How Cadforce makes quality part of the bottom line for its distributed work teams

How Cadforce Makes Quality Partof the Bottom Line for Its DistributedWork Teams CL IFF MOSER

When state-of-the-art technology and explicit workprocesses could not assure the quality of its deliver-ables, a drafting outsourcing firm turned to othertools to bridge critical learning and communica-tion gaps between project teams on opposite sidesof the world, as well as making the client part ofthe quality equation. Cadforce eliminated a layer ofonshore project management and clarified account-abilities for quality; made training a core part ofthe project work flow; and synchronized onshoreand offshore work cycles through a results-orientedwork environment that incorporates new media,supplemented with a “human touch,” to enhancecollaboration and expedite communication betweenteams. Cadforce also involved clients in trade-off decisions by making the cost of quality anexplicit part of its pricing strategy. © 2009 WileyPeriodicals, Inc.

Cadforce began as an idea for solving an industry’sproblem.

Before a construction project can go out to buildersfor bid, the architect’s design must be translated intoall the drawings, mundane and important, neededby the construction crews—sometimes hundred ofsheets of multiple-dimensioned floor plans, buildingsections, detail plans, elevations, and so forth, other-wise known as construction documents (CDs). CDproduction is a labor-intensive task that accountsfor as much as 40 percent of the architect’s fee forthe project. Cadforce was conceived and launchedin southern California in 2001 as a lower-cost op-tion that would enable the architect to outsourcethis chunk of work for half the cost of doing it in-ternally, thereby earning a considerable margin on

that 40 percent of the project fee and eliminating thestaffing up and down the CD phase often required.

As I argued in a paper I wrote for a business classin 1999, CD production in an architectural firm islargely non-value-added work that offers significantopportunities for outsourcing. The CDs I had seen asan architect working in the field during the construc-tion phase of numerous large projects were typi-cally incomplete, uncoordinated, and sometimes un-constructable. In my experience, most architecturalfirms weren’t staffed to deliver high-quality CDs.They had skilled project managers and designers,as well as numerous recent architectural graduatescompetent with computer-aided design (CAD), butlacked staff with knowledge in the specific technicaldetails and construction requirements necessary forproducing the requisite construction package.

Similar to the advantages other companies seek inoutsourcing payroll, HR, and other business pro-cesses, outsourcing CD work would enable an ar-chitectural firm to keep its internal staff focusedon its core design competencies while an outsidespecialized source provides more cost-effective CDdevelopment—as Cadforce’s tagline expresses it,“Do what you do best.”

The Cadforce Business Model

The Cadforce business model centers around doingthe CD work in a manner we call “blendshore.”Cadforce employs a talented professional onshoreteam of architects and CAD experts who know botharchitecture and construction as well as how to com-municate a project’s requirements to a highly skilled

6

c© 2009 Wiley Per iodicals , Inc .Publ ished onl ine in Wi ley InterScience (www.interscience.wi ley .com)Global Business and Organizat ional Excel lence • DOI : 10.1002/ joe .20246 • January/February 2009

but comparatively inexpensive subcontracted off-shore team of drafters and modelers based in facili-ties in India. We, the onshore staff, act as the smartmiddlemen—the packagers, filterers, and translatorswho know what the client requires and ensure thatour offshore drafting team is able to deliver. We aretransparent about utilizing offshore facilities, andabout the work processes that make it unnecessaryfor our clients, all U.S.-based, to communicate di-rectly with the offshore team.

We are transparent about utilizing offshore facilities,and about the work processes that make it unneces-sary for our clients, all U.S.-based, to communicatedirectly with the offshore team.

Technology also plays an important role in our busi-ness model. Cadforce leverages advances in build-ing information modeling (BIM) and CAD software,broadband communication technology, and the In-ternet to bridge the geographic separation of theonshore and offshore work teams and increase pro-ductivity. As we describe on the Cadforce publicWeb site:

The Cadforce Workspace is an online collaborativeproject management tool for viewing project assets(drawings and other documents) and communicat-ing in real time on an efficient, cost-effective basis.Files are easily uploaded and downloaded and time-stamped. A great advance over e-mail and FTP sites,the Workspace makes it easy without employing CDsoftware to review, accept, or mark up CAD files forrevision or modification. The onshore and offshoreproject teams as well as the client use this as thecentral repository, ergo the name “Workspace.”

