Uncategorized Archive

Pipeline Workshops™: RB Builders: Lessons from the Pipeline©

Posted February 11, 2018 By Fletcher Groves

Homebuilders should be able to determine, for themselves, how attuned they are to the critical tasks that enable them to thrive on the velocity side of economic return.  In furtherance of that end, we will make the RB Builders: Lessons from the Pipeline© business case – the same business case used at every Pipeline workshop™ – available to any builder that asks for it.

There are only two conditions:  (1) a builder has to state the intent of actually completing it;  (2) if a builder wants our methods and solutions, it has to share its results with us.

For the business case, contact me:  flgroves@saiconsulting.com

The offer comes with this warning:  as with everything else regarding Pipeline workshops™, this business case is challenging;  if you are up to that challenge, the following excerpt is taken from how the business case opens, followed by the nature of the questions its exercises require you to consider:


“It is the first quarter of 2018.  RB Builders is aiming to extend its reputation as a builder that thrives on both the margin and velocity sides of Return on Assets, by expanding into another geographical market, via the late-2017 acquisition of a fifth existing homebuilding operation.

“Like its predecessors, the newly-acquired building division has historically generated lower operating results and business outcomes than what RB Builders considers acceptable;  in fact, this is the worst-performing of all the acquisitions, from the standpoint of both margin and velocity.

“RB Builders is confident that it can continue its record for unifying, developing, and improving the capabilities of existing teams at acquired divisions, transforming them to ones that reflect the savvy, motivated, and mutually-accountable homebuilding team of the parent operation.

“This road has become a familiar path for RB Builders.


HISTORY OF RB BUILDERS:  Nine years earlier, at the beginning of 2008, and shortly after the end of the halcyon period known as the Age of Homebuilder Entitlement®, RB Builders had begun its own transformation process, with the objective of extracting itself from what it self-described as “the tar pits of averageness”.

“RB Builders had employed a program that used four initiatives (team-based performance compensation, operational and financial transparency, accounting procedures that connected operating performance to business outcomes, and a focused process of continuous improvement) to make massive strides.

“During the ensuing five-year period (2008-2012), annual Revenue had grown from $50 million to more $121 million;  the number of closings had increased, from 200 houses per year to 453 houses per year.  Despite the pressure on margins from increasing market share, overall Gross Margin had increased from 22% to 24%;  Gross Income had grown from $11 million to almost $30 million.

“Operating Expense had increased, from $8.5 million to $11 million, far less than the same-period percentage increase in Revenue.  As a result, RB Builder’s Net Income had risen six-fold, from $2.5 million to $16.5 million;  its Net Margin had almost tripled, from 5% to 14%.

“In 2008, RB Builder’s cycle time had been 180 days;  by the end of 2012, cycle time had been reduced to 65 days.  The average amount of work-in-process had been 100 houses under construction;  the company had reduced its average work-in-process to 80 houses under construction.  The reductions in cycle time and work-in-process occurred, despite a more than doubling of the annual number of closings.

“In 2008, RB Builders had targeted an inventory turn of 2.5x;  in 2012, RB Builders had been able to more than double its physical inventory turn, to 5.7x.  In 2008, it had turned the value of its assets two times;  in 2012, it turned the value of its assets almost five times.

“Because it had maintained margins while improving velocity, RB Builders saw its main barometer of economic return – Return on Invested Assets – increase almost six-fold during the five-year period, from 11% in 2008 to 64% in 2012.  In 2013, RB Builders had moved all of its raw land holdings and developed lot inventory off of its balance sheet, and into subsidiaries, which would have further increased Asset Turn – and ROIA – had those measures been restated.

“It had been a remarkable transformation.

“The four that RB Builders had previously acquired had now met – or were on-track towards meeting – their own two-year plans for increasing closings and Revenue without any increase in Operating Expense, while maintaining lower levels of work-in-process and operating under reduced construction lines of credit.


NEWLY-ACQUIRED DIVISION:  Near the end of 2017, RB Builders acquired this, its fifth homebuilding operation.  Ths acquisition was considered a departure from RB Builders’ M&A pattern;  this new division has a different product offering, in a different price range.

