| Choose
Sides
I read with interest
the article "Project Delivery is Still Evolving"
(ENR 6/16 p. 38). I was in the engineering and construction
businesses for 28 years, and my biggest problem in providing
those services was a consistent lack of adequate and qualified
owner representation, or Program Management, as it is now
called.
So three years ago, when my general
contracting business was sold, I founded a new company to
exclusively represent owners. One of our main responsibilities
is pre-qualifying, hiring, and managing the design and construction
firms for each project.
Interestingly, we have little competition
except from architectural, engineering, and construction companies
who have ventured into the business on a part-time basis.
Regarding your own list of the "Top 20 Program Management
Firms," the question arises–just how objective can
these firms be in this situation? And how many times do they
also end up providing design or construction services on the
same projects where they are the Program Manager? Does the
term "conflict of interest" come to mind?
Professional Program Management
is drastically needed in the industry. The increase in firms
providing this service reflects this need. However, if it
is truly to be a "profession," those providing the
service need to decide where their loyalties really are and
stick to one side of the street or the other.
.
Case of Semantics
I was amused by
the "tech-speak" from Daniel Hitchings, U.S Army
Corps of Engineers’ liaison for the Iraqi Ministry of
Housing and Construction, in your recent interview (ENR 6/30
p. 50).
You asked if the domestic Iraqi
industry can meet the demand for reconstruction contractors.
Mr. Hitchings responded: "I don’t believe they can.
They’ll need technology transfer. There will be a lot
of outreach opportunities."
He merely meant: "They don’t
have the goods or know-how; they’ll need outside help."
Sometimes it is very easy to pick out the federally employed
engineers from the rest of the pack.
.
|
