I've just had another meeting with a client that expects engineering drawings to be perfect, beyond misinterpretation and cover all possible questions that a constructor might ask. This is a seductive idea. As engineers we, of course, have no tolerance for error or ambiguity. As consumers, we expect what we buy to be without flaw. Put those two ideas together and the client is being perfectly reasonable. This is simply a reaffirmation of Murphy's Golden Rule after all. Package a reasonable client and Murphy's Golden Rule together and I am left without a lot I can say.
But how do you tell a client that is reasonable, as well as has the money that pays for our services, that they are wrong? Obviously by using diplomacy, charm and euphemisms, as well as picking up the tab for a long and langorous tasting at a trendy brew pub.
That being said, I think the issue is not about engineering, but about something else entirely. That something is the strategy of project execution. We simply establish scopes, budgets and schedules and go forth into the wide world expecting the success that is our due. But the strategy that we use to execute a project is critical to its success. Strategy is not an ivory tower concept, it is the calculated plan of action that takes into account the way the world works, the situation we are in and the result we wish to achieve.
Consider the way a football coach plans his defense. He has limited resources, eleven men on the field of action, limited by time and the skills those eleven men bring to the field. He needs to use those resources to prevent the opposing team from scoring points.
Coaches know that they win or lose the game on the line of scrimmage. But they also know that there is only so much they can do on that line of scrimmage and that they have limited resources. There are only 11 players and 60 minutes.
A project execution team can be compared to a football defense. Rather than preventing a touchdown, their job is to prevent the perversity (ha ha) of the universe from damaging the project they are executing. The way resources are deployed is the strategy for executing the project.
It often seems that the strategy we, as an industry, employ is simply a goal line stand. Everybody up on the line of scrimmage and try to beat the crap out of the guy on the other side. We go home to drink our beer at night bloody and bruised, but happy in the knowledge that we did the best we could. If a receiver or running back gets past the line, easy score. In the project world, that equates to perversity whapping us on the side of the head with a big stick.
In football, most teams employ a defense in depth concept. There is a defensive line that does the heavy lifting on every play. But behind them is a linebacker corp that adjusts to the situation and works closely with the line to stop whatever the other team throws at them. And behind the linebackers are the safeties and cornerbacks which take care of the mistakes.
Engineering services are the defensive line of a project execution team. They do the heavy lifting. Their job is to prevent perversity from scoring its points. They define what needs to be built and how it is to be put together. They are in charge of getting the material necessary to where it needs to be. If they do their job well and the universe isn't too perverse, projects go smoothly. In a football game, if the defensive line stops all the offensive plays on the line of scrimmage, the game is easy and scores are low.
But coaches know that people aren't perfect and that offensive teams (the perversity of the universe) are very crafty and have a lot of really good players. The defensive line does not stop every offensive play on the line of scrimmage. That is what the linebackers are there for. In this metaphor, project procurement plays the part of linebacker. Aggressive linebackers read the way the play is going and react accordingly. Strong procurement sees the way the project is going (expediting, shop visits and receiving) and facilitates adjustment with vendors, engineering and construction to deal with developing situations.
If the football makes it past the line and linebackers, safeties and cornerbacks pick it up and minimize the damage. That is the job of construction engineering in our metaphor. Construction engineering is charged with dealing with the problems that get through. They are the final line of defense. Aggressive backfield players watch the play developing and react accordingly, They can do this because they have the time and perspective to do so.
One of the key questions in the makeup of any strategy is marginal effectiveness. The quality or completeness of engineering services product, drawings and specifications, is a function of time. That time is measured both in manhours and as a time line. Increasing quality or completeness requires both, more manhours and more time. From the standpoint of an effective project execution team, where do we get the most bang for the buck by adding manpower?
As noted previously, most project execution strategies seem to be oriented toward the goal line stand. Occasionally there is a lone safety or single linebacker, Even more destructive, the line and the backfield almost always play on different teams.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Faith
I attended the Rocky Mountain Electrical League's Workshop on Carbon Issues. The focus of the workshop centered on what the electrical power industry thinks about carbon dioxide emissions. As it turns out, they think about it a lot. That thought is leading them to plan an unprecedented upheaval in the way the United States generates electricity. The cost of that upheaval will also be unprecedented, both for energy consumers and society. Paradoxically, the short term large scale beneficiary of that upheaval will be the natural gas business, not the nascent renewable energy business.
