18 ms·

I don't know the answers, but as someone who works in the industry (on the design side). I think a big unmentioned factor is probably liability and the prospect

by imgabe 9y ago

I don't know the answers, but as someone who works in the industry (on the design side). I think a big unmentioned factor is probably liability and the prospect of litigation. If you look at old blueprints for projects in the past, they are a LOT less detailed. They had to be, because it was physically more difficult to produce them since they had to be drawn by hand. A lot was left to the contractor to figure out in the field. Now, drawings are more detailed and contractors are incredibly reluctant to make even the smallest decisions on their own. They don't want to assume the liability and risk getting sued if they do something wrong, so they push that off on the engineers and architects. This means every time there's a question, it has to be submitted through a formal process, tracked, answered, documented. And if the change has any cost impacts, the contractor tacks on a hefty premium because they know they can get away with it (and they probably underbid in the first place to win the job). Delays pile up, every clarification becomes an expensive change order, construction workers twiddle their thumbs while designers get around to addressing questions and this all costs money and time.

Asooka 9y ago
Yeah but the bureaucracy makes a lot of money for itself and grows ever larger. Basically you want to treat the people executing the plan as smart adaptable agents rather than dumb robots.
akshatpradhan 9y ago
>This means every time there's a question, it has to be submitted through a formal process, tracked, answered, documented. I don't know why you think proper change control is a bad thing. In both software and systems engineering you submit change requests that are tracked, reviewed, assessed for risk, approved and documented. You do this to create an audit trail to identify "how we got here". Any concerns? It's documented in the ticket. Now when it comes to civil engineering projects, where bridges can collapse, you should WANT that kind of rigorous change control of tracking, approving, and documenting. Yes, documenting change control requires more work, but it also saves lives and creates an audit trail in case of a grave error.
- aeturnum 9y ago
  I think you're misreading his comment. It's not bad, it's just more expensive than not doing it. Thus, infrastructure built today costs more.
  - droopyEyelids 9y ago
    I think he read the comment mostly right, and you're both missing there is a gaussian distribution to the effectiveness of change control
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  OP points out the costs of this. You point out the benefits. Both true. But the interesting question is if and when the costs outweigh the benefits.
  - coding123 9y ago
    Well and perhaps even more interesting is the effect on delayed fixes has on TCO and safety of aging roads. Not to mention reduction in jobs sites across the Nation also reduces the individual performance of infrastructure construction companies except for a lucky few. Lots of push and pull from all directions.
- tormeh 9y ago
  Delegating responsibility down to the coal face is usually a winner for speed, and when time is money speed is important.
- imgabe 9y ago
  I'm not saying changes shouldn't be documented. I'm saying the people on the ground doing the work should be more empowered to use their judgement. They can do that and still document what gets changed. As it stands now, some unforeseen circumstance in the field will necessitate a minor modification to the design. The contractor knows perfectly well what needs to be done, but instead of simply doing it, they will ask the designers to tell them to do it, so they aren't the ones responsible for it. The designer of course can't simply rubber stamp whatever the contractor says, so they have to spend time figuring out what the issue is and whether the contractor's solution is adequate. All that adds up.
bluGill 9y ago
A lot of contracts are design build though. One company bids to design and build the bridge. The cost overruns are back on them.
- snowwindwaves 9y ago
  those contracts often cost more to the owner though since there is less risk for them.
  - ethagknight 9y ago
    Design-Build does not necessarily cost more, because each entity carries the same risk as if they were separate (architect and GC). However, with a Design-Build GMP, which is what we typically use on our developments, that costs a premium, but its a cost we can be comfortable with on the front end, so I will (and do!) gladly pay a premium for a guaranteed cost of construction, particularly since the contractor has the significant information advantage on dealing with problem that arise.
deanCommie 9y ago
Anecdotally, having moved to Western Europe, I get the sense that this is the major factor as well. If I walk down the street and there is a group of workers excavating a road, there's a lot more of a relaxed attitude about fencing, walking underneath construction equipment, etc. After all - use your common sense - don't fall into the hole. If you do, isn't it kind of your own fault? Nobody's going to sue anybody. Additionally, it's not a big deal to close or severely impact a road due to construction - just shift around the fantastic public transit infrastructure, and everyone carries along. A bus only needs one lane in both directions. Another thing that would never fly in North America. Both of these problems are deeply cultural. Lawsuits have become a form of welfare. Sure, you might not have government healthcare if you get hurt or sick, but maybe you can sue somebody and get paid for your suffering? And America's love affair with the automobile is a well-known abusive relationship that America will never have the courage to leave.
