Civil Engineering For The Community

CIVIL
ENGINEERING
FORM
COMMUNITY
Dennis Randolph
Published by the
American Society of Civil Engineers
345 East 47th Street
New York, New York 10017-2398
ABSTRACT
Civil Engineering for the Community is intended as a source for the novice and
more experienced civil engineer. This book provides a sense of the way an
engineer can provide service to the public while recognizing that conflict can
often occur when working for a local government organization. For this reason,
non-technical aspects of engineering such as communication skills, the manage-
ment of people and machines, and the need to change are stressed. By pre-
senting a variety of ideas with examples to illustrate them, this book provides the
civil engineer with ways to better serve the public. Therefore, this book can be
used as a career guide for engineers at the local government level.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Randolph, Dennis A.
Civil engineering for the community / by Dennis A. Randolph.
p.cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-87262-845-0
1. Civil Engineers. 2. Civil Engineering Vocational guidance. I. Title.
TA157.R331993
624'.023dc20 93-12282
CIP
The material presented in this publication has been prepared in accordance
with generally recognized engineering principals and practices, and is for gener-
al information only. This information should not be used without first securing
competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific applica-
tion.
The contents of this publication are not intended to be and should not be
construed to be a standard of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
and are not intended for use as a reference in purchase specifications, con-
tracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document.
No reference made in publication to any specific method, product, process, or
service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty
thereof by ASCE.
ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or
implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability or utility of any infor-
mation, apparatus, product or process discussed in this publication, and
assumes no liability therefor.
Anyone utilizing this information assumes all liability arising from such use,
including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents.
Authorization to photocopy material for internal or personal use under cir-

cumstances not falling within the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act is grant-
ed by ASCE to libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance
Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the base fee of
$1.00 per article plus $.15 per page is paid directly to CCC, 27 Congress Street,
Salem, MA 01970. The identification for ASCE Books is 0-87262/93.$U.15.
Requests for special permission or bulk copying should be addressed to
Reprinting/Permissions Department.
Copyright 1993 by the American Society of Civil Engineers,
All Rights Reserved.
Library of Congress Catalog Card No: 93-12282
ISBN 0-87262-845-0
Manufactured in the United States of America.
"It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult
to plan, more uncertain of success, nor more dangerous to
manage than the creation of a new order of things. For the
initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preserva-
tion of the old institutions, and merely lukewarm defenders in
those who would gain by the new ones."
(Machiavelli)
This page intentionally left blank
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. William C. Taylor, Dr. Kunwar Rajendra, and
Jeffrey D. Mclaughlin for taking the time to review various versions of this
book's manuscript and for providing me with their thoughtful comments. I would
also like to thank the following people for their comments and assistance in the
preparation of the manuscript: Robert L. Donovan, Marvin H. Hilton, Douglas
J. Jacobson, Barbara Proft, and Joseph R. Syrnick and Zoe Foundotos of the
American Society of Civil Engineers who provided the view from the outside
world and helped me clarify my ideas.
Finally, I would like to thank Deborah Buchacz for being a sounding board
as I put my thoughts on paper, and for helping me to convince myself that
there was some merit in my ideas.
Contents
Introduction 1
1. Ideas, Communication, and Change 5
2. The Forms of Public Administration 11
3. Doing Our Work Better 18
4. Constituencies, Communication, and Civil 23

Engineers
5. Managing Problems Associated with Using
Computer Programs 29
6. Managing Managers 37
7. Managing Work 41
8. Citizens 45
9. Elected Officials 52
10. Skills for Local Government 59
11. Technician or Manager 63
12. Infrastructure and Our Values (or How to

Build for the Next 2000 Years)
13. Society 73
References 79
Index 81
INTRODUCTION
It used to be that everyone knew the Golden Rule "In everything, do to others
what you would have them do to you." (Matthew 7:12). But the apparent
rejection of the golden rule has left our society drifting, with many of its parts
floating about. The Civil Engineering profession is one of those parts and there
can be no better illustration of this drift than the changing of the profession at
the local government level.
In the past, many cities and counties hired civil engineers for top manage-
ment positions, including public works directors, and such non-engineering
positions as city or county managers. Now some local governments are
hesitant to fill their most responsible positions with civil engineers. One reason
is that they feel that the profession is not especially people oriented. This feeling
comes from a concern about the negative impact civil engineering projects may
have on the environment.
Still, civil engineering in local government remains an attractive and
satisfying profession that draws new members each year. Satisfying and
attractive because it offers security, monetary rewards, and the opportunity to
do things for the community. But, beginning a career in civil engineering at the
local government level is difficult. To a certain extent we expect this. Yet, though
we expect difficulty there is little that most people can do to prevent such
difficulty or to ease the change to the working world from the world of school
and training.
Professional education emphasizes values necessary to succeed in the private
sector, but these values, and even the technical skills taught are not all the skills
needed for a successful career in city or county government. Because of this
absence of skills, and the very negative connotation that government jobs have
had for many years, it is difficult for the young engineer to get a good start in
a public sector career.
The purpose of this book is to provide a guide for the engineer just entering
a career in the public sector. I have not intended this book to be a road map
to navigate the inner-most workings of a local government organization. Neither
have I envisioned this as a workbook that has answers to the ten most common
questions that engineers in local government get asked.
Instead, I have envisioned this book as a basic guide that will help engineers
set a course for their career. I also want this book to be helpful for the more
experienced engineer that needs support when the pressures to go along
"because that is the way it has always been done" reach an intolerable level.
For these people the book may provide a sense of the way in which we can
provide service to the public.
1
2 INTRODUCTION
To do this I have covered a variety of topics that are distinctly non-

technical. These non-technical topics play a large, if not the largest, part in
forming most engineering careers in local government. Success in local govern-
ment requires strong technical skills, yet the most important factor is a personal,
guiding philosophy that places service to the public, and a respect for all humans
as the primary goals and measures of a successful career.
The impetus for writing this book has come from several directions and
relates directly to my experience as a working engineer. As a working engineer
and manager responsible for the technical quality of work and as a long-time
promoter of computers, one recurring theme I have heard is that a shortage of
time or staff limits the depth of technical analysis or the number of alternatives
that can be prepared for any given project. However, when a computer and
suitable programs become available that can address the time or staff limits (or
sometimes it may just be a minor procedural change), additional alternatives
and more complete analysis are still discouraged. In short I have seen too
many situations where engineers were content with "seat-of-the-pants"
engineering.
As a proponent of very strong technical work, it is my opinion that
reluctance or opposition to using the best available tools to increase productivity
and accuracy is at a minimum malfeasance and very possibly misfeasance. It is
my contempt for the individuals who play the "seat-of-the-pants" game
described above that is behind what some readers may feel is an anti-engineering
or anti-technologist theme throughout this book.
But nothing could be farther from my mind, I want and encourage good
engineering and the strongest technical approach possible. If there is a hidden
theme in this book it is that the civil engineering profession should want to
discourage individual engineers from passing-off their opinions or guesses as
good engineering.
A second force behind this book has been my very strong feeling that we
should recognize problems that people associate with our civil engineering work
and learn from them. Note that I write learn not blame! This book is not about
pointing a finger at evil engineers but about having a positive outlook on life
and human-kind that suggests we can always do something to make the world
a better place to live.
To illustrate my point I refer to the Interstate Highway Program in several
places. I recognize that this program was primarily a state and federal activity,
but I use it as an illustration for two reasons. First, it is a large program that
civil engineers have been very involved in, and our experience with the program
gives us several general lessons to learn. The second reason is that as a local
government engineer I have had to work on some very complex problems that
the Program caused, yet the Program's managers left to the local government
to solve. In these cases the cities and counties that I worked for were in no
better position than any other private individual impacted by the road construc-
tion. But, as a civil engineer I had one advantage over the private individual,
INTRODUCTION 3
I was familiar with the transportation end of the civil engineering pro-
fession.
This last point also leads me to one other characteristic about this book,
the nature of its examples. I have presented some examples to illustrate ideas.
Most of the examples have some connection to the transportation field. Again,
since I am most familiar with the transportation field, I am most comfortable
using transportation examples. Yet, it goes without saying that as a City
Engineer, and engineer for several local governments, my work has included
many other disciplines in the civil engineering field. This experience has lead
me to believe that although the technical details are different the approach to
problem solving is the same.
I have not explicitly listed the various jobs and tasks an individual may be
faced with in a local government position. During my career I have been
responsible for activities that ranged from oiling the clerical staff's chairs to
writing letters for the Mayor, drafting specifications for refuse collection vehicles
to supervising sewer construction, and I could never pretend to have a complete
list of the things a local government engineer would do on the job. Because,
my intent is to get people to think about the ideas contained in this book I will
reserve such a list for a book on the more practical aspects of the civil engineer's
work.
If you are looking for checklists, or an easy guide for a civil engineer
employed in local government, you also will not find it here. However, if you
want to gain some ideas of the problems that you will face, this is the book for
you. What you will find are thoughts, ideas and examples of real situations
involving engineers employed in the local government sector.
As a guide book for mentors, this book also may come up short because
there are no rules or guidelines, just stories that may help someone in their
search for an answer. Each chapter is a response to a particular incident in real
life. If you are willing to consider the thoughts and ideas that I present, there
are answers!
To get the most out of the book you may want to approach it traditionally
and work from start to finish. But, because the chapters are responses to specific
incidents they can be useful even if taken out of order. If you choose to hop
around keep this in mind: there are chapters that present ideas, and there are
chapters that present examples of situations to bring out ideas. References to
"Ourcity" show that I based the examples on actual situations. In each chapter
an issue is presented, common problems discussed, and examples given on how
the guiding philosophy works in an actual job situation.
One final comment on getting the most from this book: it is not my
intention to try to spoon feed the secrets of good engineering and administration
to anyone. On the contrary, I have avoided reducing the ideas to their basic
form so the reader will think about what I have written. There is no easy way
to be a good engineer, serve the public well, and have a successful career . . . .
it is hard work. But if this book can generate ideas, and the enthusiasm to think
4 INTRODUCTION
about those ideas, it may help make your work enjoyable, and more than just
a job.
D.A.R.
Battle Creek, Michigan
September 1992
CHAPTER 1 / IDEAS, COMMUNICATION,
AND CHANGE
THE THOUGHT
If you go to work for a local government your first experience of an
engineering organization may be of associates and supervisors pressuring you
to accept the "way things are." There is an overwhelming sensation from the
members of the organization constantly trying to convince you that their
organization knows the best way to do its work. Good organizations need to
have such positive feelings about themselves. But such feelings can be too strong.
When you find such strong feelings you need to remember that these organiza-
tions may be reluctant to change and to accept good ideas that come from
outsiders, and even their members.
Despite this, you also need to remember that change is inevitable. Also, it
is always possible to find a better way to do any task. For our discussion here
and throughout this entire book the basic premise that is guiding the thoughts
presented is that we can always improve every task. Sometimes the amount of
improvement may not be significant, or the effort may not be cost effective,
nevertheless, an improvement can be made.
Anyhow, it is right for you to want to do your job better, not only for
the citizens who pay the bills, but for society. Therefore, the lesson you must
learn quickly is to hold on to your idealism. Then as you increase your
knowledge of engineering and people, and advance to positions of influence
you must continue to develop new ideas, and make the changes that are
necessary.
THE STORY
To some people their vision of the Engineer is still the unsociable nerd
with a sliderule clipped to his belt and a plastic pencil holder in his shirt pocket.
But civil engineers know that besides never having been accurate, this image is
false as we reach the end of the twentieth century. Civil engineers are a diverse
group of individuals that resist generalization.
In the two decades I have worked as an engineer, I have seen every type of
personality and a wide range of different beings working as civil engineers. Even
more pleasing has been my observation that the makeup and membership of
the civil engineering profession has changed dramatically. More people of
differing characteristics are civil engineers. This is pleasing because the more
different people, the more potential there is for fresh new ideas to be available,
to contribute to the continuous change and improvement of the civil engineering
profession.
Yet you may ask, why is change necessary at all? Why insist repeatedly
5
6 IDEAS, COMMUNICATION, AND CHANGE
in the space of the first six paragraphs of this book that change must happen
at all? The simplest answer is that our entire universe demands change. The call
for change may not be loud, or for that matter friendly. But it is a fact that
Nature IS change and fighting change is the one battle we can be sure we will
ultimately lose.
For the local government engineer the link between the constantly changing
universe and the day to day workings of our own engineering organization are
not as flimsy as they may seem. The line is direct. From our constantly expanding
universe, to the continents floating on our world, to the subtle change in human
form over generations, to the way humans organize themselves for work, change
drives everything we do.
To illustrate, let us think about change at the local government level, and
the forces that cause change in our engineering organizations. A significant part
of these forces comes from the way we organize and run our local governments,
that is, the nature of our public administration.
Civil engineering and public administration are so intertwined it is difficult
to draw a distinction between them. But some engineers, and some non-engineer
managers too, are unaware of this close relationship. For many reasons some
engineers resist becoming involved formally as public administrators, preferring
to act strictly as technical specialists or technicians. The failure of engineers to
take advantage of this connection has resulted in a reluctance by elected officials
and policy makers to use engineers in some senior management positions. With
only a few engineers in senior management positions, the trend of relegating
engineering to a level subordinate to other component professions of the public
administration field has gained impetus.
But, even if we only have a limited opportunity to mold and direct policy
at the highest levels today, eventually it will increase again. The reversal is
inevitable, if engineers decide to prepare themselves for the necessary competi-
tion.
The history of the United States is a chronology of changes, and the growth
of ideas. Abundant resources, the freedom of our society, and the energy of
many people caused these changes. However, as time has passed, the land has
appeared to shrink and its resources used up. Meanwhile, the increasing size
and complexity of our society has effectively limited our freedom. Besides, its
citizens constantly change the direction of their energy.
As our country matures and changes, its institutions change in ways we
cannot expect. When looking back, we should do so with the idea of gaining
an understanding of the changes that have taken place. Then we can use this
insight to predict what our institutions, and civil engineering, will look like in
the future.
A HUMAN EQUATION
The basic order of nature is that the whole is the sum of the parts. If you
add a thousand different numbers together, you create a new number different
from any of its component numbers. However, this new number contains each
IDEAS, COMMUNICATION, AND CHANGE 7
of its parents as part of it. Similarly, when two organisms come together and
form a third, the new organism is different from its parents, yet it shares their
wholeness combined in a unique way.
As individuals we try to emphasize our uniqueness. We project our
individuality to the world by filling it with objects created with our hands and
with our minds. When we join our ideas with the ideas of other individuals the
result is like that of two organisms coming together. The new idea has a distinct
flavor representing the essence of our being.
Often it seems that other individuals come up with a very similar (or even
the same) idea. However, as we compare any same idea developed by different
groups more closely we will eventually reach a point where we will find a
difference.
The ideas that exist today represent the cumulative effect of the merging of
individual organisms that has taken place since the beginning of time. Ideas, the
objects of our mind our philosophies, music, customs, and institutions have
grown and evolved as our form and shape has. As these objects take on a shape
of their own, they join just like numbers, to form the sum that will be our future.
Government is one of these ideas, and governments shape civil engineering.
If you feel this is not true then please consider the massive civil engineering
projects of the past. The pyramids located throughout the world, the irrigation
canals that people have constructed for thousands of years. These projects are
the result of social cultural, and religious pressures . . . not the pressure to
"engineer."
So, we need to spend some time considering government because the
American form of government has shaped civil engineering in America today.
For the engineer in local government, the object that is government should not
be a mystery. This is especially true if we are trying to understand or improve
the way civil engineers work in local government.
Government in the United States is a set of ideas. Our country's Founders
embodied these ideas in our constitution. Yet, it is people who shape the idea
of and the form of government. These people the public administration
shape and form what Chandler and Piano define as "the process by which public
resources and personnel are organized and coordinated to formulate, implement,
and manage public policy decisions"1 (Chandler 1982).
This discussion (indeed this entire book) is about ideas and change. In fact,
mentoring is really about change . . . helping the inexperienced or the confused
to change they way they look at things, changing our understanding of jobs
and people and ideas.
The idea we are considering here is that the form of public administration
(and for this discussion when you read "public administration" think "civil
engineering") at any point is described by a complex formula. The variables of
this formula change at an increasing rate as humans add more experience.
The formula describes the result of mixing these human experiences
together. The curve described by the formula is not random but has a pattern
and harmony. We can use this pattern to predict when the form of public
administration will change. We also can use it to predict what its new form will
be.
In mathematics it is difficult to reduce a number to its original parts by
simply looking at its current state. For example, we can get the number twelve
by adding five and seven, or four and eight, or eleven and one. But only the
original mathematician knows what combination gave us any particular twelve.
Similarly, we can think of public administration in America today as the sum of
an infinite set of factors.
Determining the original elements that formed today's public administration
is impossible. However, we can distinguish likely candidates by first identifying
a set of possible* factors. Then, we can classify these factors into two types,
representing physical and mental evolution.
Physical EvolutionHumans have changed physically over time. Whether you

accept the evolutionary or creationist explanation of human development, a
physical change is obvious. In the past, mountains, oceans, and space isolated
humans into groups that took on unique physical features. But as we look back
even further into the past, we see that all humans share a common parent. This
is true whether you are a creationist that believes in Adam and Eve, or an
evolutionist that believes humans are the decendents of single cell organisms.
One important force behind physical evolution is the need to fight for
survival in inhospitable climates and situations. We can only imagine how harsh
conditions in the past affected the evolutionary process and therefore our world
today. For example, the human need to express uniqueness has always centered
on people distinguishing themselves from others, though people themselves
have had little if any choice in creating those features that actually distinguish
themselves from others. But as evolution resulted in physical changes, the
identification of differences has taken on a strong physical argument. So, conflict
with a basis in physical difference is a manifestation of the physical characteristics
initially caused by the Earth's geography and environment.
Mental EvolutionA similar change has taken place to the human mental
process. Mental evolution has two distinct phases: gaining greater mental
capacity, and then using those mental abilities.
As humans have changed physically, the brain case and its contents have
changed. Storage capacity and circuit length limits the animal brain, just like an
electronic computer. But, as the human brain case has grown its storage capacity
has grown. Also, electrical and chemical communication links have developed
that are fast and efficient.
Large storage volumes and fast circuits have given humans powerful mental
processing capabilities. However, to just survive we really only need a small
portion of this capability. Therefore, the excess speed and capacity have caused
IDEAS, COMMUNICATION, AND CHANGE 9
a problem! Namely, to what use should we put this excess? Humans have chosen
to use the excess capacity to force themselves beyond existence. That is, as the
brain has searched for additional work it has come up with abstractions and
other mind symbols. It is these ideas that are the variables in our formula of
public administration.
If you think about it, the evolution of humans is like a spiral. As humans
have evolved the spiral has expanded outward and the world has come to its
present state. American thought and the lifestyle that we experience today is
one point on this spiral. This point represents one state of human evolution
and again, part of that condition is our government.
Every engineer knows that if we want to know the characteristics of a
curve at a particular point we need its equation. Then as we take derivatives
of the equation we become more familiar with the curve. In the same way,
solving for higher order derivatives on the spiral of human evolution tells us
about points on the spiral. At any particular point we can find the essence of
socially instilled behavior, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of
human work and thought characteristic of a community or population.
Yet, the spiral of human evolution is more than just a series of points
described in three dimensions. Our spiral is actually like a multi-conductor cable.
The center core of the cable represents the essence of humankind, while wound
around the core are conductors that represent particular cultures. Take derivatives
of the core to look at the spiral as an entity, or take derivatives of the wrapping
conductors to look at the separate parts.
We can think of the outer conductors as representing parts of the American
culture. Since American civil engineering is one part of our culture, we can take
what is in essence a derivative of the civil engineering "conductor." At any
point along the spiral, the value of this derivative depends on the form of the
human spiral.
Our spiral is not symmetrical, but it is rising and expanding depending on
the quality of its building blocks. The thickness of the spiral cable also changes
as cultures expand or fade away. The spiral reflects these cultural changes and
is always expanding and rising. The point here being, although there may be
periods where cultures, or professions, or even organisms may appear to be
regressing, these are just minor downturns in the entire course of the world.
THE ADVANCING FORM OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

