The paragraph that caught my attention, is the following:

“7.5    NEW ENGINEERING CONTRACT (NEC)

It was agreed that the NEC does not work for us as a profession, is not generally used, is not preferred by contractors, has too many problems and conflicts for the South African industry and because of that, will possibly cease to be used in SA within a year or two. It generally does not pose a threat to the QS profession in SA.

(Remove from next Agenda)”

This is a downright dangerous statement – one of those “famous last words” ones, and which smacks of being ill-informed and not wanting to know. At best, it demonstrates that the ASAQS is limiting the quantity surveying profession strictly to the building industry but should then not try at other events to include engineering construction works in the definition of where “quantity surveyors” work. At worst, it is a showing of downright dumb arrogance and being so out of touch with the real world that is dangerous for the very profession that is supposed to benefit from these forum meetings.

Adding “Remove from next Agenda” adds insult to injury, since it indicates that this is an accepted opinion amongst the forum members.

I do not prefer NEC, and can state numerous points on which there is doubt whether it is the best contract terms and conditions model and whether it’s high ideals are achievable in practice. It is though part of the industry, and for some projects and particular contracts has a distinct advantage over FIDIC and JBCC (there are papers on this topic available in our Reading Room, from lectures at IIR conferences); and we (VDDB) actually practises NEC amongst FIDIC, occasionally JBCC and sometimes dedicated special conditions – pending client, project, contract and all the factors that influences these.

If the building industry does not use or like NEC, that is understandable and the opinion can possibly stick for the building industry. In the engineering and mining environment, it is a wild and highly irresponsible statement which is damaging to the image of the quantity surveying profession.

Where it becomes an even bigger concern is that is not only about NEC, but potentially a symptom of a much wider disregard and unwillingness to embrace new developments in many domains, including how contractual relations interact, the rapidly expanding information highways and its phenomenal toolsets, and how all that – amongst many other topics – affects the good old “bill of quantities” – the cornerstone of traditional quantity surveying.

Leonard van der Dussen

21 January 2012

Driving back from Gaborone this Wednesday evening, I witnessed something that started a year or two ago, but on this occasion was so numerous and so bad that it requires a bit of thought: dangerous and intolerant overtaking by vehicles with Botswana registration plates. The most dangerous part where this happens, is the between Zeerust and Swartruggens, which is a winding, two-way road with valid overtaking opportunities, but rather long stretches where it is downright dangerous to overtake.

This was 29 September, the day before the Botswana long-weekend commencing on 30 September, and traffic was heavier than usual, combining long-weekend and the usual Wednesday evening truck volume direction East and West Rand industrial areas. I lost count, but witnessed numerous breathtakingly dangerous overtakes of long lines of vehicles including the two trucks leading the queue, often across a solid white line and culminating at the crest of the blind height; and all of these hoglike idiots were in Botswana-plated vehicles on this night.

Now yours truly also prefers his Botswana company vehicle when attending to Botswana matters, with the plates-that-passes-the-border-quicker, and thus one is careful to draw conclusions about the nationality of the occupants of these dangerously driven vehicles. The Botswana papers are however full of reporting on that very same problem of speeding and dangerous overtaking in Botswana, and thus it appears that there is a case to be answered whether the Batswana are picking up on the speed of life and perhaps losing some of their cool (and dignity) in the process?

Whoever the culprits are, this consultant is often on the road, and calls upon humanity of whichever nationality to drive carefully, so that we can all get home, even if a bit later than desired. Time is money, but do you know the cost of head-on collision?

Leonard van der Dussen
1 October 2010

Once we have done the internal badgering, checked a few actual samples, check totals against probabilities from drawings (and if available, checking against complete and reliable cable schedules), we just wait. Well, not exactly. Every few weeks you try to get a senior person from the contractor to join the effort of reaching resolution; but generally we just wait – and certify only what we know for payment. Eventually the interim payments starts nearing finality and the contractor has to start facing the facts.

Then the big day arrives: we succeed in getting the contractor’s person or persons that are allowed to make decisions to meet with us; the day usually starts a little bit aggressively, something like the first few minutes of a rugby match. Then talk is tested with measuring tape: we win the first round. And the second. And the length measured for that cable that ran the funny route that we not have known about – well, it turns out that the site QS actually did spend time on the issue. We win the third round. By 11 o’clock in the morning, the site measure is usually signed off. It happened this time again.

