Transcript Dr. Changelove’s Tips for Effective Presentations or:

The Value of Civil Engineering Research
to Building Design & Construction Practitioners
Perspectives, Cases, and Commentary
Robert K. Tener, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE
Executive Director, Charles Pankow Foundation
Claremont, California
PURPOSES TODAY
• Illustrate current research programs
that are delivering high value products
to building design & construction project
teams
• Characterize why they work well
• Commentary for CE academics
CONTEXT
• Building design & construction sector of U.S. construction
industry
• Viewpoint: Delivering needed new knowledge from
applied R&D
• Current view (2006 – 2010 +)
• Three case institutions:
 Construction Industry Institute (CII)
 Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI)
 Charles Pankow Foundation (CPF)
THE CONTINUUM OF INNOVATION
Basic
Research
Applied
Research
Product/
Component/
System
Development
Proofs/
Pilots/
Approvals
Dissemination &
Diffusion
CPF’s Focus
Users
Users
Adopt/
Adopt/
Commercial
Commercia
Utilization
l Utilization
Operations
& Maintenance
The Six Key Factors That
Drive High-Value Applied R&D
•
Need-based research
•
“Industry Champion” as user/driver
•
Industry stakeholders co-funding ($$$ + in-kind)
•
Robust practitioner / P.I. collaboration
•
Deliverables  useful @ Day 1 (“codifiable”)
•
Proactive dissemination & diffusion
CII: A Leader in the Construction Industry
• Knowledge creation through CII research to define best practices,
breakthroughs, and industry norms.
• Knowledge dissemination through CII research publications,
implementation guides, educational materials, workshops, and
conferences.
• Knowledge management, organization, and assessment of relevance of
the 450-plus CII documents and publications.
• Knowledge assessment of the impact of CII practices through the
benchmarking and metrics program.
Through these knowledge processes, CII enhances the business
effectiveness, sustainability, and global competitiveness of CII
members and lifting the construction industry.
CII OVERVIEW
(Appreciation to Wayne Crew, Director, CII)
• 1983 Origin: Industry Needs (CICE Study)
• First to bring research to engineering-construction world
• CII philosophy: Results/Performance Oriented
• Safety + Costs + Schedule + Quality
• High level of knowledge transfer to industry
•  Benchmarking & Metrics measure results 
• Member - based programs (114 industry members today)
• Heavy industrial construction = historic core
• $35,000 ~ $40,000 annual member firm dues
• “Building Sector Community of Practice” = recent, growing
CII OVERVIEW
(cont’d)
• Owner / contractor member balance & influence
• High member involvement in R&D work – as the
“customer”
• 23 universities involved in current research (43
total since 1983)
• Widely disseminated research products
• *See CII “Product Library:” 450+ products
• Dissemination: conferences, web, educational, etc.
• www.construction-institute.org
Value of CII Best Practices - Budget (Contractors)
Better
Note: Average Budget =58 Million, submitted after 2002 (n=81)
Value of CII Best Practices – Schedule (Contractors)
Better
Note: Average Planned Duration=109 weeks, submitted after 2002 (n=81)
Safety Performance – TRIR Trend
16.00
14.30
14.20
Total Recordable Incidence Rate
14.00
Industry*
13.00 13.10
CII
12.20
12.00
11.80
10.60
10.00
8.00
9.90
9.50 8.80
8.60 8.30
7.90
7.10 6.80
6.40 6.30
7.19
6.12
6.00
4.00
2.00
5.32
4.31
3.44 3.00
2.66 2.30
5.90
> 10 Times Safer
1.60 1.59 1.67
1.03 1.02
1.23 1.16
0.88 0.72 0.58
0.00
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
325 413 477 497 527 613 644 770 518 765 995 936 1,117 1,073 1,129 1,195 1,333 1,297
Year and Work Hours (MM)
*OSHA Construction Division, NAICS 236-238, SIC 15-17
Reflects OSHA Reporting Change
CII / CPF CO-FUNDED CURRENT RESEARCH
1. University of Colorado-Boulder: “Enhancing and
Expanding Innovation in the Construction Industry”
• P.I.: Paul Chinowsky; Industry Champion: CII Advisory
Committee (10 firms)
• $235,000; completes late 2009
2. Penn State: “Project Execution Planning for BIM”
• P.I.: John Messner; Industry Champions = Victor Sanvido
(Southland Ind.) & Deke Smith (bSa)
• $282,000; completes 2010
PCI R&D COMMITTEE OVERVIEW
(Appreciation to Doug Sutton, Chair, PCI R&D Committee)
• PCI: unique, hybrid trade/professional association; 55-year history
• Precast/pre-stress producers, suppliers, professionals
• Members’ voluntary participation resources most ongoing activities
• Small, dedicated professional staff coordinates projects
• Goal: to benefit entire construction industry
• N.B.: When precast concrete chosen by building design &
construction team HIGH potential for value-adding innovating on
project!
• www.pci.org
CHARACTERIZE PCI R&D PROGRAM & PROJECTS
• PCI Members believe in importance of ongoing
knowledge development & transfer to practice
• Emphasis on the “D” end of the R&D spectrum
• Producer members always looking for ROI from
research
• Far-sighted R&D projects not precluded
• Continually evolving, strong relationships among
academics (institutions, DH’s, PI’s) & practitioners
CHARACTERIZE PCI R&D PROGRAM (cont’d)
• Robust linkages, precast producer / design
professional / academic essential
•
•
•
Every research project  active, engaged Advisory Cmte
Comprising producer, professional, supplier, and academic
members, passionate to advance the topic
Advisory Committees report regularly to R&D Committee,
which reports to the PCI Board of Directors
• PCI’s direct funding leverages additional funding and/or
