Daniel Nall, FAIA, FASHRAE, LEED Fellow, BEMP, HBDP, CPHC

Formerly, Regional Director, Syska & Hennessy SH Group, New York

11th August 2017

You have an incredible resume, range, and career, from engineering to architecture to sustainability. And you had to be one of the first energy analysts in the country.

Nall: Yes, I was teaching at Princeton – a split role in engineering and architecture in the 1970's. Then I got recruited to join Heery Energy Company in 1981.

Let's focus on the engineer's perspective. You're a rare bird who wears multiple hats and have a more valuable perspective than just the engineer's view. How are overcoming issues like siloed design, commoditization and meeting budgets these days?

“In that circumstance … I don't really give a shit what the vision for the project is.”

Nall: Engineers need to be at the table early. But not all engineers' mindsets allow them to contribute early. Often, they don't get it. They're at the table to help realize a project vision. Part of that is the owner's and part the architect's. The MEP engineer is there to help them both achieve their visions. Sometimes they conflict and the engineer gets caught in the middle. Back before the energy stuff, when I was practicing in pure design with Jones Nall Davis, I didn't want to hear from the architect until he had my floor plan backgrounds ready.

For example, we were the engineers for a spec office building in Atlanta. Our fee for base building design and construction administration was $0.27/SF. At 300,000 SF, $80,000. And we would've made money on that project, but we got called in to investigate a vibration they blamed on my cooling tower and I spent days there. Turns out it was the elevator.

You pitched in to serve the owner, but another team member you had no contractual relationship with caused you to not make a profit. You were a good team player, and you got screwed.

Nall: That's right. In that circumstance, a standard commodity solution – and level of service – I don't really give a shit what the vision for the project is. You, Mr. Architect, have done this many times. So, just give me a machine room and let's get it done. Just shoot me backgrounds and I'll throw in some units, size some ducts and power, and we'll be done. God willing and the creek don't rise, I might even make a penny on it.

“Someone needs to add that dose of reality.”

Then you have the other world – a vision where an enlightened owner can benefit from someone like you. Are you seeing any new ways of working, or new value propositions?

Nall: One is BIM. Not just the 3D aspect, but populated databases with attributes. Our energy models now start with BIMs created in Schematics. We can translate into energy modeling software and evaluate different design decisions, window wall ratios, shading, daylighting …

When I first saw some of the energy visualization tools I thought even I, as a design-focused architect, could use this. It's intuitive. I can't deal with printouts and tons of data.

Nall: Yes. The next thing is developing procedures with responsibilities for encoding as-built data for facility management, with performance parameters and bar coding in the field. You scan the conduit and it tells you what's inside.

We've been doing that for years. We wrote facility management (FM) software and owners are loving it and willing to pay for it. That data has a long life and great payback.

Nall: FM has responsibilities for subcontractors, commissioning agents and the design team. Liabilities too, so, it needs to be clear and well-articulated, so the owner gets a fully functioning FM tool. And we can repeat energy performance modeling to detect malfunctioning components.

I tell people: owners don't build buildings to optimize engineering systems. They build them for other reasons. Owners have to realize they need to cooperate to achieve their objectives. Yes, you've got to lookout for your skin, but it's also possible, even desirable, to optimize your system to help everybody meet their goals. In any group endeavor, if one person leaves the field smug and another disgruntled, the project hasn't been optimized. I mentor people to take their satisfaction from the overall project. Did your work contribute to the whole? Or just your small area of expertise? A holistic attitude is a prerequisite to an integrated design concept.

If we're trying to break down silos and cultural stereotypes, from the perspective of one of the country's largest, oldest, most sophisticated engineering firms, are you looking to new models? Or do we simply subject ourselves to how the owner sets up the project?

Nall: Helping an owner achieve their vision as a sophisticated consumer of design and construction services is a good goal. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced current purveyors of that kind of assistance – owner and tenant reps – are serving owners well.

We deal with it too. Those entities, and the owners they serve, seem behind in current leadership skills. They aren't up on technology, or how we work. They're old-school – not only do they not know how to motivate modern teams, they have no sense of our processes or tools.