We believe in patience whenever possible to rather show and persuade with facts. Contractors are practical people, and if you can show your diligence, in the end they allow themselves to be persuaded and to “take the knock” (compared to expectations they had internally).

The flipside sometimes occurs: when an engineer is in disbelief about the outcome of cable measures. Then the same principle apply that facts are facts, regardless who likes it or does not like it.

Nice work, Mauritz and Emmanuel!

No decisions about desktop or laptop, Microsoft or open-source, once off software purchase agreements versus renewable licensing, networking, and so the list goes on about all the good things that makes for a modern system that can do so many things of data and information so well-managed, colloborative, accurate, expedient and so on and such.

The issue in the consultant’s life is about how well all this can work – but how disruptive the glitches and the breakdowns can be. One grows away from trying to be hands-on in everything (like the original small practice allowed things to be) and thus one becomes the typical user, the manager that does not quite understand the IT department’s tools, language and issues, but simply becomes irate if all that makes life so much easier, deliver a better information management platform and all that, stops working for a while.

The basic system is outsourced to our local Computer Troubleshooters franchise – and we are fortunate, because for all their up to date jargon, they take exceptional old-fashioned pride in their dedication that things should work – and keep on working. There is more to it, since the internal resources plan and supervise all this, and makes the dead electronics and operating system software into live and valuable tools. Actually more than that: it is becoming production units and stores of immense value, which makes it all worthwhile.

I own my grandfather’s dual ink stand, with hinged lid and with neat hollow for laying down the pen. An enjoyable piece of artful brass. The computer systems can not match the fountain pen’s den in beauty, but all in all the modern systems with it’s costs, its management time consumption and its concepts that we mere mortals of quantity surveying, cost management and all kinds of project controls pretend to understand, but can only use, is the real life of today and it is all worthwhile.

The glitches and moments of unavailability feels painful and tearingly disruptive when it occurs. The licensing bills are painful. But in a moment of realistic honesty: we have excellent systems with excellent people behind it, and feels the slight glitches of rare occurrence so much harder because we are spoilt with such high availability and functionality.

Let’s acknowledge it openly – we are delivering because of the systems!

1. Document management and control
   Access control, versioning, check in and out and much more. Integration
2. Cost and other ledgers and registers
   All ledgers and registers are integrated, thus a single point of entry for all pieces of information is part of the process. No longer is it required to enter information in one ledger and then enter the same information in another ledger thus increasing the possibility of errors.
3. Procurement and other requests
   All types of requests can be managed from one interface and according to the outcome the result can be automatically transferred to the correct line of business application.
4. Workflow and Forms
   Online forms (to update ledgers, make new requests and much more) can be tailored according to the client’s needs. The information entered in these forms can then be entered in an intelligent workflow process where different routes can be taken depending on the outcome of each step.
5. Online interactive meetings
   Many physical meetings can be replaced with online meeting where all participants have access to the same information and can participate in the meeting via their PCs.
6. Online Reporting
   All of the above is available for reporting, both standard reports and custom reports to suit the client’s needs. Again, available from anywhere, 24/7.

Other functionality include online Project Portfolio Management with integration interfaces to all major project management suites, scheduling, alerting and many more.

VDDB utilises the available tools and can enable you to do so.

“The right information at the right place at the right time”

All fine and well until we started using it. The blade kept on bending and it was so blunt that peeling a potato suddenly was a huge task and actually increased the frustration levels. The old trustworthy knife was pulled out of the cupboard, even for the carrots!

No what on earth (or even just Table Mountain) does all of this have to do with business processes? As stated in my previous posting, our current business processes developed from an inherent distrust between the different parties in a transaction. In our legal representation we did the same: Removed ourselves from the equation and created new corporate entities such as companies. Since corporations are actually not human they do not require a conscience and hence can dump inferior products on the market and get away with it, treat their employees with disdain and will not be called to order, act with complete disregard to the environment and while it may result in 15 minutes of scrutiny on an investigative TV program, no real penalties will be imposed.

We humans actually accepted this to be our fate: I work for Company X or I just signed a contract with Company Y is frequently heard yet nobody will actually say that they work for Mr. B who is representing Company X. We talk about human beings as being resources to the corporation and even have departments called Human Resources, putting the individual on the same level as the tools and equipment we use. While we completed the process of transferring our accountability and conscience to a non-living, non-natural corporate entity, we are currently trying to take of the edge with terms such as Good Corporate Citizen. As if a corporation can ever be a citizen and assume the responsibility attached to the term!

