Christina Swallow, the current national president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, speaks for many of us when she points out that the nation’s infrastructure is no laughing matter. Moreover, she credits the current administration’s 55-page infrastructure plan as the most detailed plan to come out of a White House in the modern era.

She points out that our national government has done little more than find chump change under couch cushions to fund one of the most pressing needs of this country. Swallow states the obvious, which has often been the subject of this column — that each of us, especially those engineers most familiar with infrastructure, needs to be engaged in the political process. If we do not contact our congressional delegations and make our voices felt and heard, nothing will change. The seat cushions will continue to be turned over for nickels and dimes.

What Swallow suggests takes many engineers out of their comfort zones. They have to look up from their computers and calculations. They need to influence people who may disagree with them – and oftentimes not in pleasant terms. If Oregon’s industry and infrastructure experts fail to do so, Oregon will continue to be behind the eight ball. Oregon’s economy is diverse, including substantial investments in high tech and other non-infrastructure industries. Just as we rely on computer engineers to produce and advocate for strong IT systems to expand our span of control, infrastructure experts must encourage and speak out to all Oregonians on this very important subject.

Earlier this month the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded $1.5 billion in grants for road- and freight-related improvements. Noticeably absent in that award are any projects in Oregon. Despite an impressive economic gain and a substantial increase in population, no projects in Oregon were deemed worthy of this grant. Several states had two winners. Perhaps if our congressional delegation, the Wyden-Wheeler-Blumenauer-Merkley cabal, would spend more time representing Oregon’s needs instead of serving as mouthpieces for the opposition party, more of these sorely needed federal dollars would come to Oregon. Whatever one thinks of the current president (who may indeed be an incorrigible rascal), the reality is that politics plays a role in these awards. To ignore this influence places Oregon at a substantial disadvantage. Oregonians and their Legislature have stepped up significantly to locally finance infrastructure. By not bringing in federal dollars, our delegates are not performing the duties in Washington that they were elected for.

AGC, ABC, ASCE, SAME, SMPS, ASME, SEO, AMA, AIA, ACEC, ASHRAE, ITE, APA, NSPE, AACE, AAPE, CMAA, AOC, OACE, APWA, ASLA, PMI, NUCA, OPA … the number of professional societies related only to construction is staggering. They have a broad range and are an untapped resource for a variety of different groups. Professional societies provide an opportunity to stay up to date on the latest, and share ideas and connections. The sharing of these ideas and connections within the profession has always been a big draw for membership. The ability to exchange technical and professional information as well as get to know key players in various industries have always been significant functions. What is less utilized is the availability for those outside the specific professions to use these professional organizations as sources of information in areas other than their own. In the development of public policy, for example, professional organizations have a significant role to play. Being a well of expertise in specific areas, they can provide a depth of information based on both the latest research and and the daily challenges in the exercise of their profession.

The infrastructure issue is too important to leave solely to government entities. All of those in the infrastructure-dependent industries are members of associations and organizations that speak for industry groups. While individual voices need to be raised, much more can be accomplished when people act collectively as members of industry associations and professional groups. While professional association meetings that focus on strictly technical matters usually have substantial attendance, meeting dealing with more general issues such as the politics of infrastructure come in light on attendance. The last engineers’ professional meetings that invited Oregon Department of Transportation Director Matt Garrett, and Roger Millar, the Washington State Department of Transportation director, had barely 30 attendees between the two sessions. And yet, between them, these two directors control billions of dollars and thousands of employees.

Differences can be felt and made, but energy must be expended and time spent. It’s time to look up from the video screens, step up and lean in.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post Op-Ed: Engineers must take lead in fight to fix infrastructure appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The primary elections have wrapped, and winners have begun the next legs of their journey. Of the three architecture, construction or engineering industry candidates I wrote about last month, two prevailed.

Lynn Peterson ran and won election as Metro Council president.

Dave Poulson ran unopposed in the Republican primary for state Senate in the district serving Lake Oswego, West Linn and Tigard. He now needs to unpack his strategy for winning the election.

As a professional engineer, Mr. Poulson will need to convince voters that he has enough political acumen to bridge the gap between an engineering specialist and the public. Engineers have a reputation as a pretty black-and-white bunch (the building will stand, or it won’t). Politics, of course, isn’t that way; it is filled with many nuances that reflect the collective will of the various constituencies.

