Built Environment Matters

Digitising supply chain data, Built Environment Matters podcast with Brett Rogers, CEO of KatalystDI

• Bryden Wood • Season 1 • Episode 23

Share episode

On this month's Built Environment Matters podcast, Brett Rogers, CEO of KatalystDI, talks to Head of Global Systems Jaimie Johnston MBE about integrating supply chain data into the design and construction process and how new digital platforms are enabling a new world of data-led collaboration. 

Brett Rogers is CEO of KatalystDI, a tech company that develops and sells SaaS solutions that map and manage the supply chains behind many of the world's largest construction programs. Brett has over 20 years of experience building teams and delivery programs in support of global critical infrastructure delivery. Throughout his career with Google, Tesla, and others he has  delivered more than $10.0B of projects in 25+ states and 4 continents. Brett holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Industrial Engineering from The Pennsylvania State University in State College, PA and today lives in Atlanta Georgia. 

Send us a text

To learn more about Bryden Wood's Design to Value philosophy, visit www.brydenwood.com. You can also follow Bryden Wood on LinkedIn and X.

Jaimie Johnston:

Hi, all. Thanks for joining this episode of Built Environment Matters, the Bryden Wood podcast. I'm your returning host Jaimie Johnston. And today I'm delighted to be joined by Brett Rogers. Brett's the CEO of KatalystDI, a tech company that develops and sells software as a service solutions that map and manages the supply chains behind many of the world's largest construction programs. Brett's got over 20 years of experience building teams and delivery programs in support of global critical infrastructure delivery. Throughout his career with Google, Tesla and others, he's delivered more than 10 billion dollars worth of projects in 25 states or more, and four continents. Brett hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Engineering from the Pennsylvania State University Interstate College and lives in Atlanta, Georgia. Hi Brett could be talking to you again and thanks for joining us.

Brett Rogers:

Hey Jaimie. Good to see you. And thanks for having me on.

Jaimie Johnston:

Very good, so let's get straight into it. So we're gonna be talking a lot about integrating supply chain data into the design construction process. That feels to me like a massively needed sort of missing piece of the puzzle. So, what we're starting to see is obviously normal design assumes a kind of very linear process where supply chains get engaged potentially quite late. Even early contractor involvement often means talking to general contractors or tier ones, but what we are seeing is increasingly large serial clients want to get close to suppliers and adopt more standardized design, so perhaps you can unpack the sort of how and why of what KatalystDI does and explain a bit more about the sort practicalities of what it is you guys are doing.

Brett Rogers:

Yeah. Sure. So obviously supply chain's become a very hot issue for our industry, particularly over the last 18 months, as people's projects and programs have become disrupted and I think that's been a good tailwind for us. Where we work is really starting with our clients to help them develop an understanding of their supply chains, not just who those direct suppliers or tier one suppliers are, but who's the tier two suppliers and tier three suppliers, which is often where that disruption lies. Traditionally as an industry, we haven't thought much outside of those direct scopes, but today it's things like steel commodity, sometimes even something as simple as Unistrut or TPO roof membrane, which are delaying projects. So we start really the, how starts with that. What is the supply chain? How do we understand it? So if you think about like Tesla and let's say a Model Three, they certainly understand their supply chain probably at four or five or six tiers. Thousands of suppliers contributing into that. I don't think builders necessarily need to go that far, but they can go a bit further than we do today. Then we get into the why. Right? And so when we integrate that and define the definition of that supply chain, and we can start to collect even simple information from that supply chain, such as lead times or inventory and production statuses, we can better inform decisions and allow owners to make more timely decisions. If you think about how things work today, We'll have an architect and engineering team, perhaps they'll issue a basis of design they'll work through the traditional design process. And then two or three months later, somebody might actually look at that and start to source one of those packages and at some point they might raise their hand and say, well, Jaimie, we understand you want us to buy product A, but we can't get product A for nine months. Would you consider accepting product B as an equivalent? And so now we're two or three months into the process. And we've probably put a timer on things, right? So they're calling you, Hey, Jaimie, I really need a decision on that. Can you prioritise it today? But if we had identified that two or three months earlier and there was data available, then we just didn't really have a system to connect that data to the process. We could have had a more mature and less urgent conversation early on. So I think it's a simple but very understandable example of why that supply chain data matters and why it needs to be integrated into the process earlier.

Jaimie Johnston:

Yeah. So you are starting with clients, or you also concurrently working with suppliers and acting as a sort of matchmaker between suppliers of things, clients who need things, which one starts the process and how much sort of variation or similarities you think between what these major clients are asking for?

