July 31, 2006

Quit Griping. CII Has Your Answers
By Dr. Patricia D. Galloway

Dr. Patricia D. Galloway, PE, is CEO of the Seattle-based Nielsen-Wurster Group. In June she was appointed by President Bush to serve a six-year term as a director of the 24-member National Science Board, the National Science Foundation's governing body.

Patricia D. Galloway

We gripe about productivity, cost overruns, schedule delays and tight margins. We ask for best practices and consistency in CPM scheduling and project cost accounting. Company Executives scratch their heads as to how to better train and educate their engineers and construction workforce. Managers wonder how they stand against similar industry metrics and ponder as to whether there is a better way to perform the work. Risks are increasing and parties look at how they can better allocate that risk. Field superintendents are trying to improve their safety records increase craft efficiency. These concerns are critical to improving the construction process to reduce wasted capital that could be better utilized on building needed infrastructure.

The Construction Industry Institute (CII) is actively seeking solutions to these concerns. I attended its annual meeting in San Diego last week. About 550 executives and project managers from some of the world’s leading owners and constructors attended to listen to research project results and comment on proposed solutions. CII was formed in 1983 as the result of a five-year Business Round Table study concerning the wide variety of problems that the industrial sector was experiencing. Some 22 founding companies and the CII research center formed at the College of Engineering at the University of Texas, Austin enabled what has become an organization for applied research, which can be immediately implemented and benchmarked in the member companies.

Some of this year's topics included Ethical Leadership, Front-End Planning, Transparent Metrics, Safety Models, Leading Indicators for Project Outcomes, and Risk Allocation, Intense discussions ensued where these industry leaders debated and offered suggestions towards improving the construction industry. In consideration of joining CII, I talked with other members and quizzed them on whether they truly thought the investment, both in money and personnel time commitments was worth it. A resounding YES!!!

With CII, why is the construction industry still faced with numerous multi-million dollar disputes, bids that barely contain margins enough to survive, safety issues, cost and schedule overruns and a lack of the value of project management processes and controls? Is it because the CII membership is not known to the industry as a whole? Is it because CII industry members have not widely disseminated and implemented the information and tools it has gained through its membership? Is it because non-members cannot see the value and/or just simply do not want to make the monetary and personnel investment that is required? While I have no answers, I do know that the information provided at CII is some of the most thought-provoking material I have seen in years. I have seen that those companies that implement and apply CII solutions have bettered their bottom line and become more competitive. I see executives taking a broader, more global view of the world and what is required to accomplish the work. CII is the one organization that has truly contributed to the betterment of the construction industry. Isn't it time for all of us in the construction industry to stand up and recognize that if we want improvement that we have to devote and dedicate our time and invest in the necessary research? Can't we see that in the end, the return on investment will more than pay for itself?

Send us your thoughts.

July 28, 2006

The "Face” of Engineering
By Dr. Patricia D. Galloway

I was attending a "Meet the New Princeton Engineering Dean" breakfast in Seattle recently week with my husband, Kris Nielsen, (Princeton Engineer class of '67). I enjoy playing the "spouse" role every now and then, especially in situations where no one knows me. After all, I went to Purdue, and as an engineer, found the presentation extremely interesting. It is exciting to see that Princeton is including classes on finance, technical writing, risk management, leadership, globalization and patent law. However, what was truly amazing is what transpired before the presentation when I was introduced by Kris to some of the attendees.

When introduced to one man, he said: "You don't look like an engineer!" Smiling, I responded, "Really-why?" "Uh-I mean you are blonde, attractive, young, high energy-I mean I would have never taken you for an engineer." (Secretly I loved the "young remark!!"). I remarked: "Really, well, did you expect to see dark thick glasses, short mousy hair, and a woman not giving a care in the world of what she looks like either in clothes, makeup or fitness? Unfortunately your response is more common than uncommon for those that have not had the opportunity to work with women engineers, and is an image and remark that is long overdue for change. You have only confirmed to me that we have to make a push to correct this situation sooner than later. Thank you for your comment." I looked at Kris and he just laughed used to be being asked this question I every situation when no one knows who I am. I believe the man was then embarrassed and shifted his attention and discussion to Kris, now bringing in reinforcements to separate him from me in the discussion.

