Ideas That Tear the System Down.

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

Ideas Are Not the Same Thing as Tearing the System Down

Here’s the deal. There are two genuinely different things every organization has to manage. The system itself, and the improvement of that system. Confusing those two is one of the most damaging mistakes a team can make, because it leads people to believe they are improving something when they are actually quietly tearing it apart.

Why You Cannot Improve Your Way Into a System

You cannot effectively or quickly improve yourself into having a genuine system in the first place. I have never seen that actually work. Toyota took somewhere between twenty and sixty years, genuine experts can argue about the exact number, to develop what eventually became the Toyota production system. If you want to spend decades slowly evolving your own system from scratch through trial and error, that is a real option. I simply do not recommend it.

There is a saying I genuinely love. We can learn from wisdom or from sad experience. I would always rather learn from the accumulated wisdom of people who already figured something out than from the slow, repeated pain of making the same mistakes myself. That is exactly why I sought out the best training available, learned directly from people who already knew what they were doing, read real books, and put together a complete system before ever stepping onto my first project as a superintendent.

Why the Integrated Production Control System Exists

That early effort eventually became what we call the integrated production control system, built from the First Planner System, the Takt production system, and the Last Planner System. I want to be genuinely clear that the Last Planner System is not my own creation, and I never want to imply otherwise. Takt steering and control, on the other hand, is something I did actually develop myself. Distilling all of this down into something clear and usable, then actually implementing it, is what let that first project succeed.

Once a real system like that exists, you finally have something worth improving. Continuous improvement is the house that rests upon the foundation of standards, of stability. You genuinely cannot improve something that does not exist yet, and you cannot tear down an existing system in the name of trying to improve it either.

Why Our Own Bootcamp Proves the Point

Here is a concrete example from our own Super PM Bootcamp. We have a standard outline, a standard preparation process, standard presentation templates, standard visuals, standard checklists, standard order forms. That level of consistency is exactly what makes genuine improvement so easy to actually implement. Because everything is stable, a single real improvement can be identified clearly and applied cleanly.

What we never do is decide to skip the bootcamp entirely, skip presenting the material, skip the visuals, or skip the music that sets the tone. None of that is improvement. That is tearing down the system, and it does not lead to continuous improvement at all. It leads straight back into chaos.

What a Genuine System Actually Requires

The integrated production control system depends on a long list of real, non-negotiable components working together. A genuinely balanced team, with every individual carrying their own personal organization system. A real plan and schedule, built on genuinely Lean contracts, supported by a working risk analysis and removal process. A functioning supply chain management system for both information and materials, real prefabrication, and a genuinely strong logistics system behind it all.

It also depends on actually winning over the workforce, maintaining a genuinely clean, safe, and organized culture, running a real onboarding system, and training people consistently. It requires a daily correction system built around quality at the source, real contractor grading, genuine team balance grading, and zero tolerance actually implemented rather than simply written down somewhere.

Watch for these signs an organization still has real gaps in this foundation rather than a genuine system to actually build improvement on top of.

Core components like contractor grading or team balance tracking existing on paper but never actually practiced consistently.
Zero tolerance policies that technically exist but get quietly waived whenever enforcing them feels inconvenient in the moment.
A supply chain, logistics, or onboarding process that varies significantly from one project to the next rather than following a consistent standard.

Why Loosening These Standards Is Never Actually an Improvement

I hear teams, often working comfortably removed from the actual field, rationalize weakening these exact standards constantly. We will not do contractor grading every week, we will stretch it to every three months instead. We will not require everyone to attend the morning worker huddle. We will only bother with standard visuals after the pre-construction meeting when it feels truly necessary. We will relax our focus on cleanliness and quality a little. We will ease up on safety standards just slightly.

None of those are improvements. Every single one is tearing down the system.

Each example shares the same underlying pattern. A real standard gets reframed as merely inconvenient, and the reduction gets described using the language of flexibility rather than the language of removal. That framing is exactly what makes this trap so easy to fall into, since nobody sets out deliberately to dismantle a working system. It simply happens one reasonable sounding exception at a time.

Watch for these specific rationalizations that sound reasonable in the moment but are actually quietly dismantling a real, functioning system.

Reducing the frequency of a genuine accountability practice, like contractor grading, simply because maintaining it weekly feels inconvenient.
Making attendance at a core practice like the morning worker huddle optional rather than genuinely universal.
Treating cleanliness, quality, or safety standards as flexible, situational preferences rather than fixed, non-negotiable requirements.

Why Proximity to the Field Protects a Real System

A genuinely Lean company stays close to the field. A company that is not genuinely Lean drifts away from it. You cannot tear down these specific standards and still expect to win, no matter how reasonable the individual justification sounds in the room where that decision actually gets made. Ideas for genuine improvement are valuable. Rationalizing the quiet removal of a real standard is something else entirely, and confusing the two is exactly how a working system slowly comes apart.

Building Real Stability Before You Chase Improvement

None of this means avoiding change or treating a system as permanently fixed. It means building genuine stability first, and holding that foundation firmly even while you continue looking for real, legitimate ways to improve on top of it.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your organization build this exact kind of stable, complete system first, so that every improvement you make afterward actually builds something stronger, rather than quietly chipping away at a foundation that was never genuinely solid to begin with.

So here is the challenge. Look at your own organization’s recent decisions and ask honestly whether each one actually strengthened your existing system, or whether it simply loosened a standard because holding it felt inconvenient in the moment. That distinction alone will tell you whether you are genuinely improving or quietly tearing something down.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “Continuous improvement is the house that rests upon the foundation of standards, of stability.” Protect that foundation first, and genuine improvement has something real to stand on.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article argue that an organization cannot quickly “improve itself into” having a genuine system?

Because a real system, like the Toyota production system, typically takes decades of deliberate development to mature, and shortcuts rarely produce the same depth of stability. Learning from the accumulated wisdom and training of people who already built a working system, rather than trying to evolve one from scratch through trial and error, is presented as a far faster and more reliable path.

What is the actual difference between improving a system and tearing it down?

Genuine improvement strengthens an existing, stable standard, making it more effective while keeping its core function intact. Tearing the system down means weakening, skipping, or making optional a core component of that standard, often justified with language that sounds like flexibility or pragmatism, while actually removing something the system genuinely depends on to function.

Why does the article list so many specific components as “non-negotiable” parts of a real system?

Because each component, from personal organization systems to contractor grading to zero tolerance enforcement, plays a specific role in supporting the overall system’s stability. Treating any one of them as optional or situational creates a gap that weakens the entire structure, even if the rest of the system still appears to be functioning normally on the surface.

Why does proximity to the field matter so much to whether a system stays genuinely stable?

Because decisions to loosen or skip a core standard tend to get made and rationalized more easily by people removed from the actual consequences of that decision, happening far from where the real work is being done. Staying genuinely close to the field keeps leadership accountable to the real, visible impact of weakening a standard, rather than approving that weakening from a comfortable distance where the consequences are never fully seen.

If you want to learn more we have:

-Takt Virtual Training: (Click here)
-Check out our Youtube channel for more info: (Click here)
-Listen to the Elevate Construction podcast: (Click here)
-Check out our training programs and certifications: (Click here)
-The Takt Book: (Click here)

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Meet Jason Schroeder, the driving force behind Elevate Construction IST. As the company’s owner and principal consultant, he’s dedicated to taking construction to new heights. With a wealth of industry experience, he’s crafted the Field Engineer Boot Camp and Superintendent Boot Camp – intensive training programs engineered to cultivate top-tier leaders capable of steering their teams towards success. Jason’s vision? To expand his training initiatives across the nation, empowering construction firms to soar to unprecedented levels of excellence.

Standard Sizes: Why Everything Fits in Construction Logistics.

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

The Myth That Vendors Will Not Fit Into Standard Sizes

Here’s the deal. I keep hearing the same excuse from general contractors. Vendors will not ship it that way. They will not box it that way. They will not transport materials into the specific prefabrication sizes a Takt plan actually needs. I think that excuse is nonsense, and the entire global shipping industry proves it.

Why Standard Sizes Have Always Existed for Real Reasons

Standard unit sizes show up constantly throughout history, often traced back through genuinely surprising historical chains. One well known story, worth treating as popular legend rather than verified fact, involves NASA rocket components that had to travel by rail to reach launch facilities, constrained by the width of railway tunnels. Those tunnels were originally sized around standard railroad boxcars, which were sized around standard rail gauge, which traced back through old wagon ruts from pioneer era roads, reportedly inherited all the way from Roman era cart dimensions, based on the spacing needed for two horses pulling a cart side by side.

I cannot personally verify every link in that chain, and I would encourage anyone genuinely curious to look into it further themselves. Whether every detail holds up to scrutiny or not, the underlying point is real and genuinely important. Standard sizes exist because an enormous, interconnected system depends on them fitting together consistently, often for reasons that trace back further than anyone involved in a single decision would ever realize.

That is exactly why dismissing a standard as arbitrary or unnecessary deserves real skepticism before accepting it at face value. A size, a format, or a delivery rhythm that looks inconvenient in the moment often exists because dozens of other systems downstream already depend on it staying consistent.