When we consider the place of civil engineering in local government we can
establish a direct link to the way we organize administrative functions. We also
can find a direct link between the personalities of the people that fill our offices
and the way in which we control our governmental functions (including our
civil engineering functions). Using this link we can conclude that the cultural
origin of the personalities give form to public administration. Also, since cultures
are continually changing, the personalities that shape public administration are
also changing.
THE LESSON
Change in public administration and civil engineering goes hand-in-hand.
The history of public administration at the local government level is in some
ways a history of civil engineering. So, it is useful for us to first understand
how change has influenced public administration to then understand why change
in civil engineering is necessary.
CHAPTER 2 / THE FORMS OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
THE THOUGHT
Change is always difficult. Even when we want, and expect change we find
it hard to accept, it never seems to take the form we expected. It is this lack
of control over the form of change that is most disturbing to engineers (and all
people), when it involves their profession. But if we look at the history of change
we can see rhythms and patterns that should provide insight, and even some
comfort, when anticipating change in our own organization.
THE STORY
Changes in public administration take time to happen. Thoughts and ideas
must collect and mature for several years. Then an increment of change happens.
Because of this phenomenon the form of public administration has changed in
distinct steps. Theorists have organized these distinct forms into the following
periods of public administration (Chandler 1982)2:
The Guardian Periodexisted between the late 1780's and the late 1820's.
Government reflected the English and western European cultural origin of its
citizens except that subtle, yet significant changes, had already changed this
legacy.
Colonization along the Atlantic coast brought together a variety of people
in an environment different from the one they had experienced before. European
conflicts and ideas formed a large part of their experiences. But the influence of
Native Americans and particularly the existence of unlimited raw resources
provided new sources of ideas and lines of thought. These earliest influences
were the most significant aspect of the first period of American public admin-
istration.
The Spoils Period1As America expanded, isolation from western European

ideas and mixing of the western European cultural stocks caused unique changes
to occur. The second public administration period, the Spoils Period (late 1820's
to early 1880's), was a product of these changes. The land and its abundance
were a major factor in the forming of the new American culture. Many people
who helped form the United States were from land starved countries. Therefore,
the boundless land that made up America dramatically influenced its people.
l
The Spoils System after which the Period was named was a political patronage system that
encouraged the idea of the political winner taking full advantage of every opportunity to benefit from the
winning position.
11
12 THE FORMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
The Spoil System was a sign of the shock to the human mind set.
Simultaneously, breaking tradition tied to rigid class distinctions resulted in an
equalizing process. Public adminstration reflected the new freedom.
The Reform PeriodDuring the later part of the l9th Century the introduction
of ideas into the American culture increased. Although still stemming from
western Europe, the elements were less English. That is, while Spain and France
dominated early European colonization in North America settlers from England
dominated the colonization of what was to be the Mid-Atlantic area of the
United States and the earliest seat of power.
However, when American settlers reached the Pacific Ocean the country
was no longer a boundless land. All during this period both internal and external
migration occurred at very high levels. Ideas were injected and mixed at a higher
rate compared to earlier times.
These ideas resulted, in part, as a response to the Spoils Period. The period
from the early 1880's into the early part of the 20th century is known as the
Reform Period. This period is synonymous with the growth of a "new
aristocracy/7 and a further adding of new cultural contributions. During this
period a new class system emerged. The new aristocracy sprang from the riches
taken from the land during the expansionist period of our country's history. In
part, this class system evolved because the nouveau riche saw a need to protect
itself. Reform of the public administration was one way to do it.
Reform protected the new aristocracy by bringing order to public admin-
istration, and thus stabilizing it. Among the reforms instituted were controls on
patronage and the establishment of a professional bureaucracy. One idea
promoted by reform is that only a special few are qualified to serve in the public
administration. Also, reform tried to address many abuses of the spoils period.
The reform period also was a time of large scale immigration to America.
People came from the original western and northern European sources, also from
southern and near eastern Europe. These different people brought many new
ideas to America.
The Scientific Management PeriodFrom the end of the reform period until
just before World War II Scientific Management characterized public administra-
tion. This period was in part, a continuation of efforts to make government
more systematic. It also reflected the cultural biases of the new aristocracy, as
these individuals battled the entry into America of those people they felt were
culturally less desirable.
While Scientific Management organized government, significant social and
cultural changes also occurred. In particular, the massive social programs started
during the 1930's depression were opposed to the ideas promoted by scientific
management.
Again, public administration responded to social and cultural pressures with
change. This time the changes attempted to instill a more rigorous, technical
THE FORMS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 13
approach to management. The equalizing effect led to the decline of the new
aristocracy and the next period of public administration.
The Administrative Management Periodreflects several ideas. One idea is

that government should be active in solving public problems and another was
that there is more to government than mere efficiency. American culture was
actively shaping the ideas of public administration and giving it an American
flavor. The cultural contributions from many different people were beginning
to mesh into a new way of running government. As the American culture
continued to evolve, new ideas from a variety of cultural contributions brought
reforms at a quicker pace.
The Professional PeriodThe period that extended from the mid-1950's until
the early 1980's saw a return of the idea of a new aristocracy. Again, thoughts
emphasized differences between people and cultures. Here, the symbols of
difference were education and professionalism. Many new cultural contributions
were injected into, and rapidly spread among the American cultural material.
The fast pace of this distribution caused rapid changes in administrative ideas
and direction.
The Trusteeship PeriodThe fight for a piece of the American dream has
resulted in a change resulting in the translation of professionalism into the idea
of Trusteeship. In the Trusteeship Period the professional uses the idea of doing
the best for the most, as a way to soften the idea that only certain people are
qualified to do such a task. As with the earlier periods of Public Administration
the basis of the Trusteeship is already changing. Eventually the amount of change
will reach a point where a distinct new form will exist.
THE PATTERN OF CHANGE

If we think about the changes that have occurred over the years it is
tempting to consider the future. What changes will occur and how they will
come about? Idle speculation is one way to predict the future. However, since
we are engineers we might want to use a slightly more rigorous approach. We
can do this by going back to our spiral of human evolution.
If we can define the derivative of the human spiral that describes the form
of Public Administration over time, then we can use it to predict changes. It
also should be possible for us to define the form that those changes will take.
To define the Public Administration function we need to identify in-
dependent variables that explain the changes. Practically speaking our job is to
find the derivatives along one conductor wrapped around the evolutionary spiral
of humanity. To do this we need to consider the changes in periods we just
described. In particular, we must relate the timing of the changes in a period to
the introduction of cultural factors to our society.
IDEAS AS BUILDING BLOCKS

Before looking at the separate conductors, we need to consider the spiral
itself. Remember that the supply and quality of building blocks (ideas) determines
the shape of the spiral. But the exact nature of these building blocks is difficult
to figure out. However, it is likely that it relies on history, philosophy, religion,
and other items that give to the essence of humans. Without a supply of new
ideas and events the total quality of building blocks deteriorates. When this
happens the growth of the spiral slows.
Ideas and events are constantly around us. Yet, truly new ideas and
significant events are uncommon. Like genetic material, ideas become old and
used-up. However, the Public Administration definition of entropy 3(Chandler
1982) says that an organization needs new (or old) ideas from fresh sources if
it is to grow.
If we look at the history of our country we see that we cannot associate
changes in American public administration with random natural events (earth-
quake, drought, etc.) powerful enough to trigger such change. On the other
hand the rate of flow of ideas into our country brought by immigrants does
offer a possible explanation.
Americans have considered their country a melting pot that accepted
outsiders and took a little from each to create a new society. If we look at the
flow of immigrants over the years we see that the arrival of immigrants has
changed by number and type of people. Obviously, different groups bring
different ideas.
For many years new arrivals were primarily from England and northern
Europe. After the Civil War the immigrant pool expanded to include more
eastern Europeans. In the last part of the nineteenth century, the doors opened
for southern Europeans and other Mediterranean groups. In recent years there
have been increasing numbers of immigrants from Asia and South and Central
America. Our spiral benefits as new groups of people with different cultural
origins enter the country with fresh ideas (building blocks).
If we compare the timing of the various periods of public administration
and the timing of new ideas (using as a surrogate the number of people) we
see an interesting relationship. Changes in public administration periods appear
to follow a major inflow of immigrants by the amount of time it takes a new
generation to grow and become enfranchised (refer to Figure 2.1).
That is, the delay before change is about the length of time it takes for
the current youth of the United States and the youth of the immigrants to begin
to influence the political and social machinery of the country.
A special case of this process exists with the latest period, the Trusteeship.
In this instance, the idea pool has emerged from groups already in America but
previously ignored, African-Americans and women. Again, the timing factor
remains the same with these "old immigrants." About a generation elapsed from
the time the Civil Rights and Feminist movements forced American society to
begin to accept these people as sources of ideas.
Figure 2.1 Immigration To The United States
THE FUTURE FORM OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

If change in public administration is indeed a function of the number of
new ideas brought into the American culture by immigrants then what do we
have to look toward? Is a new pool of ideas forming for another change in
the state of public administration?
America remains the land of opportunity for many people of the world.
The mix of people and cultures giving ideas to American makes our culture
broader than ever before. However, unlike the past, our society is much more
open to letting new arrivals give ideas. Unlike the past, the extremely fast
communications paths available to nearly everyone in America allows quicker
and wider distribution of ideas. The addition of many ideas and their rapid
injection into the genetic make-up of American culture points to a change in

public administration. But, it is difficult to predict the nature of that new
form.
Past periods of public administration have swung back and forth like a
pendulum. At one extreme there has been humanism and concern, at the other
extreme logical detachment and abstraction. The current period of the Trustee-
ship is a concerned, humanistic period in direct response to the Professional
period. Thus, our pendulum points forward to a new period a generation from
now, that again will take up the banner of detachment and theory. However,
if civil engineers and public administrators join they can prevent the pendulum
from swinging too far to the extreme by insuring that there is a balance betwen
humanistic and technical concerns.
USING THE MODEL

In looking to the future of public administration (and civil engineering) in the
United States, we can look at other examples around the world to try to confirm
our model. In particular we should look at the effect of the addition and
distribution of new ideas on governments with similar large, powerful bur-
eaucracies. The example that stands out is the change occurring in what were
formerly the communist nations of the world.
Several generations of Americans believed that the form of the communist
state, as they understood it, would not change. Most Americans never even
expected a change except by total war or a miracle. However, one explanation
for the changes is the theory outlined earlier. That is, people have brought new
ideas into the culture of various communist nations and distributed them very
widely. The passage of time, during which the ideas grew, meant that change
was inevitable.
THE FUTURE
Our model of public administration change suggests that as communications
improve and the transfer of ideas between people becomes easier, changes in
public administration may come at an increasing rate. It also suggests that as
the communications link between people continues to shorten, change may occur
without needing immigrants to carry ideas into a country.
THE CIVIL ENGINEER

Many senior public administrators have been civil engineers. These people
have shaped the form of public administration by accepting or discarding new
ideas. The civil engineering profession has also reflected the same periods as
public administration.
The model of public administration change applies to civil engineering
because of the close relationship between the two fields and the generic nature
of the driving force behind change-communication of ideas. The model provides
some measure of the potential, and the need, for change in civil engineering.
If we are to have change in civil engineering, we must base it on ideas.

We must spread the ideas. Then we must add these ideas to the professional
system and allow them to grow. Our model implies that if we nurture these
ideas, when the next generation replaces ours, changes will be in place. Our
model also implies that change is inevitable. Therefore, our most important
action is to prepare ourselves for it.
THE LESSON
For the young engineer entering government service, the idea presented
here is simple. Change is natural. Also, change is inevitable. To be an effective
engineer you must know how to change without destroying. To be most
effective, you must generate ideas and sell them, a little at a time, always.
CHAPTER 3 / DOING OUR WORK
BETTER
THE THOUGHT
An important skill a new engineer must learn is how to figure out the real
issues affecting a project. This skill requires the ability to screen many ideas.
Engineers have got this skill if they are successfully applying the ideas they
gather to a particular situation. The necessary skills can be used in either formal
or informal ways, it depends upon the success of the engineer. However,
processes such as Value Engineering and Value Management give a formal way
of producing ideas with every project.
THE STORY
Changing the way we do a job is always hard. There are many reasons
for this difficulty. We may not have ideas. We may lack information. We may
have some honest beliefs that prevent us from acting. We may not change
because our personal characteristics support certain habits. Yet, eventually the
time comes when we must change. Then we have several new problems.
One problem is to decide what to change. Another is to figure out how
quickly can we put the changes into effect. Obviously, how we decide what
and how to change becomes the essence of the matter.
Theorists 4(Chandler 1982) recognize three principle methods of decision
making; incremental, rational-comprehensive and mixed scanning. The method
we choose depends on our philosophy of organizational culture. Our choice
determines what we will change and the speed of change.
Incrementalism allows us to make changes at a slow deliberate pace. With
incrementalism we can make a small change and look at the results. Then, we
can make another change. This is a very conservative methodology. However,
it is possible for change to take place without gathering data on the entire or
"big picture."
Rationalism requires comprehensive knowledge of the entire system that
interests us. We may have a hard time getting the detailed information we need.
However, once we have the necessary information we can make changes in
broad sweeping strokes.
The third method of decision making, mixed scanning, is a combination of
incremental and rational methods. Mixed scanning requires that we blend broad
based, and narrow focus examinations. We can use the results to focus on those
items that will give the most benefit when changed.
When we are thinking about change, we need to know which decision
making method an organization uses. This is important because we may need
to change the method if significant change is our goal. Even if we decide that
18
DOING OUR WORK BETTER 19
a new method of decision making is desirable, setting up that new method is

not easy.
Sometimes we use a particular decision making method because of tradition.
Or, we may use it because it matches the basic philosophy of the organization.
In either case we may have to battle set ideas and bureaucrats. The only way
to do that successfully is by having a comprehensive plan to follow.
Even with the potential for problems and failure the chance of changing,
whether from the safety of incrementalism or the boldness of mixed scanning
is intriguing. If successful, a change means there is a chance that significant
improvements can be obtained.
Since a plan for doing change is important to the entire process our first
step is to develop one. Just such a plan exists that can help us put a
mixed-scanning methodology into effect, and gain all its advantages. Value
Management and Value Engineering are not new terms to local government.
Engineers have used value engineering techniques for many years to check
engineering designs. A familiar example is the requirement attached to some
Federal grants to use value engineering during design phases. Value engineering
has resulted in better designs and significant cost savings. However, this example
is only one that might benefit local governments and the public.
THE VALUE ENGINEERING TECHNIQUE

Value engineering is a function-oriented problem-solving approach. With
the "value" process, a multi-disciplinary team studies a particular design, process
or procedure with two goals in mind. One goal is to recommend possible cost
and quality improvements simply through the application of a function-oriented
approach. The other goal is to come up with a procedure that will let
implementers move promptly and efficiently. These two goals are central to the
decision making process.
The value engineering team uses a generalized method to:
1. Identify primary functions;

2. Figure out cost and function relationships; and,
3. Awaken the need to get performance and meet delivery requirements
skillfully.
The important point for the new engineer to remember is that you can
apply value engineering to all types of problems and situations.
Unfortunately, local governments need value engineering because there
have been sometimes (we are assuming here that even once is too many) when
engineers have not followed good engineering practice. Whether real or
perceived, poor engineering practice has given outside forces an opportunity to
compel the engineering community to come up with a way that guarantees a
comprehensive review process for engineering work.
Value engineering is the process that gives this guarantee. But value
engineering also gives engineers an opportunity to generate and test ideas and
20 DOING OUR WORK BETTER
the chance to step from the abstract to the real world to test these ideas
thoroughly. So it is important that we understand we can apply a process like
value engineering to many situations, both traditional and non-traditional.
FOR EXAMPLE
Ourcity is in the Midwest snow-belt. Every winter people would complain
about the way the public works department managed snow removal from the
city streets. Each year engineers would adjust the process and try to fine-tune
it. However, this piece-meal approach did not change the public's view of the
service it was getting.
Finally, citizen pressure was so great, managers proposed using the value
engineering process to guide them in improving the snow fighting process.
Maintenance type operations are not usual subjects for the value engineering
process. However, application of value engineering techniques to the snow
fighting process was still straightforward.
The value engineering process used by engineers to study this problem
had several phases. The first was the information phase. Engineers and super-
visors (the study team) collected basic information about the snow removal
program. This let them identify problem areas and have some measure of their
exact scope.
The information phase gave the study team a picture of the snow removal
process as it existed. Once the study team completed this phase it went on to,
the speculative phase.
The speculative phase is the key to the value engineering. It prompts
(actually forces) the team members to think freely about the process they are
studying. The important points to remember, not only about this phase of the
value engineering process, but engineering work in general is that:
Creativity is not a thing, but an activity.

Creativity is not a function of intelligence.
Creative ideas are the result of painstaking effort.
Creativity is not always acceptable. Sometimes it is discouraged or results
in sanctions against those taking part.
During the speculative phase team members made every effort to encourage
and share in imaginative thinking. The focus of thinking was the primary (snow
fighting) operation, but during this phase anything was possible. The time
schedule for the value engineering process was long enough so that team
members had enough time to come up with many ideas for each operation.
An interesting aspect of the speculative phase was that most ideas were
reasonable, not outrageous or nonsensical as some people feared. Some ideas
were old. However, Ourcity's engineers considered many ideas to be very good,
even before formally rating them.
The next phase was the evaluation phase. Team members studied each idea
and listed advantages and disadvantages. Through discussion and analysis they
DOING OUR WORK BETTER 21
trimmed the idea list to those ideas they felt were the most doable (refer to
Table 3.1).
Once they came up with a list of likely ideas and identified key proposals,
members made an implementation plan. Ourcity staff made every effort to put
major proposals into effect by the first snow.
THE RESULTS OF VALUE ENGINEERING

Once the changes were done, Ourcity engineers conducted a before and
after study to test their results. They compared snow plowing durations for the
preceding winter with those after putting the changes into effect. Engineers paid
particular attention to the start and finish time of "full plowing/7
They found that the average elapsed time to complete a full plowing before
the value engineering exercise was 27.4 hours. The average elapsed time to
complete full plowing after the changes was 14.0 hours. The difference between
before and after times was a reduction of about 13.4 hours per plowing event.
Engineers credited about seven hours of savings to a new policy of continuous
plowing (instead of stopping plowing operations between 4:00 p.m. and 11:00
p.m.). They felt that the value engineering caused the other 6 hours of savings.
Table 3.1 Sample of Ideas Defined During Speculative

Phase
Direct communications.
Use central dispatch controller.
Train employees on multiple routes.
Use video terminals.
Use incentives.
Train employees to read maps.
Pre-plowing meeting.
Use electronic routing.
Computerized status board.
Practice procedures with dry runs.
Tell employees of hazard areas.
Use charts on walls.
Have several copies of maps available.
Clear plastic covers for maps.
Larger maps.
Install map lights.
Install map holders.
Install 2-way radios in all trucks.
Assign alternate routes.
Work teams use a Buddy system.
Heads up display for mapping.
Provide written instructions to supervisor.
Use a public address system inside and outside.
22 DOING OUR WORK BETTER
SUMMARY
There are two points that I want to emphasize. The first is that we can make
changes to any existing process if we use the proper approach. Here, value
engineering provided the approach to follow. However, any well organized and
open approach can work as well.
The second point is that we can improve any process or bit of engineering
work. As a new engineer you should be concerned first when someone tells
you there is only one way to do a task; not about possible problems that change
will bring.
THE LESSON
The lesson offered here is simple. There is more than one way to solve a
problem. Also, there are infinite ways in which we can do our engineering and
management responsibilities. New engineers should not try to adapt the circum-
stances of a situation to fit their favorite solution, but to find the best way to
do a job based upon the specific circumstances.
CHAPTER 4 / CONSTITUENCIES,
COMMUNICATION, AND
CIVIL ENGINEERS
THE THOUGHT
Go to work for a local government and the first impression you have is,
there are many people in the game. Advice, suggestions, opinions, guesses, and
sometimes even threats come from every direction. The diverse and sometimes
covert nature of this information makes it harder to understand than any technical
data set you will ever come across. Furthermore, the way you respond to this
information has the potential to cause more problems than anything you may
ever construct. Thus the key to your success is really dependent on how well
you communicate. This is so true that civil engineers should really think of
themselves as "communication engineers," because the crux of our work is
working with ideas flowing back and forth between people.
THE STORY
As a civil engineer working for a local government you must be, above
everything else, a good communicator. You must have the skill to send ideas
back and forth to a variety of people, each person with different interests and
needs. One factor that sometimes prevents our communications from being
completed successfully is lack of understanding, by everyone involved, of the
relationships between the various groups interested in public works. Without a
complete understanding of these relationships, communications can fail. Com-
monly such breakdowns result in such extreme anger (of all parties involved)
that we lose credibility with the very groups we need to support a project.
The most difficult thing for some civil engineers to understand is why they
must bear an inordinate share of the credibility loss. I agree that it is not fair
to take the burden of the loss. But as public servants, responsible for providing
services to the public, a portion of our time at work (and the salary for that
time) is just for listening, and acting as a focal point at which the public can
vent their frustrations and anger. And while sometimes the anger and frustrations
are not a result of any action or inaction on our part, we also need to remember
that sometimes we are not faultless.
ONCE UPON A TIME

Once upon a time there was an engineer named Hi Tech. Hi managed the
organization that took care of Ourcity's streets. One day Hi went to a seminar.
He listened to a learned speaker tell how a computer helped one engineer make
streets in Hiscity safer.
Now you should know two things about Hi Tech. The first is that Hi felt
23
24 CONSTITUENCIES, COMMUNICATION, AND CIVIL ENGINEERS
that the streets in Ourcity were less dangerous than the streets in any other
city. The second is that Hi believed that he was THE technical expert for Ourcity.
As THE expert he knew what was best for Ourcity's streets.
When the learned speaker finished, Hi asked "Just what good can such a
system do for me, I already have the best roads around?" Sixty-minutes later
the learned speaker collapsed in frustration and Hi Tech went back to Ourcity
and reported that he gained nothing of value from the trip.
The moral of the story is that bureaucrats (like Hi Tech) shape the services
provided to the citizens, by local governments. Because good communications
means having not only the abilities to speak and listen, but to understand; the
quality of the services bureaucrats provide depends on the quality of their
communication.
I think that this story contains two valuable points for the new engineer.
The first point is about the part engineers play in the promotion of a particular
philosophy or program. It suggests that engineers need to decide if they are
going to act as a hired hand who only carries out the wishes of the mysterious
man-at-the-top, or a promoter who uses their special knowledge of the
operations of the bureaucracy to push their agenda.
The second point is that engineers must decide if promoting a program
contrary to that desired by elected officials and the people is ever proper. The
difficulty with making this decision is that it requires two things: a broad based
perspective of the world and human nature (that unfortunately, our engineering
schools do not usually give us); and the ability to communicate.
TYPES OF COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS

All organizations have communication problems. Despite the type cf
organization or the business of the organization, they all have similar kinds of
problems. The major difference between organizations is how they handle their
problems. One example of the difference in problem handling strategy has to
do with the impetus behind change. The private sector handles communication
problems quickly to prevent damage to the profit making abilities of the
company. On the other hand, the local government agency acts slower since
there rarely is a fear of elimination because of communication problems.
At the root of local government communication problems are two different
philosophies. The first is that the public employee has the right (some even say an
obligation) to use their position to promote a particular social policy. Agenda
promoting is common to those who believe in using government (and it can
be local, state, or federal level) to promote a particular social program. The moral
questions raised by these people makes countering their arguments very difficult.
The other philosophy is that local government is only a place to promote
the welfare of the public employee. Therefore, communication should only serve
those purposes. This is similar to the philosophy held by some entrepreneurs.
However, it is debatable whether public funds should be available to support
such activities. Unlike the private sector, the public sector lacks market controls
that can restrain bureaucrats.
CONSTITUENCIES, COMMUNICATION, AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 25
THE CYCLE OF GOOD COMMUNICATION

There are three basic steps that we must take to end or correct communica-
tion problems: 1) identify the problem, 2) act, and 3) prevent further problems.
Identifying Communication ProblemsWe have one clear-cut test of com-

munication. We simply ask if we are providing service to the public as
intended. If the answer is yes, then we can ask if we are providing the service
in the most efficient manner. If we cannot answer yes, then there is a
communication problem. The next step is to figure out the parts of the problem.
Communication problems can result from poor organizational structure and
a lack of skills used to transfer ideas between people. Legislative bodies cause
communication problems when they fail to provide proper guidance for applying
the laws they make. Another cause is failure of an agency to cultivate a moral
character of its own. Any of these can cause serious communication problems.
Any agency burdened with more than one of these communication problems
faces a potential disaster. Also, the nature of these problems is such that if you
start with one, the other will follow.
A common problem is the failure of lawmakers to provide proper direction
for an agency that they create. The nature of much law is very broad. This is
necessary because the complex nature of our society and market based economy
makes it difficult to make useful laws that are specific. Lawmakers rely upon a
publicly employed technical staff to define the detail that will make their laws
work. This detail is regulation. Therefore, an agency that lacks professional
administrators will never have a clear course marked for it.
To find this course the public employee needs two qualities. The first is
skill in the technical aspects of communication. They must bridge the technology
gap between lawmakers and the public, and the technical staff that work in the
local governments. For example, before an agency can make rules for using a
new chemical, it must conduct scientific studies. Then its staff must interpret
the results and translate them for the lawmaker. Because communicating technical
information is so difficult it is allocated, unfortunately, only a brief period in the
entire process.
CONSTITUENCIES
Above all, engineers must transfer technical information in a fair and
impartial manner that gives elected officials the freedom to decide a question.
This notion of impartiality strikes at the heart of the agenda promoting question.
The politics of some organizations is such that for it to continue to exist the
staff must promote the agency and its work. Obviously, maintaining impartiality
while promoting is a very difficult balancing act. However, there are ways to
cross such a tightrope successfully.
One way to promote an agency is to gather a large group that will benefit
from the work of the agency. A common example is the public works department
for a city. It's work might, for example, involve four areas of activity:
engineering, transportation, wastewater, operations and maintenance. Because
these activities include the responsibility of providing many very basic services
to the community, they affect many groups of people.
Two major interest groups may be the Mayor's Office and City Council.
The public works department is administratively responsible to the Mayor.
Simultaneously it looks to the City Council for its operating funds. Both groups
look to the public works department for policy suggestions, program proposals,
and technical skills. Both also look to the public works department to conduct
business while reducing citizen complaints.
Interest groups also exist outside the formal government organization. For
example, if the department has the responsibility to construct new public works
it must relate to two additional groups. One group is contractors that want to
win construction contacts. The other is consulting engineers that want to design
and supervise the construction. These groups look to the department for work.
However, the department expects them to lobby the Mayor's Office and City
Council for public works funding.
The motoring public, or highway users, represent another interest group,
a sub-set of the general population. Highway users come to the department for
adequate roads, and for good maintenance of existing roads. In return, highway
users lobby for funds to do maintenance and construction work. They also give
opinions to administrators and elected officials about the quality of work the
department is doing.
One other notable interest group are people that take the time to file
complaints about the services the department provides. Because some elected
officials use complaints to rate the effectiveness of the department, sometimes
complainers receive a very high level of service from the department (the
squeaky wheel syndrome). Unless the complaint is outrageous, it is given the
highest priority (and often the outrageous are also given high priority). Because
of the attention given to such complaints, the department may skew services
for persons who complain, and delay work that benefits a much larger
but quieter group of people.
COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS
The most serious problems come when an agency fails to formulate a moral
character of its own. Like people, agencies have a set of rules that control the
way they operate. Often the moral tone of an agency is simply a reflection of
its employees' morality. Sometimes an administrator from an earlier time set
the tone of an agency, and it simply remains the same long after that
administrator leaves. Despite how the moral tone is set, if an agency has poor
ethical standards of practice it will be obvious by poor communication.
PREVENTING PROBLEMS
There are several steps that we can take to prevent communications
problems. One positive step is to follow a professional code of ethics promoted
by the dominant profession in the agency. It is right to place an emphasis upon
a code of ethics or to encourage its acceptance. While enforcement of codes is
CONSTITUENCIES, COMMUNICATION, AND CIVIL ENGINEERS 27
sometimes a hit or miss proposition, our fast paced society still yearns for moral
strength in our agencies. We must live by such codes. Most of all, we must see
that our agencies operate under such codes.
People from the private sector pressure some of today's public employees
into believing there is some profit equivalent for local government. To get this
profit equivalent they promote management techniques that encourage poor
communication practices. However, you cannot measure service to the public
in the simple terms of profit. The most important goal for every local
government is service to the public. Because there are no tools to measure
service easily, we need a driving force such as a code of ethics to insure
achievement of goals. If there is no code of ethics then we should use a more
universal guideline. The best substitute, and a complement to any code of ethics,
is the "golden rule/' If we operate a local government with the idea that we
are a potential customer, then we will go a long way to forming a high ethical
tone for that agency.
Another step concerns our expectations of the agency, and its employees.
The idea is to shape an agency in a form that we would find acceptable if we
were it's customer. We should have high expectations for our agency. If we
expect less than the highest level of service there will never be a chance that
the agency will do any better. Expectations are a very subtle form of communica-
tion. Expectations take the form of high moral courage, industry, and self-
starting. In fact, they should take the form of an attitude that says, "I will do
everything necessary to make this the finest agency around; an agency that I
would want to go to for service." Service is the goal for every local government.
If the managers or workers of an agency feel no obligation to provide the
highest level of service then they never will provide a good service to the public.
There is more to these ideas than expecting a high level of service from a
local government, or having an ethical agency. These two factors push an agency
to use the newest technology for attaining high levels of work quality and
productivity. We cannot have honest, complete communication unless the best
information is available. Modern data processing techniques can help provide
information. The biggest obstruction we have to using modern techniques is
people. Some technical professionals still are wary of new techniques. They feel
that it is possible to have too much information. When people have these
feelings, a major roadblock to good communication exists.
Modern automated management systems are simply tools to help the users
make good choices. These systems provide background in a subject that a person
could only get with years of on-the-job experience. Such systems give you an
opportunity to spend your time making choices instead of collecting and
processing data. With an emphasis on decision making, the professional can
more completely consider the moral and ethical impact of an action.
Modern professional techniques and the background to conduct business
ethically all require a basic education in moral and ethical belief. Besides the
basics, we must have a continuing education. Formal education is one part of
this continuing education, especially for the technical subjects that are so rapidly
changing and expanding. However, we need to do more than simply sit in a

classroom. We need to want to learn, and we can learn from everyday life. The
need to learn for the good of mankind is sadly missing in our country today.
History shows us that the greatest advances have been due to a person's need
to answer a question for the sake of knowing, not for profit. If we have the
need to help mankind, it sets a tone of life that helps communication flow well.
The point of this chapter is that good communication in local government
is a moral and ethical problem. Without a strong moral and ethical basis good
communication is very difficult. Where a moral background exists there are
technical concerns that will still prevent good communication. What makes local
government different from the private sector is that in local government the
most important product is service not profit.
THE LESSON
As an engineer it is easy to slip into the use of jargon that can hide what
we are doing. But, as engineers we have an obligation to be clear, concise and
honest communicators. In addition, we should want to be known as people who
try to communicate with people who have no technical background, and to
communicate ideas so the people around us can use them.
CHAPTER 5 / MANAGING PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH USING
COMPUTER PROGRAMS
THE THOUGHT
Everyone says they want to use computers. Yet, there are still some people
who avoid using computers whenever they can. Also, some managers still resist
using the latest computer technology. They simply refuse to use computer tools
even when there is a clear advantage. One major problem that engineers must
deal with is trying to use modern computer tools despite indecisive admin-
istrators and doubtful co-workers.
THE STORY
The computer is a useful engineering tool. Because computers have become
cheaper and easier to use, people use them more. Now organizations of every
size and type use them. It is inevitable, just as the pocket calculator replaced
the slide rule, the computer will replace the pocket calculator. Yet, there are
many useful computer applications that some people still resist using.
One common reason managers give for not using computers more, is the
chance of abuse. People misuse computers, but they also misuse every other
tool they have. However, the mystery attached to computers makes abuse and
misuse more of a problem.
Another reason is that it is too expensive to use computers. Fifteen or
twenty years ago this argument may have been true (in some specific situations).
However, today's powerful, inexpensive computers eliminate this argument.
Yet another argument is that computers cannot do everything people claim
they can do. This is a very important point because it really gets to the heart
of the entire computer use argument. The computer is just a tool, no more-no
less. It can only do what we program it to do. People must write the programs,
and give the instructions to the machine. People also must make the claims for
what a computer can or cannot do. To make the maximum use of computers,
the engineer must know the limitations of the machine, and what claims the
user can make.
On the other hand, there are several reasons for using computers more in
engineering. First, as the price of computers falls more people will buy them.
With more computers around people will grow accustomed to them. As a result
there will be more engineers to whom computer use will be second nature.
An important point that must be remembered is that though many more
people today are familiar with and can operate computers, there is a very big
difference between operating a computer and knowing how to apply the
computer in the most efficient and effective way to solve problems. Furthermore,
new graduates of engineering programs are not, by default, computer experts.
29
30 MANAGING PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH USING COMPUTER PROGRAMS
They know how to operate the equipment and run some programs, but they
do not have the problem solving skills needed to use the computers in civil
engineering problem solving.
A second reason is that programmers have developed many computer
programs that we can use for practical, day-to-day work. There are computer
programs for all the specialized fields of civil engineering. Other programs
automate or ease the work required for economic, management, and statistical
analyses.
Another reason is that people can use many computer programs without
knowing how to program. This lets just about all staff members use them in a
typical engineering office. Many computer programs prompt users for input and
check the response for errors. This feature in particular makes computers easier
to use. Moreover, many programmers continually improve their products to
combat aging and simplify use.
A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND

Once, managers' chief concern was if computers were a proper tool for their
organization to use. Universal acceptance of computer tools by society ended
much of this concern. Yet, contrasting approaches for using computers still exist.
Some organizations quickly apply the most recent computer techniques. Other
organizations resist applying new computer tools.
The contrast is most obvious when organizations representing each ap-
proach must work together to complete a major facility design. When this
happens, discussions about the positive and negative aspects of computers often
drown out the project discussions. We can classify these approaches (to applying
new computer tools) by the types of relationships they represent. There are
three basic relationships: 1) between people, 2) between people and machines,
and 3) between organizations.
Our job as computer users is to resolve conflicts that arise from the
differences in computer application approach. The mystery some people attach
to computers complicates this job. Technical factors also complicate the task.
Also, engineers often use technical arguments to mask their real concern the
loss of control that computer use causes for some hands-on engineers. In fact,
the fear of lack of control is the crux of these problems.
Engineers must understand this fear if they hope to resolve many conflicts
(not just computer related). Also, we must recognize how other engineers can
associate the lack of control with the use of computers. Some engineers who
hesitate to use computers are also hesitant to delegate work. In both cases they
lack trust. They also feel that one quality of good engineering data is that an
engineer can hold it in their hand and change it with a pencil. You cannot do
that with a computer file.
Again, I think the point needs to be made that the basis of this type of
conflict is not a young engineer versus old engineer thing. In over twenty years
of applying computers and training people in using computers the most
enthusiastic people I have worked with included several very senior individuals,
MANAGING PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH USING COMPUTER PROGRAMS 31
while some of the most resistant were new graduates. Based upon my
observations, the real basis of conflict is the difference in the way individuals
approach problem solving and work delegation.
Still, to some of us, such fear is silly. While it is a difficult problem to
overcome, we can overcome it if we use the correct approach. A major ingredient
for the correct approach is to know the limitations of computers.
WEAKNESSES ASSOCIATED WITH COMPUTER PROGRAMS

Although computers are useful to the civil engineering profession, they do
have weaknesses and disadvantages. The engineer must be aware of these if
they are to gain the most from computer use. An example is the case when
two organizations with opposing philosophies of computer use work on the
same project. Such differences in computer use philosophy often mirror a basic
contrast in engineering philosophy. In this class of situations, opponents
emphasize the disadvantages to the other group's philosophy (not the substance
of the work). By doing this they hope to show or prove fault in the work done
by the group using the computer.
Still there are weaknesses and we can classify weaknesses into several types
we must deal with: misuse, misinterpretation, misapplication, and over promo-
tion. In a typical situation these weaknesses can result in a waste of production
resources. Under the worst circumstances there can be severe financial implica-
tions and a loss of credibility.
We can further classify the different weakness types in a particular
relationship by type of relationship. The importance of classification is that it
lets us consider the impact that a solution has on a relationship before we try
to solve the technical problem (refer to Table 5.1). For example, we can consider
whether to address human-machine relationships when correcting misuse or
organizational dynamics and relationships between organizations. The solution
changes accordingly.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND MACHINES

To pick the correct solution for a problem we need to account for the
effects of relationships. When we manage a project our work is primarily the
balancing and sorting out of relationships. Therefore, solving problems asso-
ciated with computers is more a management activity than a technical activity.
Table 5.1 Problem TypeRelationship Matrix

Relationship Individual Individual Organization
Proble vs vs vs
Type Machine Individual Organization
Misuse X x
Misinterpretation X
Misapplication X X
Overpromotion X
A burden of modern society is the need for humans to relate with machines.
This problem is increasing because as we try to make machines easier to use,
we make them much more complex physically. Once, nearly anyone could
understand how a machine worked. Now the use of modern electronics means
only a few people know how machines function. Unfortunately, this is a major
negative factor for human-machine relationships.
While misuse is common in some types of systems, the availability and
speed of computers compounds the effect. Although many computer programs
check for out-of-range input data or carelessness, they rarely do logic or
suitability checking. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the analyst used good
judgment. Misuse is often a function of the experience of the project team, the
amount of computer use experience, and technical skill.
Another problem is misunderstanding the results. Nearly every educational
curriculum includes a computer course. So the work force is becoming more
computer literate. Yet, while computer literacy is increasing, there is no
corresponding increase of engineering know-how. Anyone with a computer can
use modern computer programs. While this is an advantage for the using staff,
it means that the computer program operator also may analyze the results. Thus,
the chance of a person with little or no engineering skills working on a technical
problem and interpreting output is large.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PEOPLE

People not getting along is a constant source of problems. Humans have had
difficulty communicating with each other for millions of years. While we can use
computers to improve communications the present state of the technology has
yet to reach that level.
Often, because it is convenient or desirable there is a tendency to try to
apply a computer program in every situation. This is risky and ill-advised. It
implies that computer programs have a universal relevance. However, most
computer programs have very specific application limits.
Compounding this problem is a lack of experience in engineering. That is,
some people who know computers lack engineering experience. Or, they may
lack the technical background or common sense to decide the proper use of a
particular program. This includes knowing the limits of use.
There is also a danger of over promoting a particular computer program. It is
common to underestimate both the time and cost of a proper application. Current
machine and computer program combinations can process large, complex data
sets rapidly. Still, there can be cases when the absolute amount of time to analyze
a problem completely is extensive or unreasonable.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONS

When organizations must work together the potential for conflict between
the organizations is large. Many projects require several organizations to work
together. This makes the potential for trouble great. There is an increased
potential for problems when the organizations have different philosophies about
computer use.
The universal availability of equipment and computer programs means it
is likely that different organizations will use the same resources to examine the
same problem. It is common for more than one group to study a problem. This
happens when several agencies analyze the same situation, groups with special
interests are promoting an idea, or there is disagreement over features of an
idea. Unfortunately, the "black-box"1 nature of many computer programs means
that instead of different teams using common formulae in the same way, they
use programs that that can vary almost infinitely.
Thus several situations can unfold. For instance, the teams can use different
versions of a computer program. They can code input data differently. Or, there
can be differences that are due to chance. Each of these problem types changes
results in different ways. For example, chance can cause output results to be
different each time, though statistically all is fine. Or, differences in coding will
give different results for the same problem.
MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
To some people, computers will always have an air of extreme technical
mystery. So, there will always be problems in the relationship between people
and machines. For example, look at the relationship between the mechanical side
of the automobile and the average driver. Few drivers care about the technical
complexity of automobiles anymore. Eventually, intense use may produce nearly
the same type of relationship with computers.
On the other hand we are less likely to improve relationships between
people. Unlike the automobile, where usage has led to a subtle contempt for its
technical aspects, people have lived together for several million years and are
still having trouble getting along. The involvement of computers sometimes
complicates the problems in these relationships especially when opponents use
computers to mask the true reasons for the problems. Also, organizations have
dealt with each other for many years with only marginal success. Again, despite
the source of the problems, inclusion of computers often raises the chance for
discrediting an organization and its work.
THE OBSTACLE COURSE
When engineers use a computer program in a technical study two road-
blocks can complicate the study effort; lack of study definition and use of the
results.
Study DefinitionA major problem for analysts is defining the study. There-
fore, one goal for engineers is to define the work to be done and the types of
analyses to use.
1
"A device or theoetical construct... with known or specified performance characteristics but unknown
or unspecified constituents and means of operation." (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, Second
College Edition, (1985), Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Page 184.)
Another problem can result because of a lack of ground rules for data input.
If there are no standards, or data checking there can be significant differences
the data used in a program and the resulting output.
Use of the ResultsMany computer programs produce large reports contain-

ing the results of many, calculations and many measures of effectiveness. Analysis
and presentation of these results can raise many questions including: "How is
the entire study process documented?" "On what basis is the measure of
effectiveness used to make comparisons and draw conclusions?" "What is the
form of any summary of output?" "What guidelines do we use to interpret the
output results?" This last question is particularly important because there can
be so much data to review. The more data there are, the more chance
that users may not know what some of them mean and so, be unable to make
a correct interpretation.
When there is much data, engineers are going to have difficulties coming
to a conclusion. Even if engineers can come to a conclusion there will be doubt
about the basis of evaluation and threshold values used to aid in understanding
the data.
These problems are common and are well defined1 in the principles of
computer programming. Still, it is useful to examine problems experienced when
local governments use sophisticated engineering computer programs in the field.
Such examples can point out those areas that engineers must monitor to insure
prompt completion and universal acceptance of results.
In fact, because these problems have been around for sometime we should
consider them management problems, not problems basic to computer usage.
The new breed of computer users that are no longer skillful programmers
intensifies this aspect. Computers are tools and we should consider problems
with their use no different from those associated with the use of any other tool.
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
To insure that engineers accept the results of a computer based analysis
efforts, we should consider the following items.
Input Coding ErrorsInput coding errors are a basic problem. They are
characteristic of the computer operator and data entry specialists' skills, not the
engineer directing the application. Such errors are a function of the quality
control methodology that analysts follow and the number of error catching
routines built into the program. Programs vary widely in their ability to check
for this type of error. Engineers must insure that these basic components of
analysis are strong.
1
From a talk by Dr. James R. Mekemson, P.E. at George Mason University on January 26,1990 entitled
"Informed Application of Software Tools; A Case Study". Dr. Mekemson also listed field data recording
errors, unobserved phenomena related errors, and inadequate implementation errors. However these three
classes of errors did not apply to this study.
Computer Program Parameter AdjustmentProgram operators can change

many program parameters to customize programs to a specific situation.
Engineers must manage this type of adjustment since it requires a strong
academic background in the area that the program is for. It is difficult to detect
improper adjustments. The reason for this difficulty is that analysts usually make
the changes at a very early stage of the study, but it is the results that show
the effects.
Logic ErrorsLogic errors are a function of a particular computer program's

creation. Usually, engineers cannot change or end this type of error without
changing the computer program source code. The primary ways to handle such
problems are either to forgo using the computer program, or using the program
only in situations that will not be affected by the errors (if anyone knows when
that time may be).
If engineers are concerned that logic errors exist, it can damage the
credibility of the analysis and the sponsoring organization. Only an intimate
knowledge of the computer program and its source code will allow the engineer
to handle this problem. Unfortunately, there is not always someone available
who is familiar enough with a program's code to address a problem.
Computer Program Code ErrorAs with logic errors, code errors are a
function of computer program maturity. Again, the occasional user must either
avoid the program in these situations, or apply the program very carefully. It
is unadvisable to try to fix programs by changing code written by another
programmer. Besides being very difficult, the process can raise questions about
the integrity of the program output, or destroy the program.
Data Translation ErrorData translation errors refer to the translation or

changing of data during the transfer from source documents to the program
file. Such errors rarely result in error messages and the program can run
successfully. The only way an engineer can identify them is by line-by-line
checking of the input data set. Usually, the number of errors relates to the time
and care taken in extracting and processing data.
WHAT DO WE NEED TO REMEMBER?

