Thanks Jesse, Yance, for your
"Out-loud" support for engineers to broaden their knowledge and sphere of influence.
Now to be clear, my level of CE tech-skills never went much past
"Q=CIA!"On the other hand, I did learn a great body of knowledge regarding
"people, process, and leadership."
If I understand, generally, where your interests are going, please consider a framework now for structure,
i.e., consider a
"Systems" perspective.
For starters, study the existing framework for many of the issues you note within the ISO System of Standards.
And consider ISO's process for engaging all . . .planet-wide. . . who would, and might be impacted by the ideas you have.
Their system-foundation considers:
"One of the most prevalent ISO standards is ISO 9001. This standard sets the criteria for quality management systems. It can be used by any organization, regardless of the organization's size or industry. In 2019, there are over one million organizations in over 170 countries certified for ISO 9001. Its role is to ensure customers get high-quality products and services. ISO 9001 is based on seven quality management principles:
- Customer focus
- Leadership
- Engagement of people
- Process approach
- Improvement
- Evidence-based decision-making
- Relationship management"
The attached doc provides more details.
Stay Healthy!
Cheers,
Bill
------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.
"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-05-2020 12:56 PM
From: Yance Marti
Subject: A Conversation on Design and Planning towards Equity in the Built Environment
Jesse, I was thinking along the same lines and would like to add to this topic.
The history of many Civil Engineering projects in the US is the history of trampling on the disadvantaged and making things worse for poorer segments of the population. While politicians make the decisions, we are still complicit in working on these projects. Whether the impact is on displacement of the poor with interstate highways or urban renewal projects in the 1960s to modern urban gentrification projects to bad decisions on sources of drinking water as in Flint, engineers have been involved somewhere in the process. I have seen road projects where there is no pedestrian access in areas where there are people that can't afford cars. The following video shows a newly paved street that has no access for pedestrians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zXC0m_NMDA
There was a thread post last year about how far engineers should go in making things safe. We are generally limited by technology and cost. All of the projects we work on attempt to improve things but is there too much of a trade-off for improving it for one group of people while increasing the hardships for the disadvantaged? Land developers love cheap land but when people barely making ends meet are forced to move where rents aren't as cheap because of a new development, this becomes a hardship that is too much to bear for them. It helps if there is a socio-economic impact assessment done for large scale projects but this isn't done for every project. As we have seen in Flint, the most horrendous problem was created by politicians to save money without an adequate assessment of the total health impacts. Yet, engineers worked on building this new system in 2014.
What projects have engineers seen that has put an uneccessarily large burden on the poor? What responsibility should civil engineers have in the decision making process when there are too many negative impacts to the poor and disadvantaged communities for specific projects?
------------------------------
Yance Marti P.E., M.ASCE
Civil Engineer IV
City of Milwaukee
Milwaukee WI
------------------------------