In its final year of independent operation, the division had closed 32 houses, and generated $12.8 million in Revenue;  with almost $10.8 million in Cost of Sales now reflecting only its direct, variable costs, the operation had generated just over $2.0 million in Gross Income, producing a 16% Gross Margin.

With its $1.5 million in Operating Expense now reflecting only its indirect, non-variable costs, the newly-acquired operation had produced $550,000 in Net Income, resulting in a 4.3% Net Income Margin.

Since it carried an average work-in-process of 20 houses under construction throughout 2017, the division had a calculated cycle time of 225 days (despite job schedules that were typically 150 days);  32 closings and average work-in-process of 20 houses under construction meant the newly-acquired building operation turned its physical inventory 1.6 times in 2017.

Adopting the policy of RB Builders, and moving all of its raw land holdings and developed lot inventory off its balance sheet and into subsidiaries, the newly-acquired building operation showed a restated average work-in-process of $4.56 million  (the average per-unit LIP balance of $228,000 represented an average lot takedown of $120,000 and a fully-funded LIP balance of $336,000, or 84% of the $400,000 average sales price).

Revenue of $12.8 million gave it an asset turnover ratio of 2.8x.  For 2017, with its Net Margin of 4.3% and its restated asset turn of 2.8x, the new operation had achieved an ROIA of just over 12%.


As the management team of the newly-acquired division, here are the questions the interrelated business case exercises raise for you:

Q;  How will you address a mandate that your newly-acquired division increase its annual closings by more than 50% over a two-year period, with less work-in-process, a smaller line of credit, and the same amount of overhead?

Q:  How will you use Building Information Modeling (BIM) to improve both the margin and velocity sides of economic return?

Q:  What accounting practices will calculating the breakeven aspect of Cost-Volume-Profit require?

Q:  How will you build a savvy, motivated, mutually-accountable homebuilding team?  A team that understands the business of homebuilding as much as it does the homebuilding business?  One in which every teammate has a significant financial stake in the outcome?

Q:  What about RB Builders’ contention that variation – evidenced by your 2017 cycle time – is costing your newly-acquired division between $700,000 and $1.1 million in lost Net Income every year?  Are they correct in asserting it?  Keep in mind, in 2017, your division only had Net Income of $550,000.

Q:  How will you implement Epic Partnering™ (RB Builders’ program/process for creating relationships-arrangements of compelling mutually-shared interests) with your suppliers and subcontractors?  What are the attributes of the partnering relationship?  What are the components of the partnering program?  What does a transformational partnering process look like?  Is vertical integration an option to consider?

Q:  How will you use Business Process Improvement (BPI) to remove non-value-adding work and make the remaining value-adding work flow faster, more evenly, more smoothly, with fewer mistakes and rework?

Q:  How will you use Critical Chain Project Management to reduce your job schedules from 150 days to 121 days, while also assuring more reliable job completion dates?

Take our offer.  Request the business case.  When you have completed it, grade yourself.  How did you do?  Were you able to answer the questions?  Were you able to solve the problems?  If you find as unacceptable – let’s call it your “degree of attunement” – you should come to the next Pipeline workshop™.


Come.  Participate.  Learn.

RB Builders: Lessons from the Pipeline© is the underlying business case study used at every Pipeline workshop™.  The next workshop is being held February 28 – March 1, 2018, at the Ponte Vedra Inn and Club, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

Cost is $895.00;  for team pricing, inquire here (flgroves@saiconsulting.com).

Delivered by SAI Consulting and Continuum Advisory Group.

Sponsored by BUILDER, BuilderMT, and Specitup.

Details:  www.buildervelocity.com


There is an underlying context – an underlying business logic – to everything we teach in a Pipeline workshop™.  However, since the focus has been on the principles and disciplines of homebuilding production, we have not given that context – that business logic – the attention it deserves;  the “what” and the ‘how-to” receive more attention than the “why” and the “want-to”.

So – this Velocity Accelerator® is a deeper-dive into context and business logic, into two crucial disciplines that work together, inseparably:  Open-Book Management and Team-Based Performance Compensation.

The efforts of a homebuilding company to improve operating performance and business outcomes will fail to achieve what is possible, if it does not succeed first in creating a homebuilding team that works toward commonly-held and commonly understood business goals, versus being a collection of so-called teammates working toward their individual goals.

What would be crucially missing, is an underlying business logic that forms the necessary context for understanding everything else.