Nall: If services were delivered in a back-and-forth way, with an architect, a contractor, or an owner's rep, to help clients determine their goals, it would have incredible value. We're starting a project where the owner dictated a decision that's impossible – anyone with half a brain knows these things are totally incompatible. But no one is in a role to explain it, and, even though it won't work, it's a program requirement! Someone needs to add that dose of reality.

They'd probably not get paid for it – they might even reduce their own fee. I argue for programs, but they're no good if they're wrong or impossible. We need the flexibility to be able to change on the fly. Some projects are not set up to reward that.

Nall: A firm that's doing this in limited ways is probably Gensler. They have a group that works hand-in-hand with clients to set goals. What are the implications of those goals in physical form?

There's big value in that early work when can it can make a difference.

Nall: There's something to helping owners become intelligent building consumers. More than budget and schedule. Helping them understand the implications of their goals in physical configurations. Not many professionals offer that service. It takes sophistication to understand the client's business and particularize your advice to their situation. Then you have to convert it into physical terms using the client's process for design and acquisition. You need different expertise. had a client that was a many-headed monster of different constituents. They had a project manager, but he was too weak because of corporate jockeying. It was like a government bureaucracy. They had the arrogance of a church building committee: “You should be doing this almost for free because you're working for a higher authority.” The client from hell. They gave us strong direction but had convenient memory lapses when that direction turned out to be bad.

We face the same thing. This is our plight. Owners are so busy running their own stuff they're not engaged in the project. They say, “That's what I hired you for!”

“There is something to helping owners become intelligent consumers of buildings. More than budget and schedule.”

Nall: Then you have the other extreme, where a team is incredibly successful implementing a vision, but it was the wrong one.

What do the rest of us need to know to work with engineers better?

Nall: A sense of trust needs to exist among the entire team. Granted, it has to be earned. I try to render opinions or make recommendations based on understanding the whole project. I don't own stock in a particular vendor. The self-interest I express reflects me and the team, cost, the goals of the entire project, and protection from risk. We had an owner ask each of us at the kickoff meeting to write one thing we were going to do on the project that had never been done before. I wrote, “We aren't going to do any one thing that has never been done before. We're going to take things with a track record of use and put them together in innovative ways that don't involve performing outside their envelope to achieve results that have never been achieved.” It minimizes risk by configuring proven things in a clever way and achieves superior performance. Everyone else put down new stuff. Risky stuff, not in the appetite of the great preponderance of owners.

Innovation shouldn't introduce trouble or put equipment outside it's demonstrated performance domain. We can get huge energy efficiencies without pushing any one piece past it's limits. It's just a new way to stack things. That's where we're innovative. We are, after all – and I hate to use this term – “catalog engineers.” We're not designing new jet engines, we're arranging systems in different ways that don't void anybody's warranty.

INTERVIEW

Kurt Swensson, PhD, PE, LEED AP

Founding Principal, KSi Engineers

14th September 2017

Let's start with perspective – yours as a consulting structural engineer. I have my own preconceptions having worked with you; can you share your version?

Swensson: Perspective is a great start. I grew up with an architect who brought everything home, so I've been exposed to design process since the late 1970s. I worked in my father's office in the 1970s, worked construction and then at Stan Lindsey's starting in 1981. The experience goes back more than thirty-five years. My wife and I founded KSi out of my basement in June of 1999. Man, I'm old.

For the past twenty years owning my firm of twenty to forty people, I have been in a niche market. Everything we talk about is from that small to medium size firm point of view. It's where we reside – from $300M projects to very small ones. Most of our work has been $10 to 50 M in higher education, healthcare, science and technology and commercial – that's our sweet spot. The vast majority have been good experiences. Out of several thousand projects, only a few have been train wrecks. So, we come from a generally positive outlook.

People want to hear about what works.