- karmelapple 9y ago
  The abusive relationship love-affair is the best explanation I've ever heard of cars in the USA. Just like a an abusive relationship, the car love affair still produces some good things. It's not all dark and dreary. "I hate that he comes home drunk and hits me, but he's so loving and apologetic the next morning." "I hate that I get so stressed from my daily commute, but being able to drive to the countryside on the weekend is so nice." You can be in a relationship without dealing with abuse, and you can get to work less stressfully and still have the freedom to explore the world. That's what makes the relationship so sinister; it's Stockholm syndrome. "How could I ever live without him, even though he hits me sometimes?" "How could I ever live without driving everywhere, even though the country on the whole is getting more unhealthy, we continue to use up our limited resources, and the ability to walk around and individuals' quality of life is reduced?" Of course you can live without those negatives. There are ways out. There is a better life possible.
  - chc 9y ago
    Can we try to get through one thread on HN without frothing at the mouth about how much we hate cars? Message received, you happen to be in a situation where you don't need a car — I am genuinely happy for you, as well as envious. But it is not necessary or helpful for someone to bang on about it in every single thread that has anything to do with building stuff. It doesn't help anything, and it just annoys people who don't have your good fortune and feel like you're agitating to take away something they need.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
andrewla 9y ago
This is an interesting theory, but any attempt at explaining why the US in particular is bad at large-scale infrastructure also has to explain why other countries are so much better at it. The litigousness argument seems to be interesting from that perspective, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that France or Germany are less detail-oriented in their planning, given that the same tools that allow better blueprinting are available everywhere.
- graphitezepp 9y ago
  American exceptionalism might have a place in the discussion, as the USA is exceptionally big. Furthermore it is notable that the only countries that are likely to have similar quality infrastructure with lower population density are the Nordic ones.
  - droidist2 9y ago
    I think even in Sweden, Norway, and Finland the population is concentrated in the warmer south part of the country.
justinator 9y ago
Perhaps also Back In The Day, Big Picture things were over-engineered. I guess also, ever do a home renovation on a house > 40 years old? You usually walk into a disaster of things not up to code. These days, it would just be done correctly, just as cheap as possible, and not built to last. Most recent housing developments near here are just ways for developers to make money and run, as the infrastructure (housing, not utilities, etc) is not going to last all that long. The developers don't care - they'll be enjoying their profits States away, as the city that is home to their developments are quickly crumbling. Not that I'm bitter on the changing landscape of my city, or anything. But a housing boom has dark sides.
- moojah 9y ago
  To be fair, houses and engineering projects in the olden days probably suffered from exactly the same problems. I've read multiple accounts of people complaining about just this in the late 1800s in the UK...
flubert 9y ago
>Now, drawings are more detailed and contractors are incredibly reluctant to make even the smallest decisions on their own. I also wonder about the effect of building codes, etc.. It might be interesting to plot construction costs and number pages of building code vs. time for the U.S., Japan, France, etc., and see if there are any correlations. That type of plot seems like it might almost be doable.
- blackguardx 9y ago
  The people onsite know the codes as well.
efsavage 9y ago
This is correct. I wonder if anyone has tried doing "design and build" contracts where this becomes an internal cost center instead of a profit driver, and would theoretically get optimized out.
- ethagknight 9y ago
  I am on the developer side on a project with a design-build contract with a major contractor. the architecture side and contractors are pitting against each other internally, because the architect is still liable for his drawings being correct, and the contractor is still liable for the work being complete to the contract documents. Seeking to align efforts to minimize detailing costs is a recipe for very costly mistakes down the road when something doesn't satisfy fire code, building code, ADA, insurance, lender requirements, hotel brand standard (in my case). Theoretically, I suppose you would only see streamlining if the Owner-Architect-Engineer-GC-Regulator was one entity, like a government maybe.
  - primeblue 9y ago