Why Shipping Containers Prove This Beyond Any Doubt

Here is the example that matters most directly. Standard shipping container sizes are a genuinely real, deliberate achievement, built specifically to work seamlessly with cranes, trucks, railways, tie downs, and international shipping all at once. Before that standardization existed, every shipment risked becoming its own unique logistical puzzle. Once it existed, the entire global supply chain gained a shared, universal unit that everyone involved could simply build around.

Vendors genuinely do not argue about fitting metal panels, engines, or tires into that standard container size. Nobody treats it as an unreasonable request. It is simply the common, accepted standard the entire industry already operates around, without resistance and without constant negotiation.

That acceptance did not happen automatically either. It took real, deliberate industry wide agreement to establish those standard dimensions in the first place, decades ago. Once established and clearly communicated, though, resistance essentially disappeared, because everyone involved understood exactly what to build around from that point forward.

Watch for these real world examples proving that standardized units already work seamlessly across massive, complex industries without the resistance construction often assumes.

International shipping containers fitting cranes, trucks, and rail systems worldwide without constant renegotiation of size.
Standard rail gauge allowing railcars from different manufacturers and countries to run on the same tracks without incident.
Entire global supply chains built around a shared, universal unit that nobody treats as optional or negotiable.

Why the Same Resistance Myth Does Not Hold Up in Construction

So when a general contractor insists that vendors simply will not conform to a specific Takt time rhythm, a zone based delivery schedule, or a defined prefabrication unit size, the honest question is, what exactly are you talking about. The entire international logistics order already runs on standardization, and it only works because everyone involved accepts and builds around those standards rather than treating every delivery as a unique negotiation.

The actual myth here is not that trade partners or vendors refuse to work within a genuine system. The real issue is a lack of management and a lack of leadership. Everyone across the broader logistics value stream is already fully accustomed to operating inside standardized systems in every other part of their business. Construction simply has not consistently asked for the same discipline, and then mistakenly concludes the industry itself is the obstacle.

The same vendor shipping a prefabricated unit to your jobsite may also be shipping standard containers to a port the very same week, built around dimensions everyone involved accepted without hesitation. The capability to work within a genuine standard clearly already exists. What is often missing is a construction team willing to define one clearly and hold to it consistently.

Watch for these signs a lack of standardization on your own project is actually a leadership gap rather than a genuine vendor limitation.

No consistent, pre-communicated standard for delivery sizes, zones, or timing shared with vendors before a project actually begins.
Deliveries treated as individually negotiated events rather than built around a shared, expected standard from the start.
Problems with delivery size or timing blamed on vendor behavior rather than traced back to whether the standard was ever clearly set in the first place.

Why the Real Fix Starts With Us, Not Our Vendors

The honest reason we do not get what we want, in the format we want it, delivered the way we actually need it, is that we do not standardize it and genuinely expect it up front. We do not pre-plan for it. That is not a criticism meant to embarrass anyone. It is simply an accurate diagnosis of where the real gap actually sits.

This reframing matters because it changes where a team looks for the actual fix. Blaming a vendor for not meeting an undefined expectation leads nowhere productive, since there was never a clear standard to actually meet in the first place. Defining that standard clearly, early, and consistently gives a vendor something real to build around, exactly the same way the shipping industry gave every port and carrier a real standard to design around decades ago.

If we genuinely want to improve how our jobsites run, we have to stop catching and correcting mistakes reactively once materials have already arrived in the wrong size or format. We have to start demanding real accuracy and precision up front instead, asking for exactly what we need, in the right sizes, built around the right standards, delivered according to the actual Takt time our project requires, in the format our site is genuinely prepared to receive.

Building Real Standardization Into Your Own Supply Chain

None of this requires reinventing how global logistics already works. It requires applying that same discipline, clear, communicated, expected standards, directly to your own project’s delivery requirements, rather than assuming vendors are uniquely incapable of meeting them.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build genuine standardized delivery expectations directly into your supply chain, rather than treating every vendor conversation as a fresh negotiation that somehow always ends the same disappointing way.

So here is the challenge. The next time you hear that a vendor simply will not deliver materials in the size or format your project actually needs, ask honestly whether that standard was ever clearly communicated and genuinely expected from the very beginning. More often than not, that gap in leadership, not vendor resistance, is where the real problem actually started.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “The myth that vendors won’t fall into a system is false. It’s a lack of leadership.” Set the real standard clearly, expect it consistently, and watch how quickly that supposed resistance disappears.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article treat the story about NASA rocket components and horse cart width as popular legend rather than confirmed fact?

Because the specific historical chain connecting ancient cart widths to modern rocket component sizing is widely circulated but difficult to verify in full detail, and treating it as entertaining folklore rather than established history is the more accurate way to present it. The underlying point about standardization tracing back through surprising historical chains remains genuinely valid regardless of whether every specific link in that particular story holds up to scrutiny.

Why do standard shipping container sizes matter so much to the article’s overall argument?

Because they demonstrate, at a genuinely massive global scale, that complex industries can and do operate successfully around shared, universal standards without constant resistance or negotiation. If an entire worldwide shipping industry can standardize successfully, the claim that construction vendors specifically cannot adapt to a defined delivery standard becomes much harder to justify.

What is the actual root cause the article identifies behind vendors seeming to resist standardized delivery requirements?

A lack of clear, consistently communicated standards set by the project team itself, rather than genuine resistance from vendors. The article argues that vendors across the broader logistics industry already operate successfully within standardized systems elsewhere, which suggests the real gap is a failure to clearly define and expect those standards within construction specifically.

What practical change does the article recommend for teams wanting to fix this pattern?

Shifting from reactively catching and correcting delivery problems after materials arrive in the wrong size or format, toward proactively defining and communicating exact delivery standards before a project begins. That shift requires asking vendors clearly for what is actually needed, in the right sizes and formats, aligned with the project’s real Takt time, rather than discovering a mismatch only after delivery has already happened.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

The Engines of the Train: Pace Setters in Construction Flow.

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

Why Your Bottleneck Trade Is Rarely Where You Expect It to Be

Here’s the deal. Driving through the Cajon Pass in Southern California recently, watching real freight trains move through the mountains, I noticed something that genuinely challenged an assumption I had carried for years without ever questioning it. The engine is not always at the front of the train. Sometimes it sits in the middle. Sometimes it sits at the back entirely. That small observation turned into a genuinely useful extension of how I think about Takt planning.

Why the Engine’s Position Challenges a Common Assumption

Most of us picture a train the way cartoons show it, one engine pulling everything from the very front. Real freight trains do not always work that way. Engines get positioned wherever they actually need to be to move the full length of the train effectively, sometimes distributed through the middle or placed toward the back, depending on the weight and length of what is actually being hauled.

That observation connects directly to drum buffer rope, the theory of constraints concept built around a genuine bottleneck setting the real pace for everything around it. In the classic version of that idea, a group of hikers deals with the exact same problem. The slowest hiker, the genuine pace setter, does not always get to conveniently stand at the front of the line. Sometimes that person is stuck in the middle, and the whole system has to account for that reality rather than wishing it were otherwise.

Both examples make the same underlying point in a different setting. The thing actually setting the pace does not arrange itself according to what would be most convenient to plan around. It sits wherever real conditions actually put it, and a planner who assumes otherwise is planning against reality rather than working with it.

Why Your Actual Pace Setter May Not Be First in Your Sequence

Here is the extension worth sitting with. In a real train of trades moving through a project, your actual bottleneck, the trade genuinely setting the pace for everything else, is not guaranteed to be the first trade in your sequence. It might sit squarely in the middle of your train, just like a real locomotive sometimes does.

Watch for these signs your actual bottleneck trade is positioned somewhere other than the convenient front of your sequence.

A later trade in the sequence consistently determining how fast the entire train of trades can actually move, regardless of how quickly earlier trades finish their own work.
Buffers built only at the front of a sequence, while the genuine pace setting trade sits further back, unprotected from upstream disruption.
Assumptions about sequence order based on convention or habit, rather than an honest assessment of which trade actually represents the real limiting factor.

Why This Matters for Where You Actually Place Your Effort

Here is the practical insight that genuinely matters most. If you want an entire train, or an entire train of trades, to move faster or slower, you do not focus your attention on the wagons. You focus entirely on the engine itself. Does it actually need to accelerate. Does it genuinely have the capacity to do so. Does it have the fuel, meaning the real resources, it actually needs. Is it staying in pace with any other pace setters you are managing, particularly relevant once you are running multiple trains through a genuinely complex, multi-train Takt plan.

Applied directly to a real jobsite, this means resisting the instinct to pour extra attention into trades that are not actually your bottleneck, simply because they happen to be easier to influence or more visible in the moment. Real improvement in overall pace comes specifically from investing in whichever trade is genuinely setting that pace, wherever it happens to sit in your sequence.

This runs against a genuinely common instinct. When a project feels behind, the natural reaction is often to push every trade harder at once, hoping the combined pressure produces a faster overall result. It rarely does. Pushing a trade that was never the actual constraint simply produces wasted effort and frustration, while the real bottleneck continues setting the same pace it always was.

