Want to be a Millionaire?

Posted on September 3, 2026September 3, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

The Work of Three People

Early in one career, a manager once said something that was meant as a compliment: you do the work of three people. It felt good to hear, right up until the actual raise conversation happened, and it turned out to be nothing more than the standard annual percentage increase.

That gap between recognition and actual compensation is what eventually leads good people out the door. It happened twice across one career, and both times, the companies later admitted, more than once, that letting that person go had been one of their biggest mistakes.

The Real Pain: Losing Talent and Not Knowing Why

The real pain shows up constantly right now, in a labor market that genuinely favors employees for the first time in years. Companies watch young project engineers, project managers, and assistant project managers get recruited away, and they struggle to understand exactly why it keeps happening.

The bigger cost is rarely just one departure. Losing experienced people creates a ripple effect, since replacing that experience takes far longer than losing it did, and companies that cannot train new talent as fast as they lose it fall further behind every time it happens.

The Failure Pattern: The Base Bargain Deal

The failure pattern is treating compensation as something to manage quietly and minimally, hoping loyalty, culture, or company pride will make up the difference. It rarely does. Underpaying someone while hoping they will not notice, or hoping they will stay anyway out of some sense of obligation, is a bet that consistently loses.

Expecting an employee to stay loyal despite being underpaid misunderstands what loyalty actually means in the first place. People are not obligated to a company the way they are to their own family, their own values, or their own future. Expecting otherwise sets up a retention strategy that was never built on anything solid to begin with.

A few signs tend to show up when a company has slipped into a base-bargain mindset without realizing it, and they are worth checking honestly:

A valued employee has never been offered a raise proactively, only in response to a competing offer or a resignation letter.
Leadership assumes loyalty or culture will offset below-market pay rather than addressing the pay gap directly.
Conversations about compensation feel uncomfortable or secretive rather than open and expected.

This Isn’t Disloyalty, It’s Just Smart

None of this means someone leaving for meaningfully more money, more responsibility, and better balance for their family is being disloyal. It means they are making a smart decision, the same decision most leaders would want their own children or their own team members to make in the same position.

If a company would not trust someone’s judgment to turn down a genuinely better opportunity, that says more about how replaceable the company assumes that person is than it does about the employee’s character.

Two Messages to the Whole Company

Here is what putting this philosophy into practice actually looks like. Rather than leaving these ideas as private opinions, they got written out directly and shared with an entire company through an internal culture chat, plainly and without hedging.

One message stated it directly: the company will never shame anyone for leaving or taking another job, and if that is someone’s choice, the company will help in any way it can, because people owe loyalty to their faith and their family, not to a company. A second message addressed pay just as directly: the company pays top dollar for its people before they ever have to look elsewhere, actively invites people to advocate for more compensation if they feel they deserve it, and deliberately avoids relying on bonuses to make up for an under-market base salary. Both messages were sent to make one thing unmistakably clear: there should never be a reason to feel ashamed about discussing pay or a potential departure.

Why It Matters: The Bullwhip Effect of Losing Talent

This matters because losing talent rarely stays contained to just one open position. It creates what is sometimes called a bullwhip effect, where losing one experienced person disrupts everyone who depended on their knowledge, their relationships, and their capacity, and training a replacement takes far longer than the departure itself.

Treating compensation reactively, only responding once someone already has another offer in hand, guarantees a company is always negotiating from behind rather than staying ahead of the problem entirely.

Teach the Framework: The Keeper Test and Radical Transparency

A useful diagnostic here is the keeper test: if a specific person told you today they were leaving for a better opportunity, would you fight hard to keep them, or would you feel a quiet sense of relief? That honest answer reveals exactly where someone actually stands, and it works just as well when applied to yourself, as an employee asking your own supervisor the same question about you.

This only works inside a culture of radical transparency, being genuinely open about compensation, decisions, and even the possibility of someone leaving, rather than treating those topics as forbidden or shameful. A team that can openly discuss pay and openly discuss the option of leaving ends up with far better transition plans, far more advance notice, and far more trust than a team where those conversations stay hidden until it is already too late to do anything about them.

A few practical markers separate a genuine retention culture from one hoping loyalty will paper over the gaps, and they are worth checking directly:

Raises get offered proactively, based on the value someone is actually delivering, rather than only in response to a resignation or a competing offer.
Employees feel genuinely safe raising the topic of compensation or a potential departure without fear of shame or retaliation.
Leadership can honestly answer the keeper test for every key person on the team, and acts on what that answer actually reveals.

Turning This Into Daily Practice

This does not require complicated compensation software or an elaborate new process. It starts with a habit as simple as regularly asking people directly what they believe they are worth, and asking supervisors honestly how hard they would fight to keep each person on their team if a competing offer showed up tomorrow.

Pairing that honesty with proactive raises, paying ahead of the market rather than catching up to it after someone already has one foot out the door, closes the gap between what a company says it values and what it is actually willing to pay for.

Connecting It Back to Building People, Not Just Projects

None of this happens without leaders willing to have uncomfortable conversations about money openly and early, rather than avoiding them until a resignation forces the issue. Building that kind of transparent, proactive culture is exactly the kind of leadership work that keeps strong teams together.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow, including the culture and compensation practices that keep good people from feeling like they have to look elsewhere.

The Challenge

So here is the challenge worth carrying into your next one-on-one: ask yourself the keeper test honestly for each person on your team, then ask whether your compensation is proactively reflecting their real value, or quietly waiting for them to ask first. As Jason put it plainly, “There is no such thing as loyalty to a company.” On we go.

FAQ

Why does Jason say there’s no such thing as loyalty to a company?

His view is that people owe genuine loyalty to their faith, their family, and their own growth and well-being, not to an employer. A company earns retention through fair pay and genuine culture, not through an expectation that employees will stay out of obligation alone.

What is the Netflix “keeper test,” and how is it used here?

It asks whether you would fight to keep a specific person if they told you they were leaving for a better opportunity, or whether you would feel relieved instead. Applied honestly, it reveals exactly where someone stands and whether their compensation and treatment actually reflect their real value to the team.

Why does proactive pay matter more than counteroffers after someone gets a competing offer?

Waiting until someone already has another offer means a company is negotiating from a position of catch-up rather than genuine appreciation. Paying ahead of the market from the start avoids the bullwhip effect of losing talent and having to scramble to replace their experience.

Does this philosophy mean employees have no responsibility to their employer?

No, employees are still expected to deliver real value and perform well, and compensation should reflect that. The point is simply that fair pay and honest culture, not appeals to loyalty, are what actually earn a team’s continued commitment.

What does “radical transparency” look like in practice around pay and departures?

It means making conversations about compensation and even potential departures normal and safe, rather than something to hide or feel ashamed of. A culture built this way tends to get more advance notice, better transition planning, and stronger trust than one where those topics stay hidden until someone has already resigned.

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.

Problems are a Gift, Feat. John Coffman

Posted on September 3, 2026September 3, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

A Forest Fire Worth Running Toward

Early in one engineer’s career, a phone call came from the president of a contractor working on a nuclear power plant, asking what it would take to bring him back to help with a struggling job. When the number offered came back at more than double his current salary, it was clear something serious was going on.

An area manager gave him the advice that changed everything: nobody makes an offer like that unless it is a genuine forest fire. But, he said, if you go in and solve the problem, you will get a gift you will not believe, because the lessons learned solving a problem that big will apply for the rest of your career. That advice turned out to be exactly right, and it shaped decades of work that followed.

The Real Pain: Avoiding the Hot Stove

The real pain shows up constantly in construction leadership: people sensing a serious problem on a project and instinctively keeping their distance from it, the way someone avoids touching a hot stove. Nobody wants to get burned, so the instinct is to not look too closely, not ask too many questions, and hope it resolves itself.

That instinct is completely understandable. It is also exactly backwards from what actually builds a career.

The Failure Pattern: Treating Problems Like Something to Escape

The failure pattern is straightforward: shying away from the hard, messy, high-stakes assignments in favor of whatever feels safer and more comfortable. It feels protective in the moment, and it quietly closes off the exact experiences that build real expertise.

There is a well-known idea in Lean thinking worth sitting with directly: problems are not actually the problem. The real problem is believing you do not have any. Hiding from a problem does not make it disappear, it just delays the moment it has to be dealt with, usually at a higher cost than if it had been surfaced and addressed early.

A few signs tend to show up when a team or a leader is avoiding problems rather than solving them, and they are worth checking honestly:

Difficult assignments or troubled projects get passed along or avoided rather than volunteered for.
A known issue gets quietly monitored instead of clearly defined, investigated, and addressed head-on.
Leaders hope a problem will resolve on its own rather than gathering the data needed to actually understand it.

This Isn’t About Being Fearless, It’s About Having a Process

None of this requires being naturally fearless or unusually brave. Solving hard problems is a learnable skill, built through real study and repeated practice, not some innate trait a handful of people are simply born with.

Starting with smaller problems and deliberately working up to bigger ones builds this capability over time, the same way any other skill gets developed. The people who become known as “the person who fixes things” were not born that way, they built it one problem at a time.

The 5.5-Inch Survey Error and the PGL

Here is what that process looks like under real pressure. On a guideway project, a station was discovered to be five and a half inches out of position, the result of a falsified coordinate system from a surveyor outside the project team. Airport security restrictions meant the team could not simply resurvey through the usual points, adding another layer of difficulty to an already serious problem.

