-
How much trust is too much?
Surveyors fall into at least three categories. We have the do-it-yourselfers who operate solo and do almost everything that needs done to operate their business. We have the small shop guys that have a few employees but tend to get involved in all phases of the operation anyway. We have the big guns that stay in an office except for rare occasions.
The issue is trust. If you are the signing party for survey projects, how do you ensure that what you are signing is both true and correct? What can be done to prevent the old GIGO scenario from happening routinely? Do you personally double-check and triple-check every detail provided to you? If you suspect one of your workers is being less than honest or less than precise, how do you approach them and what do you do to improve their work such that you can trust it? Or do you simply slice off their heads and put a listing in the Help Wanted section?
Life is so much easier when you take everything as being just as good or better than it would be if you did it yourself. That is also a good way to hang yourself. The employee working for $xx.xx per hour can probably find another employer if you can him for screwing up. But, as the signing surveyor, you may spend many thousands of dollars and lose credibility with your clients because of that screw up.
Thoughts and suggestions will be welcomed, even if they sting a bit.
-
24 Replies
-
I’ve worked in all three environments. I never liked the one where I was totally removed from the field work. I mean I did give the guys instructions and reviewed what they did at the end of the day, but I would have preferred to see and touch the evidence myself.
The middle one was the most balanced, but I prefer doing everything, personally. That’s just my preference right now….it could change if I get sick of certain aspects or just get burned out. I do feel that the small sole proprietorship with maybe an assistant or two is the best way to provide the utmost in quality work. However, other models may provide work that’s good enough for the client. And i don’t say “good enough” in a negative or condescending way. I mean that the work and quality are sufficient to satisfy the needs of the client.
-
There is much more than trust at work in the dynamic you describe. Two big ones come to mind quick…
The standard of care as it relates to direct supervision varies widely. Regardless of the trust you have in your employees, you are certifying the products as done under your supervision. The seal and standard do not say ‘done by someone I trust’.
My second point is a bit more subtle. Reliance on competence is (or should be) more a matter of objective evaluation as opposed to trust.
I’ve worked for Surveyors who signed everything put in front of them. Others (myself included) go through at least 2 red pens a day. This conversation should prompt all of us to think about where we land on the spectrum. Thank you… -
You have no idea how spot on this post is.
-
Joe the Surveyor, post: 353968, member: 118 wrote: You have no idea how spot on this post is.
Amen to that brother. I have trust issues and not without good reason.
Willy -
I belong to that 3rd set. I’m usually dealing with data collected by others.
One thing I insist on is rerunning the raw data – usually with StarNet – to get coordinates from the field. This forces me to examine the data to see how it was collected. See that control was closed off and checked properly, etc. And that the right tool is being used.
In that data there must be a check shot at the beginning and end of each setup. There must be a check shot to some known point other than the backsight somewhere in each setup as well. If it’s a long term setup (more that a couple of hours) there should be periodic check shots recorded. I use those checks to create a spreadsheet documenting the checks vs. the control.
I have never had a crewman outright refuse to do the job. I have had many passive-aggressively resist. Other LS’s in the offices I have worked always agree with my check shot procedure – that it is pre-existing standard procedure and insist that the crews are doing them – until I show them by the raw data that they are not.
-
I only get out on probably less than 25% of my projects. How much do I trust my guys? 100%.
How much do I trust their data? 0%…
It is definitely a learned behavior to look at a bunch of shots up on a screen and never, ever get to see it on the ground with your own eyes….except for Google Earth.
Like Mark, I require checks and double checks. I’m big on project geometry, with redundancy. It has more to do with proven reliability than trust. There has been jobs I’ve sent them back out to “shoot a couple of more checks” and I’m always happy.
And there is no resentment or hard feelings. I just need a certain amount of math to make me happy, that’s all.
-
Holy Cow, post: 353960, member: 50 wrote: The issue is trust.
Not really. The issue isn’t trust so much as it is competent practice. A surveyor who certifies the correctness of a product needs to have procedures in place that guarantee that things were done to a known standard of care, not that he or she “trusts” the underlings to do a proper job.
In my opinion, competent practice means that the licensee is personally engaged in what is going on. That includes subordinates knowing that if there is a problem with any phase of the work, their obligation is to raise a flag and bring it to the attention of whomever is responsible. Ideally, this is done in the context of ongoing mentoring, but regardless it should be required.
Competent practice definitely does not mean that the licensee is presented with some finished product and has to decide whether or not he or she “trusts” the staff who actually did the work that produced it. It means that the licensee was engaged in some meaningful way with all of the phases of the work that led up to the moment when the finished products arrived for approval and signature and had the means at every step to recognize when the quality was AWOL from the effort.
