Constructonomics Blog Has Moved!

Constructonomics has officially moved to my new construction blog site. The best way to get this fed directly to your screen is to click on the RSS for Posts link at the top right portion of the screen. You can feed Constructonomics as well as any other blogs or news sites directly to your iGoogle homepage. It's really easy.

Constructonomics Blog Has Moved!

3 Things to Think About When Starting a New Job

This post can be found at the new location of my construction blog. I'm sure you will enjoy it.

3 Things to Think About When Starting a New Job

Are the White Collar Forgotten in a Recession

This post can be found at the new location for my construction blog. I'm sure you will enjoy it. Please click the link to see the post. Thanks.

Are the White Collar Forgotten in a Recession

Sorry Kid, Construction is a Cyclical Business

This post can be found on my new construction blog on wordpress. I'm trying to switch from blogger to wordpress and I'm afraid I'm going to lose all my readers. Technology is a b*tch.

Sorry Kid, Construction is a Cyclical Business

Sometimes it's Just Better To Tell the Truth

Telling a little fib often seems like a convenient way to get yourself out of a jam. Or better yet, just lead somebody to believe one thing without actually telling the fib. In that case you can have your cake and eat it too - you get someone believing what isn't the case which of course works to your advantage, and you can also deny ever lying, because you didn't, sort of. When you can do this consistently, you have reached BSing nirvana and you can enjoy eternal enlightenment in liar's purgatory.

I know people who can lead someone to believe a pelican will swoop down and pick them out of mid-air if they jump off the nearest skyscraper. This is of course without mentioning anything about a skyscraper or a pelican. This is also of course an example of how human intelligence has manifested itself in devious and destructive ways - take that Alfred Binet.

I was working for a company about two years ago (when people actually had jobs) and right at the point where I was trying to decide if this was a company for whom I'd like to work for a while. We were getting to the end of a massive project and thoughts were flying through my mind about what this company was going to do with the Spartan army they hired for this job alone. I didn't have a whole lot of confidence that I was going to be one of the survivors, but I wasn't persona non grada either.

Then came rumblings from the heavens. Word got out that the chief operating officer who was hired to bring the company to the promise land and manage the slew of new hires and never before seen projects was leaving the company. Oh dear, what do we do now.

Construction companies are kind of weird because the majority of the people working are out on remote jobsites and the higherups in the mothership push buttons, turn knobs, and stroke their cat from the home office and nobody really gets to see what is going on.

To me, it looked like he quit because nobody would let him have his way and run things as he thought they should. This was my immediate impression and for some reason that's what I believed without any verification of it being true. I also starting thinking that perhaps there is turmoil and financial problems up above and the folks from the mothership were going to grab the gold and head for the hills. I doubt I would have been invited along.

I ended up quitting for a laundry list of reasons but uncertainty of the stability of the company was certainly one of them. I found out several months later that the COO was fired, and I wish I knew this. I'm not saying I would have stayed with the company and I would be employed with 2.3 kids at the moment, but I would have had much more respect for them if they came out and told us exactly what was going on. And between you, me, and cyberspace, I didn't really like the guy too much anyway.

So I guess this brings up an interesting question about how much information should be leaked to the little people down in the village, but I know that I personally perfer the truth. And this was an example where the truth could have ended up with me staying at the company which would have probably been much more beneficial for everyone. Probably.

Sometimes it's Just Better To Tell the Truth

Where "Good to Great" just isn't quite right

"Good to Great" is one of the highest selling business books of all-time with millions of copies sold and still about 300,000 each year. I will be the first to say that I like the book, and I am in particular agreement with author, Jim Collins' description of what he calls a Level 5 leader. However, there is portion of this book that I'm not too thrilled with, and whether you like it or not, I'm going to tell you why.

Let's first briefly describe what Collins' does in "Good to Great". Basically, Collins and a team of whiz kid graduate students from the University of Colorado determined a group of companies whose stock price outperformed the general stock market by at least 4 times over a fifteen year period.

Regardless of the fact that two (that I know of) of the "Good to Great" companies (Fannie Mae and Circuit City) have collapsed miserably with stock declines of about 80% for each, Collins and company made some useful observations about these companies that were successful for a sustainable period. However, I have a bit of a problem with their little people on the bus philosophy.

One of the biggest action items coming from this book was that you need to get the right people on the bus and if you don't have the right people on the bus, get rid of them. We have to remember that people are lazy, and if they read, skim, or just browse this book, they want to leave with items in their head to take back to the conference room. If the image in their mind is of a bus with a bunch of people that they like sitting quietly in their seats, well, that is what you are going to get.

While Collin's doesn't explain exactly what he means by getting the right people on the bus, I do know that there are going to be plenty of managers that think this means they need to break out the guillotine and get to work. Isn't that what managers do? If they ain't hirin', then they better be firin' or new career opportunities they'll be inquirin'.

I don't think this is what Collins' meant. I think he meant that great companies hire great people that are aligned with the core values of the company. And while this is excellent advice, it is not a remarkable discovery.

What I'm trying to say is that just because a manager doesn't like someone (for personal or professional reasons) or they are not the typical type of employee the company would hire, it doesn't mean that they should be kicked off the bus. The bus is full of a diverse group of skills, talents, and personalities. I don't think Collins should suggest that we get the right people on the bus, but rather, work toward figuring out the right mix of people to have on the bus.

I think the "Get the Right People on the Bus" mentality that people may walk away with from this book encourages autonomy and biased hiring and firing choices. I like what Collins has to say about Level 5 leadership, but this bus stuff is just a little bit off.

Where "Good to Great" just isn't quite right

Blown Budget

Blown Budget

The Great Recession Ain't Bad for Everyone

Sure unemployment is at a staggering 10.2% in the US and while this seems like a horrifically high number (and it is), there are in fact 89.8% (give or take) of the people in this country that have jobs and while they feel sorry for the pour souls trying to live on unemployment checks, they aren't doing too bad at all.

I just read a CNN.com article about how after a tough year in 2008, banker bonuses will be up 40% in 2009. Thank God! Of course this includes banks that received tax-payer funded bailouts in 2008 and were largely responsible for the economic collapse that is affecting 10.2% of the population much more than the other 89.8.

The reality of the situation is that during recessions companies run very lean and cut costs wherever possible. They also may be paying less on financing, credit, and goods and services that they need to run their business. All of this can actually lead to a net increase in profits with workers putting in extra time and working more productively for fear of losing their jobs.

If you are one of those folks who is lucky enough to have a job right now, this recession could be the greatest thing that ever happened to you. Never owned a home? Go buy one and get an $8000 tax credit from the government. Hell, even if you own a house you can get a new one and rake in a $6500 credit. But if you don't have income, you don't get mortgage. If you don't get mortgage, you don't buy house. If you don't buy house, you throw your money away to landlord.