Can an engineer make that transition? History has not been kind to engineers who have migrated to politics. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter are two that come to mind. This is not a national race, so the issues are local and affect voters in a much more personal way. The voters in this race are also not very far removed from the candidate. Anyone in the voting district can do an Internet search on Mr. Poulson and pay him a visit without too much trouble. It might be interesting to see how many voters actually do that.

Stu Emmons’ loss is perhaps noteworthy in several regards. Mr. Emmons, while not a single-issue candidate, bet his prospects on an issue that gets a lot of press – homelessness. He had a detailed plan on how to solve this intractable issue and developed the research that demonstrated that his ideas were real and could be accomplished.

He was not a professional politician and ran against two opponents who were. Neither offered the level of detail in problem resolution that Mr. Emmons offered. The election results say that homelessness is not the important issue that many people may say it is. Specific expertise in delivering solutions is not an asset that is valued when weighed against the broader skill sets that were presented to the voters. Political inexperience may have worked against Mr. Emmons when it came time to mark the ballots.

Regardless of who won, some issues haven’t changed. The winners will need to deal with Oregon’s infrastructure. A new withholding tax on income will focus interest on infrastructure as every paycheck will see a deduction.

Infrastructure investment by local, county and state government has not kept up with the booming economy that our region is experiencing. The lack of infrastructure investment is clearly being felt by a large swath of the population. This is felt in urban areas such as Portland. Examples of nonstop congestion on Interstate 205, U.S. 26, the Interstate Bridge and other major corridors are more than ample evidence.

Compact urban growth patterns encouraged by land use laws require corresponding investment in infrastructure. That investment should not be limited to car-centric projects but must provide services to encourage all business activities. For it is these business activities that generate the tax revenue so necessary for functioning governments and are dear to the hearts of the successful candidates.

Although financing is beginning to come through, there is a continuing drumbeat of infrastructure needs and failures. The belief that this can only happen somewhere else is misplaced. As we in this metropolitan area know, there are a number of key infrastructure elements that have reached the ends of their useful lives.

The public should now see these issues being addressed in meaningful ways. The Oregon Legislature has passed a transportation bill and the largest city in the state has adopted surface transportation financing measures. The need for elected officials to closely oversee these expenditures has never been greater.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post OP-ED: Regardless of how elections ended, infrastructure needs persist appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Oregon government needs more project delivery experience. Despite increasing revenues, the talk is all about cuts and the need to make do with less. There has been no emergence of clear leadership willing to take risks and provide a rallying point for Oregon’s infrastructure. It hasn’t changed much since 1969, when the U.S. first put a man on the moon. Despite much hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth, Oregon’s infrastructure is no closer to being renewed than it was in the previous election.

The architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry now has a few of its own vying for votes in the next elections. At least three candidates have a background in our industry, and each one has experience actually producing a result. They offer a very different perspective than many of the other candidates who have legal or social service backgrounds.

Stu Emmons, an architect, is running for a seat on the Portland City Council. He has some new and novel ideas for ending homelessness in the city, or at least significantly reducing its impact. As an architect, Stu has seen how projects come together and what is necessary to ensure that, at completion, they achieve their initial goals. Stu has pretty healthy opposition in the primaries and will need to overcome several fairly experienced professional politicians to be successful. He’ll need all the help that the AEC community can muster.

Dave Poulson, an engineer, is running for the 19th District’s Oregon Senate seat. He has no primary opposition, but will have his work cut out for him in the November election. Dave is an engineering manager and a professional engineer. He has some ideas about improving graduation rates in Oregon’s public schools as well as working to bolster small business and wages. Dave is a really smart guy who understands how to get things done and has a worldview of things.

Lynn Peterson, an engineer, is running for Metro Council president. She has a couple of graduate degrees from Portland State University in civil engineering and urban planning. She brings with her a recent stint heading the Washington State Department of Transportation as well as service on the Clackamas County Commission. Given all of the endorsements from unions and other politicians, she looks like she has morphed into a professional herself, but we’ll still claim her as one of ours.

