Everywhere I look, people are trying to convince other people that their way is best. Politics, finance, education, design, parenting. If there’s a philosophy to subscribe to, you can bet someone is trying to convince you that theirs is best. But as a fundamentally analytical person with a background in engineering, I know that every system or approach has both strengths and weaknesses. For example, solar or wind can’t be better or worse than coal or natural gas until you establish the assumptions and circumstances. You can’t just say it’s better because you want it to be. Here’s another example: What’s better, a motorcycle or a semi-truck? What a ridiculous question, right? What’s the goal? What are the metrics? It completely depends on what you need done. Is it a race? Are you transporting something? Now, what I’ve also found is that many of these philosophies can co-exist and even complement each other. Usually nobody likes that because they don’t get a clean and simple “win”. But let’s see how that applies to Engineering Project Delivery.

When designing and constructing buildings – or really any project – there are three main metrics that teams tend to prioritize: budget, schedule, and quality. But which is most important? If you’re an engineer, it’s obviously quality. Why rush through it, if you’ll have to redo it? If you’re a project manager, you’re usually pressed for time. Just get it out when we say we would; we can always issue an amendment! And if you’re the client, you definitely want it for the least cost possible; who would pay more than they need to?

Now, conventionally, it’s said that you can only get two of these three things: fast, good, or cheap. If it’s fast and good, then it’s going to be expensive. If it’s fast and cheap, it’s not going to be very good, and if it’s good and cheap, then it’s going to take a while. Some call it ‘The Iron Triangle’. But no one likes being told they can’t have all three. So, is this one of those know-it-all philosophies I described before, and there’s just no arguing with it?

Here’s where my humanistic side takes over. The problem with many personal philosophies is that they only apply to the practitioner, or they only apply to a single dimension of influence and abandon all else. I think that’s because it’s incredibly difficult for an individual to strike a balance between competing ideals. That’s part of the reason engineering and construction are a team sport. You bring in a group of people who can help cover multiple priorities simultaneously. But what if I don’t value yours? What if your priorities aren’t my priorities? The simple answer is, they don’t have to be.

An analogy for project delivery I like to use is a trucking company. Each truck going out represents a project being delivered. What needs to happen for a trucking company to be successful? The assertive, execution-oriented teammates would say, “You’ve got to be behind that wheel, driving the truck! That’s where the actual work happens!” They’re not wrong. A slightly more emotionally intelligent approach would prioritize dispatch. All these routes need to be coordinated. Do we have capacity? Are we overbooked? That one there is a regular, recurring client, but this one is special, new, and different. My own personal interest would be fleet maintenance. The drivers and dispatch are completely stalled if the trucks break down without notice. A good maintenance program proactively pulls trucks out of service to control when and why they get preventative care. The trucks themselves are clearly the heart of the operation, but without dispatch and maintenance bringing competing priorities, the whole operation would come to a screeching halt.

We get so hung up on needing to be so completely aligned that the alignment itself becomes the focus. We certainly can’t move on until we all agree on the project priorities, right? No! We can’t move on until we agree on the project goals. Do we have the targets identified for scope, schedule, and budget? Yes! So, just focus on your own priority, and I’ll focus on mine. If the engineers focus on technical competence, the project managers push for aggressive execution, and the client runs tight budget oversight, then all of the priorities can exist in a static tension because they’re all experiencing active advocacy. Are they always going to be in perfect balance? Of course not. But with purposeful coordination and open communication, you can at least understand where the give-and-take is and when and why you’ll need to compromise or negotiate. As long as there are no blind spots and all the goals are being adequately championed, the team will be able to divide and conquer.

Matt Hebert is an engineer and self-published author. His dopamine-fueled creative pursuits have spanned from chicken keeping, sand sculpture, acting, and public speaking, but writing is nearest and dearest to his heart. He lives in Bellevue with his wife and two daughters. You can find him on Instagram at @jerkofalltradeshebert or email him at matt.hebert.books@gmail.com

Opinions expressed by columnists in The Daily Record are not necessarily those of its management or staff, and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. Any errors or omissions should be called to our attention so that they may be corrected. Contact us at news@omahadailyrecord.com.