That is the role of Open-Book Management.

In order to become the savvy, motivated, mutually-accountable homebuilding team required to effectively compete in the business world, everyone on the team has to learn the “business” of homebuilding, they have to understand their individual responsibilities as part of the overall team, and they have to understand what is at stake, individually and collectively.

And – not just understand the business outcome that is at stake;  teammates must each have a personal stake in that business outcome.

That is the role of Team-Based Performance Compensation.

Open Book Management flows from the work Jack Stack did in the 1980’s as CEO at Springfield Remanufacturing Corporation to rescue this former International Harvester (Navistar) division from almost certain bankruptcy.  Following a 99% leveraged employee buyout, Stack opened the company’s books and made it everyone’s business to improve performance.

Stack recounted that effort in two books (The Great Game of Business and A Stake in the Outcome);  John Case reported on open-book thinking in other industries and companies, in two other books (Open Book Management and The Open Book Experience).

And, in Open Book Management, Case described how Steve Wilson developed the basics of OBM-inspired Team-Based Performance Compensation at Mid-States Technical Staffing Services (now part of Modis);  Wilson subsequently described this work in a publication, titled The Bucket Bonus Plan.


We take a very specific approach in our application of the principles of Open Book Management and Team-Based Performance Compensation.

We advise our clients to be transparent (open).  We urge them to demonstrate candor (have the courage to tell and hear the truth) in the constant internal disclosure of operating and financial data, whether in meetings, or through dashboards and heads-up displays.  We advise our clients to impart business literacy (understanding) to teammates, so that those teammates understand the business of homebuilding, not just the homebuilding business, through the teaching of business and production principles.

We advise our clients to adopt a team-based approach to performance compensation, by way of a progressively-weighted milestone plan centered on achieving targeted performance above a baseline in a specific business outcome impacted by the actions of every single teammate.  We urge an approach that is simple, easy to understand;  visible, transparent;  compelling;  fast, frequent;  self-funding, paid from income the company would not have otherwise generated.

In terms of compensation – we urge our clients to make it significant, meaningful.  In terms of participation, we urge them to make it all-inclusive.

We tell them that their Team-Based Performance Compensation Plan should provide only for winners or losers, not winners and losers.  It should give the right to lead and to demand results;  it should give the desire to be lead to deliver results.

Savvy.  Motivated.  Mutually-Accountable.  Team.


Come.  Participate.  Learn.

Open-Book Management and Team-Based Performance Compensation is one of the five Velocity Accelerators® highlighted (together with Critical Chain Project Management, Epic Partnering™, Building Information Modeling, and Business Process Improvement) at the next Pipeline workshop™, February 28 – March 1, 2018, at the Ponte Vedra Inn and Club, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

Cost is $895.00;  for team pricing, inquire here (flgroves@saiconsulting.com).

Delivered by SAI Consulting and Continuum Advisory Group.

Sponsored by BUILDER, BuilderMT, and Specitup.

Details:  www.buildervelocity.com


“The absence of business logic is simply astounding.”

Posted February 4, 2018 By Fletcher Groves

(originally published on EFA® in February 2010 under the same title;  updated and republished in April 2013, as part of our retrospective Above Average: The Best of Escape from Averageness®, 2009-2012;  published again here, as part of the explanation of one of the Velocity Accelerators® for the upcoming Pipeline Workshop™ No. 9)

McKinsey and Company

The intrepid, results-based consultant smiled and shook her head, in a combination of amusement and disbelief.  It was yet another sobering reminder that RB Builders, early in this process, was capable of coming to bewildering conclusions, the latest of which centered around the company’s intentions for its team-based performance compensation plan.

The Gross Income Participation Pool – the GIPP – had been a prerequisite to her firm agreeing to become involved in a client-consultant partnering arrangement with RB Builders in the first place.  In fact, it had been one of three stipulations, including a requirement that the company’s internal financial statements reflect a variable costing approach, and a requirement that any existing improvement initiatives be subordinated to the company’s new constraint-focused, rapid-results continuous improvement process.

The GIPP was new.  It was intentionally designed to replace RB Builders’ longstanding practice of paying individual bonuses based on multiple measures, and consisted of a team-based approach focused on performance related to a single business outcome, specifically, increases generated in Gross Income above a specific baseline.