Rather than panicking, the response was to gather real data first, surveying the entire curb and gutter system around the affected area, even working through a holiday to get it done. Once the actual root cause and full scope were understood, the team could ask the right question: what do we actually need, a smooth ride with the profile grade line properly aligned. The solution turned out to be a redesigned spiral alignment that preserved the profile grade line without demolishing significant existing work. The problem got solved because the team refused to guess and insisted on real data before acting.

Why It Matters: The Reward Compounds

This matters because the people who consistently step into hard problems become the ones organizations call on again and again. Nearly every contracting company has “that person,” the one who gets sent in whenever a job is genuinely struggling, and that reputation is built entirely through a track record of solving real problems rather than avoiding them.

The reward is not only financial, though that is often part of it. It is the compounding of hard-won lessons that make every future problem, personal or professional, feel more manageable by comparison. Once you have solved a genuinely difficult, high-stakes problem, smaller everyday frustrations tend to lose a lot of their power to rattle you.

Teach the Framework: The Problem-Solving Steps

A real process underlies this kind of problem solving, and it can be learned directly. Define the problem clearly, then clarify it further until everyone actually agrees on what is being solved. Define the goal you are actually trying to reach, then identify the true root cause rather than settling for the first plausible explanation. From there, develop a real action plan, execute it, evaluate the results honestly, and continuously improve based on what you learn.

Two habits make this process actually work. First, get the real data before doing anything else, every number, every measurement, double-checked and verified, rather than acting on assumptions or partial information. Second, write the plan down. If a plan cannot be written down clearly, it has not actually been figured out yet, it is still just a vague idea waiting to become a real plan.

A few practical markers separate a genuine problem-solving process from guesswork dressed up as action, and they are worth checking directly:

The actual root cause has been identified and confirmed with real data, not just assumed based on first impressions.
A written plan exists that the whole team has reviewed and genuinely agreed to support.
Progress gets evaluated honestly against the plan, with adjustments made as new information comes in.

Turning This Into Daily Practice

One of the most effective habits for surfacing hidden problems early is remarkably simple: on a regular basis, ask the team directly what is keeping them awake at night. That single question tends to surface real, specific concerns that might otherwise stay buried until they become much bigger emergencies.

It is also worth remembering that someone coming in fresh to a struggling project can often see the real picture faster than the people who have been living inside it the whole time, not because they are smarter, but because they are not yet used to the way the problem quietly grew around them. Bringing in fresh eyes, or deliberately stepping back to look at your own project as an outsider would, often reveals what has become invisible from the inside.

Connecting It Back to Building People, Not Just Projects

None of this happens without leaders willing to study problem solving as a real, teachable skill rather than assuming it is something people either have or do not have. Building that capability deliberately, starting small and working up, is exactly the kind of training that turns a good superintendent into the person every struggling project eventually calls.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow, including how to build real problem-solving capability instead of just managing around problems.

The Challenge

So here is the challenge worth carrying onto your next tough assignment: the next time a real problem shows up, resist the instinct to avoid it. Gather the data, define it clearly, and go get the gift waiting inside it.As Jason recalled hearing from Taiichi Ohno, “Problems aren’t a problem. The only problem is thinking that we don’t have problems.” On we go.

FAQ

Why does Jason describe problems as “gift-wrapped packages”?

Solving a genuinely difficult problem builds skills and lessons that carry forward for the rest of a career, which is the real reward hidden inside the difficulty. The harder the problem, the more valuable the lesson tends to be once it is actually solved.

What are the basic steps in this problem-solving process?

Define the problem, clarify it further, define the actual goal, identify the true root cause, develop a written action plan, execute it, evaluate the results honestly, and continuously improve. Getting real data before acting and writing the plan down clearly are the two habits that make every step actually work.

Why is getting real data so important before trying to solve a problem?

Acting on assumptions or partial information often leads to solving the wrong problem entirely. Verified, complete data ensures the root cause identified is the real one, rather than just the most obvious or convenient explanation.

Why can someone new to a project sometimes see its problems more clearly than the team that has been there all along?

People who have been immersed in a project for a long time often stop noticing how a problem has grown around them over time, the way a parent might not notice a child’s gradual growth day to day. A fresh set of eyes, without that gradual adjustment, often sees the real scope of a problem more clearly.

Is problem-solving a natural talent, or can it actually be learned?

It is a learnable skill built through real practice, not an innate trait some people simply have. Starting with smaller problems and deliberately working up to bigger, more complex ones builds this capability steadily over time.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

What Happens when it is Your Choice?

Posted on September 3, 2026September 3, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

A Room Full of Crossed Arms

Picture walking into a training session expecting an engaged, energized group, and instead finding people grumpy, arms crossed, clearly unhappy to be there. After a little digging, the reason is always some version of the same story: attendance got made mandatory, and nobody was genuinely brought on board before the decision landed on them.

These are not bad people, and the frustration is not really about the content of the training itself. It is about how they arrived there. Being told you have to be somewhere and choosing to be somewhere are two completely different experiences, and they produce two completely different mindsets walking through the door.

The Real Pain: Compliance That Looks Like Buy-In

The real pain is that forced participation can look identical to genuine buy-in from the outside. People show up, people sit in the room, people even nod along. But showing up under a mandate and showing up by choice are not the same thing, even when the seats look equally full.

One version produces real engagement, real willingness to learn, and real follow-through afterward. The other produces quiet compliance at best, and open resentment at worst, and it is easy to mistake one for the other until the results start to diverge.

The Failure Pattern: Forcing Instead of Inviting

The failure pattern is defaulting to mandates because they feel faster and more certain. Announce a requirement, expect attendance, move on. It looks efficient on a calendar, but it quietly changes how people experience whatever comes next.

There is something to the idea that people show up differently depending on whether they were forced or whether they chose to be there. Facing a situation you did not choose tends to put people into a defensive, guarded posture. Choosing to rise to a challenge tends to open people up to genuine connection and real effort instead. The circumstances can look nearly identical on paper. The internal experience is not the same at all.

A few signs tend to show up when a team is complying rather than genuinely buying in, and they are worth checking honestly:

Attendance or participation happened because it was mandated, without anyone ever being asked or genuinely brought into the decision beforehand.
People go through the motions in a meeting or training but rarely engage, ask questions, or push back afterward.
Follow-through after a mandatory session is noticeably weaker than after something people actually opted into.

This Isn’t Manipulation, It’s Genuine Choice

It is worth being direct here: this is not about tricking people into feeling like something was their idea while secretly still controlling the outcome. That kind of manipulation is exactly the wrong lesson to take from this.

The difference is authenticity. A genuine invitation means the person could have said no, and the outcome would have been respected either way. A manipulative tactic dressed up as a choice is not a real choice at all, and people tend to sense the difference eventually, even if it is not obvious right away.

The Application Model and the Bathroom Deal

Here is what a genuine choice looks like in practice. Rather than simply assigning people to a training course, one approach opens a course to interested participants and has them actually apply to attend. The moment someone applies, the entire experience shifts, because they chose it rather than having it assigned to them.

A jobsite version of the same idea happened years ago around cleanliness and safety. Instead of issuing a top-down mandate demanding that workers keep the bathrooms and site clean, the approach shifted to something closer to an agreement: we will take real care of you, and in exchange, we’re asking for a real commitment to cleanliness and safety on this site. The moment that became a mutual agreement rather than a directive, it became the workers’ own choice to uphold, and the entire dynamic around it changed.

Why It Matters: Commitment Only Sticks When It’s Chosen

This matters because commitment that was never actually chosen rarely survives contact with the first obstacle. A trade partner who was told what their weekly commitments would be, without ever weighing in, is far less likely to hold to that plan than one who helped shape it and agreed to it directly.

This is exactly why weighing in and buying in matters so much in real production planning. People who help build a plan and genuinely agree to it are simply more likely to follow through, not because they are more disciplined, but because the commitment is actually theirs.

Teach the Framework: Ask for Permission, Not Just Compliance

A small, deliberate habit makes this concrete: directly asking for permission before coaching, correcting, or challenging someone. Something as simple as asking “will you give me permission to coach you on this” changes the entire framing of what follows. The person is no longer being managed at, they made an active decision to be coached, and that decision changes how the feedback actually lands.

This connects to a broader leadership principle worth holding onto: control the environment, not people. Trying to control people directly, through mandates, pressure, or forced participation, tends to produce hiding and quiet resistance. Building an environment where people genuinely choose to participate produces something much closer to real engagement. Even how information gets framed matters here. The exact same observation can land as an attack or as genuine care, depending entirely on the story the listener tells themselves about why it was said, which is itself worth being mindful of before speaking.

A few practical habits build real choice into everyday interactions instead of quiet compliance:

Ask directly for permission before coaching, correcting, or challenging someone, rather than assuming the authority to do so.
Offer training, courses, or new initiatives as something people opt into or apply for, rather than something simply assigned to them.
Frame new expectations for trade partners and crews as a mutual agreement whenever possible, rather than a one-directional mandate.

Turning This Into Daily Practice

This applies far beyond formal training sessions. It shows up in how a superintendent introduces a new expectation to a crew, how a leader delivers feedback to a direct report, and how a spouse or parent brings up something difficult at home. In every case, the same question is worth asking first: is this person being given a genuine choice, or is this simply being handed to them as a directive?

