TOP TEN CPF ISSUES, 2009  2010 Research grants - no funding capability for new awards

1. The Value of Civil Engineering Researchto Building Design & Construction PractitionersPerspectives, Cases, and CommentaryRobert K. Tener, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCEExecutive Director, Charles Pankow FoundationClaremont, California TOP TEN CPF ISSUES, 2009  2010 Research grants - no funding capability for new awards Two approved grant awards on hold + new Research Need Statements arriving Research program strategies going forward: weak consensus re directions Design Management initiative – must advance 5th Board member selection – must advance Need to constrain 2009 expenditures; economize operating costs CJP Legacy Project -- must maintain progress Disseminate & diffuse 7 new research products: need a plan Advisory Council roles going forward: how add value to CPF program of work? Non-research grantmaking – how much to expend 2009? CJP assets remain: little progress, storage draining $1,075/mo. + OPPORTUNITIES AT HAND, SUMMER 2009 Seek new, interim source(s) of research co-funding Press forward with Design Management project Develop strategic research focus by formally identifying our “Customers” i.e., whom do we intend CPF products to serve? and how can we best communicate with them? Formulate CPF research directions for 2010 - 2011 & out: what about BIM? DBIA? ACI? retain “Two Goal Strategy” through ______ ? Capitalize on proven Allies; focus on collaborating with them (i.e., hunker down) Assess diffusion of research products & their impacts with CPF “Customer” sets Decide about Foundation Source & feasible successor admin resources

2. PURPOSES TODAY • Illustrate current research programs that are delivering high value products to building design & construction project teams • Characterize why they work well • Commentary for CE academics

3. Building design & construction sector of U.S. construction industry Viewpoint: Delivering needed new knowledge from applied R&D Current view (2006 – 2010 +) Three case institutions:  Construction Industry Institute (CII)  Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI)  Charles Pankow Foundation (CPF) CONTEXT

4. CPF’sFocus THE CONTINUUM OF INNOVATION Product/Component/System Develop-ment Users Adopt/Commercial Utilization Users Adopt/Commercial Utilization Operations & Mainten-ance Proofs/Pilots/Approvals Dissemin-ation & Diffusion Basic Research Applied Research

5. The Six Key Factors That Drive High-ValueApplied R&D • Need-based research • “Industry Champion” as user/driver • Industry stakeholders co-funding ($$$ + in-kind) • Robust practitioner / P.I. collaboration • Deliverables  useful @ Day 1 (“codifiable”) • Proactive dissemination & diffusion

6. CII: A Leader in the Construction Industry • Knowledge creation through CII research to define best practices, breakthroughs, and industry norms. • Knowledge dissemination through CII research publications, implementation guides, educational materials, workshops, and conferences. • Knowledge management, organization, and assessment of relevance of the 450-plus CII documents and publications. • Knowledge assessment of the impact of CII practices through the benchmarking and metrics program. Through these knowledge processes, CII enhances the business effectiveness, sustainability, and global competitiveness of CII members and lifting the construction industry.

7. CII OVERVIEW (Appreciation to Wayne Crew, Director, CII) • 1983 Origin: Industry Needs (CICE Study) • First to bring research to engineering-construction world • CII philosophy: Results/Performance Oriented • Safety + Costs + Schedule + Quality • High level of knowledge transfer to industry •  Benchmarking & Metrics measure results  • Member - based programs (114 industry members today) • Heavy industrial construction = historic core • $35,000 ~ $40,000 annual member firm dues • “Building Sector Community of Practice” = recent, growing

8. CII OVERVIEW(cont’d) • Owner / contractor member balance & influence • High member involvement in R&D work – as the “customer” • 23 universities involved in current research (43 total since 1983) • Widely disseminated research products • *See CII “Product Library:” 450+ products • Dissemination: conferences, web, educational, etc. • www.construction-institute.org

9. Value of CII Best Practices - Budget (Contractors) Note: Average Budget =58 Million, submitted after 2002 (n=81) Better

10. Value of CII Best Practices – Schedule (Contractors) Note: Average Planned Duration=109 weeks, submitted after 2002 (n=81) Better

11. Safety Performance – TRIR Trend > 10 Times Safer

12. CII / CPF CO-FUNDED CURRENT RESEARCH 1. University of Colorado-Boulder: “Enhancing and Expanding Innovation in the Construction Industry” • P.I.: Paul Chinowsky; Industry Champion: CII Advisory Committee (10 firms) • $235,000; completes late 2009 2. Penn State: “Project Execution Planning for BIM” • P.I.: John Messner; Industry Champions = Victor Sanvido (Southland Ind.) & Deke Smith (bSa) • $282,000; completes 2010

