Masonry Magazine April 1984 Page. 18
REFLECTIONS
continued from page 17
site labor has become associated with poor quality and unreliable performance, the mason, because he is its most visible component, has been burdened with this image.
I would also point to the Taylors, the man-and-wife team who pioneered management efficiency in the early 20th Century. Their very first studies were done on bricklaying. Their time and motion studies were directed toward improving bricklaying on the job site. The old saw of laying a thousand brick per day per bricklayer goes back to the Taylors. The so-called inefficiency of bricklaying stems from these studies. They laid a curse on the bricklaying trade which is still with us today.
To review where we are today, we have an industry and craftsmen who have a tradition of building the world's most outstanding structures. But we are doing this in an American and Canadian society which has been building disposable buildings with a 50-year life span. Building fast and cheap is the goal. Against this background, we have been tarnished with the poor image of job site labor, and since bricklaying is such a visible part of job site labor, we are suffering a bad image which is unjust. This has not been helped by "efficiency experts" such as the Taylors who long ago concluded that bricklaying is inefficient and has a lot of room for improvement.
Because we have an image of inefficiency, we often are not specified in the design of a building. Yet we know that when we bid against all these other materials, most of the time we can beat them in price and live up to fast schedules which industrialized components claim only they can accomplish.
On the positive side we have a return to the kind of building which elevates the human spirit and is not a plain box. Curves, arches, angles, and human scale are coming back into the design of structures. And these look natural in masonry buildings but artificial when any other materials are used.
All of us the masonry manufacturers, the mason contractors, and the mason craftsmen and trades are trying to do something about this. Each, in our own way, is concerned with the problem. Each offers a solution as only it can.
Masonry Production Improving
The masonry manufacturing business is improving its production process so as to turn out higher quality at a lower price. The mason contractor is automating his job site so as to get the material to the masonry trades as quickly as possible. The masonry trades are providing better trained manpower and are resolving disputes and problems quicker. They are also employing techniques to help get the wall built faster and at less cost. Both mason contractors and unionized masons are taking steps to remain competitive.
That, in a very sketchy way, is where I see all of us today. How about tomorrow?
I see a number of problems which have to be solved if we are to stay competitive and, indeed, take market share away from our competition. The biggest problem is that masonry still is being designed to safety factors greater than any of our competition. Most designers today are using a safety factor of 2 when designing buildings. Masonry structures are designed to a higher safety factor most of the time. That means a waste of labor and material. By reducing the safety factor to 2 for masonry, we can immediately gain a cost advantage.
Another problem is that we require the highly experienced and skilled craftsman to do the grunt work of lifting the material in place. This of course is especially pertinent to concrete block. But concrete block represents 70% of the total value of all masonry construction put into place in the U.S. today. There is a push and pull going on, with the masonry industry developing products which do more, but are heavier, and the mason insisting on having lighter loads to lift. The escalating costs of lightweight aggregate as well as the diminishing supplies in many parts of the country are not helping the problem. The result of this push-pull is that the specifier becomes concerned about productivity and feels uneasy about specifying masonry construction.
Too Many Trades on the Job
The third problem is that a masonry wall needs the work of far too many other trades before it is complete. Your craftsmen do an excellent job in putting up fine looking masonry walls, only to see the plumber arrive with his sledge hammer to break holes so pipes can fit in. When the electrician arrives, further demolition takes place, after which the air conditioning and heating butcher smashes his way through our walls for his ducts. After the mason is brought back to repair all this damage, the insulator now comes on the job, followed by the ceiling installer, and then the painter. It's a miracle that so many masonry walls still look good after all this mayhem is inflicted upon them.
As I've stated earlier, all of us are working on the parts of the problem which affect our profitability. Let me tell you what NCMA is doing to solve or at least start thinking about these problems.
One of the finest research facilities for concrete masonry exists in our headquarters building at Dulles Airport in Herndon, Virginia. We have begun the research to understand the behavior of concrete masonry walls so that some day they can be designed to a safety factor of 2. The name for this research is "ultimate strength design." We hope that by 1985, most of the research will be completed. We will need the input of the mason and the mason contractor in this research since one of the large variables is the mortar which is mixed on the job site.
We have been thinking about the weight of block, and while we believe we can offer something lighter, it will never be as light as a hand-sized brick. Therefore, we think that a mechanical way to put the block at the disposal of the mason is needed. But I know this raises the spectre of "speed up," and therefore the solution toward this end must enlist the mason and the mason contractor. If the skill of the mason can be employed without the back-breaking labor of lifting the block, it really doesn't matter what the size or weight of the unit is. And another giant step will have been taken toward competing with all the industrialized and lightweight wall materials and systems.
We know that the owner buys a wall, not a block or a brick, and the more complicated it is to build that wall, the more the chances are that the owner will get an undesirable product. Therefore, NCMA's research work is being centered on developing a wall which does not require all the additional skills to work on it before it is finished. I mean the plumber, electrician, heating and air-conditioning mechanic, painter, insulator, etc. The fewer such trades necessary after a concrete block wall is built, the less complicated the building of a finished wall will become, and the more competitive we will be against industrialized structures.
We have begun some work on this concept, but still have a long way to go. We have consulted with members of your group on this concept, and we intend to continue as we make progress. The wall that is loadbearing, weatherproof, colored, textured, insulated, and easy to fit utilities through is our goal.