It is sad to know we still have an "image” of what an engineer should look like-both women and men. Had a non-engineer met my husband alone he would probably receive a similar reaction (but for the blonde and attractiveness of course!!). The public has engrained into their brains certain ideas and faces of what they associate to be engineers. Not a negative perception of what engineers do-which polls show is very positive, but simply to what they look like. The problem is that this "image” is not an image that most people want to have. It is an image that stereotypes engineers as someone who could not be a leader and/or an icon that others would dream to be. To capture the population about the excitement of engineering and to entice our younger population into engineering, we have got to wear a "new face” of engineers in our media to the public. Why not a poster or billboard? "We are looking for a few good engineers”, Why not the cover of magazines? "The Old But New Career-Engineer X”, And once we reach prime time TV, who knows what engineers could achieve-"It is now time for Magnum P.E.!” We need some imagination please.

Send us your thoughts.

Read comments>>

July 25, 2006

How to Save Million$$$
By Dr. Patricia D. Galloway

Expert Review Panels can provide tremendous value provided the Owner listens and acts upon what the panel has to say. Their use is becoming more popular as infrastructure projects become larger and more risky. This week I attended a reception for the newly constituted Expert Review Panel for the Seattle Alaskan Way Viaduct Project. They certainly have a challenge ahead of them as the Project is one of the most controversial given the decisions to be made relative to simply replacing the existing viaduct with a similar roadway or replacing the existing above-ground viaduct with a tunnel along the entire waterfront area at significant cost, but with huge environmental benefits and reducing the current eye sore and noise pollution to the residents that reside along the waterfront.

So-what are the issues an Expert Review Panel reviews? Funding, budget, conceptual design, alternative means and methods, and risks associated with the project. Panel members are typically chosen due to their experience and expertise in the particular type of project being designed and constructed. They come from varied backgrounds including construction, design, financing, and government. Their role and responsibility is to review and critique interim work products from the project team, primarily in the initial phases of the project, in order to ascertain whether the concepts being proposed are doable, possess certain risks, are constructable and can be performed within the budget constraints. As is the case with the Alaskan Way viaduct, review can also include how viable the funding program is to actually construct the project? All are critical questions to which the Expert Panel shares their own experiences and knowledge to assist the Owner in the decision-making process.

Often, however, I have seen where great minds have been brought together to solve great challenges and yet the Owner fails to execute on the opportunities presented. For instance, I sat on an Expert Review Panel in Detroit, Michigan for a combined sewer overflow tunnel project. Our panel constituted some of the best in the industry including a designer who had done these projects his entire career, to a contractor who had built tunnels in some of the most risky and difficult situations, to a prior Owner of a major City deep tunnel storage system, to myself who has looked at the risks of these types of projects all over the world. We critiqued the conceptual design and offered suggestions and alternatives as to how the District could avoid potential risks that if not handled properly could result in later costly disputes, similar to what the District had already experienced. However, despite the knowledge offered, the Owner did not apply the suggestions made, would not share with the panel the information from prior jobs gone bad and did not retain the same designer to do the final design, despite all the work that had been accomplished in the conceptual design phase. Thus, the Owner incurred the loss of a great opportunity at a great cost to the public taxpayer.

A little money spent up front could save millions later on. Expert Review Panels can add tremendous value-but only if an Owner is willing to take an open perspective and think out of the box.

Send us your thoughts.

Read comments>>

July 20, 2006

Is Ethics Dead in Project Controls?
By Dr. Patricia D. Galloway

I am currently involved in a power plant dispute. In reviewing the contractor’s schedules throughout the project, it became evident that the changes being made were not simply revisions to reflect change orders or site conditions, but were deliberate changes to logic, activities, sequencing and durations-all for two goals: (1) hide delay that was contractor caused to maintain contract completion and (2) to change the critical path of the project to put Owner caused delays on the critical path.