Swensson: The building types and projects we focus on generally lead to good life experiences. Most of the time we put up with the way things are because things aren't too bad. Good is the enemy of better. Every job has its own set of financial, technical and people challenges. We work with the situation and do the best we can. That's the overview of where we're coming from.

Smart. You've chosen a niche and size that suits you and building types generally risk-averse and immune to economic cycles.

You're faced with managing design at multiple levels: on every project, you've got an owner, architect, contractor, and your own firm to manage. What's your philosophy and approach? Do you take things as they come? Or control your fate? Are you resigned to being a victim?

Swensson: Somebody wise once told me: If you can't control the outcome of a situation that affects you, you've got to be able to predict the outcome and prepare accordingly.

My philosophy is there are very few things I can control, and they mainly deal with what we can do in our own house. I've tried to be good at reading situations and project direction before issues happen. For example, if I hear people talk about pricing pressure in meetings. Okay, value analysis is coming, which will affect the deadline. Who are the players and decision makers? Then drill down to see what is happening and what is needed from our team. Then I can direct my team to be most efficient – redesign or pause – while the budget is resolved. That's where I can exert influence.

This industry is about people. I've been in the Atlanta market twenty-eight years. You get an idea of how people work; they know how you work. I can exert influence in some situations. I've been told I'm more aggressive, in terms of management, than some consultants. I get involved and ask questions up the line on pricing, construction, permitting, schedule. To stay focused. If we're doing a $300-million project, a lot of people are at the table running different parts and pieces.

The challenge for us is the small office building project that no one's managing – the “I need a 15,000 SF office building now” projects. There's no schedule; no agenda, limited pricing. The client says, “Let's figure out what we're going to do next week.” I'm the one who says, “Wait a minute! Where's the plan? Where's the schedule? Permitting? Pricing? How's that gonna work?” They look at me funny because I'm “just” a consultant, but I've got to know how things are going to work and take care of my people. Sometimes the project lead does not listen, and sometimes my approach is welcome. I've been told, “That's not your deal.” So, I influence where I can. Our firm is subject to the needs and schedules of others on the team from civil to subs to architects, owners and contractors. When one team member does something, it affects all of us. Schedule, finance, design. All those moving parts touch everyone. That's a problem we run into: so many moving parts not controlled or managed from a unified source. My coping strategies are: engagement, commitment, and a level of aggressiveness. Do I take the offensive in solving a problem, or be more defensive and protect the firm from poor project management?

“You asked about the mindset of consultants. Our mindset is survival. It's that simple. It's all I'm trying to do.”

You're saying that's harder in the commodity projects, where you may be less well suited because you have experienced, thinking, principal involvement?

Swensson: Right. You figure out, “Where's this train running, and am I on board?” A bigger issue is representing the firm. The firm is successful when a project is managed well. If a project is not being managed, what happens when I take a leadership role? How does the project team treat me as we move forward? Am I ignored, buffeted, celebrated? If you get your hand slapped, or realize no one cares, or it's not going to influence the project, you say, “I'll back off.” Best case scenario is you bring everything you've got to the table and it adds value. Worst case is you see there's no leadership, you can't tell where things are going, so you can't work ahead to add value or coordinate. At that point you can only react and protect your interests as best you can while still serving the client.

You're at the high end of having an ability to read your clients and training the firm to do the same. But at your size you're able to touch most projects.

Swensson: Well, I've worked in architectural firms, on jobsites, a broad range. Being around a while you say, “I can add more value with a well-placed phone call than I can with reams of paper and structural analysis, or calculations.” It's still about the people and working it out. As you noted, in many cases I'm not driving it. But sometimes you can say no. “No, there is no time or money to look at that option.” “No, that idea's not going work.” I don't do that often. You have to beat me with a stick to get me to say no. But in the industry, many firms just say no. They want to do the simple 30 x 30 bay because they know it works and their risk is not going to be rewarded, then, why do anything else?' That's the “go to” position for some consultants, in my opinion. Personally, I want more for me and my firm.

That's the old-school model of our profession: the principal is adding value, making reads. But the seers are foretelling of disaggregation, that we won't be able to have you there all the time, we'll commoditize and automate more of it.