Questions Worth Asking About Your Actual Engine

Once you have genuinely identified which trade functions as your real engine, a specific set of questions becomes far more useful than general schedule pressure applied evenly across everyone.

Does this trade actually have the crew capacity needed to move at the pace the rest of the project genuinely requires.
Does this trade have the materials, equipment, and information, the genuine fuel, it needs to avoid unnecessary delay.
Is this trade staying synchronized with any other pace setting trade running elsewhere in a multi-train plan, rather than drifting out of alignment with it.

None of those questions make sense applied to a wagon. They only make sense applied directly to the actual engine, which is exactly why correctly identifying your real bottleneck matters so much before you ever decide where to focus real improvement effort.

Why Real World Observation Keeps Teaching Me New Things

I genuinely cannot stop noticing these kinds of parallels once I start looking for them. A real train passing through a mountain pass taught me something about Takt planning I had not fully articulated before, simply because I took a moment to actually look closely at something most people would drive right past without a second thought. That habit, pausing to genuinely examine something ordinary and ask what it might teach you, tends to produce exactly this kind of useful insight more often than people expect.

I would encourage anyone genuinely trying to master this kind of thinking to practice the same habit deliberately. Pick something ordinary you encounter constantly, traffic flow, a grocery store checkout line, a shipping dock, and ask honestly what it might reveal about pace, bottlenecks, and sequencing. The specific example matters far less than the discipline of actually looking closely enough to notice something real.

Building This Awareness Into Your Own Takt Plan

None of this requires abandoning the drum buffer rope framework you already use. It requires being honest about where your actual pace setting trade genuinely sits within your sequence, rather than assuming it will conveniently appear at the front simply because that would be easier to plan around.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams correctly identify where your genuine bottleneck actually sits within a train of trades, and focus real improvement effort there specifically, rather than spreading attention evenly across trades that were never actually the real constraint.

So here is the challenge. Look at your own current train of trades and ask honestly which specific trade is actually setting the real pace for the rest of the sequence. If that trade is not positioned at the front, check whether your buffers and your improvement effort are actually protecting and strengthening it, or whether they are still built around an assumption about where the pace setter should be rather than where it genuinely is.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “If we want to go faster, we do it at the engine, not the wagons.” Find your actual engine wherever it genuinely sits, and put your real effort there.

On we go.

FAQ

Why can a bottleneck trade be positioned in the middle of a sequence rather than at the beginning?

Because the actual limiting factor in any sequence depends on real conditions like crew capacity, material availability, and the complexity of the specific work involved, not on where convention suggests it should sit. Just as a real train’s engine gets positioned based on the actual weight and length of the cars behind it, a genuine bottleneck trade sits wherever real conditions place it, regardless of where it would be most convenient to plan around.

Why does the article warn against focusing improvement effort on trades that are not the actual bottleneck?

Because speeding up a trade that is not genuinely limiting the overall pace does not change how fast the entire sequence can actually move, since the true bottleneck still caps the pace regardless of how much faster the other trades become. Effort spent there is effort not spent on the trade that would actually produce a real improvement in overall project pace.

What practical questions should a team ask once it has identified its actual bottleneck trade?

Whether that trade has the crew capacity to move at the pace the project genuinely requires, whether it has the materials, equipment, and information it needs to avoid unnecessary delay, and whether it remains synchronized with any other pace setting trade running elsewhere in a multi-train plan. These questions target the real constraint directly, rather than applying generic schedule pressure evenly across every trade in the sequence.

Why does the article treat an ordinary observation, like watching a train in a mountain pass, as a genuine source of useful insight?

Because pausing to actually examine something familiar closely, rather than accepting a common assumption without question, often reveals a pattern that applies well beyond the original observation itself. The article treats this habit of genuine, curious observation as a practical skill worth developing, since useful analogies and insights frequently come from paying real attention to ordinary things most people overlook.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Mastering Construction Flow: Lessons from Elevating Construction Logistics.

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 16 min

Lead Time Is the Enemy, and Other Logistics Concepts Worth Stealing

Here’s the deal. I recently finished writing an entire book on construction logistics, pulling together an outline I had genuinely been collecting for ten to fifteen years, and researching concepts from military history, maritime operations, and manufacturing to fill in the gaps. A handful of these concepts genuinely changed how I think about running a jobsite, and I want to walk through the ones that matter most.

Why the Berlin Airlift Belongs in a Construction Logistics Book

The book opens with the story of the Berlin Airlift, an entire city supplied continuously from the sky during a real historical crisis. I do not think a logistical achievement of that scale has ever been genuinely replicated since. Reading through exactly how that operation actually worked made something click for me. Logistics is not a supporting function sitting quietly in the background of a project. Done well, it is genuinely one of the most impressive disciplines a team can master.

Why You Should See Only the End of the Tail

The military has a real concept worth borrowing directly, the logistics tail. What you actually receive and see on a jobsite is only the very end of a much larger chain that has to be managed carefully long before materials ever arrive. Treating that visible end point as the whole picture misses almost everything that actually determines whether logistics succeed or fail.

Why Toyota Spends Ninety Percent of Its Time Away From the Factory Floor

Here is a genuinely striking real example. Toyota reportedly spends roughly ninety percent of its time working directly with vendors and logistics, and only about ten percent of its time inside the actual factory. That ratio exists specifically to prevent mistakes, waste, misaligned behavior, trash, and incorrect materials from ever reaching the factory floor in the first place, rather than catching and correcting those problems once they have already arrived.

That is a genuinely different mindset than how most construction logistics actually operate. Most of our attention goes toward managing problems once they are already on site. The real opportunity sits upstream, preventing them from ever showing up there at all.

Why Lead Time Deserves to Be Treated as an Enemy

One chapter in the book carries a title I genuinely love. Lead time is the enemy. Too many teams simply accept a given lead time as a fixed fact and plan passively around it. The better approach is actively investigating and engineering a genuinely shorter, better lead time for your supply chain, rather than treating whatever a vendor initially quotes as something beyond your control.

Practical Concepts Worth Implementing Directly

A handful of specific ideas from manufacturing and military logistics translate directly onto a real jobsite.

Strive for five, meaning a worker should be able to access whatever they genuinely need within five seconds and five steps of where they are actually working.
The breakout queue, where materials get inspected, de-trashed, and properly kitted before they are ever allowed onto the jobsite itself.
Marshalling yards, genuine staging areas where resources are fully prepared and queued so they can be dispatched quickly the moment they are actually needed at the point of work.

A related concept worth borrowing from supply chain and distribution design is the hub, spoke, and feeder route model, the same structure familiar from distribution centers and retail logistics. Applying that same structure to a genuinely large or complex project gives logistics a real system for supplying work across multiple zones efficiently, rather than treating every delivery as its own isolated event.

What I Would Do Differently if I Ran These Jobs Again

Here is my honest reflection after working through all of this. If I could go back and run these projects again, I would spend significantly more time on genuine respect for people and significantly more time on logistics specifically. Too often, the default pattern on a real jobsite looks something like this. A crew arrives misaligned with a poor attitude, and the plan is to let them start anyway and address it through accountability later. Bad materials show up, and the plan is to install them anyway and sort out the reorder afterward. Trash gets hauled directly into the building, and the plan is to deal with it eventually.

None of that is actually acceptable. The real challenge is making sure everything, materials, equipment, and people, is genuinely queued up and ready before it ever enters the site at all, rather than entering first and getting corrected afterward.

Watch for these signs your own project is correcting problems after they enter the site rather than screening them out beforehand.

Crews allowed to begin work despite a known misalignment, with the plan to address it through a conversation later rather than before they start.
Materials installed despite a known defect, with reordering treated as an acceptable fallback rather than something to prevent entirely.
Trash or debris regularly entering a building during construction, with cleanup treated as routine rather than as something to stop at the source.

Traditional Japanese architecture includes a genuinely interesting real concept worth borrowing here too, built around an entry point specifically designed to determine whether whatever is arriving should actually be allowed through. I want to be clear that the point here is never about people. Our people are never the enemy. But misaligned behavior, poor mindsets, defective materials, waste, and vehicles that are not meeting your actual standard absolutely deserve to be screened out at that same kind of entry point, before they are ever allowed onto your site at all. Never let a problem walk through the gate and then chase it around the jobsite afterward trying to fix it. Stop it at the entrance instead.

Why This Book Covers So Much More Than These Highlights

Beyond these specific concepts, the book moves through Gemba and continuous improvement, standing up a genuine supply chain, real material management, how ordering loops back into your overall logistics plan, a complete logistics checklist, the actual role of a dedicated logistician on a jobsite, and deeper concepts around lead time, critical inventory, and dead stock. Every one of these deserves real attention on its own.

Building This Discipline Into Your Own Project

None of this requires rebuilding your entire logistics approach overnight. It requires picking one of these concepts, the breakout queue, a genuine marshalling yard, or simply asking whether your own lead times have ever actually been challenged, and applying it deliberately to see what changes.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build genuine logistics discipline directly into your project, screening problems out before they ever reach the site rather than managing them reactively once they have already arrived.