    So much compliance, that's the problem.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rosser 9y ago
> I think a big unmentioned factor is probably liability and the prospect of litigation. There was an article shared to HN some time ago arguing that the kinds of cost overruns that we see so often on infrastructure projects in the US are almost endemic to common-law countries, and radically less prevalent in civil-law countries. I haven't been able to find that article again, but its conclusion has come up in many similar discussions since.
- MaxGabriel 9y ago
  Isn't Louisiana Civil/Napoleonic law? They could be compared against other states to check that theory.
  - volkl47 9y ago
    Louisiana's notorious corruption issues are probably going to be an issue in drawing meaningful conclusions from such a comparison.
joshuaheard 9y ago
There is two problems with this theory. The first is that governments have immunity from litigation. They can only be sued where they consent to the lawsuit. The second is that in most states, employee-related injury claims must proceed through a worker's compensation system outside the normal litigation channel where the costs are much less. I always say there are not too many lawsuits, but too many laws. Legislatures think they are making something better by passing more rules, regulations, and laws. But, for every rule, regulation, or law, you have an opportunity for a lawsuit. Use more common sense? Sure, but then don't pass a multitude of laws regulating the subject. Why are infrastructure projects' costs higher here? I don't know really. My guess would be that compared to say Germany and Japan, everything here is the U.S. is huge. I mean probably 10-30% larger in size than those other countries with the resulting higher costs. But, this is just my personal observation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- afuchs 9y ago
  The government and its workers are not immune from litigation either, both have been sued, and successfully held responsible for damages. Actual construction is performed by contractors, corporations that are contracted by the government. In the US, it is rare for a construction project to be built, or even be designed, by government workers. These corporations and their workers can be sued, and take on additional liabilities due to the contracts and laws that apply specifically to them.
  - Gibbon1 9y ago
    Since my dad worked as an engineer for the Federal Government I have skewed ideas how things work compared to most people. Which is to say, you are spot on. Most of the work government engineers do is oversight. Oversight is really important. I've constantly read that in the US due to ideological reasons the agencies that handle oversight are chronically understaffed which results in delays and inefficiencies. Delays are a big problem in the US. The slower a project is done the more it costs. Without proper oversight, you have an inability to efficiently manage design changes leading to delays and or less efficient construction.
Pharylon 9y ago
That's the American Way, though. America abhors regulations, and instead we allow the courts to sort it out. Europe is less litigious, mainly because they have massive government oversight and regulations.
- kalleboo 9y ago
  I don't think I've seen any evidence that the US has any less regulations than Europe. On the contrary I get the impression that the US has far more detailed regulation than, e.g. Sweden. Americans seem to love being a NIMBY, and corporations have a lot of power to get regulation in place to lock out competition.
wahern 9y ago
Those liability problems exist in every advanced Western country. It's true that litigation is more costly in common law countries, in some cases twice as high, and that this cost can be internalized in the ways you suggest. But those costs only account for single-digit percentages overall. What you describe could also be understood as an inefficient way of organization that is peculiar to the United States, and a by-product of American business and economic logic. Firms (i.e. vertical integration) exist to reduce the comparative inefficiencies of having separate, independent entities. Most other countries still have huge conglomerates (e.g. Japan, Korea), or contractors enjoy closer and longer-term business relationships. With rare exception (Berkshire Hathaway, Elon Musk, etc) Americans have systematically shifted toward looser organization of smaller, independent business entities. One of the downsides is the exploding cost of orchestrating these entities for big projects, and the loss of knowledge about how to manage such projects.
- cylinder 9y ago
  No not really, once you study the legal system of other advanced countries you will realize the US system is completely insane. The verdicts are wild, and we use juries for complex civil litigation. A bunch of regular Joes are supposed to understand torts and then even calculate damages! The result is trial lawyers succeed by playing on emotion, class, race, playing a character, etc., and a bunch of bored confused Joes and Janes sees an injured person and thinks "Okay, this sucks, give them $50 million."
  - wyldfire 9y ago
    I don't know the solution but I would be super hesitant to take jury trials away (even for civil suits like described here).
    - b34r 9y ago
      For civil suits I absolutely would. It's a waste of people's time.
  - everybodyknows 9y ago
