|
|
A monthly publication from the Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers
April 1, 2008 Edition
1. |
|
2. |
|
| 3. | Have You Registered Yet for the Discovery Conference/GNPA BanquetTaking Place April 17, 2008? |
4. |
|
5. |
|
6. |
New Product Development Benchmarking |
7. |
WSPE's President's Corner |
|
Another spring is almost here, and it’s time to start planning to attend the Discovery Conference and Governor’s New Product Awards banquet in Wisconsin Dells on April 17, 2008. The WSPE Annual Meeting is also held as part of this event. This is your opportunity to hear about the status of the society and provide feedback to the State Board of Directors. You can find program and registration information on the WSPE website at www.wspe.org under the Programs item. The state MATHCOUNTS competition was held in Madison on March 1st. Thank you to all the volunteers who helped out, and a special thanks to Norm Arendt, P.E., for his tremendous efforts on behalf of this very worthwhile program. The top four students (Abraham Shin, Laura Xu, Killian Kvalvik, William Xiang) and the coach of the first place team (Loi Nguyen-Velma Hamilton MS) are now preparing for the national competition being held in Denver, CO, May 8-11, 2008. We congratulate them all on their success to date and wish them the best of luck at nationals. Darwin Behlke, P.E., from the Southeast Chapter, will be accompanying the group on behalf of WSPE. National MATHCOUNTS will be recognizing Darwin for 25 years of service. Congratulations and thank you for all your help over the years! National Engineers Week 2008 is behind us now, but we are already starting to plan for 2009. Chad O’Donnell, P.E., will be leading this effort. Please contact Chad at codonnell@hga.com with ideas or if you would like to be involved in planning. A lot of effort is being put into reaching more students and getting them involved in engineering in order to increase the number of people obtaining engineering degrees. A strong emphasis is being placed on science, math, engineering and technology (STEM) education. We are seeing more engineering charter schools and programs like Project Lead The Way helping to bring engineering down to the middle and high school levels. We all have a duty to pass on what we’ve learned and help develop the next generation of engineers, so please think about how you can contribute to this effort. Please visit www.eweek.org to see what types of things are being done. The Wisconsin state legislative session has also ended. Proposed legislation to change the paths to engineering licensure in Wisconsin and to require Quality Based Selection (QBS) for certain projects did not make it to a final vote, but both will likely be reintroduced in the next session. A bill to allow the Department of Regulation and Licensing (DRL) to develop continuing professional competency (CPC) requirements (a.k.a. continuing education) was passed. WSPE is already developing a list of suggestions for these requirements for professional engineers. We would appreciate input from our members, especially those who already have to fulfill CPC requirements for licensure in other states. We want to make sure Wisconsin’s requirements have value without being overly burdensome or expensive. Please contact Brad Volker, P.E., at bvolker@cooperengineering.net or 715-234-7008 to share your thoughts and experiences.
James Buggs, P.E. |
|
SPONSOR Choose from more than 400 continuing education courses in engineering, design, operations, production, maintenance, management and planning.
Start planning your professional development today! To enroll or receive more information visit us online http://epd.engr.wisc.edu or call toll-free 1-800-462-0876 |
Don’t Forget to Vote! Voting Ends April 4, 2008 |
|
| By now you should have received ballots for the WSPE State Board Election. Thanks to everyone who voted so far. If you didn’t vote yet, you still have a bit of time. The deadline for voting is April 4, 2008. There are three ways to get your vote in:
Officers will be inducted at the Discovery Conference on April 17, 2008 at the Kalahari Resort in Wisconsin Dells. They will officially assume responsibilities on July 1, 2008. |
|
| SPONSOR Continue your education at home or on the road. Our highly respected online programs save you time and money and still provide the quality that you demand.
