← Back to list
// Case #02
“I said” ≠ “He understood”
01Situation
On-site guidelines communicated verbally. Nobody asks the contractor to paraphrase what they heard. 'I said' is treated as synonymous with 'he understood' — until the work turns out different from intention.
02Where Margin Escaped
In the difference between what was sent and what was received. This difference materializes days later as rework — and then it is expensive. Tolerance assumed based on 'common sense', overlaps laid the wrong way, detail made from memory — each case starts with an unconfirmed message.
03Root Cause
Lack of proof of understanding. Verbal message evaporates from memory after two hours, and its receipt was never verified.
!How we aim to close it
Confirmation of understanding would be a mandatory step in the task flow: the contractor echoes back the key parameter, and the system records who confirmed what and when. Today Desk records ticket acceptance and comments on a ticket; confirmation of understanding does not exist yet.
Read Next Story
Boards with no safety data sheet
A worker was told to strip out 'wood-based boards'. They were bituminous — dust that irritates the airways. A week without a mask, because nobody attached the safety data sheet to the task. A month of sick leave. The bill for one missing sheet of paper: ~18,000 PLN. Preventing it cost a mask worth a few tens of złoty.
Drainage that wasn't in the takeoff
Detail existed in the prefab documentation. Did not enter the takeoff. Collision emerged when framing was already calculated.