And by the way, the folks that have jobs and are buying houses right now are buying in one of the most beaten down real estate markets ever. So while first time home buyers are pulling in an $8000 credit, they are also buying a house that is 20-30% below its highest value. Not a bad deal.

And you know what is better than having a job right now? That's right - owning a company. Owning a company is like being the captain of a sinking ship - you just bail water or throw people out of the boat to keep it above water. And if you're not floating high enough above the waves, just throw more people off. I'm not sure what the numbers are, and I really don't feel like doing research on it because I'm scared of what I may find, but I'm sure there are plenty of organizations that are actually more profitable during the recession because they have plenty of excuses to cut costs. Isn't this a beautiful country?

I will concede that there have been more than a fair share of banks and other organizations that have gone belly up during this whole thing, and I doubt they walked with very much money (although perhaps they did). But if your organization was strong enough to survive and you were strong enough and had enough connections to keep your job, then The Great Recession could be a very financially advantageous time. So I guess you should take full advantage.

However, if you are in the minority of folks that is burning through savings, racking up credit card debt, and throwing money away to landlords, The Great Recession frickin' sucks.

The Great Recession Ain't Bad for Everyone

How to Manage Your Manager

The relationship between employee and boss is a touchy and at times complicated relationship to negotiate in the workplace. Like any relationship, it takes work, time, and effort by all parties involved in order to make it successful. While conventional wisdom may tell us that the manager should take the lead in fostering a better relationship with their employees, the reality is that leadership without authority is required in order to produce better relations among the manager and managed.

In order to fully understand what is going on in the mind of a manager we must put ourselves into their high priced dress shoes. We have to realize that they are under pressure for the performance of their team. The manager is the single point of responsibility for the team beneath them. So while they may come off like a ruthless thug, this is most likely a result of pressure put on them from above. However, in my experience, most managers want to be "cool". Meaning, they don't want to be a heartless, micro-managing, clock-watching, tyrant that blows up at the smallest of mistakes. This is a balancing act that goes on in the minds of managers that, honestly, takes a lot of education, experience, and talent to master.

I have seen one major point of consistency among managers that I have had through my career and can't quite explain why this is. But managers really don't like to define your role or explain exactly what it is that they expect out you. I'm not sure why this is, but I think it would take a thorough exploration into the psyche of managers to figure it out. I suspect that is has something to do with consistency. The manager wants you to work hard, and this will at times require work outside of your job description. But if there is no job description, perhaps, managers think that this is the best way to get the most out of employees. In my opinion, this is the worst, and this is where employees need to take the lead, and manage your manager.

Managers hate to confront an employee with performance issues, it's a very uncomfortable conversation and most people will avoid this confrontation like a cat avoids a room full of occupied rocking chairs. To help your manager out, you can strike up casual conversation about performance in an effort to better understand expectations. Ask them if this or that worked, or how we may be able to perform better on this in the future. Try to make it constructive and demonstrate an interest in improvement of the team. This takes a huge load off the mind of the manager because they don't have to think about how to confront these very difficult topics and chances are, you don't have a manager that is talented enough to do it well.

Another absolute necessity in cultivating a strong manager-employee relationship is the employee review. This is another one that is avoided like the swing flu section of the emergency room. The employee must again take the lead. My first suggestion is to get an employee review written into your offer letter upon hiring. If this doesn't happen, which is typically the case, you need to ask for one. Present it as a discussion of performance of the team and don't be afraid to give constructive suggestions of how you and your manager can work better and improve your relationship.

Should managers be better at bringing up expectations and performance issues? Yes, absolutely. But just as John Lennon said, we get by with a little help from our friends.

How to Manage Your Manager

Everybody Talks About Design-Build, But What Really Is It?

Design-Build is a term that is thrown around like a broken hammer on the jobsite of a wood-framed house. But do we know exactly what it is? Well no, we don't know exactly what it is, because it's tough to really define anything these days, but there is certainly a common theme among projects that are classified as design build.

Typically when an owner of land or property wants to build on it, they hire an architect who then begins design of the project. At the completion of this long and laborious design phase the job is put out to bid and the lowest price is selected and awarded the job. However, in a design-build contract the designer and builder are one entity. This is the fundamental characteristic of design-build projects. If there is one contract between the owner and the a design-build team, it is a design-build project - bottom line.

This does not mean that architects and contractors need to be working for the same company, because the contractor can hire the designer or vice-versa and this is still considered a design build project.

The design-build method of project delivery foster much more collaboration among team members than the traditional design-bid-build method. Architects may not be as in-tune with construction costs as contractors are and a lack of contractor involvement in the design of a project can lead to costs far exceeding expectations which may then require a literal "back to the drawing board" situation.

The design-build dynamic can also be achieved in a non-design build format which is the project delivery method in which I have been most involved. It entails a negotiated contract with a general contractor and a fast-track design process. So the architect will design a portion of the project and the general contract will be bought out in pieces as design is submitted. This overlap of design and construction produces a very compact schedule which can get a project on-line faster. However, the jobsite becomes a chaotic mess if designers, contractors, and drawings flying through the air like a ticker-tape parade. Sometimes even the architect doesn't know what is supposed to be built.

Design build, if done properly, can significantly improve the schedule of a project and through this collaboration can contribute to better understanding between designers, owners, and contractors. While it can get chaotic, it's certainly worth a try.

Everybody Talks About Design-Build, But What Really Is It?

How to Get Work as a New Construction Company

Being a new construction organization is tremendously difficult. I'm sure this is the case for being any kind of new organization, but construction has a unique set of challenges. These challenges become even more trying during poor economic times and in the construction climate we are in now, the likelihood of a new company getting work becomes darn near impossible.

I've been experiencing these challenges first hand over the past couple months, and I can say that it is certainly as difficult if not more than anybody could really imagine. However, the reality remains they everybody is out looking for work and there are ways to do this. The process just isn't very easy.

Above anything else, a network of potential clients is probably the most advantageous resource for a new company. If there are people for whom you have delivered work in the past while working for another company, a new firm can approach these folks and try to drum up some business. The potential client will have a better feeling about this new firm because, although they are new, there is at least some history of past performance which will establish some confidence in the mind of the client. So that's avenue number one - hit up your past clients.

But what if your network is sparse because you are in a new area or you are working in a slightly different market than one you have worked before? Well, this is where you need to pound the pavement like a marathon runner. You also have to explain to any potential clients what features and benefits your company offers. Construction services are not a commodity, they are unique to every organization. Your company must have a competitive advantage in the marketplace in order to get off the ground. Of course low price can be one of these advantages but there also has to be more. Something creative, something new, something to differentiate yourself from the ranks of ho-hum organization doing similar work.