Inquire today about our online Master of Science in Engineering
or Master of Science in Project Management! Call 1 (800) 362-5460
or email disted@uwplatt.edu.
|
Have You Registered Yet for the Discovery Conference/GNPA Banquet Taking Place April 17, 2008? |
|
| Get ready to attend the Discovery Conference and Governor’s New Product Awards banquet taking place in Wisconsin Dells on April 17, 2008. Highlights of this event include an array of quality speakers, an order of the engineer ceremony, a NASA video presentation, the WSPE Annual Meeting, and the Governor’s New Product Awards Ceremony and Reception. GNPA Keynote speaker: Wisconsin Deputy Secretary of Commerce Aaron Olver This event is happening in the exciting Kalahari Resort in Wisconsin Dells. Go to: http://www.wspe.org/docs/2008DiscoveryConference.pdf to register now! |
|
NSPE-PEI Awards Ceremony, Wisconsin State Capitol |
|
| Recap: NSPE-PEI New Product Award Ceremony at the Wisconsin State Capitol 8/7/07 On Tuesday, August 7, 2007, NSPE, WSPE and the Governor’s office presented three WI companies with NSPE’s PEI New Product Awards for their innovative use of engineering principles and materials, as well as overall benefit to society. The three companies and products were: Mega employee category (10,000 + employees) Large employee category (201 – 9999 employees) Medium employee category (51 – 200 employees) The Awards program and luncheon was held in the Governor’s Conference Room. Jim Buggs, P.E., WSPE State President, welcomed all who attended. After a brief review of WSPE activity in WI, he introduced, Dale R. Swenson, P.E., who talked about WSPE’s Governor’s New Product Awards (GNPA) competition and program. It was noted that since 1993, WI has had fourteen companies win at the National level. We were very fortunate to have Pat Farley, Director of External Relations (Governor’s office) as our keynote speaker, and Rick Buchanan, P.E., NSPE, PEI, NPA National Chair, was in attendance to hand out the NSPE National awards to our three WI companies. Accepting NSPE’s acrylic national award and the Governor’s Certificate of Commendation were: Ron Pace – President, Kitchen and Bath Americas, Kohler Company For NSPE’s complete news release, go to http://www.nspe.org/Media/PressReleases/pr_062707_New_Products.html.
From left to right:
Pictured left to right: Left to right:
2008 Update This year, WSPE has entered four WI companies into NSPE’s PEI-NPA competition. The companies are: Mega – Cummins Emissions Solutions, Mineral Point, WI Large – InSinkErator, Racine, WI Medium – Racine Federated, Inc., Racine, WI Small – Extract Systems, LLC, Madison, WI On Thursday evening, April 17, 2008, please join WSPE members and personnel from 13 companies who qualified to enter 15 new products at WSPE’s 2008 GNPA banquet and awards ceremony at the Kalahari Resort, WI Dells, WI. Dale R. Swenson, P.E. |
|
Statutes and Administrative Rules Regarding
the Selection of Architects/Engineers for State Construction Projects:
Part 1 of 2 |
|
| This article reviews the provisions of the Wisconsin Administrative Code promulgated by the Wisconsin Department of Administration for the selection of architects and engineers for projects where the estimated project cost is under $5,000,000 (Adm 20.05) and over $5,000,000 (ss. Adm 20.06, 20.07, and 20.08). Adm 20.05, which provides for the selection of architects/engineers by nomination, requires that the Department of Administration shall post an advertisement for the project on the Department’s official website which is http://www.doa.state.wi.us. The advertisement must include a project description, proposed budget, schedule and a contact name for questions during the solicitation period. Architects and engineers who are interested in the project may submit a letter of interest through the website. It will be reviewed by the selection committee, which I referred to in the last issue of this e-news. Under Adm 20.05(2), an architect/engineer responding to the project solicitation must provide the following information in the letter of interest:
Under Adm 20.05(4), the selection committee is to evaluate the architect’s response and also give consideration to the provisions of Adm 20.07(3) which states:
Under Adm 20.05(5), the selection committee must submit its first and second recommendations for the selection of an architect/engineer to the secretary of the Department, or its designee, accompanied with justification supporting the recommendations. Under 20.05(7), the secretary must consider the selection committee’s recommendations, but is not required to approve them and the Department may call for a repeat of the selection process if the selection committee’s recommendations are rejected. Under Adm 20.05(9), when the selection of an architect/engineer has been finalized, the Department must set a time and date for the architect/engineer to meet with the Department’s designated representative to negotiate a contract. If negotiations fail, the second qualified and recommended architect/engineer as determined by the selection committee is interviewed in an effort to negotiate a contract. If negotiations fail with the selection committee’s first and second recommendations, the selection committee will consider further candidates. Under Adm 20.05(10), the Department posts its results of the selection on the Department’s official website. Under Adm 20.05(11), misrepresentation of qualifications constitutes grounds for rejecting the letter of interest of a recommended architect/engineer. For projects where the estimated project cost is $5,000,000 or