One of the strong impressions I carried away from that workshop is a renewed appreciation of how our lives and society are governed by faith. I define faith as that which we believe, but can not prove. Our workshop began with an excellent presentation by Randy Udall. Mr. Udall is a charismatic presence that powers his presentation about why carbon dioxide is a problem and the dire consequences of ignoring its increased presence in our environment.
Everything that Mr. Udall said however, depends on acceptance of his underlying beliefs regarding global warming. I stress the word, beliefs. While there is an ocean of data regarding carbon dioxide and global warming, there are multiple interpretations of that data. None of which show predictive power. Therefore, an objective person must conclude any interpretation of that data is faith, sometimes known as a hypothesis.
But Mr. Udall's presentation is the faith that our culture and government has accepted. Alternative ideas about climate are simply no longer treated seriously, at least in the circles of culture and government that matter. We have a faith, and that faith is global warming. A faith needs those who interpret the faith and tell us what that faith requires of us. That is Mr. Udall's job.
Interestingly, the people I knew at the workshop weren't persuaded that global warming was real, and that therefore carbon dioxide emission controls were not necessary. But as you might guess, they were all engineers. And in matters of faith, engineers are generally not welcome as we have a tendency to raise inconvenient observations. But we did not loudly voice our critical thoughts. Instinctively we know that we are dealing with faith, and official faith is always alert to heresy. Heresy is never good for your career. We may talk about foolishness over beers, but not in the presence of those who interpret the faith.
But as I look over our energy industry today, we are poised to embark on actions that will cost us dearly. Those actions may well be necessary, but we take that on faith.
One of the strong impressions I carried away from that workshop is a renewed appreciation of how our lives and society are governed by faith. I define faith as that which we believe, but can not prove. Our workshop began with an excellent presentation by Randy Udall. Mr. Udall is a charismatic presence that powers his presentation about why carbon dioxide is a problem and the dire consequences of ignoring its increased presence in our environment.
Everything that Mr. Udall said however, depends on acceptance of his underlying beliefs regarding global warming. I stress the word, beliefs. While there is an ocean of data regarding carbon dioxide and global warming, there are multiple interpretations of that data. None of which show predictive power. Therefore, an objective person must conclude any interpretation of that data is faith, sometimes known as a hypothesis.
But Mr. Udall's presentation is the faith that our culture and government has accepted. Alternative ideas about climate are simply no longer treated seriously, at least in the circles of culture and government that matter. We have a faith, and that faith is global warming. A faith needs those who interpret the faith and tell us what that faith requires of us. That is Mr. Udall's job.
Interestingly, the people I knew at the workshop weren't persuaded that global warming was real, and that therefore carbon dioxide emission controls were not necessary. But as you might guess, they were all engineers. And in matters of faith, engineers are generally not welcome as we have a tendency to raise inconvenient observations. But we did not loudly voice our critical thoughts. Instinctively we know that we are dealing with faith, and official faith is always alert to heresy. Heresy is never good for your career. We may talk about foolishness over beers, but not in the presence of those who interpret the faith.
But as I look over our energy industry today, we are poised to embark on actions that will cost us dearly. Those actions may well be necessary, but we take that on faith.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Hillary, or Obama, or John?
The political season is upon us. The media, and news junkies everywhere, are in a frenzy over permutations in the penumbra of chance remarks by the political candidates. I used to be a dedicated political junkie, but had to swear it off some years ago. I just couldn't handle the constant emotional triggering. Talk radio could get me in such an uproar during commutes, that I had to quit.
But politics is important to the energy industry. We will always be an industry that goes through cycles as energy supplies go out of balance with energy demand. But those cycles are driven to extremes by the politics of our great nation. Our last major cycle of boom and bust was almost catastrophic, in large part because of US politics. Price controls on domestic oil and gas production had the predictable effect of depressing supply and increasing demand. Allowing "new" production" to sell at a market price, artificially inflated, predictably drove our industry into a wild frenzy of drilling.
When the price controls were removed the market, again predictably, rationalized. The resulting chaos, as "new production" prices dropped and "old production" rapidly increased left scars on our industry that are still affecting our thoughts and actions. I, for one, sold residential real estate for a year. If you don't think that the picture of me discussing the color of living room carpets with potential house sellers isn't funny, think about it again.
The recent debacle in ethanol simply reinforces the point. US energy policy has an enormous effect on the lives of people. While it is comforting to believe in the silliness of our political class, they are not stupid people. But they are driven by political considerations, not economics or engineering logic. They have the jobs they do because we put them there. They may be fools, but they are our fools.
