A tower of Babel
Face-to-face and online communication
Reflections from my experience
As a brief introduction, I am a civil engineer, with 44 years of experience in managing construction projects in America (Colombia, the Dominican Republic, the United States and Cuba), Europe (Romania) and Asia (Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam).
When I started writing this essay in installments, I did it to serve as a guide for a conference where I could share my experience with an audience, perhaps young professionals and students, but someone warned me, there is no audience today for face-to-face conferences, you will have to prepare something “on-line”.
Different forms than face-to-face communication have existed and have been effective since the most remote antiquity, it is enough to go back to the rock painting in the caves that have endured over time, or to the rock carving in monumental buildings of the past or in humble stones that marked the roads.
Of course there are books, letters, maps, paintings, recorded music, photographs, cinema, the telephone, television, and all the communication based on computers and the Internet.
In all these cases, the message is captured by the receiver because he focuses all his attention on the message. The receiver, absorbed, sometimes forgets the reality that surrounds him.
Today in conversations between people, whether in person or online, the attention is frequently interrupted due to external events, but in the absence of “personal” contact and the necessary presence of auxiliary electronics in conversations, meetings, or conferences “on-line”, this interruption of
attention is even greater.
In both cases, “neglect” is magnified when the conversation is depersonalized; when in spite of the presence of the other, his ace does not inspire any feeling, when there is no “empathy”. In online communications this circumstance is more frequent and more marked, since on occasions there has been no prior contact between the parties.
I think with empathy something curious happens, once it’s built, it lasts. In communications, when there is empathy between the interlocutors, the presence of the “people” is intensely felt, even if the communication is at a distance. I believe that empathy generates a genuine respect for the other, and as a consequence, more attention is paid to the speaker, making communication more effective.
Contrary to the tendency to think that face-to-face and online communications are exclusive to each other, I would affirm that they are increasingly complementary and that the optimal condition requires the two in a particular balance that is more linked to common sense than to a detailed planning.
I would like to illustrate this assertion with my experience in a case, perhaps extreme due to the conditions of execution but that it is becoming a more common situation due to globalization.
The expansion project for a cement grinding plant in Vietnam was structured based on an Engineering, Supply and Construction (EPC) Contract with a general contractor established in China.
For particular reasons, the owner agreed with the general contractor to develop the engineering in two early phases, linked to preliminary contracts, so that the Geotechnical and Dynamic Analysis components were carried out at an early phase and the Structural Engineering at a later phase.
Three prestigious firms based in North America (Texas, Canada and California) carried out the corresponding design review to the Geotechnical, Dynamic Foundation Analysis and Structural Design components respectively.
This peer-review process is significantly a communication exercise between specialized professionals, who study specific documents generated by one of the parties (the designer), to verify “that the design has been carried out, following the general design criteria established at the beginning of the project, the applicable codes and that in general good engineering practices have been followed (sound engineering practices)”. (1)
When it is a project in which the parties (owners, designers, reviewers) are from the same country, including the terms of reference (design criteria and applicable codes); there are no language barriers, no time differences, no cultural differences, and in theory, there are no precautions and prejudices
making this process is relatively simple.
In these cases, it is common that the professionals follow the same standards, use identical or very similar design tools (software) and similar formats for reporting and drawings.
In many cases, they know each other and it is relatively easy to call joint work meetings when necessary. And since everyone “speaks the same language”, communication is direct and fluid and the issues to be clarified tend to be specific and not general. In this setting, face-to-face or distance meetings tend to be very effective.
In our case and for the structural review, we were on the other extreme … in every way.
As already mentioned, all parts were from different countries. The terms of reference considered that, in addition to complying with the mandatory codes required in Vietnam, some structures of the project (cement silo, building and mill foundation) should be designed following the guidelines of the European
code, the others would be designed following the standards of the Chinese code.
English would be the common language of communication between the parties; mother tongue of the consultants, but not of the designers, Chinese-Mandarin, nor of the owner, Vietnamese.
Geotechnical and Dynamic Analysis reviews were advanced ahead of the structural review, minimizing the possibility of direct contact between consultants.
Communications and conferences “on-line” would have the difficulty (or the advantage) of being carried out in three different time zones up to 14 hours apart.
The difficulties caused by the cultural differences, already remarkable in themselves, were made even more complicated by the nature of the work.
“The first and perhaps biggest challenge for the reviewer is to make the designer understand that the review process is a job for the designer’s benefit, not against him (her, them), since having an independent review gives the designer or engineer responsible for the project (engineer-of-record of the project) a further guarantee that its design is adequate and satisfies the intention of the applicable codes.” (1)
Based on previous experiences, anticipating the difficulties that we would face, we had planned to carry out the work in three rounds; an initial one on line for the collection, study and sharing of information, a second one face-to-face to discuss and clarify with each of the designer’s teams the observations from the first round, and a third one, a closing round on line for the details and final report.
Once the information was collected and studied, the “peer reviewer” generated his first report in which the differences in the interpretation of the basic elements and the difficulties of verification were made clear due to the design software and document presentation used by the designer was very different from the ones used by the reviewer.
The initial plan was then adjusted by expanding this first round with the aim of optimizing the face-to-face round. The rain of emails and the avalanche of information generated in response to the initial report did not contribute to clarifying the issues; remote meetings were then held, with their corresponding written reports, as progress was not as expected in the process. It became essential then to conduct face-to-face work. (see note 2)
By then, and this is my feeling, a “mental barrier” had been generated between the counterparts.
The face-to-face work sessions, focused on clarifying specific points, allowed a good progress in all subjects, however, due to time constraints and the nature of the work, some points remained to be prepared and presented and that would be subject to subsequent check.
Then another round of communications began with additional online conferences, progress was slow again and sometimes some issues regressed to the discrepancies of origin; which indicated that there were still lags of the “cultural barrier” with some members of the designer’s team. In order to conclude the work, we decided to conduct a second round of face-to-face and joint sessions, almost like a “conclave” that only ends when all the pending issues have been resolved. (see note 3)
This second meeting, the previous work and the person-to-person relationship allowed consolidating trust and professional respect between the parties. Although some work were left pending, subsequent remote communications went smoothly and the remaining open issues were quickly resolved.
I would go so far as to say that the more complex the circumstance in which remote communication takes place, the more important it is to face the interlocutors and create an environment with fewer distractors, with adequate times that allow attention to be maintained, perhaps with more breaks and with very specific agendas.
(1) GENERAL ASPECTS OF PEER-REVIEW (STRUCTURAL PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS) by Engineer Juan Chávez, PhD, GPLA Consultant
(2) Work cited, “Discussions included various topics: structural systems used in the project, materials used in the project, wind loads, seismic design aspects and seismic force differences applying the China Seismic Code, the Vietnam Code and the Euro Code, design requirements for silos applying the Euro Code, software used in the analysis, modeling of the different structures
for the analysis, information required in the calculation reports, pile capacity and the requirement to consider lateral loads in the design of piles, minimum requirements for reinforcement, details of reinforcement and details of connections, minimum information required in the plans, specifications and other aspects of the project. ”
(3) Work cited, “In this final meeting the application of the Euro Code was clarified, alternative design software was used and with the support of the representative of the project owners, the designer was more flexible in adopting several of the changes requested by the reviewer. Thus, a conclusion could be reached on the structural revision part of the project. ”
