I'm of the opinion that surveying is doomed to obsolescence unless we drastically change the way we operate.
With technology we went from 4 & 5 man crews where a curmudgeonly party chief would mentor and train those on his crew to a 1 man crew and no mentoring or training.
We are not mentoring and training the next instrument operator or party chief or rodman. Technology has eliminated our pool of candidates.
So the question is this; What would it take for your company to make standard 3 man crews the norm?
Obviously you would have to charge more for your crew rates but that would be a good thing.
Or 2-person crews, for that matter.
We've been seeing in the forum examples of that lack of mentoring.
As a solo guy past his prime where the end is closer than the beginning I am a bit more selective in my jobs and tend to charge more than others but I generally avoid large jobs HOWEVER if I did large construction jobs or if I had the workload I absolutely would staff up a 3 man crew and I don't understand why some on this forum don't.
I personally don't do a lot of construction jobs because they don't like my terms but I will if they agree to my terms. And part of that is my requirement for a 3 man crew. Because of that my prices are always higher.
At current billing rates I'd need around $225-$250 an hour to keep a crew of three on the road, maybe more.?ÿ At those rates things start getting a little pricey real quick.
I was a lot more comfortable with 2-man crews and me bouncing between them as needed.?ÿ My fees also seemed a lot more palatable to my clients with that setup.
What would it take for your company to make standard 3 man crews the norm?
You can count on me to take the bait on this topic!
I have no basis to justify a 3-person crew on 90% of the projects we do.
I also can't justify a 1-person crew on ANY of the projects we do.
I can easily justify at least a 2-person crew on 100% of the projects we do.
There are difficulties associated with hiring staff, there are also many benefits. Here's why I think the benefits far outweigh the inconveniences.
The risks associated with a one-person crew are so significant that I consider utilizing 1-person crews as an SOP to be irresponsible in most situations... perhaps even negligent in some situations. It's irresponsible because it compromises the safety of staff (the only environment where one-person is safer than two is where the second person is a serial killer), it eliminates the sounding-board/check that the second person brings, it reduces the amount of on-site experience/expertise, it puts the clients project at risk (it's all in the hands of one-person who won't be around to carry the project forward if they get sick, quit, win the lottery), and it undermines the long-term continuum of the profession by providing ZERO OJT knowledge transfer to others. I'd also argue that it's almost always less efficient than a two-person crew.?ÿ We include ALL of these factors explaining to the client why there will be two surveyors on the project - with emphasis on "it's in the best interest of the client and their project".?ÿ
What's the reasoning behind the one-person versus two-person crews?
We've heard the reasons... "Don't want to manage people", "Not enough work to keep two people busy", "Can't charge enough to pay the second person", "Too much paperwork", "I don't like training people", the list goes on... these are real issues to some people.
None of these reasons are strong enough to overcome the strongest pro two-person crew reason - safety. Who's going to do CPR on you when you're a one-person crew? Who's going to pull you out of the way of the grader/car/truck when your head is down uncovering the corner/control? Who's going to drive you to the ER after you discover that your newly developed bee allergy has you in anaphylactic shock? Dogs, mountain lions, bears, moose, drunks, meth-heads, etc. all go better with 2 people. Tick inspection... don't have experience with that one but I've killed many bees/wasps on the backs of crew members who stepped on/bumped/cut down the hive. Hypothermic people typically can't extricate themselves - they need someone to guide them to/get them warmth. Can heat stroke victims recognize their condition and get properly hydrated & cooled? The safety list goes on and on and on.
If safety isn't enough reason, there's productivity. You can shoot twice as many points with two robots as one. Your set-up cost goes down when you set up one RTK base for two (or more) rovers instead of just one. Structure/utility measurement - one person measures the other sketches & writes - much faster. Dealing with curious neighbors, one person keeps working... then extricates the other by requesting help.
Two people working together is more than twice as productive as one. Two people working together is far safer. Two people working together improves project continuity. Two persons working together provides the scenario where mentoring can occur. If these realities exist in your work world - BUCK UP and DO IT.
OK... let the rebuttals begin - start with how safety is better with a one-person crew. (I've got my cell phone, my .44, my inReach, my defibrillator is permanently hooked up, my epi-pen is already inserted - it'll inject when I fall on it, my wife tracks my phone - if it stops moving she calls me, and the saddest reason... I don't have any medical insurance or savings for retirement - if I go down I want it to be for good.
Respectfully
Well said. Next time I see you I'll tell you about the time I hired a serial killer .
