Delegation and Initiative in the Engineer-Client Relationship

Delegation and Initiative

in the

Engineer-Client Relationship

by

Daniel McLaughlin, PE

December 19, 2014

Delegation and Initiative

in the

Engineer-Client Relationship

Introduction

When a client hires an Engineer, he wants a clone with skills and resources. Typically, the

consulting agreement requires the consultant to deliver a report or set of plans by a certain

date, at which time the client pays him for the report. In this course we shall see, however,

that the client is not buying a report or set of plans like he buys a carton of milk. He is hiring

someone to do something that he would do himself, the way he would do it, if he had the

necessary expertise, resources, and inclination. In short, he is delegating.

The Engineer is not a mere hired hand. She must look beyond the minimal requirements of

the Statement of Work to discover how to meet the client's needs and act in the best interest

of the client. The Engineer must take the initiative to make decisions for, and act on behalf

of, the client. The level of initiative must be balanced against the client's desire and need to

control the project. What are the constraints on the actions of the Engineer? Are there

constraints explicitly defined in the contract? Does the client have unstated implicit

constraints? What are they and how do you identify them?

In this course we will explore these questions.

Risk

In the Engineer-Client relationship, each party is taking on risk. The client is giving up a

measure of control in exchange for the consultant's engineering expertise and skills. From

the client's standpoint, this loss of control carries with it a certain amount of risk.

Conversely, the type and level of control delegated to, and accepted by, the engineer directly

relates to the nature and degree of liability and risk being accepted by the engineer. Again,

the risk may be specifically identified or it may be implicit. Implicit or assumed

responsibility and risk create opportunities for conflict and cost. Identification and allocation

of risk is one of the key guiding principles in managing the balance between delegation and

initiative.

How is Client-Engineer Delegation Related to the More Familiar Supervisor-Employee

Relationship?

What is the nature of Client to Engineer delegation? Delegation is usually discussed in terms

of the supervisor to employee relationship. Management theory and literature are rich with

guidance related to supervisor to employee delegation. A portion of the course will attempt

to transfer some of those lessons to the client-consultant relationship.

How is Providing Services Different from Providing a Product?

Further, we will examine client-consultant communication from the standpoint of providing

intangible services as well as providing the deliverable product i.e. a report or set of plans.

The communication, as we shall see, may be plainly stated and explicit or, on the other hand,

may contain much that is assumed or implicit. These factors have significant implications for

risk management.

What does a Client Want and/or Need?

A client is usually involved in some venture, pursuing some goal, that stretches or exceeds

the expertise available within his organization. The consulting engineer is being hired to fill

at least a portion of that gap. The client may need advice or recommendations regarding

some decisions that he needs to make. Alternately, the client may need someone to perform

some particular task, such as compile a set of plans and specifications. He may, however,

need someone to act for him, as a "faithful agent", directing work and making decisions on

his behalf.

Note: The National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics uses the term "faithful agent". "Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall: ... Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees."

When the client is not himself an engineer or architect, he may not actually know what he

wants or needs. This is not to imply ignorance. The client is typically someone who is

successful in his or her own field such as business, or law, or medicine. What the client lacks

is the specific expertise and experience of an engineer. In this case, the consultant must first

assist the client to determine his needs.

The client will want to reserve some decisions for himself. Other decisions may be left to the

engineer. Determining this balance is delicate.

Understanding the Supervisor-Employee Relationship

To better understand the balance between client and consultant, let us examine two articles

regarding delegation in the context of the supervisor to employee relationship.

Delegation

In the first article, "7 Levels of Delegation.", John McKee describes how, when a supervisor

delegates, he distributes control in varying degrees. Authority can be granted to the

employee or retained by the supervisor across a spectrum of levels. McKee provides the

following list of supervisory instructions:

Levels of Delegation

1. Wait and be told, or do exactly what I say.

2. Look into this and tell me what you come up with.

3. Give me your recommendation, and other options with the pro's and con's of each.

I'll let you know if you can go ahead.

4. Decide and let me know your decision. But wait for my go ahead.

5. Decide and let me know your decision. Go ahead unless I say stop.

6. Decide and take action, but let me know what you did.

7. Decide and take action. You don't need to check with me.

These seven instructions demonstrate increases in the subordinate's level of freedom,

autonomy and responsibility with corresponding guidance regarding appropriate reporting

and feedback. Each step demonstrates a change in the balance between decisions held by the

supervisor and decisions permitted to the employee.