lkbm 9y ago
The case-study of the Hyatt Regency collapse might a major root cause of the bureaucracy you're describing. The change that caused the issue was approved by the engineers in that case, but I think made us a lot more instituionally cautious: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnvGwFegbC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnvGwFegbC8
devoply 9y ago
Sounds like the future of software development to me.
- imcoconut 9y ago
  Depends on the software. In general infrastructure has a much higher liability associated with it, as a failed bridge, road, or building, will quickly kill/injure those making use of it. I could see a similar situation arise for, say, embedded software for medical devices like pacemakers etc.
CydeWeys 9y ago
This is an argument for vertical integration in the construction industry, which I suppose might even include state-run construction companies. If the architects, engineers, and construction workers are all working for the same entity, then there's no troublesome legal issues to deal with at the boundaries between entities, and everyone can simply do the right thing as efficiently as possible. In summary, end contracting and subcontracting.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  You have identified a incentive towards vertical integration. But then we might ask ourselves what is stopping it. Is there some counter-incentive that causes the hierarchy of contractors? Is there some regulation that forces it? You might claim that there are no state-run construction companies because of free-market ideology or some such bogeyman. But that doesn't explain why the private contractors don't integrate vertically. My own guess is that even a vertically integrated entity would be risk averse and have to create expensive, slow, internal sign-off procedures.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    My guess is regulatory capture, corruption, and knock-on effects from corporations being granted the rights of people, including money equaling free speech (see Citizens United). There's more money to be made if there are lots of different contractors and subcontractors that can all take a cut, and so the politicians are paid off through campaign contributions to allow the inefficient system to continue. Everyone involved makes lots of money, more than if they were vertically integrated and did construction efficiently, except for us taxpayers who are footing the bill, of course. It's basic rent-seeking by the construction industry.
Spooky23 9y ago
That's all about the culture of modern management. Relentlessly chasing pennies while setting dollars on fire. Design/build raises the level of dumb even higher by giving all parties powerful incentives to build the cheapest, minimally viable slop possible.
ThomPete 9y ago
This is very interesting. So basically in digital terms it went the opposite way from HTML where everything is more relative to each other to print where everything is exact. I wonder if there is some underlying principles hiding in this. Have to think about it some more but thank you so much for your insightful comment.
analog31 9y ago
Litigation can be covered with insurance. So, unless the actual injury rate is higher, litigation shouldn't make projects cost any more. Now it could be that litigation pays for medical costs, whereas other countries pay medical costs separately from project costs.
curiousreader 9y ago
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend some years ago. My friend comes from a family of home builders. None of them do it professionally anymore, but they all spent every summer growing up helping dad do everything from digging the hole to putting in the carpet. From time to time, each of the siblings has built a new home, and they just do it themselves in their spare time. My friend was telling me about helping his sister with her home. His sister has moved into a very rural community in the western U.S. When the family showed up to pour the footings, they asked for a copy of the footing plans. Their sister handed them an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with a hand-drawn floor plan. "Where's your official plans? The plans you submitted for your permit? The ones with the footing details?" "That is the paper we submitted for our permit. See the stamp that says 'Approved'?" All the other siblings live in Clark County, Nevada. The permitting process there is excruciating. They looked at the paper, looked at each other, shrugged, then built the house. They know how to build a footing. They know how to frame. They know how to build a house. The sister's house was built with the same quality as the other siblings' in a fraction of the time. But if one of the big builders tries to put in a subdivision in that little town, I hope the municipality watches them like a hawk. Big builders don't build homes. They cheat and connive and do everything to push product at the lowest possible cost. In a world without trust, you cannot afford to let people self-manage.
tomohawk 9y ago
The US is the only major country that does not have the English Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_fees%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_f...
drumttocs8 9y ago
The United States is consistently ranked as a top 5 most litigious country by various metrics. This may not be the main cause of the problem, but it certainly doesn't help.