in-kind participation by producers, suppliers, non-profit
organizations, government agencies, etc.
*The rule for PCI R&D Committee projects
PCI PROGRAM METRICS
• PCI R&D Committee currently sponsoring or co-sponsoring 20+
research projects.
• Annual PCI R&D funding >$600,000/year in recent years
• Typical co-funding from external sources ~5:1
• Ongoing partnerships with Lehigh/ATLSS and Univ. Illinois/
MAE Centers
• R&D Committee: 17 academics, 15 design prof’s, 11 precast
producer prof’s/rep’s, + 5 others.
• Typical meeting attendance (2X / year): ~ 30 academics, 15
design prof’s, 15 producer/engineers, + 10 others
PCI DISSEMINATION & DIFFUSION
• Publication of research results required as a
deliverable
• Especially in PCI Journal; + PCI Design
Handbook; PCI Standard Design Practice
• Follow-up diffusion activities in many cases
(e.g. codification, etc.) under PCI TAC
CPF/PCI CO-FUNDED RESEARCH
Five projects; total CPF awards = $1,178,000; + >$1,564,000 co-funding
1. Univ. of Arizona: “Design Procedure for Precast Diaphragm System for High Seismic Zones”
•
P.I.: Robert Fleischman, Industry Champion = PCI R&D (Tom D’Arcy et.al.)
•
$410,000 CPF + >$1,300,000 by others; completes mid-2009
2. Georgia Tech (through NIBS): “Building Information Modeling for Architectural Precast Concrete”
•
P.I.: Chuck Eastman; Industry Champion = Earle Kennett, Vice-Pres., NIBS
•
$158,000 CPF + $41,000 by others; completed 2008
3. Univ. of Notre Dame: “Hybrid Precast Wall Systems for Seismic Regions”
•
P.I.: Gino Kurama; Industry Champions = PCI R&D Committee (Walter Korkosz, CEG)
•
$165,000 CPF + $75,000 by others; completes 2010
4. Georgia Tech: “National BIM Standard for Precast Concrete”
•
P.I.: Chuck Eastman; Industry Champions: Mike LaNier, PCI R&D
•
$340,000 CPF + $29,000 by others
5. Univ. of Nebraska – Lincoln : “Shallow Hollow Core Floor System”
•
Co-P.I.’s: Maher Tadros & George Morcous; Industry Champion = Mark Lafferty, PCI R&D
•
$105,000 CPF + $119,000 by others
CHARLES PANKOW FOUNDATION
Mission
The Charles Pankow Foundation exists to
advance innovations in building design and
construction, so as to provide the public with
buildings of improved quality, efficiency, and
value.
CPF DEFINED
• Private, independent, non-profit, public benefit,
philanthropic foundation
• Exclusively for scientific, educational, other
charitable purposes
• 501(c)3 organization under IRS code
• All research products must be “in the public
domain”
Charles J. Pankow, 1920 - 2004
• Purdue BSCE 1947; Hon. Doctorate 1983
• Design-Builder, 1950’s  lifetime
• Founded Charles Pankow Builders 1963
• Consummate innovator: concrete forming (patents); pre-casting; hybrid
moment-frame; project automation; Concrete Construction HB chapters
• Leader in ACI, ASCE, DBIA, SEAOC, others
• Honors & Awards; NAE 1997 & others
• Instilled his firm’s culture: “Find a better way”
• Advocated greater R & D investments in building industry
• Formed Foundation to carry out his vision
RESEARCH PROGRAM FOCUS
• Deliver innovative products, components, & systems to
meet defined needs for better buildings
• Research products provide immediate, practical
benefit to building design & construction teams
• Involve a committed industry champion in each project
• Apply CPF funding to leverage co-funding
• Provide research products that can be capitalized on
through integrated project delivery
CPF GOAL AREAS = 2
RESEARCH AREA 1: Structures
Goal: Improve the quality, efficiency and value of large buildings by
advancing codifiable innovations in structural components and
systems.
RESEARCH AREA 2: Project Teams: Tools & Practices
Goal: Improve the performance of building design & construction
teams by advancing integration, collaboration, communication,
and efficiency through innovative new tools and technologies, and
new means and methods for project team practices.
2006-09 RESEARCH GRANTMAKING
• 22 research grant awards:
* 16 to universities, 6 to non-profit research orgns
* 13 in structures; 9 in project teams
* of 13 structural projects, 10  high seismic zones
• $4.3 million in grant awards; typical grant $150-300K
• Industry Champion involved on every project
• Final Reports posted: www.spur.org/pankowreports
• Details of each grant: www.pankowfoundation.org
KEYS TO EARLY CPF PROGRESS
1. Our CPF Advisory Council
Rebekah Gladson, DBIA
Victor Sanvido, Southland Industries
Tom Gunkel, M.A. Mortenson
Ron Skaggs, HKS Inc.
Ron Klemencic, MKA Assoc’s
Charles Thornton, Thornton-Tomasetti
Patrick MacLeamy, HOK
Hans VanWinkle, CII Dir.-Emeritus
Jeffrey Russell, Univ. Wisc.
Tom Verti, Pankow
Joe Sanders, Pankow
+ Incoming Class: Steve Baldridge, Glenn Bell, Greg Gidez
2. Industry Champions: the concept & the people
3. Our Research Focus (mantra: “red zone to end zone”)
4. “Research Need Statement” as basis
5. Alliances with: PCI, CII, ATC, DBIA, NIBS, ACI
(N.B.: NO ASCE Institute… )
INDUSTRY CHAMPIONS & P.I.’S, ILLUSTRATED
•
DSDM Diaphragm Panels: R Fleischman  Tom D’Arcy + PCI R&D
•
Metal Shear Panels: B Stojadinovic  Steve Tipping, S.E.
•
Reinforced Concrete Link Beams: J Wallace  Ron Klemencic
•
Dual-plate Composite Core Walls: Kreger+Bowman Ron Klemencic
•
Thin Shear Walls in High Seismic Zones: J Restrepo  Bob Englekirk
•
Perf. Based Seismic G/L’s for Tall Bldgs: J Moehle/PEER  Ron
Hamburger et. al.
•
Hybrid Precast Wall Systems, Seismic Regions: Y Kurama Walt
Korkosz, PCI
•
Improved Concrete Tolerance Mgmt: C Milberg  Eldon Tipping &
ACI 117
OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEPT. HEADS