Initiative

Similarly, Stephen Covey in Principle-Centered Leadership, presents a list called "Levels of

Initiative". These address the same issues of balance from the perspective of the subordinate.

When contemplating an action, a subordinate must decide whether to act only in response to

specific requests or to use their own judgment. Following is a slightly modified version of the

list:

Levels of Initiative

1. Wait to be told.

2. Ask if you have a question.

3. Study it and make a recommendation.

4. Do it and report immediately.

5. Do it and report routinely.

6. Do it but don't bother to tell

Delegation and Initiative are Two Sides of the Same Coin.

Delegation is explicit permission (and requirement) to take action. The subordinate is

allowed to use his own judgment because the supervisor trusts that the employee

understands his wishes and priorities well enough to "clone" to supervisors judgment. The

supervisor assumes that the risk of unwise action by the employee is slight enough to permit

this loss of control.

Initiative is action taken without explicit permission or instruction. The employee feels that

he understands the wishes of the supervisor well enough to implicitly assume that he has

permission (or responsibility) to take a certain action. Taking the action places risk on the

employer without the employer's specific permission.

How is the Client to Engineer Relationship Different?

These levels of delegation and initiative between supervisor and subordinate are somewhat

analogous to the balance between client and consultant. Significant differences exist,

however, in the relation to power, respect, and familiarity.

Power

Both employees and consultants are, in a sense, "hired hands". The client and the supervisor

are in a position of power with, ostensibly, the ability to hire and fire. In either role, that of

the employer or client, he expects compliance with his commands and instructions. The level

of power held by the employer over his employee is, however, quite different from that of

client over consultant. Employees, typically having only one job, are significantly more

dependent on their employers for their livelihood than consultants who typically have

several clients. Loss of a client or particular assignment may hurt the consultant's income but

the impact of that loss pales in comparison to an employee's loss of his job.

Respect

There is similarly a difference in level of respect. The client views the consultant as more of a

peer than he might consider an employee. Further, when working with a consultant, the

client's lack of expertise carries little social stigma, whereas an employer is often hesitant to

acknowledge his ignorance to a subordinate.

When handing out assignments, it is usual for a supervisor to describe the required task to

the employee, who merely requests changes and adjustments. On the other hand, it is not at

all unusual for a consultant to prepare a draft "Scope of Work" and for the client to suggest

variations.

Familiarity

Further, the employer and employee typically have shared experience working together.

They are accustomed to each other's habits, methods, and styles of communication. The

relationship between the client and consultant is, on the other hand, typically temporary and

sporadic. The employee knows the supervisor's expectations through habit and custom.

Unless, however, the client and consultant have had extensive experience working together,

there are no such habits to fall back on. Even when a consultant and engineer have worked

together in the past, it is important to clarify how the current situation is, or is not, like the

previous instances.

Managing Unshared Expectations

We see that the client and consultant can take less for granted. Their relationship requires

attention to avoid the potential misunderstandings of unshared expectations and

assumptions. Implicit expectations are those that go unstated because it is already assumed

that the other party knows what those expectations are.

Listen Carefully

The consultant must listen keenly to what a client says, and how he says it, to detect

unstated assumptions. Implicit, unstated, customary, and assumed expectations present many

opportunities for misunderstandings, mistakes, waste, and cost. You, the consultant, are now

aware of the need to monitor unstated expectations. Is the client similarly aware?

To detect these unshared expectations, the consultant needs to be intentional in

communications with her client. It is usually wise to discuss, at least informally, any

suspected misunderstandings as soon as evidence suggests their existence. If the

misunderstandings seem significant, formalize the clarified understanding in writing.

Make Communication Explicit

For those who are unaware of the need to make implicit assumptions explicit, these

conversations can become socially tedious. Although it is important to observe good social

habits in all relationships (particularly when tact is called for), in client-engineer

relationships, careful communication is important enough to risk some social awkwardness.

Even though human interaction will always have a significant portion that is implicit, much

of the client-consultant relationship needs to be contractual, formal, and explicit. This is

particularly true in those situations regarding the big bug-a-boos, time and money. It is

therefore important that the original Statement of Work be clear, complete, and

unambiguous.

