Structural Forum

CASE Tools and Resources

Did you know? CASE has tools and practice guidelines to help fi rms deal with a wide variety of business scenarios that structural engineering fi rms face daily. Whether your fi rm needs to establish a new Quality Assurance Program, update its risk management program, or keep track of the skills engineers are learning at each level of experience – CASE has the tools you need! Th e following documents/templates are recommended to review/use if your fi rm needs to update its current Quality Assurance Program, or incorporate a new program into the fi rm culture: 962-A: National Practice Guidelines for the Structural Engineer of Record 962-B: National Practice Guideline for Specialty Structural Engineers 962-C: Guidelines for International Building Code Mandated Special Inspections and Tests and Quality Assurance 962-D: Guideline Addressing Coordination and Completeness of Structural Construction Documents

Tool 1-2: Developing a Culture of Quality

Tool 2-4: Project Risk Management Plan

Tool 4-2: Project Kick-off Meeting Agenda

Tool 4-4: Phone Conversation Log

Tool 9-2: Quality Assurance Plan

Tool 10-2: Construction Administration Log

Tool 2-1: Risk Evaluation Checklist

Tool 4-1: Status Report Template

Tool 4-3: Sample Correspondence Letters

Tool 4-5: Project Communication Matrix

Tool 10-1: Site Visit Cards

CASE Tool 2-6: Structural Engineer Job Descriptions

When targeted to people outside the fi rm, well written job descriptions entice the most qualifi ed people to apply with your fi rm. To get the most qualifi ed candidates, list both quantitative and qualitative requirements such as experience, education, and desired personality traits. Th ese types of qualifi cations help to eliminate undesirable candidates. When targeted to people inside the fi rm, job descriptions can be utilized as a powerful management tool. Th e details contained in a well written job description form the basis for developing a clear understanding between the employee and the manager of what is expected of the employee. Managers can also use the terms in the job description to determine how the employee performed when conducting performance appraisals. Th e criteria used for performance evaluations ideally would match the expectations listed in the employee’s job description. Th e job description for the position above the employee’s current position can be used to explain what is required for that person to earn a promotion. Th e job descriptions contained within this tool are intended to be used as a template to create job descriptions specifi c to your fi rm. Word fi les are provided with detailed descriptions, along with a matrix with abbreviated descriptions when comparing engineering levels. You can purchase these and the other Risk Management Tools at www.acec.org/bookstore.

ACEC Coalitions Summer Meeting

August 9-10, 2021 | Nashville, TN

Join your peers at the ACEC Coalitions Summer Meeting where you will participate in candid roundtables and take a closer look at key issues like cybersecurity and risk management through expert-led breakout sessions. Highlights include: •Networking Opportunities •Coalition-Specifi c Roundtables •Breakout sessions on Cyber Security and Risk Management Earn 3.5 PDHs

For more information and to register – https://programs.acec.org/coalitions-summer-2021. Questions? Contact Michelle Kroeger at coalitions@acec.org.

WANTED: Engineers to Lead, Direct, and Engage with CASE Committees!

If you are looking for ways to expand and strengthen your business skillset, look no further than serving on one (or more!) CASE Committees. Join us to sharpen your leadership skills – promote your talent and expertise – to help guide CASE programs, services, and publications. We currently have openings on all CASE Committees:

Contracts – responsible for developing and maintaining contracts to assist practicing engineers with risk management.

Guidelines – responsible for developing and maintaining national guidelines of practice for structural engineers.

Programs – responsible for developing program themes for conferences and sessions that enhances and highlights the profession of structural engineering.

Toolkit – responsible for developing and maintaining the tools related to CASE’s Ten Foundations of Risk Management program. To apply, your fi rm should: •Be a current member of ACEC • Be a member of the Coalition of American Structural Engineers (CASE); or be willing to join the Coalition. • Be able to attend the groups’ normal face-to-face meetings each year: August, February (hotel, travel partially reimbursable) •Be available to engage with the committees via email and video/conference call •Have some specifi c experience and/or expertise to contribute to the group Please submit the following information to Michelle Kroeger, Coalitions Director (mkroeger@acec.org): •Letter of interest indicating which committee •Brief bio (no more than a page) Thank you for your interest in contributing to advancing the structural engineering profession!

Follow ACEC Coalitions on Twitter – @ACECCoalitions.

Ethics Instruction…Ideas for Moving Forward By Scott Civjan, Ph.D., P.E.