So what Hillary, or Obama or John think about energy is very important to me, my job and future. I have to tell you that I don't want to apply for a job with ReMax again. It didn't work the first time and I have a greatly lessened tolerance for the effect of "realtor beige" discussions now. I have a lot larger mortgage as well. The potential collateral damage is huge.
My parents repeatedly told me that you should never discuss sex, politics or religion. So it is with a fair amount of inherited guilt that I write the next paragraphs. But what the heck, this is the 21st century.
I have to tell you that I feel pretty good about our future, electing any one of the three. Let me narrow that statement a bit. Concerning the impact to the Denver based energy market from election by any of the three candidates mentioned, I feel pretty optimistic. None of the three would appear to have any past interest in energy. That means that they don't have any axes to grind, beyond their obligatory lip service to our greed and the pain we cause Mother Earth.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of political fire behind high energy prices. We are all hurt by $3 gasoline, but it's different this time. The last time energy prices went up like this, there was fire in the political belly. Our political masters had to do something, and right now, or there was going to be rioting in the streets. Even the Great Father Figure, Walter Cronkite, was angry. I interpret that to mean that the chances of really stupid legislation this time to be relatively small.
What is very positive about Denver and energy is the need to do something about Iraq. If we were honest with ourselves, we know that the reason we went into Iraq is oil. The US public wants out of Iraq. Some want to cut and run, while others want to leave with honor and a declaration of victory, but the broad public wants out of Iraq. But the problem is that Iraq sits in the middle of the world's oil supply. Simply leaving the Middle East to its own devices and the consequent chaos in energy won't work without a fallback position.
At some level most of us know this to be true and will vote accordingly. From a political point of view, the only fallback position that will sell to the general public is "Energy Independence". "Energy Independence" is emphasizing and publicizing renewable energy, while working to increase domestic energy supply. On a number of different levels, Denver is the big winner here.
Increased domestic energy supply means greatly increased production from the Rocky Mountains. Denver is the regional hub of the Rocky Mountain energy production business. Denver can hardly lose. Our level of activity is high simply based on economic factors. But as politics begins to drive "Energy Independence", our level of activity will be turbocharged by the political incentives, in whatever form they may take, that will come from our need to increase domestic production of energy.
Renewable energy is the public centerpiece to "Energy Independence". Today and for some time to come, it is not a serious piece of the solution. But it is the necessary cover to cope with the perceived degradation of the environment caused by increased domestic production. After all, most of the increased energy production will come from federally owned lands. To allow this use of federal lands will require political trade offs, that is, a serious commitment of money to renewable energy development and production.
Here is where Denver is a double winner. Denver is rapidly becoming a hub of the renewable energy industry. Our workforce, our energy experience and our physical setting make this a natural development. A large part of that money committed to renewable energy will be spent in Denver. The public stance and actions of our current Governor lead one to believe that he has made this connection and is acting on it.
So my thought is that no matter who wins the election, Denver's energy future is likely to be prosperous and secure.
But politics is important to the energy industry. We will always be an industry that goes through cycles as energy supplies go out of balance with energy demand. But those cycles are driven to extremes by the politics of our great nation. Our last major cycle of boom and bust was almost catastrophic, in large part because of US politics. Price controls on domestic oil and gas production had the predictable effect of depressing supply and increasing demand. Allowing "new" production" to sell at a market price, artificially inflated, predictably drove our industry into a wild frenzy of drilling.
When the price controls were removed the market, again predictably, rationalized. The resulting chaos, as "new production" prices dropped and "old production" rapidly increased left scars on our industry that are still affecting our thoughts and actions. I, for one, sold residential real estate for a year. If you don't think that the picture of me discussing the color of living room carpets with potential house sellers isn't funny, think about it again.
The recent debacle in ethanol simply reinforces the point. US energy policy has an enormous effect on the lives of people. While it is comforting to believe in the silliness of our political class, they are not stupid people. But they are driven by political considerations, not economics or engineering logic. They have the jobs they do because we put them there. They may be fools, but they are our fools.
So what Hillary, or Obama or John think about energy is very important to me, my job and future. I have to tell you that I don't want to apply for a job with ReMax again. It didn't work the first time and I have a greatly lessened tolerance for the effect of "realtor beige" discussions now. I have a lot larger mortgage as well. The potential collateral damage is huge.
My parents repeatedly told me that you should never discuss sex, politics or religion. So it is with a fair amount of inherited guilt that I write the next paragraphs. But what the heck, this is the 21st century.