“The idea of increasing the amount of money a company makes from any particular project is so disassociated from the teamwork that happens when a decision is made. I don't think fees or profitability influence designers, very honestly.”

Swensson: As a subconsultant with limited control, we need experience and trust. Does the project team trust me? I remember you being honest with me about a deadline because you trusted my ability to deliver on time. You gave others a different deadline because they had shown they would not deliver – that's the people part you can't put into software. Automation misses that completely.

A consultant leader needs to be able to discern what information the team needs for different building types and delivery processes, like IPD. It is a custom unique situation. Those will be run by the most influential and powerful person in the room, not necessarily the person with the best answers. Not necessarily who has the right answer, but who can get people to do what they want them to do. Automation misses that and cannot control it.

Because they are in charge, are the owner, the development manager, the dominant personality, or have the power or money?

Swensson: Or because they're the team member who's got the decision maker's ear. Larry Lord, Founder of Lord, Aeck & Sargent Architects, taught me this: “The right person needs to make the right decision at the right time,” to get the best project and team performance. Unfortunately, the right person to make that call is not always the most influential person in the room.

In my experience, the goal of maximizing the client's return on investment on a project can become disassociated from the design team decision making process. In many cases, design firm profitability doesn't influence designers, honestly. It may influence some executive somewhere, but they're not in the meeting when the design decision is made. The executives may review it afterward and discipline or reward accordingly, but that doesn't change the behavior day to day.

Profitability can be disconnected from what happens around the team table. The typical frontline team is driven by knowledge, passion, emotion, commitment – things other than management or business – at the decision moment. Managing risk may not be top of mind for design types in the heat of the moment, or at all.

Swensson: Absolutely.

What are we doing to make you crazy? Everybody else: owners, architects, CMs …

Swensson: To use a sports analogy, we need somebody to call a play. A good play. We all need to understand the play and do what we're supposed to within the larger game plan. If you look at a football team, the consultants could be like the linemen, or receivers. I used to play center. They have specific skills and duties to perform to support the team. They know what the quarterback's going to do, so they block a certain way. All of a sudden, the quarterback decides to do something different, and the linemen don't know how to block successfully, so the play doesn't work. If the quarterback keeps going rogue the lineman lose faith and find it hard to “leave it all out on the field.” You lose trust and the ability to predict. Trust is huge. When you start, have a plan. You can call audibles. Any plan can work, just communicate. Design/Bid/Build will work when done right. CM-at-Risk, GMP, and Design/Build will too. But when people aren't committed, knowledgeable, or don't follow the game plan, things go sideways. It's human nature. Sometimes people just decide to do what they want or think is best for them rather than following the play.

Much of our discussion comes back to people and their ability to read situations. That's how I've worked most of my career, so I struggle with the idea of disaggregation and atomization of professional judgment.

Swensson: In From Good to Great, Jim Collins talks about getting the right people on the bus. I think of a team in a boat. Once we figure out where we're rowing, I'm in. Even when the storm comes, I'm still in if it's a good team. Project delays, budget cuts, material or labor shortages can be tough, but we can survive. We can work together and adjust to changing conditions. As soon as people start doing what's good for their firm instead of the team, things start to unravel. Trust is a big part of it and not being able to predict where people are going.

“You asked what it feels like? Servant, expert, trusted advisor, salesman, gatekeeper, teacher, translator, and mind reader. Some people treat me as a supplier, some treat me as a partner.”

You asked about the mindset of consultants. I would say a consultant's mindset is get the job done well and within their budget. It's that simple. That's how a firm survives.

Your approach makes sense. Your role can't be leadership in normal ways, because you're not driving. You're riding.