Manipulations include reducing durations on future activities, deleting logic ties between activities to eliminate the dependency on the completion of a prior activity to show on- time completion, adding logic ties to force a longer sequence, adding or deleting activities "for convenience”, and constraining an activity’s dates to force a specific start or completion date, changing the true critical path.

In the past 5 years, I have seen an increase in schedule manipulation in order to shift delay responsibility and hide contractor delay. With the increased sophistication of computer software scheduling programs and the increased skills of a good project controls individual, the "tools of the trade” have in many respects become the "tricks of the trade”.

With only "thin” margins available to them; some Contractor’s Project Controls staffs are playing games with the Project Controls information. Contractors often use two sets of Project Controls information; either to deceive or to truly obtain the Project Controls information it needs to accomplish the Project. Similarly, where the Contractors have failed to win this game of brinkmanship with Owners, they resort to taking on their significant subcontractors or vendors in a similar manner. So today we are faced the era of "gamesmanship.”

Webster’s dictionary defines a professional as being a person who is "characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession.” Engineers, for example, are a recognized professional by this definition. The "Professional Engineer” designation is recognition that you have demonstrated an ability to apply engineering that the public can rely upon to protect people and property. So-what does our industry do to "police” the project controls profession-or should anyone in that profession realize its ethical obligation to portray the truth and nothing but the truth? Or is it that ethics is simply dead in project controls? If the time which was spent in developing the manipulations was put into communicating with the Owner to resolve issues, maybe we would see less litigation and more money spent on building the needed infrastructure for tomorrow.

Send us your thoughts.

Read comments>>

July 5, 2006

Light Rail Transit- Today's "Hot" Construction
By Dr. Patricia D. Galloway

Looking for something new and exciting in construction? Then start getting involved in Light Rail Transit Projects. Having been involved in several LRT projects and spending this past week on two major U.S projects, I see LRT as the current answer to moving more people in less time with less impact to the environment. With the increasing populations around the world combined with congested roadways, decaying infrastructure and pollution concerns, public transportation is looking better and better.

LRT is fun, exciting and provides opportunities in contracting strategies typically not taken on public works projects. LRT projects can be designed and constructed in a variety of options employing innovative concepts and emerging technologies. LRT projects bring the engineering disciplines together a concept not often practiced in the United States. LRT projects require a multi-discipline team approach, meaning the project is not merely a civil engineering project, but an infrastructure systems engineering project involving civil, mechanical and electrical engineering teams. Community Outreach programs require diverse teams, employing both men and women and engineers and non-engineers. The size of the projects typically requires a Joint Venture or consortium of contractors. The public need for such systems allows avenues to be opened up for Public Private Partnerships (PPP) and/or Design/Build/Operate Projects where the government or quasi-government entities can meet the public demand while at the same time securing the necessary private financing to fund that demand. The opportunities are endless and the need is vast.

However, LRT projects are not without risk. Risk allocation is one of the most crucial aspects of an LRT project. Why? Because there are so many variables that must be dealt with including third parties (utilities), design, and government codes and standards. For instance, if the Project is a design-build contract, typically the Design-Build Contractor assumes the risk of working with third parties, coordinating the design assuring compliance with governmental codes and standards. In contrast, in the traditional design-bid-build contract, the Contractor assumes that the design is 100% complete and that the Owner and its Designer have coordinated all third party comments, coordinated conflicting codes and standards, and have accurately located all underground utilities that may be encountered. Party conduct is also an issue as most public works projects have typically been let on low bid. Newer concepts of Design-Build and "Best Value" may not be known to the individuals overseeing the works, thus inflicting potential interferences on the Contractor. When these risks are not adequately considered, cost overruns and delays are often encountered with the public unfortunately footing the bill. LRT appears to be the answer to moving people in the future provided it doesn't get derailed in the process.

Send us your thoughts.

- advertisement -