The company also benefits from a superior salesforce, which originally comprised the two foundersof the company, Robert Vanech and James Katz,who were survivors of the telecom boom and bustof 2001. Although they had no experience in archi-

tecture, they were familiar with selling broadbandservices and creating collocation data centers andfiber optic systems for building owners and devel-opers. They knew how to sell on cold calls, under-stand and leverage customer wants and needs, andoffer comfort from the fear, uncertainty, and doubtthat architects have to address with their clients,for whom multimillion-dollar projects are at stake.With this approach to business development, Cad-force built a sales team across the United Statesthat was able to sell our CD services for all kindsof projects—among them spec housing for nationalhomebuilders, high-rise office buildings and com-plexes, casinos, pinkberry® frozen dessert restau-rants, mall kiosks, nursing homes, and cell phonetowers.

Today, Cadforce has regional offices and produc-tion facilities in ten cities around the globe, a full-time and subcontracted global workforce of morethan 600, three-quarters of whom are drafters andmodelers in facilities in India. We have performedabout 1,500 projects for some of the leading U.S.architectural firms and engineering and constructionfirms—all totaled, about 400 clients in 36 states.

As mentioned earlier, technology has been a greatenabler of our services. But the human side of theequation—work processes, communication, train-ing, and accountability—is equally critical, partic-ularly for managing a distributed workforce to as-sure quality while preserving the economies of thebusiness model. Cadforce has learned much on thiscount, lessons that may be valuable to many orga-nizations trying to get the most out of their remoteor globally dispersed work teams.

The 5 Whys

With venture capital backing and strong revenuegrowth, Cadforce was earning revenues of $150,000a month by mid-2007 and aiming for $6 million inbookings a year. But it also had several problems.On the client side was a set of troubling statistics.

Global Business and Organizat ional Excel lence January/February 2009 7DOI : 10.1002/ joe

We had only 2 percent repeat clients (one client!);almost 80 percent of projects were cancelled beforethey were less than half complete; and 10 percentof our clients cancelled and demanded their entirefee back. On the production side, the small onshoreteam of Cadforce employees experienced turnoverof about a team member a month. And Cadforcewas on the verge of losing its largest client.

I had just joined Cadforce as director ofoperations—in the lingering dot-com lexicon, their“Vice President of Project Experience.” With manyyears as a construction phase architect and an MSdegree in quality assurance, I brought both a client’sperspective and process quality know-how to thetable.

The project in trouble was a $600,000 CD devel-opment contract for a casino architect. It was along-term (eight months), captive-team account (theclient was paying for six drafters whether they wereall utilized or not). The onshore team was expe-rienced, and the contracted offshore team of sixdrafters in a facility in Kolkata, India, had workedwith Cadforce on projects for other clients. And yet,after three months into the project, the client wasready to walk.

As the onshore team sat around the conference tableon a hot August day, I began with five simple-enoughquestions, all beginning with the word “why”—aroot-cause analysis tool called the 5 Whys that waseasy to use with an ad-hoc group.

This was my first opportunity to delve deeply intothe work processes Cadforce employed on CDprojects. As the onshore team sat around the con-ference table on a hot August day, I began withfive simple-enough questions, all beginning with theword “why”—a root-cause analysis tool called the5 Whys that was easy to use with an ad-hoc group.

(It had been developed by Toyota’s Sakichi Toyodaand is part of the famous Toyota Production Sys-tem.) Additional rounds of the 5 Whys peeled awaythe layers until we had a clearer definition of theproblem at hand.

To make a long story short, for three monthsthe team had delivered every one of the weeklyprogress packages of drawings to the client ontime—performance in which the team took greatpride—but none of the packages had fully con-formed with the requirements the client had set outat the beginning of the project. Some drawings haderrors, and even worse, members of the onshoreteam knew the drawings had errors before they wereuploaded to the Workspace and the client notifiedthat they were ready. On-time delivery was trump-ing quality every time.

The situation revealed a number of gaps in an other-wise well-constructed process. To understand them,let’s look more closely at the way Cadforce struc-tured its team, and then at the project workflow.

