From the ICC ABM news

[High Desert]

Holmes Designated as Honorary Code Leader

Renovation expert Mike Holmes of Holmes on Holmes, who the International Code Council Foundation (ICCF) designated as an Honorary Code Leader for bringing the message of "Build It Right" and "Make It Right" to the construction industry, told 2010 Annual Conference delegates that they shouldn’t settle for minimum construction standards in new and existing buildings.

“You need to be the guys that don't settle for minimum codes and say, 'We can do this better,’” said Holmes during an exclusive video that was shown during the ICCF Luncheon. “The truth is if we all stay together as a team, codes will progress and move in the right direction. That's essential not only for code officials but for the public. That makes sense to me.” Read More.

http://www.iccsafe.org/newsroom/annual/Pages/2010ConDailyNews.aspx

 

[Mark K]

Mr. Holmes has made some statements that bear consideration. The statement that we should not settle for minimum codes could suggest that the current codes are not adequate. While I can suggest a number of code improvements we need to be careful that the cost of our codes be balanced against the risk. This is a discussion that needs to include the stakeholders who will own and use the buildings. Too often these decisions are limited to code officials and technical decisions.

The statement that we should not settle for minimum codes should not be used by plan checkers and inspectors to justify requiring more than the adopted code requires. Besides the legal considerations such practices will result in confusion on the part of the designers and contractors and will inhibit improvement.

If regulators want to promote the idea of doing the job right the first time the regulatory focus should be on enforcing the existing code requirements consistently. There is a statement that “you do not build quality in by inspection”. Quality is a function of the design and workmanship. All that inspection can do is help us understand the quality of the project. With out the involvement of those doing the work inspectors cannot improve the quality.

To promote quality inspectors should focus on thorough inspections, adopting mainstream code interpretations, and being consistent both in how the inspections are performed and with respect to the interpretations. If this is done the designers and contractors will bet the message and improve. If the inspectors are inconsistent or adopt unusual interpretations the designers and contractors will be confused and will be less likely to change.

If the work is good pass it without looking for more “problems”. There are some plan checkers who feel that they have not done a good job until there is a certain density of red marks on the drawings. Such practices send the message that there is no benefit in doing a good job the first time because the designer will still have to make corrections. If they did a good job and do not have to make corrections they will try to do it again thus improving the quality of the work. This comes back to the plan checkers and inspectors being consistent in how the work is done.

 

[TJacobs]

In my experience many DP's and contractors are not "consistent" as well.

 

[Mark K]

Agreed that DPs and Contractors are not always consistent. Will also agree that this is not an excuse for lack of code compliance on their part. But if we look at how individuals act it is clear that if their environment is chaotic they will react differently than if the environment is consistent.

Think of this as training animals. You want to give a consistent message when training animals that results in consistent rewards and penalties. If you do this you will condition the animal to act the way you want. At a certain level design professionals and contractors resspond the same way.

Creating conditions of consistency is a precondition to improvement.

 

[pyrguy]

We also have to remember that codes are a safe minimum standard. Some are satisfied with that, others will want more.

The Silva brothers of 'This Old House' used to sell their services as "Code+" because they always exceeded the minimum requirements.

A Vespa scooter will take you across the United States. So will a Ferrari. I'll settle for something in-between.

 

[Code Neophyte]

I was there and saw the video - very much a tribute to our efforts. I've always thought that Mr. Holmes was - on the whole - very supportive of the profession. More than once I've heard him state that "if this project had had a permit and been inspected, this wouldn't have happened".

One line from the video that struck me, as well, was with respect to the "official records" aspect of permits. He said, "I've always been amazed that we have CarFax for cars, but we do not have a 'HouseFax'; that's something I'm working on..."

 

[Architect1281]

I enjoy watching Holmes for it's entertainment value.

I also think it should be required watching for some inspectors and ALL builders.

I have also watched a few segments and thought WTHLL. you can't do that but then I remember its canada.

One of my Rules of Engagement with builders when they question my correction / deficiency notices is to say

" Im only asking you to do the worst possible job allowed by law.

PS the notice contains code articles and an appeal form notice.