Under the GIPP, the baseline performance was referred to as the Gross Income Baseline, while the stretch-budgeted performance was dubbed the Gross Income Target.  The difference between the GI Baseline and the GI Target was referred to as the Gross Income Reserve.

The GI Reserve was to be paid out progressively, based on the achievement of a predetermined number of “bonus buckets”, called Gross Income Milestones.  The aggregate teammate share of the GI Reserve represented one-third of the GI Reserve, while the remaining two-thirds was allocated evenly between distributions to owners and retained earnings.

Now, however, the GIPP was getting push-back from one of RB Builders’ recently-hired Regional Vice Presidents, saying the plan should be scrapped.

“The housing market has improved, but we still have credit facilities that we have to restructure, repay, and replace, and now we need land and building lots;  the bottom-line is, we have better uses for that cash”, he explained.

The intrepid, results-based consultant’s thought to herself, “The Gross Income Participation Pool is an established prerequisite.  This guy’s assertion doesn’t have any merit, but even if it did, it was too late in the planning schedule to consider changing it, let alone cancelling and replacing it.

She was having none of it.

“Where did you get this stupid idea?”, she asked.

“It is the best approach to a situation that remains very challenging and uncertain”, he confidently replied.  “We cannot justify bonuses in this economy, in this housing market;  we are fortunate just to have our jobs.  I have nothing against bonuses in better times, just not now.”

“So, you just want to cancel the GIPP?  YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!”

“Channeling your inner McEnroe?”, asked the CEO.

The intrepid, results-based consultant stared at the CEO, her impassive expression clearly communicating her thought:  “Where did you find this guy?”

She turned her attention back to the Regional VP.

“Let me get this straight.  You are concerned that your division will be unable to meet its debt service obligations, or find land, if it rewards performance above its baseline?”, she asked, rhetorically.  “Really?  Where is the money supposed to come from?

“The GIPP will not have paid out anything unless there is a reserve created by performance that exceeds the baseline.  You do realize that the GIPP is completely self-funding, that it does not cost the division or RB Builders’ owners one-red-cent?

“You do understand that, right?

“For the most part, all of the land and building lots acquired are kept off-balance sheet.  With in-place limitations on work-in-process and management controls on non-variable expenses”, she continued, “is there any likely scenario under which additional Gross Income will result in less cash flow?

“On baseline alone, RB Builders is profitable, operating above breakeven, correct?  So – is there any likely scenario under which every cent of that additional Gross Income will not drop straight to the division bottom-line?  Where it can be utilized for – oh, I don’t know, say – debt restructuring, or distributed to teammates and owners before it became retained earnings?

“I can understand being careful with important decisions in uncertain times.  I can understand increased diligence in determining a baseline that reflects current reality.  I can understand having a more progressive structure to the payouts, so that each successive milestone is worth more.  I can understand adjusting the distribution of the reserve between teammates, owners, and retained earnings, in order to provide more money to meet extraordinary debt service requirements.

“I can understand – but not agree with – the fear that would drive your flight to a supposedly-safer outcome, like Net Income.

“But, to deny yourselves – you, your teammates, your owners – the opportunity and motivation to do better?  To preserve your shared livelihoods?  To secure your collective futures?  That, I do not understand.

“The absence of business logic is simply astounding.”


Come.  Participate.  Learn.

Open-Book Management and Team-Based Performance Compensation is one of the five Velocity Accelerators® highlighted (together with Critical Chain Project Management, Epic Partnering™, Building Information Modeling, and Business Process Improvement) at the next Pipeline workshop™, February 28 – March 1, 2018, at the Ponte Vedra Inn and Club, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

Cost is $895.00;  for team pricing, inquire here (flgroves@saiconsulting.com).

Delivered by SAI Consulting and Continuum Advisory Group.

Sponsored by BUILDER, BuilderMT, and Specitup.

Details:  www.buildervelocity.com


Velocity Accelerators®: Critical Chain Project Management

Posted January 28, 2018 By Fletcher Groves

One of the areas we single-out for deeper discussion in a Pipeline workshop™ – what we call Velocity Accelerators® – deals with the imperative of replacing the current method used to schedule jobs;  actually, the current method used to schedule a portfolio of jobs.