Building this habit does not slow things down as much as it might seem. A single sentence, asking permission, offering an invitation, framing something as a mutual agreement, is often all it takes to shift an interaction from forced compliance to genuine buy-in.

Connecting It Back to Building People, Not Just Projects

None of this happens by accident, and it takes real discipline to slow down enough to invite people in rather than simply directing them. Building that habit into daily leadership is exactly the kind of shift that turns a team from compliant to genuinely engaged.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow, built around real buy-in instead of forced compliance.

The Challenge

So here is the challenge worth carrying into your next interaction, whether it is with a trade partner, a direct report, or someone at home: before you assign, direct, or mandate, pause and ask whether there is a way to make it a genuine choice instead. As Jason put it plainly, “It has to be your choice.” On we go.

FAQ

Why does forced participation produce worse results than genuine buy-in?

People who are mandated into a situation tend to arrive in a more defensive, guarded state, while people who choose to participate tend to arrive more open to real engagement and connection. The circumstances can look identical from the outside, but the internal experience, and the follow-through afterward, is often very different.

Isn’t asking for permission before coaching someone just a manipulation tactic?

No, the key difference is authenticity. A genuine ask for permission means the person could say no and that answer would be respected, while a manipulative tactic just dresses up a forced outcome to look like a choice. People tend to sense that difference over time.

How does the “application model” for training actually change anything?

When someone applies to attend a course rather than being assigned to it, they arrive having already made an active decision to be there. That shift in ownership tends to produce far more genuine engagement than simply requiring attendance.

What does “control the environment, not people” mean in this context?

It means building conditions where people genuinely choose to participate and commit, rather than trying to force compliance through mandates and pressure. Controlling people directly tends to produce hiding and quiet resistance, while a well-designed environment invites real buy-in.

How can a leader apply this idea with trade partners or crews?

Instead of issuing directives about new expectations, frame them as a mutual agreement whenever possible, offering something in return for the commitment being asked. That shift from a one-directional mandate to a genuine agreement tends to produce far stronger, more durable follow-through.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Survival – Platinum Trip

Posted on September 3, 2026September 3, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 17 min

Two Things Determine Survival

A Bahamian marine running a survival challenge broke it down to exactly two things: the will to survive, and the knowledge and use of the equipment. That single sentence landed hard while learning to make a compass, purify seawater, build a fire, and lash together a raft over the course of one intense, sweltering afternoon.

The team that pulled it off well did not simply want it more than everyone else. They wanted it, and they knew what to actually do with the tools in front of them. Both pieces had to be there together, and losing either one changed everything.

The Real Pain: Good People Who Keep Failing Anyway

Later that same day, a conversation surfaced a familiar complaint: a frustrated homeowner venting about contractors who seemed constantly disorganized, always had an excuse ready, and never quite took ownership of what was going wrong. It is an easy story to hear and simply file away as “yeah, that happens a lot.”

But that framing misses something important. It is rarely that these are bad people who do not care. Far more often, it is the same two-part survival equation showing up in business form: plenty of will, not enough knowledge and use of the actual equipment required to run the job.

The Failure Pattern: Mistaking Attitude for the Whole Problem

The failure pattern is assuming a struggling business or a struggling team simply has a bad attitude problem, when the real gap is a skills problem hiding behind the attitude. Someone who has worked as a skilled tradesperson for years and then starts their own company has genuinely mastered one part of the equation, the hands-on craft itself.

That is not the same skill set as scheduling multiple projects at once, hiring and training crews, managing payroll, processing billing, and tracking quality across an entire growing business. Watching something get done well for years does not automatically transfer the knowledge required to actually run it.

A few signs tend to show up when excuse-making is really masking a training gap rather than a character issue, and they are worth checking honestly:

The same external excuse, supply chain, weather, the economy, gets used repeatedly to explain very different specific failures.
Frustration with the work consistently gets directed outward, rather than toward identifying a concrete skill or process that is missing.
Someone excelled in a hands-on trade role but is now struggling specifically with scheduling, finances, or managing other people.

This Isn’t About Character, It’s About What the Mind Does With Repeated Failure

Here is the psychology worth understanding directly. The human mind cannot tolerate constant, unexplained failure indefinitely. When someone keeps missing deadlines, keeps disappointing customers, and keeps falling behind without knowing why or how to fix it, the mind eventually has to resolve that tension one of two ways.

Either the person concludes they are simply bad at what they do, which is a brutal and often untrue verdict to live with daily, or they start reaching for outside explanations, the pandemic, the supply chain, the labor shortage, anything that lets them go home at night without carrying the full weight of the failure alone. Neither path fixes the actual problem. Both are simply what an unsupported mind does when a real skill gap goes unaddressed long enough.

The Dinner Party You’ve Only Ever Attended

Here is an analogy that makes the gap easier to see. Attending a beautifully catered event, with music, a full dinner, and a smooth flow from one part of the evening to the next, does not make someone capable of actually planning and running that same event. The band, the timing, the warm food arriving right on schedule, all of that took real coordination that was invisible to any guest simply enjoying the night.

The same gap shows up constantly in construction. Watching a house get built, or working skillfully as one trade partner on someone else’s job, does not automatically include the knowledge of how to schedule multiple projects, train and retain crews, manage cash flow, or track quality across a growing business. That is not a knock on the skill of the tradesperson, it is simply a different, separate set of knowledge that has to be learned deliberately.

Why It Matters: Excuses Are a Symptom, Not the Disease

This matters because reacting to the excuse itself, rather than the skill gap underneath it, keeps the whole cycle going. Getting frustrated that someone keeps blaming outside circumstances does nothing to actually close the gap that is producing those excuses in the first place.

Left unaddressed, this pattern quietly burns people out, disappoints customers repeatedly, and can tank an otherwise well-intentioned business entirely. The person is not lacking a winning mindset at the start, they are lacking the specific tools that would let that winning mindset actually produce winning results.

Teach the Framework: Pair the Mindset With the Skill

Mindset alone was never the whole answer, and neither was skill alone. A victor mindset, resourceful, proactive, willing to push through setbacks instead of surrendering to them, matters enormously. But that same mindset needs real, specific knowledge and tools to actually convert into results, or it eventually collapses under the weight of repeated, unexplained failure.

This is where continual training earns its place as a genuine non-negotiable, not a nice-to-have. Building real capability in scheduling, financial tracking, quality management, and crew leadership is what allows a winning mindset to actually stay winning, rather than slowly eroding into blame and burnout. The standard here is real and ongoing: regular job site training, dedicated time for deeper skill-building, and continued investment in the specific tools people are missing, not a single onboarding session years ago that was never revisited.

A few practical markers help distinguish a real training gap from a genuine attitude problem, and they are worth checking directly:

Identify the specific skill, scheduling, finances, crew management, quality tracking, that is actually missing, rather than treating the frustration as a general character flaw.
Provide real, ongoing training in that specific area rather than assuming it will be picked up informally over time.
Track whether performance improves once that specific gap is addressed, which confirms the diagnosis was correct.

Turning This Into Daily Practice

The next time frustration surfaces about someone who seems constantly behind, disorganized, or full of excuses, the more useful question is not “what’s wrong with their attitude,” it is “what specific piece of knowledge or equipment are they missing.” That single shift in diagnosis changes everything about how the problem actually gets solved.

Investing in real, continual training, not a one-time class years ago, but ongoing, deliberate skill-building, is what actually protects a winning mindset from slowly collapsing into blame and burnout under the weight of repeated failure.

Connecting It Back to Building People, Not Just Projects

None of this happens without leaders willing to look past the surface-level excuse and identify the real gap underneath it. Building that capability, in scheduling, in finances, in crew leadership, in quality, is exactly the kind of training that turns a struggling business back into a thriving one.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow, closing the specific skill gaps that keep good people from becoming victims of their own circumstances.

The Challenge

So here is the challenge worth carrying forward: the next time you hear an excuse, whether from yourself, your team, or a trade partner, resist the urge to simply get frustrated with it. Ask what specific knowledge or tool is actually missing, and go get it.

As Jason put it plainly, “We have plenty of good people. Companies have stopped training their people. That’s the root cause.” On we go.

FAQ

Why do people fall into a victim mindset even when they genuinely want to succeed?

The human mind cannot tolerate constant, unexplained failure indefinitely. Without the specific skills needed to fix what keeps going wrong, the mind eventually reaches for outside explanations, like the supply chain or the economy, simply to relieve the psychological weight of repeated failure.

How is watching a skill performed different from actually knowing how to do it yourself?

Watching a house get built or attending a well-run event only shows the visible result, not the coordination, scheduling, and planning happening behind the scenes. Real competence requires deliberately learning those invisible skills, not just observing the finished outcome.

Is a struggling contractor or team member usually just a bad worker?

Not usually. More often, they have real skill in one specific area, often hands-on craft work, but are missing separate knowledge needed to run a growing business, like scheduling, financial tracking, or crew management. Addressing that specific gap is far more effective than assuming the issue is simply attitude or effort.

What is the real fix when someone keeps making excuses instead of improving?

Identify the specific skill or knowledge gap driving the pattern, rather than reacting to the excuse itself. Providing real, ongoing training in that exact area, not a one-time session, is what actually closes the gap and restores a genuine winning mindset.

Why does Jason emphasize continual training rather than one-time onboarding?