Project Team

The project team, like others at Cadforce, comprisedthe following key roles:

� Project director (onshore) a near-executive-levelrole filled by a registered experienced architectwho managed the client side of a project—understanding the client’s requirements and com-municating them to the rest of the team, perform-ing high-level quality assurance, being the pri-mary channel for resolving questions or issues,and so on.

� Project manager (onshore), not an architect butan experienced CAD user who managed the day-to-day aspects of the supplier side of a project—communicating directly with the offshore team,performing quality control reviews of the off-shore team’s drafting work, releasing completeddrawings to the client, keeping the project direc-tor informed, and so on.

8 January/February 2009 Global Business and Organizat ional Excel lenceDOI : 10.1002/ joe

� Project coordinator (onshore), an administratorwho assisted the project manager by facilitatingthe daily flow of documents and information be-tween the onshore and offshore teams by upload-ing and downloading files to/from the Workspaceand helping to secure drawings or answers toquestions that the offshore drafters needed tocontinue their work; running basic quality con-trol checks on completed drawings from the off-shore team; and project recordkeeping.

� The offshore production team consisted of amanager and a group of drafters and model-ers, the number dependent upon the size of theproject, all located in a drafting facility subcon-tracted for the project.

The offshore production team consisted of a man-ager and a group of drafters and modelers, thenumber dependent upon the size of the project, alllocated in a drafting facility subcontracted for theproject.

Quality Control

The primary yardstick of drawing quality was ad-herence to the client’s requirements, as set forth ina sample set of what we call “go-by” drawings aswell as the CAD standards for each task—for exam-ple, how to dimension a floor span to show spacing,tolerances, and so on. The offshore team followedthe go-by set for each task, and the onshore teamperformed quality checks against the “go-by” set toassure that the finished drawings complied with theclient’s requirements.

Workflow

The casino project’s onshore team described tome the following process, including quality controlsteps, they were going by:

1. The client notifies Cadforce that discrete workneeds to be completed on a large section of theproject (e.g., all public levels of the casino build-

ing needed to be dimensioned), and then uploadsthe documents (e.g., the CAD files of the floorplans for dimensioning and the go-by set) to theWorkspace.

2. The project director reviews the drawing files andthe instructions, and alerts the project managerthat they are ready for production.

3. The project manager, after reviewing the files,moves them to the offshore team’s area of theWorkspace and notifies the offshore draftingmanager that the work is available.

4. The drafting facility downloads the files andbegins work on the project task. As drawingsare completed, they are checked at the facility(Stage 1 QC) and then uploaded to theWorkspace, and the offshore drafting managernotifies the onshore project coordinator that aprogress set is ready for review.

5. The onshore project coordinator downloads theprogress sets and views the drawings relative tothe client’s go-by set (Stage 2 QC). If there areerrors, she marks (“redlines”) them and thenuploads the package and notifies the onshoreproject manager that they are ready for review,and if they contain any errors.

6. After the onshore project manager reviews theprogress set (Stage 3 QC), including any red-lines from the coordinator, the project man-ager uploads the files to the client’s area in theWorkspace and notifies the client they are ready.

7. The client downloads and reviews the progressset and accepts or rejects the work.

Accountabilities

According to a RACI table developed theprior year, which specified the responsibilitylevel—Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, orInformed—for each participant in each work step,the onshore project manager was accountablefor nearly all the steps listed above—indeed, foralmost everything on the project—and the projectcoordinator was nowhere to be found in the RACItable. In other words, the person doing the Stage 2quality check had no accountability or authority


except to report the findings to the next higher level.If there were errors—and if there was time—theproject manager might have the drawing correctionsmade by the onshore team, but no rework wasever asked of the offshore team. Thus, the projectmanager delivered progress sets on time even if theystill did not meet all the client’s requirements.

The onshore team thoroughly understood theclient’s requirements, and it had uploaded go-bysets and instructions for the offshore drafting team,which in this case had never worked on a projectfor this particular client. No member of the onshoreteam verified that supervision at the facility had com-municated the requirements to the drafters—RACIdidn’t mention this step. And the onshore team neversent drawings back for correction of errors—RACIdidn’t mention this either. No learning was takingplace, and thus, performance of the drafting teamnever improved, and in some cases worsened.

The onshore team thoroughly understood the client’srequirements, and it had uploaded go-by sets andinstructions for the offshore drafting team, whichin this case had never worked on a project for thisparticular client.