Governance is an important function in our society. For it is there that the major decisions are made that set the priorities and create the projects that affect our quality of life. The roles that these candidates are vying for affect our daily lives. We will be impacted more by the winners of these elections than by the national figures in the news every day.

Many of us are busy running our businesses and trying to expand them. All of the candidates have various degrees of experience doing the same. Voters in the AEC industry should take a close look at each of these candidates and understand their backgrounds, learn their positions on the issues impacting our lives, and find ways to support them.

Oregon’s population just broke the 4 million mark. And it’s not likely that the population increase will diminish. To maintain a reasonable quality of life – the one that brought many people to Oregon – it is essential that our infrastructure be up to date. Putting these candidates in positions of influence is essential for the political system to understand how infrastructure initiatives are delivered to Oregonians.

It takes a long-term view to deliver infrastructure. It does not lend itself to emergency measures. Each of these candidates understands this. Oregonians have not been shy to appropriate funds for things that matter to them. However, they have not been acclimatized to appropriating money for infrastructure (water included).

Like all else, the technologies and strategies affecting infrastructure evolve. Mechanisms that were appropriate 40 years ago have been superseded. Who would use a rotary telephone when you have an iPhone in your pocket? Yet when it comes to infrastructure, Oregonians seem satisfied to continue to use the rotary phone. Occasionally components fail, and individual pieces are replaced. That’s hardly a strategy for a wholesale reinvigoration of a critical component of Oregon’s economy. We should put these candidates to the test of implementing infrastructure and look to them for results.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post OP-ED: Opportunities to elect an architect and two engineers appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Scope holds different meanings for different people – and for different professions.

To a mariner, for example, scope is the amount of anchor line let out to keep a vessel from dragging in a storm. Meanwhile, to a submariner, scope is a way to keep an eye out for hazards, a short-hand term for the device used to look above the water while your vessel is submerged in order to see what’s ahead.

To those of us in the project management world, scope holds yet another meaning – it is the extent of the project that we are creating.

Keeping the scope of a project under control is always a challenge, for it is always changing. The very nature of a project, in fact, is change. Where you may have had a vacant plot of land, you now have a hospital; where you may have had no access across a river, you may now have a number of bridges.

But defining scope is tricky. It’s as much art as it is science, especially because it means different things to different players in the building industry. The project sponsor may have a scope in mind. However, by the time the execution team interprets the finished product, the scope may have morphed.

For project managers, defining and maintaining scope are not just academic exercises. The project manager focuses on broad objectives and judgment may be withheld until all is done. The project manager’s skill is very dependent on those who are brought onto the team and will require handling of the details that must come together for a successful project.

In this age of tight resources, everyone is important and must do their jobs. There is no room for slackers. The front-line superintendents and craftworkers are dependent on all of the upstream players to do their jobs right – the first time. There is no time or money for a redo.

Scope management, however, is more than a qualitative description of a new IS system. It is a budget, a schedule, a team, expectations and a lot of other things as well. IS systems only trigger warning lights. It is the skilled project manager who knows how to put out the warning light. Those project managers who deny problems by using flowery words and who do not face the challenges head-on will more often than not pay the price downstream.

Negotiating a good scope is one of the key cornerstones of a project’s success, but trying to accommodate everyone’s needs can be a fool’s errand.  The art of project management comes into play as you work on getting everyone inside the tent.  There are no rules, social media, quantitative formula or I-gizmos that will guarantee an outcome – just good common sense, an understanding of the real limitations and maybe some old-fashioned horse trading.

The experienced project manager understands that as the project rolls out, the scope continues to change. It is impossible for a team to be able to anticipate every detail at the project’s outset. Those who are successful and skilled in this profession understand how to meet a sponsor’s expectations while still maintaining the critical needs – such as authority, profitability, and mitigating excessive risk – of the execution team. While the business world is often tough and not for the faint of heart, project managers understand the need to maintain the ongoing business viability of the entire team. They keep their fingers on the pulse. The team that is most successful and adept at managing these complex needs is the one that is called back.

The knowledgeable owner understands this as well. The project team is very much a two-way relationship. As much as the owner is evaluating the execution team, the execution team is evaluating the owner.

