|
|
A monthly publication from the Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers
November 5, 2007 Edition
WSPE's President's Corner |
|
I would like to begin by thanking Angie Hanz, P.E., for stepping forward to replace Mark Davy, P.E., as the Young Engineer Representative on the State Board. The Executive Committee voted to forward a recommendation for approval of her appointment to this position by the State Board at the November 10th meeting. Angie works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development out of the Stevens Point office. She is a member of the Wisconsin Valley Chapter and will bring a lot of enthusiasm and ideas to the Board. I would also like to thank the first of our new Supporting Organizations. R.A. Smith & Associates has signed on as a Platinum sponsor, Davy Engineering is a Silver sponsor, and HGA Architects and Engineers is a Bronze sponsor. Thank you for your support of WSPE and all its Chapters and programs! As a reminder to organizations, the Supporting Organizations program provides a credit toward sponsorship levels based on the number of WSPE members employed by an organization—the more WSPE members in your organization, the more you can save. Please contact me at james.buggs@ch2m.com with any questions about the program. Remember, savings on membership dues can be realized by qualifying organizations that sign up for the NSPE Enterprise Program. Visit www.nspe.org for more information. Paying all or part of your employees’ membership dues is a great way to show them you care about their professional development and provide a wide range of opportunities for them to contribute to their profession. Just a reminder if you haven’t already done so—please take a moment today to invite at least one colleague to join NSPE/WSPE. Invite them to a Chapter meeting or other society activity to help them get involved. Remember to tell them the first six months are free! It’s easy to join by visiting www.nspe.org. Remember to mark your calendar for the 2008 Discovery Conference and Governor’s New Product Award banquet to be held on Thursday, April 17, 2008, at the Kalahari in Wisconsin Dells. Great room rates will be available, so start making plans to attend now. The basic theme for the Conference is “Preventing Disasters.” Please contact the conference chairperson, Dave McDermid, P.E., at 608-242-6652 or dmcdermid@msa-ps.com with any suggestions or ideas. Our Legislative Committee continues to follow the bills in the state legislature regarding changes to licensure requirements (AB 69) and the implementation of continuing professional competency requirements (AB 181). Please voice your opinions on these important bills at http://wiab69/blogspot.com and http://wiab181.blogspot.com. AB 181 was scheduled for a vote on October 30, 2007. The legislature will also be considering Quality Based Selection (QBS) (LRB-1737/5). WSPE supports QBS and we encourage our members to contact their state legislatures to support this legislation. As always, there are many other programs in progress at WSPE, so please contact Executive Director Nancy Short at n.short@wspe.org if you would like to get involved. Thanks! James Buggs, P.E. |
|
SPONSOR A world-class graduate degree to advance your career as a technical leader, featuring:
Only 30 students admitted each year — reserve your spot today!
|
||
Encourage Students to Apply: The Engineers Foundation of Wisconsin Giving Away Three Scholarships for High School Seniors |
|
| Three lucky high school seniors enrolled in an engineering program in a university will each win $1,000 soon. The scholarships are provided by the Engineers Foundation of Wisconsin, a non-profit foundation sponsored by the Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers (WSPE). The deadline for applications for these special scholarships is fast approaching. Applications must be postmarked no later than December 17, 2007. For more details, go to: http://www.wspe.org/efw.html. |
|
| SPONSOR  |
Take Advantage of the WSPE Job Board |
|
| Looking for a new job? Curious what kind of engineering jobs are out there on the market today? Don't forget - WSPE has a job board. Go to: http://www.wspe.org/jobboard.html to check it out. |
|
Product Platform Management-The Key to Sustainability By Marc Annacchino, P.E. |
|
I. THE CONCEPT OF PLATFORM MANAGEMENT Many companies are adopting a product development system that employs platform development as a basis. The product platform serves as a basic building platform on which several versions of a product could be built. In this way several versions of a product can be quickly implemented on a platform to serve the market rapidly. At a later date a cost-reduced version could be implemented after volume begins to climb. An example of a product platform could be a computer tower. The basic system consists of an enclosure, a power supply, a motherboard, and slots for peripheral components such as hard drives, CD and DVD Drives, graphics cards, and user interface such as monitors and keyboards. Some of these components are used across many product configurations, allowing the manufacturer to configure a wide range of products to meet specific market needs. As the market needs change, the manufacturer can reconfigure and re-price an offering very quickly. Conversely: imagine the effort that would be needed to create a unique version for each and every customer from scratch with each component optimized for the use configured! Positioning the product means different levels of difficulty for different industries and products. For example, repositioning a product by repackaging the same basic elements is easier than redesigning a product platform for an added or different feature set. II. PLATFORMING THE PRODUCT When setting up the initial platform of the product, it is best to understand the technology that will be employed. In fact, it is best to be very conversant on a technological level to be able to make mental tradeoffs between cost adders and no cost impact items. If items do not add incremental cost and can be easily absorbed in the user's tolerance overhead (i.e., the ability to tolerate the overhead that accompanies functionality), then add the feature. If, however, the cost is impacted or ease of use is impacted, reexamine the target customer base to be sure you are not over-specifying the product. It is a natural consequence of development of a product to add functionality as you progress in development, so you will have to keep that in check without completely missing the target when initially setting up the product platform. With products evolving at ever-increasing rates, the issue of platform management becomes most important. In some firms, the focus is to get the team on the correct platform. Then, spinning product versions off of the platform becomes more deterministic. In this way several products can be used to test the marketplace. If they do not work out, a new version could be spun off and tried. However, in these cases if the product platform does not allow this, the team is in trouble. A single product platform or a close-ended platform could cause product failure. 