There are several precautions that an engineer should take when responsible
for computer programs. First, and above all, the parties involved must understand
what the computer program can and cannot do. For example, a computer
program can only process the information that we give to it. Garbage in, garbage
out still holds true. If we leave some data out it will be impossible to draw
conclusions concerning performance factors or measures of effectiveness.
A computer program cannot figure out if a particular application is proper.
Thus, they are anything but idiot proof. So the engineer must decide if the
application is proper. Such a determination needs skill, experience and knowledge
of the basis for the particular program in question.
A computer program cannot select the right measures of effectiveness for

evaluation purposes. The program can only process all the data that the computer
code tells it to use. Unless specifically designed to do so, the computer program
cannot identify those measures that might be most useful to consider. All users
need to exercise common sense.
To apply a computer program successfully the users must be knowledgeable.
That is, everyone must have a basic understanding of the capabilities of the
computer program. It is also helpful if the users have a strong technical
background and extensive practical experience in the area that the computer
program addresses. To reduce conflict you must reach consensus with all parties
involved, before work starts. This agreement should include what computer
programs will be used and exactly how they will be applied.
SUMMARY
An effective and useful application of any given computer program relies
on many factors. Before applying any computer program, the engineer must
work to define a complete set of ground rules. Then, the engineer must see that
the study team follows the ground rules. Everyone involved in the application
should agree to support the use of the application. Without such agreement, it
will be difficult to gain a consensus about the results.
Finally, everyone involved should remember that if they apply a computer
program many times, in the same way, to the same problem, the results should
be the same. (Of course, with various simulation models the random generation
factor built into the program will, unless the random seed is set to the same
value for each run, give slightly different numerical results each time it is run.
However, for a given series of simulations, the averages of the series should be
comparable.) If the results are different, then the engineers must figure out the
reason for the difference and correct it before analysts use the computer program
for comparison of alternatives. (Wong 1989)5 (Yauch 1988)6.
THE LESSON
Many engineers have the dangerous and risky task of setting up or using a
computerized technique. The benefits are great if the engineer is successful.
However, a failure can be harmful both to a person's career and to the agency's
reputation. Yet, you can be successful and the benefits are well worth the risks.
It is very important for the engineer to know what programmers designed
particular programs to do, avoid modifications to programs developed by others,
and develop a unified approach among the staff when selecting and applying
the programs. Otherwise, disagreements among the staff could affect the staff's
(or the organization's) credibility.
CHAPTER 6 / MANAGING MANAGERS
THE THOUGHT
Early in their careers engineers usually begin to manage small groups of
people. To learn the necessary "skills" of management young engineers often
imitate their supervisors. This approach to training not only passes along the
good skills of the existing managers but also the mistakes and poor processes
they use. Because imitative training passes along both good and poor manage-
ment skills it is an inefficient method and may actually promote poor practices.
Good management training should be more than junior managers imitating
a given way of doing things. Good management training should be the conscious
passing along of techniques that managers can use to deal effectively with people
and help them (the employees) to do their job well. Among these techniques
should be ways for managers to evaluate their assistants. Using these skills the
manager can know how their assistants are treating the people working for
them, and if the assistant managers are giving every person the fairest
opportunity to succeed. Again, fair treatment, and an opportunity to succeed
are the key ingredients needed if organizational goals are to be reached.
THE STORY
The ability of local government engineering managers to realize goals is,
to a very great extent, dependent upon staff members carrying out the actual
tasks of work. But quality performance by staff members is a direct result of an
engineer's management style and skill. Therefore, the greater the success an
engineer has in fostering high morale, a spirit of mutual respect and co-operation
within an organization, the greater the chances are for attaining most or all of
their goals.
However, high morale, respect and co-operation do not flow magically
through an organization just because top management ordains it. There must
be vigilance by managers at all levels to assure that each subordinate manage-
ment level has the appropriate feelings and takes the proper actions toward their
staff. Yet, it is difficult for managers to get or make such assurances because it
is undesirable or impractical for a manager to watch assistant managers
constantly. So they must use another approach to get the information they need.
One possible way to get the information they need is to measure assistant
managers' actions through an analysis of documents linking assistant managers
to staff members. Typically, the manager (and when we refer to manager here
we mean engineer-manager) can use documents such as grievances, disciplinary
actions, and performance evaluations. Through analysis of documents managers
can gain an awareness of their assistants' actions on an individual and a unit-wide
basis.
37
38 MANAGING MANAGERS
If properly conducted, such analyses can help the manager figure out how
their assistant managers treat people and how the assistant managers feel about
their staff. After a manager has uncovered these perceptions she or he can decide
the training and counseling needed to change those actions and beliefs that harm
morale and work.
Performance Evaluationsare incidental products of the management func-

tion. The performance evaluation systems we use today have their roots in the
industrial revolution of the nineteenth century. 7(Buzzotta 1978) 8(Hememan
1983) 9(Kindall 1963) 10(Levinson 1976) n(Oberg 1972) 12(Plunkett 1979).
Most of the reasons given by managers for using performance evaluations
relate to the characteristics of the people they are rating. However, there are
three other purposes for which the manager can use evaluations that relate to
the supervisors who fill out the forms. These are: 1) to help or prod supervisors
to observe their workers more closely and to do a better coaching job; 2) to
further the supervisor's understanding of each worker; and, 3) to make the
supervisor-worker relationship more orderly.
There are several methodologies commonly used to rate employee perfor-
mance and several authors 13(Siegel 1984) (Oberg 1972) have rated their
effectiveness in attaining evaluation goals. The literature of the performance
evaluation field usually supports the view that the multiple-step rating scale
instrument used by many local government organizations is ineffective. This is
a common tool that generally lists several attributes or work characteristics, each
of which is scored on a rating scale from satisfactory to unsatisfactory. Still, the
information that can be gleaned from a set of completed instruments can be
useful to managers.
There are three points we want to emphasize here. The first is that a good
manager can make use of almost any available data to study a problem. The
second point is that managers can use data for several different analysis purposes.
The third is that how we treat people is so important to a successful organization
that we should use every tool available to us to monitor how managers treat
them.
FOR EXAMPLE
Ourcity's engineering department maintains a file of several hundred
performance evaluations. Each record represents a separate performance evalu-
ation for each year. The file has performance evaluations for every member of
the Ourcity Engineering Department.
As managers complete performance evaluations, auditors review, code, and
add them to the database. Auditors also add data such as employee identification,
sub-scores, and performance scores from the original performance evaluation. In
addition, they add other data describing the individual and the rater.
Originally, senior managers wanted to use the database to figure out
average scores for various sub-sections in the Engineering Department. How-
ever, when managers examined early analysis results they discovered that:
MANAGING MANAGERS 39
The higher an employee's salary level, the higher the total score of the
performance evaluation.
Performance evaluation scores for persons in management positions are
higher than scores for those persons in non-management positions.
People in professional and administrative positions have lower evaluation
scores than people in clerical and labor positions.
People in labor, technical, and non-professional positions, classified as
supervisors, have higher performance evaluation scores than people in
labor, technical, and non-professional positions but classified as non-
supervisors.
For job positions with both male and female incumbents the average
performance evaluation score received by males is higher than the
average score received by females.
Supervisors who rate both males and females give higher average
performance evaluation scores than supervisors who rate only males.
For some members of the senior management team the finding that
performance evaluation scores vary according to factors such as sex, nationality,
amount of pay, and whether the person is a member of Ourcity's management
team was intolerable. The managers concluded that either unqualified persons
were filling some positions or biased persons were completing the evaluations.
While, they could accept the statistical fact that the scores will vary, a basic
assumption they made was that the variance was random and independent of
the physical and cultural characteristics of the persons evaluated. It then followed
that if evaluators based a person's job performance on the way they did their
work and if qualified personnel fill any particular job classification, then scores
should be independent of factors such as sex or nationality.
Because the scores had strong relationships with the physical and cultural
traits of the staff, management had a very strong indicator that they needed to
take action (or at least further serious investigation) to train managers to base
their evaluation of, and the corresponding treatment of, workers only on work
related performance standards.
CONCLUSIONS
For Ourcity, despite the causes behind the differences in scores, the result
is the same low morale and poor productivity. If the evaluation score variance
is the result of the poor quality of the job holder, then managers have several
options. They can encourage the Personnel Department to find the highest
qualified people for any given position. They also can refuse to interview or
accept job applicants that fail to meet the minimum legitimate qualifications set
for the position.
If the variance in evaluation scores is a result of discriminatory proctices by
supervisors, managers can take several actions. They can show their strong
support of equal employment opportunity programs and the need to conform
with such programs. They also can show their support for a diversified work
40 MANAGING MANAGERS
force by encouraging all types of persons to apply for openings at all levels of
the organization. A final step is for managers to sponsor and take an active part
in training programs at all levels that make employees aware of the problems
of discrimination of any type. This type of training would teach managers to
judge persons on their abilities and accomplishments, not on their physical and
cultural characteristics.

There are several lessons to learn from Ourcity's experience. The first is
that by collecting data and putting it into an easy to analyze form, the manager
can investigate different situations as resources allow. Usually, putting data into
a suitable database takes little if any additional time besides the normal filing
process.
The second lesson is that although you may prepare a database for one
purpose it is possible to use it for others. In our example, the original intended
use of the data was to calculate average evaluation scores. However, the final
primary use was to rate the managers who were completing the evaluations.
The most important lesson is that the discrimination problem that was
identified existed before the collection and analysis of the data and was not a
result of the analysis. Also, the problem would continue to exist even if the
analysis results were ignored. However, by using available information, man-
agers could take the appropriate actions needed to end the problems.
THE LESSON
Engineers who are managers, and engineers who want to be managers need
to learn how to use every bit of information that is available to them. Most
engineers must be willing to follow the path of an analysis even if they find
unexpected, or distasteful results.
CHAPTER 7 / MANAGING WORK
THE THOUGHT
Managers often ask engineers to do more work without providing more
resources to support the requests. In response, engineers typically counter that
they need more resources (time, money, and people). Frequently the engineer
gives this knee-jerk response before even knowing what the manager really
wants. Also, they often do not know what their real workload is. Sometimes
there is no factual basis for the response at all.
Some engineers are taught that to consider responding positively to these
requests is wrong and there are several reasons for this. Peer pressure is one
major reason. Another reason is that a positive response may mean changes in
organizational responsibilities. Changes that will come without corresponding
increases in management privilege or compensation for the engineer.
Of course, there are times when resources are inadequate to tackle new
tasks. Still, if we want to provide good service to the public we need to avoid
knee-jerk, negative responses. Also, to promote an organization successfully, we
need to make our responses positive in nature whenever possible. Still, despite
the type of response we give, we should base it strictly upon facts.
THE STORY
One issue that everyone talks about but rarely does anything about is
making service the main goal of local government. However, we can change
this habit. One way is to advocate a service attitude and the best time to start
is when an engineer starts a new career.
Some tasks that workers in local government do (but certainly not all) are
simple and repetitive. Usually there is a seasonal pattern to the flow of work
and only outside forces cause deviation. The impact of disruptions to these
patterns can vary widely. However, the effect depends on how well an
organization understands these work flow patterns.
An organization that understands the patterns poorly is unable to handle
what managers call "fires" systematically. When occupied regularly by "fire-
fighting," they must sacrifice all other work efforts. On the other hand, an
organization with a good understanding of its work flow patterns can conduct
occasional fire-fights without significantly disturbing the normal work program.
It is a simple task for an engineer to gain a good grasp of work patterns.
However, it is a task that requires a formal approach, and a commitment to
collect, maintain, and analyze a large amount of data. For most organizations
such a commitment means setting up data processing and computer capabilities.
But the tools exist, and local governments have used them for sometime in their
maintenance functions. In fact, engineers have used maintenance management
techniques frequently in the past decades. Their use has increased as the need
to use resources more efficiently has increased.
41
42 MANAGING WORK
FOR EXAMPLE
One problem that Ourcity faces is efficiently using materials, equipment, and
personnel. Inflation and the uncertainty of funding levels make the problem
worse. It is a major concern of the technical staff.
Traditionally, in Ourcity the training of a technician and other skilled
personnel for an engineering staff requires a large expenditure of time and
money before managers can get useful production. Because of these high costs
it is a case of gross mismanagement if managers fail to make the most (and best
use) of the skills of the technician.
Unfortunately, some local governments are unable to make the best use of
their technical staffs. There are two reasons. One is that there may be extremely
heavy workloads that make changes in procedure difficult. Another is that there
may be policies that restrict procedural changes due to the nature of the
organization.
SITUATION
Ourcity provides traffic engineering services for a suburban city. The
southern part of Ourcity is rapidly urbanizing. But, the northern part remains
rural. As expected the change from rural to urban causes a wide range of
problems. Engineers must solve the resulting safety problems quickly to limit
the liability of Ourcity and provide as safe a transition from rural to urban
conditions as possible.
The traffic engineering department provides all the services for the signal
system and road network. These services include conducting traffic signal
surveys, parking and speed surveys, traffic volume counts, accident analysis, and
many other traffic related studies. Also, the department does all planning
operations for the city road system.
We can get a feel for the work load from the volume of activities carried
on during one year; 1000 letters and memos, 775 job work slips, 210 traffic
surveys, 7000 accidents sorted and spotted on maps, more than 12,000 telephone
inquiries, and 4000 maintenance reports reviewed and filed.
The staff has two Engineers, four Technicians, and two Clerks. The problem
that Ourcity needed to solve was how to process work promptly. The answer
to the problem was to change procedures to allow engineers to use the available
staff to its maximum extent and capabilities.
To attack this kind of problem Ourcity needed two bits of data. One was the
amount of work that needed to be done and the other was the amount of work
that staff could do. After Ourcity had this data it needed to set-up a system to
schedule work and check the flow of work.
SETTING THE SYSTEM UP

The first task for Ourcity's engineers was to create an inventory procedure
to catalog the work in the system and then monitor it. Ourcity's inventory
needed two parts, one for work orders, the other for traffic surveys. Work orders
describe the financial aspect of a particular job. They specify who is paying for
MANAGING WORK 43
the work and when the job started. Traffic surveys describe the type of work
that needs to be done and the exact location.
The inventory was the most labor intensive part of the process. It required
two work tasks. First, engineers looked at all the existing work orders and traffic
surveys and determined which still required work. Then other staff compiled
necessary data and put it into two computer files. These files contained a
complete list of work that required the attention of the traffic technicians.
The inventory gave information to the organization that was simple in
nature. Yet, engineers needed this basic information before they could try to
improve the use of available resources.
When engineers gathered the inventory files they also measured the amount
of work that staff could do. Preparing performance values for any staff is difficult.
Preparing them for the traffic department staff was especially difficult because
engineers tailor each traffic survey to meet the conditions of the location. No
two surveys are alike and therefore it is difficult for engineers to figure out a
standard work period. Still, by studying an entire year's worth of work engineers
figured out preliminary values they could use until there was more accurate data.
IMPLEMENTATION
After completing the inventory phase, engineers created a process that
merged the work of the traffic technicians into the total work plan of the traffic
department. Before the investigations into the department's work had started,
Ourcity had organized other maintenance activities using a maintenance manage-
ment system. This system was used as the model for procedures related to the
traffic technicians. In essence, managers would schedule technicians' work like
they scheduled the maintenance shops' work.
Integrating the traffic technicians with the maintenance operations was
simple because all the areas were under the direct supervision of the same
manager. To further aid the integration, reorganization placed the traffic
technicians into a separate section of equal status with the maintenance shops.
Special recognition of the technicians' work and their equality with the
maintenance shops provided a valuable morale boost and increased their
willingness to accept procedural changes.
To merge the three sections further, managers held a weekly scheduling
meeting. At the meeting, the supervisors reported about the work done during
the past reporting period. They also listed the work proposed for the next
period. After the reports, the engineer distributed new work assignments to
each section.
This last step was a major procedural change. Before, engineers issued work
assignments as they received them. This made it difficult to measure the work
load accurately. As a result, managers lost several work assignments in the
proverbial shuffle.
The scheduling meeting allowed the engineer and supervisors to work
together to insure that current technical information was available for the
maintenance operations. This also aided maintaining work schedules.
44 MANAGING WORK
The next step was to change the work scheduling process. Originally,
supervisors sorted work assignments into groups of similar type work as they
received them. Then they scheduled similar tasks together. Because of this
system, workers neglected some types of work for long periods. Engineers
changed work scheduling to be strictly first-in, first-out regardless of the type
of work. This change let engineers start a method of evaluation that could find
the total effect of the changes in procedure. It also prevented supervisors from
using personal considerations for scheduling.
Engineers created a monitoring system that determined the average work
order age and the average traffic survey age. The change in the age of the active
items reflected total productivity and allowed engineers to rate the new
procedures.

The results of these changes were very good. In the first year the average
work order age dropped from 8.2 months to 1.5 months. The average traffic
survey age dropped from 19 weeks to 17 weeks in just two months. Meanwhile,
the rate of entering work was 23 percent greater than during the period
preceding the changes, and the number of hours the four technicians worked
was 300 hours or 4.6 percent lower than the period preceding the change.
SUMMARY
As the result of a systematic program to figure out what work existed and
how staff did the work, Ourcity improved service levels significantly. All that
it really took was a simple inventory and monitoring procedure, and some
operational changes.
A final benefit was that the more methodical system allowed the engineer
to have greater control and knowledge of the work the technical staff was
performing. Yet, the new system reduced administrative aspects and allowed
more time for engineering.
THE LESSON
The lesson here is simple, but also elusive. Often merely organizing work, or
knowing exactly what work needs to be done can mean having a more efficient
and service oriented operation. If, besides organizing work, the character of the
work and its "flow" can be figured out and used by managers, even more
efficiencies can be obtained.
In the end, the ultimate gain to the organization and its employees will be
the opportunity and satisfaction of being able to respond positively to additional
service requests from the public. It is this simple idea that is the essence of the
New Engineer.
CHAPTER 8 / CITIZENS
THE THOUGHT
Once you start to work for a local government you will hear a constant
flow of warnings and gripes about "the citizens." It is as if nobody understands
that the customers we serve are the citizens! Although the comments we hear
from citizens are sometimes incoherent, and self interest sometimes motivates
them, we must remember that part of our job is to study these complaints and
figure out what the problem really is. Doing anything less is a disservice to
citizens, society, and the engineering profession.
THE STORY
There is nothing typical about citizens, especially when public facilities
affect their home or work area. In these cases we find that citizens are absolute
individuals. To produce essential public facilities successfully, engineers need to
address the specific concerns of citizens and the broader implications of their
complaints. The only way we can address these two disparate factors is if we
can manage much data.
Management, Pavement Management, Maintenance Management and all
the other forms are the by-words of today's local government engineer.
Engineers often use management support systems to improve maintenance
operations. However, these systems and the computers they run on have also
caused a newer, more subtle problem information overload.
Large amounts of data are available to even the smallest local government
organization. Often there is so much data that we can only use a very small
amount of it. Occasionally, an organization adds staff in order to analyze the
output. Often, an organization will simply ignore the data, and lose its benefit.
The primary defect of some management systems is that authors didn't
provide a capability to process data into useful information. Once the engineer
can process the data into useful information, they can get nearly unlimited benefit
from it.
FOR EXAMPLE
Ourcity has several hundred miles of road it maintains. Ourcity created
several management systems for the roads. The systems included a maintenance
management system, a pavement management system, and a complaint manage-
ment system. Ourcity got its expected benefits from these systems quickly. Also,
Ourcity got several unexpected benefits.
Traditionally, maintenance management systems improve public works
operations by organizing work activities. They do this by calculating productiv-
ity factors that engineers can use to rate work. Factors such as "tons of
bituminous" placed while patrol patching, or "gallons of material" used for joint
crack filling are useful for monitoring maintenance production. However, these
45
46 CITIZENS
factors do not tell the public works official exactly how the work affects the
motoring public or the tax payers.
Citizen ComplaintsIf a local government can use information supplied by

the public, it can have a more complete and logical maintenance program. Also,
using such information would allow members of the community to play a direct
role in maintenance programs by acting as unofficial inspectors.
Traditional methods that engineers use to identify trouble spots include
periodic inspections by staff, and sometimes, inquiries and suggestions. However,
in some cities the integration of citizen complaints and suggestions into
maintenance activities is done begrudgingly, if at all. Some engineers feel
complaints are political in nature, and a "him or me" attitude exists.
There is some basis to the idea that responses to routine complaints are
contrary to operating a sound maintenance program. This basis holds true if
responses to complaints override all other considerations. However, if engineers
consider complaints a valuable source of data they can be very helpful. They
can even use the resulting information to improve a maintenance program.
Ourcity's engineers recognized the important role an organized complaint
handling system could have. So, they created a system to gather complaints
about city streets. The system let them analyze complaints easily.
To make the complaint system, engineers used a three step process. First,
they examined the existing complaint handling process and created a reporting
form. Then they trained the staff and started using the new reporting form.
Finally, they put together a reporting and analysis procedure.
Using easily collected data is obviously a key goal of a complaint system.
Data, (any data!) reported uniformly, is a valuable asset. For example, even a
simple listing of data records can be a useful report. Nevertheless, the amount
of reporting and analysis that an organization needs depends only on the desires
of staff and its technical capabilities.
Ourcity's complaint file recorded several characteristics of a complaint. In
this way engineers could limit analysis to the facts surrounding a reported
complaint. When they combined these facts with other facts about street
maintenance it was easy for them to investigate different situations.
The simplest analyses are frequency distributions and cross-tabulations.
Reports like the one shown in Figure 8.1 can be prepared for each variable in
Ourcity's files. Engineers can use these reports for two purposes. First, to
allow them to check data for errors. Second, to give engineers general
information and characteristics of the complaints. A benefit of these reports is
that they let engineers compare the distribution of complaint characteristics
during different periods. Using this information, the effect of change in a working
strategy can be checked.
Cross-tabulations give the engineer another analysis capability. Similar to
the frequency distribution, the crosstabulation is a stratification of one variable
by another. Figure 5.2 contains an extract from one cross-tabulation, a distribu-
tion of complaint type by the month received.
CITIZENS 47
Figure 8.1
Frequency Distribution
1C Complaint received
Relative Adjusted CUM

