In This Issue
CI's new Board gets to work ... CI Members Presenting at CSC Annual Conference... ASCE introduces new Institute ...Construction Institute Installs New Officers
The Construction Institute Board of Directors installed new officers October 1, 2007. They've already begin working on some exciting new initiatives for the new year - more info to come!
CI Regional Forum in NY Jan 29-30, 2008
We'll be offering the early registration prices for the Construction Institute Regional Forum until January 1st, 2008, so register today to take advantage of the discount!Construction Institute Members To Present at Construction Safety Council Annual Conference
The 18th Annual Construction Safety Conference is approaching fast! This year, the conference will be held on February 12 & 13, 2008 at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center and the professional development seminars will be held February 14, 2008 at a local hotel in Rosemont. This is the largest construction-specific safety conference held in the US. Several CI members will present in CI-sponsored sessions.ASCE Announces Launch of Engineering Mechanics Institute
On October 1, 2007, ASCE launched its eighth Institute, the Engineering Mechanics Institute.Journey Across the Bridges of the World – ASCE 2008 Bridges Calendar
ASCE's 2008 Bridges calendars are now available!Industry Team Evaluation Results Reveal Impact of Issue Resolution on Team Dynamics of Partnered Projects
Results on Team Evaluations FMI has performed on partnered projects during the last five years indicate that the timely resolution of issues has a direct impact on both trust and the overall effectiveness of project teams. The evaluations included over 1,000 industry personnel on 23 ongoing projects of varying types since 2002.Construction Institute Installs New Officers
The Construction Institute Board of Directors installed new officers October 1, 2007. Officers selected to serve until September 30, 2008 include:
President: Jorge A. Martinez – Jorge is Vice President and Regional Operations Manager for Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation. He is currently assigned as project manager of Dulles Transit Engineers in Vienna, Virginia, a JV team that is preparing a design-build fixed price for the initial $1.5 Billion segment of the Washington Metro silver line extension to Dulles International Airport. Jorge is a graduate of Humboldt State University with a BS in Geology and a minor in Civil Engineering.
Sr. Vice President: Hank Adams – Hank is District Manager of Kiewit Eastern District. In this role, he oversees operations for projects in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Chicago areas. His current responsibilities include managing projects such as the CTA Redline Project in Chicago and the MTA East Side Access Projects in New York City. Hank received his B.S. in Construction Engineering Technology from Fairleigh Dickinson University. He is also an active member of The Moles.
Vice President: Lee Smither – Lee is a Managing Director of FMI Corporation, Raleigh, NC. Lee brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to CI, having served as a management consultant to many of the nation's largest general contractors, as well as many specialty constructors and construction managers. He earned a BA in Economics from North Carolina State University and an MBA from East Carolina University. Lee is an active member of the National Association of Accountants and the Associated General Contractors of America. He also serves on the Board of Advisors for the Construction Management Department at East Carolina University.
Treasurer: Brian Manning - Brian is Executive Vice President for Texas Sterling. Brian’s 15 years of experience in the construction industry will be a significant asset to CI. He earned his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Texas Tech University. After earning his degree, he went on to gain experience in airport design, municipal utility district design, water and sanitary sewer design, and heavy civil construction. He is a registered Professional Engineer in Texas, and is a member of the Houston Contractors Association, Order of the Engineer, the Association of American Military Engineers, and the Associated General Contractors of America. In 2000, Brian was named the Houston Branch’s Edmund Friedman Young Engineer of the Year.
Past President: Christopher S. Traylor – Chris is Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Traylor Bros., Inc. in Evansville, Indiana. He oversees the day-to-day operations of the company’s three construction divisions and all supporting units, including equipment, human resources, marketing, accounting, and risk management. Chris holds a BS in Civil Engineering from Stanford University with an MS in Civil Engineering and Construction Engineering & Management from the University of California – Berkeley.
Construction Institute Members To Present at Construction Safety Council Annual Conference
The 18th Annual Construction Safety Conference is approaching fast! This year the conference is co-sponsored by the non-profit Construction Safety Council, The Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, and NIOSH, the conference will be held this year on February 12 & 13, 2008 at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center and the professional development seminars will be held February 14, 2008 at a local hotel in Rosemont. This is the largest construction-specific safety conference held in the US. This year, several CI members will present in CI-sponsored sessions.
Over 70 sessions will be offered throughout the three days. There will be some old favorites, such as sessions on fall protection, power line safety and workers’ compensation issues. Additionally, sessions on electrical safety, industrial hygiene issues and workzone safety will be presented to give a full range of sessions to choose from! In addition, over 100 exhibitors will be on hand to demonstrate the latest innovations in safety and health products and services. The exhibits will be open the first two days of the conference (February 12 & 13).
The conference will bring together a diverse audience, including construction owners/users, contractors, researchers, government officials, safety and health professionals, unions, and workers to share information and ideas about effective safety and health interventions and how to move best practices from inception to practical implementation. Also, with CPWR and NIOSH co-sponsoring, the conference will incorporate a session of the NORA 2 Construction Sector Council. Coordinated by NIOSH and co-chaired by CPWR, the Construction Sector Council has been charged with developing a national research agenda for the construction industry for the next decade. At this conference, the Sector Council will present the top 10 research priority areas identified for the construction industry, which will provide an opportunity for all participants to comment and provide feedback on the draft construction goals. We encourage all organizations with an interest in construction safety and health research and training to participate in this particular session.