Client's Typically Retained Authority

As the client and consultant work together to draft a Statement of Work, the client will want

to retain to himself the authority to make certain decisions such as the decisions to:

1. Spend money on a feasibility study.

2. Implement the feasibility study and commit to the cost of project design.

3. Put the project out to bid.

4. Accept the contract and begin construction.

Though the engineer or architect's advice may be sought, these key decisions are almost

exclusively made by the client.

Engineers Typically Retained Authority

On the other hand, purely engineering decisions, like whether to use 8 inch or 10 inch

diameter sewer mains, or the number, size and configuration of reinforcing steel in the

foundation, are typically solely within the engineer's domain.

The Situations In-Between, Determining and Clarifying Authority

Between these extremes are a number of decisions that might be made by either the client or

engineer. Should the building have built-up or single membrane roofing? How many HVAC

control zones should there be? Do you pave the parking lot with concrete or asphalt? These

types of decisions are sometimes made by the owner, with engineering advice. Other times

they are made by the engineer with final approval by the owner.

Factors in Determining Authority

The client and consultant need to come to an understanding about how to make these kinds

of decisions. To develop this understanding they must take into account a number of

considerations.

Risk

An important consideration is risk. Whoever makes the decision shoulders the risk. If the

decision produces a negative outcome, it is generally expected that the person who made the

decision must pay the cost. However, when a client makes a decision based on an engineer's

recommendation, the engineer continues to retain a measure of liability. The risk assumed by

the consultant falls along a spectrum. Making out-right decisions for the client entails the

highest risk. Recommendations assume a somewhat lesser risk. Giving advice tends to lower

the risk further.

Recommendations vs. Advice

The difference between a recommendation and advice can be subtle. Compare the

recommendation:

"I recommend a single membrane roof because it requires less maintenance."

with the advice:

"Single membrane roofs require less maintenance, however repairing them is a

specialized procedure. Given your remote location, if a leak develops, it may be easier

to find a contractor who knows how to repair built-up roofing."

The recommendation, being a stronger statement, assumes greater responsibility. The

engineer is advancing only one option. No other options are considered unless the client

takes initiative to elicit other possibilities from the engineer. In the case of advice, however,

more than one option is presented, along with pertinent information, inviting the client to

decide.

Preference and Capability

Another consideration is preference and capability. Where the client has experience and

expertise, he often prefers to hold a decision to himself. In these cases, the engineer can, in

good conscience, allow the client to make the decision, thereby allowing the client to assume

the associated risk. When a client is less capable, he may want the engineer to make many

decisions for him.

Ethical Considerations

When parsing out decisions between engineer and client, ethical dilemmas can sometimes

occur, particularly in cases where the engineer feels that the client is making decisions

within the realm of engineering for which the client does not have appropriate experience or

expertise. In such situations, the engineer must tread carefully. Engineers are ultimately

responsible for decisions that involve safety of the public and thus should never allow a

client to overrule them in that area. On the other hand, it is the owner's money. If the client

insists on making decisions for which the engineer feels the client is not qualified, the

engineer must do his best to negotiate or persuade in order to advance and protect both his

own and the client's interest.

Assume Risk Only Where Appropriate

Consultants must take care to limit their own risk to those areas where they have the

necessary expertise and resources to accept the risk. How much risk does the client expect

you to assume? Are these risk levels appropriate and acceptable? Is compensation adequate to

justify this level of risk? Are there implicit assumptions regarding who bears which risk? Is

clarification needed?

You Must Continue to Take Care Throughout the Project

After finalizing the Statement of Work, and work on the project begins, both the client and

the consultant should continue to take care. The levels of delegation and initiative exercised

during this period must maintain consistency with the original agreement. Any deviations

should be explicitly recognized and the Statement of Work be adjusted if necessary.

The Engineer's Product or Deliverable

To this point, we have considered delegation and initiative from the standpoint of providing

a service to the client. The client wants a service but, on the other hand, he pays for a

product. The language of consulting contracts, as I mentioned at the outset, typically makes

the contracts appear as if they were written, not to describe services required, but rather to

describe purchase of a product or deliverable.

Reports and Plansets

In most cases, the product required is a work of literature. Often this takes the form of a

written report. The deliverable, however, may be multimedia, i.e., pictures and writing, such

as a set of plans and specifications. The medium for the drawings may be paper, or digital

files from CAD or BIM programs.

