The following editorial reflects the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of Progressive Engineer.
We look forward to your comments on our Message Board, which may be accessed at the bottom of the editorial.

Let's Determine the True Value of Engineering and Avoid a Quick-and-Cheap Approach

By James Murphy

Quality has been the benchmark of American enterprise for decades, as American business has a rich tradition of producing premium commodities and offering the finest services. With mounting global market pressures and evolving cultural standards, however, the goal of quality has been relinquished and the principle of value has been subverted. These far-reaching effects permeate most of American business, including consulting engineering.

The new technological age demands instant results, and expediency is the new god. Never before has the time value of money been so central to the construction process. The result has been new processes described by such terms as "design-build" and "fast track." Projects are planned, designed, and built inside a time-and-money pressure cooker. Owner representatives, consultants, and contractors alike acquiesce to these stresses to keep their respective businesses afloat and competitive. Emphasis is shifted from due proportions of quality, timeliness, and economy to a focus of "quick and cheap."

With this shift of emphasis, ignorance emerges in the form of equivalent quality and value. Quick-and-cheap assumes the quality will be equal among the bidding participants; RFPs (request for proposal), project plans, and specifications control that. The fallacy is in the belief that regardless of who performs the work, the quality of the design or construction will be the same. But quality cannot be specified into a project.

This concept of "equal quality at cheapest price" eviscerates the fundamental notion of value. At its core,value merges quality and cost to establish an overall worth. In real terms, utility, maintenance costs, service life, and capital dollars should factor into a project's overall value. To expect among bidding participants consistent quality with variable costs is fodder. The true value of a design certainly depends upon more than upfront costs. The value or worth is defined by the quality in conjunction with the cost.

As an example of value in geotechnical engineering, let's say a given project requires a geotechnical investigation. The owner develops an RFP to which two firms, A and B, respond. Firm A considers the available information pertaining to the site and develops a scope including the field investigation with adequate boring density, laboratory testing program based upon anticipated conditions, ample time for engineering analysis and report preparation, a contingency to address unknowns. The proposal may also include time to confer with the owner to develop an understanding of the factors unique to this specific project and time to review design documents to verify adherence to geotechnical recommendations. Firm B develops a proposal based upon one or two shallow test pits or borings with very little time allotted to project discussion or document review. The lab program proposed is bare bones, and only the time allowed for analysis is comparable to Firm A's proposal.

The price differential between these two proposals will be significant. But the question is, will the value differ? Chances are the investigation proposed by Firm A may exceed that of Firm B by 50 to 100 percent. Firm B, though, must use a more conservative approach to the engineering for the project since by comparison, less is known about the project and the site. Furthermore, if subterranean anomalies exist at the site, Firm B stands a far lesser chance of discovering them. In both cases, construction costs will be inflated typically by orders of magnitude greater than the savings realized by utilizing Firm B's approach. Anomalies discovered by an already mobilized contractor become instantly expensive.

From this, we can see that the quick-and-cheap method of geotechnical engineering proves insufficient as a foundation for quality service from which project value may be realized. Education and realization of the true definition of value should be the primary focus of the engineering community as we enter the new millennium.

James Murphy is president of CE&MT, Inc. a geotechnical engineering and materials testing firm with offices in Gillette, Wyoming and Farr West, Utah

Have an opinion on this? Voice it on our Message Board. (Just click here.)