Full conference agendas will be available soon. More information can be found on our website at www.buildsafe.org as well, or by contacting us at 800-552-7744.
ASCE Announces Launch of Engineering Mechanics Institute
On October 1, 2007, ASCE launched the Engineering Mechanics Institute. The vision of the new Institute is to be a premier organization representing engineering mechanics by effectively serving the needs of the world-wide engineering community and promoting both research and application of scientific and mathematical principles to address a broad spectrum of existing and emerging engineering and societal problems.
Initial Technical Committees include:
- Computational Mechanics
- Dynamics
- Elasticity
- Experimental Analysis and Instrumentation
- Fluids
- Granular Materials
- Modeling, Inelasticity and Multi-scale Behavior
- Poromechanics
- Probabilistic Methods
- Properties of Materials
- Stability
- Structural Health Monitoring and Control
- Turbulence
Come, be a part of this exciting opportunity! For more information contact
Bill Iwan at EMInstitute@asce.org.
Journey Across the Bridges of the World – ASCE 2008 Bridges Calendar
The holidays are quickly approaching. Have you ordered your ASCE 2008 Bridges Calendar? The ASCE Bridges Calendar makes the perfect gift for you and a special civil engineer in your life.
ASCE continues to celebrate the bridges of the world through the stunning images of the Bridges 2008 calendar. This year’s calendar features twelve breathtaking bridges from the Chicago River Bridge in Chicago, Illinois to the Dom Luis I Bridge in Porto, Portugal.
Calendars imprinted with a company logo are also available.
» View Featured Bridges and Order Your Calendar Today!
Industry Team Evaluation Results Reveal Impact of Issue Resolution on Team Dynamics of Partnered Projects
Results on Team Evaluations FMI has performed on partnered projects during the last five years indicate that the timely resolution of issues has a direct impact on both trust and the overall effectiveness of project teams. The evaluations included over 1,000 industry personnel on 23 ongoing projects of varying types since 2002. The common thread among the projects is that all maintained consistent, ongoing partnering processes, that included conducting these evaluations on at least a quarterly if not a bi-monthly basis, with 50% of the projects (the larger ones) also holding quarterly executive-level sessions separately and in addition to the evaluation process. The results are based on the most recent evaluation completed by a given project.
Exhibit 1 |
23 projects |
11wastewater |
3 highway |
6 railworks |
1 highway/railworks |
2 general building |
Size: $9 million – $2.7 billion |
Project Delivery Method |
18 Traditional Design-Bid-Build |
4 Design – Build |
1 CM/GC |
% Complete: from PE Phase to 100% complete |
Response Rate: 771 of 1035 (74.5%) |
The results remain consistent over a number of different project types (see Exhibit 1):
- Industry sector (railworks, highway, water-works and general buildings)
- Project Size (projects varied from $10 million in size to $2.7 billion)
- Percent Complete (projects varied from “preliminary engineering” phase to 100% complete)
- Geography (projects included those from the East Coast, West Coast and the central United States)
- Project Delivery (traditional design/bid/build, design-build and CM/GC)
The Team Evaluation has a simple one through five scale applied to five key areas of team dynamics (see Exhibit 2). A score of “4” reflects “meeting expectations” in a given area. A score of “5” exceeds expectations, and any score of less than “4” is not meeting expectations with a “1” being the worst. Any area scored below a “4” requires a written comment to ensure participants do not give low ratings without providing an explanation. While tracking the score trends is important, the highest value comes from the comments generated, providing senior and project managers with input to develop strategies.
Participants in the evaluation were Project Management level and project personnel. Senior off-site leaders did not participate to ensure they play an objective role in reviewing the results of the evaluations and developing strategy to enhance team dynamics.
The Link Between Issue Resolution and Trust
Exhibit 2 Issue Resolution and Trust |
Communication : 3.90 |
Timely Resolution of Issues: 3.67 |
Cooperation: 3.98 |
Morale: 3.99 |
Trust: 3.79 |
Average: 3.86 ----------------------------------------------- |
Highest Scoring Project: 4.36 |
Lowest Scoring Project: 2.69 |
Since becoming involved with the partnering movement in the early 1990s, FMI has suspected that issue resolution was at the heart of team dynamics on design and construction projects, but has finally received confirmation of this through these evaluations.
The two lowest scoring areas based on average of all projects and on any individual project are issue resolution and trust (Exhibit 2). This is true on the highest performing project teams (those with an overall project average above 4.00) as well as the poorest performing project teams (those with scores less than 3.00). As these two areas rise and fall, so follow the averages in other areas. These results give further credence to an old adage in the industry that “issues are not like fine wine; they do not get better with age.” The detrimental effect a major unresolved issue can have on team trust and morale is immense. Senior leaders of the two lowest scoring projects in this sample did not get the issues resolved, while their peers on the other higher scoring projects did get them resolved, ultimately bolstering confidence and trust on those projects. To that end, FMI has always geared its partnering processes, regardless of project type, toward resolving real project issues and providing a supporting protocol to do so.