Skills and tools in construction, from scheduling systems to financial tracking, continue evolving, and a single training session early in someone’s career cannot cover everything they will eventually need. Ongoing, deliberate training is what actually sustains a winning mindset over the long run, rather than letting it erode under repeated, unaddressed failure.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

What Should A Company Have In Place Before It’s Ready For Takt?

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

Read 16 min

What Should a Company Have in Place Before It Is Ready for Takt?

Here’s the deal. This question comes up constantly, and the real answer usually surprises people, because it is not the answer they expect. Takt is not some advanced technique a company needs years of preparation to earn the right to use. Takt is already how real builders naturally think. Trades genuinely respond well to it, and it saves projects. There is very little reason to wait before going all in.

The Comparison That Settles the Timing Question

Ask yourself two honest questions. Is it easier to plan a project with Takt from the very beginning than to try switching over halfway through? Yes, obviously. Is finishing an entire project on CPM actually worse than switching to Takt partway through construction? Also yes. Even mid-project, switching to Takt beats staying the course on a method that was never going to deliver what it promised in the first place. There is no scenario where waiting longer to adopt Takt is genuinely the better move.

The Four Real Signs You Are Not Ready

There are exactly four things that mean a company is not ready for Takt, and none of them are about company size, project complexity, or industry experience.

If the company’s primary focus is money and profit above everything else, running on classical business management priorities, it is not ready. If leadership is unwilling to hold people accountable and genuinely push toward a higher standard, it is not ready. If the leader will not personally drive this effort themselves, it is not ready. And if there is no real focus on training people, it is not ready. Outside of those four conditions, a company is ready right now.

Being ready means the whole organization, including the owner, is genuinely all in. It means being willing to hire the right consultant and actually invest in training your people. It means being willing to hold people accountable, and I want to be precise about what that means, because it does not mean being harsh or throwing blame around. It means providing genuine vision, real training, real clarity, and real support, consistently. That combination is the whole requirement.

Age Has Nothing to Do With Readiness

I want to be direct about something that surprises people. Age does not determine whether someone can learn this system. It genuinely does not matter whether someone is seventeen years old, straight out of high school with no college education, or eighty five years old and picking this up for the first time.

I have watched seventy five year olds in bootcamps genuinely crush the material, running circles around much younger trainees in the same room. If someone is willing to learn, this system is learnable, regardless of age, background, or how long they have been in the industry.

Where Breakdowns Actually Come From

Trades and project teams themselves are almost never where a real breakdown happens. When Takt implementations fail, the cause traces back to a specific, predictable set of sources.

Watch for these actual sources of resistance, because they are rarely the ones people expect:

A superintendent who does not want to do it, combined with leadership unwilling to hold that person accountable
A scheduling director who genuinely loves CPM and derives their sense of significance from defending it
Another Lean consultant already inside the organization who does not like Takt and quietly works to undermine it
Legal counsel or a VP of legal more focused on fighting battles and protecting against write downs than on actually helping projects get built correctly
A leadership team that is not genuinely cohesive, or a leader too busy or too permissive to personally drive the change

That pattern connects directly to something worth remembering. Non-authority positions, roles not actually accountable for operational results, are consistently incentivized to protect their own sense of significance rather than genuinely support the outcome the rest of the organization needs. A scheduling director defending CPM, or a legal team more focused on protecting itself than on genuine project success, is a textbook example of exactly that dynamic playing out.

None of this means those roles are staffed by bad people. It means the incentive structure around them quietly rewards defending the familiar system over supporting a genuinely better one, and leadership has to recognize that dynamic early rather than being surprised by it once resistance shows up.

Why Going Slow Does Not Actually Protect Anyone

There is a common instinct to ease into a change like this gradually, and I want to push back on that instinct directly, because it does not actually work the way people hope it will.

The human brain hates change, full stop, regardless of how it happens. Going slow is not gentler. It is closer to torture, like inching into a cold pool one inch at a time instead of just committing to the plunge, or pulling a bandage off one hair at a time instead of removing it in a single motion. Either way, people experience real discomfort with the change. Dragging it out does not reduce that discomfort. It simply extends it, while also opening the door to sub-optimization, the same fragmented, half-implemented outcome that comes from picking one piece of a system and leaving the rest untouched.

If you want to see real benefits from Takt or any genuine Lean system, you have to drive it with real speed and real commitment once the decision is made, not creep toward it cautiously over an extended timeline.

The Real Readiness Checklist

Boil all of this down and readiness comes down to a short list of honest questions. Is the leader genuinely into this? Is the leadership team genuinely united behind it? Are you prepared to make real, decisive moves rather than gradual, half-hearted ones? Will you actively prevent dissenters focused on protecting their own significance from quietly tearing the effort down? And will you genuinely hold people accountable, in the positive sense described earlier, vision, training, clarity, and support?

If the honest answer to all of those is yes, the company is ready. What matters most at that point is a genuine growth mindset across the organization, not years of prior experience or a perfectly stable starting point.

It is worth saying plainly that almost no company will answer every single one of those questions perfectly on the first honest attempt. That is normal. The point of the checklist is not to demand perfection before starting. It is to surface exactly where the real gaps sit, so leadership can address them directly instead of discovering them the hard way once the implementation is already underway.

Getting Started the Right Way

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your organization actually get started with Takt, including navigating the internal resistance patterns described here before they have a chance to quietly derail the effort. Waiting for a perfect moment to begin is not actually a form of caution. It is simply a slower path to the same discomfort, without the benefits arriving any sooner.

So here is the challenge. Run through the readiness checklist honestly this week. If the answer comes back yes across the board, do not wait for a more convenient project or a calmer season to start. Begin now, and drive it with real speed, because the alternative, easing in slowly, does not actually protect anyone from the discomfort of change. It only delays the benefit.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “Rip that bandaid off, let’s go.” Waiting does not make the transition easier. It only makes it longer.

On we go.

FAQ

Is it ever too late in a project to switch from CPM to Takt planning?
No. Even switching partway through construction tends to produce a better outcome than staying on CPM through the entire project. While starting with Takt from the very beginning is ideal, the comparison that actually matters is between finishing on CPM versus switching to Takt at any point, and switching almost always wins.

Does a company need extensive prior Lean experience before attempting Takt planning?
No. Readiness depends on leadership commitment, willingness to train people, and willingness to hold people accountable in a genuinely supportive way, not on prior experience level. Age and background do not determine whether someone can learn this system, and people with no formal construction education have picked it up quickly alongside decades-long industry veterans.

Why does a scheduling director’s attachment to CPM often become a major source of resistance?
Because a role that is not directly accountable for field results can become invested in defending a familiar system out of a need to protect its own relevance and significance, rather than genuinely evaluating whether that system serves the project well. This mirrors a broader pattern where non-authority positions resist change specifically because their own sense of importance feels tied to the status quo.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

What Questions Should A Buyer Ask Any Lean Consultant Before Hiring Them?

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

Read 17 min

The Exact Questions to Ask Any Lean Consultant Before You Hire Them

Here’s the deal. Hiring a Lean consultant is genuinely worth doing. Getting ahead in this industry often means learning from someone else’s mistakes instead of your own, and a good consultant can compress ten years of learning into far less time. That said, hiring the wrong one wastes real money and can quietly damage your company’s reputation with Lean before it ever gets a fair shot. Ask the right questions up front, and you can tell the difference before you sign anything.

Ask Yourself This Question First

Before you evaluate any consultant, evaluate your own reason for pursuing Lean in the first place. Why are you actually implementing it? If the honest answer is purely to make more money or win more proposals, stop right there. Please do not do this for those reasons, because it will not work, and it will give Lean a bad name in the process.

Classical business management, the inherited Western default, puts profits and money first, control of people second, and the comfort and cohesion of internal leadership third, even though that order reliably creates waste and disrespects the people doing the work. Lean management is the willingness to learn and genuinely implement excellence for the benefit of people and humanity, built around people, process, and quality. Every client I have ever worked with where Lean actually became real and lasting cared genuinely about their people and was fanatical about improvement. There are no exceptions to that pattern. None.

Question One: What Is Your First Step in the Process?

Once you are genuinely doing this for the right reasons, start asking real questions. The first one matters enormously. Ask a prospective consultant what their actual first step is.

The correct answer involves understanding your specific goals and evaluating your company directly, through a real field walk, observing actual conditions boots on the ground. If a consultant skips straight past that and starts describing a predetermined package instead, that is a serious warning sign. Without a genuine assessment first, they are going to hand you a cookie cutter solution and apply it to your people whether it actually fits your situation or not, which produces exactly the kind of sub-optimization that wastes time and money without solving your real problems.

Question Two: What System Do You Actually Use?

Ask directly what system they use to implement Lean. If the answer names a single tool, just Last Planner, just Takt, just theory of constraints, just the fourteen principles of the Toyota Way, just pull planning, treat that as a serious red flag.

Here is the analogy that makes this concrete. Think about an HVAC system inside a building. You cannot implement heating and cooling by only wanting the thermostat, while skipping the condenser, the ductwork, the piping, the controls, and the building envelope. If you install a duct in the attic and call that a working HVAC system, you do not actually have heating and cooling. You have one piece of a system that cannot function on its own. If your actual need is a working HVAC system and you hire a thermostat salesperson, you have hired the wrong person for the job.