Managing the scope of the varying expectations and the needs of the entire team – from the owner, designers, contractors, vendors and suppliers as well as the eventual users – is today’s project management challenge and the path to a successful project. These are skills learned and honed over many years of experience. The easy parts are quickly learned. The more subtle signals that come out of a project and indicate how it is progressing are much more difficult to sense. Much as the seasoned captain of a ship knows instinctively how much scope to let out to keep the ship from dragging up on the rocks during a storm, so the experienced project manager knows to what extent scope can be changed before a project ends up on the rocks, or worse, in a courtroom.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post Op-Ed: Scope: a definition for project managers appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Homer Williams had it partially right recently at a housing and development conference when he said that this generation of retirees has not saved for their retirement and are looking at homelessness in their final years. The other part is that while the employees themselves haven’t saved for their retirement, employers haven’t done much to help out.

Income differential continues to plague this workforce. Well-paid owners and managers are buying $50,000 cars, dining out (at restaurants run by minimum-wage workers), buying expensive real estate or collecting art. So, instead of financing pension programs, they are paying themselves large salaries and benefits, stagnating payrolls and putting the onus on individuals to take care of themselves.

How could this happen in the world’s most affluent economy? Well, there are several reasons. Salary differential has never been greater. The demise of the unions has limited the negotiating power of individuals. Even though unions never represented the majority of workers, the benefits (health, pension, etc.) that they negotiated spread through organizations.

91��Ƶ also contributed to salary compression. With a few exceptions, the differences between the highest paid and lowest paid has never been as great is it is today. Today it is not uncommon to hear about an individual making tens of millions of dollars in some buyout or another. (What does a guy actually do with that kind of money – except keep score?)

One of the places that this has been kept in check is the public sector, which remains well represented by unions. The differences between Portland’s CEO (mayor) and rank and file employees is about a 3:1 ratio (although some bureau heads are paid more than the mayor). Just about every one of those city jobs has a pension attached.

The U.S. has a pretty good free trade agreement that has moved jobs offshore. That leaves less work for those who remain. When Ross Perot ran a third-party race back in 1992 he railed on about the “giant sucking sound” that reflected his view that jobs would head south. He may not have been all wrong.

With a hands-off approach to immigration the country was a magnet for people coming across the border with lower compensation expectations. Pay stagnated and benefits wilted. Cities like Flint became shadows of their former selves.

Natural resource extraction in Oregon depleted the supply of timber and fish. The ability to make a living in Oregon with just a high school diploma dropped off. Agriculture became highly mechanized and doesn’t require the hands that it used to.

While all this is going on Oregon’s on-time high school graduation rate remains dismal at only 74 percent – third from the bottom. Those young people not graduating aren’t getting jobs; they are just hanging …

So where does all this end up? Since the private sector (with Homer Williams as the exception) isn’t going to address this in a meaningful way, it looks like it will fall to government. Government will spend money or pass regulations as best it can to address this. Portland is seeing this already with the inclusionary criteria and the passing of a housing bond. It won’t be the most efficient or cost-effective way, but it will be something.

Politicians will be under increasing pressure to do something – especially because there will likely be heartbreaking stories that come out of this. This money will come from taxes in one form or another or regulations. These approaches and others not yet thought of will be extracted from the pockets of the very folks who have decided that there is nothing that they can do. So, in a circular fashion, those very folks will have to pony up some real cash so that government can try to solve a problem that they would rather turn a blind eye to.

Since the city is turning to a tougher approach to the filth associated with the homeless camps, the visibility of this issue may fade a bit. But that does not mean the issue goes away. While much has been made of the green approach to construction as a response to the environmental impact of construction projects, a similar effort is needed to address this issue. Our industry can do more than a few token measures here and there. It can and should take a leadership role in building our way out of this disgrace. It needs emergence of a leader who has the knowledge, dedication and energy to tackle this intractable issue.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post OP-ED: As a financial divide widens, a housing dilemma persists appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The capital projects business requires a lot of communication and interaction. There’s a continuing interaction between all parties in a project, from the initial phases of the design, in construction and all the way through commissioning. There are many contacts between different firms and people to obtain information or to solicit proposals for services. In doing so, not everyone will be doing business with everyone. Some will just have to say no to some of those that have been asked to put out an effort.