Swensson: Right. I've got to read what's going on. Figure out where the project and team are going so our firm can succeed. My role is not as a normal leader. It feels more like servant, expert, trusted advisor, salesman, gatekeeper, teacher, translator, and mind reader. Some people treat me as a supplier, some treat me as a partner. It is a dance, a give and take. To be accepted as a partner you have to be a good partner. In general, people respond to how they're treated. Our idea is, read the situation, determine what's going to dictate the situation, and figure out how to work our way through to the betterment of the project and project team. It's like a being a great waiter. A great waiter listens to and understands her guests, makes good recommendations, delivers great service and is so graceful in the delivery that the guests will only remember the great experience. If I can add value to your experience, that's a great thing. But I also have to read your situation and what you're trying to accomplish. It's all about expectations and performance.

I'm doing something similar now as a servant and enabler to design and construction teams, rather than being in the lead design role. You once said that designers have a “genetic deformity” in their love for, and the need to do, design. It's almost like a drug habit or a co-dependency. You want to do well, so you're asked back. That objective is stronger than making money. I'm in this business to make things, not because I'm a business guru.

Swensson: We're in this to create a lifestyle. It's different for each one of us. What motivates each of us is different. On any project, the “rubber hits the road” when the individual team member sitting at their desk decides what they're going to do about the project issues each hour of each day. That's what drives these projects. That's what everybody misses! Technically, do they take their time to refine the design? Do they make that one more design run or go home? Coordinate one more thing or decide someone else will catch it? When they're sitting in the meeting, do they speak up or not? Those decisions are made based on each team member's mood that day, whether they trust the people in the room, what “floats their boat” and gives them satisfaction at that point in time, at the point of attack – it has nothing to do with the bonus they got 3 months ago.

We have a wide range of choices as professionals. We're managing ourselves as designers every second, and we're trusted to do so.

“I know where the errors are, but execution is another matter.”

“The present systems are perfectly designed to give us the results we have.”

Swensson: True. It's like my golf game – I know where the errors are, but execution is another matter. As a profession we're working on that. I love one quote on the process being broken: “The present systems are perfectly designed to give us the results we have.” So, it is what it is, because of the people involved. We are human beings, not perfect, so the systems cannot be perfect.

How are machines changing your business?

Swensson: Speed of delivery is number one. I use the term “quickness.” Speed is one thing. Quickness is another. We can change steel framing elements a lot quicker than before. It's also about perception of our profession's ability to react: Owners and leaders make decisions quicker, and don't think about the implications on workload, production, coordination, so it's brought another set of issues. I believe our machines have out stripped our human teams' ability to make good decisions and track them. We used to pick up “red lines” on drawings after coordination sessions. We still have to do the same thing in the computer model to resolve conflicts found in collision detection sessions. It may take less time, but we are doing it over and over again for each iteration. So, the result is very similar. Leaders don't feel like they have to make good educated decisions from the beginning because the team with the software can “work it out.”

Computer technology has brought that expectation. Yes, we can design a hundred individual beams faster than before. But before we did not have to design 100 beams, we designed the typical conditions for a more rational design. The computer has given us complexity we never saw before, even when it does not add value to the project Materials, geometry, details, delivery methods – it's complex now. I always say, “If we built cars the way we do buildings, we'd still be riding horses.” The computer has allowed geometries and material selection to create unforeseen project conditions so complex they defy description – with very little if any added value to the project. Computers also allow amazing things we couldn't do before. Technology has had an amazing impact, good and bad, on the industry.

New technologies and economic and social models are fueling discussions on how the design profession is subdividing for survival – the disaggregation I mentioned. Are you seeing and planning for this? Or aggregation? What's your view on the mega-firm model?

Swensson: Aggregation has a place, but that's not where we're going. We've had opportunities to join mega-firms; routinely the answer is no. We're going to make our own way unless the right situation is presented. I see it more as integration of disciplines, where we have firms with architecture and engineering, all together. My experience dealing with some of these multidisciplinary mega-firms, is that integrated design is a myth. Whether in house or out of house. It has to do with commitment and people. My experience with larger firms is that they have expertise and experience, but it is not focused on any individual project. The management considers the greater good of their firm, not the good of an individual project. Incentives and systems are set up to produce those results. It has been my experience that their experts are spread thin across the firm's backlog. The professionals who know what they're doing are expected to fly around the country, if not the world. The people doing the actual work are less experienced with less expertise. Their compensation is based on hitting a number of hours a project manager budgeted.