Ally faculty with (an) industry institution(s): professional, trade

e.g. CII, PCI, DBIA, ATC, ACI, AGC, etc. (bldgs)

Dept Advisory Committees:
* Recruit practitioners who are innovators & research advocates
* Get their input re real needs for applied, practice-oriented R&D

Mentor junior faculty: Engage them with practitioners

Bring innovator CE practitioners into classrooms
A Commentary
Basic science research is important, but practice
oriented research is of at least equal importance.
Current metrics for promotion and advancement of
engineering faculty are definitely tilted in favor of
“pure” research that is disconnected from
marketplace implications. Some institutions even
go so far as to weight research funding according
to its “pure science” character. Academic
researchers should be encouraged, not
discouraged, from conducting research on
practice-oriented problems.
WRAP
Discussion?
* * * * *
Robert K. Tener, P.E., Ph.D., F.ASCE
Executive Director, Charles Pankow Foundation
223 West Foothill Blvd., 2nd Floor
Claremont, California 91711
909/624-1800
[email protected]
HURDLES & OBSTACLES
Why is applied R&D to advance innovation in building design &
construction so sparse?
1. Lack of research funding from institutional entities
2. Lack of practitioner demand for R&D within industry  complex set of root
causes, including –
•
Owners: little interest in technical solutions, just concentrate on “The Deal” and
minimizing up-front costs
•
Contracting community: more focused on managing risk than pursuing creative
new thinking
•
Highly competitive industry: constrains levels of excess profits that could allow
a builder to make strategic investments in innovation
•
Building codes: overly prescriptive, with hugely cumbersome code change
processes
•
Litigious society: punishes any performance outside of tested norms
•
Uneducated consumers: occupants of buildings don’t know what might be
possible, so don’t know what to ask for
•
Financing entities: design/build tried and true building systems or else no
financing
HURDLES & OBSTACLES (cont’d)
Why is applied R&D to advance innovation in building design & construction
so sparse?
3. The inertia of the status-quo, which for our industry is exemplified by the motto: “If
it’s not broke, don’t fix it!”
4. Project teams’ behavior characterized by –
•
Schedules & budgets are too tight to take a chance on something new
•
Lack of resources including staff time
•
Lack of a strategy for innovation within firm
•
Owners do not recognize the value
5. Just the tip of the iceberg / analysis . . . .
* * * * *