Absolute freq. freq. freq.
Category label Code freq. (PCT) (PCT) (PCT)
0. 17 0.9 0.9 0.9
1. 4 0.2 0.2 1.1

Pothole 11. 472 24.2 24.2 25.3
Utility cut 12. 56 2.9 2.9 28.2
Rough road 13. 39 2.0 2.0 30.0

Misc surface maint 14. 61 3.1 3.1 33.1
Mailbox down 21. 8 0.4 0.4 33.7
Lawn damage 22. 32 1.6 1.6 35.3

Ice-snow on road 23. 43 2.2 2.2 37.5
Misc ice and snow 24. 3 0.2 0.2 37.7
30. 1 0.1 0.1 37.7

DJST 31. 41 2.1 2.1 39.8
Misc grading 32. 55 2.8 2.8 42.7
Damaged guardrail 33. 5 0.3 0.3 42.9

Street dirty 34. 31 1.6 1.6 44.5
Shoulder grading 35. 12 0.6 0.6 45.1
Debris 36. 200 10.3 10.3 55.4

38. 2 0.1 0.1 55.5
CB-MH cover missing 41. 310 15.9 15.9 71.4
Water over road 42. 26 1.3 1.3 72.7

Debris on road 43. 30 1.5 1.5 74.3
Cave-in 44. 77 3.9 3.9 73.8

Other 45. 42 2.2 2.2 75.9
Plugged catchbasin 46. 34 1.7 1.7 111
Driveway culvert PLU 47. 4 0.2 0.2 77.9

50. 3 0.2 0.2 78.1
Sign missing 51. 72 3.7 3.7 81.7
Damaged sidewalk 52. 72 3./ 3.7 85.4

Step in walk 53. 60 3.1 3.1 88.5
Other 54. 224 11.5 11.5 100.0
Total 1950 100.0 100.0

Figure 8.2
Cross-tabulation
IM Month complaint received byJC Condition found in field
Page 7 of 16
JC
Count
ROW PCT Water over Debris on Cave-in Other Plugged Driveway Sign Damaged Step in Row
COL PCT road road catchbasin culvert missing sidewalk walk total
TOT PCT 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 50. 51. 52. 53.
6. 0 0 6 2 2 0 0 3 11 5 177
June 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 6.2 2.8 9.1
0.0 0.0 7.8 4.8 5.9 0.0 0.0 4.2 15.3 8.3
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.1
7. 2 1 23 10 5 0 0 10 8 5 212
July 0.9 0.5 10.8 4.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 3.8 2.4 10.8
12.5 5.6 29.9 23.8 14.7 0.0 0.0 13.9 11.1 8.3
0.1 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.3
8. 1 1 6 3 5 0 0 3 6 3 156
August 0.6 0.6 3.8 1.9 3.2 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.8 1.9 8.0
6.3 5.6 7.8 7.1 14.7 0.0 0.0 4.2 8.3 5.0
0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2
(Continued)
9. 1 3 8 4 1 0 2 4 4 6 144 n
September 0.7 2.1 5.6 2.8 0.7 0.0 1.4 2.8 2.8 4.2 7.4 3
6.3 16.7 10.4 9.5 2.9 0.0 66.7 5.6 5.6 10.0
CO
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3
10. 0 1 3 4 2 0 1 2 3 14 147
October 0.0 0.7 2.0 2.7 1.4 0.0 0.7 1.4 2.0 9.5 7.5
0.0 5.6 3.9 9.5 5.9 0.0 33.3 2.8 4.2 23.3
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7
11. 5 6 1 3 1 0 0 6 3 6 140
November 3.6 4.3 0.7 2.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.3 2.1 4.3 7.2
31.3 33.3 1.3 7.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 8.3 4.2 10.0
0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3
12. 2 1 4 5 1 0 0 13 20 9 155
December 1.5 0.6 2.6 3.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 8.4 12.9 5.8 7.9
12.5 5.6 5.2 11.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 18.1 27.8 15.0
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.5
Column 16 18 77 42 34 4 3 72 72 60 1950
total 0.8 0.9 3.9 2.2 1.7 0.2 0.2 3.7 3.7 3.1
>
50 CITIZENS
Complaint ModelEarlier, we said that engineers accept citizen complaints

begrudgingly, if at all. One reason for this is that the way an engineer responds
to a complaint can cause a problem. If they use the wrong strategy, responding
to complaints can hamper a maintenance operation. One common result is delay
of more important work.
To fight this problem engineers can lay out a complaint model and use it
to test various complaint handling strategies. This would allow engineers to
figure out the best way to respond to a particular complaint. To come up with
a complaint model engineers need detailed knowledge of complaints, main-
tenance practices and environmental factors. Then they must analyze this
information and find relationships.
The first step Ourcity's engineers took to develop a complaint model was
to gather data already available in the files. Then they selected variables and
analyzed the data. After studying the results it was found that the factors
affecting complaint frequency in Ourcity were maintenance effort, amount of
precipitation, amount of sunshine, and the intensity of freezing temperatures.
Data for many variables identified by Ourcity are easy for most agencies
to get. For example, weather data is available from monthly summaries prepared
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Engineers can gather
maintenance effort data from time tickets or maintenance management summar-
ies. After collecting data it is easy to derive relationships similar to Ourcity's.
Once such relationships are available, engineers can use them for policy and
planning purposes. For example, say that during a fiscal year Ourcity invested
62,400 person-hours in "light" street maintenance activities. During the same
period there were 760 complaints. For the next fiscal year policy makers propose
a reduction in the maintenance budget that will result in the elimination of
several positions. Without these positions, engineers can only program 52,000
person-hours in "light" street maintenance. By referring to their model engineers
can predict that for instance, a 16.7 percent decrease in maintenance effort will
result in a 23.4 percent increase in complaints. This type of information can help
policy makers come to a sound decision on their budget proposal and staffing
requirements.
THE LESSON
Citizen complaints can be a good tool for rating public works activities.
Also, complaints can give us details of the way functions done by a public works
or engineering organizations affect our customers. Since citizens are the custo-
mers of public agencies it is right that engineers integrate their comments into
the "marketing" of services.
Complaints are a valuable commodity. They give us a way of rating our
work and programs. When we must constantly search for ways to do more
with less, complaints can be a useful tool for watching the public's perceptions
and feelings.
To engineer we need a project or a reason. If nobody complained it might be
CITIZENS 51
difficult to come up with any project at all to do (just try to imagine a world
without complaints.) Also, if we do not recognize complaints as legitimate
sources of information to guide development of our community, then we may
as well not call ourselves engineers. Potentially, every complaint is the source
of an idea. We should treat complaints like the valuable resource they are.
CHAPTER 9 / ELECTED OFFICIALS
THE THOUGHT
Schools and organizations train engineers to use facts. But, engineers are
often content to base decisions on their opinions. While "engineering judg-
ment "is an important part of the professional skills of an engineer, the truly
"professional" engineer is the engineer who knows the difference between
engineering judgment and opinion. This is especially true when they deal with
elected officials.
Some engineers play a game, I have seen it! They claim that politicians are to
blame for failures in the infrastructure, when the cause may just as well have
been due to poor or sloppy engineering. Yet, I have seen such an argument put
forth even when the facts clearly point to the contrary. The most disconcerting
thing about such blind arguments is that they completely ignore the fact that
there really can be poor engineering as well as careless engineering.
But despite who is to blame, the engineer should be the first to want to
collect and study the data to find the truth.
THE STORY
Politics affect local government engineering. Yet, the constant pressure that
results is not necessarily a product of the obvious proximity of elected officials
and the formal political system. Sometimes power brokering by engineers
themselves causes this pressure. But, to be successful in local government the
engineer must learn to deal with the formal political system and engineering
politics.
Felix Nigro defines politics as "the process by which resources (funds,
authority) are allocated." 14(Nigro 1984) Because of the major role civil engineers
have in carrying out this allocation process, we must understand it. This chapter
focuses on one type of politics engineers engage in, and how to balance the
technical aspects of engineering with politics.
Local governments have two major problems when financing infrastructure
improvements. One is where to get funds for the infrastructure that supports
the community. The other is how to assign funds to specific projects.
How funds get distributed is a concern for agencies at all levels of
government. One reason for this concern is that there is no common measuring
stick for comparing projects. This is true for all types of infrastructure improve-
ments. However, it is a particularly difficult problem when we must combine
both technical and non-technical factors to craft a project.
Confounding this concern is the application of procedures. Infrastructure
planning philosophy has advanced significantly during the past twenty-five
years. But, when local governments compare projects, they do not routinely use
the modern techniques that are available. Usually, their concentration on the
52
ELECTED OFFICIALS 53
day-to-day operations of their infrastructure systems prevents them from doing

so. Because of this they do not become skillful in using these planing tools.
But, even when personnel are available, some engineering managers prevent
engineers from doing such planning studies. Some agencies also lack the will to
conduct these studies. There can be many reasons for such shortcomings.
However, an important one is the lack of documented infrastructure conditions.
Without documentation senior managers and policy makers are often unable
to make an in-depth analysis of organizational effectiveness. So they are unable
to figure out how much of an improvement they could expect by doing any
particular project. Lack of in-depth analysis also reduces the chance that decision
makers will use the resulting evaluation rankings. In addition, politicians have
less confidence in the work.
But, by not documenting community needs and conditions, engineers
reserve a larger role for themselves in the priority setting process. In a sense it
sometimes seems that engineers limit information out of a sense of power over,
and fear of, the politician. There are many causes for these limiting actions.
We need to consider, what we mean by "fear of the politician/7 As
mentioned earlier, one definition of politics is the process by which resources
and power are distributed. Unfortunately, it seems to me that some engineers
define politics as the partisan or factional intrigue within a given group
conducted by those who want personal or partisan gain and other selfish
interests.
Engineers that believe this definition can have a particularly offensive
attitude toward politicians. Unfortunately, because politicians have encountered
this attitude they have countered with their own definition of professionalism.
Again, it seems to me that they may define professionalism as the partisan or
factional intrigue, resulting from a pseudo-elitist technologist attitude, conducted
by those interested in personal or partisan gains and other selfish interests.
Yet, engineers are not the only people who are wary of politicians. Concern
about the political process is the subject of much discussion. One writer 15(Dodd
1979) described the problem as follows: "The world view of politics held by
the professionals tends to denigrate the validity (if not the morality) of much
of the political system."
Professionals belittle and are often suspicious of political leadership, especi-
ally where the goals of the political cadre may conflict with the standards of
professionalism. The professional relies on scientific, rational, and technical
judgments to make decisions rather than relying on the compromise and
negotiation typical of the political process."
While there are obviously cases when politicians base decisions on self-
interest, the politician is not the only one with this weakness. In some engineers,
this weakness has resulted in a narrow viewpoint of the world. As one writer
16
(Price 1982) put it: "An organization that is organized around a particular
body of technology or professional skill is likely to be very bad at judging its
effectiveness, by comparison with other special skills, in accomplishing a political
purpose. Besides, the most common fault of any organization is to fail to adapt
54 ELECTED OFFICIALS
to change. This failure most often takes the form of worrying more and more
about the technical processes it uses, and caring less and less about its essential
purposes."
We also can portray conflicts between politicians and engineers as differ-
ences between personalities. This approach explains more than trying to portray
such conflicts as only a question of political decision making versus professional
decision making. The fact remains that conflict between humans has existed for
thousands of years. Furthermore, the twentieth century has proven to be one
of the bloodiest periods in human history in terms of human conflict. It is not
unreasonable then to blame the natural inability of humans to get along instead
of the political process itself.
Once we have excluded personality differences we are left with a reasonable
explanation of these conflicts. Namely, conflicts in priority setting are honest
differences of opinion. We can resolve this kind of conflict by sending out more
information, and by encouraging a broader view-point (and I hope fewer
arbitrary opinions) for everyone.
Such a straightforward approach should work in many (but not all!)
situations, because, as one writer put it, "In a good many cases, the goals and
standards of public agencies, as seen by their officers and employees, are identical
with the goals and standards of the professions as they are seen by their members
. . . the bureaucracies." 17(Mosher 1982)
So the chore for the new engineer is to derive and present a total picture
that all parties can use. Ideally, this picture will include the full range of concerns,
from local politics to the technical requirements of good engineering and
planning practice.
THE PROBLEM
Political/professional conflict is a common occurrence. This is especially
true when it applies to the process of assigning federal funds among competing
local government agencies. Conflicts exist because there are not enough funds
to satisfy all the governmental units. However, there is also another cause. In
metropolitan areas there is usually a very wide range of needs. This makes
evaluation and ranking of projects a very complex task. Because of the variety
of data and technical skills available within a given area, evaluation and ranking
of projects becomes a much more complex process, which in turn, makes the
conflict worse.
When a regional board that is political in nature, is responsible for the final
allocation decision, engineers must work within a framework of political need and
compromise. To limit the political impact on the priority rankings generated by
technical staff, a process that recognizes both technical and political concerns
must be used. Engineers must prove that they have considered all the needs of
society.
The solution to this problem is to create a resource distribution process that
accounts for both the social and technical concerns of society. The question then
becomes: how do we know when we have struck the right balance?
FOR EXAMPLE
The Central State Regional Planning Commission (CSRPC) is a Me-
tropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The CSRPC oversees planning in a
five county area of Ourstate. A primary responsibility of the CSRPC is to select
projects in the region that will receive federal highway funds. The region has
a total population of about 500,000 and its largest city, Ourcity, has a population
of 150,000.
To distribute funds to communities in the region CSRPC sponsors commit-
tees to review projects. The highest decision making body is the Commission,
a political body of twenty elected officials representing cities and counties within
the region. The primary technical committee is the Central State Regional
Transportation Study (CSRTS). CSRTS includes senior managers, engineers, and
planners representing cities, counties, and other government organizations. A
technical subcommittee Central State Federal Aid Urban System, (CSFAUS
subcommittee) prepares recommendations for the distribution of federal funds.
Several years ago CSRTS formed a technical group to revise the guideline
it used to rank and select projects. CSRTS had used a formal evaluation
methodology since the early 1970's. But, because of changes in the evaluation
technology, new members felt that the methodology was unsound. This
weakness left the priority recommendations open to second guessing. Eventually
CSRTS adopted a new ranking procedure.
The old procedure consisted entirely of subjective evaluations of road
surface and drainage conditions by engineers. Guidelines were not available to
insure that evaluations were uniform or consistent between member agencies,
or even within agencies. In addition, there was no way to document evaluations.
Sometimes the representatives of the largest agencies changed project priorities
without telling the other representatives. Then they would justify the changes
by blaming political reasons. However, they based most of the changes only
on their opinions and feelings. Often, elected officials changed the final ranking
order despite the changes supposedly made in their name.
To end this problem, CSRTS members addressed two factors when they
created the new ranking procedures. These factors were technical soundness and
political acceptability. To make the technical rankings credible, members created
a rigorous, well documented procedure. They felt this would reduce or end
changes by the Commission. To improve technical soundness, they included
additional traffic and socio-economic factors. But, they felt that including a wider
range of factors also would resolve many political concerns. The resulting
Priority Assessment Guidelines (PAG), measures three areas: highway capacity;
highway physical condition; and social, economic, and environmental conditions.
All data were easy to collect and, the analysis process simple. The technical
committee's intent was to insure that organizations met minimum standards
of engineering practice for the requested projects. Users need about ten minutes
to figure out a project's score.
After using the revised process for three years, committee members did an
evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was to figure out if the Commission
significantly altered the rankings that the technical committee produced. To test
this hypothesis they compared project rankings determined using the PAG with
the final list of projects selected for federal funding by the Commission.
Uniformity of RankingsDuring the study period, the CSRPC ranked thirty-

three projects. These projects had a total construction cost of 9.5 million dollars.
In the same period there were 4.8 million dollars of federal funds available. This
was enough to pay for 50.5 percent of the projects. Seven different local
governments submitted projects, and the projects ranged in value from $86,000
to $760,000.
To measure changes in project ranking, members compared the recom-
mended project ranks (PAG) and actual funding ranks (Commission). The
members found that projects maintained their relative ranking as identified in
the technical review process.
Distribution of Funds Within the RegionBesides concerns about political

impact, some members felt that the process favored cities. The analysis showed
that projects funded in Ourcity and North Ourcity received 33.7 percent of the
construction funds. It should be noted that the two cities had 44.3 percent of
the regions' street mileage eligible for federal highway aid. In dollars per mile,
larger cities received $19,500 per mile. Meanwhile, jurisdictions that were not
cities received $13,000 per mile.
The analysis showed that equity in allocation of funds existed for two
reasons. First, while rural areas received funds in a greater proportion than their
share of the road system would justify, rural areas also had limited traffic capacity
and were experiencing more rapid growth and development. These two factors
placed greater pressures on existing streets.
On the other hand cities received thirty-three percent more funds (per mile)
than rural areas. This higher rate was proper because projects in cities were
more complex than projects in rural areas because of utility density and
development pressure.
Changes in evaluation rankings are one measure of the relative amount of
political activity that occurred. Of thirty-five projects that communities sub-
mitted, eighteen (40 percent) had their priority changed by two positions or less.
Thirteen projects (37 percent) had their rank changed by six positions or more.
Of eighteen funded projects, fourteen (77 percent) had their rank changed by
two positions or less. Only four projects (23 percent) had their rank changed
by three positions or more, with the most change being seven.
Another measure is the effect on fund allocation that is occurring. Sixteen
(88.9 percent) of the funded projects had rank changes of four or less. Of $3.3
million available, 88.7 percent was for projects with position changes of three
or less. Nine (50.0 percent) of the funded projects had an original rank of four
or less.
Since there was not enough federal funds to meet all expressed needs, many
projects did not get funds. For the study period, projects received $3.3 million
of federal funding. If we order the thirty-five projects submitted for funding by

cost, the funds would pay for twenty-two projects, if we fund only the
inexpensive projects.
On the other hand, there would have been funds for only seven projects
if only the expensive projects were funded. The twenty-two least expensive
projects had a total value of $3.7 million, while the seven most expensive projects
cost $3.5 million. The average of the least and most expensive sets of projects
was: 14.5 projects totaling $3.6 million. The actual outcome of the allocation
process was 18 (PAG ranked) projects with a total cost of $3.6 million.
WHAT DO WE NEED TO REMEMBER

The analysis of funding allocations reveals several things. First, considering
construction complexity and development pressures, the distribution of funds
was fair. Areas with the most need received more funds, while areas with more
complex types of work received a greater per mile allocation of funds.
Of the funded projects, 77 percent (14) had their ranking positions changed
by two or less. Eighteen projects totaling $3.6 million received funding. This
compared to twenty-two projects if only the lowest cost were selected projects;
or seven projects if only the highest cost projects were selected.
In the end, the fact based technical procedure proved to be resistant to
random changes. The process also resulted in equitable distribution of funds
throughout the region. In addition, it provided an efficient means of assigning
and distributing funds to many projects, that had high average priority rankings.
Also, the politically caused changes that did occur guaranteed the funding of
many projects with a high average ranking and optimized the funding process.
SUMMARY
Listen in on a discussion between local government engineers about project
funding and chances are that the topic will turn to political interference. Distrust
of the politician has been and will continue to be the excuse used when the
new engineer challenges the near-sightedness of the more experienced engin-
eer/manager. But, the real concern the new engineer should have is the exercising
of the professional's power to limit information distribution and by doing so,
heavily influencing or shaping political decisions.
The true professional always tries to increase the amount of information
available to all the players in the resource allocation process. By doing this,
technical considerations remain the strongest influence. Moreover, when a strong
technical basis exists political considerations can be used to optimize the total
process and insure that the most projects receive funds.
THE LESSON
Successful engineers process many facts and use them to solve problems.
Politicians use facts differently (but in as legitimate a manner). When dealing
with elected officials we should make sure that we do not inject our opinion in
the discussion of facts (unless of course we make it clear it is our opinion.) More
importantly, we must be sure that we have analyzed the facts before we refer
to them. Finally, we must remember that if we do good technical work we do
not need to fear the political process. Good technical work will stand up to the
most intense political scrutiny.
CHAPTER 10 / SKILLS FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
THE THOUGHT
One job every engineer must do is craft their philosophy of engineering.
That is, they must bring together the rules they will use to guide and shape
their engineering form. This philosophy is not a map to gain wealth, position,
and power, but a guide that will help the engineer use his/her skills to benefit
people and society. To form this philosophy we need skills other than those
normally gained in engineering schools.
THE STORY
Civil Engineers have traditionally filled senior administrative positions such
as City Manager, Public Works Director, and Chief Engineer. However, there
is a trend to fill these positions with non-engineers. There are three possible
reasons for this change:
Civil engineers may lack some essential skills needed to control and guide
municipal public works and engineering functions.
There may be a shortage of qualified applicants because exceptional
graduates from civil engineering programs see local government employ-
ment as an unattractive long term career.
Some engineers that held the jobs may have done poorly because of a
lack of people handling skills. Therefore, officials are hesitant to hire
people with similar backgrounds.
In terms of the lack of skills, we can blame in part the failure of the
engineering education system to provide broadly educated, caring engineers.
The type of engineers who are willing to respond to the changing needs of
society.
THE IMAGE OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER

As I mentioned earlier, there are several reasons to explain why the image
of the civil engineer has been tarnished. Despite the reason, the negative image
of civil engineers has caused local government organizations to react. The role
shift described earlier is one response. Because of this shift civil engineers are
being pushed into a more technician-like role that consists mainly of the routine
application of standards.
Though the civil engineers' image has been tarnished, citizens still have a
high regard for the engineering profession (They do recognize that others have
played a part in this process, but civil engineers also should recognize that they
may have provided the opportunity). This is still true to a certain extent at the
local government level. Civil engineers there continue a tradition of constructing
59
60 SKILLS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
and maintaining public facilities (Management 1986)18 that stretches back to

ancient times.
However, the belittling of government employees has placed us in an
unfavorable position. As a result, we must constantly fight and win the battle
against shrinking resources and deteriorating infrastructure. Also, we must
present to the public a higher level of consciousness than ever before. Failure
in either regard will maintain the image of the engineer as a rigid, inept
bureaucrat.
Added to the problem of image is a second, yet, more basic problem.
Engineers in private practice balance multiple major bottom-line goals (profit,
client satisfaction, quality of work). But engineers in local government have only
one major bottom-line goal the public good. This last comment does
recognize that cost plays a major role in public sector engineering, however
cost is not the bottom-line. Having only one major goal is in some regards a
disadvantage, because it can lead to a narrow viewpoint that harms the decision
making process. There is a danger that we will think that we are the only people
qualified to know what is good for the public.
THE ROUNDING OUT OF AN EDUCATION

The problem we must deal with is two-fold:
How do we get the skills to construct and maintain public facilities?
How do we also get the skills to figure out just what is in the public
interest?
Both problems are a matter of emphasis and represent a conflict in the
distribution of training time between technical and non-technical skills.
Usually, civil engineers in local government need strong technical skills.
We need these skills to provide traditional civil engineering services for the
local population. In addition, we need these same skills to serve as reviewers
and regulators.
Civil engineers in local government also need many nonengineering skills.
Most important are those used to communicate and relate with citizens. Unlike
other engineers, we have frequent contact with citizens. These citizens are
seeking solutions to the everyday problems of life. For many of them, their only
contact with civil engineers is with those employed by local governments. So
how well we can communicate affects the public view of civil engineers.
EDUCATIONAL EMPHASIS
Again, producing a civil engineer with a balance of both technical and
non-technical skills is a problem of emphasis. There are simply too many subjects
to learn and too little time available. This is a special concern because educational
institutions weight their programs heavily toward technical subjects, yet local
governments often expect new engineering graduates to meet with citizens
regularly and solve their problems.
Close contact with citizens heavily influences the nature of the engineer's
SKILLS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 61
work. This is true whether it is design, regulation, or review. Close contact with
citizens is the single outstanding characteristic of a local government engineer's
job. This characteristic will remain even with advances in the technical aspects
of civil engineering.
THE SHAPING OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENGINEER
Because of the people emphasis of a civil engineer's job, we need to train
civil engineers interested in a local government career to care about people.
Educational institutions can guide students so their studies reflect such an
orientation. Such guidance can be a thread that runs throughout their training.
Besides a people orientation, we also need other characteristics to be
successful. Following are ten characteristics that will help make engineers in local
government effective from their first day. Adopting these characteristics early
in a career is the key to being a good local government engineer 19(Personnel
1987):
The ability to find and use information Engineers in local government
need to use available information and find missing information. Some-
times, it is simply a matter of good detective work. Skills such as inductive
and deductive reasoning are useful. Investigative experience and the
study of logic is also useful.
People handling skills The effective engineer needs to relate quickly
to all varieties of people. This characteristic is useful for two reasons.
To learn what they want, and to convince them that we can help. A
basic understanding of sociology and psychology is useful.
Marketing skillsEngineering at the local government level is a contin-
uous job of selling to citizens, councils, boards, and other engineers. An
engineer needs to sell ideas to get the job done. Local government
engineers can use marketing and advertising skills, similar to those taught
to sales persons.
The ability to manage change Both engineering and society are
changing rapidly. We must recognize these changes and adapt to them.
The skills used by the politician are useful. So are the skills used by the
historian to analyze change over time. In addition, strong leadership
training is invaluable.
Time management The success of the engineer in local government
depends on the ability to distribute time among many groups and to
meet deadlines. General business and sales skills are also useful.
Team player A successful engineer knows when and how to work
with a team. Political science and public administration training, especially
the aspects about coalition building, directly serve this need.
Knowing when to act and when to respondOften engineers at the local
government level must take strong action. At other times we must just
listen. Success means the ability to tell which action is appropriate. Much
of this skill relates to leadership. In addition, a background in the physical
and mental nature of the human being is useful.
62 SKILLS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Knowing how to become involved Engineers in local government

must know when to become part of the community, instead of the
impersonal by-stander. Philosophy and theology can help make the
engineer more understanding and aware.
Computer literacy Engineers need to recognize the computer as a
tool. More than anything, this skill involves an ability to apply any and
every tool to solve a problem.
A sense of personal accountability Above all, the engineer must be
ethical and have a strong sense of integrity. Courses in ethics and
philosophy provide some sense of these factors.
These ten qualities are characteristic of the engineering professional and

any well rounded generalist. This can be the real key to getting engineers who
can succeed at the local government level.
Well-rounded engineers would have a broad based and continuing, educa-
tional background. Their training would place an emphasis on human relations
and the way that humans think and live. Such an education means shaping a
career to be more like that of the attorney or journalist. In those professions,
the emphasis is toward cultivating skills that help in the understanding of a very
broad range of topics. There is also an emphasis on an ability to ask questions
that quickly uncover the real problem or concern.
The emphasis described above also can mean that the budding local
government engineer is more likely to succeed if a major part of their
undergraduate studies is in the liberal arts. Institutions could limit technical
training to the last half of the undergraduate program. Graduate programs would
also be split evenly between technical and non-technical subjects.
CLOSING
Civil engineers in local government will always have to be technically
skillful. Yet, a major emphasis for engineers in local government must be in
non-technical areas. This is necessary because of the close and continuing contact
they have with citizens.
Engineering education has traditionally emphasized technical skills. How-
ever, this emphasis has caused civil engineers in local government to be
increasingly pigeon-holed into technical roles outside the mainstream decision
making process. If we are to reverse this trend, we must change engineering
programs so they produce a new breed of engineers who care about people.
Regardless of how we do it we need to gain these skills. Above all, we must
communicate well with the citizens we work for.
THE LESSON
The successful engineer will have a clear vision of how to use their skills
and training to benefit citizens and society. Such a vision can change over time.
However, the starting point must be the question, "where do I want my career
and skills to lead me, and what do I need to know to reach my goal?"
CHAPTER 11 / TECHNICIAN OR
MANAGER
THE THOUGHT
After working a while many engineers want to go back to school, or learn
new skills. There are two reasons for this. One is that we perceive training as
the key to advancement. Another is we anticipate that knowledge will help us
solve many day-to-day work related problems. The difficult question we need
to answer then is what should we study, what kind of continuing education
program will give us the additional skills we want. Should we follow a technical
program? Or should we consider a non-technical or management program?
In part, the answer relies on the vision we have set for our life. However,
another part of the answer turns on the reality of government service. Rising
to the top of an organization is sometimes independent of technical skill!
THE STORY
A recurring discussion among engineers is about the qualifications we need
for management positions such as Director of Public Works 20(Franco 1989). In
the past, civil engineers filled most of these positions. Now however, some local
governments are filling these positions with people who have nontechnical
management backgrounds.
To counter this trend some engineers recommend that governments only
hire registered professional engineers. Engineers justify this recommendation by
suggesting that the quality of service delivered to the public has a positive
correlation with a manager's technical background. However, this argument
ignores the issue of what a senior manager really does at work. Until we know
what a manager does, equating a technical background with high quality service
delivery is not correct.
FUNCTIONS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER

Managers typically work in three major functional areas: administration,
management, and technical. A manager needs different skills to do each of these
functions. In addition, the mix of skills needed changes at each management
level. Furthermore, there is a fourth function that is less quantifiable, namely
leadership. Leadership acts as a glue for the other functions.
As we hold more and more senior positions, we need more administrative
and management skills. Administrative skills let us combine people, technology,
materials, money, and information resources so organizations can meet their
goals 2I(Tedesco 1984). In public works, the process of combining these factors
is the one needing the least technical knowledge of the organization's work.
Much of the work in the administrative function is the paper shuffling normally
associated with any bureaucracy.
63
64 TECHNICIAN OR MANAGER
A popular definition of management is "getting things done through

people." 22(Hodgetts 1975). In most situations, management functions are a
major part of the work of a senior manager. The successful manager needs some
good knowledge of the technical work of an organization so that they can
properly organize and monitor the work going on.
Technical functions relate to the abstract basis of the work. Usually, people
with specialized training need to conduct technical functions. Most senior
managers spend little time or effort in this functional area.
Earlier, we mentioned that some engineers feel that a relationship exists
between service delivery and technical skills. If this is true then some type of
relationship must exist, between technical knowledge and the three primary
management functions. However, strong relationships may not necessarily exist
between all three.
The paper shuffling associated with administrative functions is easy to
dismiss as requiring technical skills. However, we cannot classify management
functions as strictly nontechnical since some technical sense is useful. As a rule
the mix of these three functions in a person's work is the most important factor
in determining how strong a manager's technical background must be.
MANAGEMENT AS A SCIENCE
Even if we can agree that some major functions of the senior manager do not
require technical skills, this does not end the idea. One reason for this is the
way in which engineers have traditionally approached the subject of manage-
ment. We supervise and control various projects. Therefore, we consider
management just another part of engineering. Moreover, a characteristic of many
management techniques is a dependence on statistical analysis and mathematics.
Since engineers are familiar with mathematics we associate a strong technical
background with good management skills.
Many engineers consider management a natural part of engineering.
However, management is a recognized field with its own history and beliefs.
Furthermore, there are several viewpoints describing what management is and
how to do it.
Three primary categories of thought are 23(Hodgetts 1975); the Manage-
ment Process School1, the Quantitative School2, and the Behavioral School3.
These three schools of management thought represent many ideas and methodo-
logies.
Management Process School is based upon the detailed examination and use of the management
functions identified by Henri Fayol in 1916, namely planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and
controlling.
2
The Quantitative School manager sees management as a system of mathematical models and processes.
They are greatly concerned with decision making and are in essence modern day adherents of Frederick
Taylor's scientific management movement.
3
Behavioral School proponents are largely concerned with human behavior and believe that because
management entails getting things done through people, the effective manager must understand the importance
of factors such as needs, drives, motivation, leadership, personality, and behavior.
TECHNICIAN OR MANAGER
There are critics of each of these schools of thought. Many criticisms focus
on the type of information used in the decision making process that each school
of thought supports. It is obvious that this would be a major point of contention
since information can range from a pure analytical type to strictly subjective
and humanistic.
For example, critics say the process school only pays lip service to the
human element. As a result, management under this school of thought is very
static and dehumanizing. On the other hand, critics say the quantitative school
ignores the personal aspects of work. Similarly, some fault the behavioral school
as failing to consider any quantification at all.
Yet, the essence of management is the control and direction of people
performing a task. And success in controlling and directing requires two
characteristics. A person's ability to process the numbers and statistics of any
situation, and the ability to relate them to (and with) other humans. Therefore,
the mix of numbers and statistics as opposed to communication and humanism
becomes the point of the entire qualifications question.
Even the earliest work in management science theory pointed to a human
element in management. It only takes a short time in the work place to figure
out that there is a relationship between social and psychological factors
on one hand, and productivity and job satisfaction on the other 24(Carzo 1967).
Based on these known relationships, we must consider one important factor,
whether a technical degree or professional registration helps someone to decide
the right mix of numbers and humanistic factors needed to manage any particular
situation.
FROM ENGINEERING TO MANAGEMENT

Successful management requires a mix of skills including planning, analysis,
and people handling. But, typical undergraduate engineering programs empha-
size learning how to solve technical problems. In particular, there is strong
emphasis on how to mold an engineering solution to any particular problem.
The technical emphasis of engineering programs corresponds to the traditional
job in society that engineers fill solving technical problems.
This traditional emphasis results in educational programs rich in the study of
physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering subjects. However, there is a
corresponding lack of study of liberal arts and the social sciences. Many
engineering undergraduates complete their degree requirements without expo-
sure to courses that provide the skills necessary to consider the social and human
side of management.
Even if an engineer pursues a graduate engineering degree the emphasis is
on technical skills and the solution of pure engineering problems. Unless the
engineer takes a special interest in management, or social science, it is possible
to get a graduate engineering degree without varying from a strict technical
learning program.
In a similar way, testing for professional registration focuses narrowly on
determining whether a person can solve technical problems. Success therefore,
means having strong mathematical and formula handling skills. Such a technical
focus means that a professional registration is only a measure of technical skill.
Possibly because of the mathematical nature of the process and quantitative
schools of management, engineers are comfortable with and use management
systems from these schools. The mathematical emphasis of these schools often
blurs the line between technical and management functions. This is a problem
because modern management involves both analytical skills and social skills.
Some engineers argue that the nature of a public works manager's work is
technical. However, this technical role is usually only to review. A larger part
of the manager's job is to watch the work going on, and insure completion on
time and within budget. Also, they must insure that the work considers the
political and social desires of the community being served.
To meet these goals the manager must do many non-engineering tasks.
These tasks are in disciplines such as finance, planning, communications, law,
and purchasing 25(Cristofano 1986). Normally the people who work in these
disciplines are generalists or non-technical specialists. These people usually have
liberal arts degrees. Still, public works managers do such tasks, often without
the aid of people who are not engineers. The ability to do work in these other
disciplines can lead to a serious omission. Namely, that we fail to appreciate the
special people skills that many liberal arts trained people have.
In fact, many very good administrators and managers have, for years,
managed our nation's public works without the benefit of engineering degrees
or professional registrations. The public generally has no way of telling who is
a degreed engineer, and frankly after several years it is difficult for anyone to
know. The burden of credentials that our society has today fails to recognize
this fact.
A misplaced emphasis on qualifications makes one especially complex aspect
of the public works manager's job even more difficult. This is the relationship
between the manager, the engineer, and the public. The unique relationship these
three groups share makes it possible for us to provide strong, correct engineering
even in the most political of systems. To do this, we must be innovative and
have very strong engineering skills. Also, as engineers and managers we must
be flexible in our point of view and eager to serve the public.
If we only use education as a measure of qualification we can damage the
relationships between managers, technicians, and the public so they cannot work.
When we consider relationships it is sometimes possible to overlook another
important quality of a manager. That is the ability to maintain composure in a
highly charged political environment.
This last item points us at the fourth function mentioned at the beginning
of this chapter leadership. More than anything else a successful manager is
a good leader. Schools can teach us technical skills and administrative functions.
Schools can even teach us how to do some management functions. However,
leadership is a skill that requires practical experience and a very strong
knowledge of how humans think and react to specific stimuli.
TECHNICIAN OR MANAGER 67
Engineers can learn to be leaders, but rarely in technical or engineering

school. Moreover, a professional registration test is not a test of leadership
ability. Often the best measure of leadership is an examination of the results of
what that person has done.
A FRAMEWORK FOR QUALIFICATIONS

If managers are to be effective in their roles they must do each function
described above. It is a difficult task to select a person who has the skill to do
these functions. It is even more difficult to figure out if they can come up with
the proper portion of each to use. One way to approach this problem is to look
at the four functions done by the manager considering three measures of
attainment. These measures are work experience, education, and accomplish-
ments. Each of these measures can help to paint a picture of a person's supply
of ideas and solutions.
Work Experiencecan be a gauge of exposure to different organizations and

different people. People exposed to different organizations and duties would
score high. This measure points out the difference between someone who had
done the same tasks in the same way for ten or twenty years, and someone
who had done a variety of tasks for three to five years and then moved on to
others.
Educationgauges the size of the solution "cookbook" from the academic

aspect. This measure, like the previous one, accounts for the variety of
educational exposure in many areas. For example, more management tools and
ideas might be available to a person with formal education in engineering and
liberal arts instead of just one area.
Accomplishmentslooks at how well a person used their available supply of

tools in their work. While this is the hardest to measure we can use traditional
scales such as rate of advancement, awards, and number of people supervised.
If we consider the four functional areas of a manager's work with the three
measures of attainment we can estimate a person's capabilities. Such considera-
tions can increase the probability of high quality of management, and avoid a
narrowminded approach to problem solving. We can use the same technique to
measure our own capabilities. Then we can tailor our training and educational
efforts to fill the gaps.
Unfortunately, the methodology outlined above is complex and the values
difficult to measure. In the face of this complexity many people opt for a simple
document based measure such as number of university degrees or professional
registrations. However, before abandoning the proposed methodology we need
to give a final word of caution.
Everyone is familiar with the situation where a poor manager will try to
overpower workers with their rank and other indicators of ability (remember
that both engineers and nonengineers are capable of this type of conduct, but
this book is only concerned with the engineer manager). Often this substitution
of technical skill for managerial ability results in serious organizational problems.
While it is difficult for you to combat or avoid such problems, you can insure
that you do not cause the same problem in the future. You can do this by
continuing your personal and professional training in a way that results in you
becoming a well rounded person.
THE LESSON
To qualify for some local government jobs all you need is an engineering
degree and some experience. However, our vision for the future and the need
to serve should drive us to want to have and to learn more. In the most universal
sense we should want to learn constantly as many subjects as possible. Then
the only problem left is to decide the order we schedule our learning experiences.
CHAPTER 12 / INFRASTRUCTURE AND
OUR VALUES
(OR HOW TO BUILD FOR
THE NEXT 2000 YEARS)
THE THOUGHT
Good ideas are everywhere. The challenge for civil engineers is to find
them. When we do find them the real work begins. Then we must translate
ideas into civil engineering.
THE STORY
The civil engineer's major role in our society is to design, build, maintain,
and manage our infrastructure. One common complaint voiced about some civil
engineers is that we follow an approach that is much too rigid. We only use
the traditional engineering values of economy and utility to guide decision
making.
This may be more a structural problem than a philosophical one. After all,
schools and organizations train and encourage civil engineers to use only a few
of the values available.
The justification some engineers use for limiting the number of values is
economy and efficiency. They say it is cheaper and quicker to use only a few.
In the short term this is true. However, in the long term it is not.
The reason for this paradox is that fewer values do a poorer job of rating
solutions. Fewer values also disappoint our customers (citizens-taxpayers). It
disappoints them because the values they feel most strongly about (such as
livability, the environment) are often the values omitted. Ultimately, we lose
credibility with the public.
If we can expand the number of values we use, we might retain credibility
with the public. An expanded values list also might help us to produce better
projects. Projects that will testify for many years to our skills as constructors.
Many infrastructure projects (such as road and sewer construction) are
ordinary by nature. This hides an important characteristic of some parts of the
infrastructure. They often exist long after all other traces of their makers vanish.
Such longevity can be a striking testimony to the skills of the builders.
The existence of ancient facilities can also point to the correctness of the
value sets associated with their design. Many of today's facilities do not compare
in either art form or level of achievement to those constructed by ancient
civilizations such as the Roman, Egyptian or Inca. This is even true when we
compare modern facilities to those constructed a century ago. A major reason
for this difference is that a change and narrowing in values has occurred.
69
70 INFRASTRUCTURE AND OUR VALUES
We get a useful, lasting infrastructure when a designer uses a wide range

of values to shape a design. However, we commonly go ahead with many of
our infrastructure projects after considering only a few of the possible values.
As a result, much of our infrastructure is not as useful and long-lasting as it
could be.
Among the values that can guide infrastructure form are political relevance,
economic development, engineering factors, environmental concerns, and social
concerns. These values explain most of the force driving the design of a project.
Yet, engineers usually consider only one or two of these items. Even several
values can be useful. Which values we choose are of course, critical.
For a public infrastructure we must use enough values to account for the
ideas of a wide range of people. However, even if we select a proper list of
values we still have another problem to solve. That is, what weight do we give
to each value.
COMPONENTS OF THE VALUE MIX

The "received value mix" is the set of values that drives and shapes a
project or activity. Each project or activity has its own unique received value
mix. Furthermore, a given project's received value mix can change with time.
Typical values might be political relevance, economic development, engineering
factors, environmental concerns, and social concerns.
Political RelevanceBy its nature political relevance is an important value

because politics is the process of assigning resources and power. The shaping
of public works has been, historically, a function of the political process.
Since the funding for public works usually comes from some type of tax, the
allocation of tax funds has been via the political process. We get a wide range
of decision types from the political process. Some decisions are pure pork barrel.
Others are based on rigorous engineering and economic analysis. An example
may be the decision to fund a construction project only because of the complaints
of a strong neighborhood organization.
Economic DevelopmentHere, the important idea is that a good infrastructure

is necessary for continued economic development. For example, visibility and
accessibility are important values for many commercial establishments. One way
to get good visibility and accessibility is to have a well maintained road
constructed next to an establishment. An example of the impact of this value
would be constructing a road improvement using only tax funds to pay for the
work, instead of making the benefiting property owners pay.
Engineering FactorsMost infrastructure projects have some technical aspects,

that is, engineers and scientists must work on their design to figure out their
shape and function. The methods we use to construct and maintain a facility
depend upon available funding. However, there usually are many different ways
we can do a job for about the same cost. The final selection that we make must
INFRASTRUCTURE AND OUR VALUES 71
rely on the quality of our engineering. An example is the question of whether

to follow traditional standards and specifications for a project or adopt (or even
consider) current technology or modern standards and specifications.
Other technical specialists like social or natural scientists also have concerns.
Often they provide staff support for design or construction. However, these
support areas can shape a project. For example:
Environmental ConcernsEnvironmental impacts can be short or long term.