Brett Rogers:

Yes. I think the owners usually start the process. Although we're finding more and more that we see general contractors wanting to play sort of that matchmaker role, obviously that's their role in the ecosystem as it exists today. Usually we see it start with disruption in a program, right? So, we have an owner that might be planning around an 18 month build cycle and they have eight or 10 or 12 projects going on at any one time. And then all of a sudden they start to see those projects being disrupted and delayed by certain aspects of their supply chain. And then that becomes important and urgent to them to understand and an incentive to start to understand it at a greater depth. Commonality, I think exists across our owners in that they're generally focused on similar things. We work with owners in what we call the digital infrastructure space. So we define that as energy, data center and communications and advanced tech manufacturing. And that covers things like electric vehicles, batteries, semiconductors, pharma, projects that are very mechanically and electrically complex. So we see similar disruption across those clients in similar areas of their supply chain.

Jaimie Johnston:

Yeah, that's interesting. So, from that list, it sounds like it's definitely the big serial clients who have a program of works that they're rolling out. You started doing this before Covid kicked off, but what was the impact of Covid I presume it kind of accelerated the disruption and made it much more necessary for people to suddenly understand their supply chains, particularly as costs are becoming incredibly variable, even for commodities material.

Brett Rogers:

Yeah, it's interesting. We have a lot of clients who are planning and budgeting their projects off of historical information and then they're wondering why when they go out and start talking to their partners, they're so much more expensive. And, and when you look at. Construction cost index, at least here in the United States from, let's say April 2022, April, 2021, I believe cumulatively it's a 15.7% increase, right? Within certain areas like rebars 115% copper, 75%. Like it's massive, massive disconnects. It's been interesting obviously it created ripples in the supply chain. I think it did bring certainly a desire to better understand supply chains, but it also might have brought a lack of focus on long-term thinking, cuz so many of the clients that we're working with today they're actually looking to correct the sins of nine months ago or 12 months ago and it's hard to fix something that could have been fixed, you know, a year ago, but today has turned into a fire drill. So it, it really turns into sort of a two-prong effort. One, how do I fix what I have going on right now that's super urgent and in front of me, and while I'm doing that, how do I find a little bit of energy and focus to plan longer term so this doesn't happen again? And the truth is usually the now trumps the future state. So clients often are choosing between those two and frankly it's a challenge, right? And we're gonna end up with a cycle where in, in nine months we're gonna be having the exact same thing because we haven't gotten out in front of it with certain clients.

Jaimie Johnston:

I presume you can see this stabilising now. I guess over time, your data set gets better and your reactivity gets quicker and eventually you'll close this gap, will you? But yeah, there's a short term pain while you start to stabilise this stuff and make it more freely available.

Brett Rogers:

There is and certain suppliers I think have done a really good job of getting transparent with their customers about what's going on. And maybe that's a little bit of a defense mechanism. Hey, why are you so disrupted? Well, listen, we're communicating this to you. As an example, I'll use, Rockwell Automation and so Rockwell is a good example of what's probably a tier two or tier three supplier in our space. There's direct purchases from Rockwell on the control side in most of the projects that we deal with, but more importantly, they're supplying into the electrical and mechanical gear and systems that are often the more prevalent tier one purchases. Well, Rockwell's updating their lead times every two weeks. They're tracking several hundred SKUs that they're reporting out on and they're being very transparent with the customers about what's going on. I wouldn't say we're seeing that with everybody though. And so with most suppliers our customers and the builders that we work with need to be a little bit more proactive in going out and collecting and trending that data. Our job is to help 'em do that and help 'em bring all that information into one place that's organised around the packages that they're buying today and give them sort of a single plane of glass to visualize what's going on within both the planning side, right? The lead time side and the production side of their supply chain.

Jaimie Johnston:

Yeah, so that's interesting. So how easy is it to get presume you require certain consistency of data both in terms of what the suppliers are giving you and in terms of what clients are needing, and then there's some interpretation in the middle. How easy is it to get the data you need? Cuz it's one of the things that's been talked about, certainly in the UK for years now is how to get consistent data up from the supply chain, build it into this collaborative way of working. And that's always the missing piece actually getting the data in a format you can do something with and analyse it, but presume you, you're some way to cracking that now.

