Building a House Utilizing Traditional Brick and Block Construction Coursework

Building a House Utilizing Traditional Brick and Block Construction - Coursework Example This research tells that the construction of brick and block traditional houses begin with the digging of the trench. The trench is the site where the foundation will be laid on and should be well inspected before the concrete is laid. This must be done in accordance with the plan of construction. The plan is very instrumental precisely when revealing the load-bearing walls and the width of the tranches to be excavated. When building the wall the choice of brick and block to be used is very important. This affects the brick to be used in the foundation and when building the course block works as far as color and size are concerned. The foundation trench concrete is therefore laid down to a depth at least 150mm or as specified in the plan. After the laying of the concrete, the bricks and blocks are laid down in cavity wall construction depending on the planned design style. The construction of the two walls is done with the two skins constructed next to one another leaving a cavity in between them. The traditional brick and block develop a relative solid 9-inch wall. The main challenge despite the thickness is the risk due to exposure to moisture. However, with the cavity, it is difficult for water to get across the void between the two skins. To effectively prevent dampness, there is need to clear up the cement falling in between the walls during construction. This is primarily because if left there for long, it will pile up hence creates a bridge which will accelerate moistening the wall course. The builders also need to tie both the brick-work and block-work skins together but carefully and at a regular interval.

The MacLeod Report (2009) claims that engagement strategies are Essay - 1

The MacLeod Report (2009) claims that engagement strategies are desirable for organisations and employees. With reference to aca - Essay Example 5). Engagement strategies aim at the establishment of mutual respect for what employees can be and what they can do in the organization given the right context that is beneficial for all stakeholders including the organizations, the consumers of services, and the employees themselves. Although engagement strategies are desirable for all organizations, yet they are not desirable for all employees, though for a considerable population of employees, engagement strategies are desirable. Although engagement strategies are generally desirable for the organizations, yet the same cannot be generalized for all employees. These days, many employees keep looking for employment opportunities elsewhere that would offer them better salary and job privileges rather than wanting to stay in the same organization for a very long time particularly when they are not content with their salary and/or job benefits. In the present age, there is scarcity of jobs in many industries in a vast majority of count ries around the world. In such circumstances, employees tend to avail any opportunity that they get irrespective of whether or not they are being offered sufficient salary and meanwhile, keep looking for better employment opportunities. Hence, to say that engagement strategies are desirable for all employees is not logical. According to mspb.gov (2012, p. 2), there are three components of employee engagement for the federal government, namely employees’ discretionary effort to give goal-directed performance, commitment to the organization, and employees’ satisfaction with the organization. The Corporate Leadership Council (2004) defines emotional engagement as â€Å"the extent to which employees derive pride, enjoyment, inspiration, or meaning from something or someone in the organisation. While rational commitment is defined as the extent to which employees feel that someone or something within their organizations provides financial, developmental, or professional re wards that are in their best interests† (Corporate Leadership Council, 2004). This can be stated without doubt that employees’ satisfaction has been and continues to be one of the biggest challenges in front of the management in any organization. Accordingly, the desirability of engagement strategies for the employees is limited. According to Macleod and Clarke (2009, p. 66), there are four main factors that serve as barriers to effective engagement in an organizational context; firstly, leaders either do not know what employee engagement is, what its usefulness for the organization is or they are not aware of its importance. Secondly, leaders may be interested in engagement strategies but may lack the knowledge required to address the issue. Thirdly, leaders and managers may not consent upon the idea of employee engagement. While the leaders might emphasize upon engagement strategies, managers might be ill-equipped to implement them. Consequently, the organizational cu lture cannot deliver effective engagement. Finally, leaders that do emphasize upon engagement strategies vary in their perception of and commitment to it. Many leaders tend to underestimate the potential of employee engag