The nature of the workflow in homebuilding production is project portfolio management.  Yes, there is workflow performed in processes, but those processes are generally embedded, enabling, and supporting;  process workflow is different than project workflow.  The process of building a home – what we call the Start-to-Completion process – is actually the management of multiple projects that share resources.  It is the structuring and the management of a portfolio of job schedules, with interdependencies and interactions of tasks and resources.

The current method of project scheduling is known as the Critical Path Method (CPM), which evolved from the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) in the 1950s;  it has been in existence for more than sixty years;  it is the method used in every homebuilding ERP suite.

PERT and CPM were designed for programs with large, complex structures (Polaris weapons system, Manhattan Project), but the Critical Path Method has become the de facto standard for scheduling all types of projects:  aerospace/defense, software development, product development, research, and – yes – construction.

The problem with CPM is that it was not designed for managing a portfolio of projects, and it was not designed to function in environments where velocity is important, where faster cycle time and higher inventory turns are critical drivers of business outcomes.

Where it must contend with variation and uncertainty, CPM offers only a buffer of additional time – individual task durations lengthened to protect the completion date of each task, but not necessarily the completion date of the project.

For the most part, builders are oblivious to the effects of variation on their production system.  The cost of variation is always the same:  it is the Gross Income lost from all of the closings that never occurred, from houses that were never built with the capacity they paid to have;  for a profitable builder, it is Gross Income that would have become Net Income, and ultimately, Net Profit.

It’s a lot of money.

Moreover, CPM considers task dependency (the predecessor-successor relationships of tasks) in its work breakdown structure, but it does not resolve resource contention;  it does not consider situations in which tasks of different projects/jobs depend on the availability of resources that do not have sufficient capacity to meet the demand being placed upon them.

These two factors – dealing with variation and resolving resource conflict – should be anathema to builders.

CPM was not designed to contend with the production environment homebuilding presents.  It is not the problem (the problem is variation and resource conflict), but CPM is benign to the solution.  ProChain Solutions’ Rob Newbold (Project Management in the Fast Lane) told me that he would go further, saying:  “CPM supports values that perpetuate the problems of homebuilders.”

Which brings us to Critical Chain Project Management.

Developed in 1997, Critical Chain addresses task dependency and resource contention, and it replaces padded durations intended to protect task completion dates with buffers that protect the completion date of the project/job;  CCPM is much more aware of system constraints.  Most importantly, Critical Chain reduces the duration of projects – the cycle time of houses under construction.

Consider the explanation of an exercise excerpted from the RB Builders: Lessons from the Pipeline© business case study being used in the upcoming Pipeline Workshop™ No. 9:

“RB Builders’ newly-acquired division has a construction schedule of 150 calendar days, but its actual cycle time is 225 calendar days.  There is wide agreement that it should be able to build its homes in far-less than 150 days, because the schedule reflects ‘highly certain’ task durations.  Switching from CPM to CCPM would immediately reduce the schedule from 150 days to 121 days, cutting the schedule by almost 20% with no diminution of confidence;  it would reduce the actual 225 day cycle time by almost half (46%).”

Critical Chain Project Management does more than just reduce the length of construction schedules.  It also specifies a set of rules preventing behaviors that consume (and waste) the safety built into task durations.  It installs a release mechanism that “pulls” starts into the system and keeps work-in-process at the levels required to produce faster cycle times.

It implements simple, visual tools to manage production.

Builders can put a number of these practices into place without changing the scheduling algorithms from Critical Path to Critical Chain.  Critical Chain will not be a complete solution until management technology wakes up and addresses it.

But – it all starts with obtaining the knowledge necessary to insist on that change.

Come.  Participate.  Learn.


Critical Chain Project Management is one of five Velocity Accelerators® (along with Business Process Improvement, Epic Partnering™, Building Information Modeling, and Open-Book Management and Team-Based Performance Compensation) that will be explored at the next Pipeline workshop™, February 28 – March 1, 2018, at the Ponte Vedra Inn and Club, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

Delivered by SAI Consulting and Continuum Advisory Group.

Sponsored by BUILDER, BuilderMT, and Specitup.