by imgabe 9y ago

Asooka 9y ago

Yeah but the bureaucracy makes a lot of money for itself and grows ever larger. Basically you want to treat the people executing the plan as smart adaptable agents rather than dumb robots.

akshatpradhan 9y ago

>This means every time there's a question, it has to be submitted through a formal process, tracked, answered, documented. I don't know why you think proper change control is a bad thing. In both software and systems engineering you submit change requests that are tracked, reviewed, assessed for risk, approved and documented. You do this to create an audit trail to identify "how we got here". Any concerns? It's documented in the ticket. Now when it comes to civil engineering projects, where bridges can collapse, you should WANT that kind of rigorous change control of tracking, approving, and documenting. Yes, documenting change control requires more work, but it also saves lives and creates an audit trail in case of a grave error.

aeturnum 9y ago
I think you're misreading his comment. It's not bad, it's just more expensive than not doing it. Thus, infrastructure built today costs more.
- droopyEyelids 9y ago
  I think he read the comment mostly right, and you're both missing there is a gaussian distribution to the effectiveness of change control
BurningFrog 9y ago
OP points out the costs of this. You point out the benefits. Both true. But the interesting question is if and when the costs outweigh the benefits.
- coding123 9y ago
  Well and perhaps even more interesting is the effect on delayed fixes has on TCO and safety of aging roads. Not to mention reduction in jobs sites across the Nation also reduces the individual performance of infrastructure construction companies except for a lucky few. Lots of push and pull from all directions.
tormeh 9y ago
Delegating responsibility down to the coal face is usually a winner for speed, and when time is money speed is important.
imgabe 9y ago
I'm not saying changes shouldn't be documented. I'm saying the people on the ground doing the work should be more empowered to use their judgement. They can do that and still document what gets changed. As it stands now, some unforeseen circumstance in the field will necessitate a minor modification to the design. The contractor knows perfectly well what needs to be done, but instead of simply doing it, they will ask the designers to tell them to do it, so they aren't the ones responsible for it. The designer of course can't simply rubber stamp whatever the contractor says, so they have to spend time figuring out what the issue is and whether the contractor's solution is adequate. All that adds up.

bluGill 9y ago

A lot of contracts are design build though. One company bids to design and build the bridge. The cost overruns are back on them.

snowwindwaves 9y ago
those contracts often cost more to the owner though since there is less risk for them.
- ethagknight 9y ago
  Design-Build does not necessarily cost more, because each entity carries the same risk as if they were separate (architect and GC). However, with a Design-Build GMP, which is what we typically use on our developments, that costs a premium, but its a cost we can be comfortable with on the front end, so I will (and do!) gladly pay a premium for a guaranteed cost of construction, particularly since the contractor has the significant information advantage on dealing with problem that arise.

deanCommie 9y ago

Anecdotally, having moved to Western Europe, I get the sense that this is the major factor as well. If I walk down the street and there is a group of workers excavating a road, there's a lot more of a relaxed attitude about fencing, walking underneath construction equipment, etc. After all - use your common sense - don't fall into the hole. If you do, isn't it kind of your own fault? Nobody's going to sue anybody. Additionally, it's not a big deal to close or severely impact a road due to construction - just shift around the fantastic public transit infrastructure, and everyone carries along. A bus only needs one lane in both directions. Another thing that would never fly in North America. Both of these problems are deeply cultural. Lawsuits have become a form of welfare. Sure, you might not have government healthcare if you get hurt or sick, but maybe you can sue somebody and get paid for your suffering? And America's love affair with the automobile is a well-known abusive relationship that America will never have the courage to leave.