So here is the challenge. Pick one recurring problem on your own project that currently gets fixed after it reaches the jobsite, a materials issue, a crew alignment problem, debris entering the building. Ask honestly what it would take to screen that specific problem out at the gate instead, before it ever becomes something your team has to chase down and correct later.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “Lead time is the enemy.” Stop accepting it passively, and start actively engineering something better.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article describe what arrives on a jobsite as only “the end of the tail”?

Because the visible delivery of materials represents the final, smallest piece of a much larger logistics chain that had to function correctly long before anything actually arrived. Focusing only on that visible end point misses the upstream decisions, routing, timing, and coordination, that actually determine whether logistics succeed or create real problems later.

Why does Toyota reportedly spend so much more time with vendors and logistics than inside its own factory?

Because preventing a problem before it ever reaches the production floor is significantly more effective than catching and correcting it afterward. Investing heavily in vendor relationships and logistics coordination upstream is what allows a company to avoid introducing waste, misalignment, and defective materials into the actual production environment in the first place.

What is the practical difference between accepting a lead time and treating it as “the enemy”?

Accepting a lead time means planning passively around whatever a vendor initially quotes, treating that number as a fixed constraint. Treating lead time as the enemy means actively investigating why that lead time exists and working to engineer something genuinely shorter, rather than assuming the original quote represents the best possible outcome available.

Why does the article emphasize screening materials and behavior “at the gate” rather than correcting problems once they are already on site?

Because correcting a problem after it has already entered the project, whether that is a misaligned crew, defective materials, or debris brought into a building, costs significantly more time and effort than preventing it from entering in the first place. Screening at the entry point treats prevention as the actual goal, rather than treating correction after the fact as an acceptable default approach.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Pre-Construction Planning For Superintendents: What To Look For?

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 16 min

What a Superintendent Should Actually Do During Pre-Construction

Here’s the deal. Too many superintendents get brought into pre-construction and then simply parked at an empty desk with a set of drawings and a vague instruction to get familiar with the project. That is not useful, it does not fit how a genuinely field focused person actually works best, and it wastes one of the highest leverage windows available on the entire project.

Why This Time Deserves Real Extra Effort

I am generally not an advocate for working weekends or constant overtime. Pre-construction is the one genuine exception worth making. If there is ever a moment to put in extra hours and real additional effort, it is here, before the job actually starts, specifically so the field phase itself runs smoothly and you can genuinely go home on time once real construction begins.

An hour spent in pre-construction is worth a week spent recovering from a problem in the field. A day spent here is worth a month later. That ratio alone should settle any debate about where the real effort genuinely belongs.

Think about what that ratio actually means in practice. A superintendent who spends an extra evening working through a logistics plan or a zone map during pre-construction is effectively buying back an entire week of chaos later, the kind that shows up as rework, miscommunication, and crews standing around waiting on something that should have already been resolved.

What Actually Belongs in This Time, Step by Step

None of this means sitting bored behind a desk staring at drawings. There is a specific, structured sequence worth following instead.

Start by building the macro level Takt plan, including a real logistics plan and genuine zone maps. Begin long lead procurement immediately. Start actively supporting your designers rather than waiting passively for finished documents. Run real time constructability reviews and genuine budget analysis as the design develops, rather than after it is locked. Look closely at the land itself and the utilities serving it, identifying any make ready work, like shoring, that will genuinely be required before work can actually begin.

Here are the specific planning deliverables that should come out of this detailed phase.

A real plan and schedule, built alongside genuine zone maps and logistics maps rather than treated as separate afterthoughts.
A deliberately designed project trailer and a clear plan for how the project team itself will actually be organized and broken out.
A genuine risk and opportunity register, tracking long lead procurement and supply chain items specifically.

From there, review the site make ready requirements directly, read the actual soils report rather than skimming a summary, and map out the first ninety days in detail, both the ninety days leading up to notice to proceed and the ninety days immediately following it.

The Question Worth Asking Constantly Throughout

Keep returning to one genuinely useful question throughout this entire process. What could stop construction in six months. That question alone tends to surface real risks long before they would otherwise become visible, giving you genuine time to actually address them.

A practical extension of that question is researching every authority having jurisdiction requirement that could genuinely hold up the project later. Do you need two paved roads and active fire hydrants in place before you can go vertical. Do you need a vertical standpipe installed for the fire sprinkler system before building above the third floor. These specific requirements vary significantly by jurisdiction, and AI tools can genuinely help you research them thoroughly and quickly, well ahead of when they would otherwise surface as a real problem.

Watch for these specific categories of jurisdiction requirements worth researching proactively during pre-construction rather than discovering them later.

Infrastructure requirements, like paved roads or active fire hydrants, that must exist before certain construction activities can legally proceed.
Fire and life safety system requirements, like standpipes, that must be installed before building beyond a specific height or floor count.
Any other authority having jurisdiction requirement specific to your exact location and project type that could otherwise halt work unexpectedly.

There is genuinely no such thing as too much research during this phase. Every hour spent here protects real time later. The teams that treat jurisdiction research as a box to check quickly, rather than genuine investigation worth real time, are consistently the ones who discover a serious constraint only once it has already cost them weeks on the schedule.

Why I Increased My Own Recommendation on Fresh Eyes Meetings

I used to recommend one to three fresh eyes meetings before a project starts, where an outside perspective tears the plan apart specifically to find every flaw worth catching early. I have since increased that recommendation significantly. On our own next project, I told our team directly that I want eight separate fresh eyes meetings, continually tearing the plan apart until it is genuinely right before we ever break ground.

That increase was not arbitrary. Each additional round tends to surface issues the previous ones missed, and the cost of catching a problem during one more meeting is genuinely nothing compared to the cost of discovering it once real construction is already underway.

I understand the instinct to treat eight meetings as excessive before you have actually tried it. In practice, the eighth meeting rarely feels redundant. It tends to catch something the first seven genuinely missed, which is exactly why the number keeps climbing rather than settling back down once teams actually experience the difference.

Why You Do Not Have to Do This Entirely Alone

If you are working through this process on your own, a resource like Elevating Pre-Construction Planning walks through this exact sequence visually, step by step, and the First Planner System audiobook covers the same material for anyone who learns better by listening during a commute. If you would rather bring in real support, a dedicated planning team can work alongside you directly, whether that means staffing a single position or bringing in a full team to handle the work with you and genuinely reduce risk across the entire project.

Building This Structure Into Your Own Pre-Construction Process

None of this requires guessing at what to do with your time during pre-construction. It requires following this same sequence deliberately, protecting genuine time for it, and treating it with the seriousness its real leverage actually deserves.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your superintendents build exactly this kind of structured pre-construction process, rather than being handed a set of drawings and left to figure out where to start on their own.

So here is the challenge. Before your next project reaches pre-construction, map out which of these specific steps your current process already covers well, and which ones tend to get skipped or rushed. Whichever step consistently gets the least attention is exactly where your next field level problem is most likely already forming.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “An hour in precon is worth a week in the field. A day in precon is worth a month in the field.” Protect that time deliberately, and the field phase genuinely becomes easier because of it.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article recommend extra effort specifically during pre-construction rather than throughout the entire project?

Because problems caught and solved during pre-construction are dramatically cheaper and easier to fix than the same problems discovered once real construction is already underway. The article frames this as an extremely high leverage trade, where an hour invested early saves far more time later, which is why it treats this specific phase as the exception to generally avoiding overtime.

What is the actual purpose of mapping out the first ninety days before and after notice to proceed?

Because the early weeks of a project are where momentum either builds correctly or starts falling behind immediately, and detailed planning for that specific window helps ensure the project starts strong rather than scrambling to catch up from the very beginning. Covering both the ninety days before and after notice to proceed ensures preparation work and early execution are planned together rather than treated as separate phases.

Why does the article recommend researching authority having jurisdiction requirements so far in advance?

Because requirements like needing paved roads, active fire hydrants, or specific fire safety systems in place before certain construction activities can proceed vary significantly by location and can genuinely halt work if discovered too late. Researching these requirements thoroughly during pre-construction gives a team real time to plan around them, rather than discovering a hard stop once construction is already underway.

Why did the recommended number of fresh eyes meetings increase so significantly, from one to three up to eight?

Because each additional round of genuine outside review tends to surface issues the previous rounds missed, and the cost of running one more meeting is minimal compared to the cost of a problem discovered once construction has already started. The increase reflects a growing recognition that more thorough review during pre-construction consistently pays for itself many times over.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Do We Really Know Who Our Customer Is?

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

We Do Not Know Who Our Customer Actually Is

Here’s the deal. There is a line I keep coming back to. People will admire your depth until it is time to swim in it. They will praise your wisdom until it holds them accountable. They will love your light until it exposes their shadows. I am nowhere close to fully living that out myself, but being around genuinely wise people has taught me that real clarity tends to make some people uncomfortable, especially when it asks them to look honestly at something they have been getting wrong.

That discomfort is exactly what I expect this next point to create, and I believe it anyway. Feel free to disagree, but hear me out before you decide.

The Customer We Have Completely Misidentified

In construction, we genuinely do not know who our customer actually is. We assume it is the public. We assume it is the building owner who signed the contract and paid the bill. It is not. As general contractors and project delivery teams, our actual customer, overwhelmingly and without real competition, is the trade partner. The foreman. The worker. That is who we actually serve.

