We participated in a contest sponsored by Colorado Biz magazine this year. It was about being "The Best Place in Colorado to Work". Basically they have a questionaire that a company's employees fill out anonymously on the internet. They then take the results of that poll and subject it to some proprietary formulas, with the resulting company rankings announced.
We did fairly well, coming in #13 (lucky number) in the rankings. I have to admit that I felt proud of that ranking. We also get a statistical analysis of the responses, again with total anonymity for the employees.
They have a nice awards ceremony where they announce the rankings, a bit like the Academy Awards. Acceptance speeches strictly kept short. I even wore a jacket, no tie however. It seemed that a key element in companies that ranked higher than ForeRunner centered on allowing dogs to come to work. A "dog friendly" policy seemed to be what it took to be a "Best Place in Colorado to Work".
Being a good place to work is something that I do take very seriously and it is one of the four main elements in our business plan. I don't want to give it just lip service, but be serious about it. But what does that mean? What is a good place to work? How do you become one?
In my earlier life I was a controls engineer, so of course, all my instincts tell me that you need a feedback loop to achieve any goal. You must measure the variable you wish to control. You then compare that measurement against where you want to be and take a corrective action. Then you measure that variable again, repeating the process. So what measures a good company to work for? (Sorry about the dangling participle.)
While I applaud Colorado Biz for sponsoring this contest, I don't think that a "dog friendly" policy weighs heavily in most peoples thoughts. But I could be wrong. How do you know? We had about 70% of our employees take the poll, which was a high percentage among those companies participating. But what about the 30% who didn't participate? It is their workplace also. Would their participation have skewed the results?
Of those who did participate, 100% of them agreed that they were proud to work for ForeRunner. I admit this made me very proud of this company. It says that 90 out of 90 people are proud to work here. Before this, I wasn't sure that you can get 90 out of 90 people to agree that the sun comes up in the east.
In any case, we are serious about this being a good place to work. Like almost all the important things in life, you can't define it or come up with a checklist that determines it. But you know it when you see it.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Energy Independence
The latest issue of the Denver Business Journal had a good editorial on the energy business in Colorado, and by extension, the entire Rocky Mountain region of North America. It concerned the current battle locally over allowing drilling on the Roan Plateau north and west of Rifle, Colorado.
The editor, one Mr. Westergaard by name, made a serious point. Energy independence is important to the US. A lot of the energy we need and rely on is controlled by political entities that are unstable at best. Because of that fact, we are forced to be "friendly" to some rather odious people. And when they step too far over the line, we are forced to put our people in harms way. Balanced against that brutal reality, we obsess over whether some fly fishermen will need to drive past pipeline scars on the way to their fishing hole.
As it happens, our local paper ran a five part series on the energy industry in Colorado last week. It was well done and ran to some 25 pages. As these things go, it was balanced and fair. But as so much of modern media, it was long on emotion but short on reason and logic.
Energy use is not an addiction, it is not a morality issue. Human life without access to large quatities of cheap energy is brutal, unpleasant and often short. A priviledged few live well at the expense of multitudes whose muscle power feeds that priviledge. "Green" renewable energy may be a reality in my grandchildren's lifetimes, but they are stalking horses for political agendas today.
As a culture, we need to continue to explore and work on better ways to generate and use the energy we need. But to pretend that we will not continue to require ever increasing quantities of hydrocarbon energy into the foreseeable future is to lie to those who depend on us. Those of us who are professionals have an obligation to speak the facts to the public on this issue.
The editor, one Mr. Westergaard by name, made a serious point. Energy independence is important to the US. A lot of the energy we need and rely on is controlled by political entities that are unstable at best. Because of that fact, we are forced to be "friendly" to some rather odious people. And when they step too far over the line, we are forced to put our people in harms way. Balanced against that brutal reality, we obsess over whether some fly fishermen will need to drive past pipeline scars on the way to their fishing hole.
As it happens, our local paper ran a five part series on the energy industry in Colorado last week. It was well done and ran to some 25 pages. As these things go, it was balanced and fair. But as so much of modern media, it was long on emotion but short on reason and logic.
Energy use is not an addiction, it is not a morality issue. Human life without access to large quatities of cheap energy is brutal, unpleasant and often short. A priviledged few live well at the expense of multitudes whose muscle power feeds that priviledge. "Green" renewable energy may be a reality in my grandchildren's lifetimes, but they are stalking horses for political agendas today.
As a culture, we need to continue to explore and work on better ways to generate and use the energy we need. But to pretend that we will not continue to require ever increasing quantities of hydrocarbon energy into the foreseeable future is to lie to those who depend on us. Those of us who are professionals have an obligation to speak the facts to the public on this issue.