Watch for these signs a consultant is offering a fragment instead of a genuine system:

A single named tool given as the entire answer to “what system do you use”
No explanation of how their approach connects to the broader Lean spectrum, Takt, Last Planner, theory of constraints, Kanban, and beyond
Enthusiasm for one specific technique with no discussion of how it fits into overall project rhythm

Ask directly how they implement Lean as a system, and what pattern they follow to do it. If they cannot answer clearly, be genuinely skeptical.

Question Three: How Do You Scale This Throughout a Company?

Ask specifically how they approach scaling an implementation beyond a single pilot project. There is a well documented answer here, and any response that deviates significantly from it is worth treating with real caution.

A genuine scaling approach requires a real business system, a real operating system, combined training so the whole organization gets brought up to speed together, and monthly field walks to reinforce the implementation once it is underway. Any answer that skips one of those four pieces entirely is missing something a Lean rollout genuinely needs to actually stick across an organization rather than fading after the initial pilot ends.

A Question That Reveals the Real Answer

Here is a useful way to draw out an honest answer rather than a rehearsed one. Ask something like, what is your approach, or what do other consultants tend to get wrong. If the response comes back as start small, pick one thing, go slow, treat that as a genuine red flag. That advice sounds sensible on the surface, and it is exactly the kind of approach that produces a shallow, sub-optimized implementation instead of a real one.

Then ask something concrete and forward looking. How would you actually start tomorrow? A strong answer involves assembling a genuinely capable team, running a real pilot project, and delivering measurable results from it, not a vague roadmap stretched out over an undefined timeline.

Watch Out for Anyone Selling Lean as Effortless

If a consultant talks about Lean as though it naturally happens once people simply want it to, treat that as a warning sign too. No genuine Lean implementation has ever come from good intentions alone. Real Lean depends on total participation, genuinely stable jobsites, and real respect for people, none of which shows up automatically. Those things are built deliberately, not wished into existence.

The Cores of Lean, and the Question That Exposes a Weak Consultant

There are different frameworks people use to describe the cores of Lean, including one from the Lean Construction Institute that I genuinely respect and think gets close to the mark. Mine describes it this way: respect for people, nature, and resources; stability and standardization; one piece process and progress flow, working together on Takt time and pull; total participation and visual systems; quality and continuous improvement; and logistical superiority. Respect and stability always come first in that list, ahead of everything else, because nothing else genuinely functions without them.

Ask any prospective consultant directly what they consider the cores of Lean to be. If respect and stability do not show up clearly in their answer, that tells you almost everything you need to know about how they actually approach this work.

Putting These Questions to Work

None of this requires you to become a Lean expert yourself before hiring help. It requires asking the right handful of questions and paying close attention to whether the answers actually hold together as a coherent system.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help you evaluate a potential consultant against exactly this list, or answer these same questions ourselves if you are considering working with us directly. Getting this decision right up front saves far more time and money than discovering months into a shallow implementation that the underlying system was never actually there.

So here is the challenge. Before your next conversation with a Lean consultant, write down these questions and ask every one of them directly. Pay close attention not just to what they say, but to whether their answers connect into a genuine system, or whether they keep circling back to the one tool or technique they happen to know best.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “If you don’t hear respect and stability, run for the hills.” That single test filters out most of the wrong hires before you ever sign a contract.

On we go.

FAQ

Why does the reason a company wants to implement Lean matter before choosing a consultant?
Because Lean built primarily to increase profits or win more proposals tends to fail, since it treats people and process as secondary to a financial outcome rather than the actual foundation the results depend on. Every lasting Lean implementation traces back to genuine care for the people doing the work, paired with real commitment to improvement, which is why this self reflection has to happen before evaluating any consultant.

What does the HVAC analogy actually explain about hiring a Lean consultant?
It illustrates why a single Lean tool, like Last Planner or theory of constraints alone, cannot function the way a full system can, the same way a thermostat cannot produce heating and cooling without the condenser, ductwork, and controls that make the whole system work. A consultant offering just one piece of the puzzle, no matter how well they know that piece, cannot deliver the complete result a genuine Lean implementation requires.

Why is a suggestion to start small and go slow considered a red flag rather than reasonable caution?
Because it tends to produce sub-optimization, meaning effort spent improving one isolated area while the rest of the system remains untouched, which rarely delivers meaningful results. A genuine Lean implementation generally requires the business system, operating system, training, and field support to move together, rather than being introduced piece by piece over an extended, undefined timeline.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

How Should A General Contractor Choose A Lean Construction Training Or Consulting Partner?

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

Read 17 min

How Should a General Contractor Choose a Lean Construction Training or Consulting Partner?

Here’s the deal. I am a Lean trainer and a Lean consultant myself, which means you should treat everything I say here with a healthy amount of skepticism and go get other opinions too. With that disclosure out of the way, here is what I genuinely believe, based on running this business and watching plenty of implementations succeed and fail.

Consultants Are Genuinely Useful, and That Is Not a Sales Pitch

Coaches, trainers, and consultants are a real, legitimate part of taking a business to the next level. I have never once seen a company make that leap without them. We have used them constantly at Elevate ourselves, even in our first years, when I cashed in my own retirement just to get the business started. We have paid for executive coaching, for business operating system consulting, for LinkedIn coaching, and currently for help making sure our content is actually findable through AI powered search. We have used SEO specialists and business consultants along the way too. Hiring outside expertise is simply part of how a business gets better.

Even Paul Akers, whose book 2 Second Lean opens by saying you do not technically need a Lean consultant, describes in that same book how his own next step involved hiring one to come into his shop and paying for a trip to Japan to see Lean practices firsthand. People say you do not need consultants. In practice, the people saying that tend to have used one anyway.

A Story About What Happens When a Company Only Wants to Dabble

If you genuinely just want to say your company does Lean, without going any deeper than that, you can hire almost anyone and get away with it. I saw this play out directly with a local contractor. A consultant had them running what he called a three week pull, which is not actually a pull plan at all. A real pull plan is organized by phase, not by a rolling time window. What that company actually got was a look ahead plan moved from Excel onto sticky notes, dressed up in Lean language so it could be mentioned in proposals.

That was fine with the people involved, because going deeper was never really the goal. Some of the operations staff at that company genuinely did not want to take it further, so a shallow implementation suited everyone just fine.

What Happened When That Same Company Went Deeper

That same company later hired us to actually implement the full system on an eighty five million dollar project that ultimately grew to one hundred twenty million dollars. We worked with them on real pull planning and a genuine Lean implementation, and the results were dramatic. The project ran ahead of schedule and under budget. The onsite team was genuinely happy. Signage and visual systems were done right. The owner was impressed, and so were the trades. We still have showcase footage from that project.

Here is the part worth learning from directly. Our growing influence made the field operations manager and the original consultant genuinely nervous, and they moved quickly to have us removed from the project. That is the real crux of the issue. Going all the way with a Lean implementation requires managing internal dissension, securing genuine buy-in from the people who influence the organization, and being fully prepared to follow through. If you actually want to kill a Lean effort, here is exactly how to do it. Keep leadership from being genuinely all in. Focus on profits and money above everything else. Let a scheduling or legal director who fears losing significance quietly resist the change. Or simply allow dissenters to undermine the effort because they personally dislike change.

Watch for these signs internal politics are quietly working against a real Lean implementation:

Leadership publicly supportive of the effort but not genuinely engaged in driving it
A scheduling, legal, or administrative role that seems threatened by the growing influence of the new system
Vocal resistance to change tolerated without any real pushback from leadership

Red Flags to Watch for in a Potential Consultant

There are specific warning signs worth checking before signing with any Lean consultant, and the first one is basic diagnostic work. A genuine consultant needs to ask where your organization actually wants to go, assess your organization directly, and visit you in person before proposing anything. A consultant who skips straight to selling you a predetermined package, without ever diagnosing your actual situation, is at minimum a real orange flag, the same way a doctor cannot responsibly diagnose anything without running actual tests.

The second red flag is a consultant who suggests going slow or implementing just one small piece at a time. That advice sounds cautious and reasonable, and it is actually one of the least Lean things you can do. It is called sub-optimization, improving one isolated piece while the entire system around it stays unimplemented, which rarely produces meaningful results.

The third red flag is a consultant who only genuinely knows one tool. Somebody who only knows Last Planner will only implement Last Planner. Somebody who only knows theory of constraints will only apply that. Somebody fixated purely on advanced work packaging or purely on Takt will do exactly that and nothing more. A consultant needs to understand the entire Lean spectrum, theory of constraints, line of balance, location based scheduling, Takt, Last Planner, Kanban, general Lean manufacturing, fabrication facility principles, and advanced work packaging, and be able to explain clearly how all of those pieces connect to each other. If they cannot articulate that connection, that is a genuine red flag.

Why the Underlying Framework Matters as Much as the Tools

A genuine Lean partner needs to understand a specific pattern. Construction has to be planned on a real rhythm together with the trades, which means genuine fluency in the pre-construction planning system, the Takt production system, and the Last Planner System together, not any one of them in isolation.

There is a useful framework from the book Switch worth applying here. People need to know what they are actually supposed to be doing, they need to genuinely want to do it, and they need circumstances that actually let them succeed at it. Translated into a scaling pattern, that means a real business system, a real operating system, real training so everyone gets brought up to speed together, and monthly field walks to reinforce the implementation in practice. Skip any one of those four and a Lean effort will not scale across an organization, no matter how good the initial pilot project looked.

