The coordination step that saves projects

The site meeting was meant to be quick: ten minutes to “run through the programme”, then everyone back to work. Instead it turned into the familiar fog-electrician waiting on plaster, plaster waiting on HVAC, HVAC waiting on a delivery that no one had actually confirmed. This is exactly where multi-trade scheduling earns its keep, not as admin, but as risk reduction when several trades share the same rooms, the same access, and the same deadlines.

Most projects don’t fail because one person can’t do their job. They fail because five people can’t do their jobs in the right order, in the right place, without treading on each other’s toes.

The step everyone skips - and then pays for

It’s rarely a lack of effort. It’s a missing coordination step: turning a “timeline” into a trade-by-trade handshake.

A Gantt chart can look immaculate and still be useless on a live site, because it doesn’t force the awkward questions: Who is ready to release the area? Who needs clear access? What exactly counts as “complete”? What is the next trade allowed to assume? Silence becomes the default, and the programme becomes wishful thinking.

The costly part is how small the gap looks at first. One morning lost to access turns into a week lost to resequencing. One room handed over “nearly done” turns into rework, snagging, and arguments about who damaged what.

Multi-trade scheduling, in plain language

Multi-trade scheduling is the practice of planning work around the handovers between trades-electrical, plumbing, HVAC, joinery, plaster, flooring-so each crew arrives to a space that is genuinely ready, not “sort of ready if you’re flexible”.

You’re not just scheduling tasks. You’re scheduling interfaces: who depends on whom, what must be true before the next person starts, and what gets protected once it’s finished.

On refurbishments it’s even more brutal. The building has quirks, access is tight, clients change their minds, and “we’ll make it work” becomes a daily prayer. Multi-trade scheduling replaces prayer with explicit agreements.

The coordination step that saves projects: the handover map

Call it a handover map, a zone plan, a release schedule-whatever fits your culture. The move is the same: pick the physical areas (plots, floors, risers, rooms), then define the handover conditions between trades in each area.

Here’s what it looks like in practice on a medium job (say, a small school extension or a fit-out):

1. Split the project into zones that people actually work in. “First fix” is not a zone. “Ground floor corridor, Rooms G12–G18” is.
2. For each zone, list trades in true working order. Not the contractual order-the order that happens when reality arrives.
3. Define the release criteria for every handover. A short checklist: what must be installed, tested, photographed, signed, and protected.
4. Assign one named person to accept the handover. Not a company. A person. Someone who will say “yes, I’m taking this”.
5. Schedule the handovers, not just the work. The handover is the milestone that the next trade plans around.

It’s mundane, almost boring. That’s why it works. Projects are saved by boring clarity.

What changes when you run the project on handovers

The tone on site shifts first. People stop “hoping” a room will be ready and start asking, early, what is blocking release.

The programme also becomes more honest. You discover hidden dependencies: the ceiling can’t close until the fire-stopping is inspected; flooring can’t start until wet trades are dried and documented; commissioning can’t happen until controls are powered and labelled, not just “wired in”.

And the biggest win is psychological: ambiguity disappears. If a trade turns up and the release criteria aren’t met, it’s not a debate. It’s simply not released. That single rule prevents a shocking amount of damage, rework, and blame.

“The job doesn’t slip all at once,” a site manager told me. “It slips in half-days of ‘nearly’. The handover map kills ‘nearly’.”

• Less double-handling and protection damage
• Fewer stand-down days and wasted visits
• Clearer accountability without turning everything into a fight
• Faster decisions, because the next dependency is visible

A simple example: the corridor that always goes wrong

Take a typical corridor with services, doors, and finishes. Without coordination, you get the classic mess: ceiling grid in, then out; walls painted, then cut; lights installed, then moved; final clean, then dust again.

With a handover map, the corridor becomes a sequence of releases:

• Release A (above-ceiling complete): containment fixed, cables pulled, pipework pressure-tested, fire-stopping photographed, inspection signed.
• Release B (close-up permitted): ceiling installed and tagged, access panels located, no outstanding tests.
• Release C (finishes protected): painting complete, floor laid, edges protected, doors hung and adjusted.
• Release D (ready for commissioning and client walk): snag list cleared to agreed threshold, O&M info captured, labels in place.

None of this is revolutionary. It’s just explicit. And explicit is what reduces risk when multiple trades share the same space.

The common mistakes (and the small fixes)

The failure modes are predictable, which is good news-you can design around them.

The first is trying to coordinate through one weekly meeting. A week is a long time on site. Interfaces fail in hours. You don’t need more meetings; you need shorter, more frequent release checks for active zones.

The second is making the checklist too long. If it reads like a specification, no one will use it. Keep release criteria to the handful of items that prevent rework and disputes.

The third is treating handover as paperwork. It’s not paperwork. It’s permission.

• Keep release criteria to 5–10 items per handover, max.
• Use photos as proof (especially for above-ceiling and fire-stopping).
• Put dates and names on releases; anonymous schedules invite denial.
• Run a 10-minute daily “what releases today?” huddle for live zones.

Point clé	Détail	Intérêt pour le lecteur
Handover map	Zones + trade order + release criteria	Stops “nearly done” from poisoning the programme
Named acceptance	One person accepts each release	Cuts blame spirals and accelerates decisions
Schedule releases	Milestones are handovers, not tasks	Built-in risk reduction across trades

FAQ:

• What’s the difference between a programme and a handover map? A programme shows dates; a handover map defines the conditions under which one trade can safely and efficiently start after another, zone by zone.
• Do I need special software for multi-trade scheduling? No. A simple spreadsheet and a zone plan can be enough, as long as releases, criteria, and names are visible and kept current.
• Won’t this slow the job down with more sign-offs? Done well, it speeds the job up. The “sign-off” is replacing rework, stand-down time, and disputes-time you were already losing.
• Who should own the releases? Typically the site manager or project manager maintains the map, but each handover needs a named person from the receiving side to accept it.
• What if a trade refuses to accept a handover? That’s useful signal. It means the criteria weren’t met or weren’t realistic; adjust the criteria or fix the blocker before you stack more work on top.