1. DEFINING THE PRODUCT PLATFORM PATHWAYS Organizations need to think in terms of product pathways and product platforms. This is because the development effort needs to have some leverage. It is a very narrow possibility for mass-market success for an individual product started from scratch. Rather, the company should develop platforms to house the product initiatives and launch several initiatives. Single product successes is rare. By using well-considered platforms, the pathways to success that allow flexibility are somewhat mistake tolerant. There are 2 types of platforms we will define here: the open-ended platform and the closed-ended platform
When deciding which route to go with, consider the cost trade-offs, development time trade offs, and product complexity trade offs. Address the marketplace by doing the following:
III. THE PRODUCT EVOLUTION FLOWCHART It is not a good practice to embark on developing a new product platform without having created a product evolution flowchart. The product evolution flowchart is a tool that forces the team to think about the product, its versions, the timing, and the overall life of specific versions. The following is an example of the process. As discussed earlier, this chart will serve as a road map for the products that will be developed, acquired, or brand labeled. The following is a typical illustration of a chart. It shows several things: the pathway products will take in evolving, how they combine with others in establishing product platforms, and differentiation of products serving different market segments. It also establishes a time base for when all of these things will happen. As shown, products 1-5 exist in basic form in year 1. The product evolution flowchart shows how these products can be combined from a features and functionality perspective. For example, products 1, 2, and 3 combine as a result of a development program started in year 1 and introduced in year 2. All of the features in all three products are combined into one product configuration or platform. The basic platform can be configured in one of three versions. This product implementation then runs as a product for years 2 and 3. In year 4 the next-generation product, which combines all the functionality and features of the different configurations, is launched. Newer technology and cost reductions make this condensing of products cost-effective.
In a similar manner, product three will spin off a series of product configurations in year 3 off of a basic platform. In year 4 a refined product will also be introduced. To make the flowchart more meaningful, a narrative should accompany each product implementation, which explains the actions taken and for what reason. Also, the objective of the implementation should be included. The narrative should contain the following components: each should have a description of the product, a definition of the markets served, the degree to which the competitive stance is improved, the product configuration, and the expected level of technology employed. In this example of a flowchart, product six could be added to the portfolio as a result of an acquisition or a brand label arrangement. As an additional perspective to this product-planning exercise, it may be desirable to prepare several alternative flowcharts showing alternative options and pathways. In this way the best approach can be selected for implementation. 1. THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL EXPLOITATION OF MARKETS AND SEGMENTATION As the number of participants in a given market increases and the market grows, it becomes more and more difficult for a company to be successful in that market. One way of competing in this arena is to adopt a strategy of targeting specific customer groups with specific customized offerings. There is a marketing caveat that you cannot be all things to all people and be effective. This strategy of mass customization allows your company to stretch the envelope a bit. 2. DEFINING MASS CUSTOMIZATION PLATFORMS Mass customization is a term based on the concept of the product platform. A generic platform is designed and optimized for two, somewhat diverse requirements. The first is the product range that will be offered and the second is the preferential acceptability of features that combine to make up a unique product offering. For this concept to work, there must be a thorough understanding of the marketplace requirements. This defines the scope of the offering and the scope of the basic platform design. Although the concept affords flexibility down the road, the scope must be exact or you will lock yourself out of certain market opportunities. If the scope is too wide, the cost of the basic platform will be too high and the configured offering will be noncompetitive. Next, the individual features must be designed to be somewhat portable and combinable to create a unique offering. The overall scope should allow for adding features to capture individual market opportunities. The following illustration shows how the new product progresses from a wide variety of market requirements to distinct product versions. As shown, the market is made up of diverse requirements, represented by the different shaded boxes. Each represents a distinct need from the product by the customer. The product version #1 is conceptualized to establish the feature listing and configuration. From this, the basic platform is conceptualized. If the basic platform is too wide in scope, then the product will be too costly. If the manager undershoots by locking onto too narrow of a basic platform, the versions available for offering will be limited. Once the product platform is sized, all of the product versions can be generated, completing the product line.
