| Sticking
to Story
In his ENR Viewpoint article "don't Believe Maglev's Critics"
(ENR 8/19 p. 59), Chris Brady of Transrapid International-USA
reports that I "erroneously claimed last year that ‘there
are no manufacturers of maglev components or spare parts,'"
(ENR 2/26/01 p. 99). Brady also reports that he "can definitively
state that the Transrapid companies are the only ones in the
world that currently provide maglev technology for very high-speed
travel." Given this high level of support, I cannot help but
stick to my story.
Once Transrapid's Shanghai Airport
Shuttle is complete, the firm may yet qualify as a manufacturer
of maglev systems and a supplier of spare parts. From the
perspective of potential owners, however, Transrapid will
qualify if and when they make a little money at the activity.
Until then, they remain a high-risk supplier in a marginal
market.
Transrapid's management should
risk their firm's business resources anyway, their judgment
dictates. In the mean time, I hope we manage to keep the special
interest hands of train advocates (cross country, floating,
light rail, high-speed or otherwise) out of the public coffers.
Bursting Bubbles
I see the industry now has cost Estimate Validation Process
(CEVP) as our potential "new method" for the early estimating
process because there is an "urgent need to validate the costs
of public projects," (ENR 7/1 p. 15). The trouble is, this
sounds a lot like an old estimator technique called range
estimating with some extra hoopla thrown in for good measure.
Except for the outside experts participating in a "concentrated
workshop," the article could have been talking about range
estimating.
With range estimating, at least
in the manner I have seen it successfully work, the estimator
identifies risky and/or items with a minimal amount of information
that could have a major impact upon costs. The estimator then
creates a probable range of costs based upon this information.
This is done in conjunction with a project team that typically
includes the design professionals and the owner/client.
I hate to burst anyone's hopes
but it is a major fallacy to expect this "new" process to
yield any substantial benefit. The true cure for the ill is
only as good as 1) the abilities of the estimator, 2) the
abilities of the other team members and 3) the ability of
the decision makers to base their decisions on facts, not
hopes.
It is a bit difficult to see how
public projects are going to benefit from this "new and improved"
method.
|
