Whatever Happened to the Happy Ending?

There’s a tragically accurate maxim in the world of software development that the first 90% of a project accounts for 90% of the allocated time, while the remaining 10% accounts for the other 90% of the allocated time. Indeed for me, right now, the biggest problem we seem to face in the AV industry is the challenge of delivering projects to totally unrealistic deadlines.

Sure, tricky technology, the endless search for experienced new staff, the digital domain and other elements, conspire to make our lives that little bit harder, but the thing that really gets people prodding me in the chest (mostly metaphorically) is how on earth we get enough time at the end of a project to successfully commission systems.

This is not a new problem. I remember the same things happening when I started in the industry in the ’90s and I’m sure those with more years on me could attest to the same experiences in their early years. But, with each passing year, we are cramming more complex technology into smaller spaces with ever-diminishing time frames to get it up and running.

And you know what makes me mad as hell? It’s not that everything is getting more complex for all of us in order to make life easier and more sophisticated for the user; it’s that no-one is willing to allow our industry the time to make each installation truly awesome.

Now, of course you can’t expect that the client is going to put up with extended commissioning periods just to make life more relaxed for the AV team. However, I bet if we put some numbers and structure behind the situation, they would stop and think for a second and maybe even change their approach.

So here are three pitches we can take to our respective contacts in the broader marketplace:

PITCH WEEK

1. Time to complete as a percentage of total lifespan: When the building is nearing completion and everyone wants to start using it, impatience is easy to understand, especially if the builder or other trades have (as usual) overrun their program! However, let’s take a look at the average lifespan of a building and see what a delay in commissioning might actually mean:

• Typical AV system lifespan: 3-5 years
• Number of weeks (averaged to 4 years): 208 weeks
• Extra time to commission systems: 2 weeks
• Percentage of total lifespan: 0.96%

So, the client is risking less than 1% of the utilisation of their facility to make sure everything is actually up and running properly.

Why did I pick two weeks? Some projects take far longer than that to commission! Here comes the second part of this argument: phased handover. 

PHASED IN

Even with the most complex facility, the trend is for large numbers of relatively simple systems, and smaller numbers of more complex systems (boardrooms, NOCs, multipurpose lecture theatres, etc). This means that with an extra two weeks up front before the rooms go into use, you can probably get a large number of systems on line, or at least get the high-priority, more-complex ones finished. 

You may need some more time to get all the systems up and running, but if you can hand over some systems after two weeks of unfettered access, the client can then begin to use the facility and leave you in relative peace to complete the remainder. There are of course plenty of reasons why you might need a higher or lower value than two weeks, but I’d suggest this is a reasonable period to start with. 

The concluding point with this argument is that the two weeks actually start from Practical Completion. Decouple the client’s (and thereby the builder’s) contractual expectation that all systems will be on line the day the builder walks off site, and you dramatically improve the chances of success. No more frantic efforts to make the system ‘seem finished’ to get a tick in the box – only to return later to get it working for real.

TOTING THE WRONG COSTS

2. Return on Investment – the cost of getting it wrong: This approach is all about the dollars lost through ineffective use of systems. Take the commonplace situation in which commissioning is rushed, and thereafter the integrator is called back countless times to fix the system. 

There is most certainly a heavy cost on the integrator here, but let’s not forget the indirect costs to the client such as:

• Disruption to planned meetings, lectures or events in session
• Unexpected cancellation of rooms prior to a meeting, lecture or event
• Users lose faith in systems and utilisation drops, thereby diminishing the value of the investment

Where these things are really important to clients – courts, network operation centres and similar – you will more often get a reasonable commissioning period, as they typically understand the risk and cost associated with a failing or incomplete system. It is now time for us to spread that knowledge to others.

We really can’t know how many things are likely to fail, so let’s work through a worst-case scenario. We’re deploying multiple rooms with control systems and 5% of the required time is allowed to complete them. Now, let’s assume that this leaves a 95% chance of room failures until such time as code writing and commissioning are completed.

So, of 20 rooms, 19 (95%) will fail in the course of use. Once a room has failed, let’s assume that it takes three to five workdays to resolve the failures and bring it back fully on line. This means that on average, 76 days of productive use will be lost across those 20 rooms before all bugs are resolved. 

Compare this with two days required to initially commission each room. While that might be 40 days in total, let’s not forget the average AV company would probably operate at least two commissioning teams on a job of this size, meaning a four-week commissioning period in total. However, at the end of two weeks, they will have 50% of the facility on line and operational, while over the remaining two weeks, other rooms can be incrementally brought on line. 

There are many ways to slice and dice this maths, but the point is trying to impress on the client the long-term risk they are taking for perceived short-term gain.