Thoroughly considering their effect can change the way we plan and build
facilities. Sometimes we must kill projects because of bad impacts. An example
is the delay of a road's construction because of a failure to completely investigate
its impact on nearby neighborhoods.
Social ConcernsSocial scientists also have concerns about impacts on our

basic social fabric. Public works has evolved into a highly complex subject, done
frequently by professionals trained solely in public works. However, the basic
tenants guiding the form of infrastructure include the freedom to travel and live
from place to place, and the support and encouragement of our free market
society. Therefore, public works professionals have frequently used an argument
that their work is an important extension of the ideals of our nation.
On the other hand, the need to prevent damage to individuals or groups
is often a counter argument. An example is a road that divides a neighborhood.
Deciding to construct such a road without completely considering the impact
on residents or other members of that neighborhood results in a negative impact
on that neighborhood's basic social fabric.
EVOLUTION OF THE VALUE MIX

To derive the "value mix" we need several values. These values include
the groups using and affected by a facility and the players that have taken part
in the process. Some groups and players might be:
Interest groups such as land developers, construction companies,

transportation companies and fuel providers.
Clients such as the general population who use that facility.
Victims such as the owners of property affected by the facility. And,
Non-using public.
Because of the role that infrastructure networks play in our society even
"victims" receive some benefit, and "winners" are harmed. We satisfy or ignore
the interests of each group or player by the way that we calculate the weight
applied to each value.
WHY BE CONCERNED WITH CHANGING THE VALUE MIX?

The attention generated by all aspects of our infrastructure gives us an
opportunity to look at the values that shape our infrastructure. When we do,
72 INFRASTRUCTURE AND OUR VALUES
we see that the deterioration and inadequacy of our infrastructure testifies to

two things. The value mix used in the past was sometimes incomplete,
and the weight of the separate values was sometimes improper. If we are going
to invest large portions of our nation's wealth in infrastructure then we should
prevent the same problems from recurring.
STEPS TO CHANGING THE VALUE MIX

As the engineers and designers of projects we must take the lead in forging
a truly multi-disciplinary approach to infrastructure. If the values described earlier
are the only major values, then we must find a way to decide what their proper
weights should be. If there are additional values then we should see that we
include them whenever we craft a project.
We must accept the idea that no one discipline has the inside edge on
knowing the needs of our society. We also must accept the idea that the skills
of the politician and the social worker are as important to a projects design as
the technical skills of the engineer and scientist.
Coming to this realization is the most difficult learning task for the new
engineer, and the most difficult change for the more experienced engineer.
Because our compartmentalized and increasingly specialized society encourages
its members to restrict their participation to a particular role, it is difficult for
engineers to suddenly act as generalists. This kind of change cannot happen
overnight. However, we must begin the reversing process.
We must begin with our schools, and especially those programs and
institutions that will train the decision makers of the future. Then we must
change our workplaces. Whether we work in a city, county or other agency we
must encourage everyone to be open minded and willing to use as many points
of view and opinions as possible. If we can make these changes then the quality
of our infrastructure will improve.
The time to start such change is now. And, if we do start to change now
then we might, in the next one-hundred or two-hundred years, construct streets
and other facilities that can still be in use in the year 4000.
THE LESSON
To find ideas we must keep all our communication and sensory channels
open. When different ways of doing tasks, and bits of ideas come our way we
must ask the big question, "How can I use this idea to make my projects better
for citizens and society and the environment."
CHAPTER 13 / SOCIETY
THE THOUGHT
Folks get set in their ways early in life. After they reach their early 20's it
is hard to change them much. Still, the first job that an engineer gets can cause
some important changes. One common change is the way in which we see the
part in society that is ours to play. Another change is that the working world
quickly drives away the idealism of youth. Yet, this does not need to happen.
Engineers can and must hold onto these ideals if they are to give the most to
society and the engineering profession.
THE STORY
The old saying goes, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Yet today, with society
and technology so dynamic, appearances can be deceiving. Systems, machines,
organizations and people often appear to work, yet only use energy in futile,
irrelevant activities. To prevent such a dichotomy in the engineering profession
the engineer must be a compelling advocate. They must make sure that our
profession works properly.
Some engineers will be defensive and respond "give me the specifics. Where
exactly is civil engineering broke." The answer is that despite the word "civil"
in our title we have at times divorced ourselves and our profession from the
society people have built. We have done this by trying to present ourselves as
neutral witnesses. By isolating ourselves we have sometimes forgotten an
important fact. As humans we are members of society and have a responsibility
to participate in all of society's debates.
There are many examples of our apathy. We only need to look in the
newspapers to find them. Every day the results of the excesses of the 80's assault
us. The front pages carry stories on the outcome of the race for power and
money that propelled our society during the decade of the 80's. The major focus
of many of these stories are the people who led this selfish assault. Sadly, it is
a rare occasion when these reports mention the victims. We should recognize
our part in causing the problems. We also should recognize our part in the way
society is responding.
THE ROLE WE ARE PLAYING

Civil engineers have profited from massive public works programs (other
disciplines have too but we are concerned here with the engineering business).
Unlike private sector projects, some public projects appeared to be driven by
an endless stream of money. Even without this appearance many civil engineer-
ing projects have large price tags. Then, once committed, mass transit, waste-
water treatment, environmental clean-up and other civil projects show a strong
tendency to cost far more than originally promoted. Sometimes these projects
73
74 SOCIETY
appear to require almost endless transfusions of money because of this tendency.

What is worse, both our fees and prestige appear to depend on the size of these
cost numbers. The bigger the number, the more important the project, the
greater the prestige, and the bigger the fee. Such a cause and affect chain raises
important moral and ethical questions.
Whether a public project or a private venture we must ask if we base our
ethics on specific tasks or on results. Despite the answer we should really want
both tasks and results to be ethical in nature. It is possible!
This example illustrates only one problem in the civil engineering profession
today. However, it represents a mood that has been clear in society, and in the
civil engineering profession. If we consider a public or a private venture the
story is the same. The 80's were a time of wild promotion of large projects by
politicians, developers, financiers and other sectors of our society. In the name
of capitalism and a free market, civil engineers were the soldiers that helped
push and shove those projects into being. The pushing and shoving benefited
some members of our profession.
USING OUR SKILLS

We are largely out of sight and danger as the house of cards we played
such an important part in stacking, collapses. Yet, civil engineers really were
and are more than simple soldiers. Our skills, training, education, and professional
status mean that we have an added moral duty to question our role in such
activities. In fact, it is exactly this high level of training and education that makes
it impossible to argue that civil engineers cannot understand that they have
some responsibility for what happened in the past. If we continue such an
argument we are no better than the war criminal who claims he was just
following orders.
Again, questions beg the point. We did our work correctly, even ethically?
Does this mean that our responsibilities stop with the close-out of a contract?
Are we so task oriented in our approach to work, and the world, that we refuse
to take responsibility for the outcome of many tasks taken together? The
standard response is that engineering plays only a small part in the projects
that society does. Yet, we have a responsibility to see that people use our work
in a way that is good for society and all its parts.
For example, many civil engineers take pride in the accomplishment of
constructing the Interstate freeway system. Yet, few civil engineers are willing
to admit or accept that the construction also caused some serious problems for
society and the environment. For those civil engineers who need graphic proof
of the damages, they need only look at the neighborhoods in our large cities
that have been cut in two, or the damage that has been caused to our forests
and wetlands by careless or thoughtless engineering.
For those engineers who want documented proof, look at some re-
ports published by the National Research Council's Transportation Research
Board26'27'28'29. If we fail to accept those problems it means that we are content
with only looking at part of the picture.
SOCIETY 75
Some people may feel that most engineers are just unaware of the negative
consequences of some of their work, and I agree that this may very well be the
case. However, I do not feel that civil engineers should just continue on, but
make very strong efforts to become fully aware of the impacts of their work.
Again, civil engineers represent a very highly educated and well trained
portion of our society. We have an obligation, by virtue of this training and
education to provide an example of the proper way in which to integrate our
particular work into the things that best serve society. If we are content to be
ignorant how can we expect anything better from any other parts of society.
THE CHALLENGE FOR CIVIL ENGINEERS

History has many examples of people that stood by and watched, (and
sometimes quietly benefited) while those in power played wicked, immoral
games that harmed the very roots of society. History also shows that when
those in power finally fell, the watchers shifted allegiance. They went without
regret, to the next group of power players. Civil engineers are making such a
shift. If we must make such shifts of allegiance, then would it not be better if
we first accepted the responsibility to reject participation in projects that are
marginal (in any of their aspects). If we refuse to accept this responsibility then
others will take it, and they most likely will not be civil engineers.
While it is true that these others may simply be viewed as civil engineers by
society this is a problem that we can have some part in correcting. One way is to
continue emphasizing qualifications, and engineering registration. Another way
is to market civil engineers as "the" engineering discipline that is truly concerned
with the health, safety, and welfare of society in general, and wants to use its
technical expertise for the good of society.
Each succeeding year brings a new set of themes to the world. We do not
know whether they will be morally stronger than those of the past or morally
more corrupt. Still, one way or another, society will ask us to buy into them.
Civil engineers will continue to overcome the engineering challenges that society
places before them. The future will test whether civil engineers can meet the
moral challenges.
One important item we must understand is, how we respond to these new
temptations is up to us. As society's constructors we are the people entrusted
with the knowledge to design and construct. A common argument of some civil
engineers is that it is not our place to refuse to take part in borderline projects.
Because if we do refuse we will lose an opportunity to influence them positively.
Besides, another group will do the job instead.
But, we cannot have it both ways. To take part in a shaky project is a wrong.
Even if we have a hidden plan to make it better if we can. Because, doing so
will give the same result as if we were to marry someone with the idea of
changing their bad habits. The marriage will be stormy, probably end in a
divorce, and most terribly the off-spring will be hurt and scared deeply.
Often our marriage to chancy projects starts innocently with an idea that
needs study and examination. The turning point comes when we fail to be
76 SOCIETY
pragmatic and let a bad project die. We link projects tightly to our own
reputation and skill as an engineer. Sometimes we go as far as confusing our
personality, and our way of living with our work because we consider anything
short of total acceptance to be a failure. The real failure is that we link social
and technical values together. Then we try to use the pseudo-technical apparition
that results to serve both social and technical needs in one fell swoop.
We make up these apparitions because, as civil engineers, we expect certain
social realities. We see ourselves and our profession as a technical, dispassionate
discipline and notice only those characteristics in others that support our view
of ourselves and the characteristics that make us different from others. "There-
fore, though what we observe is often a reflection of what we have asked for,
we tend to treat it as useful information that provides independent conformation
of our expectancies/' (Jones 1986).30 We see dealing directly with the social
issues of society (such as providing adequate housing for all who need it, or
insuring that every person has a basic education, or that basic health and
nutritional needs are provided for every member of our society) as an illogical,
untechnical activity unworthy of our time or technical skills.
LINKING ENGINEERING TO SOCIETY

Civil engineers have not taken a full part in the moral debates that help to
shape our society. We avoid these debates in the name of ethics and professional-
ism, or we may avoid them because of the nature and background of the
individuals who choose engineering as a career. Conveniently, we forget we
can use our technical and analytical skills for many types of problems. By
avoiding participation in the widest range of debates we deny society our
opinion and our skills. Yet, we are the very experts, because of our high level
of education and training, it trusts to help it find the proper answers to technical
and nontechnical problems.
Playing a part in changing the social shape of our society is something
that is a part of every working day. Unfortunately, it is more common to back
away from standing up for what is socially right. How many can even admit
"not feeling good about it." (Weber 1988)31 Most do not, not for "engineering"
but for selfish reasons.
We must link our profession to the social issues that face society. Society has
always thought highly of engineers. But, society will lower that opinion if we
continue to participate without question in the promotion of expensive, extra-
vagant projects. Or, if we continue to avoid full participation in the debate over
use of society's resources.
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING PROJECTS

As society's constructors we must use our skills to identify suspect projects.
Then we must be willing to take a strong stand in support of our position. To
do this we need, more than any group, a clear definition of what makes a suspect
project. First, we should not base the merit of a project upon self-serving values.
SOCIETY 77
These include items such as the prestige we will gain from participation, or the
number of people we can have working for us.
We should not base the merit of a project on how much of the final decision
agrees with what we came up with.
The value of a public works project can change. As society's constructors
we must recognize that the value of a project to society changes through its
life-cycle. If a project's value to society decreases to a point that society should
end it, then we must be willing to let go of it. We must be willing to do this
no matter how much we have personally invested in it.
We should relate a public works project's merit to the needs of society as
a whole. The people doing civil engineering in the early periods of our country's
history were rugged individualists. They were ready to go out and construct
projects that would make the Country and its new social order great. Obviously,
they needed to work for a living, but their accomplishments speak of higher
goals. In a time of large agencies and firms, and mega-buck projects, we have
lost sight of these higher goals. The excesses of the 80's testify to that loss.
Some may argue that the pioneer days are gone, and that during those
times we were conquering vast spaces and obstacles and few if any people were
adversely affected. However, the railroads and canals and other projects that
came during this time did significantly and irreparably damage the environment
and the Native Americans that occupied the land.
The point here is not to say that what went on was wrong, but to recognize
that there were some problems caused. Such an awareness may help us to prevent
problems in the future (despite their form). If we take the view that nothing
that the civil engineer ever did caused a significant problem, or that the civil
engineer was unaware, or only acting as an agent for society in general, then
we can never hope to make civil engineering a better profession, or one that
makes even greater contributions to society.
A public works project's merit must be obvious. We must describe and
explain projects in a way that the members of society as a whole can understand.
We cannot use the excuse that few understand the technical aspects of a project.
If society cannot understand a project, then its merit is doubtful.
The choice between a technical project and another more socially oriented
project should not be an all or nothing proposition. Just because we could not
free enough money to end a particular social evil entirely is not a good reason
for not trying. Who says it must be an all or nothing situation. (Hanson 1988)32
The worth of a project will recognize the need for benefits to society, first and
above all other items.
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Civil engineers need to grow to a state where we again play a major part in
molding society, and making the world a better place to live. The first step in
grasping this opportunity is to understand just what is meant by the term " social
responsibility." By social responsibility I mean "to care." To care we must be
78 SOCIETY
sure that:
We do not hide behind the masks of technical skill and technical decision
making.
We base our decisions and recommendations on both technical and
non-technical values.
We accept both the positive and the negative results from our technical
decisions.
We do not get caught in a continuous self-fulfilling prophesy of
"technical only" is right? (Peterson 1991)33
We know the whole story.
SUMMARY
Our children will enter and live through most of the twenty-first century,
a century that we are shaping now. We have a responsibility and an obligation
to provide for those next generations.
We need to break the mold of the past and shape new more socially
responsible engineers. We need to insure that civil engineers willing to exercise
both their technical and social skills do this shaping. Above all we must see that
the projects that we construct have solid foundations, figuratively and practically.
We all must be new engineers.
THE LESSON
We cannot lose sight of our place in society. Of course civil engineers
provide valuable services to people and society as a whole. Yet, the world will
continue tomorrow if there are no more people called civil engineers. However,
of the engineering disciplines, civil engineering has the most to offer to make
the everyday life of humans safe and comfortable.
If you want credit for a job well done, or to make much money you should
consider another field of engineering. But, if you want the opportunity to help
people and society, and to do work that really matters, civil engineering in a
local government agency is the place to be.
As a new engineer you will find the roadsides littered with opinions and
old wives' tales, misconceptions and sometimes just plain laziness all disguised
as good civil engineering. You also will find some unselfish people, willing to
work for only a fraction of the rewards they might legitimately expect. As a
new engineer the most important choice you make will be what kind of engineer
you choose to be.
The choice is yours and must begin with a vision of the world you want
to engineer and live in. Once you have your vision you must make a commitment
to follow it no matter how difficult or lonely the path is. You must be willing
to make the vision of the new engineer your vision. Also, you must entice other
engineers to join you to make civil engineering really civil.
"How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous
mankind is! O brave new world That has such people inrt!"
(William Shakespeare)
REFERENCES
1. Chandler, Ralph C. and Jack C. Piano (1982), THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRA-

