Shared Desitiny

I recently had lunch with an old friend who currently works for an OEM. We used to work together, in fact sit next to each other in adjacent cubicles almost a decade ago. It is always so fun to meet up with old buddies and catch-up. We talked about our respective careers, family, etc. and then the conversation turned to how the current economy and the state of the world is affecting our lives. I realized that over the last nine years, we have drifted apart in our world view. My friend was definitely not happy with globalization and the fact that the OEM's products, manufactured in the US, are having great difficulty competing against global onslaught of similar but low quality products at a cheaper price. The current procurement system in the Federal and Municipal market picks low price over quality. While there is a mandate to buy American-made products, it is not working. My friend is also not in favor of the environmental qualifications required in US as opposed to the other countries who do not have those restrictions. Very valid points.

And I agree with my friend. Our policies are broken! Where we differ is that my friend thinks that the government should not be putting these environmental mandates in place and should block our import of cheap, and often times low quality, foreign products; while I think we need to work on fixing our purchasing policies. The purchasing decision should be based on 'total' cost including the capital, environment, and operations/ maintenance footprint instead of just basing the decision strictly on capital costs.

Why? Everyone on this planet now share a common destiny. The time for insularity is gone and it will never be the same again. For the last century, US was the major political and financial power, now we are seeing a multipolar world with India, China, European Union, and Brazil sharing the stage. Technology has made it possible to communicate across continents faster than we can bat an eyelid. Disintermediation is rapidly changing the marketplace, e.g. the market for phones, books, newspapers, etc. The markets are no longer the way we knew them to be for the last 60 years. The Water, Energy, and Food industries as we know are going through a dramatic transformation; their interdependence is becoming more prominent on a global scale.

The sooner we start appreciating the changed climate, the better we will be to compete in this new marketplace. We have no choice! We can all sit and complain that 'the past was better' and resist the change as much as we can, but the reality is that we are already on this one-way highway, all together. So, what should we do? Here are my ideas:

• Update the purchasing policies to reflect the new reality of global marketplace and shared destiny. The criteria for purchasing should now be based on the life cycle costs as defines in ISO 14000. This implies that when purchasing a pump for example, the entire footprint is considered along the entire supply chain, that is mining the iron ore in Australia, building the impeller and pump house in China, assembly in Germany, installation and use in the US, followed by re-purposed in India. When all this is accounted for, the 'true cost' of the equipment / technology will create a level playing field for all. When I worked with Water Corporation (Perth, Australia), we had reviewed this method of sustainable selection.
• As a manufacturer / service provider, we need to start looking to gather and furnish data that will enable purchasers to make an educated decision. Set up a sustainability program in your business to facilitate this process and you will notice that it will have a high return on investment. Your sustainability program will be your differentiator, and will focus on making your business more attractive to both your clients and employees.

These are not my words, but are so very true: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that created them. Sustainability is about enlightened self-interest.

Vacuum Sewers

We presented at the 2011 Conference on Coastal Engineering Practice on August 22, 2011.  This conference is hosted by COPRI (Coasts, Oceans, Ports, and Rivers) Institute of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).

The topic of our presentation was 'Vacuum Sewers – A Viable Alternative for Coastal Areas' and is presented below. Should you want a copy of the paper, please send us an email and we will provide you with a copy of the  paper.

We have several lessons learned on vacuum sewer projects and will be very glad to share it with anyone looking to install a vacuum sewer system. Please feel free to contact us.

Strategies for Managers to Achieve Excellence in the Workplace

Below is the second of the two presentations I gave this morning at the 2011 AWWA Education Extravaganza. This talk actually flows from the first one. You cannot fix the problems in your organization or the greater society if you have not fixed yourself first. Working on yourself is the first step.

To be an effective manager you have to do two things - set forth a clear set of values and performance (results) expectations, and have a rigorous appraisal system. Additionally, you also have to earn the trust from your team members in order to be able to energize and activate them. That requires two things - be candid all the time, and do what you say (no matter how hard it is!)

Enjoy the presentation below. If you want a copy, please email me at consultproteus at gmail dot com.'