Brett Rogers:

We're working on cracking it. It's still a challenge, right? And so this is one of the, the things that we talk about quite a bit and particularly with customers is we don't have a truth serum, right? And we've had suppliers and contractors say, Hey, listen, the truth is, we're all lying to each other. Not out of a malevolent motivation, but because we're each hoping we're gonna go fix the problem individually and never have to talk about what's actually going on. And so we don't have a truth serum, but what we do have is a platform that starts to one. Integrate different data sets from different suppliers so we can see and trend what's going on within the supply chain. And two, I think create a little bit of more formal accountability into the information that's being reported. So it's one thing for an owner or a contractor to call a supplier and say, Hey, when can you deliver me X? Right. And you might get one bit of information associated with that. It's another thing to track that week over week and do it in a documented formal fashion and it shouldn't be different. We shouldn't get different information in that way, but the truth is we do, right. And we start to kind of create that accountability at a system level and it helps to move things forward. The other thing is when we start to understand our tier two and tier three supply chain, we can start to see patterns, right. So using that Rockwell example if I'm a data center builder and, and perhaps I'm calling a Schneider or an Eaton or an ABB or an ENI and saying, Hey, how soon can you get me this piece of low voltage switch gear or how soon can you give me this critical ups container? They might give me one answer. I can ask a second tier question. If I understand the supply chain behind it a little bit. So, as an example, if I know that there's a particular controller that comes from Rockwell, Or a particular relay that comes from Schweitzer and perhaps it has a 24 week lead time and this vendors tell me, why I can do it in 20 weeks that prompts me, ask the question. Oh, cool. Do you have that in inventory? Do you already have that component purchased or are you gonna surprise me in two or three weeks and come back and tell me it's a different lead time, because then you've gone out to Schweitzer or whomever that supplier might be and actually found out that things have changed. The supply chain right now is so dynamic, right? We see suppliers quoting lead times and delivery dates with maybe one or two week certainty and, the lead time two weeks later could be dramatically different than it is today. So it's an interesting time for sure. It's very, very hard to plan at a program level, particularly when everybody's still trying to incorporate sort of just in time approaches, right. Just in time is fabulous. Until it's not and so it's great in that I don't need to invest a ton of money I've planned around just in time delivery. So I'm optimising when I spend money and when I make decisions, but it's not very fault tolerant. So when that breaks, the system tends to break and there tends to be quite a bit of ripples throughout the supply chain and so understanding that allows a lot of our customers to make more informed decisions, set up vendor managed inventory, or kanban type buffer systems in their programs.

Jaimie Johnston:

One of the things we've seen for some of our clients in this space is that if they bought a completely standard thing off the shelf. You can have it in X number of weeks, but they never ask for the standard one, they tweak it and change it and adjust it and say, I just want a normal thing. But with these modifications and it blows the time budget and it suddenly twice as long, are you starting to see, firstly, is that sort of true statement? Does that tend to be the case? and are you starting to see supplier's react and say, yes, I could give you that, but it would take this amount of time. If you bought this one off the shelf, I could have it much quickly. And therefore the design adapts to say, well, let's try and design toward a standard product, or are you not at that point yet?

Brett Rogers:

A little bit. It's a tricky question in, in the sense that I think a lot of customers believe that off the shelf is truly off the shelf meaning that off the shelf means I'm gonna place an order and similar to, you know, perhaps ordering a toaster on Amazon. Somebody's gonna go pull that order from a warehouse. Put it on a truck and ship it to me and I, and I get it in a very short amount of time. So what off the shelf in our industry really means is sort of out of the catalogue, so I've got a manufacturing queue, perhaps I have an open manufacturing slot, 18 weeks in the future, and I stock the components required to produce that out of the catalogue item. So, the first step there is to really make sure that, that our customers understand. The difference between sort of off the shelf and, and make to order catalog components supported by inventory. That's already in stock. I think the second part of the equation is, is oftentimes the connection isn't there between the supply chain and the owners to actually allow the supply chain to raise their hand and say, Hey, if you just made these three minor modifications to your design and perhaps you've asked for silver plating on your bus and we carry bus that's not silver plated, but we think it can perform equivalent or you've speced this very specific current transformer on your medium voltage incoming feeds. We stock a different brand that we think is equivalent. Would you consider it? We don't see those conversations happening enough because of the lack of connection between the suppliers and the owners at the right time in the process, that's where we want to get. We wanna make it very easy for owners and builders to understand what alternates might be available that could provide those benefits. We're getting there right. As an industry, we're getting there, but we're not there yet.

Jaimie Johnston:

Yeah. But that's a vitally important data clearinghouse that you guys could perform, and that would help both sides of the equation.