TION DICTIONARY, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Page 24.
TION DICTIONARY, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Page 276-278.
TION DICTIONARY, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Page 166.
TION DICTIONARY, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Page 114-119.
5. Wong, S., (1989), "Why Use TRAF-NETSIM?", McTrans, Volume 4, (3),
Center for Microcomputers in Transportation, Gainesville, Florida, Page 2.
6. Yauch, P. J. and Gray, J. C., (1988), "Using NETSIM to Evaluate the Effects of
Drawbridge Openings on Adjacent Signalized Intersections", ITE JOUR-
NAL, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., Page 35-39.
7. Buzzotta, V. R. and Lefton, Robert E. (1978). "How Healthy Is Your
Performance Appraisal System", THE PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR.
August 1978. Page 48-51.
8. Heneman, Hubert G. etal; (1983), "Employee Performance", PERSONNEL/-
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Page 112-142.
9. Kindall, Alva and Gatza, James, (1963). "Positive Program For Performance
Appraisal", HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, Volume 41; Number 6; No-
vember/December 1963; Page 153-167.
10. Levinson, Harry; (1976). "Appraisal Of What Performance"; HARVARD
BUSINESS REVIEW; Volume 54, Number 4, July/August 1976, Page 30-48.
11. Oberg, Winston, (1972), "Making Performance Appraisal Relevant", HAR-
VARD BUSINESS REVIEW; Volume 50, Number 1, January/February 1972,
Page 61-67.
12. Plunkett, W. R. (1979). SUPERVISION THE DIRECTION OF PEOPLE AT
WORK. William C. Brown Co., Pub., Dubuque, Iowa, Page 192-207.
13. Siegel, Gilbert B. (1984); "Performance Appraisal For Development Of
Human Resources In The Democartic Republic Of The Sudan"; PUBLIC
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; Volume 13, Number 2, Sprint 1984, Page
147-155.
14. Nigro, Felix A. and Lloyd G. Nigro, (1984), MODERN PUBLIC ADMIN-
ISTRATION, New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, Page 8.
15. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Schott, Richard L, (1979), CONGRESS AND
THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE; John Wiley and Sons, New York.
16. Price, Don E. (1982) THE SCIENTIFIC ESTATE; Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
17. Mosher, Frederick C. (1982), DEMOCRACY AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE,
2nd edition, Oxford University Press, New York.
18. MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS, (1986), International City
Management Association, Washington, D.C., Page 4-11.
79
80
REFERENCES
19. PERSONNEL JOURNAL, (1987), Volume 66, Number 10, October 1987,
Page 102.
20. Franco, J. A. (1989). DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: A PROFES-
SIONAL POSITION. Civ. Engrg., ASCE, 59(11), Page 6.
21. Tedesco, E. H., and Mitchell, R. B. (1984). ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
MANAGEMENT, John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
22. Hodgetts, R. M, (1975), MANAGEMENT THEORY, PROCESS, AND
PRACTICE, Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders Company, Page 85.
23. Hodgetts, R. M. (1975). MANAGEMENT THEORY, PROCESS, AND
PRACTICE. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pa.
24. Carzo, R., Jr. and Yanouzas, J. N. (1967). FORMAL ORGANIZATION, A
SYSTEMS APPROACH. Richard D. Irwin, Inc. and The Dorsey Press,
Homewood, 111., Page 109-116.
25. Christofano, S., and Foster, W. S. (1986). MANAGEMENT OF LOCAL
PUBLIC WORKS. Int. City Mgmt. Assoc, Washington, D.C., Page 9-10.
26. HIGHWAY RESEARCH RECORD Number 305, "Socioeconomic Con-
siderations In Transportation Planning"; 1970; Highway Research Board;
Washington, D.C.
27. HIGHWAY RESEARCH RECORD Number 356, "Social, Economic, and
Environmental Factors of Transportation"; 1971, Highway Research Board;
Washington, D.C.
28. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF HIGHWAYS-, 1974; U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation; Washington, D.C.
29. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD Number 686, "Effects Of
Washington On The Community"; 1978; Transportation Research Board;
Washington, D.C.
30. Jones, Edward E., (1986). "The effects of expectancies", SCIENCE, Volume
234, October 1986, Page 41-46.
31. Webber, Paul R., (1988), "Antoine Goes Home" CIVIL ENGINEERING, Vol,
March 1988. Page 6.
32. Hanson, Daniel J., (1988), "Using Highway Funding To Solve Social
Problems", BETTER ROADS, October 1988. Page 16.
33. Peterson, Linda. (1991), "Getting People To Care", EQUIPMENT TODAY,
Volume 26, Number 3, April 1991. Page 5.
INDEX
Ability, 18, 24, 35, 37, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68 Benefit, 12, 18, 19, 25, 44, 45, 46, 59, 63, 66,
Abstraction, 16 71
Academic, 35, 67 Black-box, 33
Accomplishments, 40, 67, 77 Bottom-line, 61
Accountability, 62 Budget, 50, 66
Achievement, 28, 69 Bureaucracy, 12, 24, 63
Administration, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, Bureaucrats, 19, 24, 25, 24, 61
14,15,16,50,61,63, 80 Business, 24, 26, 27, 61, 73, 80
Administrator, 26, 80 Buzzotta, 38, 80
Advocate, 41, 73
African-Americans, 14 Capabilities, 8, 36, 41, 42, 47, 67
Age, 44 Career, 1, 2, 3, 36, 41, 59, 61, 62, 76
Agency, 24, 25, 26, 28, 27, 72, 79 Carelessness, 32
Agenda, 24, 25 Caring, 54, 59
Agent, 77 Carzo, 66, 80
Allegiance, 76 Chandler, 7, 11, 14, 18,80
Allocation, 52, 54, 56, 57, 70 Change, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
Alternatives, 2, 36 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 31, 35,
America, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 54, 56, 59, 61,
American, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 33 63, 69, 70, 71, 73, 72, 73, 77
Americans, 11, 14, 16, 77 Choice, 8, 18, 77, 78
Analysis, 2, 20, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 47, Christofano, 80
46, 53, 54, 55, 57, 56, 57, 64, 66, 70 Citizen, 20, 26, 46, 50
Analyst, 32 Citizens-taxpayers, 69
Analytical, 65, 66, 76 City, 1, 3, 20, 24, 25, 26, 42, 47, 55, 59, 73,
Analyze, 32, 33, 40, 41, 45, 47, 50, 61 80
Ancient, 61, 69 Civil, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 23,
Answer, 3, 6, 25, 28, 42, 63, 73, 74 30, 31, 52, 59, 60, 61, 63, 69, 73, 74,
Anti-engineering, 2 75,76,75,76,77,79,78,81
Anti-technologist, 2 Civilizations, 69
Appraisal, 80 Claim, 29, 52
Appreciate, 66 Co-operation, 37
Approach, 2, 3, 13, 19, 20, 22, 30, 31, 36, 37, Co-workers, 29
41,54,67,69,73,74, 80 Coaching, 38
Arbitrary, 54 Coalition, 61
Argument, 8, 29, 52, 63, 71, 74, 75 Colonization, 11, 12
Aristocracy, 12, 13 Combat, 30, 68
Arts, 9, 62, 65, 66, 67 Commanding, 65
Aspect, 11,20,35,42,66,67 Commitment, 41, 79
Attitude, 27, 41, 46, 53 Committee, 55, 56
Attorney, 62 Communicate, 23, 24, 28, 60, 63
Attributes, 38 Communication, 5, 8, 16, 23, 25, 24, 25, 26,
Average, 21, 33, 38, 39, 40, 44, 57 27, 28, 66, 72
Aware, 31, 40, 62, 75 Communicator, 23
Awareness, 37, 77 Communist, 16
Community, 1, 9, 19, 26, 46, 51, 52, 54, 62,
Balance, 16,52,54,61,60 66,80
Basis, 8, 13, 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 41, 46, 57, 64 Company, 24, 33, 80
Before-after, 21 Compare, 7, 14, 46, 52, 69
Behavior, 9, 65 Comparison, 36, 53
Belief, 27 Compartmentalized, 73
81
Complaint, 26, 45, 47, 46, 50, 51, 69 Difficulty, 1,18,24,32,35
Complement, 28 Disadvantage, 61
Comprehensive, 18, 19 Disagreement, 33, 37
Compromise, 53, 54 Discipline, 73, 76
Computer, 2/8, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, Discrimination, 40
35,36,41,43,62 Discriminatory, 40
Concern, 16, 30, 42, 52, 53, 57, 60, 62, 70 Disruptions, 41
Conclusion, 34, 35 Disservice, 45
Conduct, 25, 26, 27, 41, 53, 64, 68 Distasteful, 40
Conflict, 8, 31, 32, 36, 53, 54, 60 Distrust, 57
Conscience, 54 Disturbing, 11,41
Consensus, 36 Diverse, 5, 23
Consequences, 75 Do-able, 21
Considerations, 35, 44, 46, 57, 67, 80 Dodd, 53, 80
Constituencies, 23, 25 Dorsey, 80
Construct, 23, 26, 33, 60, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, Duty, 74
79 Dynamics, 31
Construction, 2, 3, 26, 56, 57, 69, 70, 71, 74
Consulting, 26 Economic, 30, 55, 70, 80
Control, 9, 11, 26, 30, 35, 44, 59, 64, 65 Economy, 25, 69
Cookbook, 67 Education, 1, 13, 27, 59, 60, 62, 63, 66, 67,
Cost, 5, 19, 32, 56, 57, 61, 70, 73, 74 74,75,76
Courage, 27 Effect, 7, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 32, 41, 44, 46,
Creativity, 20 56,71
Credentials, 66 Effectiveness, 26, 34, 36, 38, 53
Credibility, 23, 31, 35, 37, 69 Efficiency, 13, 69
Cristofano, 66 Efficient, 8, 25, 29, 44, 57
Culture, 9, 11,12, 13, 15, 16, 18 Effort, 5, 20, 21, 34, 50, 64
Customer, 28, 27 Elected, 6, 24, 25, 26, 52, 55, 57
Customize, 35 Eliminate, 29
Emphasize, 7, 22, 31, 38, 65
Daniel, 81 Employee, 24, 25, 38, 80
Data, 18, 23, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, Employment, 40, 59
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 46, 50, Encountered, 53
52, 54, 55 Encourage, 2, 20, 26, 27, 39, 69, 72
Database, 38, 40 Enfranchised, 14
Deadlines, 61 Engineer, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19,
Decide, 6, 18, 24, 25, 32, 35, 38, 66, 68, 73 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 37,
Decision, 18, 19, 24, 27, 50, 54, 55, 61, 65, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 52, 54, 57, 59,
69, 70, 73, 77, 78 61, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 73, 76,
Decision-making, 63 77, 79, 78
Degree, 66, 65, 68 Engineering, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18,
Dehumanizing, 65 19,21,20,21,22, 24,25,29,30, 31,
Delay, 14, 26, 50, 71 32, 35, 37, 38, 42, 44, 45, 50, 52, 53,
Delegate, 31 54, 55, 59, 61, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66,
Design, 19, 26, 30, 61, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76,
Designer, 70 77, 79, 78, 81
Desirable, 12, 19, 32 Enthusiasm, 3
Development, 8, 51, 56, 57, 70, 80 Entropy, 14
Dichotomy, 73 Environment, 8, 11, 66, 69, 72, 74, 77
Different, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, Essence, 7, 9, 14,18,43,44,65
28, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 46, 57, 63, Essential, 45, 54, 59
67, 70, 72, 76 Establish, 9
82
Establishment, 12, 70 Guideline, 28, 55
Ethics, 26, 28, 62, 74, 76
Evaluation, 20, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 44, 54, 55, Habits, 18, 75
56 Hanson, 77, 81
Evaluators, 39 Harmful, 36
Evolution, 8, 9, 13, 71 Harmony, 7
Expansionist, 12 Harper, 80
Expectancies, 76, 80 Help, 1, 3, 4, 19, 27, 28, 37, 38, 50, 59, 61,
Expectations, 28, 27 62, 63, 67, 69, 76, 77, 79
Expenditure, 42 Heneman, 38, 80
Experience, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 27, 32, 35, 36, 40, History, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 28, 54, 64, 75, 76,
61, 66, 67, 68 77
Expert, 24 Hodgetts, 64, 80
Expertise, 76 Human, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 24, 54, 61, 62, 65,
66, 65, 80
Failure, 6, 19, 25, 36, 54, 59, 61, 71, 76 Human-kind, 2, 9
Fayol, 65 Human-machine, 31, 32
Female, 39 Humanism, 16, 66
Fire-fighting, 41 Humanistic, 16, 65, 66
First-in, 44 Humanity, 13
First-out, 44 Hypothesis, 56
Form, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 27, 34, 40,
47,54,59,69,70,71, 77 Idealism, 5, 73
Formulate, 7, 26 Ideals, 71, 73
Framework, 54, 67 Ideas, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
Franco, 63, 80 17, 18, 19, 21, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28,
Frustration, 24 61,64,67,69,70,72
Function, 13, 15, 19, 20, 32, 35, 38, 63, 66, Immoral, 76
67,70 Impact, 27, 31, 41, 54, 57, 70, 71
Function-oriented, 19 Impartiality, 25
Functional, 63, 64, 67 Impetus, 2, 6, 24
Fund, 56, 57, 70 Implement, 7
Funding, 26, 42, 56, 57, 70, 81 Implications, 31, 45
Future, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 68, 73, 76, 77 Improve, 5, 7, 16, 22, 30, 32, 33, 43, 45, 46,
55,72
Gain, 3, 19, 31, 36, 37, 41, 44, 53, 59, 63, 77 Increment, 11
Gatza, 80 Incremental, 18
Generalists, 66, 73 Incrementalism, 18, 19
Generalization, 5 Incumbents, 39
Generate, 3, 17, 19 Indecisive, 29
Generation, 14, 16, 17, 36 Individual, 2, 3, 7, 37, 38
Goal, 18, 19, 27, 34, 41, 47, 61, 62 Individualists, 77
Government, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, Individuality, 7
13, 17, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 27, 28, Information, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 35, 37, 38,
37, 38, 41, 45, 46, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 40, 43, 45, 46, 50, 51, 54, 57, 61, 63,
61,60,61,62,63, 68,79 65,76
Graduates, 29, 31, 59, 60 Infrastructure, 52, 53, 61, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73,
Gray, 80 72
Grievances, 37 Input, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35
Group, 5, 25, 26, 31, 33, 53, 55, 71, 76, 75, Insight, 6, 1 1
76 Investigate, 40, 46, 71
Guardian, 11 Investigation, 39
Guidance, 25, 61
83
Jargon, 28 Mosher, 54, 80
Job, 3, 4, 5, 13, 18, 22, 27, 30, 37, 38, 39, 42, Motivation, 65
43, 45, 59, 61, 66, 65, 66, 69, 70, 73,
75,79 Narrow-minded, 67
Jones, 76, 80 Nature, 3, 6, 14, 16, 23, 24, 25, 29, 33, 41,
Justification, 69 42, 43, 46, 54, 60, 61, 66, 69, 70, 74,
Justify, 55, 56, 63 76
Need, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23,
Kindall, 38, 80 24, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44,
Knee-jerk, 41 45, 50, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,
Know-how, 32 63, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 71, 73, 74, 76,
Knowledge, 5, 18, 24, 35, 44, 50, 63, 64, 66, 77,79
76 Negative, 1, 30, 32, 41, 59, 71, 75, 78
Neglect, 54
Law, 25, 66 Negotiation, 53
Leadership, 53, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67 Nigro, 52, 80
Learn, 2, 5, 18, 28, 37, 40, 52, 60, 61, 63, 67, Non-engineer, 6
68 Non-engineering, 1, 60, 66
Lefton, 80 Non-engineers, 59, 68
Legislative, 25 Non-management, 39
Legitimate, 39, 51,57 Non-professional, 39
Levinson, 38, 80 Non-supervisors, 39
Liability, 42 Non-technical, 2, 52, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 76,
Liberal, 62, 65, 66, 67 78
Life, 2, 3, 28, 60, 63, 73, 79 Non-traditional, 21
Life-cycle, 77
Lifestyle, 9 Oberg, 38, 80
Obligation, 24, 27, 28, 75, 79
Maintenance, 20, 25, 26, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, Operations, 20, 21, 24, 25, 42, 43, 45, 53
50 Opportunity, 1, 6, 12, 15, 19, 27, 37, 40, 44,
Male, 39 59,71,75,77,79
Malfeasant, 2 Optimize, 57
Manage, 7, 31, 35, 37, 45, 61, 66, 69 Organization, 1, 5, 6, 11, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24,
Management, 1, 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 22, 27, 30, 26, 30, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43,
31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 50, 44, 45, 47, 50, 53, 55, 63, 64, 70, 80
60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 65, 66, 67, 80 Organize, 6, 9, 64
Manager, 1, 2, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 57, 59, 63, Ourcity, 3, 20, 21, 24, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45,
64, 65, 66, 67, 68 50, 55, 57
Mekemson, 36
Methodology, 18, 19, 35, 55, 67 Paradox, 69
Microcomputers, 80 People, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14,
Misapplication, 31 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
Misconceptions, 78 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 53, 59,
Misfeasant, 2 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74,
Misinterpretation, 31 75, 76, 77, 79, 78, 80, 81
Mismanagement, 42 Perceptions, 38, 50
Mitchell, 80 Performance, 19, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 80
Mixed-scanning, 19 Peterson, 78, 81
Model, 16, 17,43,50 Philosophy, 2, 3, 14, 18, 19, 25, 24, 31, 52,
Modern, 27, 29, 32, 52, 65, 66, 69, 71, 80 59,62
Money, 41, 42, 63, 73, 74, 77, 79 Planning, 42, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 65, 66, 80
Moral, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 74, 76 Piano, 7, 80
Morality, 26, 53 Plunkett, 38, 80
84
Policy, 6, 7, 21, 24, 26, 50, 53 Ranking, 54, 55, 57
Political, 12, 14, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 56, Rational-comprehensive, 18
57, 58, 61, 66, 70 Rationalism, 18
Politician, 54, 53, 57, 61, 73 Recommendation, 63
Politics, 25, 52, 54, 53, 54, 70 Registration, 66, 65, 66, 67, 76
Power, 12, 52, 54, 57, 59, 70, 73, 75, 76 Relationship, 6, 14, 16, 31, 33, 38, 64, 66
Practical, 3, 30, 36, 66 Reorganization, 43
Pressure, 7, 20, 27, 41, 52, 56 Resources, 6, 7, 1 1, 31, 33, 40, 41, 43, 52,
Prevent, 1, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 28, 53, 71, 72, 54, 61, 63, 70, 76, 80
73,77 Responsibility, 26, 55, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79
Price, 29, 53, 73, 80 Result, 7, 20, 23, 25, 29, 31, 34, 35, 37, 39,
Problem, 3, 9, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 40,43,44,50,61,65, 70,75
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45, Right, 5, 24, 26, 36, 50, 54, 66, 76, 78
50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 61, 60, 62, 65, 66, Roadblock, 27
67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 76, 77 Role, 24, 46, 52, 54, 59, 61, 66, 69, 71, 73,
Problem-solving, 19 74
Procedure, 19, 42, 44, 47, 55, 57 Rules, 3, 25, 26, 34, 36, 59
Process, 7, 8, 12, 14, 19, 21, 20, 22, 25, 32,
34, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 52, Salary, 23, 39
54, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, Satisfaction, 44, 61, 66
65,66,70,71, 73,80 Saunders, 80
Profession, 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 16, 26, 31, 45, 59, Scanning, 18, 19
73, 74, 76, 77 Schedule, 20, 42, 43, 68
Professional, 1, 12, 13, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, 39, School, 1, 63, 64, 65, 67
52, 53, 54, 57, 62, 63, 66, 65, 66, 67, Schott, 80
68, 74, 80 Science, 6 1,64, 66, 65,80
Professionalism, 13, 53, 76 Scientific, 12, 25, 53, 65, 80
Profit, 24, 27, 28, 61 Scientist, 73
Program, 2, 20, 25, 24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, Seat-of-the-pants, 2
35, 36, 41, 44, 46, 50, 62, 63, 65, 80 Self-fulfilling, 78
Programs, 2, 12, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, Self-interest, 53
36, 37, 40, 46, 50, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, Self-serving, 76
73 Self-starting, 27
Project, 2, 7, 18, 23, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51, 52, Selfish, 53, 73, 76
53, 55, 56, 57, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, Sell, 17, 61
77 Service, 1, 2, 17, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 27, 28,
Promote, 24, 25, 27, 37, 41 41,44,63,64,65,80
Pseudo-elitist-technologist, 53 Siegel, 38, 80
Pseudo-technical, 76 Significant, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 34, 77
Psychological, 66 Skills, 1, 2, 18, 25, 26, 30, 32, 35, 37, 42, 52,
Public, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 62, 63, 64,
15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 66, 65, 66, 69, 73, 74, 76, 79
41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 54, 59, 60, 61, 60, Sliderule, 5
61, 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 80 Social, 7, 12, 14, 24, 54, 55, 66, 65, 66, 70,
Publicly, 25 71,73,76,77,79,80, 81
Society, 1, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 25, 27, 30, 32,
Qualifications, 39, 66, 67, 76 45, 54, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 69, 71, 73,
Quality, 2, 9, 14, 19, 25, 26, 27, 31, 35, 37, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79
39, 61, 63, 66, 67, 71, 72 Socio-economic, 55, 80
Question, 25, 28, 35, 54, 62, 63, 66, 71, 72, Sociology, 61
74,76 Solve, 2, 22, 29, 31, 42, 57, 60, 62, 63, 65,
70,81
Race, 73 Spoils, 11, 12
85
Staff, 2, 21, 25, 30, 32, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, Tools, 2, 28, 27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 41, 53, 67
45,46,47,54,71 Tradition, 12, 19, 59
Standards, 26, 34, 39, 53, 54, 55, 59, 71 Traditional, 21, 46, 60, 65, 67, 69, 71
Statistical, 30, 39, 64 Training, 1, 31, 37, 38, 40, 42, 60, 61, 62, 63,
Succeed, 1, 37, 62 64, 67, 68, 74, 75, 76
Success, 2, 18, 23, 33, 37, 61, 66, 65 Trusteeship, 13, 14, 16
Successful, 1, 2, 3, 19, 36, 38. 52, 57, 61, 63,
64,66 Ultimate, 44
Suggestions, 23, 26, 46 Undergraduate, 62, 66
Suitability, 32 Understanding, 6, 7, 23, 35, 36, 38, 41, 61,
Supervise, 26, 64 62
Supervision, 43, 80 Unique, 7, 8, 11,66,70
System, 12, 17, 18, 24, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 52,
53, 56, 59, 65, 74, 80 Values, 1, 35, 44, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76,
78
Task, 5, 13, 22, 30, 36, 41, 42, 54, 66, 67, 73, Victims, 71, 73
74 View, 20, 38, 53, 66, 72, 76, 77
Technical, 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, View-point, 54
27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 42, 43, Virtue, 75
44, 47, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, Visibility, 70
61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, Vision, 5, 63, 68, 78
71, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79
Technician, 42, 63 Weber, 76, 81
Tedesco, 63, 80 Wicked, 76
Theology, 62 Winners, 71
Theory, 16, 66, 80 Winning, 12
Thought, 5, 9, 11, 18, 23, 29, 37, 41, 45, 52, Wong, 36, 80
59, 63, 64, 65, 69, 73, 76
Thoughtless, 74 Yanouzas, 80
Time, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, Yauch, 36, 80
20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, York, 80
41, 42, 44, 50, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 70, Young, 1, 17, 31, 37
72, 74, 76, 77 Youth, 14, 73
86

Civil Engineering For The Community

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Engineering For The Community

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVIL

Authorization to photocopy material for internal or personal use under cir-

2. The Forms of Public Administration 11

3. Doing Our Work Better 18

4. Constituencies, Communication, and Civil 23

10. Skills for Local Government 59

11. Technician or Manager 63

12. Infrastructure and Our Values (or How to

To do this I have covered a variety of topics that are distinctly non-

Physical EvolutionHumans have changed physically over time. Whether you

THE ADVANCING FORM OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

The Spoils Period1As America expanded, isolation from western European

The Administrative Management Periodreflects several ideas. One idea is

THE PATTERN OF CHANGE

IDEAS AS BUILDING BLOCKS

Figure 2.1 Immigration To The United States

THE FUTURE FORM OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

injection into the genetic make-up of American culture points to a change in

USING THE MODEL

THE CIVIL ENGINEER

If we are to have change in civil engineering, we must base it on ideas.

a new method of decision making is desirable, setting up that new method is

THE VALUE ENGINEERING TECHNIQUE

1. Identify primary functions;

Creativity is not a thing, but an activity.

THE RESULTS OF VALUE ENGINEERING

Table 3.1 Sample of Ideas Defined During Speculative

ONCE UPON A TIME

TYPES OF COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS

THE CYCLE OF GOOD COMMUNICATION

Identifying Communication ProblemsWe have one clear-cut test of com-

changing and expanding. However, we need to do more than simply sit in a

A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND

WEAKNESSES ASSOCIATED WITH COMPUTER PROGRAMS

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PEOPLE AND MACHINES

Table 5.1 Problem TypeRelationship Matrix

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PEOPLE

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONS

Use of the ResultsMany computer programs produce large reports contain-

Computer Program Parameter AdjustmentProgram operators can change

Logic ErrorsLogic errors are a function of a particular computer program's

Data Translation ErrorData translation errors refer to the translation or

WHAT DO WE NEED TO REMEMBER?

A computer program cannot select the right measures of effectiveness for

Performance Evaluationsare incidental products of the management func-

WHAT DO WE NEED TO REMEMBER?

SETTING THE SYSTEM UP

WHAT DO WE NEED TO REMEMBER?

Citizen ComplaintsIf a local government can use information supplied by

Relative Adjusted CUM

0. 17 0.9 0.9 0.9

1. 4 0.2 0.2 1.1

Utility cut 12. 56 2.9 2.9 28.2

Rough road 13. 39 2.0 2.0 30.0

Mailbox down 21. 8 0.4 0.4 33.7

Lawn damage 22. 32 1.6 1.6 35.3

Misc ice and snow 24. 3 0.2 0.2 37.7

30. 1 0.1 0.1 37.7

Misc grading 32. 55 2.8 2.8 42.7

Damaged guardrail 33. 5 0.3 0.3 42.9

Shoulder grading 35. 12 0.6 0.6 45.1

Debris 36. 200 10.3 10.3 55.4

CB-MH cover missing 41. 310 15.9 15.9 71.4