The next challenge becomes finding clients that have money to do construction work. In this economy finding construction projects is much more difficult than running a marathon and is more along the lines of running an Iron Man Triathlon - and it takes much longer. I recently subscribed to a construction lead service which basically does research in the market and compiles all potential work in one place. I like this in theory, because you at least know there is money available to do these projects and while I have yet to land a job in this fashion, I sure as heck ain't gonna stop tryin'.

And of course there is always the competitive bid on public projects route to obtaining construction work. This game is ruthless. I went to the pre-bid meeting for a waterproofing job about a week ago and there were probably twenty-five companies bidding this thing. The project value is probably around $100k. The owner then has the luxury of disqualifying bids of companies that they don't feel to be qualified for the work. This is of course a very subjective topic, and when they have this many bidders, their standards become much more strict. Then there is of course the problem of bonding. These projects all require bonds and a bonding company can be just as selective with who they bond as an owner can be with who they qualify.

So to sum it up, it's difficult, not impossible, but difficult. I suppose persistence is the key, but you will certainly be no stranger to a strong dose of frustration.

How to Get Work as a New Construction Company

Construction Blog - Construction Economics, Construction Management Leadership

A blog covering everything in the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Real Estate industry - and plus a little bit more.

Construction Blog - Construction Economics, Construction Management Leadership

Yankee Stadium a product of BIM technology

Remember when a pro sports stadium would only cost about $500 million or so to build? Ahhh, they were the good old days of seven or eight years ago. Now, we're putting up ballparks reaching dollar values well above $1 billion. The new Yankee stadium which opened for business this spring complete with a martini bar and steakhouse is the second most expensive sports arena ever built at $1.5 billion, next to London's Wembley Stadium which wasn't very much more.
While the 2009 World Series may or may not be heading back to this monstrosity in the Bronx, Yankee stadium will remain for this season or next as a brilliant product of building information technology.

BIM allows builders to effectively build a facility twice. This collaborative review of the constructability of the building helped minimize costly design clashes and field coordination problems before they occurred in the field.

BIM exemplifies the essence of construction project coordination among owners, general contractors, designers, and subcontractors. And while this takes time, effort, headaches, and of course money up front in a project, the benefits in the construction process can far outweigh any initial cost.

However, it is very difficult to put a number on how much money was saved by using this 3-D, collaborative project delivery method, because you of course don't know what conflicts would have occurred in the field had you not used it. This is actually one of the biggest deterrents to BIM at the moment because there is not enough quantifiable evidence showing it's benefits. Also, subcontractors are wary of getting involved in such projects because of their lack of experience.

James Barett, the Regional Manager of Virtual Construction Technologies for Turner Construction in New York made the following comments about the implementation of BIM on the Yankees Stadium:

This was one of the first major jobs in New York that was doing this at
this level, so the subs were all learning. This was a full coordinated effort
with all the subs. It was such a high profile job it gave us some leverage to
encourage them to do this, as well. Going forward that’s going to mean a lot to
these subs on future jobs and it’s going to mean a lot to us because we’ll have
an idea of who to look for on certain jobs. And now they’re pushing us. They say
“We want this to be a BIM job.”

And what if your subcontracting firm is unfamiliar with BIM at this time?

Frank Falciani, a senior vice president with Skanska USA Builing says,

"Subcontractors should take this downturn that we have right now and invest. If money is available for anything, they should invest in this technology to be ready for the explosion that’s going to happen in 2013 or 2014 when we finally wake up and realize that it’s time to go back to work."

Man, I really hope we get back to work before 2013 or 2014, but in the meantime, I agree that this is a fantastic opportunity to implement BIM into your business operations and can give companies a large advantage over the market.

Yankee Stadium a product of BIM technology

Arctic Construction Methods

Arctic Construction Methods

Dear Mom and Dad, Please Send Money!

I'm so broke that it ain't funny.

Me and about a million (literally) other construction professionals are so broke that we can't even afford to hear a new cut off the Sugarland album from a local jukebox.

The previously mentioned song - "Baby Girl" was actually released in 2004 on Sugarland's debut album "Twice the Speed of Life". I can't believe she's been around that long.

And we certainly can't afford the live concert ticket prices that can get upwards of $100. Who does she think she is - Kenny Chesney?

Anyway, it's getting uglier and uglier and I really don't think there is anything we can do about it. However, I was at a networking event last week for the Design and Construction LinkedIn group and many of the architects and civil engineering firm representatives mentioned some slight uptick in the calls and requests for proposals coming in the door. There could be some hope left. Architecture and other design work will of course precede any uptick in construction.

This sentiment is shared by Jim Haughey, chief economist with Reed Construction Data in a recent market insights webcast. But he warns that it may be until 2011 until the construction industry sees a "good" year. Haughey is predicting no gain in construction spending in 2010 and an 8% gain in 2011. This is after an 11.4% decline in 2009.

So if things aren't going to improve until 2011 - what the &*%$ are we supposed to do until then? Buy a guitar and start cutting a country album? It works for Sugarland. (By the way, her name is actually Jennifer Nettles.)

Well, we could, and it would probably be fun for a while, but the reality is that it wouldn't work out and we would be left in the same situation we are now - No job, no nothin'.

If you are one of those that doesn't want to venture out on your own and start up a company and try to undercut and outperform the bastards that aren't hiring anybody, I suggest you enhance your skill set with training and certifications. The LEED professional accreditation is always a good one to get and if you can get certified, excuse me - accredited in LEED version 3 you could perhaps be of more value than a version 2 LEED AP.

Training in three dimensional CAD programs is another great place to go. If you can whip up drawings in Revit and at least understand the process of Building Information Modeling, you could be at a huge advantage in the marketplace.

Local community colleges are great places to look for courses on this kind of stuff. I once took a leadership class at a community college taught by a Harvard grad and retired CEO of several Fortune 500 companies.

So my suggestion, get training in the growing areas of the field and try to get hired before things start to improve in 2011. And if a year goes by and you still don't have anything? Well, you better tune up that acoustic guitar.

Dear Mom and Dad, Please Send Money!

We've Heard About Mentors, but Have Never Really Seen Them

Mentors in the construction industry are kind of like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot - there are plenty of stories, but when it comes to actual sightings, the list becomes short and very questionable.

However, unlike Bigfoot and the Lock Ness Monster, mentors in the construction industry did, in fact exist at one time. This is according to Don L. Short II, a blogger for the Engineering News Record website. Mr. Short wrote an excel piece titled, The Gradual Decline of Mentoring, In Every Area of Construction. He discusses the phasing out of mentoring programs in construction organizations due to an effort to cut cost and increase profits all in the short term - shocking, I know.

Note: After an exhaustive fifteen minute research session on Wikipedia, I'm afraid that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are both myths. I'm very sorry for this, but I think it's time we all move on.

Don says"

"One of these days the industry will need to go back to the 1960’s (my experience basis) to learn profit is not a dirty word. Profit is needed to provide for the “cost” of mentoring and training craft, staff and management. This provides better employees.Better employees provide better productivity. Better productivity leads to better projects. Better projects lead to profits. This would seem to be a winning proposition for anyone involved in the construction industry – owners, architects, vendors and contractors alike."