The Single Biggest Red Flag of All

If a consultant is genuinely pro-CPM, that is worth treating as disqualifying. Anybody who tolerates or defends CPM at this point is either unaware of the consequences it produces, does not genuinely understand Lean thinking, or understands the harm it causes and continues to defend it anyway. None of those three options is a good foundation for a genuine Lean partnership.

How to Actually Evaluate a Potential Partner

None of this needs to be figured out entirely alone. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help evaluate whether a specific consultant genuinely understands the entire Lean spectrum, or whether they are likely to leave you with a shallow, sub-optimized implementation dressed up in the right vocabulary.

So here is the challenge. Before signing with any Lean consultant, ask them directly to walk through how theory of constraints, Takt, Last Planner, Kanban, and advanced work packaging connect to each other on a real project. If the answer is vague, or if they immediately steer the conversation back toward the one tool they know best, that conversation just told you everything you need to know.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “Sub-optimization is the most unlean thing you can do.” Choose a partner who understands the whole system, not just the one piece they happen to sell.

On we go.

FAQ

Why is suggesting a slow, one piece at a time rollout actually a red flag rather than sound advice?
Because it produces sub-optimization, meaning improvement in one isolated area while the rest of the system remains untouched, which rarely produces the kind of results a genuine Lean implementation is capable of. A consultant who genuinely understands the full system will typically recommend implementing the business system, operating system, training, and field support together, since each piece reinforces the others.

How can a general contractor tell whether internal politics are likely to undermine a Lean implementation before it even starts?
Watch for leadership that is publicly supportive but not genuinely engaged in driving the change personally, and watch for roles like scheduling or legal that might feel threatened by a new system gaining real influence. Securing genuine buy-in from those influencers before a deep implementation begins is far easier than trying to repair sabotage after resistance has already taken hold.

Why does the article treat a pro-CPM consultant as an automatic disqualifier?
Because CPM’s structural flaws, including trade stacking, trade burdening, and the absence of real buffers, are well documented at this point. A consultant who still defends or tolerates that method is either unaware of those consequences, does not genuinely understand Lean principles, or understands the harm and continues anyway, none of which makes for a trustworthy foundation for a genuine Lean partnership.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Where Did Each Of These Concepts Come From And What Problems Were Each Built To Solve?

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

Read 18 min

Where These Systems Actually Came From, and What Problems They Were Built to Solve

Here’s the deal. None of what we teach at Elevate got invented in a vacuum. Every piece of it came from real jobsite experience, real training, and a genuine willingness to steal good ideas from wherever they existed. I want to walk through exactly where each piece came from, because understanding the origin makes the whole system easier to trust.

Where It Actually Started

Early in my career, working at DPR Construction and Hensel Phelps, I learned the Last Planner System, a collaborative planning approach that pulls trade partners into short interval planning so real commitments get made human to human, inside an integrated environment, rather than dictated from a schedule nobody actually agreed to. Hensel Phelps also ran something called short interval production scheduling, and I picked up enough of that early exposure to know, without yet having the right vocabulary for it, that what I was chasing was genuine flow.

I had a strong instinct from that experience that pre-construction planning mattered enormously, and I carried that instinct with me when I finally got the chance to run my own project as a superintendent.

The Project That Proved the System Worked

On the Bioscience Research Laboratory project, I pushed to implement everything I had learned, and I was told directly by my general superintendent at the time that I did not need eight to ten months to plan the job, that I needed to go build a few other projects first and prove myself before earning that kind of planning time. I disagreed, and I held my ground.

That project finished on time, on budget, and it went beautifully. I say this plainly because I want to be honest about what actually made that possible. I do not think I was necessarily better than anyone else at the time. I followed the systems, deliberately and completely. Pair a decent person with a great system, and you will win every single time.

Before implementing that project, I completed CM-BIM and CM-Lean training through the AGC, including a course specifically on Lean logistics. I was studying for my DBIA certification simultaneously, and I completed a planning, scheduling, and production planning program at DPR. I also read Paul Akers’s book 2 Second Lean and committed fully to applying everything I was learning, not selectively, but as one integrated approach. The result was a project people genuinely traveled from around the country to see, on time, under budget, with clients who became real advocates for the work.

Discovering What the System Actually Was

Once that project wrapped and I moved into general superintendent and field director roles, I started asking myself a real question. What was that system I had actually built? I knew the Last Planner System was part of it, but there was clearly more underneath it than I had a name for yet.

Partway through the project, I had been exposed to Takt terminology through a representative from a German Takt planning company, and while I do not agree with every aspect of how that company approaches Takt planning, the exposure to the terminology mattered. I also found the book How Big Things Get Done, which documented real research showing exactly why pre-construction planning mattered as much as it did. Put together, the real system was pre-construction planning, Takt, and the Last Planner System, working as one integrated approach rather than three separate ideas.

Building the Business Around What Actually Worked

I offered to bring this system into the company I was working for at the time, and the offer did not get much traction. Not long after, my wife Kate and I decided to start our own business instead. I cashed in my retirement to make it happen.

We began teaching superintendents, and quickly realized that training alone does not accomplish much without a real underlying system to teach against. That is where the Takt production system came from, named with help from an engineer colleague, built as construction’s equivalent to the Toyota production system. As we consulted on real projects with genuinely strong results, we recognized we also needed something formal for the Last Planner side of things, which eventually became its own trademarked system, alongside bringing project managers into the framework as well, since I had real experience in that role too.

Watch for these signs a company is trying to implement pieces of this without the full structure underneath it:

Adopting Takt terminology without a real pre-construction planning process behind it
Running Last Planner sessions disconnected from an actual Takt sequence
Training superintendents without ever building the underlying system they are being trained to use

Why We Named It the Integrated Production Control System

The core insight underneath all of this is simple to state. A project only goes well if it is planned on a genuine rhythm, together with the trades actually doing the work. Three systems, pre-construction planning, Takt, and the Last Planner System, work together to make that possible, and we named the combination the Integrated Production Control System, because that name describes exactly what it does. We layered in additional frameworks on top of that foundation too, military strategy concepts, the fourteen principles of the Toyota Way, the theory of constraints, and Deming’s fourteen points, specifically to make sure the underlying philosophy was as thoroughly covered as possible.

The Pattern Underneath Every Successful Implementation

There is a broader pattern worth naming here, because a lot of advice in the Lean world tells people to start small, pick one system, and go slowly. I think that advice is largely wrong. A company genuinely needs four things together: a real business system, a real operating system, real training, and real field support.

The business system draws heavily from thinkers like Patrick Lencioni, Jim Collins, and Peter Drucker, whether a company chooses a framework like the table group model or an entrepreneurial operating system. The operating system is where our books live, since a company can genuinely buy the books and have that operating system in hand. Training is where our bootcamps came from, born directly out of the recognition that a system without trained people behind it does not hold. And field walks, meaning ongoing monthly implementation support, is where our project support services originated, because concepts taught once in a classroom rarely survive contact with a real jobsite without continued reinforcement.

Why Lean Logistics Exists

One more piece emerged later, almost as a byproduct of everything else. Implementing this system at scale required real physical supplies, printed field guides, boards, maps, pull planning kits, training materials. That need is what led to Lean Logistics, the company that now supplies exactly what a project needs to actually run this system in the field, not just understand it conceptually.

Today, this has grown into a genuine set of organizations working together, employing dozens of people across consulting, training, and logistics, plus a construction company and contractor’s license held in reserve specifically for companies interested in a joint venture or an industry showcase project.

Why We Built Any of This in the First Place

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your organization implement this same integrated system, business system, operating system, training, and field support, rather than picking pieces of it in isolation. We offer consulting to help with business and operations, training through bootcamps and certification style programs, project support to help plan and run the actual work, and the supplies through Lean Logistics that make implementation genuinely practical rather than theoretical.

None of this exists purely as a business model. The actual problem we are trying to solve is helping people enjoy their families, protecting the workers who build our projects, and elevating this industry as a whole. Training elevates people, and stability elevates the system, and both of those things only happen when a real, integrated system is actually in place to support them.

So here is the challenge. If your organization has been implementing pieces of Lean thinking in isolation, a Takt board here, a Last Planner meeting there, without the business system, operating system, training, and field support that actually holds them together, that gap is exactly where to focus next. Piecing together fragments rarely produces the results a genuinely integrated system delivers.

Jason Schroeder said it plainly: “Pair a decent person with a great system, you’ll win every day.” Build the whole system, not just the pieces that look good individually.

On we go.

FAQ

What are the three core components of the Integrated Production Control System?
Pre-construction planning, Takt planning, and the Last Planner System, working together as one integrated approach rather than three separate initiatives. Pre-construction planning sets the foundation, Takt planning provides the time by location structure and rhythm, and the Last Planner System brings genuine trade partner collaboration into short interval planning, based on real human commitments.

Why does the article argue against the common advice to start small and pick one Lean system at a time?
Because a company genuinely needs a business system, an operating system, real training, and ongoing field support all working together, rather than isolated fragments. Adopting a single tool, like Takt boards or Last Planner meetings, without the underlying system and training behind it tends to produce a technique that looks good on paper but does not actually hold up once real project pressure hits.

