Leland Torrence wrote:

> As trite as it sounds:  In the end the best way to get paid is to "get
> along" with each other, which usually means communicating honestly and
> regularly from beginning to end.

I tend to insist on weekly progress meetings on larger projects. As difficult as
it sometimes may be it keeps everyone focused on the project. I also avoid any
jobs where I do not think there will be an attempt at honest communication.
There are times when people are honest from their perspective, but their
perspective does not allow room for anyone else, and the comunication process
becomes strained. This is a theme I have been trying to explore in real time on
the I-way. I accept the distinction between those who are difficult because they
are difficult, and those who are difficult because they force us to do our best.
Then there are those who are difficult because they are lost and do not have any
idea what is going on.

Working in the NYC environment I cannot say that most people are reasonable.
Therefore I very much enjoy the opportunities I do get to work outside of NYC.

We have a particularly difficult time working with homeowners because 1) the
projects usually involve a multitude of different things to do in small
quantities, which makes supervision overhead a nightmare, and 2) the customers
do not understand that 10 SF means 10 SF, and not 30 SF. It is so easy to say,
"Yeh, I'll do that little bit over there also." And suddenly you find yourself
working at a loss. I call this phenomena "scope creep".  I am always conflicted
between if I should take the stance that the homeowner is assuming that we are
ripping them off therefore they expect us to comply with doing more small favors
to make up for our sins, or that they are innocently naive about the limits to
what they purchased. If you had known my Grandmothers you would never assume the
naive scenario.

Large or small, the minute you sign a lump sum contract the adversarial tendency
is for every other party to the project to begin to push scope creep. Making
changes without allowing for cost increases is an obvious sign of scope creep.
Forcing uneeded conflict onto a project, an example being where the architect
suddenly gets pissed and does not love you any more, becomes a form of scope
creep -- the original scope was that we would all get along and now suddenly we
are forced into a position of costly absolution. "But it says in the specs that
you are going to do dadada." "Well, yeah, but how should I know that?" "It says
it right here." "But that is at the end of the plumbing section, and we are
talking about masonry repointing." "Are you saying you didn't read the specs
before you bid the job?" "Well, yeah, but... " "You contractors are all the
same," implication being a bunch of illiterate louts. Used to be specs were
shorter and talked about things like doing an honest job of good quality using
experienced mechanics - and ended in a handshake.

A while back I was told a story about a contractor of high reputation that in
the 70's completely folded their business because they no longer felt that a
handshake was honored by the other side as a binding contract and they did not
want to go on without a commonaltiy of trust. I consider their actions
honorable, though possibly not available to the rest of us.

Increasingly we all have to take tests to prove out our incompetence.

][<en Follett