There is an art to saying no. The art lies in understanding that the effort that a business has expended to address an inquiry costs time and effort – time and effort that might have been spent on something else. However, a request for information or a proposal can also mark the beginning of a business relationship. For the requester, it is often information or a price proposal that needs to be incorporated into a larger project. This is a relatively easy effort for those who are acting on behalf of an entity that is assembling a project and has funding.

For those receiving the request, it is an opportunity to provide services, or at a minimum mark the beginning of a relationship with a potential customer. Simple requests that are common knowledge in the recipient’s industry are easily answered and may not require a significant investment. When those calls are received, most are only too pleased to share that information with those whom might benefit.

If the request requires assembly of a specification, plans or a price, it will require a more significant investment to provide real information. Those people making calls might be scrutinized a little bit more to ensure that the request is legitimate and that the energy necessary to answer the question is well spent. Being sent on exploratory missions with little chance of making a deal is expensive and can leave a bad taste.

These contacts can be the beginning of a longer business relationship. Some are successful and result in business transactions. Those that are unsuccessful still result in an exchange of information.

It’s just as important to respond and say no as it is to respond and say yes. A “no” response is the more difficult one for a respondent to accept. However, knowing that the answer is no provides certainty that allows the respondent to move ahead with other possibilities. For the requester, managing this response results in a greater pool of information resources. Everyone in this industry is busy – especially now. Taking time to provide both a regrets response as well as an affirmative response adds a little more humanity.

In this day and age of social media people often don’t see or meet those people they are doing business with. This suggests that an additional level of courtesy will benefit everyone – financially and otherwise. While phone calls might be best, social media or email with a positive response or regrets response is mutually beneficial.

Smart owners know that soliciting debriefing sessions with unsuccessful vendors are valuable exercises. It takes additional effort to manage a regrets process, but this effort will pay off in the long run. There’s much to be learned from a regrets communication. Unsuccessful vendors should push for debriefing exercises. Those project sponsors not willing to do so should be considered high maintenance clients and put on “special” pricing lists.

The end effect of a debrief is mutual. Not only does the respondent understand where it might improve and have a better chance next time around, but the owner finds out where its request or inquiry might have fallen short. There will always be people who have difficulty accepting a negative response. They quickly make themselves felt, and no one should feel obligated to appease them.

Respondents do themselves a disservice if they do not make it apparent that a regrets message is as welcome as an affirmative message. A debrief gives the respondent an opportunity to connect on a higher level with the requester. Even the very best and highest qualified firms don’t bat 1.000. All businesses on both sides of this relationship will benefit.

Solicitations based on price are relatively easy to assess in terms of success or failure. The softer procurements that are part of the capital projects landscape are tougher to analyze by those who are not successful. Developing an understanding of what the project sponsor needs and wants is a difficult and complex task.

Both parties benefit by a greater understanding of project needs in this procurement scenario. This requires a good working and communicative relationship between project owners and all of their downstream vendors – those successful and those not. Learning how to say no in a way that benefits both upstream and downstream relationships is key to improving the chances of success in projects and reducing overall industry costs.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post OP-ED: The art of saying no and the importance of doing so appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The rate of Oregon’s job growth is outstripping the national average. That is good news as it means full employment and more money in state coffers. But what about Oregon’s low high school graduation rates? What’s it going to take to get today’s Oregon high school kids to graduate on time?

The numbers are low – really low. Oregon is in last place, or almost. Educated people call that a failure. While our schools provide the opportunities, the students and their guardians are the ones who must take advantage of them.

A state that has bright spots like Nike, Facebook, Vigor, Hoffman, Intel, Daimler and others must have educated young people to fill their positions. If Oregonians won’t fill the vacant spaces, others will. Global competition is fierce. The openings must be filled with educated and qualified workers. China is moving ahead and other Asian countries aren’t far behind. Oregon cannot become a picturesque backwater.

There has been great emphasis on this in the last several years, but the lack of progress is disappointing. We can look to the schools, but more money, facilities, teachers or “educrats” is not the answer. The responsibility is with Oregonians themselves. A fundamental change in the way education is viewed is needed. A change in the personal investment that we make in the way that Oregon’s children are supervised and educated is necessary.