How did the need for physical supplies and materials lead to a separate company?
Once training and project support scaled to real implementation, teams needed actual physical materials, printed field guides, boards, maps, and pull planning kits, to run the system day to day rather than just understand it conceptually. That practical need for supplies at scale is what led to creating a dedicated logistics company to provide exactly what a project needs to implement the system in the field.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Detailed Crane Schedule Analysis

Posted on August 31, 2026August 31, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 22 min

Detailed Crane Schedule Analysis: Your Crane Doesn’t Punish You for Being Busy, It Punishes You for Being Unprepared

Your crane is your most expensive bottleneck. Do you actually know where it is busy and where it is free?

Here is the deal. Most jobsites run the tower crane on tribal knowledge. The operator knows. The superintendent kind of knows. Everybody else guesses. And then trades stack up at the hook like cars at a four way stop with no signals, each one assuming their pick is next, none of them actually knowing where they stand in the queue until they are already standing there waiting. A crane is one of the most expensive pieces of equipment on any project, billed by the day whether it is lifting or idle, and running it on guesswork is one of the most expensive habits construction has never quite broken.

The Pain of a Resource Nobody Can See

Picture a typical morning around the base of a tower crane without a visible demand schedule. The rebar trade shows up expecting to set a mat. The general contractor’s crew needs a deck placement. A third trade has material sitting on a truck that needs to come up before the driver’s window closes. All three of them believe their need is urgent, and none of them can actually see where they fall in the sequence, because the sequence exists only in the operator’s head and the superintendent’s rough sense of the day’s priorities.

What happens next is predictable. Someone waits longer than they should because nobody told them the crane was committed to another lift for the next ninety minutes. Someone else gets bumped without warning, disrupting whatever plan they had built around an assumed pick time. The crane itself, meanwhile, may sit idle for a stretch because nobody thought to schedule an opportunistic pick during a genuine gap in demand, a gap that existed and went completely unused simply because nobody had a way to see it coming. The crane is expensive every single hour, whether it is lifting steel or sitting still, and a schedule that lives in someone’s head cannot protect against either kind of waste.

The Failure Pattern

The failure pattern is treating the crane as a resource that gets allocated reactively, in the moment, rather than one that gets planned in advance the same way every other constrained resource on the project should be.

Most schedules plan trades, sequences, and milestones in detail. Very few plan the crane with the same rigor, even though the crane is frequently the single resource every other trade’s sequence actually depends on. A Takt plan can define exactly when a wall assembly needs embeds set or when a deck needs to be placed, but if the crane capacity required to execute that plan was never mapped against actual demand, the Takt plan is aspirational rather than reliable. The crane becomes the silent constraint that determines whether the plan holds, and yet it is frequently the piece of the plan given the least explicit, most visible scheduling attention.

They Didn’t Fail the System

When trades stack up at the hook, or a crane sits idle during a window that could have absorbed a deliverable pick, the instinct is to look at coordination discipline. The trades should communicate better. The superintendent should manage the queue more actively.

Before landing on that explanation, it is worth asking what tool anyone actually had to coordinate with. If the crane’s demand exists only in the operator’s memory and a superintendent’s general sense of priority, then every trade partner showing up expecting a pick is operating without the information they would need to plan around anyone else’s needs, let alone their own. The stacking at the hook is not a communication failure between people who should have talked more. It is the predictable result of a resource with zero visible schedule, where every party is guessing simultaneously and none of those guesses are coordinated with each other.

What a Detailed Crane Demand Analysis Actually Shows

A day to day crane demand analysis maps thirteen workdays out, in thirty minute increments, across a six AM to six PM planning window, giving the project a granular, forward looking view of exactly when the crane is committed and exactly when it is free.

Separate demand lanes for each trade partner, the general contractor and the rebar trade in this case, show precisely who needs the hook and when, rather than folding every trade’s demand into one undifferentiated block of crane time. This separation matters because different trades have different lift profiles, and seeing them side by side reveals conflicts and gaps that a single merged schedule would obscure.

Every lift is tied directly to the production rhythm, strip and jump, weld knife plates, place decks, reinforce the core. The crane plan follows the Takt plan, not the other way around. This ordering matters enormously. A crane schedule built independently of the Takt sequence risks becoming its own competing plan, one that may not actually support the pace the rest of the project depends on. A crane schedule derived directly from the Takt rhythm ensures the crane is serving the production plan rather than constraining it in ways nobody anticipated.

Free capacity windows, highlighted clearly, become the project’s opportunistic pick windows. Material staging, dunnage, trash out, deliveries, all of it becomes plannable rather than improvised. Those windows exist on every crane schedule whether anyone identifies them or not. The difference between a project that captures that value and one that wastes it is entirely whether anyone made those windows visible far enough in advance for trades to actually plan around them.

Why This Belongs Two Weeks Out, Not Two Hours Out

The value of this analysis depends heavily on its planning horizon. A thirteen workday look ahead means trade partners are not discovering their crane windows the morning of. They are seeing them roughly two weeks in advance, which is enough lead time to actually pre stage material, coordinate delivery trucks to arrive during a genuine window rather than showing up and hoping, and flag any conflict with enough runway to resolve it before it becomes a lost cycle.

This is the same logic behind make ready planning and full kit readiness in Advanced Work Packaging. A resource that is only visible in the moment it is needed cannot be planned around. A resource that is visible weeks in advance becomes something the whole project can build a plan against, rather than something everyone reacts to individually and separately.

The Crane Punishes Unpreparedness, Not Busyness

Here is the principle underneath the entire practice. The crane does not punish a project for being busy. A fully booked crane schedule, every window committed to a productive lift, is not a problem. It is the sign of a well planned sequence making full use of an expensive resource. What actually costs a project is unpreparedness, a trade that did not know its window was coming and was not staged when the hook became available, a gap in the schedule that nobody identified in advance and therefore nobody used, a conflict between two trades’ demand that only became visible once both of them showed up expecting the same thirty minute slot.

When demand is visible far enough out, trade partners can pre stage. Roadblocks get identified and removed before they cost an actual cycle. The hook stays in flow, moving from one planned pick to the next without the gaps and collisions that come from everyone guessing independently. That flow is not a matter of luck or unusually good coordination between people. It is the direct output of making an expensive, constrained resource visible far enough in advance that the whole project can plan around it together.

How to Read the Analysis

The structure of the tool matters as much as the data inside it. Reading left to right by day gives a chronological view of the entire look ahead window. Reading top to bottom by time shows exactly what is happening within any given day, in thirty minute resolution fine enough to actually plan a specific pick around. Tracking crane demand by trade lane separately reveals where two trades’ needs might be converging on the same window before that convergence becomes a problem in the field. And using the green free capacity windows to identify open crane time turns what would otherwise be invisible idle time into a specific, plannable opportunity for opportunistic picks that would otherwise never happen.

Signals Your Crane Schedule Is Actually Just Hope

Look for these patterns on your current project:

Trade partners regularly arrive at the crane without knowing in advance whether their window is confirmed
The crane sits idle during stretches that nobody identified in advance as available capacity
Coordination about crane priority happens reactively in the field rather than through a schedule everyone can reference in advance
Different trades’ demand for the crane has never been mapped side by side to reveal potential conflicts before they happen
The crane schedule exists primarily in the operator’s or superintendent’s memory rather than as a document the whole team can see

Any one of these signals a project running its most expensive piece of equipment on tribal knowledge rather than a visible plan, and that gap is exactly what a detailed crane demand analysis is built to close.

Schedule the Hook the Way You Schedule the Work

If your crane schedule lives in someone’s head, it is not a schedule. It is a hope. A hope that the operator remembers every commitment correctly, that the superintendent’s mental model of the day matches reality, that trades stacking up at the hook sort themselves out without losing real cycles. Hope is not a plan, and an asset this expensive deserves better than hope.

Building a genuine crane demand analysis, tied directly to the Takt plan, visible two weeks out, with clear demand lanes and highlighted free capacity, turns the crane from a source of daily uncertainty into one of the most reliably planned resources on the project. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow. Jason Schroeder and the LeanTakt team build crane schedules directly off the Takt rhythm because a plan that does not account for its most expensive constraint is not really a plan at all, it is a hope wearing a schedule’s clothing.

Map Your Crane’s Next Two Weeks

Here is your challenge. Take your current Takt plan and map every lift it requires against your crane’s actual capacity, thirty minute increments, thirteen days out. Find the gaps. Find the conflicts. Highlight the free windows before someone else discovers them by accident, or worse, never discovers them at all.

Marcus Aurelius wrote that we have power over our own minds, not outside events, and that realizing this gives us strength. A crane schedule you cannot see is an outside event happening to you. A crane schedule you have mapped and planned is something you have taken command of. Take command of the hook before the hook takes command of your week.

On we go.

FAQ

Why separate demand lanes by trade partner instead of tracking crane use as a single combined schedule?
Different trades have different lift profiles, priorities, and staging requirements, and a single combined lane can hide conflicts between them until those conflicts show up physically at the hook. Separate lanes let the team see exactly where two trades’ demand might be converging on the same window well before that convergence becomes a problem in the field, giving everyone time to resolve it on paper instead of in real time.

Why does the crane schedule need to follow the Takt plan rather than being built independently?
A crane schedule built independently of the Takt sequence risks becoming its own competing plan, one that may not actually support the pace the rest of the project depends on. Tying every lift directly to the production rhythm, strip and jump, weld knife plates, deck placement, keeps the crane serving the plan rather than quietly constraining it in ways nobody accounted for.