13. PCI R&D COMMITTEE OVERVIEW(Appreciation to Doug Sutton, Chair, PCI R&D Committee) • PCI: unique, hybrid trade/professional association; 55-year history • Precast/pre-stress producers, suppliers, professionals • Members’ voluntary participation resources most ongoing activities • Small, dedicated professional staff coordinates projects • Goal: to benefit entire construction industry • N.B.: When precast concrete chosen by building design & construction team HIGH potential for value-adding innovating on project! • www.pci.org

14. CHARACTERIZE PCI R&D PROGRAM & PROJECTS • PCI Members believe in importance of ongoing knowledge development & transfer to practice • Emphasis on the “D” end of the R&D spectrum • Producer members always looking for ROI from research • Far-sighted R&D projects not precluded • Continually evolving, strong relationships among academics (institutions, DH’s, PI’s) & practitioners

15. CHARACTERIZE PCI R&D PROGRAM (cont’d) • Robust linkages, precast producer / design professional / academic essential • Every research project  active, engaged Advisory Cmte • Comprising producer, professional, supplier, and academic members, passionate to advance the topic • Advisory Committees report regularly to R&D Committee, which reports to the PCI Board of Directors • PCI’s direct funding leverages additional funding and/or in-kind participation by producers, suppliers, non-profit organizations, government agencies, etc. *The rule for PCI R&D Committee projects

16. PCI PROGRAM METRICS • PCI R&D Committee currently sponsoring or co-sponsoring 20+ research projects. • Annual PCI R&D funding >$600,000/year in recent years • Typical co-funding from external sources ~5:1 • Ongoing partnerships with Lehigh/ATLSS and Univ. Illinois/ MAE Centers • R&D Committee: 17 academics, 15 design prof’s, 11 precast producer prof’s/rep’s, + 5 others. • Typical meeting attendance (2X / year): ~ 30 academics, 15 design prof’s, 15 producer/engineers, + 10 others

17. PCI DISSEMINATION & DIFFUSION • Publication of research results required as a deliverable • Especially in PCI Journal; + PCI Design Handbook; PCI Standard Design Practice • Follow-up diffusion activities in many cases (e.g. codification, etc.) under PCI TAC

18. CPF/PCI CO-FUNDED RESEARCH Five projects; total CPF awards = $1,178,000; + >$1,564,000 co-funding 1. Univ. of Arizona: “Design Procedure for Precast Diaphragm System for High Seismic Zones” • P.I.: Robert Fleischman, Industry Champion = PCI R&D (Tom D’Arcy et.al.) • $410,000 CPF + >$1,300,000 by others; completes mid-2009 2. Georgia Tech (through NIBS): “Building Information Modeling for Architectural Precast Concrete” • P.I.: Chuck Eastman; Industry Champion = Earle Kennett, Vice-Pres., NIBS • $158,000 CPF + $41,000 by others; completed 2008 3. Univ. of Notre Dame: “Hybrid Precast Wall Systems for Seismic Regions” • P.I.: Gino Kurama; Industry Champions = PCI R&D Committee (Walter Korkosz, CEG) • $165,000 CPF + $75,000 by others; completes 2010 4. Georgia Tech: “National BIM Standard for Precast Concrete” • P.I.: Chuck Eastman; Industry Champions: Mike LaNier, PCI R&D • $340,000 CPF + $29,000 by others 5. Univ. of Nebraska – Lincoln : “Shallow Hollow Core Floor System” • Co-P.I.’s: Maher Tadros & George Morcous; Industry Champion = Mark Lafferty, PCI R&D • $105,000 CPF + $119,000 by others

19. CHARLES PANKOW FOUNDATION Mission The Charles Pankow Foundation exists to advance innovations in building design and construction, so as to provide the public with buildings of improved quality, efficiency, and value.

20. CPF DEFINED • Private, independent, non-profit, public benefit, philanthropic foundation • Exclusively for scientific, educational, other charitable purposes • 501(c)3 organization under IRS code • All research products must be “in the public domain”

21. Charles J. Pankow, 1920 - 2004 • Purdue BSCE 1947; Hon. Doctorate 1983 • Design-Builder, 1950’s  lifetime • Founded Charles Pankow Builders 1963 • Consummate innovator: concrete forming (patents); pre-casting; hybrid moment-frame; project automation; Concrete Construction HB chapters • Leader in ACI, ASCE, DBIA, SEAOC, others • Honors & Awards; NAE 1997 & others • Instilled his firm’s culture: “Find a better way” • Advocated greater R & D investments in building industry • Formed Foundation to carry out his vision

22. RESEARCH PROGRAM FOCUS • Deliver innovative products, components, & systems to meet defined needs for better buildings • Research products provide immediate, practical benefit to building design & construction teams • Involve a committed industry champion in each project • Apply CPF funding to leverage co-funding • Provide research products that can be capitalized on through integrated project delivery

23. CPF GOAL AREAS = 2 RESEARCH AREA 1: Structures Goal: Improve the quality, efficiency and value of large buildings by advancing codifiable innovations in structural components and systems. RESEARCH AREA 2: Project Teams: Tools & Practices Goal: Improve the performance of building design & construction teams by advancing integration, collaboration, communication, and efficiency through innovative new tools and technologies, and new means and methods for project team practices.