more, Adm 20.06 through Adm 20.08 come into play. Adm 20.06 requires publication of an invitation for architects/engineers to submit proposals, which invitation must be published as a class 2 notice under ch. 985, Stats., in the official state newspaper. A class 2 notice requires two publications, but the frequency may be increased at the discretion of the Department of Administration under ch. 985.07 of the Wisconsin Statutes. In addition to the class 2 notice, the Department may solicit and advertise by invitations in trade publications, other newspapers, and by direct mail to potential architects/engineers. Under Adm 20.07, proposals that are received must be opened by the selection committee after the date and time set forth in the advertisement. The first phase of the review process is directed to establishing that the architects/engineers are eligible under Adm 20.02(4), which was reviewed in the last article of this e-news. Proposals submitted by the architects/engineers are then reviewed under the qualification criteria set forth in the preceding paragraphs under Adm 20.07. Under Adm 20.07(4), the Department may consider proposals of two or more architect/engineer firms organized for the purpose of furnishing professional services as a single entity for the project. If such a joint venture of architect/engineer is invited to interview, the joint venture firm must submit at the interview an executed draft of an agreement in principle between the parties, and if selected, the joint venture architect/engineer firm must submit a final executed association agreement between members of the joint venture prior to execution of the contract for the project. The association agreement submitted by the joint venture shall indicate how responsibilities will be shared, how tasks will be divided, and the firms or individuals that will be assigned the responsibilities and tasks. Upon completion of the review by the selection committee, all architects/engineers who submitted a proposal must be notified of the review results. Under Adm 20.08, the architects/engineers considered best qualified for the project are notified and a date and time is arranged for them to appear before the selection committee for the purpose of presenting their understanding of the scope of services required and their proposed method of meeting the program, on time and within budget. A copy of the evaluation form and interview questionnaire used by the selection committee must be furnished to the architect/engineer at least ten days prior to the scheduled appearance. During the appearance, the selection committee members are free to ask pertinent questions of the architect/engineer, and each member of the selection committee independently completes an evaluation form for each architect/engineer appearing before the selection committee. Upon completion of all the appearances, the selection committee independently completes the evaluation forms and the two architect/engineer firms receiving the highest scores by the selection committee are recommended for selection. The committee’s first and second recommendations for selection are transmitted to the secretary of the Department of Administration who considers the selection committee’s recommendations, and if adopted, commences negotiations for a contract. After the selection of the architect/engineer firm, the Department notifies all interviewed architects/engineers of the selection committee action and the results of the selection on the Department’s website. Any architect/engineer who was interviewed may upon request inspect the selection committee’s interview evaluation of their firm. In the next article of this e-news I will discuss the Wisconsin administrative rules relating to contract processing by the Department of Administration and performance reporting. 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. |
|
New Product Development Benchmarking |
|
I. Background: In this competitive marketplace, how do we accurately create a measurement of business and product development effectiveness of our company? This benchmarking process seems to be of interest to companies who want to compare their progress in development activities. Consultants abound in delivering assessments, quoting percentages and figures on surveyed project turn times, stating industry averages, and attempting to establish standardized measures of performance for product development programs. While this is fine for information’s sake, it is important to know what we are actually looking at in terms of the actual data. The area of inconsistency lies in the respondent’s perception of what a development project is… II. Project Dynamics: Let’s look at the actual meaning of what a project is. It is difficult to say how long a project takes when there are so many types of projects. One company may call a project a modification of an existing product with very little impact on certifications or validation testing, while another company may consider a project a clean sheet of paper design. In trying to think about how we could compile some measurements, it is apparent that a direct comparison of programs may not yield meaningful conclusions. In actuality there are many different types of development activities that need measurement. There are simple vendor-driven changes in product and process to redesigns for cost reduction, to brand label arrangements, to complete programs starting with concepts. It is not practical to compare any one of these programs to one another. Furthermore, it may not be valid to compare, directly, any one of these programs to a similar program in another company or industry. Here is an example of types of development activities that need measurement.