Brett Rogers:

That's the perfect future, right? And if you think about like, you know, you and I do a lot of work in the data center industry, so we're exposed to a lot of different designs. Everybody's design is almost the same, but it's also entirely different, right? Meaning that it's a completely different supply chain because of that one current transformer, or because somebody says, well, I prefer Schweitzer relay to a BA relay for this application. And so we create this variance and sort of bespokeness to our supply chains. You know, it makes me wonder what could you really build a data center for from a cost and schedule perspective. If everybody sort of optimized around the same thing and took the 1% area that there's a lot of variance and actually standardised it. And so you think about like, You know, sometimes I think about like, maybe this is a really nerdy thing to say, but like what if Elon Musk built a data center? Right. And so you see how Elon Musk builds rockets and, and looks at things really from a bottoms up perspective and a should cost perspective. You look at what he's done with vehicles. Right. In 2014, when I was at Tesla, I can't remember what they were building model S's for, but I think it was something like$185,000 and selling them for $85,000. And a lot of people are like, well, that's a terrible business model. You're losing a hundred thousand dollars per car. But when you have a team that understands exactly what every step of the process should cost and understands how they're going to move things in that direction and then takes the incremental steps to get there. You know, obviously they, they got there and now they're producing some of the highest margins in the auto industry. It would be interesting to think about like where could data centers get if somebody were to take that approach? Cause the truth is that 1% of variance still creates a lot of bespokeness.

Jaimie Johnston:

Yeah. That's interesting. That reminds me sort of changing tack a bit, perhaps you can unpack a bit of your incredible CV, Tesla, Google, and others. So perhaps you can talk through that sort of journey and how you founded KatalystDI and what that was in response to. So that's really interesting that obviously you and I share a particular way of thinking, a lot of your experience tends to come from those, you say slightly higher tech industries. Do you think that's why KatalystDI sort of started there or is it those, the ones that most like to come more like automotive say because the repeatability in things, there's a few, yeah. I'm interested to see how you think. I think. What KatalystDI is doing is starting to fill in some of those gap. And everyone sort of talked previously about, we need to become more like automotive. I don't think that happens necessarily in the design space, but certainly in the supply chain engagement, that's a key area where we should get better.

Brett Rogers:

Yes. So look, , I went to college and knew I wanted an engineering degree mainly because I did halfway decent kind of coming up in, in math and science. I said, well, and engineers can make a great living. I'll be an engineer. Right. And so I took some electrical engineering courses and sort of like, oh shit. Like, this is way, way too hard. And I'm 19 years old and I'm not ready to work this hard. And so industrial engineering was, you know, some people call it imaginary engineering and some true, you know, engineering purists will say, well, industrial engineering's actually, it, it should be a business course. It really resonated with me the way of thinking, that came out of industrial engineering, the system level thinking and, and planning. And so this was in the mid nineties, right? so when you're an industrial engineering student in the mid nineties, they basically give you a couple books to read when you start out, right. One one's called, called The Factory and or The Goal and the other, which is about a factory in implementation of lean manufacturing and the other is some of the early Toyota lean manufacturing principles. So again, interesting cuz it does come out of automotive, right. And Toyota sort of set the benchmark for manufacturers on how to evolve. So I'd get outta school, end up with a job with a manufacturing company and they were building a new plant, and so all the other industrial engineers were busy doing industrial engineering. They're like, all right, you're the new guy. Why don't you go kind of help coordinate this, this new plant build. And I loved construction from that point on, right. So quickly, I sort of stepped into building and it's not that I, I sought out data centers, but I ended up in Northern Virginia or Ashburn, Virginia, which is sort of the epicenter still today of the data center industry. In the late nineties. And so this is when data centers were really starting out. I worked at AOL built, a bunch of data centers came up through there. ended up doing a lot of development management and owners rep work for various enterprises building data centers did that for, you know, roughly 15 years went over to Tesla. My first package that I had to go to Elon to get approved at Tesla was a steel package and it was something like 28 million dollars. It wasn't that significant when you consider that we're running a couple billion dollar build program. But he grilled me, right? He's like, well, what should this, what should this cost is 28 million, a good cost and, it's a great cost. This is what the commodity cost. This is what the fabrication breakdown is, this is what we're paying for logistics. This is what we're paying for erection on site. And I thought I provided a great answer and I didn't. And, and so, you know, Elon's very demanding kind of gets, gets very to the point. And he's like, that's not what I asked you, what should it cost? And I said, all right, kind of went through the, the same answer. And so now he's a little bit madder. Right and, and he said, I wanna know. What does the iron ore cost, what does it cost to extract it? How much is the coke that goes into the process? How many BTUs per tonne are required to make the steel? What's the average cost of those BTU. And I had no answer for that and he was making a point, right? Like Hey, I want a larger level of control and more first principle thinking around these sorts of packages, but that was somewhat eye-opening in the sense like, you're like, you know what? Let's get back to thinking that way, because if we did something good could happen. So I spent a year and a half at Tesla running first phase of Gigafactory. I was commuting every week. My wife's like, Hey, you're gone six days a week. I have four kids at home. So I ended up over at Google where I didn't need to travel as much, moved down to Atlanta. I was responsible for building a campus here. Built that campus and then moved into more of a regional role leading the Americas. And so we ended up kind of growing that program by about 10 X, in the five years that I was in that role. And as we did that, we sort of blew up our supply chain a few times because we didn't understand the capacity that we were injecting into certain orders. We didn't understand the lack of repeatability that we had in our program. Right. We didn't know somebody like Bryden Wood who thought in your concept of Chip Thinking and I call it repeatable packages, but were really saying the same thing. Instead, we were issuing the same design intent 20 times, and then detailing that design intent in 20 slightly different ways and ending up with 20 slightly different projects with 20 different supply chains. So we implemented a program there to try to standardise things and had some success, but there's still challenges, right? When you're working. In an environment with multiple stakeholders, multiple verticals with sort of multiple interests. And so I ended up leaving to start Katalyst to address that. I said, okay, this problem exists in our industry. What's the best way to start standardising across all these different groups. From my perspective, it was really starting to define the information behind that standardisation and behind those supply chains and start to enable owners to think about projects, more like a product. And it doesn't mean we need to think about a project exactly like a product, but more like a product. And then once we do that, we can start to understand where things are repeatable and where those supply chains are and obviously, you know, I think you and I got introduced when we were doing some of that work on the data center side. And y'all's thinking blew me away, right? Cuz you truly think in terms of packages and probably even take things further than we do in thinking that way, but it was cool to say, okay, there's other people thinking this way, there's other programs that are thinking this way and other people have a kind of a common problem. And then you had talked earlier about COVID. I think COVID was probably the thing that at an industry level really kind of blew up that level of thinking or that type of thinking.

Jaimie Johnston:

Yeah. Fantastic. So what are the sort of barriers you're seeing to this being adopted more widely? So one of the things we've talked about a lot of this podcast is that whilst people understand the. Or problem statement. Well, people understand a lot of the solutions that are available. What are you seeing in terms of the blockers? Often we see it's the contractual setup doesn't support some of this way of working. If you change the design process, it changes the role of the designer, the contractor in the middle. So some of the things that stop, this are not technical or that we don't have the solutions it's that the industry's not geared up to work in this way. Is that something you are seeing and how, do you sort of plan to engage with that?

Brett Rogers:

Yeah. I mean, absolutely. Right. You have different challenges within the status quo. So first, like as an industry, we're used to breaking work down around divisional standards, right? So this is electrical work. This is mechanical work. When we start to think in terms of products, everything sort of becomes a multi trade package or a multi trade chip. Right. So people are not always structured to perform that way. I think at times we struggle with repeatability to you and I we see 10 projects and probably find 80 percent of them as repeatable to a lot of the industry they say, listen, everything we do is bespoke. It's localised and we're both right, but it's sort of the difference between, okay, this is a repeatable package and then we can have multiple configurations of that, right? Just like if you buy a Toyota Camry, it doesn't mean we're all buying the exact same Toyota Camry. There's different trims and different features that might come along with it. I think shifting thinking towards that and shifting thinking towards the fact that everything is actually kind of repeatable, even if it's not exactly the same. And we can still have bespoke systems that come from a set of repeatable components has been something that's a challenge and then you also have to look at where a lot of the gatekeepers find their value. There's an entrepreneur in the United States named Richard Barton. And so Richard Barton founded a company called Zillow, which really tries to bring transparency to home values in the home selling process. He founded Expedia, that tries to do something similar within the travel industry. He did the same thing with a site called Glassdoor, which tries to bring transparency to salaries. So you have all these things that really shouldn't be confidential information, but it's guarded information or gated information and it's gated because somebody's job or somebody's incentive is to keep that information proprietary, even though it's not proprietary. I think a similar thing exists in construction, right? Like we all want to kind of keep our a mystique or a secret about what we're doing, because if it was blown wide open, we'd have to go create value through some other method, and so there is some of that. That said, I think more now than ever and from my perspective, it's a factor that nobody's really looking for work. And I don't mean that maybe as blatantly as it sounds, but every construction company we know in the space is working at a hundred percent capacity or more. There is so much work out there. So it becomes less about competition and less about we have three people fighting over one slice of the pie. Two, we have three people trying to figure out how we're gonna eat four slices of pie. And, and so everybody has a lot of work. So that's, I think shifted the dynamic like a little bit more towards something that's open to new ways and new approaches, but there is still that status quo and old way of thinking that we need to work around at times. Do you see something similar?

