Construction scheduling and trade interfaces
How flashing work fits a construction schedule: critical path, float and hand-offs between trades, a method for sequencing and inspecting an interface, and how interface failures are read and recorded.
4 lessons · about 49 min · 13 diagrams · 0 videos
Version 1.0.0
Builds on these modules
Lessons
0 of 4 complete
Lesson 1 · 13 min · 12 slides · 10 questions
Construction scheduling and trade interfaces: principles and terminology
Critical path, float, hand-offs, procurement as work, weather as a calendar and the fall-protection and site-control rules, all seen from where flashing meets another trade.
You will be able to: Define the schedule terms a flashing crew meets, explain interfaces and hand-offs between trades, and state the safety boundaries for heights and shared sites.
Not startedStart →Lesson 2 · 13 min · 12 slides · 10 questions
Construction scheduling and trade interfaces: materials, standards and design constraints
Specifications that name hand-offs, submittal review time, the pressure edge metal shares with roofing, layering order, and the AFS piece sizes and delivery rules a site calendar has to respect.
You will be able to: Identify where sequence, ownership and timing rules come from, and which specification, submittal, layering and AFS delivery constraints govern a flashing hand-off.
Not startedStart →Lesson 3 · 12 min · 12 slides · 7 questions
Construction scheduling and trade interfaces: methods and worked application
A seven-step method, then a parapet flashing worked through the forward and backward pass, one resubmittal, constraint screening, inspection holds and the AFS delivery day.
You will be able to: Build a documented interface schedule for a flashing scope, with owners, hand-off conditions, a forward and backward pass, constraints and inspection holds, recording every assumption and unit.
Not startedStart →Lesson 4 · 11 min · 12 slides · 7 questions
Construction scheduling and trade interfaces: defects, verification and case study
Two published interface failures, four questions for reading a failure, hold points and same-day records, the Last Planner promise record, and a case-study exercise.
You will be able to: Diagnose an interface defect, state its root cause in schedule and ownership terms, choose a corrective option, and document the evidence a reviewer needs.
Not startedStart →
Practical task
Produce an interface job packet for a parapet flashing: use the nine-activity exercise from the worked lesson or your own assumed durations, then analyse a short written defect case patterned on the published base flashing and kick-out failures.
Hand in
- An interface sequence packet: a list of every interface on the parapet detail, an owner named for each layer (or the words "no owner" where the contract is silent), and a written, observable hand-off condition for each.
- A network of the nine activities with your own assumed durations in working days, the forward and backward pass with every step shown, the float of each activity and the critical path.
- Two constraints with need dates and promised dates, two inspection holds placed ahead of cover-up, and a short note on what a resubmittal would do to the float.
- A defect analysis for the supplied case: the interface, the answers to the four questions, a corrective detail consistent with the published sources, and the evidence you would record, with who records it and when.
- A list of assumptions with units, marking every assumed number as assumed and every outside number with whose value it is.
Rubric
| Criterion | Meets the standard when |
|---|---|
| Interfaces and owners | Every interface on the detail is listed, every layer has a named owner or is marked "no owner", and no owner is assumed from trade habit. |
| Hand-off conditions | Each hand-off condition states what will be in place and observable when the work is complete, in words a second person could check. |
| Network logic | The links are finish-to-start, the forward pass adds durations from day 0, the backward pass subtracts durations from the end date, and each float is late start minus early start. |
| Float and critical path | The critical path is the longest chain, activities off it show their float, and the resubmittal discussion states how much of the delay float absorbs. |
| Constraints and holds | Constraints carry a need date and a promised date, and each inspection hold is its own task ahead of the work that covers it. |
| Defect analysis | The root cause is stated in terms of order, owner, information or calendar, the corrective detail treats the layer and not only the symptom, and the evidence list names photographs, notes, who and when. |
| Honest numbers | Assumed durations are labelled assumed, the Veterans Affairs review period is labelled one owner’s value, and no percentage target or industry norm is quoted without a source. |