3. HOW TO COMPETE WITH MASS CUSTOMIZATION Competing with mass customization is a very powerful means to obtain and retain market share. It allows you to target and secure new customer bases and to widen your offering beyond original expectations. It allows entry to markets you may traditionally be locked out of. It yields a great amount of product flexibility, to capture new customers expediently, rather than having to try to develop a product from scratch. 4. WORKING THE NICHES TO YOUR ADVANTAGE Now that you have the flexibility, it is necessary to work it to your advantage to grow the business. Select and target customers to secure and configure the products for that capture. It also affords you the opportunity to group feature sets to develop a tiered product line or an inclusive product line. The difference is in the way the features are grouped as shown in the following figure. In the following there are three distinct product offerings, namely A, B, and C. They can be configured in several ways as illustrated in the following figure. In the top part of the following figure, products A, B, and C are generated from seven possible features. Product C has all of the features of product B, and likewise, product B has all the features of product A. Product C is an all-inclusive product configuration in this example. In the bottom part of the illustration, product A is comprised of two features, configured to target a narrow audience. It consists of features #1 and #2. Product B consists of three features, namely features #1, #2, and #3. Product C has no more functionality than product B; however, it has a different target customer base, requiring that of features #1, #2, and #4. It is separate and distinct from product B, and can be launched and priced separately.
5. THE BENEFITS The benefits of this type of arrangement are numerous. Mass customization offers flexibility, speed, and direct targeting of market segments. It offers an expanded customer base on which to build a business. 6. DISADVANTAGES The benefits do come at a price, however. They require more effort on the part of product maintenance. This manifests itself in having to lay in updates to the basic product line in each of the versions. If a correction needs to be made to the basic platform, each version of the product generated from this platform needs to be updated. This requires strict revision control and tracking through the product life cycle. Although suitable for some types of products, some companies cannot tolerate the product maintenance requirements. IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, Product Platforming and the Product Evolution Flowchart are key methods that help companies serve a wide variety of customer requirements while keeping their development and product cost structures in check. Portions excerpted from Marc A. Annacchino's book The Pursuit of New Product Development, ISBN-10: 0-7506-7993-X, http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/709057/description#description. Marc Annacchino, P.E., is owner of Marconi Product Development Institute, Inc., a company providing consulting services, contract development, seminars, and other services. He can be reached at Marconi@execpc.com. |
|
Welcome New WSPE Members! |
|
The WSPE board of directors would like to extend a heartfelt welcome to the following new WSPE members:
New members contribute to the growth, strength and leadership of the WSPE in enhancing its recognition as a leading voice for Professional Engineers throughout Wisconsin and promoting excellence in engineering. |
|
Who Pays When Design
Plans Are Insufficient? |
|
| Design professionals and contractors have often asked themselves whether errors, omissions and conflicts in construction design documents furnished to bidders by the owner can safely be ignored by the contractor, or, if resolved by the contractor, whether the contractor is entitled to additional compensation for the economic costs associated with delays. The answer depends upon who you ask and exactly how you frame your question. In 1918, when George B. Spearin was under contract with the U.S. Department of Navy to build a dry dock in accordance with government plans and specifications, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Spearin (1918), 248 U.S. 132, in an opinion written by Justice Brandeis, held that when Spearin encountered a flooded and unworkable work site because of the breakup of an underground sewer system which contained a dam which was not shown on the government's plans, Spearin was relieved of any responsibility for proceeding without extra compensation. The Department of Navy concluded that Spearin was wrong and terminated him. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the character, dimensions and location of the sewer in the plans and specifications imported a warranty that if the specifications were complied with, the sewer would be adequate. The Court held that the implied warranty was not overcome by the general clauses contained in the contract between Spearin and the Navy requiring Spearin to examine the site, check the plans and assume responsibility for the work until completion and acceptance. In April of 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court refused to apply the Spearin doctrine in a case where a general contractor agreed to build three buildings to be part of the Ohio State University College of Business but found that the State's architects had provided plans and specifications containing numerous omissions, inaccuracies and conflicts, requiring a large number of requests for information and change orders. In Dugan & Meyers Construction Company, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Administrative Services, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Ohio Court of Claims which had held that the numerous omissions, inaccuracies and conflicts in the design documents were discovered by the contractors before proceeding with their work, requiring a determination as to what was intended or required, which caused Dugan & Meyers delay, and that the underlying cause of the delay was the inadequacy of the design documents. The Court of Claims awarded damages to Dugan & Meyers and held that it was not responsible to Ohio State University for liquidated damages. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed because it concluded that the Spearin doctrine did not invalidate express contractual provisions contained in the contract between Dugan & Meyers and the Ohio Department of Administrative Services. Those express provisions stating that: "Time is of the essence" provided a specific procedure to be followed in the event of project delay and contained a no-damage-for-delay clause, expressly providing that the contractor was not entitled to additional compensation or mitigation of liquidated damages for delay. The contract also provided that the contractor must request an extension of time in writing within ten days after the occurrence of the condition necessitating an extension of time, or waive any claim for extension or mitigation of liquidated damages. The Ohio Supreme Court noted that even if the plans had required more changes than originally contemplated, the contract established a detailed procedure to be followed for all changes and that in order to hold in favor of Dugan & Meyers, the Court would "need, first, to find that the State had implicitly warranted that its plans were buildable, accurate and complete, and second, to hold that the implied warranty prevails over express contractual provisions. To do so would contravene established precedent, which we will not do," said the Court. The Ohio Supreme Court cited its own previous decisions which recognize the Spearin doctrine in cases involving unexpected site conditions but refused to extend Spearin to cover errors in plans and specifications. The Court found its decision to be in accordance with numerous decisions throughout the country, citing Illinois and Washington Supreme Court decisions holding that a contractor's claim for damages due to delay was precluded by a no-damages-for-delay clause and that a contractor was nonetheless responsible for liquidated damages for delay despite the existence of multiple errors and omissions in the plans that had been supplied by the owner. Practically every contractor association in the State of Ohio filed amicus curiae briefs urging reversal, including AGC of Ohio, MCA of Ohio, NECA of Ohio, and SMACNA of Ohio. The Ohio Municipal League, Ohio School Boards Association, Buckeye Association of School Administrators, and Ohio Association of School Business Officials urged affirmance. The Spearin doctrine has only been cited in one reported decision in Wisconsin, that being Thomsen-Abbott Construction Company v. City of Wausau, a 1960 decision, holding that a contractor was not entitled to additional compensation for de-watering a building site when the bid documents expressly placed a duty of investigation of the site upon the contractor. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Thomsen-Abbott v. City of Wausau did not expressly accept or reject the application of the Spearin doctrine in Wisconsin. So whose responsibility is it if the architectural or engineering plans and specifications contain numerous errors or omissions? The Ohio Supreme Court held that it depended upon what provisions are contained in the contract between the owner and the prime contractor, and whether those provisions trump the implied warranty that the plans and specifications are suitable for the purpose intended. The dissent in Dugan & Meyers noted:
It is not easy to predict which way the Wisconsin Supreme Court would go on this issue. Obviously, the reasons for the contractor's delay and the terms of the contract between the contractor and the owner could make the difference. Attorney Robert J. Kay is the senior partner in the law firm of Kay & Andersen, S.C. and devotes his time to representing professional engineers, architects, contractors, material suppliers and owners of construction projects. Please feel free to contact him at (608) 833-0077 or visit www.kayandandersen.com. |
|
SEH Brookfield Project Wins Third Award |
|
| Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH®) received another award for the firm’s role on the Brookfield Square Water Treatment Facility Project in Brookfield, Wis. The 2007 Project Achievement Award was given by the Wisconsin Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers. SEH designed the 650 sq. ft. water treatment structure to house radium removal equipment. The building features a removable roof for maintenance and equipment upgrades and significant architectural enhancements to match the building architecture of the nearby Brookfield Square Shopping Mall. The treatment process used for this project is the first of its kind for municipal drinking water in Wisconsin. SEH completed the project under strict time constraints in order to meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new radium standards for municipal water supplies in Wisconsin. The City retained SEH less than a year before the EPA compliance deadline. SEH completed the final plans and specifications and received regulatory permit approvals for the project within four months, leaving the awarded contractors the necessary time for construction, which they completed in less than 90 days – one day before the new national radium standards took effect. “This project required a great deal of teamwork from the City, contractor, and other public agencies to meet the EPA’s deadline,” SHE Project Manager Patrick Planton said. “It’s because of everyone’s efforts and quick responsiveness that this project was such a success.” SEH’s Brookfield Project previously received a Project of the Year Award from the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Public Works Association and a Special Project Award from the American Water Works Association-Wisconsin Section. |
|