Engineering Changes: Customer Induced Engineering Changes: Vendor Induced Engineering Changes: Corrections/Safety Product Enhancements Cost Reductions Performance Improvements New Platform Design Product Versions from an Existing Platform Totally New Concept with Research and then Development III. Core Benchmarking Given this wide variation in types of programs, interpretation of degree of difficulty, and changes in requirements of a program, there is no homogeneity of definitions, and program run times can be meaningless from one company to another or even one division of a company to another. (i.e. GE developing jet engines versus an appliance versus a locomotive). So what is the proper measure of performance for benchmarking? Let’s go back to what benchmarking is in its core… Why do people want a benchmark of their operation? In its core, the positive output of benchmarking is a certain “reassurance” that you are performing well. This “performing well” is in comparison to your known competitors. It does not necessarily factor in functional competition (i.e. different way to solve the same customer problem). In the final analysis, when you compare yourself to your competitor, you are automatically placing certain constraints on your ability to deliver an enhanced value proposition to the customer. These constraints are the most powerful because they lie in the perception of ourselves. As we gain more experience in talking to companies and learning about the similarities and differences in their programs, it becomes apparent that perhaps the best way to evaluate their progress is to compare the individual company’s planned development to their actual development as the benchmark. When a company “plans” a program, all of the factors for success are to be considered, i.e. finance, timing, costs, market opportunity, development effort, and results. This assumes the company is relatively stable, has a place in their marketplace, offers a suitable value proposition, and has some longevity in operations as well as other factors. Companies, that are running in the marketplace do not turn on a dime and therefore each settles into a niche of the market and operates there. This is generally exemplified by their core competency. All else being equal, in the short run they are considered stable and operational. In other words one will not lose market share that quickly during the course of our benchmarking analysis. Accordingly, we can focus our analysis on the specifics of how the company delivers on what they commit to in terms of new product development performance. Therefore if we look at this best efforts plan and compare it to what the company actually did, we can get a measure of their performance. In subsequent development programs, their experience and planning will have the benefit of certain improvements. By comparing subsequent programs, we factor in this improvement…. automatically. IV. Industry Dynamics To frame the issue we can construct a matrix of industries and types of development program activities. We would have to go by industry with carefully placed categories, not companies per se. Going back to the Jet Engine and Appliance and Locomotive example: all coming from one company, but serving very different industries. The following is what this matrix could look like.
Perhaps a helpful set of metrics in this area might be to assemble a database that tracks the average difference between planned versus actual elements of a program for benchmarking purposes. (i.e. timing, finances, market share, costs, revenue, etc.) It could be organized to track several different types of programs along the gradient of complexity from simple changes to development of a new product line. We do this for several types of industries, i.e. Food, Electronic, Bio Tech, Automotive, Appliance, etc. Therefore, if we want to benchmark ourselves against industry averages, we are actually comparing our ability to deliver on what we plan versus others. Furthermore, we segment the activity into more meaningful categories so we do not draw a critical conclusion on our abilities by comparing a full development against an enhancement or worse—lull ourselves into a false sense of security. V. Conclusion: In conclusion, we may want to rethink how we benchmark New Product Development and consider it less from an external perspective and consider it from an internal improvement perspective. We are also incumbent on making sure we are comparing like types of activity so the data is meaningful and useful in improving our own operations. In the final analysis, benchmarking is less about reassurance and comparison than it is about creating an improvement tool and creating a positive impact on the business in total. Portions excerpted from Marc A. Annacchino’s book The Pursuit of New Product Development, ISBN-10: 0-7506-7993-X 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. |
|
| SPONSOR
UWM - Six departments: Civil Engineering & Mechanics, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Materials Opportunities for full-time or part-time student to complete a graduate degree. PART-TIME GRADUATE PROGRAM 1. Best suited for working professional For more detail information, please check www4.uwm.edu/CEAS
or contact bwarras@uwm.edu
|
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. |
|