Don, I don't think companies today think profit is a dirty word, but it's more the investment of profits on human resources that makes them cringe.

Nowadays, going to work for a construction company is like joining a new series of Survivor, except everyone else has been on the island for twenty years and you don't know jack about how to do any of the physical challenges that could give you immunity for another episode.

So you scratch and claw and build every alliance possible, preferably with higher-ups, so you may be able to survive until the end of the project. At which time, you may or may not be granted permission to return for the next season due to budget cuts by the producers in the main office.

Construction companies kind of have a "you take care of your own" mentality. Meaning, the folks that have formed relationships on past projects look out for each other down the road. And I imagine that mentors look out for their mentees, but I wouldn't know for sure because, you know, I've never had one.

But honestly, at this point, I think the mentoring philosophy may be a little outdated. I would like it to instead be a mutual understanding relationship between older and younger folks in an organization. Because not only does a younger person have a lot to learn from the older, but the opposite is true as well. This is not a question of authority or an attempt at pushing the older folk out before their time, but rather an effort at becoming a more educated and cohesive organization.

But of course, this would take time, which would cost money, which would eat into short-term profits. So perhaps we'll have to wait.

We've Heard About Mentors, but Have Never Really Seen Them

In The Eyes of an Employer, Is it Better to be Single or Married?

The issue of marital status is always a very touchy one in the interview room. Construction companies are particularly interested in this topic for some reason, but it's not always an easy thing to just come out and ask. I'm not sure if it is necessarily illegal to ask, but as an interviewer, it's probably safer to in the least, dance around the subject.

I've never been asked directly if I was married, but I have been asked, "So you may be married, I don't know." I took the bait on this one and said that I was not married. I was hired for a position seventy miles away from the home office in a place to where someone who was married to a working spouse with intentions of starting a family would probably not move.

The geographical challenges facing the staffing of construction projects make marital status a topic of interest when hiring. However, once you work for the company I'm pretty sure that they want you married. I was at a company meeting once where new people to the organization were being introduced to the rest of the company. The person doing the introductions mentioned my name and the fact that I was single, but looking to change that.

Uhh, I don't remember discussing my marital goals with this person, so it left me a bit curious about him taking the liberty to make this assumption in front of the entire company.

In my experience, construction companies want you married and preferably to someone who doesn't work and is willing to move anywhere and everywhere the company sends them. Despite the conservative nature of the construction industry, by now, this is not only difficult to achieve, but is darn near impossible.

So what do you do if you really want to know if someone is married in a job interview? You need to ask questions like, "Is there anything that would keep you from travelling or potentially moving with this company?" Regardless of whether it is legal or not to ask about marital status, it is certainly in poor taste.

And what if you are being interviewed? Well, this is completely up to you. My personal opinion is that marital status should be kept free and clear of the workplace and I'm not going lean one way or the other.

Hell, if I think it will help, I may even throw a ring on my finger for the day.

In The Eyes of an Employer, Is it Better to be Single or Married?

Did You Get Laid Off, Or Did You Get Fired?

There is always a very thin line between getting laid off due to lack of work and getting fired, similar to the thin line between genius and insanity I suppose. I know a ton of people at the moment who are laid off (including myself), but my question is: were they really laid off, or did they get fired?

In order to answer this question, we need to put ourselves in the position of the business owner or executive. We must also keep in mind that these folks have one goal: make more money. They're like squirrels who are running around right before winter hits with one thought on their mind, "Gotta get more nuts, gotta get more nuts."

"Gotta make more money, gotta make more money."

So suppose this sharp witted business owner, manager, or executive is faced with a situation where they need to downsize their staff, perhaps it is because of lack of work, or perhaps it's because of lack of budget, or perhaps they just feel like getting rid of somebody. In any case, they are going to target the person or persons who make them the least amount of money. And I'm not talking about long term, sustainable profits, I'm talking about short term, money in front of their face now.

So they've got their prey in the cross-hairs like a crocodile would before attacking a zebra as it tries to cross an African river (I actually just saw a Discovery channel bit on this and it was absolutely wild). They circle the soon to be victim for a while and then attack with a call into the office. But in surprising contrast to the manager's typically ruthless personality, instead of saying, "You're fired", he says, "You're laid off due to lack of work." Interesting.

Are they doing this out of the goodness of their heart so you can collect unemployment and not have to tell a future employer that you got fired? Well, perhaps, but they are also doing this so the unemployment check may dissuade you from suing them for wrongful termination. If you get fired or quit, it becomes much more difficult to collect unemployment.

In Delaware, the highest amount you can collect from unemployment is $355 per week which includes a $25 addition from the federal government. So this amounts to $18,460 per year. The income level at the poverty line in the US in 2009 for a family of four is $22,050 per year.

So they tell a lie about why you're getting let go, banking that a poverty level income will keep you from suing them - and it works. However, I honestly don't know why they do this. A company can let go of employees as much as they like for any reason especially if this is written in the offer letter. Plus, how many people without a job can afford a team of lawyers to take down an established company? Not me.

I just really wish people would tell the truth - it's tough to come by nowadays. If I'm getting fired, for God's sake fire me! You can keep your poverty level income; I've got bigger problems.

Did You Get Laid Off, Or Did You Get Fired?

What Are Derivatives Anyway, And How Did They Screw Up Our Country?

I always liked Calculus for some reason. Not really sure why, but I felt like it was a very abstract method of thinking that was kind of cool. I even ended up tutoring Calculus while in college - it was quite a hoot. However, this experience didn't really prepare me for figuring out the financial mess we are now in and how we got there.

One of the first things you learn in Calculus is how to calculate a derivative. This calculation takes a line or curve and determines what the slope of a line tangent would be at any given point. There is evidently some reason you would want to make this calculation that may be of some benefit to somebody somewhere, but regardless, the value of the derivative is, in fact derived from the value of the original curve.

I just saw a tee-shirt advertised bearing the words, "I wish I were a derivative so I could lie tangent to your curves." I'll have to get that one.

This is similarly the case in the lovely world of finance where some sharp witted banker will occasionally take the bold approach of selling a security that is of no real value itself, but it's value is derived from the value of something else. Got it? Now give me all your money, I'll print up some notes derived from the value of my car loan and we'll be on our merry way. I'll call you in a few months with your pay-out.

I'm not sure why, but I spent some significant time trying to learn what a derivative was and how they screwed up our country. And through several hours of reading "derivatives for dummies" websites, I still don't really know, but I will do my best to give a somewhat coherent explanation.

A derivative is a security whose value is derived from the value of something else. They are often used as a method of shifting risk of a volatile item. When you buy the futures of a commodity, the value of that note is derived from the price of the commodity. It's kind of like a bet on where the value of the commodity is going to go.

