Earthscape Risk Assessment Exciting Playground

The business risks associated with high-value projects are complex and require us to develop specific strategies to mitigate them; this must be done on a job by job basis. However, it is generally true that by "having more eggs in one basket" we carry more risk because high-value projects represent a larger portion of our annual revenue.

Are we concerned about the Owner's capacity for performing good/regular maintenance? New owners may underestimate the commitment required to keep their playground looking and functioning at its best. This can reduce longevity and increase warranty issues.

We know from experience that challenging clients represent one of the greatest risks to our business. Our most experienced staff agree unanimously that "tough clients" are the top risk to profitability of projects. Challenging clients expect more frequent meetings, request more design changes, and require more site visits, etc. These projects always demand more time from our senior people. It is essential to vet potential clients carefully.

High use parks require more attention to detail in the concept and detailed design stages. In service, parts/components wear out faster and must be replaced more frequently in high-use parks. These parks require more mainenance, so there is a relationship between high-use parks and other risk factors such as inexperienced owners, moving/spinning play equipment, etc.

ASAP projects are stressful for everyone involved. This can translate into high risk for the business when combined with other risk factors such as new/innovative designs, less experienced staff, or challenging clients. For example, during ASAP projects designers must sometimes leave important details unresolved, requireing fabricators to provide the necessary solutions.

The longer a project takes, the more it will cost to administer, manage, and store. "The bottom three least profitable custom jobs are also part of the top five longest projects" - Laura. Projects with long lead-times carry risks associated with material cost escalation, and for international projects there is a risk of currency fluctuation.

Earthscape has robust systems in place for managing risks within Canada and USA. This is because we have more experience working in these markets and we are more familiar with the local requirements. International projects (i.e., outside Canada and the US) carry greater risks associated with containerized shipping, working in new/unfamiliar jurisdictions, permit requirements, working with new/unfamiliar subcontractors, and our ability to attend site quickly if problems occur.

It generally takes about four iterations of a structure for us to identify most of the problems and fully refine the details associated with it. We can be most confident in structures which have undergone more than four iterations, have been assembled at diverse site locations, and have undergone high-use park environments as part of their product evolution.

Earthscape has grown a lot during the past 5-years and our structures have undergone many evolutionary changes and improvements along the way. We are continually modifying our materials, developing our technical details, and building upon our observations of what does/doesn't work well on site. The most useful precedent projects are the ones that reflect these lessons-learned, and those are from the past 2-3 year period.

Innovation combines with some other factors such as ASAP project timelines or tough clients to create high business risk.

There are many circumstances where preliminary safety/compliance reviews can help reduce risks, especially when shipping internationally. This question refers to a review that is appropriate to the current phase of a project's evolution. For example, confirming which safety standards apply to an overseas project is an appropriate early action, while detailed compliance can only be checked once a design is more fully evolved.

Designs and estimates must evolve in tandem to manage risks effectively. This means checking design aspirations against our extensive knowledge of how similar projects have performed financially in the past, and using that information to inform the scope of our designs before they are presented to clients. Sometimes this requires multiple iterations to find a good fit.This question refers to a review that is appropriate to the current phase of a project's evolution. For example, a quick "gut-check" might be appropriate during the early conceptual design phase, while detailed estimates underpinned by quotes from key suppliers and subcontractors might be appropriate upon final design.

Our engineers know better than any others in the business how to distinguish between what we have done previously, and what we have done well. This knowledge becomes very important when we modify a precedent project by changing its shape, ship it internationally, or install it under unusual site conditions. Preliminary engineering reviews reduce risks and increase the likelihood of a successful project. Like the previous two questions, this question refers to a review that is appropriate to the current phase of a project's evolution.

PMs bring fresh perspectives and a keen awareness of potential risks. They are highly invested in delivering successful project outcomes, and they are our "font line" in terms of risk management.

Site installation strategies must be informed by knowledge of the site conditions (e.g., overhead obstacles, access limitations, temporary protection, etc.) and coordinated with the GC to check assumptions. Installation plans should always include a concept for assembly which matches the proposed equipment (crane, telihandler, etc.) and the circumstances on site. It is the GC's responsibility to create lifting plans, and it is our responsibility to provide information about lifting points, loads, and how to safely tilt/lift our structure, etc.. Installation strategies sometimes require external engineering. All installation strategies should be reviewed and approved in advance by our site supervisor Mike Larsen.

A well-balanced contract protects all parties but only when it is created at the right point during the project's development: committing to a contract too early or too late can increase cost risks.

Examples of high risk environments include: Wood deterioration Zone 5, marine (coastal) sites, flood zones, areas of unusually high snow or wind loading, termite zones, seismically active zones, and dry-arid (i.e., desert) sites.

Factors which complicate site assembly include: limited/constrained access for equipment, limited storage space for components prior to assembly, restrictive site working hours, specialist sub-trades such as field-welding or electrical work for lighting, the need for temporary scaffolding or shoring, or the need for unusual equipment such as an extra large crane.

Sloped sites represent design and assembly challenges.

Examples of below-grade conditions to be cautious of include: buried services, drainage, voids, archaeological deposits, and high water table.

Structures which bear on fills or existing structures represent design challenges and require extra engineering. In some cases we can't use our standard connection details and must create custom solutions.

Experience has taught us to be extremely cautious when making small modifications to existing (i.e., precedent) structures such as our Collections pieces. What may occur to one person as a modest change can result in many hours of additional engineering and detailing by others. It is especially important with these sorts of projects to consult with our internal engineers and estimators prior to presenting pricing to clients.

This can result in additional design and engineering challenges. Bridges, ramps, and nets which connect to existing structures (or structures built by others) are some common examples.

Linking structures (e.g., with bridges, nets, ramps, etc.) can introduce complex and dynamic loads which require additional engineering time. Resolving these loads can result in increased material costs and additional fabrication time.

We only have one supplier option for curved AYC glulams and that puts us at their mercy in terms of price and schedule, with high risk associated with any defects we identify and/or need to replace. Straight fir laminations are a bit easier because we have more supplier options.

These always require extra engineering and should involve early communication with our external engineers.

Custom timbers over 34-ft long are expensive and not many sawmills can cut them. Long or tall structures require end-to-end connectors, and these are always expensive to detail.

Span means the full extent of something from end to end (e.g., a bridge or ramp with a span of 6m or more). These always require extra engineering and should involve early communication with our external engineers.

Cantilever means a rigid structural element that extends horizontally and is supported at one end only. These always require extra engineering and should involve early communication with our external engineers.

Shipping with sea containers is inherently riskier because shipping environments are often damp and humid (i.e., Zone 5). Designers must spend additional time configuring loads and supports.

Complex

Single post towers require a higher degree of engineering and the consequences of "getting it wrong" are severe. Moment connections means a connection/joint that allows the transfer of forces between a post/column and beam/foundation. These can be challenging to resolve. When combined with some other risk factors, engineering requirements increase dramatically; for example when there is linking between single-post structures.

These take extra time to detail and install.

Glulams, stainless steel slides, and lighting are examples of materials and components which require long lead-times.

Early foundation requirements are an increasingly common request. These projects require us to deviate from our typical detailed design workflow. This can constrain our design process by forcing us to commit to mounting support brackets at specific locations too early (this can take a lot of engineering time to resolve). Also, early foundation packages are generally conservative, meaning more concrete for the GC's.

Moving, swinging, and spinning parts are examples of components which require high-maintenance.