Individual Oregonians must take on the responsibility to ensure that our young people are educated and graduate on time. The burden must not be on the schools or the daycare or someone else; it’s on us. To borrow a familiar phrase, “we have seen the enemy and it is us.” While education is not the same for everyone (for some it is no less than a post doctorate; for others it is a high school diploma), these numbers tell us something must change.

That is not to say that there aren’t some bright spots. The numbers tell us that there are some school districts that have good overall rates and others that have increased their rates significantly. But there are other school districts with rates so low that the situation suggests those communities place no value on an educated young person. Where is the compassion in that?

While the educational bureaucracies in those communities are likely not functional, the parents and supervising guardians must bear at least an equal amount of the blame – if not more. Children are not beets; they don’t grow up on their own. They must be supervised and nurtured. To suggest that what was good enough for us is good enough for our kids may no longer be valid. The day of a high school dropout making a living in the mills or in the fields is gone. Schools cannot make up for the lack of involved parenting. Becoming a parent is easy; being a parent is hard.

Professional associations have made great efforts to provide incentives for students to continue to stay in school and do well. 91��Ƶ such as Mathcounts and the emphasis on STEM are some bright spots. But there is a significant segment they can’t reach. What will these children, and then adults, do in the future when they are not equipped to handle the jobs that are yet to be developed. Part of the answer to this question is before us now, in the numbers of homeless on the streets. And that number seems to grow by the month.

Jobs for those who are not well educated are being eliminated by automation. Business needs to sit up and take notice. For without a solid economic base there’ll be no consumers for their products. The responsibility to instill a solid foundation rests as much with the industrial base of this state as it does with professional associations. Clearly the first function of business is to take care of business and develop products that sell. But the need to develop an educated consumer and employee base that can afford the products is just as essential. The business of Oregon needs to dive into this issue; it is too important not to.

Oregonians have lots of competing interests, but the need to ensure that the next generation is educated is critical. It’s an effort that must involve Oregon’s parents, businesses, professional associations as well as teachers and government leaders. Only until these groups coalesce around acceptable and successful strategies will there be a meaningful change in the numbers.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post OP-ED: Education in Oregon: a whole lot of room for improvement appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Executing projects successfully requires good schedules. They’re developed by identifying the resources and sequencing necessary. They’ll encourage “what-if” conversations about contingent events. But all too often this effort is not given the attention that it deserves. It is given lip service and considered just another bureaucratic project function. Sometimes this effort is relegated to team members with less experience.

Schedule creation is not a simple, technical task. A truly effective and useful schedule is the result of efforts undertaken by an entire team of experienced project experts. These experts include project users, maintainers, financiers, designers, managers, superintendents, foremen, craft workers and engineers – as well as project owners and contractors. This team of experts applies its knowledge to develop the sequences and logical order of activities needed. This knowledge often is attained only after many years of attendance in the School of Hard Knocks.

Seeing too many projects stumble and fail because project sponsors did not have a grasp of what the steps were needed brings home the importance of a project schedule. When done well, it identifies and focuses on the long lead times that contemporary projects require. The dye in most projects is cast at the onset, where the critical resource decisions are made. Attempting to make up for a lack of good decision-making results in reputations lost and dollars squandered.

Projects succeed or fail based on a wide variety of different influences and activities. There are the knowns, the unknowns, and the unknown unknowns. Successful projects require visionaries, good design, engineering and construction; great coordination – and owners willing to see them through. Ensuring that the project components are well coordinated and delivered is critical. Those projects that fail to pay adequate attention to this coordination in advance result in major disappointments – or worse.

Knowing where the pitfalls are before they occur is the mark of a truly experienced project expert – and one that provides high value to a project. While it is often acknowledged that the construction industry rarely builds two completely identical projects, there are numerous similarities that can be adapted. It is the combination of these adaptations and the understanding how the various players influence a project that is needed for project success.