This presentation was also full house, standing room only! I was very happy.  Here too, I look forward to your reactions and input - What do you think? What has been your experience? What are your challenges? Please share your stories or issues with me, I will love to hear them.

I gave two presentations today. Find the first presentation here.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control

I have noticed that many professionals, and even very accomplished managers, tend to lump 'quality assurance and quality control' together as if they occur together and mean the same. In reality, QA and QC are two as different a concept as can be! I hope I will be able to dispel a bit of that confusion.

Every organization seeks to achieve higher quality in their work, whether it is a product or a service they offer. These organizations seek to maximize the ability to meet its goals with a minimum of mistakes, inefficiency, and waste. And why not, this endeavor has many long-term benefits: reduction of costs, a delighted client, good future business prospects, etc. The process to achieve this continuous improvement has several steps and is, however, usually mistakenly termed QAQC.

QA (Quality Assurance) is a set of activities (e.g. a quality audit) that are aimed to ensure that the processes followed in the organization are actually happening properly and meeting the objectives. For example, a document control audit to check if all correspondence is being filed properly at the right place for easy access and future retrieval is a QA exercise. QA also works to develop processes to better handle issues. For example, when a problem has been identified in the project execution, say drawings are being issued for construction without a mechanical engineer's review, the QA manager will then modify the project execution process to include a step that includes a review of drawings by a mechanical engineer. So, the bottom line definition is that QA is that it is process focused, that is, development of methodology and standards. The goal of QA is to find a problem in the processes and make sure the checks are implemented at the right level of detail.

QC (Quality Control), on the other hand, is the set of activities that evaluate the product. So, in the above mentioned example, the mechanical engineer checking the drawings is a QC activity. This activity is focused on finding defects in particular deliverables. In a production line, inspection and testing of a sample would be QC. Here the task is to find if the deliverable / product meets the stated level of detail and specification requirements. To stress the point - this is a fault finding activity.

Now, the confusion arises, I think, is because organizations are not sure about assigning responsibility for these two activities. More often than not, these activities are assigned to the same individual - the project manager. This is not the right approach, and I have seen many cases in my career where the final quality of the project suffers due to this.

In my opinion, the project manager should be only responsible for QA and not for QC. Of course, it also depends on scope of projects. For a $5M or less construction projects, the resources are usually strapped and the PM is forced to do both, and usually manages to do a good job. But, in projects, especially $50M+ construction projects, it will be near impossible for a PM to do both QA and QC and produce good results. There are too many details to consider and the focus shifts away from QA thereby compromising the project. For such projects, the PM should focus on QA and QA only. He/She should have the lead engineer or a third technically savvy engineer deal with the QC part of the project. When setting up the project the PM will need to put sufficient QC check points in his/her project execution strategy to ensure the 'fault finding' is adequately happening on the project and the quality of the final deliverables going out of the door meets (or exceeds) the quality standards promised to the client. His/her job is to constantly monitor the operations to make sure the QC checks and the recification is happening. On projects greater than $150M, there should be dedicated QA manager.

Design Build Project Delivery

This is the presentation I gave at CWEA 2011, Ontario.  I believe that Design-Build is where our water and wastewater industry should and will head in the future, especially now that many other industries (Transportation, Energy, Oil & Gas, Buildings, Federal, etc.) have gone that direction. This project delivery method is particularly suited for small projects (capital cost <= $5M) and very large projects (capital cost >= $500M). For projects in between, owners should look at combining few projects in a package and issue them as design-build.

Proteus Consulting has developed a comprehensive training program for consulting engineering firms desiring to enter the design-build arena and partner with construction firms. Most of these firms are traditional consulting engineers who find it very difficult to adjust to the pace and culture of design build, particularly adjusting with contractors and their priorities and pace of work. We have four, three hour modules, designed specifically to address these challenges and help with the culture transition. These modules address the lessons learned from design-build project delivery and will help the engineering firms effectively plan the deliverables, streamlining design management, and thereby maximizing the profit potential.

For the Owners, Proteus Consulting is very pleased to assist as Owner's Representative / Program Manager.