I was trying to think of an analogy and the best I could come up with was this: suppose I placed a bet that Tiger Woods would shoot under 75 in the first round of the 2010 Master's golf tournament. I somehow roped somebody into giving me ten to one odds that Tiger would not shoot less than 75. So since I was nearly certain that Tiger would shoot less than 75 (he always does), my bet was very valuable in my mind. However I was little nervous. I asked some guy at the bar if I could give him twenty bucks to pay off my $100 bet should Tiger shoot over 75. This guy gladly took the bet because Tiger never shoots over 75.

Or maybe I should sell the value of my bet and then pay the bet and the guy I sold the security to should Tiger shoot over 75. I honestly don't know - this stuff is really confusing.

Not convinced? How about this one. When I worked for the steel company, we would have to bid a job well before we actually bought the steel from the mill. There is some significant risk here because the price of steel will fluctuate significantly. We would buy an insurance policy that locked in the price of the steel at the price it was during our bid. Now, that insurance policy would become very valuable if the price of steel skyrocketed, however, it would be pretty much worthless if the price dropped. So if I were to start trading on the value of that insurance policy, it's value would be derived from the price of steel. I think that's a little closer.

I know those examples kind of suck, so here's a little bit better description that may help.

The confusing nature of derivatives actually works to the advantage of the investment banks because they can falsely report the value of these derivatives to accountants or prospective buyers and nobody will be able to prove them wrong. They probably don't even know what they are worth themselves!

I think Warren Buffet had a funny feeling that we may be headed down the wrong path when in 2002 he said, "Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal." I'll say.

So now that we know (or in my case, don't know), what derivatives are, we can accurately ascertain how they caused the financial and economic mess we are in. Uhhh, I can't quite nail down that one either. I presume that since the majority of the derivatives sold were tied to mortgages that defaulted, banks started to lose some serious money not only from the defaulted mortgages, but also the lack of value from their derivatives. Once the the cards started to collapse and the banks started failing, people started pulling their money closer and now banks are too scared to loan money which stifles any kind of economic growth.

Anyway, the real sad thing about this was that there were some of the smartest engineers and scientists in this country who were stuffed in cubes calculating derivatives instead of working in a truly productive setting of engineering, construction, or manufacturing. And why were they working for investment banks instead of engineering firms? It's because engineering firms don't pay shit compared to investment banks. So instead of our smartest people actually adding value to our country they were a bunch of crooked thieves stealing money. It's funny how really smart people do really dumb things.

What Are Derivatives Anyway, And How Did They Screw Up Our Country?

What is all this Six Sigma stuff and can it really be applied to construction?

I'm sure most have heard about the Six Sigma method of quality management, but I doubt many know exactly what it is or how it can be implemented. I didn't know either until I did some minor research and my memory of what I studied in school was refreshed, so without making a statistical analysis too boring, I'll attempt to give a brief, but thought provoking explanation of what Six Sigma is and how (if) it can be implemented in a construction setting.

For people in the world of statistics, one of their most inspiring discoveries is that of the bell curve and how it applies to the world in which we live. Basically, everything on earth, and possibly in the universe falls, statistically, into some version of a bell curve. For example, if I were to plot a histogram of my golf scores over the past five years, there would be a mean of the scores which would be the highest number (top of the bell) and then two tails of higher and lower scores.

So everything from the number of cups of coffee you drink each day to the variance of IQ scores will fall into some distribution of a bell curve. Itwould be safe to assume that quality items or as they are called, defects, will also follow this same distribution either in manufacturing or construction.

So what Six Sigma intends to do is take the number of defects in a particular process down to six standard deviations away from the mean (middle of the curve). Basically, this amounts to 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO).

*Note: Six standard deviations from the mean would actually be about two hundred times less than 3.4 DPMO, but there is some theoretical shift of 1.5 sigma that occurs in the calculation that may or may not be legitimate and I don't really understand it. In either case, 3.4 or 0.015 DPMO is pretty damn good for a construction project so for all intents and purposes the difference is negligible.

So this is a nice little goal to set for yourself, but how might one go about reaching this pinnacle of quality? Six Sigma projects follow two project methodologies comprising five phases each with the acronyms DMAIC and DMADV.

DMAIC is used for projects aimed at improving an existing business process.
DMADV is used for projects aimed at creating new product or process design.

The DMAIC project methodology has five phases:
Define high-level project goals and the current process.
Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data.
Analyze the data to verify cause-and-effect relationships. Improve or optimize the process based upon data analysis. Control to ensure that any deviations from target are corrected before they result in defects.

DMADV
Define design goals that are consistent with customer demands and the enterprise strategy.
Measure and identify CTQs (characteristics that are Critical To Quality), product capabilities, production process capability, and risks.
Analyze to develop and design alternatives, create a high-level design and evaluate design capability to select the best design.
Design details, optimize the design, and plan for design verification.
Verify the design, set up pilot runs, implement the production process and hand it over to the process owners.

My keen intuition tells me that construction projects will fall into the DMADV because every construction project is different. Which brings us to the main obstacle of implementing Six Sigma on a construction project: Construction is not manufacturing!

Six Sigma was developed by Motorola to improve quality. Companies like Motorola have the luxury of having design and manufacturing all in house and not to mention the fact that they are building the same thing over and over. Imagine trying to put an automobile together when it is not only a unique design, but every part of the car is installed by a different company! And then implement a quality management system for every unique installation that came down the line.

Construction isn't quite that difficult because you are working on a much bigger scale but we have to realize that implementing manufacturing principles into construction is just not that easy. Plus the whole Six Sigma black belt certification process is a little cheesy. However, a six sigma level of quality is nothing short of a fantastic accomplishment.

What is all this Six Sigma stuff and can it really be applied to construction?

More tough times for Constructonomics

After attending a pre-bid meeting for a door replacement job for the City of Philadalphia, I was all set to deliver a bid for the project after ironing out some minor details with the minority requirements and union politics. However, last week I received a call from someone in the City of Philadelphia procurement office. The woman asked for my fax number so she could send me a letter. Well, I don't have a fax machine, so this was a little difficult.

I should probably get a fax machine even though they are rather pointless these days. It's just as easy to scan a document in and send it over email. Plus you have an instant electronic copy of the correspondence.

So I told her that I didn't have a fax and I asked if she could scan the letter and send it over email. I was kind of surprised that she was actually willing to do this because the City of Philadelphia isn't typically the most accommodating to contractors who are trying to bid on their work. Anyway, I received the email and attached was a letter stating that I was disqualified from the bid on Stenton Manor Door Replacement. The reasons for the disqualification were as follows:

1. Late submission of the Supplemental Prequalification Questionnaire

2. The questionnaire does not reflect that the bidder has successfully completed contracts of equivalent scope and comparative magnitude

3. The bidder did not demonstrate sufficient financial resources to complete the project.

Just for the record, I had my pre-qual questionnaire in on time, and I didn't get the supplement until the day it was supposedly due. They were never clear about whether the supplement was due on the same day or not. So if this was the reason for my disqualification, why did they go into further explanation about experience and financial resources, both of which could be substantially argued?