-
I’ve been in all kinds of situations and everywhere I have worked, the surveyor was involved in all stages of every project.
There have been some check and balances on the field work where ever I have worked.
Once I gained PC position, it was one way and everyone operated that way or they stayed gopher status.
Proper procedures yield proper results.
Repetitive angles and measure twice cut once.
Set a corner and then SS the new location.I believe in showing a person their goof a.s.a.p. and let them see it in real time and in color.
Call the goof and have him/her to come back down line or to whatever point and show the error and let them process the situation and see if they can accept the truth and how they deal with it makes them or breaks them.
Best option: “I will fix it right now and won’t take that shortcut again”
Resistance is futile.When my angles or distances did not work, my mentor sent me back out to measure the place again or find the error on my own time or he would not give me another project.
The same for missing a monument and not locating it.
Double the trouble if he gave notice or instructions to do something and it was not done.Mark, I agree, raw data don’t lie…..
I had a guy that I made a 60/40 deal with because he had his own truck full of good equipment.
The problem was he only wanted to turn in a working sketch showing point numbers a final drawing.
Never would give up a coordinate list or a raw data file.
Goodbye guy.
Had to go out and measure the property myself. Did not find any of his hubs. Took me a week and found most every monument on the property, 50% of them had not been found yet and were simply in a thicket or beyond his search area and they all were close to deed calls.This is surveying, there is no shortcut and come home empty handed because I don’t want to get these duds messed up.
My mentor told me one morning that if this one guy came back to the office without any mud on him, he would fire me.
That dude was caked in mud at end of day, sent him thru a sticky clay post oak flat to flag some fence posts.Since 1974:
Half a dozen or so guys quit in the middle of the day and simply walked off the job and said tell the boss they decided to do something else.
One guy got rather pale when a pigmy rattle snake slithered between his hand and body while he sat eating lunch. He never showed up for work again..
One guy got out of the truck at a stop sign about half hour away from the office and said he changed his mind about wanting to survey.Nobody wants or likes having to do any job over because it was done wrong the first time.
-
Imaginary found monuments
Imaginary set monuments
Any form of laziness that simplifies the work
Supposed found location isn’t the true location because the true location is about 8 inches away on the other side of a privacy fence with nearly non-existent access. Or any other quick and dirty shot that “the boss” may never discover is bogus.
If you can think of it, someone is doing it, somewhere, to somebody.
For those using total stations, was the backsight shot taken correctly?
Was the rod height measured correctly?
Did the hubs really get set? -
Holy Cow, post: 353960, member: 50 wrote: Surveyors fall into at least three categories. We have the do-it-yourselfers who operate solo and do almost everything that needs done to operate their business. We have the small shop guys that have a few employees but tend to get involved in all phases of the operation anyway. We have the big guns that stay in an office except for rare occasions.
Managing surveying tasks at first appears no different from performing surveying tasks in that processes have to be developed and followed, but it definitely requires a different skill set. I joke that I used to be a surveyor and now I’m part accountant/part teacher, but it’s not too far from the truth. The trust for the third of your categories has to be the managers trust in himself/herself to hire the right people and mentor them in the right way.
My experience is that the further the managing surveyor gets away from the process of collecting and interpreting the data, the more particular he/she has to be in the hiring process. I’ve heard people complain that my firm is always running help wanted ads but never hiring the candidates; but sometimes it takes having to interview half a dozen people to decide that the candidate you want isn’t out there right now, and you have to make do with what you got rather then settling for a “warm body” and hoping that you can trust them.
“I hire people brighter than me and I get out of their way.”
Jack Welch -
Just because someone is exceptionally qualified and capable does not ensure that they are looking out for you and your best interests. Sure, you can institute certain requirements and procedures that let you think you know exactly what was done in the field, but intelligent people (them) frequently resent being so controlled and do the passive-aggressive thing on you. Yet you have far more to lose. I can relate to Mr. Fleming’s approach to hiring. No one can be a far better choice than someone.
-
My biggest issue is with corners not found – and how thorough the search process was. I can speak from personal experience that at times I have missed corners and found them at a later date. Sometimes a rebar or pipe give off a very weak magnetic signal or there are fences and other obstructions that make it very difficult to recover a monument. Personally, I am boots on the ground on nearly every boundary survey we do… fortunately with a small shop of 3 people in the department that is pretty easily done. Not sure I could live with any other method… I try to mentor the people I work with so that they are as diligent in the search as I am – but at the end of the day it is my stamp and reputation, not theirs.
