planned for this summer. The constant barrage of storm-generated water through the foundation and into the archives room had rendered the space uninhabitable.

Thus, it was a significant effort, taken at great expense, to document and secure the contents of the room, survey them for mold contamination, remove and treat them, and then send in crews to remove all traces of the hazardous substance from walls and floors.  Following a few months of planning and execution, the space was finally clean and dry.

Then it rained.  And water dripped from newly replaced ceiling tiles and scraped concrete walls, and puddled on the floor.  Facility managers have maintained drying fans and dehumidifiers in the now vacant space, hoping that the upcoming project will correct the water infiltration problem once-and-for-all.   Until then, it’s an all-out effort to keep the mold problem at bay so we're not required to do this all over again.

The point here isn’t that accessibility or life safety improvements aren’t critically important, but that sometimes a slight reshuffling of priorities makes a lot more sense.


No comments:

Post a Comment