Cost is $895.00 per person;  for team pricing, inquire here (flgroves@saiconsulting.com)

Details:  www.buildervelocity.com


(This week’s post on Escape from Averageness® was written by former Continuum Advisory Group senior consultant and Pipeline workshop™ colleague Brandon Hart, discussing the latest Velocity Accelerator®, Building Information Modeling)

A few weeks ago, between a series of meetings with a homebuilder client, I was asked if I wanted to try out their virtual reality prototype, which involved me donning a pair of heavy goggles and clumsily shuffling around within a 10’ x 10’ open space.  The open space, of course, was reality.  But, what I was seeing through the goggles was the living room of one of their best-selling house plans.

On the horizon was a beautiful, scenic mountain range, which could be easily enjoyed from the fashionable L-shaped couch that I was virtually standing beside.  From a stationary position, I could rotate in a 360° circle to see the kitchen, covered porch, downstairs bathroom, stairs, and the entrance to the first floor master bedroom.

From the master bedroom, I could walk around the bed, check out the master bathroom, and even take another look at that mountain range.  Perhaps the coolest part of this experience came from the upstairs hallway, where I could approach the banister of the stairs, bend at the waist, and see the downstairs foyer.

While not available on this particular day, the ultimate end product will include the option to change everything from the color of the walls to the structural layout of the house. You’ll be able to build your dream home and experience it, just at the small price of wearing a bulky set of goggles.

We are closer to this world than you may think.

Pulte recently announced a new virtual reality experience at divisions in Florida and New York that allows the potential buyer to virtually walk their new home.  The buyer even has the option to plug the goggles into their Smartphone and experience their new home from any remote location.

Discussions on how to apply new, innovative technology (like VR) is making its way to the top of every meeting agenda in the big builder world.  While these discussions have historically led to little action, look no further than Pulte’s investment in VR to see that times are changing.  As my partner and CEO of Continuum Advisory Group, Clark Ellis, recently said in an interview with “BUILDER”, “Everything is moving toward experiential learning and experiential entertainment…the hardware is getting there, and the software is getting there, so it’s only a matter of time.” 

So what about BIM?

Looking back over the last 20 years in the residential homebuilding industry, this also belongs in the bucket of “all talk, little action”.  However, based on Continuum’s interactions with various public and private builders of all sizes, this too is changing.

To clarify, the overall lack of mass acceptance of BIM has nothing to do with its underlying value or functionality, mainly due to advancements in the software.  The problem is an overall lack of awareness of the opportunities which it creates.  The industry as a whole, with the exception of the roughly 10% of U.S. homebuilders that are using BIM technology to drive their business operations, is mostly unaware of the value that can be created with a well-organized, properly planned BIM implementation.

In other words, most homebuilders are unprepared and unequipped to understand and appropriately analyze their total potential return on their BIM investment, or their “ROBIMI” (ROBIMI, or Return on BIM Investment, is a term that Continuum uses to communicate the potential benefits of BIM).  Without a proper understanding of the benefits, most homebuilders will succumb to the all-too-common “we’re too busy” or “it’s too expensive” reaction.

We are ready to change the narrative.  We’re ready to build a new level of awareness.

For the upcoming Pipeline Workshop™ in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida (February 28 – March 1, 2018), we are once again doing a Velocity Accelerator® on Building Information Modeling, in which we will share the “not-so-well-known benefits” of BIM, and why you should be acting with a sense of urgency.

There is a line being drawn in the industry:  on one side is present day, where BIM remains a potential competitive advantage if properly implemented;  on the other side is some period of time in the future, where BIM will shift to being an investment that is necessary just to keep up with your competitors.

When will the industry shift to the other side of the line?  One year from now?  Three years from now?

Join us for the debate at the next Pipeline Workshop™.

See you in there.


Come.  Participate.  Learn.

Building Information Modeling is one of the five Velocity Accelerators® highlighted (along with Critical Chain Project Management, Epic Partnering™, Business Process Improvement, and Open-Book Management and Team-Based Performance Compensation) at the next Pipeline workshop™, February 28 – March 1, 2018, at the Ponte Vedra Inn and Club, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.

Cost is $895.00;  for team pricing, inquire here (flgroves@saiconsulting.com).

Delivered by SAI Consulting and Continuum Advisory Group.

Sponsored by BUILDER, BuilderMT, and Specitup.

Details:  www.buildervelocity.com