Monday, December 3, 2007
I Hate to Bid
We got an invitation to bid on a project the other day. It is pretty much in our sweet spot, or at least what we perceive is our sweet spot. It is the size project and the type of project that we do very well at. The problem is that they want a lump sum bid. Not only do they want a lump sum bid, but there are a total of 8 bidders. What do we do?
Let it be said that this is a large client and a big player in our industry. We can't ignore them. We must be responsive. So like good little contractors we will sit down with the voluminous paper provided and sharpen our pencils.
But I need some emotional release. I just hate this bid crap, it can really get me going. Bidding engineering is bad enough, but getting bids from 8 engineering companies? I am the type of person that builds a 500 page novel out of a single incident. I infer an endless series of things about something like this. They come flooding into my mind in situations like this.
Let me tell you my story. It is a story about hopelessness. It is a story about there being no way to win here. This is a losing hand all the way around. What are our options?
First, we can decline to bid. After investing all that marketing and relationship building energy, we decline the opportunity to do business. Procurement people really don't like that. And in a company that bids 8 engineering companies on a routine project, procurement obviously carries a big stick.
Second, we bid but put in so much contingency that we're safe. We know we won't get it but at least we are responsive. Well we have just created an indelible impression in the clients mind that we are a "high priced" firm. You don't want that hanging on your head. In this business, it is easier to overcome a moral turpitude conviction than a reputation for being "high priced".
Third, we bid the specification as we think the client intended it. Always a dangerous option, we put together a bid that allows enough time and money to do the project with the inevitable delays, additions, changes and other cost/time disadvantages that we know will occur. Given 8 bidders, this is virtually guaranteed to be a waste of time for us unless we really miss something and make a bad mistake.
Fourth, we bid the specification as written. An even more dangerous option, we put together a bid that takes advantage of what is actually written and bring a lawyer's sensibility to it. We put a good strong contracts person on the project to enforce the contract. We may well win the bid, but almost certainly lose the client.
I think what bothers me most is what I see as a lack of respect. As professionals, respect is important to us. Obviously the options above are broadly drawn, but I think valid as to our options. As a professional, as an engineer, I think the third option the proper way to go. I have been around long enough to feel comfortable about that being the general feeling among practicing engineers.
But in the situation we are placed in, that is a foolish way to proceed. We are forced to act in a way that is against our professional judgement. But that is precisely what we offer to the world, our professional judgement.
As an engineering service company, we are totally dependent on our clients. Business is very Darwinian. We will become whatever the market requires us to be. Whenever we are placed in a bidding situation by our clients, I am reminded of that fact. And I admit to a great deal of discomfort with that unpleasant fact.
Let it be said that this is a large client and a big player in our industry. We can't ignore them. We must be responsive. So like good little contractors we will sit down with the voluminous paper provided and sharpen our pencils.
But I need some emotional release. I just hate this bid crap, it can really get me going. Bidding engineering is bad enough, but getting bids from 8 engineering companies? I am the type of person that builds a 500 page novel out of a single incident. I infer an endless series of things about something like this. They come flooding into my mind in situations like this.
Let me tell you my story. It is a story about hopelessness. It is a story about there being no way to win here. This is a losing hand all the way around. What are our options?
First, we can decline to bid. After investing all that marketing and relationship building energy, we decline the opportunity to do business. Procurement people really don't like that. And in a company that bids 8 engineering companies on a routine project, procurement obviously carries a big stick.
Second, we bid but put in so much contingency that we're safe. We know we won't get it but at least we are responsive. Well we have just created an indelible impression in the clients mind that we are a "high priced" firm. You don't want that hanging on your head. In this business, it is easier to overcome a moral turpitude conviction than a reputation for being "high priced".
Third, we bid the specification as we think the client intended it. Always a dangerous option, we put together a bid that allows enough time and money to do the project with the inevitable delays, additions, changes and other cost/time disadvantages that we know will occur. Given 8 bidders, this is virtually guaranteed to be a waste of time for us unless we really miss something and make a bad mistake.
Fourth, we bid the specification as written. An even more dangerous option, we put together a bid that takes advantage of what is actually written and bring a lawyer's sensibility to it. We put a good strong contracts person on the project to enforce the contract. We may well win the bid, but almost certainly lose the client.
I think what bothers me most is what I see as a lack of respect. As professionals, respect is important to us. Obviously the options above are broadly drawn, but I think valid as to our options. As a professional, as an engineer, I think the third option the proper way to go. I have been around long enough to feel comfortable about that being the general feeling among practicing engineers.
But in the situation we are placed in, that is a foolish way to proceed. We are forced to act in a way that is against our professional judgement. But that is precisely what we offer to the world, our professional judgement.
As an engineering service company, we are totally dependent on our clients. Business is very Darwinian. We will become whatever the market requires us to be. Whenever we are placed in a bidding situation by our clients, I am reminded of that fact. And I admit to a great deal of discomfort with that unpleasant fact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)