karmelapple 9y ago
The abusive relationship love-affair is the best explanation I've ever heard of cars in the USA. Just like a an abusive relationship, the car love affair still produces some good things. It's not all dark and dreary. "I hate that he comes home drunk and hits me, but he's so loving and apologetic the next morning." "I hate that I get so stressed from my daily commute, but being able to drive to the countryside on the weekend is so nice." You can be in a relationship without dealing with abuse, and you can get to work less stressfully and still have the freedom to explore the world. That's what makes the relationship so sinister; it's Stockholm syndrome. "How could I ever live without him, even though he hits me sometimes?" "How could I ever live without driving everywhere, even though the country on the whole is getting more unhealthy, we continue to use up our limited resources, and the ability to walk around and individuals' quality of life is reduced?" Of course you can live without those negatives. There are ways out. There is a better life possible.
- chc 9y ago
  Can we try to get through one thread on HN without frothing at the mouth about how much we hate cars? Message received, you happen to be in a situation where you don't need a car — I am genuinely happy for you, as well as envious. But it is not necessary or helpful for someone to bang on about it in every single thread that has anything to do with building stuff. It doesn't help anything, and it just annoys people who don't have your good fortune and feel like you're agitating to take away something they need.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

andrewla 9y ago

This is an interesting theory, but any attempt at explaining why the US in particular is bad at large-scale infrastructure also has to explain why other countries are so much better at it. The litigousness argument seems to be interesting from that perspective, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that France or Germany are less detail-oriented in their planning, given that the same tools that allow better blueprinting are available everywhere.

graphitezepp 9y ago
American exceptionalism might have a place in the discussion, as the USA is exceptionally big. Furthermore it is notable that the only countries that are likely to have similar quality infrastructure with lower population density are the Nordic ones.
- droidist2 9y ago
  I think even in Sweden, Norway, and Finland the population is concentrated in the warmer south part of the country.

justinator 9y ago

Perhaps also Back In The Day, Big Picture things were over-engineered. I guess also, ever do a home renovation on a house > 40 years old? You usually walk into a disaster of things not up to code. These days, it would just be done correctly, just as cheap as possible, and not built to last. Most recent housing developments near here are just ways for developers to make money and run, as the infrastructure (housing, not utilities, etc) is not going to last all that long. The developers don't care - they'll be enjoying their profits States away, as the city that is home to their developments are quickly crumbling. Not that I'm bitter on the changing landscape of my city, or anything. But a housing boom has dark sides.

moojah 9y ago
To be fair, houses and engineering projects in the olden days probably suffered from exactly the same problems. I've read multiple accounts of people complaining about just this in the late 1800s in the UK...

flubert 9y ago

>Now, drawings are more detailed and contractors are incredibly reluctant to make even the smallest decisions on their own. I also wonder about the effect of building codes, etc.. It might be interesting to plot construction costs and number pages of building code vs. time for the U.S., Japan, France, etc., and see if there are any correlations. That type of plot seems like it might almost be doable.

blackguardx 9y ago
The people onsite know the codes as well.

efsavage 9y ago

This is correct. I wonder if anyone has tried doing "design and build" contracts where this becomes an internal cost center instead of a profit driver, and would theoretically get optimized out.

ethagknight 9y ago
I am on the developer side on a project with a design-build contract with a major contractor. the architecture side and contractors are pitting against each other internally, because the architect is still liable for his drawings being correct, and the contractor is still liable for the work being complete to the contract documents. Seeking to align efforts to minimize detailing costs is a recipe for very costly mistakes down the road when something doesn't satisfy fire code, building code, ADA, insurance, lender requirements, hotel brand standard (in my case). Theoretically, I suppose you would only see streamlining if the Owner-Architect-Engineer-GC-Regulator was one entity, like a government maybe.
- primeblue 9y ago
  So much compliance, that's the problem.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rosser 9y ago

> I think a big unmentioned factor is probably liability and the prospect of litigation. There was an article shared to HN some time ago arguing that the kinds of cost overruns that we see so often on infrastructure projects in the US are almost endemic to common-law countries, and radically less prevalent in civil-law countries. I haven't been able to find that article again, but its conclusion has come up in many similar discussions since.