Other Conclusions
Other conclusions drawn from the results of the evaluations:
Exhibit 3 – Project Delivery Method |
||
Design/Bid/Build |
Design/Build |
|
# of Projects Communication |
18 3.93 |
4 3.82 |
Timely Resolution |
3.72 |
3.52 |
Cooperation |
4.02 |
3.83 |
Morale |
4.03 |
3.89 |
Trust |
3.83 |
3.65 |
Average |
3.91 |
3.72 |
Highest Scoring |
4.36 |
4.16 |
Lowest Scoring |
2.69 |
3.28 |
- Team dynamics have less to do with the specific type of project delivery method utilized and more with how on-site project leaders and off-site senior management lead their teams. It is they who set the business climate on the project and it is they who ultimately effect the behavior of their teams. Although project delivery methods such as design/build and CM-at Risk have obvious schedule, budget and quality benefits associated with them, design-bid-build projects outperformed them in this sample of projects in terms of team dynamics (see Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 4 – Project Size |
||||
< $50 million |
$50–200 million |
$200 mm–1 billion |
> $1 billion |
|
# of Projects Communication |
6 4.14 |
12 3.78 |
2 3.83 |
3 3.94 |
Timely Resolution |
4.01 |
3.52 |
3.53 |
3.69 |
Cooperation |
4.30 |
3.83 |
3.87 |
3.97 |
Morale |
4.21 |
3.90 |
3.90 |
4.02 |
Trust |
4.10 |
3.63 |
3.77 |
3.85 |
Average |
4.15 |
3.73 |
3.78 |
3.86 |
Highest Scoring |
4.31 |
4.36 |
3.91 |
4.16 |
Lowest Scoring |
3.87 |
2.69 |
3.65 |
3.34 |
- Smaller projects (less than $50 million) performed the best (see Exhibit 4), indicating that sustained partnering efforts on these size projects can produce superior team efforts. The results indicate project leaders have a wider span of control over team behavior the smaller the project is. As projects get larger, the span of control decreases and project leaders have a bigger challenge in directing the behavior of their teams.
Exhibit 5 – Percent Complete |
|||||
PE/ Design |
0–25% |
51–75% |
76–99% |
100% |
|
# of Projects Communication |
2 3.57 |
1 3.44 |
6 3.91 |
2 3.93 |
12 3.98 |
Timely Resolution |
3.21 |
3.00 |
3.70 |
3.84 |
3.76 |
Cooperation |
3.62 |
3.40 |
3.99 |
3.98 |
4.07 |
Morale |
3.65 |
3.50 |
4.06 |
4.07 |
4.05 |
Trust |
3.42 |
3.06 |
3.90 |
3.85 |
3.86 |
Average |
3.50 |
3.28 |
3.91 |
3.93 |
3.94 |
Highest Scoring |
3.65 |
3.28 |
4.35 |
4.36 |
4.31 |
Lowest Scoring |
3.44 |
3.28 |
3.05 |
3.50 |
2.69 |
- As projects draw closer to completion, scores trend higher (see Exhibit 5). Humans are uncomfortable with uncertainty. Projects at an early phase represent a high level of uncertainty as to the potential outcome. Industry personnel tend to score lower until the end is in sight.
The Team Evaluation has been a part of partnering since the concept’s introduction to the industry in the late 1980s. However, few project teams have used this consistently as a true management tool to track trends and identify and monitor open issues toward closure. FMI has structured the evaluation so it is administered and results compiled in an anonymous forum, allowing participants to provide frank comments without fear of reprisal from peers or senior managers. Enlightened senior managers use the tool to develop actions and communicate with project personnel to improve relationships and project performance.
Given that written comments are required on the evaluation for any rating of an area below “4,” some participants may rate all areas a “4” just to avoid writing the comments, thus giving the appearance of an artificially inflated score. Even with this possible effect, the analysis is comparing apples to apples across all projects, and a clear range has developed from the highest performing projects (4.00 – 4.40) to the lowest performing projects (2.60 – 3.00) as follows:
- Scores higher than 4.00 are great projects and for some individuals may be a career-best project
- Scores trending just above 3.50 and less than 3.75 are projects that are heading in the right direction but typically have lingering issues to address
- Scores trending above 3.25 and less than 3.50 are projects that have major issues unaddressed and are in danger of going to claim unless resolved
- Scores less than 3.00 are projects where senior and project leaders have failed to resolve issues, causing undo stress on the project team and very likely headed toward legal options to get the issue(s) resolved
Summary
In order to produce a high-performing team environment, senior off-site leaders and project leaders on-site must develop solid relationships with their counterparts from the other contractual entities. Optimum relationships are achieved when friendships are developed at these levels of management.
A high degree of uncertainty exists on any given project given the constant variable conditions in design and construction. Unresolved issues are the major source of uncertainty; as major issues are resolved, scores tend to move upwards. Therefore, partnering processes, particularly on larger projects, should be focused initially on organizational development and supporting issue resolution protocol.