Principals can't be everywhere, so the B and C teams do the work on the larger projects.

“Integrated design is a myth. Whether in house or out of house. It has to do with commitment.”

Swensson: Yes, and the principals and experts can't get their work done because they're too busy flying somewhere to land a job or put out a fire. I've sat across from these individuals in meetings. They do not have an intuitive deep knowledge of the project or project team. Someone has briefed them, but they haven't lived it. Integrated mega-firm teams work for some mega projects where the effort scales well. But an integrated mega-firm team on custom work on mid to even large regional projects? There's no advantage.

There's a lot of talk about prefabrication to solve workforce issues, but you have to come at it with a special mentality. To some firms, that would be anathema.

Swensson: There's still the need and demand for custom-programed, or artist-driven architecture. And with the purely business-focused folks, it's the need to “get the best deal.” To be able to tell their boss, they bought it for less than anybody else. They have to be able to show competition. To show that you used the lowest bidder to confirm “value.” It is hard to do that now with pre-fabricated systems because they are not to the point that they can provide the custom solution. Owners seem to be reticent to buy the system up front. So, they do a custom design, then a supplier tries to apply the prefabricated solution. Most of the time it is not a good fit. This will change as suppliers become more sophisticated in their design and sales efforts. As they begin to affect project decisions at initiation not after design is complete, the prefabrication movement will begin to gain steam.

We do this work because we love it. Others are in it for the deal. Are you doing anything to get yourself a better deal, such as a new value proposition or new services? Are there alternative ways of making deals, if the essential nature of designers is a given?

Swensson: Being a consultant and serving clients every day, I'm not looking at radically different ideas. Just good clients and projects. The decision is: how big an organization can a hands-on service approach drive? 20 people, 40 people, or what? That's a personal choice. I look at work supporting life, not the other way around. I work for personal relationships, professional challenge, and profit. Its more about supporting a lifestyle and sending kids to college and being able to retire someday. For me, it's all about the people. we can take on any technical challenge and compete because we have smart people. That is enough. Futurists predict bolder things, but plenty of work is going on the way you're describing. I think it will be like this for some time. But I recognize people still need to hear their business model is okay. They need change their way, not somebody else's.

Change will only happen when the status quo becomes so painful we can't put up with it. The real problems I've had – just a few over 30 years – aren't worth reinventing the wheel over. The problems were due to the people not the process. The process relies on getting good people working smart, together Many people reinvent our industry on a micro level every day. I'm more organic: put me in a situation, let's see what it is, figure out how to solve it and get it done today with the people we have. That's my message: you have the freedom to solve a problem however you need to. Project management systems need be organized to allow us to solve the problems at hand, not get in the way. One analogy is Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. The fisherman lands a huge fish and he tries to bring it to shore, but the sharks and barracudas eat it up. Some projects are like that. We, as consultants, go out and try to land a big project. Once we land the project, the “management system” kicks in. A myriad of project team members, working in their own best interests, and not committed to success of the team, all take their bite. When we get back home at the end of the project, any benefits have been stripped away.

“Change will only happen when the status quo becomes so painful we can't put up with it.”

Maybe our individual version of the designer's experience is what makes life exciting – the act of design itself. Making micro decisions. Maybe we love design because of that management struggle. But it's also creative thinking, coping with context, and working with people to solve a problem.

“When I think about who I'd go to battle with, it's the commitment to each other and to solving the problem. If I've got those two things, I have it all.”

Swensson: Growing up, my dad talked about who he would “go to battle with” by his side: When I think about who I'd go to battle with, it's the commitment to each other and solving the problem. If I've got those two things I have it all. I know the team will be successful. The experience will be exciting and rewarding.

You don't want the enemy to be yourself. You want to be on a good team, including architect, owner and contractor. The other part is the quest for human connection, collaboration, meaning, and the great feeling that comes from being on winning teams. It confirms the human condition.