Accuracy and Clarity are Paramount in Deliverables

Engineering reports and deliverables are, to my mind, their own genre of literature with

unique conventions. The need for technical accuracy, control of risk, and legal

considerations are the primary factors governing style and tone followed closely by clarity

and avoidance of ambiguity. As Murphy would put it, "If they can misunderstand it, they

will misunderstand it, at the worst possible time and in the most foolish way." It must be

written so that it can be understood by a contractor. Yet if it is misunderstood, liability will

be determined, initially at least, by whether an attorney believes that the contractor should

have been able to understand it. What an attorney thinks is understandable versus what a

contractor thinks is understandable can be two entirely different things.

Levels of Initiative in Deliverables

These works of literature have the function of communicating the consultant's advice,

recommendations, instructions, and decisions. The type and nature of the deliverable have a

relation to the levels of initiative and delegation. Recommendations and advice tend to be

communicated by written reports. Instructions may also simply be written, but are more

usually communicated by way of plans and specifications.

Informational Reports

Informational reports represent the lowest level of delegation and initiative. These

communicate statements of fact like, "The rock in the formation is granite with a specific

gravity of 2.78." or "The flow in the pipe is so many gallons per minute and is within or

exceeds the accepted standard." These reports are written assuming that the client knows the

meaning and significance of the information.

Reports with Advice or Recommendations

Advice and recommendations take on a higher level of delegation. These types of reports

typically serve to assist the client to make decisions. Decision-making involves weighing the

pros and cons of diverse criteria to evaluate options. The client will use the information to

evaluate engineering criteria, where he has limited expertise, against business and other

criteria, about which he has considerable expertise. The report therefore has an educational

function. It should serve to raise the client's level of expertise so that he can make a good

decision.

Criteria for Decision Making

The report must also provide a factual basis for that evaluation. What factors did the

consultant consider in making his recommendation? What weight did he give to each factor

and why? Were other options considered and rejected? Why? The client may have legitimate

reason to prefer one of these other options. Supplying background information helps the

client to understand how to weigh the engineering advantages and disadvantages against his

own criteria.

Understand Your Clients Needs

The engineer's duty as a "faithful agent" requires that the recommendation be impartial and

objective. He must advise or recommend based on his understanding of the client's best

interest. In addition to educating the client, it follows then, that the engineer must educate

himself. He must develop a degree of knowledge of the client's field. The more he knows of

the client's business, the better "clone" he can be for the client.

Knowledge Overlap

The client and the consultant must create between them an overlap of expertise. The broader

and deeper the overlap, the better able they will be to collaborate on a good decision. Listen

to the client and learn his concerns and priorities. Good decision making generally takes

place when all the involved specialists and subject matter experts are satisfied that the shared

information, the knowledge overlap, is adequate and that the decision maker has sufficient

understanding to be qualified to weigh the input of the specialists.

Deliverables that Direct or Instruct Other Parties

The next highest levels of delegation and initiative are instructional in nature, that is, they

provide authoritative orders or directions. Instructional deliverables can be reports but they

are more typically provided as "plansets". The client uses plansets to delegate work to the

construction contractor. We see, then, that the wording of the planset must indicate the

level of delegation that the client wishes to assign to the contractor.

Note: The term "plansets" is used here rather than the more commonly used term "plans and specifications". "Plansets" as used here, includes all of the documents provided to the contractor, which in addition to the plans (drawings) and specifications, includes geotechnical reports, environmental assessments, and the construction contract itself. These form a mutually interdependent whole. Another term often used is "contract package".

Specifications Define Level of Delegation and Initiative for the Contractor

Specifications (one of the documents within the planset) fall into two categories: prescriptive

specifications and performance specifications. Prescriptive specifications instruct the

contractor to put things together in a certain way. "Attach the column to the footing with

four, 5/8 inch expansion bolts." Performance specifications instruct the contractor to put

things together in such a way that the product will perform to a certain standard. "Attach the

column to the footing so that the resulting connection will resist a shear force of 3000

pounds."

Prescriptive Specifications Limit the Contractor's Initiative

Prescriptive specifications delegate little authority to the contractor and give him little room

for initiative. The engineer has already made the decisions. The contractor follows the

instructions (the prescription) exactly as described.

Performance Specifications Promote Contractor Initiative

Performance specifications, on the other hand, delegate much authority to the contractor.

He can use as many or as few bolts of whatever sizes he desires. The contractor may attach

the footing to the column using some completely different method. As long as the resulting

connection can resist the designated stresses, the contractor is free to connect them however

he pleases.