I've taken a different approach: When I worked for larger firms and I was the survey dept. manager, each of my people, under my tutelage and supervision, did all the work on a given project. I taught them research, recon, how to set up a traverse, how to run the robot, and how to use GPS gear, everything to do with the field side. When they finished the field work on a job, I brought them in to the office to download the data, bring it in to a drawing, and make a drawing. All along the way they're asking questions and learning. From here, it's a smooth move in to managing a project, up to a point. This approach won't work with the wrong people, but when you find a good one, a young surveyor who's hungry and wants to learn, it works like a charm.
I've been in this business for 30 years. 13 employers, 3 States and a Province. At no time, in no place, was a 3 man crew "normal". 2 man has always been the baseline. And I've been using robots exclusively for half that time.
I find it ironic that one would go onto an internet discussion board, where anyone can ask questions of experienced surveyors from all over the world, and usually have them answered within minutes, to lament a lack of mentoring.
Mentoring hasn't gone away. The form of delivery is just different.?ÿ
what would the 3rd person do? i get a bucket man, or rodman to pound hubs, hold the level rod, carry shit...but that only increases productivity by maybe 10-20%??? its not like i need an I-man standing behind my TS, and most of my GPS work is a one man job. I never worked back in the days of 3 man crews, so i guess it just seems outdated to me. it would be fun though!
Cole, in the days of the 4 man crew the old P.C. would run the show, do the Calculations. It was not like now where everything is loaded into a data collector and it usually involved sets of plans spread out over a hood and a HP 41 doing the calculations.
The I-Man and Rodman they sometimes interchanged for training purposes and there was a gopher to carry stakes and pound hubs.
Before the advent of the distance meter there was a head and tail chain,
With the introduction of the distance meter the chaining came to a screeching halt and a 3 man crew became the stand for a short period of time. Data collectors largely replaced a lot of the truck hood calculations but it didn't end there. The invention of Bluetooth and robotics have made possible a one man gang.
Now the one man gangs are mostly people like me and Nate but I do use part time help frequently simply because I can't do it all, all the time.
My lament here is the increasing tendency for large companies to send 2 people and a robot out and neither have any survey experience. All they know is to do certain things but not why they do them. They don't know what a set of doubled angles are used for they just do them because they were told. They don't understand 10th of a foot are not inches. They don't understand pipe grades or 2:1 slopes. They don't know what an acre is or how to read a deed or set of plans.
I realize it may seem ironic that a solo guy is complaining about the lack of mentoring but I am convinced that more large companies need to put 3 man crews on the road and train the future.
Construction surveying for almost 31 years in central Fl since business opened. 2 man crews only.
Still use three man crews on highway jobs where an extra set of eyes makes a difference. ?ÿSome regional DOTs require three as a minimum. ?ÿ
Almost never use a true one man crew due to safety concerns, but frequently send a two man crew out with two robots or one robot and one RTN rover on topo jobs - they split up whenever practical but can still keep an eye on each other.
?ÿ
IMVHO the whole ??training argument? is off base. ?ÿWe trained the way we did when we ran 3+ man crews not because it was the most efficient it logical way to do it, we did it because we had 3 man crews. Now we??ve changed the way we acquire data and do business but lament we can??t train the way we did when we used different technologies in the field instead of developing a newer, more relevant, way to train.?ÿ
I started just over 40 years ago. Most of those first ten years bounced between 3 and 4 man crews. Of course the timing will vary by local custom and business model, but two man crews became normal in the early 80's. I said then we need to adjust our thinking or get ready to hang our picture next to the dodo bird. In some ways we figured it out and have survived.
Now I look at one man crews and try to temper my alarm with the knowledge we have made it through storms before. This time feels different.
The last two man crew I was on had a combined age of over 120. That's getting real close to the aversge age of our resident surveyors. Safety is a real concern, and ignoring it is selfish and short-sighted.
Putting two-man crews in the field solves two major problems. Charging what we are worth and paying our help well solves most of the rest.
Idaho is fast approaching 250 active resident surveyors. We lose 8 to 10 per year net. Do the math...
The three man crew was the standard configuration for one good reason. You can not hold both ends of the chain and give yourself line. Head chain (usually PC) rear chain (newbie) and I man. The outfit I started with and stayed at for three years had eight 3 man crews (no persons back then) The crews were shuffled around every six months or so and that way there was some cross training going on. Each of the PCs primarily specialized in one type of survey. Construction, rural land surveys, city surveys, mortgage surveys and so on.?ÿ
BTW... almost all of the PCs were registered land surveyors. Good old days for sure.?ÿ
Don't see a return to the three man (person) crew except for special situations.