Am I trying to return to a situation where only living persons can be a legal entity? Definitely not. What the community as a whole should be after is a situation where human accountability cannot be recklessly transferred to the non-living corporation in the name of good business practice.

Pieter van der Dussen

They all, however, share one common denominator: They are to a large extent an electronic representation of a paper concept originating from a paper based world.

Many centuries ago most people would only trade within their village buying from the different mongers at the local market. Valid transactions that can be translated into modern procurement terminology did however take place:

And so it carries on. The point is that the face to face contact did not necessitate any formal documentation to be produced since there is an underlying trust relationship in the transaction. Of course, the moment inter village trade starts the degree of trust will diminish almost in a straight line as the distance between the trading villages increases, thus requiring some kind of formal and legally bounding documentation. Then came the accountants, especially after the Industrial Revolution, who had to produce back up documentation supporting the different transactions that they posted to their different ledgers. The evolution from a transaction based on trust to a transaction inherently built on distrust was complete to such an extent that every single person in the world accepts it as normal – including me!

In the IT-age, systems were developed that took these paper concepts and translated them into bits and bytes for ease of management, retention and reporting. Nothing in the essence of the business process or underlying relationship changed. The IT-age has unlocked a term called the Global Village, yet we still trade as if we all live in a different village from our neighbour.

My next thought then went into the myriad artifacts (xCBL 4.0 specifies 44 business documents in eight categories) we produce during the life of a transaction and I started wondering whether it will be possible to create an artifact that will encompass the complete transaction cycle. Is it viable? Can something like this be implemented? Will law makers actually buy into such a concept? Since there are countries that wrote the exact layout of a paper invoice into law, can an electronic all encompassing artifact also find its way into some law? Maybe I’m trying to over simplify the world, but is true freedom not contained in simplicity?

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions and the only thing I know is that should something like this happen, it will be due to a very slow evolutionary process rather than any sudden change –  it took us several millennia to get where we are now. Maybe someday we can start trusting each other again…

Pieter van der Dussen

The major problem was that since the symptom was being shown as a slow backup procedure, which is exactly where our attention was directed: Improving the way we do our backups. Many issues were discussed and implemented: Should we rather compress the files before we backup or create the backup and then compress the files, is Windows 2008 and the version of Samba running on the Linux backup server compatible and so we carried on. None of these actually yielded the required result. Once again the adage “wrong of inadequate questions will inevitably lead to wrong or inadequate answers” was proven to be very valid. The symptom was being treated as the cause and hence could not be solved.

While this seems obvious, every now and then you catch yourself doing it again. Yet, there is one simple question you should ask yourself in order to prevent this situation: “Will this question lead to the answer and only the answer I expect”. If the answer to this is “Yes” you are on the wrong track. Let’s explore this with a simple scenario:

A few colleagues and I are setting up a new company and require some IT infrastructure. One of the requirements to the IT-consultant could be a file server. Clearly I will get exactly what I ask for and I will get instant gratification when it gets delivered. However, the real requirement should have been the delivery of systems and procedures to effectively secure, store and manage the company’s documents and other business data. Maybe the IT-consultant will now add an Active Directory to the mix in order to manage security from a central location, if he is somewhat knowledgeable he will at least propose a document management and collaboration system such as Sharepoint or maybe will even propose something completely out of the box that will really provide me and my company a competitive edge in the market. This time gratification will be delayed while I may even be pushed to learn something new and adapt the way I work, but real progress can be made. Yes, I may still end up with only a file server, but at least I have shown myself to be open to new ideas.

Extend this to life itself and suddenly the world is full of potential!

Back to our server: At least we now have a stable server and very efficient backup procedures!

Pieter van der Dussen

When we first became acquainted with Botswana in 1992, there were for the normal traveller the forms to fill and the lack of any directions what to do at the border posts, but no monies changing hand, no invoices to be written and/or printed; only the gate pass to be stamped by immigration and customs respectively; and unless you had some real large purchases to declare, no further wait or hassle required. It took only one learning session and from thereon a gradual refinement to slip your gate pass under the stamp of customs between all the truck drivers’ forms for the simple stamp confirming that there was nothing to declare.

O, there was the five pula (then) road safety token, the so-called “deesk” (disk) that on the first occasion in a calendar of crossing the border had to be purchased, but then was valid for the rest of the year. An annual little hassle.