I decided to give the Philadelphia procurement commissioner, Hugh Ortman, a call to discuss this bit further.

Surprisingly, I actually got Mr. Ortman on the phone on my first try and he was very polite in listening to my side of the story and giving some further explanation. I explained that while my company is new, I have eight years of construction industry experience and this would serve as more than enough to do a small door replacement job. Mr. Ortman explained that my personal experience is all well and good, but it's the experience of the company that is looked at in determining qualified bidders.

I suppose this makes sense from a management standpoint, but in my case the City lost an opportunity to get some very cheap labor on a job that was far less complicated than other's I have worked on. I was advised to come back in a year or two when I get some jobs under my belt. It feels like a chicken and egg scenario.

At first I was curious if I just didn't slip the right person a twenty or something, but I guess I'll try again down the road, but that time any "financial resources" I have may be a thing of the past.

More tough times for Constructonomics

To Union or Not to Union

I worked for a steel fabricator and erector for about a year (before I was politely asked to leave for reasons of which I am still unsure) who does the majority of their work in Philadelphia, New York City, and Atlantic City - all union towns. I once asked one of the old-timers at the company what would happen if we started erecting steel in one of these towns with non-union iron-workers. He looked at me like I just asked what would happen if the sun burnt out tomorrow. He replied, "You would not build a job non-union in Philadelphia."

I wonder if some thug named Joey would track you down and kill you? I'm certainly not going to find out. However, I am in a little bit of a quandary about a job in Philadelphia that I am bidding. The job is small so there is a chance that I could fly under the radar of the union, and honestly the chances of getting "taken care of" by the union is pretty slim. However, since this is a publicly advertised job, the chances of getting at least some picketers or something is relatively high given the number of union workers that are "on the bench". I've been advised to, "not worry about it".....gulp.

The other option of course is to hire a union contractor to do the job, which honestly isn't that bad of an idea, since the city has prevailing wages that must be paid to worker regardless of their union status. This is to ensure the competitiveness of the union. The union iron-workers that erected steel for me during my brief but eventful stint with the steel erector were good and certainly in the same league as any non-union iron-workers I've worked with.

The problem is that as a new company, subcontractors aren't jumping out of their chair in hopes of bidding one of my jobs. This is the disadvantage of not having a strong network of contacts in the area when starting a business. However, I must play the hand I am dealt.

I'm actually in favor of unions. Perhaps they push too hard at times, but if they were not there everything would be built by illegal immigrants whose bodies are disposed of in the nearest river after the job. This is a shame that human beings would do this just to make money, but it is unfortunately the case. A union provides a worker some security from fluctuations in the construction market that inevitably come along. If they are not working at the moment, they are still paid (I'm not sure if it is 100% or not) and they are given health and vacation benefits through the union instead of leaving it up to some stingy business owner that will probably just hire them on a temporary basis.

Unions absolutely give workers some security in their life so they can focus more on the task at hand and less about whether or not they will have a job tomorrow. As a construction manager I was constantly concerned about what was going to happen when we were finished the job I was working on and this absolutely affected my performance. I would ask where I'm going to go after this job, and they would skirt the question or make up a lie. This made me angry and anxious and it certainly didn't make me want to work harder for the organization. I eventually quit this company because they couldn't give me a straight answer on where my next job was going to be when we were nearly finished the one I was on. I decided to take one in the hand rather than something that may or may not be in the bush. Maybe I'll start a construction manager and project engineer union.

So for this small job I'm bidding, I'm hoping that I can find a union contractor, and if I can't, I may have to do some smooth talking to a picketer, but regardless, unions have their place and I've got no problem with them.

To Union or Not to Union

Construction Financial Leaders Unveil Third CONFINDEX of 2009; Industry Construction Conditions Show Modest Stabilization

Princeton, N. J. — The Construction Financial Management Association (CFMA) has just released its latest CONFINDEX reading, for the third quarter 2009. In its latest reading, CONFINDEX showed a modest improvement, a slim uptick since the June 2009 reading, from 89 to 91. CONFINDEX remains in negative territory since the fourth quarter 2008.

Noteworthy to this latest quarterly reading, the Financial Conditions and Current Confidence sub indices are projecting 2010 expectations to be positive. These indices include General Business condition, Availability of Bank Credit, Bonding Credit and Total Backlog.

“The responses to all these issues were well into positive territory for 2010,” said Jim Bartsch, Director of Research and Analysis for CFMA.

CONFINDEX was launched last year as a proprietary construction industry assessment by 200 randomly chosen CFOs in the commercial construction sector. Released quarterly, it’s comprised of eight elements used to calculate a net score of confidence, including the state of construction industry conditions and total backlog, and availability of bank credit, bonding credit and working capital. It is also made up of four sub-indices, such as business conditions, financial conditions, current confidence and outlook for the next year.

CONFINDEX next reading is scheduled for release in December 2009.

The Construction Financial Management Association is the only non-profit organization dedicated to serving the financial professional in the construction industry. Established in 1981, it serves more than 7,000 members in 89 chapters across the United States, offering an award-winning business journal in addition to a variety of educational and professional development programs through its chapter network, at its Annual Conference & Exhibition, and via the Internet. Membership in CFMA provides construction financial professionals with unique opportunities for industry networking, career development, and personal growth.

Construction Financial Leaders Unveil Third CONFINDEX of 2009; Industry Construction Conditions Show Modest Stabilization

Instant Egomaniac: Just Add Promotion

What is it with promotions and workplace authority that makes people think they should be sitting at the right hand of God above. I think it has something to do with the emphasis we place on career success in this country. It would be interesting to study the behaviour of managers in countries with less career pressure to see how they differ from managers in this country. Good luck getting a grant for that one.

In construction, everybody is an egomaniac to begin with, so you can only imagine what happens when you promote someone who is already a legend in their own mind. You get a larger than life superhero who is going to shoulder this company and take them to the top of the mountain. It isn't too pretty.

The kind of ironic thing is that there is significant research and discussion about what makes a good manager and much of this discussion argues that the personality types that perform the best as managers are much more humble, empathetic, and caring than one may expect. These "soft" skill are quite contrary to hard skills that were probably required to get a promotion in the first place. This, in my opinion, is where truly talented people can adapt to the changing environment and perform well in a role quite different from the one they had become so comfortably successful. Education of managment technigues also helps. But there are also those(even with education), who cannot adapt properly and flap around like a sea bass that just jumped in the boat.

Jim Collins, the author of Good to Great, claims that this fascination with a larger than life, rock-star leader is detrimental to successful organizational performance and, through extensive research, has found that an appropriate model of leadership is directly responsible for strong organizational performance.