Failing to understand that has cost this industry more than we can genuinely calculate. Because we assume the owner is the only real customer, we pull schedules through impossibly tight constraints at the direct expense of trades and workers, and we deliver at the last possible moment, sometimes at the expense of real human safety, simply because we never stopped to ask who was actually bearing the cost of that decision.

That misidentification is not a minor error either. It shapes nearly every downstream decision on a project, who gets squeezed when a schedule slips, whose comfort gets sacrificed first when budgets tighten, and whose concerns get genuinely heard when something goes wrong. Getting this one assumption wrong quietly distorts almost everything that follows from it.

What Actually Changes Once You Get This Right

Once you genuinely internalize who your real customer is, a whole series of obvious conclusions follow immediately. You should be making sure trades have genuine full kit before they ever start work. You should be treating them with real respect, not simply tolerance. You should have genuinely decent bathrooms and lunch areas, not an afterthought bolted onto the edge of the site. You should think twice before defaulting straight to a cure notice the moment something goes wrong, and consider talking to the trade partner directly first. You should be vetting trade partners more carefully during selection, genuinely checking for fit rather than simply picking the lowest bid. You should be a good neighbor to the people actually building your project, not simply a client writing checks to them.

None of these conclusions are complicated once the underlying assumption actually changes. The reason they so often go unaddressed is not a lack of ideas. It is that the wrong customer was identified from the very start, which meant none of these obvious steps ever seemed genuinely necessary in the first place.

Watch for these specific behavioral shifts that show up once an organization genuinely treats trades as its actual customer.

Full kit provided proactively for every crew, rather than assembled reactively once a problem already surfaces.
A default instinct to communicate directly with a struggling trade partner before escalating straight to a formal cure notice.
Real investment in facilities, bathrooms, lunch areas, and genuine comfort, treated as a real priority rather than a minimal legal requirement.

Why the Owner Still Ultimately Benefits From This

If you are not ready to fully accept that trades are literally your customer, I understand, and I would still ask you to accept at minimum that they are your first customer, with the building owner as your second. That distinction alone changes everything, because you cannot treat your first customer poorly and reasonably expect your second customer to receive anything better as a result.

Think of it the way any genuinely well run business thinks about an internal supply chain. A company that treats its own manufacturing team poorly does not somehow produce a better product for the customer at the end of that chain. The same logic applies directly here. Trades are the internal chain producing the actual result an owner eventually receives.

How you treat the workforce is how they treat the building, and how they treat the building is ultimately how they treat your actual paying client. Neglecting trades in favor of protecting the owner relationship does not actually protect that relationship at all. It quietly undermines the very outcome the owner is paying for in the first place.

Owners rarely see this connection directly, since they are not present for the daily treatment of the trades actually building their project. They only ever experience the final result, the quality, the schedule, the overall experience of working with your company. That result is shaped entirely upstream, by decisions about how the actual customer, the trades doing the work, was treated along the way.

Watch for these signs an organization has quietly built its entire operating model around the owner alone, with trades treated as an afterthought.

Contract terms and schedule commitments negotiated entirely around the owner’s preferences, with no real consideration for whether trades can genuinely deliver on them.
Cure notices and adversarial correspondence used as a default first response rather than genuine conversation.
Trade partner facilities, communication, and treatment consistently deprioritized relative to whatever protects the owner relationship most directly.

Why This Realization Is Uncomfortable, and Worth Sitting With Anyway

This is exactly the kind of insight that tends to put people off once it actually holds them accountable to something they have been doing wrong for years. Nobody enjoys realizing that an entire industry practice, one they may have personally defended, was built on a genuinely mistaken assumption about who actually deserved to be treated as the customer. I believe it anyway, because the cost of continuing to get this wrong is simply too high to ignore.

I would rather say this clearly and have some people genuinely disagree with me than stay quiet about something I believe is actually hurting real people every single day. That is worth more to me than being universally comfortable to listen to.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your organization rebuild its practices around trades and workers as the genuine customer they actually are, rather than continuing to operate as though the building owner is the only relationship that genuinely matters. That shift touches contracts, staffing, onboarding, and daily leadership decisions alike, not just one isolated policy.

So here is the challenge. Look honestly at your own organization’s actual priorities, where real investment goes, how disputes get handled, and whose comfort gets protected first. If the honest answer consistently points toward the owner alone, that gap is exactly where your real customer has been quietly overlooked all along.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “We don’t know who our customer is.” Figure that out honestly, and nearly everything else about how you run a project starts to look different.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article argue that trade partners, not building owners, are a general contractor’s actual customer?

Because trades and workers are the people actually executing the work a general contractor delivers, and treating them as a secondary concern behind the owner relationship tends to produce worse outcomes for everyone involved, including the owner. The article argues that genuinely serving trades well is what ultimately produces the quality and reliability an owner is actually paying for.

How does neglecting trade partners eventually hurt the relationship with a building owner?

Because the quality of a finished project reflects how well the people building it were actually supported and treated throughout the process. A workforce treated as an afterthought tends to produce work that reflects that treatment, which ultimately affects the outcome the owner receives, even though the owner may never directly witness how trades were treated along the way.

Why does the article suggest rethinking the default use of a cure notice when a trade partner struggles?

Because a cure notice functions as an adversarial, formal escalation, and defaulting to it immediately skips over genuine conversation that might resolve the underlying issue more effectively and with less damage to the relationship. Treating trades as a genuine customer means extending the same good faith communication a business would extend to any other valued customer before escalating to something more formal.

What is the practical difference between treating trades as “a” customer versus “the first” customer?

Treating trades as simply one customer among several can still allow an organization to prioritize the owner relationship whenever the two seem to conflict. Treating trades specifically as the first customer establishes a clear priority order, meaning their treatment and support come first, with the understanding that doing so well is exactly what protects and strengthens the relationship with the owner as the second customer.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

AI Slop or a Tool for Better Work?

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

Why AI Generated Images Are Not “Slop” When Paired With Real Expertise

Here’s the deal. AI generated visuals get dismissed constantly as low effort filler, and I genuinely understand why that reputation exists in a lot of places online. Used the way I actually use it, to illustrate real construction and Lean concepts I have genuinely lived through, it is something completely different, and I want to explain exactly why.

Why Confidentiality Used to Limit What I Could Actually Share

Some of the best ideas I encounter come from projects covered under a genuine confidentiality agreement, which means I cannot share the real photos or specific details directly. Before AI became a genuinely useful tool for this, that meant a lot of real, valuable lessons simply stayed locked away, unable to help anyone beyond the specific project where they happened.

Now I can take an actual photo, extract the underlying concept it illustrates, and have AI recreate that concept as a new, original image, one that teaches the exact same principle without ever violating the confidentiality agreement or revealing anything genuinely protected. That is not cutting corners. It is finding a genuinely ethical way to share a lesson that would otherwise never reach anyone at all.

This matters more than it might first appear. Some of the most advanced, genuinely impressive implementations of Lean and Takt thinking I have encountered exist specifically inside organizations that cannot let any of it be photographed or discussed publicly. Without a way to responsibly recreate those lessons, that knowledge would simply stay locked behind a confidentiality agreement forever, benefiting nobody outside that one project.

Why Recreating International Examples Helps People Actually Learn

A related problem shows up whenever I share real examples from Japan. People often dismiss them immediately, assuming the lesson only applies there and has nothing to do with their own project here. Recreating the same underlying concept as an original illustration, rather than relying on the original photo alone, often helps people actually engage with the idea honestly, rather than mentally filing it away as something foreign and irrelevant before they have genuinely considered it.

Stripping away the specific location or context, while keeping the actual principle fully intact, tends to force a more honest evaluation of the idea itself. People end up judging the concept on its own merits rather than dismissing it based on an assumption about where it came from.

I have also used this to illustrate real things I did earlier in my career, moments I never happened to photograph at the time, but remember clearly enough to describe accurately. Turning an accurate memory into a genuine visual teaching tool has given me more real content to actually teach with than I have ever had available before.

Think about how much genuinely valuable experience exists in the industry purely as memory, never documented visually because nobody happened to have a camera out at the right moment. That knowledge used to simply disappear over time. Now it can actually become a real teaching resource, as long as the person describing it genuinely knows what they experienced and checks the result carefully against that real memory.

Here are the specific situations where this approach has genuinely proven valuable.

Recreating a confidential project detail as an original image that teaches the same lesson without revealing anything protected.
Turning an international example into a more universally relatable illustration, so people engage with the actual concept rather than dismissing it as foreign.
Visualizing a real past experience that was never photographed at the time, based on an accurate firsthand description of what actually happened.

Why the Difference Comes Down to Genuine Quality Control

None of this works without real expertise sitting behind it. Every image I generate this way gets checked personally against my own firsthand knowledge. I have actually done these things, actually seen them happen, and know directly that what is being illustrated is genuinely possible and accurate. That review process is exactly what separates a genuinely useful teaching tool from the kind of low effort, unreviewed content that earns AI generated work its poor reputation in the first place.

That distinction is genuinely the whole point. Anyone without real domain knowledge can generate an image that looks technically polished but contains details that are subtly or obviously wrong. Someone who has actually spent years in the field can catch those errors immediately, which is exactly why expertise, not the tool itself, is what determines whether the final result genuinely teaches something true.