The need to “war game” all reasonable possible scenarios is essential, including the outlier events. Today’s nuclear construction snafu in the Southeastern United States is a current illustration of the failure of thorough project risk analysis. Who would have thought that a major U.S. firm, after being bought up by a world-renowned technical firm, would nevertheless fail? There may be a tendency to point to the size and complexity of those projects as perhaps challenging the current ability in the construction industry. However, even small, local projects similarly implode as project sponsors fail to grasp the scope of resources needed.

There is an adage that suggests that schedules become outdated pretty quickly after they are created. But the value in creating a schedule is in the planning effort. A successful schedule demands a committed planning effort from all the major players involved. It will require them to think. Despite all those efforts, project elements can and will change quickly. The randomness of the human experience doesn’t support a linear path to success.

The advantage of an in-depth planning effort, however, lies in the ability to pivot a project relatively easily. For it is in that planning development process that all of those who are responsible invest themselves in determining what is necessary to ensure success. Without that original thinking, revising a plan becomes very difficult. Making decisions in a crises environment, which is when it may be determined that plans need to be revised, seldom results in good outcomes.

Scheduling is not the same as being an IT expert in scheduling programs. IT experts write programs, but project management is responsible for their execution. In fact, the IT industry has a rather notorious reputation when it comes to on-time and on-budget project execution. Modern technology has resulted in more visual experiences in communicating planning efforts. But this technology cannot replace the knowledge gained through experience, which provides exposure to the interplay between all of the impacts and resources that affect a project.

Some overly simplistic programs are simply starting points. Other programs have such a high degree of complexity that they require continual “patches,” become unworkable and remain incomprehensible to all but the technical cognoscenti. Innovation and improvements are still needed and essential. Industry professionals are not going to become luddites and go back to pencil and paper. But it is important to balance human knowledge and interaction with modern, technological tools to ensure that the schedule becomes one of the important activities in successful project management.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post OP-ED: Establish order to keep each project on a path to success appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Some folks are lucky enough to be able to walk to work. Walking to work is a privilege. It is an opportunity to gather one’s daily thoughts together before heading into the workplace. It provides an opportunity to look around and see one’s neighbors as well as get a closer look at the community.

I am one of those people. My commute takes about 15 minutes from door to door. The fall colors are particularly impressive this year. Along with a pedestrian commute, however, comes risk. My commute has no sidewalks for about half the way, and no other pedestrians going my direction. Drivers are often surprised to see a pedestrian. Winter walks home in the dark there can keep people on their toes. The last quarter mile parallels U.S. 26 and the reality of the commute most people face is front and center. Traffic routinely crawls down that highway. However, it is understood – a commute by foot is not feasible for most workers.

Urban Oregonians face an ever-slowing commute every day. Some folks are able to circumvent this by making use of TriMet or bicycles. But that only works if the bus or train is going one’s direction or the ride is easy. Other parts of town are inundated by folks trying to travel to their workplaces. Apps such as Waze make the commute everyone’s problem. Interstate 84 is a parking lot beginning east of Interstate 205 and heading into downtown.

The surface transportation system needs to work for the way Oregonians live now. It needs an overhaul – a radical change. What worked 50 years ago is not applicable today. Many Oregonians elect to move into communities that were laid out 50 years ago or earlier. Some new communities are driven by current thinking of efficiency in mobility – compact, urban and perhaps vertical. But many others still replicate the single-family residence model. It is what people want and are buying. While these communities may have sidewalks, regular use by pedestrians on purposeful trips is still a rarity. The further from the city center, the less visible are pedestrians. It’s the same with bike lanes in the suburbs. They are evidence of progressive thinking, but no real use.

With central areas at almost crush loads during rush hour, regular commuter routes should be serviced by frequent high-tech bus transit. High tech is dynamic and changes by the hour. Equipment size is determined by demand and the frequency such that schedules are not needed. Walk up, and within five minutes or so a bus shows up. Cost-effectiveness is not to be measured by dollars per passenger but by avoidance of asphalt.

Separating transit from surface transportation investment has been a colossal error – it separates cost centers. Under a single umbrella, making the $100 million dollar trade-offs between new roads or more transit in urban areas would be easy – as long as expensive rail systems are off the table (they are seductive). It is time for a radical change in thinking and financing. The solution must also recognize that the needs of urban areas are quite different from the needs of rural ones. One size simply won’t fit all in this state.