MaxGabriel 9y ago
Isn't Louisiana Civil/Napoleonic law? They could be compared against other states to check that theory.
- volkl47 9y ago
  Louisiana's notorious corruption issues are probably going to be an issue in drawing meaningful conclusions from such a comparison.

joshuaheard 9y ago

There is two problems with this theory. The first is that governments have immunity from litigation. They can only be sued where they consent to the lawsuit. The second is that in most states, employee-related injury claims must proceed through a worker's compensation system outside the normal litigation channel where the costs are much less. I always say there are not too many lawsuits, but too many laws. Legislatures think they are making something better by passing more rules, regulations, and laws. But, for every rule, regulation, or law, you have an opportunity for a lawsuit. Use more common sense? Sure, but then don't pass a multitude of laws regulating the subject. Why are infrastructure projects' costs higher here? I don't know really. My guess would be that compared to say Germany and Japan, everything here is the U.S. is huge. I mean probably 10-30% larger in size than those other countries with the resulting higher costs. But, this is just my personal observation.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
afuchs 9y ago
The government and its workers are not immune from litigation either, both have been sued, and successfully held responsible for damages. Actual construction is performed by contractors, corporations that are contracted by the government. In the US, it is rare for a construction project to be built, or even be designed, by government workers. These corporations and their workers can be sued, and take on additional liabilities due to the contracts and laws that apply specifically to them.
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  Since my dad worked as an engineer for the Federal Government I have skewed ideas how things work compared to most people. Which is to say, you are spot on. Most of the work government engineers do is oversight. Oversight is really important. I've constantly read that in the US due to ideological reasons the agencies that handle oversight are chronically understaffed which results in delays and inefficiencies. Delays are a big problem in the US. The slower a project is done the more it costs. Without proper oversight, you have an inability to efficiently manage design changes leading to delays and or less efficient construction.

Pharylon 9y ago

That's the American Way, though. America abhors regulations, and instead we allow the courts to sort it out. Europe is less litigious, mainly because they have massive government oversight and regulations.

kalleboo 9y ago
I don't think I've seen any evidence that the US has any less regulations than Europe. On the contrary I get the impression that the US has far more detailed regulation than, e.g. Sweden. Americans seem to love being a NIMBY, and corporations have a lot of power to get regulation in place to lock out competition.

wahern 9y ago

Those liability problems exist in every advanced Western country. It's true that litigation is more costly in common law countries, in some cases twice as high, and that this cost can be internalized in the ways you suggest. But those costs only account for single-digit percentages overall. What you describe could also be understood as an inefficient way of organization that is peculiar to the United States, and a by-product of American business and economic logic. Firms (i.e. vertical integration) exist to reduce the comparative inefficiencies of having separate, independent entities. Most other countries still have huge conglomerates (e.g. Japan, Korea), or contractors enjoy closer and longer-term business relationships. With rare exception (Berkshire Hathaway, Elon Musk, etc) Americans have systematically shifted toward looser organization of smaller, independent business entities. One of the downsides is the exploding cost of orchestrating these entities for big projects, and the loss of knowledge about how to manage such projects.

cylinder 9y ago
No not really, once you study the legal system of other advanced countries you will realize the US system is completely insane. The verdicts are wild, and we use juries for complex civil litigation. A bunch of regular Joes are supposed to understand torts and then even calculate damages! The result is trial lawyers succeed by playing on emotion, class, race, playing a character, etc., and a bunch of bored confused Joes and Janes sees an injured person and thinks "Okay, this sucks, give them $50 million."
- wyldfire 9y ago
  I don't know the solution but I would be super hesitant to take jury trials away (even for civil suits like described here).
  - b34r 9y ago
    For civil suits I absolutely would. It's a waste of people's time.
- everybodyknows 9y ago

lkbm 9y ago

The case-study of the Hyatt Regency collapse might a major root cause of the bureaucracy you're describing. The change that caused the issue was approved by the engineers in that case, but I think made us a lot more instituionally cautious: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnvGwFegbC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnvGwFegbC8

devoply 9y ago

Sounds like the future of software development to me.