How far in advance should crane demand actually be visible to trade partners?
A thirteen workday look ahead, roughly two weeks, gives trade partners enough lead time to pre stage material, coordinate delivery trucks to specific windows, and flag conflicts early enough to resolve them without losing a cycle. A shorter window leaves too little time to actually act on the information, while a much longer window may not reflect the level of detail needed for accurate thirty minute scheduling.

If you want to learn more we have:

Discover Jason’s Expertise:

Lift Drawing

Posted on August 31, 2026August 31, 2026 by va.jason.almas@gmail.com

Read 21 min

Lift Drawings: Build Your Brain Before You Build the Building

Before a single form is set, before a single dowel is placed, before a single cubic yard of concrete is ordered, the building needs to exist somewhere first. It needs to exist in your mind.

Here is the deal. Most people see a lift drawing as an output, a consolidated sheet that pulls architectural, structural, and MEP information together so the crew can build from one document. That is true, but it is incomplete. The more important truth is what producing one actually does to the person who draws it. By the time a field engineer has finished a thorough lift drawing for a wall, a footing, or an assembly, they know that component cold. Not generally. Not approximately. Completely.

The Pain of Showing Up Without Actually Knowing

Picture a field engineer who has not built the lift drawing themselves, standing in front of a crew about to place concrete for a complex footing assembly. They have the architectural sheet. They have the structural sheet. They have an MEP drawing showing a sleeve location that may or may not conflict with the rebar cage the crew is currently tying. They have not personally reconciled those three documents into a single, coherent understanding of the component, because that reconciliation work happened, if it happened at all, somewhere else, by someone else, or not at all.

When a question comes up in the field, a bar that seems to be running through where a sleeve needs to go, a dimension that does not quite match between two sheets, that field engineer is now trying to solve a coordination problem in real time, standing next to a crew that is waiting, with concrete on the way. The cost of that unresolved conflict is no longer measured in the time it takes to answer an RFI. It is measured in a crew standing idle, a truck on the clock, and a decision being made under pressure that should have been made calmly, on paper, days earlier.

The Failure Pattern

The failure pattern is treating coordination as something that happens automatically once the individual discipline drawings exist, rather than as an act of deliberate synthesis that someone has to actually perform.

Architectural, structural, and MEP drawings are each internally consistent within their own discipline. The architect’s sheet is correct according to architectural intent. The structural sheet is correct according to structural requirements. The MEP sheet is correct according to mechanical, electrical, and plumbing routing. What none of those sheets guarantees, individually, is that all three are consistent with each other at the specific point where a sleeve passes through a wall, where an embed sits relative to a rebar mat, where a pour break lands relative to a structural joint. That reconciliation only happens when someone actually does the work of tracing every element across all three disciplines simultaneously and confirming they agree.

Skip that reconciliation, and the conflicts do not disappear. They simply stay hidden until the moment they become physically unavoidable, which is almost always in the field, in front of a crew, after material has already been ordered and a schedule has already been committed to.

They Didn’t Fail the System

When a field conflict surfaces during placement, a sleeve that was never coordinated with the rebar, an embed location that does not match between two disciplines, the instinct is to ask why nobody caught it. Why didn’t the field engineer see this coming?

The honest answer is often that nobody actually did the work of drawing the assembly themselves before the crew arrived. Reviewing three separate discipline drawings and assuming they are coordinated is not the same as producing a single lift drawing that forces every dimension, every bar, every embed, every sleeve to be individually traced and reconciled. A field engineer who has not gone through that process has not actually verified coordination. They have only trusted that it exists, and trust is not a substitute for verification. The failure is not a lack of diligence. It is a system that allowed coordination to be assumed rather than proven.

What a Lift Drawing Actually Forces You to Do

A lift drawing serves three distinct purposes, and each one produces a different kind of value.

The first is knowing the building. A field engineer who has personally produced the lift drawing for a component walks out to the crew not as a spectator holding a clipboard, but as the person who knows that assembly as well as anyone on site. That credibility is not claimed. It is earned, drawing by drawing, through the specific labor of tracing every dimension and confirming every interface before the work begins. A crew can tell, almost immediately, whether the person standing in front of them actually understands the assembly or is reading from a sheet they did not build themselves. That difference shapes how much trust the crew extends, and trust extended to a field engineer who has earned it translates directly into fewer questions, fewer delays, and a crew that moves with confidence instead of hesitation.

The second is finding problems. If you cannot draw it, you cannot build it. The act of drawing forces a level of scrutiny that reviewing separate sheets never quite achieves, because drawing requires resolving every dimension into a single, internally consistent representation. Missing information becomes obvious. Dimensions that do not resolve become obvious. Details that conflict become obvious. None of that is optional once you are actually trying to draw the thing, because the drawing simply will not come together correctly if a real conflict exists underneath it. An RFI answered before a placement, discovered during the drawing process, is worth vastly more than the same information discovered after concrete is hard and gray, because before that point, every discrepancy is still fixable at low cost.

The third is building and checking. The finished lift drawing becomes the quality standard, not an abstract specification but a specific, component level reference that the field engineer takes into the field and compares directly against what is actually being built. That comparison happens continuously, not once, until the work is fully locked in. This turns the lift drawing into an active verification tool rather than a document produced once and then set aside.

We Build People Before We Build Things

Here is the principle underneath all of it, learned firsthand on study trips to Japan. Toyota’s own philosophy puts it plainly: we build people before we build products. Every lift drawing a field engineer produces is not just a coordination document for the crew. It is a training exercise for the person producing it, whether or not anyone frames it that way explicitly.

Every lift drawing programs the mind to read in three dimensions, to see the interfaces between systems that would otherwise stay hidden in separate flat sheets, to visualize a finished assembly before a single form is set. That skill does not develop from reviewing drawings someone else produced. It develops specifically from the act of producing the drawing yourself, tracing every bar, every embed, every sleeve, and every dimension until the assembly exists completely and correctly in your own understanding. The drawing itself has value to the project. What producing it does to the field engineer’s ability to think spatially, to coordinate across disciplines, and to catch conflicts before they become expensive is a separate and arguably more important form of value, one that compounds across every subsequent lift drawing that same person produces for the rest of their career.

Why This Belongs Early, Not Late

The entire value of a lift drawing depends on when it happens relative to the pour. It is not wrong until it is hard and gray. Until concrete sets, every discrepancy caught on paper is a low cost fix, a phone call, a quick sketch, a clarification from the design team. Once concrete is placed, the same discrepancy becomes a demolition problem, a schedule problem, and often a cost problem that dwarfs whatever it would have cost to resolve during the drawing process.

This is why the lift drawing workflow matters as much as the drawing itself. Create the drawing, developing the lift geometry, dimensions, embeds, and levels. Coordinate across disciplines, aligning with each team and resolving clashes before they reach the field. Review the drawing, checking dimensions, elevations, embeds, and sequencing with real scrutiny rather than a quick glance. Update the drawing, incorporating feedback and revising until it accurately reflects what needs to be built. Then build, using the lift drawing in the field to get it right the first time. Skipping or rushing any of these steps reintroduces exactly the risk the whole process is designed to eliminate.

Signals Your Field Engineering Process Needs This Discipline

Look for these patterns on your current project:

RFIs about component coordination are being generated during or immediately after placement rather than during the drawing process
Field engineers are relying on separate discipline drawings rather than producing a single, reconciled lift drawing before complex pours
Crews express uncertainty about whether the field engineer actually understands a specific assembly before work begins
The same category of coordination conflict, sleeve locations, embed placement, pour breaks, keeps recurring across multiple components
Quality verification in the field happens against memory or general specification rather than against a specific, drawn standard

Each of these signals a gap between assumed coordination and verified coordination, and a lift drawing is precisely the tool that closes that gap.

Draw It Before You Build It

Here is your challenge. Before your next complex pour, produce the lift drawing yourself rather than relying on someone else’s or trusting that the separate discipline sheets are already coordinated. Trace every bar. Confirm every embed. Resolve every dimension. Find the conflict on paper, where it costs a conversation, instead of in the field, where it costs a schedule.

Fujio Cho and the philosophy behind Toyota’s production system put it simply: we build people before we build products. Every lift drawing you produce is building something in you that no crew, no schedule, and no specification can build for you. If you can draw it, you can build it. If you cannot draw it, you are not ready.

On we go.

FAQ

How is a lift drawing different from simply reviewing the architectural, structural, and MEP sheets separately?
Reviewing separate sheets checks each discipline against its own internal logic but does not force reconciliation between disciplines at the specific points where they interact, such as a sleeve passing through a rebar mat. A lift drawing requires tracing every element across all three disciplines into one consolidated representation, which surfaces conflicts that reviewing separate sheets almost never catches until the field.

Who should be responsible for producing lift drawings, and should it always be the same person who uses them in the field?
The strongest version of this practice has the same field engineer who will be in front of the crew also producing the drawing themselves, since the value described here comes specifically from the act of drawing, not just from having access to a finished drawing someone else produced. A field engineer working from a drawing they did not personally build has the coordination document but not the deep, component level understanding that comes from tracing it themselves.

How much time should a thorough lift drawing take relative to the value it provides?
The time investment varies with the complexity of the assembly, but it should always be evaluated against the cost of the alternative, an unresolved conflict discovered after concrete is placed. A few hours spent producing a thorough lift drawing that catches a coordination conflict is a small cost compared to the schedule and cost impact of discovering that same conflict once the pour is complete.

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