Watch for these signs AI generated content is actually being used responsibly, with real expertise providing genuine quality control.

The person generating the image has genuine, firsthand experience with the concept being illustrated.
Every image gets reviewed carefully before being shared, rather than published exactly as first generated.
The underlying concept traces back to something real and verifiable, rather than an invented or speculative scenario.

Why This Has Genuinely Accelerated My Own Work

Because of this approach, I have been able to write books at a pace I never thought was possible, research more thoroughly, and pull together material from across a much wider range of real sources than I could have managed working entirely alone. The volume of genuinely useful teaching material I can now produce has grown significantly, and the quality has not suffered, because real expertise still sits behind every single piece before it ever gets shared.

I genuinely believe the volume and the quality are connected rather than in tension with each other. Producing more material faster only works well when the underlying review process stays just as rigorous as it would be for a single, slowly produced piece of work. Skip that review, and speed simply amplifies whatever mistakes slip through, which is exactly the trap worth avoiding.

Why I Think This Technology Deserves a Fair Chance

New tools often face real skepticism before people fully understand how to use them well, and that skepticism tends to fade once the genuine value becomes clear through actual results rather than theoretical debate. I would rather keep using AI thoughtfully, with real expertise and genuine review behind every piece of content it helps me create, than dismiss the whole approach because of how poorly it gets used elsewhere.

That skepticism is not unreasonable either. Plenty of AI generated content genuinely deserves the criticism it gets, precisely because it skips the review process entirely. The goal is not defending every use of the technology indiscriminately. It is making the case that thoughtful, expertise driven use is a genuinely different thing from the low effort version people are rightly frustrated by.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams think through how to use AI responsibly in your own training and documentation, pairing it with real, firsthand expertise rather than treating it as a shortcut around genuine knowledge.

So here is the challenge. If you are using AI to create training content, checklists, or documentation of your own, ask honestly whether genuine expertise is actually reviewing what comes out the other end. That single habit is what determines whether the result is a genuinely useful teaching tool or exactly the kind of unreviewed content people are right to be skeptical of.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “I QC every image. I’ve done it, I’ve seen it, I know it’s possible.” That standard, not the tool itself, is what actually determines whether AI generated content is worth sharing.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does using AI to recreate a confidential project detail avoid violating a confidentiality agreement?

Because the recreation illustrates the underlying concept or lesson rather than reproducing the actual protected photo, document, or specific project detail itself. That distinction lets a genuinely valuable lesson reach a wider audience without exposing anything a client or partner genuinely expected to remain confidential.

Why might recreating an international example help people engage with a lesson more than the original photo would?

Because people sometimes mentally dismiss an example as culturally specific or irrelevant to their own situation before genuinely considering whether the underlying principle actually applies. A recreated, more universally relatable illustration can help someone engage with the actual concept honestly, rather than filing it away as something foreign that does not apply to their own work.

What specifically separates responsible use of AI generated content from the kind of “AI slop” people criticize?

Genuine firsthand expertise reviewing every piece of content before it gets shared, rather than publishing whatever AI produces without real scrutiny. Content grounded in something the creator has actually experienced and verified, checked carefully rather than accepted automatically, is fundamentally different from content generated and shared with no genuine review behind it.

Why does the article compare skepticism toward AI to historical skepticism toward earlier technologies?

To illustrate that genuine unfamiliarity with a new tool often produces real skepticism that fades once people see how it can actually be used well, through real examples rather than abstract argument. The comparison is not meant to dismiss legitimate concerns about the technology, but to suggest that thoughtful, expertise driven use tends to demonstrate real value more effectively than theoretical debate about whether the tool itself is good or bad.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Accountability vs. Count-On-Ability

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

It Is Not Accountability, It Is Count-On-Ability

Here’s the deal. I have been sitting with the word accountability for a while now, and I genuinely think the way most of us in the United States use it has drifted away from what it should actually mean. A small shift in how I think about that single word has changed how I approach holding anyone to a real standard.

What I Learned in Japan About Discipline

Traveling to Japan on a real Lean study trip with Paul Akers, I heard him make a point that stuck with me. Discipline is not actually a genuinely useful concept in Lean thinking. Expecting a human being to simply be disciplined through raw willpower alone is not a realistic standard to hold anyone to. Real Lean thinking instead focuses on good systems and genuine visual tools that actually help people succeed, rather than expecting internal willpower to carry the entire weight on its own.

I also heard something directly from the director of the cleaning crew responsible for one of Japan’s famously fast bullet train turnarounds. When it comes to holding someone genuinely accountable, from a leadership standpoint, it really comes down to clarity, training, and support. If you genuinely want someone to do something well, you are clear with them about what that actually looks like, you provide real training, and then you genuinely support them in carrying it out.

That crew is genuinely famous for turning around an entire train car in a matter of minutes, to an extraordinarily high standard, over and over, consistently. Nobody achieves that level of performance through fear of a lecture. It comes from a team that has been given genuine clarity about the standard, real training in exactly how to meet it, and consistent support that makes hitting it repeatable rather than a lucky exception.

Why the Common Version of Accountability Bothers Me

I love this country, genuinely, and I am not criticizing it here. But when people in the United States say they are going to hold someone accountable, it usually means something closer to a stern lecture, a sharp confrontation, or some version of visibly expressing frustration at someone. Every time I hear that phrase used that way now, after genuinely hearing how that Japanese leader described it, it stops sitting right with me.

Jocko Willink writes about what genuine leadership actually requires too, and the more I sit with all of this together, the more convinced I am that the common American version of accountability has drifted pretty far from what the word should actually mean.

Watch for these signs “accountability” has quietly become a euphemism for confrontation rather than genuine support in your own organization.

The phrase “I’m going to hold them accountable” consistently followed by a lecture, a reprimand, or visible frustration rather than any real support.
No clarity or training actually provided before someone is expected to meet a standard they were never genuinely set up to reach.
Accountability treated as something that only happens after a failure, rather than something built in from the very start.

The Real Insight: Count-On-Ability

Here is the reframe that genuinely changed things for me. At its root, accountability is really about count-on-ability. Can I actually count on this person to do what they have genuinely committed to, or what genuinely belongs to their role. That is the real question underneath the word, whether most people actually use it that way or not.

Once you see it that way, holding someone accountable stops meaning confronting them after a failure. It means holding them count-on-able, meaning genuinely supporting their ability to actually be someone you can count on. And supporting that ability comes down to the exact same three things. Provide real clarity about what is actually expected. Provide genuine training so they are actually equipped to meet that expectation. Provide real support throughout, so they are not left to figure it out entirely alone.

Notice how completely the responsibility shifts once you frame it this way. The common version of accountability puts the entire weight on the individual after something has already gone wrong. Count-on-ability puts real weight on the leader beforehand, asking whether they actually did their part to make success possible in the first place.

Why This Distinction Actually Matters in Practice

If holding someone accountable means throwing a hard hat down and delivering a sharp lecture, that approach might make the person delivering it feel better in the moment, and I genuinely doubt it produces the result anyone actually wants. If holding someone count-on-able means genuinely backing them up with clarity, training, and real support so they can actually fulfill their part of the agreement, that is something I can stand behind completely.

I think the confrontational version persists mainly because it feels like doing something in the moment, a visible, immediate reaction to a real problem. Genuine count-on-ability requires more patience and more upfront investment, which makes it far less satisfying emotionally in the short term, even though it produces dramatically better results over time.

Watch for these signs a leader is genuinely practicing count-on-ability rather than the more common, confrontational version of accountability.

Clear expectations set before work begins, rather than only clarified after something has already gone wrong.
Real, ongoing training treated as a genuine part of holding someone to a standard, not a separate, optional activity.
Visible support and backup offered proactively, rather than criticism delivered only once a commitment has already been missed.

Why This Small Shift in Language Genuinely Helps

I know this might sound like I am simply playing with words here, and in a real sense, I am. But that small shift genuinely changed how I personally think about holding anyone, including myself, to a real standard. It moved the whole concept away from confrontation and squarely toward genuine support, which is exactly where I believe it should have been the entire time.

I have started applying this to myself too, which is honestly the harder half of it. Before getting frustrated that I could not count on myself to follow through on something, I now ask whether I actually gave myself the same clarity, training, and support I would want to give anyone else. Usually the honest answer is no, and that is a far more useful place to start than simply being disappointed in myself after the fact.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build genuine count-on-ability into your own leadership approach, providing the clarity, training, and support that actually make someone worth counting on, rather than defaulting to confrontation once something has already gone wrong.

So here is the challenge. The next time you catch yourself about to hold someone accountable, pause and ask whether you have actually given them genuine clarity, real training, and real support first. If any of those three is genuinely missing, that gap, not the person you are about to confront, is where the real problem is actually sitting.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “It’s not accountability. It’s count-on-ability.” Support someone’s ability to be counted on, and the confrontation you used to think you needed rarely becomes necessary at all.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article argue that discipline is not a genuinely useful concept in Lean thinking?