24. 2006-09 RESEARCH GRANTMAKING • 22 research grant awards: * 16 to universities, 6 to non-profit research orgns * 13 in structures; 9 in project teams * of 13 structural projects, 10  high seismic zones • $4.3 million in grant awards; typical grant $150-300K • Industry Champion involved on every project • Final Reports posted: www.spur.org/pankowreports • Details of each grant: www.pankowfoundation.org

25. KEYS TO EARLY CPF PROGRESS 1. Our CPF Advisory Council Rebekah Gladson, DBIA Victor Sanvido, Southland Industries Tom Gunkel, M.A. Mortenson Ron Skaggs, HKS Inc. Ron Klemencic, MKA Assoc’s Charles Thornton, Thornton-Tomasetti Patrick MacLeamy, HOK Hans VanWinkle, CII Dir.-Emeritus Jeffrey Russell, Univ. Wisc. Tom Verti, Pankow Joe Sanders, Pankow + Incoming Class:Steve Baldridge, Glenn Bell, Greg Gidez 2. Industry Champions: the concept & the people 3. Our Research Focus (mantra: “red zone to end zone”) 4. “Research Need Statement” as basis 5. Alliances with: PCI, CII, ATC, DBIA, NIBS, ACI (N.B.: NO ASCE Institute… )

26. INDUSTRY CHAMPIONS & P.I.’S, ILLUSTRATED • DSDM Diaphragm Panels: R Fleischman  Tom D’Arcy + PCI R&D • Metal Shear Panels: B Stojadinovic  Steve Tipping, S.E. • Reinforced Concrete Link Beams: J Wallace  Ron Klemencic • Dual-plate Composite Core Walls: Kreger+Bowman Ron Klemencic • Thin Shear Walls in High Seismic Zones: J Restrepo  Bob Englekirk • Perf. Based Seismic G/L’s for Tall Bldgs: J Moehle/PEER  Ron Hamburger et. al. • Hybrid Precast Wall Systems, Seismic Regions: Y Kurama Walt Korkosz, PCI • Improved Concrete Tolerance Mgmt:C Milberg Eldon Tipping & ACI 117

27. OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEPT. HEADS • Ally faculty with (an) industry institution(s): professional, trade • e.g. CII, PCI, DBIA, ATC, ACI, AGC, etc. (bldgs) • Dept Advisory Committees: * Recruit practitioners who are innovators & research advocates * Get their input re real needs for applied, practice-oriented R&D • Mentor junior faculty: Engage them with practitioners • Bring innovator CE practitioners into classrooms

28. Basic science research is important, but practice oriented research is of at least equal importance. Current metrics for promotion and advancement of engineering faculty are definitely tilted in favor of “pure” research that is disconnected from marketplace implications. Some institutions even go so far as to weight research funding according to its “pure science” character. Academic researchers should be encouraged, not discouraged, from conducting research on practice-oriented problems. A Commentary

29. WRAP Discussion? * * * * * Robert K. Tener, P.E., Ph.D., F.ASCE Executive Director, Charles Pankow Foundation 223 West Foothill Blvd., 2nd Floor Claremont, California 91711 909/624-1800 rktener@pankowfoundation.org

30. HURDLES & OBSTACLES Why is applied R&D to advance innovation in building design & construction so sparse? 1. Lack of research funding from institutional entities 2. Lack of practitioner demand for R&D within industry  complex set of root causes, including – • Owners: little interest in technical solutions, just concentrate on “The Deal” and minimizing up-front costs • Contracting community: more focused on managing risk than pursuing creative new thinking • Highly competitive industry: constrains levels of excess profits that could allow a builder to make strategic investments in innovation • Building codes: overly prescriptive, with hugely cumbersome code change processes • Litigious society: punishes any performance outside of tested norms • Uneducated consumers: occupants of buildings don’t know what might be possible, so don’t know what to ask for • Financing entities: design/build tried and true building systems or else no financing

31. HURDLES & OBSTACLES (cont’d) Why is applied R&D to advance innovation in building design & construction so sparse? 3. The inertia of the status-quo, which for our industry is exemplified by the motto: “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it!” 4. Project teams’ behavior characterized by – • Schedules & budgets are too tight to take a chance on something new • Lack of resources including staff time • Lack of a strategy for innovation within firm • Owners do not recognize the value 5. Just the tip of the iceberg / analysis . . . . * * * * *