Bob Vanourek, developed a 7 dimension Core Leadership Model, and the number one dimension is that the leader must possess a "healthy personal core". Fist-pounding, tyrannt, egomaniacs, are certainly far from healthy.

Jeff Arnold recently posted an article called Leaders Look Bad on his Zen Leadership Blog. He talks about how strong leaders are not afraid of admitting fault, mistakes, or lack of knowledge even at the risk of looking incompetent to co-workers and subordinates.

Unfortunately, conventional wisdom and to some degree the working environment encourages us to inflate our egos slightly upon promotion. Perhaps our ego ain't our amigo and we should try keep it in check.

Instant Egomaniac: Just Add Promotion

Several Charged in NYC Construction Corruption

By JENNIFER PELTZ (AP) – 10/1/09 4pm

NEW YORK — Six former New York City building inspectors, two reputed Lucchese crime family leaders and more than two dozen other people and businesses were indicted Thursday in a sprawling racketeering case that ranges from construction bribes to gun trafficking.

The encyclopedic indictment grew out of a gambling investigation and ultimately spanned from a betting operation in Costa Rica to construction bribes in the Bronx, authorities said.

The charges are the latest in a string of recent cases targeting construction corruption. They include a July indictment accusing a concrete testing company of faking test results on dozens of high-profile projects and a case charging a top city crane inspector with taking bribes to fake inspection reports.

Aided by wiretaps and even a bug in a restaurant, Manhattan prosecutors charged some 29 people and four construction and real estate companies. Together, they engineered about $120,000 in bribes and more than $400 million in profits from gambling and other crimes, authorities said.

"The case mushroomed," said Patrick Dugan, chief of the Manhattan district attorney's investigative division. "We uncovered the corrupt arrangements between all these individuals."

Most of the defendants were due to be arraigned later Thursday on charges including enterprise corruption — New York state's version of racketeering. Authorities still are looking for two defendants.

Three members of the Lucchese organization actually worked at the city Department of Buildings as inspectors, two of them juggling their government jobs with drug and weapons trafficking, loan sharking and illegal gambling behind the scenes, prosecutors said. Three other ex-inspectors also are accused of taking bribes.

Together, they corruptly voided violations, lifted stop-work orders and sped up inspections at more than a dozen construction sites and buildings in Manhattan and the Bronx, prosecutors said. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said all the locations have been reinspected and are safe.

One building contractor paid $44,000 to ensure his inspection would come out well, District Attorney Robert Morgenthau said. A nightclub owner paid more than $29,000 to expedite and inspection and ward off violations, the DA said.

The six accused inspectors have resigned or been fired, prosecutors said.

The city Department of Buildings didn't immediately return a telephone call.

Several Charged in NYC Construction Corruption

Does Your Company Do Employee Reviews? I Think I Know.

When was your last employee review? Now, I'm not talking about some pat on the back for a job well done, or a passive aggressive comment from your boss at the water cooler, I'm talking about a sit down, face-to-face, knock-down, drag-out, employee review. I doubt it was anytime soon.

In my brief (but eventful) tour through the working World, I have found that construction and engineering folk would rather slice off their fingertips with a diamond-blade grinder than give an employee review. I even had a six month review written into the offer letters with one of my employers and when six months was up they kept saying that they'll get to it next week until they finally told someone else in the office to tell me, "I didn't have to worry about getting fired". Incidentally, I was fired five months later but they told me I was getting laid off. That was so nice of them.

I personally love employee reviews. I like sitting around having discussion about improvement - it's so much damn better than sticking your face in an Excel spreadsheet or counting square feet of drywall. I think of it as more of a discussion about how the operation is going and what improvement can be made to the situation.

So why are bosses so deathly afraid of giving employee reviews? Well, I don't know. Perhaps they are afraid of what is going to come out in the review, if they'll be painted into a corner about something they said during the year which will make them look bad in front of their boss. Seriously, this is the crazy stuff that runs through people's minds. Regardless, employee reviews are also a rare opportunity for employees to look their bosses in the eyes, ask some real questions and come up with a plan about where things will be heading.

It may also be because they simply don't know what to say. I've seen far too often the modus operandi for companies is to hire someone, give them little direction and no feedback and then fire them when they decide they don't like them. This is by far the laziest style of management possible. It's really not that hard to list ten to fifteen bullet point responsibilities of a particular job. Then, at the annual employee review, go over the bullet points and talk about what is going well and what needs improvement. It's also good to try to make the positives outweigh the negatives. Some people think there should be three positives to every negative, but in construction, when young employees are treated like chimpanzees who just escaped from the zoo, a fifty-fifty split will suffice.

Employers and employees both benefit from reviews, it's a win-win and people avoid them like a room full of airborne asbestos. Reviews also act as good opportunity to document performance in case of a necessary dismissal, and also keeps someone from firing an employee just because they don't like them (at least it can help). So let's be men, and women about this and give your employees reviews. If you have a job then ask your boss for a review.

It's a win-win.

Does Your Company Do Employee Reviews? I Think I Know.

Stimulus Package - Where Are You?

Many professionals in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry, employed or otherwise, are wondering when this federal stimulus money appropriated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is going to start making it's way to the pockets of designers and contractors.

Well, this answer is unfortunately difficult to nail down, however, it is rather clear that the great majority of this money has yet to be released. I'm not exactly sure why, six months after the signing of the ARRA, we are still wondering when this money is going to start flowing. The most recent report from the Government Accountability Office shows that only 5.1% of the $27.6 billion appropriated for highway infrastructure projects has been spent.

While the government is probably partially to blame for some of this, shall we say, sluggish release of stimulus funding, the nature of the construction industry is partially to blame as well. While the funding was at least partially intended to fund "shovel ready" projects, the reality is that a truly shovel ready project is kind of like the study of micro-economics - it doesn't really exist.

The term, "shovel ready" is misleading, and certainly over-used. If plans have been shelved for several years, in the very least the existing conditions have to be verified and brought up to date. What construction has taken place since these plans were generated? Has there been erosion, or effects of weather? What maintenance issues from existing structures have arisen and now need to be dealt with? What code requirements have changed since the initial design? Are the LEED certification requirements the same as they were when the plans were generated?
All of this stuff takes time. So even with a project that was shelved for several years, we can't just pick up the plans grab, our shovel and hard-hat, walk out the door, rev up the bulldozer, and start digging.

The majority of the federal stimulus money is schedule to be dolled out in 2010, so this coupled with perhaps an improving private sector economy could bring more clients in the doors of design firms and more plans in the doors of contractors - and just maybe a collaboration of designers and contractors on new projects.

So once we push this massive snowball down the hill and get it rolling it will pick up steam and could perhaps start rolling out of control.

Stimulus Package - Where Are You?