Because expecting a person to succeed purely through internal willpower places the entire burden on an individual’s self control, rather than building genuine systems and support that make success achievable in the first place. Lean thinking instead focuses on designing the environment and the process so that success does not depend entirely on one person’s personal discipline holding up under pressure.

What is the actual difference between “holding someone accountable” and “holding someone count-on-able”?

Holding someone accountable in its common usage typically means confronting them after a failure has already happened, often through criticism or a sharp conversation. Holding someone count-on-able means proactively supporting their ability to succeed through genuine clarity, training, and support, which shifts the entire focus from reacting to failure toward actively preventing it.

Why does the article connect this reframe directly to clarity, training, and support specifically?

Because those three elements represent what a leader can actually control and provide before expecting someone to meet a real standard. Clarity ensures the expectation is genuinely understood, training ensures the person is actually equipped to meet it, and support ensures they are not left to figure out the rest entirely on their own, all of which build genuine count-on-ability rather than assuming it will simply appear on its own.

Does reframing accountability this way mean a leader should never address a genuine failure directly?

No, the article does not argue against addressing real failures. It argues that genuine accountability starts well before any failure occurs, through clarity, training, and support provided up front. When a real gap does happen despite that preparation, addressing it is still necessary, but the article suggests checking honestly whether the person was actually set up to succeed in the first place before assuming the failure reflects only their own shortcoming.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

What Does “External Email Only” Mean?

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

Why We Only Use Email for External Communication

Here’s the deal. I have spent years on a genuine mission to eliminate email from how our own organization actually communicates internally, and the rule we have landed on is simple to state, even though it takes real discipline to actually follow. Email is for external communication only, and even that category should stay genuinely narrow.

Why I Developed Such a Strong Reaction to Waste

Paul Akers writes in Two Second Lean about learning the eight forms of waste well enough to recognize them instantly, everywhere, once you genuinely understand them. I prefer his own ordering of that list over some of the more common acronyms people use, and once those eight wastes are genuinely memorized, you start noticing them constantly in your own daily work.

I want to be honest that this can become a real problem if it goes unchecked. Once you genuinely start seeing waste everywhere, it becomes tempting to react to it with more intensity than is actually healthy. I have had to be careful about that myself. The way I motivate my own brain to actually change a habit is developing a real, visceral dislike for the waste itself, the same reaction most people would have to discovering a genuine pest infestation somewhere in their home. That reaction works for me personally, and I recognize it runs a little hot compared to how most people would describe the same frustration.

I share that honestly because I do not think everyone needs to feel this intensely about it to genuinely benefit from the underlying point. A calmer, more measured version of the same realization, simply noticing clearly how much time a bad habit actually costs, tends to work just as well for most people without the same emotional charge behind it.

Email became exactly that kind of target for me. Back to back meetings and constant email checking genuinely bother me at that same intensity, because I have come to see them as a direct drain on the actual value a leader should be creating.

Why Email Genuinely Fails as an Internal Communication Tool

Email is slow, often taking roughly four times longer than a direct conversation or a quick message through a real time tool. It is genuinely prone to miscommunication, since tone and nuance rarely survive translation into a written message the way people intend them to. And from a legal standpoint, it is often worse than people assume. In-house legal counsel frequently dislikes email specifically because poorly worded messages create a permanent, discoverable record of exactly the kind of casual misstatement that causes real problems later.

People often assume the opposite, that keeping everything in email protects a company legally by creating a paper trail. In practice, a large volume of casual, unfiltered email often creates more legal exposure than it prevents, since every message becomes a permanent record regardless of how carefully it was actually worded in the moment.

Watch for these signs email has quietly become the default in your own organization for things it was never actually well suited to handle.

Internal team members spending significant portions of their day answering email rather than being present with the actual work.
Critical decisions sitting in a queue, batched and delayed, rather than resolved through a quick real time conversation.
Leaders physically at their desks managing an inbox instead of out in the field where genuine leadership actually happens.

Why “External Only” Does Not Mean What People Assume

Here is the clarification that matters most. External does not mean anyone outside your own office, which some people hear as permission to email everyone they do not sit directly next to. It means a genuinely small, carefully selected list of situations where email is actually the right tool.

For anything internal, your own team, your own trades on your own project site, even other departments inside your own organization, default entirely to faster, real time tools instead. Project management platforms, team messaging tools, radio, or simply a real conversation. There is no good reason to route internal communication through email when faster, more direct options already exist.

That default has to be genuinely absolute to actually work. The moment one internal exception gets made, a quick update here, a reminder there, the habit starts creeping back in, and before long email has quietly reclaimed territory it should never have had in the first place.

Genuine external use belongs to a narrow, specific category instead.

A brand new potential client or a new vendor and trade partner your organization has not yet established a faster communication channel with.
Correspondence with another party’s legal counsel, where a documented, formal written record is actually appropriate and expected.
Any situation where you genuinely lack proximity or a faster communication channel, and legal counsel specifically confirms that a documented email is the correct approach for that exact circumstance.

That list should stay short. It is not a loophole back into heavy email use. It is a deliberate, narrow exception to an otherwise firm default.

I want to be direct about why this narrowness matters so much. The moment “external” quietly expands to include anyone slightly outside a person’s immediate daily circle, the entire discipline collapses back into exactly the habit it was meant to replace. Keeping the list genuinely short requires actively resisting that drift, not just defining it clearly once and assuming it will hold on its own.

A Practical Technique Worth Adopting

Paul Akers reportedly uses an auto reply on his own email specifically redirecting people toward faster communication channels, letting correspondents know that another method will get them a response several times faster. That single habit keeps even his external email volume genuinely low, since he actively pivots nearly everyone toward quicker, more direct communication whenever possible.

The lesson underneath that habit is worth repeating. Even in the narrow category of situations where email genuinely applies, the goal is still moving people toward faster communication whenever a reasonable alternative exists, rather than treating the external label itself as a reason to stop looking for a better option.

Building This Discipline Into Your Own Organization

None of this requires eliminating email entirely overnight. It requires being honest about which communications genuinely belong there, and building real habits and tools that make faster, more direct communication the actual default for everything else.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build this same external only discipline, moving internal communication onto faster, more direct tools while keeping email reserved for the narrow situations where it genuinely belongs.

So here is the challenge. Track your own email volume for one full week and sort every message into internal or external. If the internal pile is larger than the external one, that gap is exactly where your own organization can reclaim real time currently being lost to a tool that was never actually built for that purpose.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “External does not mean I get to email everybody outside my office. It means a very small, very selective list.” Keep that list genuinely narrow, and watch how much time comes back to the rest of your day.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article treat email as a poor fit for internal team communication specifically?

Because internal communication generally benefits from speed and real time back and forth, which email structurally cannot provide as efficiently as a direct conversation, a radio call, or a real time messaging tool. Email’s batching and queuing nature, along with its higher risk of tone related miscommunication, makes it a weaker choice specifically for the fast, frequent coordination an internal team actually needs.

Why would legal counsel actually prefer less email rather than more, given that documentation often matters legally?

Because a poorly worded or hastily written email can become a permanent, discoverable record of a casual misstatement that causes real legal exposure later, which is different from a deliberate, carefully considered written communication. Legal counsel often prefers documentation created intentionally and carefully for situations that genuinely require it, rather than a large volume of informal email traffic that increases the risk of an unintended, damaging statement.

What are the specific situations where email genuinely remains the right communication tool?

Situations involving a new potential client, a new vendor or trade partner without an established faster channel yet, or correspondence with another party’s legal counsel where a formal, documented written record is actually appropriate. The article treats this as a deliberately narrow category, not a broad justification for using email whenever the recipient happens to be outside one’s own immediate team.

Why might a company want to actively redirect external contacts toward faster communication channels rather than simply accepting email traffic as it comes?

Because consistently redirecting people toward quicker channels, like a direct message or a real time tool, reduces overall email volume over time while still maintaining genuine responsiveness. That approach protects a person’s time and attention from the inherent slowness of email without requiring them to abandon external communication altogether, since most external contacts are often willing to switch to a faster method once it is actually offered to them.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

What Killing Roaches Taught Me About Construction

Posted on October 1, 2026October 1, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 19 min

What Fighting a Pest Infestation With AI Taught Me About Running a Project

Here’s the deal. I recently spent several months working with AI to systematically eliminate a genuine cockroach infestation at my own house, and by the end of it, I realized I had essentially relearned every core Lean principle I already teach, just through a completely different problem. I want to walk through exactly what that process taught me, because the parallels to running a real construction project are almost too clean to be a coincidence.

How the Infestation Actually Started

A water line broke at our house, which led to a full remodel of that section, and shortly afterward, we brought in some larger used refrigerators to fit our family’s needs. Slowly, we realized we had a genuine infestation. In hindsight, the infestation almost certainly arrived with one of those used appliances, since the moment we finally removed that specific fridge, the problem disappeared for good. The common wisdom around this particular pest is bleak. Once you have them, people say you are essentially stuck living with them forever. I refused to accept that, and I decided to fight it systematically, with AI as my actual strategic partner throughout.

Lesson One: Never Fight the Enemy Everywhere

The first real lesson was refusing to spray or treat every single location at once. Real infestations concentrate around specific hiding spots, and AI kept redirecting my attention toward identifying those specific locations rather than treating the whole house indiscriminately.