The July 2021 Structural Forum article presented the general state of ethics instruction and some shortcomings. This second article offers ideas that might better influence engineering ethics instruction. Modifying personal behavior begins with understanding how we make decisions and the broader impact of our personal decisions. Unfortunately, ethics curricula rarely approach the topic at the personal level, leaving a disconnect between assessing “correct” behavior and acknowledging the personal reactions at the moment the decision is made. Many decisions are made or heavily influenced through gut feel, reflex, and “norms.” Other situations allow time to contemplate but can still be heavily influenced by our initial reaction. How many times have we seen something that did not seem quite right, decide to move on, and then later worry that we should have said something? Assessing questionable decisions from past experience, no matter how small the consequence, can train response to future situations. With reflection, we can change our behavior or decide to repeat our response if we see no consequences of our decision. The latter is especially true if a precedent was set or followed. Company culture can dominate these decisions, allowing questionable actions via a slow, imperceptible shift resulting from erratically enforced rules or a tendency to avoid communication or conflict. Ethical lapses can be accelerated by placing insufficiently trained early-career engineers in positions inspecting the work of people who have more experience. How can we prepare engineers to make sound decisions and open lines of communication when an ethical dilemma arises? Awareness of our personal decision process is a start. We make decisions based on past experiences and values, adapting in new situations. Through evaluating day-to-day decisions, understanding how they become routine, and examining our reactions to decisions that affected us, we can prepare ourselves for future decisions. We can learn to react proportionately and minimize unwarranted whistleblower actions and decision avoidance. Codes of Ethics case studies are not always straightforward. When a new engineer sees a calculation or field practice that they think is incorrect, but senior personnel tells them that it is typical, they face an ethical dilemma. There is uncertainty in whether the situation is understood completely, variation from expectation is justified, and sufficient information exists to override seniority opinion. The ethical decision has less to do with Code of Ethics criteria and more to do with whether to defer to the experience or explanations of others. Do you risk stopping a job until you can learn more, or risk allowing job continuation? Who should you communicate with when making your decision? The decision is more difficult when direct implications to public safety, technology issues, or risk communication are uncertain. Specific statements from Codes of Ethics may be difficult to apply, but contemplating how decisions are made and comfort level with previous decisions can modify future behavior. Incorporating other perspectives is also critical. Engineering projects can have competing goals; maximizing profit, meeting schedule, minimizing risk, or mitigating environmental and societal impacts. Depending on your role in a project, any of these could be the primary decision driver. The impact on others may not be apparent. Other stakeholders may feel similarly about a competing goal. It becomes easy to assume that peripheral issues fall outside of your responsibility or that you should defer to someone else. Differing perspectives are always present, including amongst different disciplines working on a project, ownerengineer-architect-contractor relationships, user and public concerns. Acknowledging different local/regional/international norms, getting support from all stakeholders, and thinking about voiceless stakeholders are all essential, though not equally applicable to all projects. What seems like an ethical dilemma to a new engineer is often due to not understanding the implications of a decision. Other times it could be an eye-opener to senior members of a company to be asked why something has become common practice. Therefore, conversations about ethics are important to develop clear communication and expectations. When discussing ethics with students, coworkers, or mentees, consider the following: • Discuss decision-making processes that different people may use. How do you make decisions (immediate and long-term)? • Start with immediately relatable scenarios and slowly/incrementally expand situations to those they have not experienced. Minimize arms-length discussions of ethical decisions and include reflective components through

“how did you respond to” prompts about previous decisions. • Discuss the influence of peer pressure and office culture on decisions.

Acknowledge that these develop over time and can result in ethical fading (failing to realize that there is an ethical component in a decision.) • Incorporate diverse perspectives in discussions and acknowledge the effects of implicit bias in decisions. Acknowledge the reliance on the dominant culture for ethical values and the potential to marginalize other perspectives. • Discuss tradeoffs between short and long-term interests. • Include social justice and equity in the decision process and discuss impacts to the company, owner, and project interests. Discuss competing interests. • Focus on a continuum of ethical decisions (daily life, work, global impact).

This includes breaking down the compartmentalizing of ethical topics as having distinct personal versus societal impacts. Instead, discuss these topics as a continuum where ever-widening perspectives are included in the decision. • Provide ASCE/NSPE Codes of Ethics as a separate topic representing a minimum threshold of ethical responsibility. Further categorization is needed to use case studies effectively. For instance, identifying cases based on the experience of the decision-maker and personal versus societal dilemmas would be useful. In addition, evaluate how relatable the case study scenarios are to the audience and organize them in incremental imaginative leaps. The next goal would be to develop examples to fill scenario gaps and provide incremental instruction from current personal experience through a career.■

Scott Civjan is a Professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He teaches classes in structural engineering, including design classes, where he has been introducing and modifying ethics content.