(Construction material testing-Photo Sourced)
By David Spring-PT Columnist,
Melbourne Australia
Robert M. Pirsig’s insight was that “Care and Quality are internal and external aspects of the same thing. In our world of quality assurance, it’s easy to get the impression that a good system will take care of everything on its own. The advent of ISO 9001 has meant that any practice that conforms to this standard is relied upon to produce a quality, durable, verified product or service.
Governments across the world (not just in the Pacific), aid agencies, multilateral banks and project managers have for too long assumed that (a) materials testing laboratories will simply produce reliable results, and that (b) these results prove the suitability and conformity of building materials and the assets they become.
Both of these assumptions are right in theory but wrong in practice. Having an accredited system is less than half of the journey towards achieving quality outcomes. The materials testing laboratory is only one pillar of a broader quality system, of which design, specifications, enforcement and technical expertise are also critical pillars. Testing laboratories perform testing tasks that are critical to both the design of civil structures and the quality assessment of construction. To draw a straight line solution between the need to fix potholes (for example) and the materials testing laboratory is to misunderstand the moving parts of a quality system and how it can deliver value, durability and cost-effective infrastructure investment.
This article sketches the history of materials testing laboratories in the Pacific, their current status, the problems they’re being asked to solve and how they can be part of that solution.
Geotechnical amnesia
The assortment of materials testing laboratories across the Pacific are legacies of either colonial governments or universities. These were set up during the 1950-60s heyday of geological surveys, with the purpose of identifying minerals and geological formations of value to the British (primarily). Upon national independence (circa 1970s), the laboratories were transferred to the national governments, but were often still operated by expatriates.
As the generation trained by the colonisers retired and moved out of the public service, the laboratories fell into disrepair, disuse and were seen as being of little value.
From around 2000, in concert with the increase in aid funding for the Millennium Development Goals, there was a renewed interest in the laboratories. A trend started within infrastructure projects to try to achieve “NATA Accreditation” for existing laboratories. New staff were recruited, underwent training and received new equipment to this end. But the essential value of laboratories was not recognised by national governments and the funding required to maintain supplies and staffing to the labs was not secured from national budgets. Without this, it was impossible to sustain an effort towards an enduring international accreditation.
Currently there are no laboratories in the Pacific accredited to ISO 17025, the international standard that safeguards the quality of laboratory test results. Worse, there are no national accreditation agencies who are willing to undertake ISO 17025 accreditation of laboratories in the Pacific.
In vogue
The next trend, which began in parallel with the accreditation push and continues to this day, was to require contractors to provide their own (unaccredited) testing laboratories. While this solves the problem of maintaining and funding the labs, it creates a conflict between the independent reliability of testing results and the contractor’s drive to complete the work. In some cases, this situation may still be better than no testing at all, especially in areas remote from the capital cities where the government labs are, but it is a significant challenge to be addressed. Some clients now require external technical audits of the quality processes on projects, but this is a bolt-on, not a systemic fix.
The way a lab is used comes down to the role it plays in the design-specification-contract-verification process. If the design and specification are empirical then the laboratory matters less, as the materials are chosen from experience. But if the ultimate use and lifespan of a new asset is designed to achieve a specific purpose, and the design is reliant on the selection and use of materials of a certain quality, then ensuring those selected materials are used to construct the asset is essential to realising the intended use and lifespan.
This progression, from conceptual purpose, through design, materials selection and construction to the ultimate use, is not a Western cultural process. It is a physical reality seen throughout history, from the use of single log bridges to cross streams, to the construction of shelters, tools, weapons and sea-going vessels. So, while some say that the operation and enforcement of a quality system (ISO or otherwise) is not a good cultural fit for non-litigious societies such as Melanesia and Polynesia, having intentional outcomes and a basic process for achieving them are not culturally foreign.
Is the lab of any use?
Is there still a place for materials testing laboratories in the construction industry in the Pacific? Are they a colonial legacy, a Western cultural inhibition that doesn’t suit the Pacific way? Or is knowing the quality standard of building construction materials a simple necessity for modern states?
I would argue that materials testing laboratories are not essential, if you are prepared to accept two things:
If these are accepted, imported materials must arrive with supplier test certificates, and locally produced materials could be selected on the basis of experience. Tick. Over-designed assets are more expensive to build and their durability is uncertain. Hmm. Simple infrastructure – 3 storey buildings, basic wharves, single-span bridges – may not be suitable for countries with growing populations and growing economic aspirations. Fail
So, a reliable material testing laboratory – whether government owned or private – with independent staff, local knowledge, technical support and timely production, would deliver an essential basic service to the construction industry. The critical use of the lab is in the design stage – from this work, a construction specification is developed and a QA testing program extrapolated. This will support a construction industry that drives the economic growth that motivated, independent, sovereign nations need – one less reliant on aid money to repair or rebuild assets that have fallen short of their intended lifespan. Economic growth cannot be imported or simply signed onto – it must be generated by the very people who want to benefit from it.
But how?
If 40MPa concrete is required for a structural sea wall, we must test samples of the very concrete that is mixed and poured for that sea wall, to make sure that it is indeed 40MPa when cured. Roads that are required to last 20 years must be built on a firm foundation with a characteristic value of relative compaction at least 95%– we must do field density tests to make sure that the foundation is firm enough before the pavement layers go in. Asphaltic concrete for roads and runways are designed with different air voids parameters and only testing cores from the in-situ paving can confirm this.
The national importance of delivering these basic but essential testing services means that governments should provide premises, staff, equipment and secure funding. Judging from history, this is unlikely. The conflict of interest generated when contractors set up their own labs, as noted, creates significant challenges for the independence of test results. External audits may prove a point, but are all too late. Yet perhaps there is a role for the private sector.
Privately-owned, for-profit, independent labs could fund and deliver the services required. The government must play key a role in enabling a competitive market by committing to enforce construction specifications on all government and aid funded projects. This would generate a commercially viable volume of testing, which would make the high cost of establishing and running a technically competent laboratory worthwhile. Initially, leases could even be offered for use and operation of the existing government laboratories. Or a levy or fixed sum included in construction contracts to pay for independent lab services.
Under this model the twin challenges become, how to deliver on the commitment to enforcing standards and how to ensure a minimum level-of-service from the labs: both challenges within the scope of infrastructure ministries to address.
Introducing the right incentives, in this case generated by a specific application of the competitive market, can solidify the pillar of a quality system that rests on reliable, verifiable test results. Private firms will care about quality because they care about their profit. Governments care because they need to deliver economic growth for their people. As Pirsig stated, I couldn’t say anything meaningful about caring, until its inverse side, Quality, is understood.
Solomon Islands 
Papua New Guinea 