-
Unfortunately, we seem to live in a world where people believe in calculated risks rather than stay focused on doing the job right. Some figure that since they have to carry a billion dollars in insurance that it’s no big deal if the insurance company has to pay off from time to time. And, what are the odds that Joe Schmoe, the local junkyard operator, is going to sue you for a few hundred dollars of alleged damages?
-
Kent McMillan, post: 353978, member: 3 wrote: Not really. The issue isn’t trust so much as it is competent practice. A surveyor who certifies the correctness of a product needs to have procedures in place that guarantee that things were done to a known standard of care, not that he or she “trusts” the underlings to do a proper job.
In my opinion, competent practice means that the licensee is personally engaged in what is going on. That includes subordinates knowing that if there is a problem with any phase of the work, their obligation is to raise a flag and bring it to the attention of whomever is responsible. Ideally, this is done in the context of ongoing mentoring, but regardless it should be required.
Competent practice definitely does not mean that the licensee is presented with some finished product and has to decide whether or not he or she “trusts” the staff who actually did the work that produced it. It means that the licensee was engaged in some meaningful way with all of the phases of the work that led up to the moment when the finished products arrived for approval and signature and had the means at every step to recognize when the quality was AWOL from the effort.
Kent, I agree with you 100%. Why would anyone recheck all work done by their employees? Yes, there is a certain amount of trust involved. Trust that they are competent workers and that are indeed following the established procedures, but you still need to be involved as the work progresses. I firmly believe in Management by Walking Around. Talk to your employees. See what they are doing. Learn what their strengths and weaknesses are and plan accordingly. It’s really not that difficult to stay involved so you know what’s going on. Do need to check every number? NO.
-
James Fleming, post: 354011, member: 136 wrote: My experience is that the further the managing surveyor gets away from the process of collecting and interpreting the data, the more particular he/she has to be in the hiring process.
In my opinion, the term “surveyor” refers to a definite professional role and a certain set of activities. Someone who is not engaged in that role and does not perform those activities is at best an “inactive surveyor”. Management functions by themselves are “management”, not surveying.
The whole scheme of the licensee being chained to the office with a remote control to send his or her minions scurrying around on some scheduled tasks and then, at the end of the project claiming that he or she somehow was engaged in and has personal knowledge of the work performed is more of a business model than a reflection of why surveying is organized as a profession.
-
Kent McMillan, post: 354032, member: 3 wrote: The whole scheme of the licensee being chained to the office with a remote control to send his or her minions scurrying around on some scheduled tasks and then, at the end of the project claiming that he or she somehow was engaged in and has personal knowledge of the work performed is more of a business model than a reflection of why surveying is organized as a profession.
In my opinion, the image of a licensee being chained to the office with a remote control to send his or her minions scurrying around on some scheduled tasks and then, at the end of the project claiming that he or she somehow was engaged in and has personal knowledge of the work performed is more of a straw man than a true reflection of how large survey operations actually are organized.
-
James Fleming, post: 354036, member: 136 wrote: In my opinion, the image of a licensee being chained to the office with a remote control to send his or her minions scurrying around on some scheduled tasks and then, at the end of the project claiming that he or she somehow was engaged in and has personal knowledge of the work performed is more of a straw man than a true reflection of how large survey operations actually are organized.
Well, I’m certainly on the outside looking in, but it’s fairly clear that large organizations engaged in surveying tend to fragment the work to the point that plausible deniability is the natural quality model by default. How large organizations overcome that is an interesting question, but I doubt that the answer doesn’t involve actual surveyors getting involved in large parts of the work. Naturally, I’m speaking of land surveying, not engineering surveying.
-
I would hope that a larger firm has Professional Surveyors conducting their own surveys and stamping to their own work; and that the survey manager is not having to take responsibility for all of the individual jobs. It is better that the Survey Manager is a licensed surveyor (in my opinion) because he should have a working knowledge of what land surveying entails. I also agree that the manager should have a fairly intimate understanding of what is going on with all the jobs, and can advise his junior Licensed Surveyors and good practices.
-
Yeah, sure. One guy with seven crews spread across the entire state doing highway contracts. He was number one on the list of who to hire for every DOT job. Well, except for the company owned by the State Representative, of course. Neither one left the office .
-
Holy Cow, post: 354045, member: 50 wrote: Yeah, sure. One guy with seven crews spread across the entire state doing highway contracts. He was number one on the list of who to hire for every DOT job. Well, except for the company owned by the State Representative, of course. Neither one left the office .
That sounds pretty unfair. Any government contracts should follow the Brooks Act and not give all their work to one firm. I would hope you could contest that if that is what Kansas is doing.
Log in to reply.