I have to tell you that I feel pretty good about our future, electing any one of the three. Let me narrow that statement a bit. Concerning the impact to the Denver based energy market from election by any of the three candidates mentioned, I feel pretty optimistic. None of the three would appear to have any past interest in energy. That means that they don't have any axes to grind, beyond their obligatory lip service to our greed and the pain we cause Mother Earth.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of political fire behind high energy prices. We are all hurt by $3 gasoline, but it's different this time. The last time energy prices went up like this, there was fire in the political belly. Our political masters had to do something, and right now, or there was going to be rioting in the streets. Even the Great Father Figure, Walter Cronkite, was angry. I interpret that to mean that the chances of really stupid legislation this time to be relatively small.
What is very positive about Denver and energy is the need to do something about Iraq. If we were honest with ourselves, we know that the reason we went into Iraq is oil. The US public wants out of Iraq. Some want to cut and run, while others want to leave with honor and a declaration of victory, but the broad public wants out of Iraq. But the problem is that Iraq sits in the middle of the world's oil supply. Simply leaving the Middle East to its own devices and the consequent chaos in energy won't work without a fallback position.
At some level most of us know this to be true and will vote accordingly. From a political point of view, the only fallback position that will sell to the general public is "Energy Independence". "Energy Independence" is emphasizing and publicizing renewable energy, while working to increase domestic energy supply. On a number of different levels, Denver is the big winner here.
Increased domestic energy supply means greatly increased production from the Rocky Mountains. Denver is the regional hub of the Rocky Mountain energy production business. Denver can hardly lose. Our level of activity is high simply based on economic factors. But as politics begins to drive "Energy Independence", our level of activity will be turbocharged by the political incentives, in whatever form they may take, that will come from our need to increase domestic production of energy.
Renewable energy is the public centerpiece to "Energy Independence". Today and for some time to come, it is not a serious piece of the solution. But it is the necessary cover to cope with the perceived degradation of the environment caused by increased domestic production. After all, most of the increased energy production will come from federally owned lands. To allow this use of federal lands will require political trade offs, that is, a serious commitment of money to renewable energy development and production.
Here is where Denver is a double winner. Denver is rapidly becoming a hub of the renewable energy industry. Our workforce, our energy experience and our physical setting make this a natural development. A large part of that money committed to renewable energy will be spent in Denver. The public stance and actions of our current Governor lead one to believe that he has made this connection and is acting on it.
So my thought is that no matter who wins the election, Denver's energy future is likely to be prosperous and secure.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Gettysburg
Since my wife works in the school system, we take a week for spring break. As the kids no longer live with us, we travel that week. This year we went back to Virginia and visited some of the major Civil War sites. Diane, my wife, is obviously a real trooper. The first one that we stayed at was the most iconic site of all, Gettysburg.
While I have always been interested in history, it has become more immediate to me as I have matured as a manager. History is simply the story of how people interact with each other in different situations, which is of course the practice of management. The history of conflict has always seemed to have special application to the business of projects. Both battles and projects are highly pressurized situations greatly affected by the personalities of the people involved, subject to the constraints of time and space.
While the horrible tragedy of battle and war overwhelm us, they can also provide "real life" examples of people and situations under pressure. While a forest fire or blast furnace are very different than a rusting nail, they both are examples of oxidation. One is awesome in its fury while the other goes unnoticed, but both involve the same chemistry.
At least that is what I tell myself. Perhaps it is just a little boy's excuse to spend time daydreaming about people and events so much greater than he. In any case, my wonderful wife had gotten us a room at a motel just across the road from the Lutheran Seminary. The road was not just a road, but was indeed the Chambersburg Pike. The modest ridge our motel stood on was Seminary Ridge and the equally modest ridge to the west was Herr Ridge. All names immortalized in the great crisis that was Gettysburg.
Coming out of my motel room in the morning and standing in the parking lot, I could look to the west and see down the Chambersburg Pike. A short distance across the road to the south was the cupola at the Lutheran Seminary. It didn't take a lot of imagination to seen John Buford standing up there, binoculars in hand, watching the advance brigade of Henry Heth's Division moving down the road toward him. The first day of three terrible days was beginning.
Success, or failure, at Gettysburg would pivot on different individuals at different times. But maybe none so pivotal as the actions of John Buford. Commanding a small force of ill regarded cavalry scouting in front of the Union army, he rose to the occasion by choosing to act unexpectedly. He became a hero. Many would say that the Union won the battle at Gettysburg because of John Buford. Many would say that if the Union had not won at Gettysburg, the Confederacy would have won their independence. Think about how different the world would be today.