An Endemic Problem

Within the next couple of days, I discovered thatevery project had similar problems. Other onshoreproject managers and project coordinators, whohad available time, reworked the offshore draftingteams’ drawings before releasing them to clients. Noone was sending mistakes back to the offshore team.Therefore, each project got progressively worse overits life cycle. The longer the project, the worse it got.Yet, according to our deadline metric, every job wasdelivered on time.

Facilitated by RACI, the onshore team structurehad created two silos, the client side (project direc-tor) and the production side (project manager and

project coordinator). A short-term metric drove theproduction side (on-time delivery) to the detrimentof quality, which ultimately eroded the larger strate-gic objective of client satisfaction.

In addition, the project work processes had missedan important feedback loop between the onshoreand offshore teams that would have facilitated learn-ing as well as pinpoint any additional training thedrafters—collectively or individually—might need.

In the year that followed that first meeting withthe casino project team, we streamlined team rolesand accountabilities, closed gaps in our processes,increased the communication between the onshoreand offshore teams, and made training an explicitpart of the project. We did this in the context ofa larger culture change, the movement to a results-oriented work environment.

Initial Steps Toward Improving Quality

Our initial step was to bridge the gap between theclient and supply sides of a project by eliminating theproject director role and adding its responsibilitiesto an expanded project manager role. This reducedthe number of management layers in the onshoreteam and created a single point of accountabilityfor better communication flow and for more rapidand balanced decision making. We also upgradedthe project coordinator role, in some cases giving itresponsibility for communicating directly with thedrafting team.

We also decided that as an essential learning pro-cess, all drawing mistakes would be sent back todrafting, and we assigned the offshore team respon-sibility for correcting its errors. The onshore teamredlined any errors it found on the drawing and, atthe end of its workday, posted the file and instruc-tions to the Workspace for download by the offshoreteam that night, the beginning of the workday inIndia. Although we had hoped that the instructionswere clear enough that the drafters could send a fully


corrected set of drawings back the following work-day, what typically came back had only about 30–60percent of the errors corrected. Within that range,we would complete our own reworks and then up-load a relatively error-free package for the client. Butbecause the two teams’ workdays and workweekswere asynchronous, and the correction rounds mightspan a weekend, the onshore team missed deliverydeadlines in the first 2–4 weeks of project start-up,which the project manager explained to the clientwas part of our supplier calibration. It was an im-provement, but it wasn’t the answer.

Results-Oriented Work Environment

Through the online Workspace, project teams cre-ated a virtual team-posting area, which had madeit fast and efficient to work with and exchange theelectronic files that were the core deliverables. Cad-force now realized that improving quality, speed,and efficiency required richer real-time communica-tions between the teams. We needed something morethan just a posting place for messages and files; weneeded to create virtual shared workspace for teamcommunication as well as for files.

In addition, the onshore teams had already beenworking around the clock to do the drafting re-work, and the unscheduled and ad hoc shifts re-quired to meet deadlines were creating sludge anddisharmony. As a global technology company, weneeded to be able to work from any place at anytime in order to better collaborate with remote teammembers. Furthermore, our employees needed time

Exhibit 1. The Cadforce Results-Oriented Work Environment

Definition Expectations

Collaborative/Core Time 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM weekdays, 9:30 PM to12:30 AM nightly (except Saturdays)

Be either in the office or fully available via Skype,GoToMeetings, e-mail, and phone.

Blackout Time 12:00 AM to 6:00 AM daily Not required to be available. An executive will handleany requests that cannot wait until after 6:00 AM

for an answer.Flex Time All other time May be used for personal or business activities.

Required to respond to requests within 90 minutes.

to take care of personal matters during the day ifthey worked at night.

We took steps to synchronize and integrate the dailywork cycle of the offshore and onshore teams by in-troducing a modified version of the results-orientedwork environment (ROWE), a management strat-egy pioneered on a large scale by Best Buy, whereinour team would be measured according to task re-sults and would work at times necessary for the task.In conjunction with ROWE, we implemented newcommunication media with the “human touch” toenhance team learning and collaboration. With thesechanges, the onshore and offshore team memberswould be as collocated as possible without actuallysitting in the same room together.

