New Means, Methods and Materials - Cost to Use or Not to Use
Patrick J. Morrissey
Promoting SIP vs ROAR - Stabilize-In-Place vs Rip-Out-And-Replace for Sustainable Maintenance of the Built Environment
It never ceases to amaze me what the levels of acceptance or rejection are to new products, concepts or ideas. They say Drywall is the biggest hindrance to new technology. Why, because new ideas, that are sometimes proven as game-changers, in our restoration industry, never seem to make it to "the guy" in the next office. How many times I get a call from an associate with a problem he or she has wrestled with for hours, days or even months and has now landed on my doorstep. In may cases I have at least three choices;
- Tell him about a solution that I implemented recently or in some cases as many as 30 years ago that he or she is totally unfamiliar with.
- "Drywall" response - Ask them to walk down the hall and speak to a colleague that may be within as little as 30 feet from them and talk with them about a particular project we worked on, which had the same problem. again recently or many years ago and was resolved with a mutually acceptable solution.
- Tell him about the "latest and greatest" new, means, method or material that while unproven to him, his colleagues or even anywhere in the US, has a track record undeniably successful somewhere else in the world. This is where the concept of "Nobody wants to be first, but absolutely nobody wants to be last; everyone wants to be in the comfortable middle" concept takes over. If it wasn't for Eric Hammarberg listening to a "salesman" with a new concept, called HeliBar, in 1990, the first use at the Chrysler building in NYC never would have happened. Today one of the most commonly accepted and specified means for crack stitching in the US, HeliBar got its start with one forward thinking Architect willing to "try something new".
The next point is what does it cost to use or even not to use. The cost. benefit, savings to use is very obvious and immediate when the new concept is at least tried but when not considered for weeks, months or in most cases years the "LOSSES" sustained by ignoring the item, when figured can be staggering. If you have not experience this once in your career, I guarantee you will!
ISO15257 CP specialist, FICorr
4yCouldn’t agree more Pat. ICCP for steelframe heritage buildings has had the same path. Around and proven with data since the mid 1990s and engineers and architects still need convinced on this “new” technology every single time. In the meantime owners pay x10 cost to stay traditional in their repair strategy (or do nothing) to patch over corrosion issues. There are exceptions to this of course with enlightened engineers but it’s nearly always the same battle nevertheless generally.