Certainly the Union was glad that John Buford was at Gettysburg that day. Which raises the question, "Do we want John Buford's in our organizations?" The easy answer is of course we do. How can we not want strong decisive leaders in our organizations? That is, of course, an interesting point. Buford, in what might be called an operational position, had been passed over for an executive command just 6 weeks earlier. The man who was promoted over Buford was regarded by most as a weaker candidate, but considered more polished. Buford certainly had a strong record, in a branch of the Union army that had almost no one with a good record. But a more political candidate got the position of overall cavalry commander.
Indulging in a bit of post game analysis based on how I read his record, I would speculate that John Buford was an opinionated hard nosed individual. He was probably pretty sure he was right, and more than likely, ready to say so. He had strong opinions about things, and they weren't the politically correct opinions. His ideas about how to deploy cavalry proved decisive at Gettysburg, but they were not the "conventional wisdom". Also, I don't think John practiced and polished his political skills. Operating organizations tend to want people like John when the chips are down, but they can be hard to live with from day to day. They can be very uncomfortable to have around, particularly around headquarters.
Also, John did take a very large risk with his men. Under the most likely scenarios, he would have lost a lot of his men for no positive result. An objective observer at the time could probably have said that he was willfully careless with the lives of his men at Gettysburg. While we celebrate the John Buford's of the world when they are successful, someone else often pays the price when they fail.
While I have always been interested in history, it has become more immediate to me as I have matured as a manager. History is simply the story of how people interact with each other in different situations, which is of course the practice of management. The history of conflict has always seemed to have special application to the business of projects. Both battles and projects are highly pressurized situations greatly affected by the personalities of the people involved, subject to the constraints of time and space.
While the horrible tragedy of battle and war overwhelm us, they can also provide "real life" examples of people and situations under pressure. While a forest fire or blast furnace are very different than a rusting nail, they both are examples of oxidation. One is awesome in its fury while the other goes unnoticed, but both involve the same chemistry.
At least that is what I tell myself. Perhaps it is just a little boy's excuse to spend time daydreaming about people and events so much greater than he. In any case, my wonderful wife had gotten us a room at a motel just across the road from the Lutheran Seminary. The road was not just a road, but was indeed the Chambersburg Pike. The modest ridge our motel stood on was Seminary Ridge and the equally modest ridge to the west was Herr Ridge. All names immortalized in the great crisis that was Gettysburg.
Coming out of my motel room in the morning and standing in the parking lot, I could look to the west and see down the Chambersburg Pike. A short distance across the road to the south was the cupola at the Lutheran Seminary. It didn't take a lot of imagination to seen John Buford standing up there, binoculars in hand, watching the advance brigade of Henry Heth's Division moving down the road toward him. The first day of three terrible days was beginning.
Success, or failure, at Gettysburg would pivot on different individuals at different times. But maybe none so pivotal as the actions of John Buford. Commanding a small force of ill regarded cavalry scouting in front of the Union army, he rose to the occasion by choosing to act unexpectedly. He became a hero. Many would say that the Union won the battle at Gettysburg because of John Buford. Many would say that if the Union had not won at Gettysburg, the Confederacy would have won their independence. Think about how different the world would be today.
Certainly the Union was glad that John Buford was at Gettysburg that day. Which raises the question, "Do we want John Buford's in our organizations?" The easy answer is of course we do. How can we not want strong decisive leaders in our organizations? That is, of course, an interesting point. Buford, in what might be called an operational position, had been passed over for an executive command just 6 weeks earlier. The man who was promoted over Buford was regarded by most as a weaker candidate, but considered more polished. Buford certainly had a strong record, in a branch of the Union army that had almost no one with a good record. But a more political candidate got the position of overall cavalry commander.
Indulging in a bit of post game analysis based on how I read his record, I would speculate that John Buford was an opinionated hard nosed individual. He was probably pretty sure he was right, and more than likely, ready to say so. He had strong opinions about things, and they weren't the politically correct opinions. His ideas about how to deploy cavalry proved decisive at Gettysburg, but they were not the "conventional wisdom". Also, I don't think John practiced and polished his political skills. Operating organizations tend to want people like John when the chips are down, but they can be hard to live with from day to day. They can be very uncomfortable to have around, particularly around headquarters.
Also, John did take a very large risk with his men. Under the most likely scenarios, he would have lost a lot of his men for no positive result. An objective observer at the time could probably have said that he was willfully careless with the lives of his men at Gettysburg. While we celebrate the John Buford's of the world when they are successful, someone else often pays the price when they fail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)