![[PHOTO] Light streaming through a key hole illuminating an old iron key.](../images/ph_findings.jpg)
Bernard, Evans, Chow, Hans, Thames and Engel, Engineering and Construction, is a private global construction and engineering (E&C) firm that provides worldwide project management. Activities include civil, infrastructure, government services, environment, telecommunications, industrial, petroleum engineering, airports and mass transit, fossil power, nuclear power, pipelines, and mining and metals.
"The opportunity to project manage a large gas-fired power plant came up and I was eager for the new challenge. The only catch was that the opening occurred because the current project manager Stewart (Stu) Waters wanted out. It was too much work on top of his other program management responsibilities, and Jack (Jake) Daniels (utility client project manager) was driving me nuts!" said Stu.
"During our first meeting, Jake started the conversation with, 'I've quickly learned that E&C firms are not always the most progressive of companies when it comes to managing project risks and opportunities. I would have thought that with your more mature project management practices we would have better project performance.' Sure enough, as soon as I took the job, Jake started nit picking project scope management and complaining about costs up his utility management chain. We would be in a project meeting and have to step outside to heatedly discuss some project integration management disagreements. Many times we returned to the meeting without concurring on the issue. Periodically Jake continued his passionate communications at the conclusion of the team meeting as we walked the corridors from the conference room back to the project construction office. More often than not a compromise was achieved. However, numerous critical project schedule management items were outstanding.
"Finally I decided, 'If you can't beat 'em, join em.' I listened closely and acknowledged Jake's points, concurring with the ones that were valid. As I listened deeply to his conviction and passion I gained insights into his values and professional engineering strengths, and searched for ways to capitalize on them. He was a goal achiever, quick, efficient, and effective, and had a sound analytical approach. He articulated well, could get the drift of review board member questions, and was willing to openly share his ideas and challenge assumptions being made about plant operations and maintenance. I asked him to present several overheads on project integration management at our monthly management board review. I also included him on conference calls and visits to our procurement, environment and cost and scheduling engineers at our worldwide headquarters in San Francisco, California. These simple offerings gave him new in-depth perspectives into what was going on with the project, and they cost me nothing.
"The project moved along and before too long it began to emerge from the ground. It was time again to present our work to client management and my project construction and engineering review board during three days of intensive meetings. Jake faded into the background because he trusted my work and me. The first day, which included a site visit by the review board, went according to plan. I went home Wednesday evening, thinking about what I would say to get things started early Thursday morning. But things didn't work out the way I'd planned. I was eight months pregnant, and I went into premature labor. I called to say that I wouldn't be in on Thursday.
"When Thursday came, Jake did a wonderful job presenting my charts and overheads, but not before praising me for my professional job and the engineering and construction management expertise that was being brought to bear on the project. This from a person whose "enemy" reputation preceded him and who at first was focused on embarrassing us rather than being a professional resource and colleague. You can go far when you trust your gut, take a risk to lead a relationship, and engage 'enemies.' You get more with a listening approach than with fight or flight."
(The names of the persons, companies and certain situations are disguised due to a confidentiality agreement. The Actual client approved the case study)