FEATURE ARTICLE ISSUE : LESSONS LEARNED SPECIAL By Peggy Hagerty Duffy, P.E., Construction Solutions, LLC, Hagerty Engineering, Inc, and Technical Advisor, ADSC On a chilly spring night in a small county courthouse, I faced a room packed with angry residents, agitated attorneys and nervous county officials. My client was a yacht salesman who had purchased a new house on a steep slope below an older neighborhood. His zoning classification allowed him to build one other house on this large but precipitous lot, and he wanted to build two. I had been hired to determine if two structures could be built while maintaining slope stability. My firm had performed a geotechnical exploration and encountered sound and continuous shale below the notoriously unstable New Providence shale that was the cause of over 100 years of instability in the surrounding area. I had devised a deep foundation system that would not be susceptible to movement when the weathered shale degraded. In addition, the plan involved extensive surface water runoff control to minimize the possibility of water reaching the soft shale and triggering movement. At the courthouse, we had a solution, and our “team” thought we had answers to concerns from the county plan commission and local residents. They were afraid my client’s new construction would endanger their homes, and we were certain it wouldn’t, if the plan was executed correctly. My presentation proceeded, and I showed plans with drilled piers socketed well into competent shale. My dad, who worked with me on the project, displayed samples of the two types of shale to demonstrate the difference in strength and durability. We even showed how each type would react to water by placing them in Mason jars filled with water. (Action! Excitement!) But the crowd wasn’t having it. As our wel l - reasoned, technical ly- sound presentation of facts continued, the murmuring from the concerned citizens grew louder. We were baffled. The issue at hand was ensuring stability of the slope below their houses, and we were providing a solution to the problem. But the more we spoke, the angrier the crowd became. Soon they were yelling out disgusted responses to every statement we made. I couldn’t figure out how to clear up their confusion…or what I thought was confusion. And so, because I was young, overconfident and naive, I tried to demonstrate how much we understood the seriousness of the situation. I turned to the crowd and said, (feel free to cringe), “I understand how concerned you are. Trust me, we worked hard on a solution. I have as much to lose if this doesn’t work as you do. I could lose my license or my professional reputation.” Suffice it to say, the audience didn’t appreciate my attempt at empathy. My embarrassment at the collective outrage was tempered heavily by my consternation over the crowd’s resistance. I couldn’t figure out why they wouldn’t even listen to our very rational engineering evaluation. But, as time went on, I learned more about the situation. The neighborhood in question was a network of close people who didn’t like outsiders. In addition, access to their neighborhood had been cut off along at least one route by slope instability. Even worse, the original owner of my client’s house had violated a number of agreements he made with the neighborhood when he built the house. And history didn’t support confidence in a plan that required a lot of maintenance effort from my client, the property owner. In fact, I had vio- lated one of the primary rules of engineering. I had made the owner’s project my project. Instead of doing my job, objectively evalu- ating the situation, providing a suitable design and making a good technical presentation, I had taken it a step further. I had attached myself to the emotion of the cause and made its success my goal. In doing so, I undermined my technical work and erased my credibility. Certainly, engineers are berated, belittled and depicted in the While engineers must be passionate about our work and about our com- mitments to providing the best possible solution to our clients, we must remain objective and rational. Keep the Emotion Out of Engineering Sunday comics for being dry and emotionless. Owners often decry the ability of engineers to compartmentalize their duties as being detrimental to the success of the project. They want us to own it – be part of the team! And we are remiss if we don’t take into account valid factors that affect our recommendations. Budget, schedule, earth-friendliness – these all are factors that may not be part of our equations, but are part of the “equation” that is the successful execution of our design, as requested by our client. Passion is good, but objectivity is critical. As soon as I took on the mission of convincing the crowd, beyond presenting my evaluation and recommendations, I stepped over into the owner’s realm. Owners live in a world driven by an initial desire and affected by emotional, political and other irrational forces. While engineers must be passionate about our work and about our commitment to providing the best possible solutions to our clients, we must remain objective and rational. Our clients need to know that we will provide them with the most accurate answers, regardless of all the outside influences. I strive every day to give my clients the best engineering services I can. Many of my clients I can name as friends. And my passionate nature lends itself to feeling strongly about doing everything I can to ensure the success of my projects. But that evening always will remind me that I am the engineer, and I will do my best work if I am only the engineer. DEEP FOUNDATIONS • MAY/JUN 2014 • 65