imcoconut 9y ago
Depends on the software. In general infrastructure has a much higher liability associated with it, as a failed bridge, road, or building, will quickly kill/injure those making use of it. I could see a similar situation arise for, say, embedded software for medical devices like pacemakers etc.

CydeWeys 9y ago

This is an argument for vertical integration in the construction industry, which I suppose might even include state-run construction companies. If the architects, engineers, and construction workers are all working for the same entity, then there's no troublesome legal issues to deal with at the boundaries between entities, and everyone can simply do the right thing as efficiently as possible. In summary, end contracting and subcontracting.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
You have identified a incentive towards vertical integration. But then we might ask ourselves what is stopping it. Is there some counter-incentive that causes the hierarchy of contractors? Is there some regulation that forces it? You might claim that there are no state-run construction companies because of free-market ideology or some such bogeyman. But that doesn't explain why the private contractors don't integrate vertically. My own guess is that even a vertically integrated entity would be risk averse and have to create expensive, slow, internal sign-off procedures.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  My guess is regulatory capture, corruption, and knock-on effects from corporations being granted the rights of people, including money equaling free speech (see Citizens United). There's more money to be made if there are lots of different contractors and subcontractors that can all take a cut, and so the politicians are paid off through campaign contributions to allow the inefficient system to continue. Everyone involved makes lots of money, more than if they were vertically integrated and did construction efficiently, except for us taxpayers who are footing the bill, of course. It's basic rent-seeking by the construction industry.

Spooky23 9y ago

That's all about the culture of modern management. Relentlessly chasing pennies while setting dollars on fire. Design/build raises the level of dumb even higher by giving all parties powerful incentives to build the cheapest, minimally viable slop possible.

ThomPete 9y ago

This is very interesting. So basically in digital terms it went the opposite way from HTML where everything is more relative to each other to print where everything is exact. I wonder if there is some underlying principles hiding in this. Have to think about it some more but thank you so much for your insightful comment.

analog31 9y ago

Litigation can be covered with insurance. So, unless the actual injury rate is higher, litigation shouldn't make projects cost any more. Now it could be that litigation pays for medical costs, whereas other countries pay medical costs separately from project costs.

curiousreader 9y ago

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend some years ago. My friend comes from a family of home builders. None of them do it professionally anymore, but they all spent every summer growing up helping dad do everything from digging the hole to putting in the carpet. From time to time, each of the siblings has built a new home, and they just do it themselves in their spare time. My friend was telling me about helping his sister with her home. His sister has moved into a very rural community in the western U.S. When the family showed up to pour the footings, they asked for a copy of the footing plans. Their sister handed them an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with a hand-drawn floor plan. "Where's your official plans? The plans you submitted for your permit? The ones with the footing details?" "That is the paper we submitted for our permit. See the stamp that says 'Approved'?" All the other siblings live in Clark County, Nevada. The permitting process there is excruciating. They looked at the paper, looked at each other, shrugged, then built the house. They know how to build a footing. They know how to frame. They know how to build a house. The sister's house was built with the same quality as the other siblings' in a fraction of the time. But if one of the big builders tries to put in a subdivision in that little town, I hope the municipality watches them like a hawk. Big builders don't build homes. They cheat and connive and do everything to push product at the lowest possible cost. In a world without trust, you cannot afford to let people self-manage.

tomohawk 9y ago

The US is the only major country that does not have the English Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_fees%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_f...

drumttocs8 9y ago

The United States is consistently ranked as a top 5 most litigious country by various metrics. This may not be the main cause of the problem, but it certainly doesn't help.