This maps directly onto how a real project should be run. You do not solve every single problem on a project simultaneously. You identify the actual constraint limiting flow and focus your energy there specifically, rather than scattering effort evenly across everything that looks even slightly wrong.

Lesson Two: Intelligence Wins

Sticky traps were never actually about killing anything directly. They were reconnaissance, telling me precisely where the real activity was concentrated each night, so I knew exactly where to focus treatment the following day.

That is exactly the same instinct behind going to the Gemba, the actual place where real work happens, rather than leading purely from KPIs, dashboards, or a comfortable office removed from the real site. Genuine intelligence comes from direct observation, not from secondhand data alone.

Lesson Three: Logistics Wins

Here is the part that genuinely surprised me. Poison was not actually the biggest factor in solving this. Removing food and water sources consistently, having a home cleaned thoroughly every single day during the worst of it, and sealing every physical entry point I could find mattered far more than any single treatment applied.

Military history teaches the same lesson repeatedly. Most conflicts are decided by which side can no longer eat, communicate, move, or resupply, not simply by direct confrontation. Construction is identical. Projects fail because logistics fail. This is exactly why I no longer think of it as a simple site utilization plan, the term I grew up using early in my career. It is a genuine logistics plan, and real logistical superiority is what actually wins a project.

Lesson Four: Do Not Chase Individual Soldiers, Destroy the Base

Every individual pest represented a soldier. The actual hiding and breeding locations were the real factories behind the problem. The moment I stopped chasing individual sightings and focused entirely on destroying those underlying locations, real progress finally accelerated.

Construction runs on the exact same principle. Do not fight every individual RFI, every late delivery, every isolated mistake as its own separate battle. Fix the actual production system generating these symptoms in the first place, and trace every recurring problem back to its genuine root cause.

Watch for these signs a team is fighting scattered symptoms rather than addressing the actual root cause behind them.

Constant reactive effort spent on individual problems that keep recurring in slightly different forms.
No clear identification of the one or two locations or conditions actually generating most of the trouble.
Energy spread evenly across every visible issue rather than concentrated on the genuine source.

Lesson Five: Momentum Is Fragile

This might be the single biggest lesson of the whole process. More than once, seeing even a small setback made me want to panic and escalate treatment everywhere at once. Each time, that impulse would have actually disrupted a strategy that was already quietly working.

Project teams do exactly this constantly. Things start improving, someone panics at the first sign of a hiccup, the entire plan gets changed, and all the accumulated momentum disappears. Sometimes real leadership simply means holding the line and trusting a system that is already working, even when progress feels uncertain in the moment.

I experienced this directly years ago with an early client, the very first time we implemented Lean at real, meaningful scale. Partway through, I genuinely started to panic, convinced something was not working. Someone on that team told me plainly to hold course and trust the systems we had already put in place. It took roughly eight months of patience before it clearly started working. W. Edwards Deming made a related point in his own writing, that genuine quality transformation is not instant pudding. You cannot implement Lean and expect everything to look perfect the following month.

Lesson Six: The Footprint Shrinks Before the Numbers Do

Real recovery follows a specific, predictable order. Chaos becomes organized first. Only afterward do the actual underlying numbers start improving. Misreading that order, expecting numbers to improve before the surrounding chaos has genuinely settled, is exactly what causes people to believe an effort has failed right when it is actually working.

Lesson Seven: The Last Stretch Feels Disproportionately Harder

I spent far more energy, attention, and discipline eliminating the final handful of stragglers than I did addressing the first hundred. Construction recovery efforts feel exactly the same way. The finish line is consistently, emotionally harder to reach than the starting point, even though the remaining work is objectively smaller.

Lesson Eight: Internal Disagreement Can Undo Real Progress

At one point, my wife and I genuinely disagreed about removing a specific appliance I suspected was still harboring the problem. Looking back, I am not proud of how that disagreement played out, but the underlying lesson matters regardless. A team that is not genuinely united on a key decision risks losing ground it had already fought hard to gain. Internal dissension between the people responsible for a project, say a superintendent and a project manager not genuinely aligned, can quietly undo progress just as effectively as any external problem can.

Lesson Nine: The System Beats Heroics

Discipline and a genuine system mattered far more than any single burst of heroic effort on my part. I am honestly not certain I would have succeeded without consistent AI coaching specifically pulling me back from my own instinct to panic and overreact. That coaching, more than any single treatment applied, is what actually won this.

Watch for these signs a team is relying on heroic individual effort rather than a genuine, disciplined system.

Progress that depends heavily on one person’s personal intensity or willpower rather than a repeatable process.
A pattern of overreacting to small setbacks by abandoning an approach that was actually still working.
No one specifically coaching the team to stay calm and trust the plan already in motion.

Lesson Ten: The Real Goal Was Never to Win Every Battle

Here is the lesson that matters most. The actual goal was never eliminating every single pest directly. It was creating an environment where they genuinely could not survive in the first place. That is exactly how I have always approached running a real Lean project. I am never trying to attack a specific person. I am trying to build an environment where bad behavior and poor systems simply cannot take hold to begin with. Real victory never came from fighting harder. It came from making the environment increasingly hostile to failure and increasingly favorable to genuine success.

Applying These Lessons to Your Own Project

None of this requires an unusual problem to learn from. The same principles apply directly to any recurring issue on a real project, identify the actual root cause, gather real intelligence at the source, protect your logistics, hold the line when momentum feels fragile, and build a genuine system rather than relying on individual heroics.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your teams build exactly this kind of systemic discipline, addressing genuine root causes and protecting real momentum, rather than fighting the same recurring symptoms over and over without ever resolving what is actually causing them.

So here is the challenge. Identify one recurring problem on your own project that keeps resurfacing in slightly different forms. Ask honestly whether your team has actually found its real root cause, or whether you have simply been treating each new occurrence as its own isolated battle.

Edwards Deming said it plainly: genuine improvement is not instant pudding. Hold the line, trust the system you have actually built, and give it the real time it genuinely needs to work.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the article compare a home pest infestation to running a construction project?

Because both situations reward the same underlying discipline, identifying a genuine root cause rather than treating scattered symptoms, gathering real intelligence at the actual source of the problem, and maintaining a consistent system rather than reacting emotionally to every small setback. The specific problem differs entirely, but the pattern for solving it effectively turns out to be remarkably similar.

Why does panicking at a small setback tend to make a recovery effort worse rather than better?

Because overreacting often means abandoning or disrupting a strategy that was already working quietly in the background, simply because visible progress has not yet caught up with the real underlying improvement happening beneath the surface. That premature change frequently resets momentum that had already been building, extending the overall recovery rather than shortening it.

What does the article mean by saying “the footprint shrinks before the numbers do”?

It means real recovery typically brings genuine order and organization to a chaotic situation before the actual underlying metrics show visible improvement. Expecting numbers to improve immediately, before that underlying organization has genuinely taken hold, can lead someone to wrongly conclude an effort has failed exactly when it is actually beginning to succeed.

Why does the article conclude that the real goal was never eliminating every individual problem directly?

Because sustainable success comes from building an environment where problems genuinely cannot take root in the first place, rather than fighting an endless, exhausting series of individual battles against symptoms as they appear. That same principle applies directly to Lean leadership, where the goal is building systems that prevent bad outcomes rather than personally attacking every individual mistake as it happens.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

General Offerings

Company Offerings

Systems

SUBSCRIBE NOW !

Subscribe to our newsletters and stay updated!

Related Books

The First Planner System: The Project Planning System for Executives, Project Managers, and Superintendents in Pre-construction - Book 2

Pull Planning For Builders: How to Pull Plan Right, Respect People, and Gain Time (The Art of the Builder)

The Ten Improvements to Production Planning: What Lean Builders Can Do To Improve Short Interval Planning (The Art of the Builder)

Related Books

The First Planner System: The Project Planning System for Executives, Project Managers, and Superintendents in Pre-construction - Book 2

Built to Fail: Why Construction Projects Take So Long, Cost Too Much, And How to Fix It

Related Books

The First Planner System: The Project Planning System for Executives, Project Managers, and Superintendents in Pre-construction - Book 2

The 10 Myths of CPM: How The Critical Path Method Systematizes Disrespect for People

Calumet "K"

faq

General Training Overview

Superintendent / PM Boot Camp

Takt Production System® Virtual Training

Onsite Takt Simulation

Foreman & Field Engineer Training

Testimonials

Testimonials

agenda

Day 1

Foundations & Macro Planning

day2

Norm Planning & Flow Optimization

day3

Advanced Tools & Comparisons

day4

Buffers, Controls & Finalization

day5

Control Systems & Presentations

faq

UNDERSTANDING THE TRAINING

VALUE AND RESULTS

PLANNING AND SCHEDULING TOPICS

APPLICATION & TEAM ADOPTION

VIRTUAL FORMAT & ACCESSIBILITY

faq

GENERAL FAQS

CURRICULUM & OUTCOMES

LOGISTICS & FORMAT

PRICING & VALUE

SEO-BASED / HIGH-INTENT SEARCH QUESTIONS