A few years ago the road permit was introduced. It felt like the Botswana officials reasoned that if a tollgate on the N4 can be established, an entry fee to Botswana is equally reasonable. So the forty pula per trip for foreign (meaning not in Botswana) registered vehicles started. Then last year, a road accident compensation fund insurance became another requirement. Valid for three months, but adding fifty pula every time you are careless enough to drive with another vehicle than before through the border.

Relief came for us about two years ago, when we were able to purchase two vehicles in Botswana, proudly displaying Botswana number plates. What a relief if you could pass the border on the way to Jwaneng or Gaborone, because if driving one of these, the old way of just obtaining the nothing to declare stamp from customs on the gate pass is all that is required; and away you go.

My record of seventeen years of never having been stuck for more than an hour to pass the Skilpadshek/Pioneer Gate border near Lobatse, was recently shattered; I usually get it done in 10 – 20 minutes, both sides done, RSA and Botswana, even including purchasing permits. It was not all Botswana’s fault, since the seriously undersized Skilpadshek on the South African side got me pinned between large trucks for a while, but it was really the loonnngg wait in the queue to buy a “single trip permit” from the Government of Botswana that delayed me beyond any chance of still attending the meeting in Jwaneng; and it was my own fault, since I had the option that morning to take the Botswana registered company car.

The single cashier though was checking pula notes under an ultraviolet light (fair enough, we live in a fraudulent world), counting and re-counting stacks of notes (all cash required for the duties and taxes on the cargoes) slowly and painstakingly (fair enough, diligence and accuracy with handling cash is a virtue), and answering his cellphone, typing an SMS here and there, and slowing down in discussion with cellphone perched on shoulder while writing permits even slower (that is NOT fair). An hour passed in which the cashier processed six payments, before it was my turn.

The truck drivers are a friendly lot, and we chatted while patiently waiting to pay our dues. I learnt a lot of the type of goods passing the border, the turnaround times of the trucks to Windhoek and other Namibian destinations, the minimum specifications of a good bush-breaker on a truck that can knock a donkey without having to slow down (and potentially jack-knife) and the ups and downs of long-haul trucking – the human side of it.

This consultant missed his meeting, but fortunately had enough other things to attend to in Jwaneng to still make the trip worthwhile; and somehow I felt a little bit richer in knowledge and appreciation of people that have a much harder life than myself to make a living, and who are so vital for our economy and our indulgence to have regular supplies of all kinds of things in the supermarkets. Their keep smiling attitude is contagious.  

Leonard van der Dussen

I sat the other day listening to two very experienced engineers on the process they use to design something new. I was overwhelmed by the amount of simple logic they use! First, put down something on paper, then get somebody or a group to review and comment, then adapt. In many instances adapt means throw away the previous version or even go back and revise the scope of what is required. Plain and simple Adaptive Discovery!

Then I started thinking about the estimating process of an experienced quantity surveyor: First they put down a few high level figures as a start, see where the pressure points are and focus their investigation on that area. As they communicate with stakeholders in the project and as specifications and other knowledge artifacts starts to flow, the estimate is getting more accurate. Once again: Adaptive Discovery! Quantity surveyors went further and actually gave different levels of accuracy names and thus you will find that the accuracy of a Class 1 estimate is much higher than a Class 0 estimate and a Class 2 estimate higher than that of a Class 1 estimate.

The logical next step in the thought process: Why is it that we (IT) are struggling to sell a concept to people who use it in their everyday lives? I came up with many answers which I discarded along the way for better ones (Adaptive Discovery) and eventually settled on one: IT gave it a name!

IT is a very egoistic environment where a lot of value is attached to a person’s name. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in the software environment, Michael Dell in the hardware environment, Derek Miers in BPM, Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland in project management and the Scrum methodology to name few! People sit up and listen when these people speak! To make some headlines and get your name in the press you need to compete with the likes of these and hence you are required to come up with the new catch phrase. Unfortunately many times this means giving the obvious a name.

Engineers and associated professionals do not stand in awe of the process but they do stand in awe of the deliverable: the structure being built, the process plant coming on stream, the finished product leaving the factory. Hence, common knowledge concepts such as Adaptive Discovery is actually part of their lives and thus not worth mentioning.

Today I bow to the engineering industry for a dash of realism in a very competitive world.

PS: Adaptive Discovery is a registered trademark of Ultimus Inc.

Pieter van der Dussen