From a ??younger? surveyor??s perspective- I began surveying in 2012, with the vast majority of my field experience being in a two man crew with a robot. I was even trained by ??button pushers?, and learned lots of field techniques and instrument operation. I highly agree that one man crews can be very hazardous in many situations, but also feel a one man crew can be appropriate when doing an ALTA or topo job in a half empty office park. I think while there are less chances to glean insight and proper training from a 2 man crew, the up-and-comer needs to have a little motivation and learn on his own. I was very excited about surveying when I began (as an escape from the restaurant biz, some TRULY thankless work) and loved learning about it on my OWN time. I took the survey courses at my community college, studied from great books like Construction Surveying and Layout by Wesley Crawford and have spent plenty of year hanging around here learning from people who have forgot more about surveying than I??ll ever know. My first employer valued education and CST testing, and would give raises based upon reaching certain levels of the two, which could be even more beneficial to the employer (with lower cost) than hiring another guy to hang around and inevitably spend half the day on Facebook. Sorry for the essay, and I may have gotten lucky, but I??ve gone from green in 2012 to nearly-licensed today, and almost tripled my first survey salary in seven years. I think the future could be safe for surveyors with a little gumption on the employee end, and maybe a little (cash) incentive on the employer end.
When a person wants to love and live the life of a profession and give it purpose, they will stick thru the thin and narrow passages of ethical behavior and hardships of the job to learn from knowledgeable and licensed and hardheaded bosses and tough days and wander out into whatever weather abounds and obtain learning from every resource and all of the other directions to achieve their goals.
When a person simply wants a piece of paper to hang on their wall they will follow whatever fast track avenue to get them there and hope they can hold on to it.
We must send the right number of people out into the field to do the job that is needed.
I spend most of my days solo because I have not found a reliable helper and I am very critical of those that show up.
My first rule is that you are either with me on the job or you are going home. That means your total attention is to the job and your surroundings and you are not spending it on your phone or simply holding a shovel to lean on. Don't stop working when I am not looking at you either. I can't come and get you every morning when you live in the wrong direction to the job.
Two men crews are a must to simply take care of the smallest of boundary surveys. Around here, it can take a day to clear our way to and find four monuments on a one acre tract of land.
0.02
What would it take for your company to make standard 3 man crews the norm?
If I had my own company, only to address safety concerns, e.g., working in heavily-congested roads or areas frequented by venomous snakes, mountain lions, etc.
I spend most of my days solo because I have not found a reliable helper and I am very critical of those that show up.
I worry a little bit about this sometime in the next twenty years when I get serious about hiring some help that I can start to train to take over eventually.
I don??t worry about affording to pay them though. ?ÿI have been commanding $200+ per hour for my solo crew for years.
?ÿ
We are not mentoring and training the next instrument operator or party chief or rodman.
We try to mentor people here at the county. Fortunately our pace isn't as fast as private companies, so we have more time for mentoring. Lack of training is a pet peeve of mine. It's almost tragic to buy new equipment and expect the field crews to use it effectively without training from a surveyor, not a salesperson whose depth of knowledge on its field use is shallow. It's even worse when upper-level management consists of old-school surveyors who want to survey in the past and are not in tune with current technology; they don't trust the technology. I think the lack of rungs in today's field crew ladder has diminished the incentive to move up that ladder. My favorite survey company consisted partly of well-defined three-person field crews whose member designations were Rodman I & II, Instrumentman I & II, and?ÿParty Chief I, II, and?ÿIII. We had to have a specific minimum amount of time in each position and pass a written test before being promoted. It was just like the U.S. Navy, which I'm a proud veteran of. You need time to learn the trade of surveying, not just textbook knowledge. I wonder about party chiefs when they tell me to take an offset shot to a fire hydrant, or hold the vertical crosshair on an offset shot to a power pole. They need to realize those objects are just feature codes to a CAD operator and their elevations, in general, are irrelevant.
Now we??ve changed the way we acquire data and do business but lament we can??t train the way we did when we used different technologies in the field instead of developing a newer, more relevant, way to train.
I agree. I just think that excuses for not mentoring and training personnel are as pathetic as excuses for not checking prism pole bubbles, tribrachs, etc. on a regular basis. Friday afternoons should be for truck washing, inventory, equipment calibration, and training. Beer is optional. Get to know your personnel.