The surface transportation system – be it public vehicles or simply roadway infrastructure for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians – is the main daily contact that most people have with their government. Horizontal mobility is a fundamental social need. The surface transportation system cannot be managed feasibly by a private entity.

Utilities and roadways are government-provided services that touch everybody every day. Despite that startling fact, it does not appear to be at the center of gravity for local or state leadership. City council agendas for cities like Portland tell the real story. Local and state leadership is wrapped around social service issues, police protection and education. If these three issues are included with transportation and utilities in a list of priorities, the latter likely comes in last. Perhaps the problem is that users of utilities and transportation systems do not find their way downtown. They are not appearing in city council meetings or state government committee hearings.

But these services are among the most important services that local governments provide its citizens. Elected officials would do well to heed and improve these highly used services. If Portland voters can afford a $258 million bond measure for housing and a $790 million bond measure for education, they can certainly afford to improve the surface transportation system. The surface transportation system needs elected advocates who have a deep understanding of how it works.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post OP-ED: Oregon’s long road to surface transportation improvements appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Oregonians have worked diligently to put together a package that improves surface infrastructure throughout the state. This required close cooperation between the eastern and western parts of our state and resulted in a number of compromises, but the program is one that Oregonians can live with.

With all of this in place, from out in right field comes a Washington legislator, U.S. Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, who believes that this is unfair to southwest Washington residents. Not only does she believe it is unfair, but she was able to include an amendment passed by the U.S. House that prohibits Oregon from pursuing its current tolling scheme for Interstate 5 and Interstate 205.

Ms. Herrera Beutler’s district, which goes north almost to Olympia and out to the coast, apparently has forgotten that tolling has always been a significant part of the Washington State Department of Transportation’s revenue program. In fact, she probably has forgotten that the Interstate Bridge when it was first constructed had toll structures on the Washington side. There was even the light rail of the day: streetcars. She has also probably not been in Cascade Locks or Hood River recently. Both have toll booths on the Oregon side. Her website touts her effort as an accomplishment on behalf of her electorate. Indeed, Washington’s governor has stated that no tolling will take place on the Oregon side unless Washington sits at the table – it’s not clear precisely which table is being referred to.

The Oregon congressional delegation appears to be completely missing in action. Nothing has been heard from Greg Walden, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader, Suzanne Bonamici and Mr. Infrastructure himself – Earl Blumenauer. The silence is deafening. How this amendment got past our congressional delegation is a question that at least one of them should stand up and account for. Perhaps they’re all being distracted by putting out their Trump dumpster fires.

When Oregon goes as far as it has to develop an infrastructure program, it needs to be supported by all Oregonians. Sometimes a few sharp elbows might need to be thrown to make things move ahead.

The last great infrastructure initiative by Oregon was the bond measure that resulted in quite a few improvements, but are now becoming dated. Traffic congestion in the metropolitan areas is well documented and clearly inhibiting Oregon’s economic expansion. While understandably of little interest to Washington state’s congressional delegation, it should be high on the Oregon congressional delegation’s agenda. Oregon’s infrastructure must be given a push by extra revenue sources. The tolls that are anticipated in the metropolitan area will benefit the southwest Washington area as well. The increase in economic activities will spill over to the Washington side.

The connections between the Portland area and southwest Washington are close, and this misguided effort gets in the way of something that is clearly necessary. The number of connections between Washington and Oregon should increase. One alternative worth considering is construction of additional bridges across the Columbia River beyond improving the current one carrying I-5 and I-205. Bridges crossing the Columbia further east would stimulate eastern suburbs of both Portland and Vancouver. It should not be necessary for all traffic crossing the river to be funneled through the I-5/I-205 corridor on the west or the Bridge of the Gods/Hood River on the east.

In any case, times a’wasting and our congressional delegation needs to put Ms. Herrera Beutler’s amendment where it belongs – in the trash.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Ukiah Engineering. He is the author of ASCE Oregon’s report card on Oregon’s infrastructure and a past recipient of ASCE Oregon’s Engineer of the Year award. Contact him at 503-297-4827 or cfs@UkiahEngineering.com.

The post OP-ED: An unexpected roadblock for Oregon infrastructure improvements appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.