Michael Moore's trash talk on capitalism certainly raises some questions

"Capitalism: A Love Story", is the tongue-in-cheek title of Michael Moore's latest film that trashes the people who run our country. But honestly, he's tough to argue with - very tough.

Larry King tried hard Wednesday night to catch Mr. Moore off his guard and paint him into a corner, but the goofy kid from Michigan was having nothing of it.

Larry took a shot with, "Are you saying the investor is more important than the employee?"

Moore, like a prime of his career, Mike Tyson, fired back with,

"Yes. The investor --and the investor, these days, they want the short-term, quick profit and they want it now. But in the long-term, here's what happened. When I was on this show 20 years ago, 20 years ago this week, I was here with "Roger and Me".

And General Motors, that year, made a profit of $4 billion. And yet they had just laid off another 30,000 people. Now, why would you lay people off when you're making a record profit of $4 billion?

I mean that was totally insane. But they thought, well, you know, we can make a
bigger profit. Maybe we can make $4.2 billion if we move those jobs to Mexico.
And so they're always, you know, we can make a little bit more money if we do
this. By firing those workers, Larry, they got rid of the very people who buy
their cars."

Moore's words sting harder than seeing a pink paper on your keyboard when you come back from lunch. They sting, because he's so damn right. Nobody can really argue with him, and the only reason he has the guts to say it is because he's already a millionaire from making documentary movies. It's not like some unemployed nobody is going to start ranting about how much our economic system sucks on a blog or something...ahem.

From what I gather about Moore's overall theme is that our economic system of capitalism has gotten very far away from democracy. He's saying that the majority, while under the illusion of having some control over what goes on, actually has none.

Now, I'm not sure if this is true in a political sense, because we still elect officials and that system seems to be relatively fair. However, I do know that the majority of organizations in which we work are so far from a democracy that we might as well have red flags flying high outside every office building. For profit organization are straight up dictatorships where a small group of elite officials run the whole thing while the rest fight like hell to break through the ceiling and rub elbows with the CEO and his son-in-law on the corporate jet. If you speak up about how the little guy is getting the shaft in an organization, just wait and see how long it takes to be shown the door. You have two options, you can stay and put up with the way things are run, or quit.

Moore says,

"It's set up like a pyramid, so that the richest 1% at the top have more
financial wealth than the 95% beneath them. But the trick here is to get
the 95% believing that if they work hard and slave away, they would get to the
top of the pyramid. Of course, as we know, only a few people can stand on top of
a pyramid."

I guess the rebuttal to Moore's little rant is while there is clearly BS going on in large corporations nobody is forcing you to work for them. He grew up in Flint, Michigan where GM was only show in town. Factory workers in Flint had little choice about who was going to sign their paycheck. But in the rest of the country, darn near the majority of people work for small companies, and while smaller organizations can certainly show signs of beating up the little guy, the hierarchy can be much less brutal to navigate.

The construction industry can be looked at as a rather accurate cross section of the overall organizational picture in this country, however, the major difference being that the overwhelming majority (over 90%) of construction organizations have less than fifty people. And while the sneaky tricks pulled by business owners are still evident, there is often plenty of opportunity to jump ship within the same town or even street, which may place a little higher premium on keeping employees. But really, who the hell knows.

Oh well, reinventing the economic wheel in this country probably won't happen, and it will almost certainly not be started by a filmmaker, but it definitely makes people think about what is going on and allows them to make more informed choices about what they are going to do with their life. At least the freedom to choose is still here.

Michael Moore's trash talk on capitalism certainly raises some questions

Guess What? LEED Is Not Alone

Do you ever wonder if we are are all alone in this big Universe? With all those solar systems, galaxies, planets, dwarf planets, black holes, stars, suns, and supernovas, its seems hard to believe that we are the only folk flying around on a big blue marble.

While I can't tell you for sure if there is extraterrestrial life (although I have a pretty good idea), I can tell you that LEED is not the only rating system for the certification of green buildings. I learned this while taking a gander at the Construction Informer blog by Duane Craig. Duane made note that there is another green rating system called Green Globes. With a similar method to giving buildings a tiered system of rating their green building initiatives.

While allowing LEED to be the only kid on the block probably doesn't do too much benefit for the cost of green building certification, learning and applying another rating system makes my stomach start to turn and my face being the only thing turner brighter shades of green.

According to a study by the University of Minnesota, "nearly 80 percent of the categories available for points in Green Globes are also addressed in LEED 2.2 and that over 85 percent of the categories specified in LEED 2.2 are addressed in Green Globes." The same study indicated that there was only moderate dissimilarity between the rating standards, but that LEED has a slightly greater emphasis on material choices and Green Globes has a slightly greater emphasis on saving energy.

Green Globes also has a lower cost at about $500 per assessment. LEED certification can cost several thousand dollars just for the assessment and the USGBC can tend to have their nose up in the air about how quickly they get to your project.

And believe it or not there are more green building standards such as BREEAM, the GBC tool, and the Minnesota Design Guidelines, but I really hope we don't have to start playing a game where we select what system to use and then have to select all the green initiatives. Honestly, one is enough and two at the most, but let's just stop there.

However, nobody knows how big the Universe actually is.

Guess What? LEED Is Not Alone

Bernanke says recession is over - Can we get that in writing?

"The recession is likely over."

These are the words of Fed Chairmen Ben Bernanke, however, his use of elusive words like "likely" worries me and bit. Maybe I'll tell the credit card that I will most likely pay them this month depending on the growth of our economy that has most likely emerged from recession. I'll ask them to hold the finance charges and late fees until the third quarter GDP numbers are finalized.

Bernanke also said that interests rates will stay "exceptionally low" for an "extended period". Well, the stack of unpaid bills on my kitchen counter is getting "exceptionally" high and I'm a little worried about spending an "extended period" in debtors prison.

This declaration of independence from the worst recession in 80 years comes at a time when the majority of the federal stimulus money is getting dolled out in the country's 2010 fiscal year which starts this month. So by this time next year, we'll be rolling in jobs and money. Well, in the spirit of nebulous discussion, I will go on record and say, perhaps.

I will also say that in my observation of Bernanke since he took over for Alan Greenspan in 2006, he has been "exceptionally" careful with what he says publicly. It seems like the whole World hangs on his every syllable, so I doubt that he would make statements like this if they were not "relatively" close to being accurate.

So the US is likely out of the recession however unemployment is still rising and construction billing continues to decline. The problem, is that construction, of course, shows lagging response to the growth of the economy, so we may have to wait until Bernanke removes the tricky adjectives (or are they adverbs?) from his prepared statements before we're seeing real-life improvement before our eyes.

Despite Mr. Bernanke's aversion to commitment, I think we can all feel very optimistic about America's resilience and our ability to emerge, alive and kicking from a horrific economic state. However, this is only likely to be the case.

Bernanke says recession is over - Can we get that in writing?