Top coordination mistakes in multi-trade projects

You don’t notice multi-trade projects slipping until the small stuff starts shouting: a ceiling closed before the cable’s pulled, a plant room door that won’t open because the pipework landed first. Most of the pain shows up as scheduling conflicts, not because people are careless, but because the work is interdependent in ways spreadsheets don’t naturally respect. If you’re running sites, leading a package, or signing off progress, these mistakes cost you twice: once in rework, and again in trust.

It often starts innocently. A revised drawing lands late, someone “cracks on” to keep momentum, and suddenly the programme isn’t a plan - it’s a series of apologies that have to be installed before practical completion.

1) Treating the programme like a promise instead of a model

A programme isn’t a moral document. It’s a best guess built from assumptions: access, lead times, cure times, labour availability, and a hundred tiny “shoulds” that turn into “couldn’t”.

The mistake is presenting it as fixed, then acting surprised when reality moves. The trades feel it first: they’re told to accelerate without the prerequisites, then blamed for not being “flexible”.

A better stance is blunt and boring: list the assumptions, name the constraints, and update it visibly when those assumptions change. When people can see the logic, they stop inventing their own.

2) Starting work without a coordination “definition of ready”

Everyone loves a start date. Far fewer people love the checklist that makes that start date real.

If you don’t define “ready”, trades arrive to missing embeds, incomplete builders’ work, unapproved details, no isolation plan, no agreed set-down, and a route to the workface that exists only in someone’s head. The day becomes theatre: people on site, little installed.

A simple gate fixes a lot:

• Latest coordinated drawings issued (and actually the latest).
• Access agreed: hoist, routes, working hours, permits.
• Interfaces signed off: who’s first, who’s last, who’s protecting finishes.
• Materials on site and stored safely.
• Test/inspection hold points understood.

Call it fussy if you like. It’s cheaper than “we’ll sort it as we go”.

3) Letting one trade “win” the ceiling or riser by default

Ceilings and risers are where coordination goes to die, because everyone needs the same volume of air.

The classic failure mode is unspoken priority. Ductwork assumes it owns the zone, then containment appears, then sprinklers, then insulation, and suddenly nobody can install without somebody else moving. You get a slow-motion collision that looks, from afar, like progress.

What helps is deciding priority intentionally - and documenting it. Even a rough hierarchy (primary duct runs, then major pipework, then containment, then droppers and final connections) gives people a shared map instead of a daily argument.

4) Confusing “drawing issued” with “information understood”

You can email a model and still not be coordinated. You can hold a meeting and still not be aligned.

The mistake is assuming that distribution equals comprehension. On site, information competes with noise: last-minute RFIs, phone calls, delivery problems, and a supervisor trying to remember what changed since Tuesday.

The fix is repetition with structure:

• One short weekly coordination bulletin: what changed, what it affects, what to stop/start.
• Mark-ups that point to impact areas, not just “rev A”.
• A five-minute lookahead huddle at the workface, not only in the meeting room.

If the people doing the installing can’t explain the change back to you, it hasn’t landed.

5) Ignoring temporary works, access, and logistics until they become the programme

In multi-trade projects, the route to the task is often harder than the task.

Scaffold bookings, tower availability, MEWP lanes, permits to work, weekend isolations, builder’s work holes, fire stopping access - these aren’t side quests. They’re the real dependencies that decide whether Monday is productive or just populated.

A common trap is scheduling installation but not scheduling access. Another is assuming logistics are “site’s problem”, then discovering site has six other priorities and one lift.

Build a logistics lookahead alongside the trade lookahead. Put the constraints in the same place people look for dates.

6) Handing over areas without an interface handshake

“Area released” is one of those phrases that sounds official while meaning nothing.

If you don’t define handover conditions between trades, you get protection disputes, damage claims, and the quiet refusal to work in a space that feels unsafe or unfinished. The worst version is when a trade is pushed in to “make progress” and becomes responsible for defects they didn’t create.

Try a simple handshake:

• What is complete (and what isn’t).
• What is protected, by whom, and how.
• What testing is done, what remains, and where the records live.
• Who signs the area in and out.

It’s not bureaucracy. It’s memory you can’t afford to keep only in people’s heads.

7) Leaving testing and commissioning to “the end”

This is the one that turns a neat install into an ugly finish.

Testing needs access, power, water, drainage, controls, and time. If you push it to the end, you’re not saving time - you’re borrowing it at interest, usually from your finishing trades and your relationship with the client.

Commissioning also exposes coordination sins: valves in the wrong place, sensors inaccessible, control points not labelled, plant that can’t be maintained because nobody left a spanner gap.

Pull the end forward:

• Agree hold points early (pressure tests, insulation sign-off, pre-commission cleaning).
• Plan progressive commissioning by area or system.
• Protect access to valves, dampers, panels, and test points as if they’re sacred. Because they are.

A small way to stop the slide: treat coordination like a daily ritual

The projects that feel calm aren’t calmer because they have nicer people. They’re calmer because the coordination is constant and unglamorous, like cleaning as you cook.

Pick one routine and make it non-negotiable: a rolling two-week lookahead with prerequisites, a ceiling-zone priority map, a “definition of ready” board, or a weekly interface walk. Do it even when you’re busy; especially then.

“If you can’t name the dependency, you’re about to discover it.”

• Walk the next workfaces with all affected trades, not just the loudest one.
• Ask one question per area: what stops you starting, and what stops you finishing?
• Capture actions with an owner and a date, then close them publicly.

Coordination isn’t a big meeting. It’s a hundred small preventions.

Mistake	What it creates	Small correction
No “definition of ready”	Crews on site, nothing installable	Gate starts with prerequisites
Unspoken zone priority	Riser/ceiling clashes	Documented hierarchy + sign-off
Testing left to the end	Late surprises, rework	Progressive commissioning plan

FAQ:

• What’s the fastest way to reduce scheduling conflicts without rewriting the whole programme? Add prerequisites to your two-week lookahead (access, information, materials, permits) and refuse starts that don’t meet them.
• Who should own coordination in multi-trade projects? One accountable lead (often the main contractor or construction manager), but with named trade owners for each interface zone (ceilings, risers, plant rooms).
• Do coordination meetings actually work? Yes, if they end with clear actions, owners, and dates - and if you repeat the same checks on site at the workface.
• How early should commissioning be planned? At design sign-off and again before first fix starts, because access, test points, and control strategies are coordination decisions, not end-game admin.