As shown in Exhibit 1, we established threetypes of time periods within a 24-hour day—collaborative/core time, flex time, and blackouttime—along with expectations for our employees’availability during those periods.

Because our Pacific Coast Time Zone lags India’sby 11-1/2 hours (12-1/2 hours during Daylight Sav-ings Time), our evening core time (9:30 PM–12:30AM) was designed to overlap the offshore teams’ latemorning/early afternoon. The onshore team mem-bers may work the evening core time from home,or anywhere they choose, and still connect withthe offshore team via phone, e-mail, Skype chat,1

or GoToMeetings.2 Whereas it might have taken aslong as two or three days to resolve questions abouta redline markup, missing information, and other


Exhibit 2. Affordances of Communication Media

Affordance Definition

Audibility Participants hear other people and sounds in the environment.Visibility Participants see other people and objects in the environment.Tangibility Participants can touch other people and objects in the environment.Copresence Participants are mutually aware that they share a physical environment.Mobility People can move around in a shared environment.Cotemporality Participants are present at the same time.Simultaneity Participants can send and receive messages at the same time.Sequentiality Participants take turns, and one turn’s relevance to another is signaled by

adjacency.Reviewability Messages do not fade over time but can be reviewed.Revisability Messages can be revised before being sent.Source: Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegal, J. (2002). Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remotecollaborative work. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (p. 147). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adapted from Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Groundingin communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

production issues, with workday synchronization,the teams now corrected such problems within anevening’s work time.

As part of implementing ROWE, we had to persuademanagers that they must give up some control andtrust their employees to get the job done. And we’veworked to change some behaviors and deprogramlegacy attitudes, such as the first one into the officein the morning and the last one to leave at night arethe most valuable to the company.

We also instituted a “human touch” training pro-gram for our onshore team to help them facilitatetheir distance conversation skills in their chats withoffshore team members. The training emphasizedthe importance of skillfully using other communica-tion media in a manner that compensates for the ab-sence of face-to-face communications within a dis-tributed workforce (see Exhibit 2). Now when theonshore team passes a checked set of drawings backto the offshore team at the end of our day, they aug-ment it with a Skype chat and a GoToMeeting in theevening or early the next morning, with a focus notonly on communicating information but also nur-turing positive relationships with their partners onthe other side of the world.

To these dual ends, as well as to enable the projectmanager to better assess the skill set of individ-ual drafters and monitor their progress and ex-pertise throughout the project, we also requirethat members of the offshore team chat directlywith our project manager each evening regard-ing progress on their projects. But occasionally weget push back on this. For example, one facility,as a precaution against staff poaching, hides thenames of its drafters/modelers, giving them num-bers instead—such as E45, G73, and K21—andwill allow us to communicate only with the team’smanager.

We record the on-screen and audio portion of Go-ToMeetings in which the project manager walksthrough drafting issues, step by step, for the offshoreteam. These recordings can then be used for later in-struction of current and future teams (offshore andonshore).

Putting a Price on Quality

Our transparent representation of the process of in-spections and how we use it for training has becomea business development tool of its own. Further-more, because quality usually comes at a price, we


now engage our clients in establishing the value ofquality for their projects—that is, how much qualityis worth to them.

Prior to my arrival at Cadforce, the delivery goalhad been to correct the drawings to the closest ap-proximation of “perfect” that we could defend andthen send them to the client with hopes that our ideaof perfect matched their idea. As mentioned earlier,this approach became a slippery downward slopeas our definition of perfect evolved to mean an on-time deliverable. At that time, our inspection processmade no distinction between surface errors, such asmisspelled words and misplaced symbols, which arequick fixes, and fundamental drafting errors, suchas floors not properly stacking or incorrect dimen-sioning, which require more time to correct. As aresult, both the onshore and offshore teams focusedon the more easy-to-find errors, thereby “dusting thedrawings” (correcting spelling errors while missingthe big mistakes).

Prior to my arrival at Cadforce, the delivery goal hadbeen to correct the drawings to the closest approxi-mation of “perfect” that we could defend and thensend them to the client with hopes that our idea ofperfect matched their idea.