Risk Management and Plansets

The level of delegation and initiative that the planset defines for the contractor, again, has

many risk management implications. Performance specification delegates responsibility to,

and places the risk on, the contractor. It is purely his responsibility and therefore his risk to

ensure that the column-footing connection is adequate. In the case of prescriptive

specifications, as long as he uses the right number and type of bolts configured in the way

described in the planset, the contractor has no risk. In this case, the owner retains the risk

because it was the owner's contract that instructed the contractor to construct the joint in

just that way.

You will be quick to notice, however, that the contract between the owner and the

contractor was produced using the planset provided by the engineer. Thus, the owner's

liability reverts back to the engineer. In instructional deliverables, the engineer is essentially

speaking for the client. The engineer is "Putting words in his mouth." At this high level of

delegation, the client is putting his highest level of trust and reliance on the engineer. The

engineer is accepting a commensurate level of risk. Though the engineer should always apply

a high standard of care, regardless whether the deliverable is informational, advisory, or

recommendational, it is clear that instructional deliverables need particular attention.

Checklist for Deliverables

Before submitting the report, planset or other deliverable, the consultant should review it

against several criteria.

Does it meet the explicitly defined requirements of the Statement of Work? It should address

the client's best interests, both as understood by the client and as interpreted by the

engineer. Is it clear and unambiguous, stating explicitly what is intended?

Is there sufficient background information to allow the client to weigh the engineering

criteria against criteria of other specialists? Finally, does it hold safety of the public

paramount?

SUMMARY

In working with clients, the engineering consultant needs to understand the owner's

priorities and values and incorporate those priorities and values into the engineer's

decisions.

The Engineer must Balance

o Delegation: Following the owners instructions

with

o Initative: Anticipating the owners needs and acting without instruction

Delegation and Initiative are two sides of the same coin. The concept is the same,

merely the perspective changes.

Assumptions and Expectations can be Implicit or Explicit

o Unstated assumptions create potential for problems

o Listen Carefully. Is the client assuming something?

o State your own assumptions and expectations clearly and explicitly

Avoid ambiguous language

Always Identify Who does What to Who and When

o Make your Statement of Work clear, complete and unambiguous

o Monitor communications carefully throughout the project

to detect implicit assumptions.

Who makes what decisions on what issues?

o Client makes big decisions on money and deadlines.

o Engineer makes decisions

Regarding safety of the public

Regarding technical issues

o Other decisions are made according to principles of delegation and initiative.

Preference

Capability

Competency

Risk

Ethical Considerations

Safety

o Shared Decision Making

Provide Client with Criteria and Facts supporting advice or

recommendations

Create Expertise overlap between Client and Consultant

Products and Deliverables - relate to levels of risk initiative

o Informational reports - Least Initiative and Risk

o Advice - Higher Initiative and Risk

o Recommendations - Yet Higher Initiative and Risk

o Plansets and Instructions to third parties - Highest Level of Initiative and Risk

Plansets or Third Party Instructions define levels of delegation &

initiative for contractor

Requirement Specs limit initiative and risk of Contractor

Performance Specs increase initiative and risk of Contractor

Risk Management

Actions of Initiative by the Engineer tend to:

o increase risk for the Engineer - because the Engineer becomes responsible for

potential bad outcome.

o places risk on the Client - decisions of Engineer are not in Client's control

FINAL WORD

In hiring a consultant, the client delegates his work and the responsibility of looking after his

interests. He wants advice, judgments, decisions, and actions at appropriate levels of

delegation. The engineer must utilize his professional skill to identify that appropriate level.

He needs to communicate with the client and listen carefully to root out implicit

assumptions. Deliverables should communicate plainly, properly balancing initiative with

delegated responsibility. The client wants a clone to do his work the way he would do it if he

had the engineer's expertise. Not being mind readers, engineers must listen to the client

carefully to determine the appropriate level of delegation and initiative for the client wants

and needs.

Works Cited

Covey, Stephen. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Rosetta, 2009. EBook.

McKee, John. "7 Levels of Delegation." TechRepublic. CBS Interactive, 03 May 2007. Web.

30 Jan. 2014.The title of the article as published is "7 levels of delegation" with

capitalization and use of Arabic numeral as shown.

"Code of Ethics." National Society of Professional Engineers. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 July 2014.