Jaimie Johnston:

You've fantastically articulated a whole bunch of themes that keep recurring on this podcast. Scale of the amount of infrastructure we need to build over the next 30 years, therefore there's tons of work to go after. It's not a question of winning work. It's a question of how are we actually gonna do that with the existing supply chain capacity and all the rest of it , interoperability of data and collaboration and repeatability being the thing that, you know, the devils, this industry, or bespoken as being the thing that, you know, lack of repeatability that be devils this industry. So, yeah, it's incredible actually that you've just nailed all the things that we keep coming up on this podcast. So it's quite reassuring for me that, you know, these are the issues that you are seeing it from a completely different lens, but coming up with the same answers. So, yeah, that's fantastically helpful.

Brett Rogers:

Well, hopefully we're not both wrong together, right.

Jaimie Johnston:

Hopefully not! So final question that I ask, I think almost everyone that's been on this podcast. So given what we've talked about obviously lots of things in flux at the moment. If you have to speculate, what do you see the next five, 10 years looking like, what could we achieve and what do you think we can realistically actually get done the next five or 10 years, as you say, there's so many things coming together at the same time that if we don't change, we've got a major problem, but be interested to hear your optimistic or pessimistic thoughts.

Brett Rogers:

I'll give you a little bit of both. I think from an optimistic side, it's exactly what you just hit on. There is so much work particularly driven by change in the energy space, change in the reshoring of supply chains, investment in semiconductor and other technologies. There's just so much work that we can't help, but think it's a force function for transformation in the industry. Then you couple that with what we face with regards to labour and unskilled trade shortages, how people wanna work today. And and we think there is zero way that that doesn't drive change. Right? I think we're tracking, and this is in the United States, something close to a hundred mega projects in our space, in the digital infrastructure space. So these are 2 billion dollar plus projects in the energy, data center and advanced technology spaces that are either starting in 20 22 or 20 23. 5 years ago, if there were two or three of those that would've been probably the norm, so it's just a massive amount of work. And so that's gonna force change. Now the pessimistic side of me says, okay, We also have the economic side of things, right. We have raising interest rates. We have disruption in the world economy. Will that change things, or are participants making so much money and doing so well following the status quo that they won't be incentive to change and so that's hard to say I think we have to find the incentive for everybody that drives things. So I think the spark is there, meaning there's demand that far exceeds supply. But at the same time, we have companies that are doing financially better than they ever have, because they're all running at a hundred, 110, 120% capacity without changing. So where those two disconnects come together, I think is where the inflection point is for the industry. And we'll just have to see how timing lays it all out for us.

Jaimie Johnston:

Absolutely. And yeah, to what extent owners drive this and going back to right the start of our conversation, a lot of this comes from owners. We've always seen that if owners choose to make certain decisions, that's how you incentivise the supply chain that follows. So, yeah and I think it's the big owners that we'll start to drive this.

Brett Rogers:

Absolutely. And we're seeing owners start to understand the cost of missing schedule more than we ever have and the costs are enormous, right? We're talking double or triple digit million dollars per month on the types of projects that you and I are discussing. So I think undoubtedly, as they look at things through that lens that'll drive the change.

Jaimie Johnston:

Perfect. Well, thanks so much for joining us, loads, more questions I could ask, but mindful and respectful for your time, we'll we'll park it there. So thanks ever so much. That was a really interesting conversation. Yeah, as I say, reiterated, lots of the things that we've talked about previously. So, I think the number of people that are joining the movement, understand the movement is growing. So, yeah, good to have you on board.

Brett Rogers:

It is growing. Thank you for having me Jaimie. Take care.

Jaimie Johnston:

So thanks everyone for listening in and joining us. Please join us again for the next episode of Built Environment Matters.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Jaimie Johnston MBE

Host