Now when we engage a client, we establish a train-ing period, which can last up to a few weeks, de-pending on the size of the project. The onshore andoffshore teams work in a back-and-forth drawingreview so that the offshore team develops a fullunderstanding of the client’s requirements for theproject. The objective is to build in quality from thestart, as the drawings are developed, rather than af-ter the fact through inspection and rework. After thetraining period, the onshore team implements a fail-ure allowance—we call it an inspection allowance—which is the quantity of surface errors (e.g., incorrect

dimensions, missing notes) allowed by the client inreturn for discounted pricing. Throughout the restof the project, the onshore team will use the inspec-tion allowance to determine the need for rework bythe offshore team.

For example, we will offer to do a 100 percent in-spection (all sheets in a package) on the first projectto validate the training and to calibrate the team.The offshore team will inspect every sheet it pro-duces, with subsequent rework of any errors andfinal signoff, and the onshore team will then inspectevery sheet, and send back for rework and signoff,if necessary. But because the quality cost of a missedmarkup is slight (it can easily be fixed if found inthe field during construction), and each inspectionhandoff incurs additional cost, the client may seelittle point in incurring the marginal cost of a sec-ond 100 percent inspection by the onshore team,and instead opt for a lower inspection rate, a ran-dom sample of, say, only 30 percent of the sheets in apackage—enough to verify additional training needswithout promoting an inspection treasure hunt forsurface errors. After calibration, if the inspection ofthe random sample detects a failure rate higher thanthe number of surface errors agreed to by the client,then the drawings are sent back to the offshore teamfor rework. Otherwise, the completed drawings aresent to the client. The reduction in scope of the sec-ond inspection may reduce the client’s price per sheetby as much as 20 percent.

This method takes into account that surface errorsare typically not costly in construction, and thatthese are the type of errors most typically found inthe onshore team’s inspections. By training the off-shore team to do the important work accurately andto perform self-inspections prior to handing theirwork off, our onshore team does not spend the fullmarginal cost doing surface inspections, and we en-able the client to benefit from the cost savings. In-deed, the client is happy to pay a discount rate formore errors.


Reaping the Benefits

Cadforce saw an early and significant business re-sult from the improved quality of our processesand deliverables, an increasing rate of repeat clients.Because our training process makes it easier for aclient to migrate their workload to us, and to realizedesigned-in savings, we have been able to raise ourfees. With higher fees and a consistent and familiarworkflow, we have been able to demand better start-up projects from first-time clients. (We no longer ac-cepted test projects, since the training process doesnot permit a quick upload and turnaround. With thenew system, we believe that long-term relationshipsprovide better opportunities for success.) Throughthe learning that comes from rework, the offshoreteam actually became better drafters and modelersthan the onshore team was, and we felt more securein giving them more challenging assignments.

As our reputation has risen in the offshore outsourc-ing drafting community, we have been approachedby numerous new potential facility partners. Whilewe do have a vetting process that may include cer-tification review (ISO 9001, for example), our realmetrics are the soft ones. We ask the facility: Howdo you plan to communicate with us (may we con-tact the modelers directly)? Do you have redun-dant backup communication and delivery systems(e.g., to send files through Skype, your own FTPsite, or yousendit.com)? We also ask: What portionof project costs do you spend on inspection (qual-ity checks), and how do you plan and pursue yourteam’s improvements in quality over the course of aproject?

Our distributed workforce has become much morethan a way of leveraging lower labor costs. As thecapabilities of our offshore partners have grownthrough their experience with Cadforce, they areable to take on increasingly complex work, whichpositions Cadforce to deliver even greater value toour clients as our industry and technology continueto evolve.

Working with this distributed workforce has alsobeen an exciting experience in team building. Wenow have friends in facilities on the other side of theworld who share with us their baby photos and va-cation videos, and are even willing to work eveningsor weekends to help us complete a project.

Notes

1. Skype, free software offered by Skype Limited, enablesusers to make free audio and video calls over the Internet.

2. GoToMeetings®, a Web conferencing tool developed byCitrix Online, links two or more computers, enabling partici-pants to view a single computer screen (i.e., the same onscreenimage) and converse.

Cliff Moser, AIA, is vice president of project experiencefor Cadforce in Marina del Rey, California. He is a mem-ber of the advisory group for the American Institute of Ar-chitects’s Practice Management Knowledge Community, aswell as chair of the Design and Construction Division ofthe American Society for Quality. He can be reached [email protected].


Documents

How Cadforce makes quality part of the bottom line for its distributed work teams