Perspective Type： Articles

The successful outcome of construction projects is so often determined at the start. This is well-demonstrated by our three recent Building and Construction Authority (BCA) Awards winning projects – The Scotts Tower, SBF Center and NUS AS8 building. When the client sets out a clearly defined vision, the delivery team will be able to draw on their creativity, analysis, good judgement, and leadership to deliver outcomes that exceed the original expectation.

Any consumer today, whether buying a new car, television, house or a pair of shoes, demands certainty from their purchase. How much will it cost, when will it be delivered, will it meet my needs, and will it work?

The modern construction client is no different. Regardless of the type of project they are commissioning, be it residential, commercial, industrial or infrastructure, they also want certainty of the product’s performance, delivery date, cost, and quality.

In both cases, a successful outcome starts with a clear understanding of what you want to buy. For instance, what outcome is sought from the investment, what performance is needed, and what quality is desired.

It sounds simple and obvious, something that we do every day. Yet in reality, the construction sector still falls short of achieving this goal.

So often around the world, we see unsatisfied owners lamenting late, underperforming and over-budget projects, alongside a supply chain that is still struggling with poor productivity, poor margins, and wasted resources.

It does not have to be this way. As demonstrated by the successful projects recognised by the recent BCA Awards, it is possible to create assets that delight clients, underpin reputations, and improve bottom lines of everyone involved.

Solving the right problems

Setting a clearly defined brief cannot be underestimated. It means the client must take the time to establish and set out its vision for the project. It also means that everyone involved in the design and delivery process must understand and buy into this ambition.

As professional engineers, our passion is to solve problems. A project such as The Scotts Tower, has no shortage of technical challenges to overcome – difficult ground conditions, space constraints, old foundations left behind by a demolished building, the close proximity of underground MRT tunnels, and the architectural ambition to construct slanted columns to support the building’s 30 floors.

The key challenge is to ensure that from the very start of the project, each of these technical challenges – the exciting problems we love to solve – are actually relevant to the client’s vision. If it doesn’t, or if it hinders progress towards that vision, then, regardless of the technical achievement, it is not the right problem to solve.

For example, minimising the sway of the SBF Center, a slender tower, was critical for occupants’ safety. Our team worked hard to optimise the performance of the basic skeletal structures using innovative ideas to resist sway from the very start of the design process, rather than simply deploying additional active mechanical damping systems that require maintenance and cost in the long run. Linking this largely unseen work back to the client’s vision of overall cost-effectiveness with the fitness of purpose throughout its full life cycle is critical to building confidence in their investment.

Creating a culture of collaboration

Setting out and understanding a clear brief is also the fundamental pathway for any project to establish an effective, motivated and collaborative supply chain throughout the project delivery. If every member of the delivery team understands what the client is trying to achieve, his role, and how he interacts with the rest of the team, it contributes to the vision being realised.

This collaborative approach established and maintained by regular meetings, and having a shared culture with the others across the project, is crucial to ensuring that the multiple interests and often competing demands are effectively addressed. In short, true collaboration helps the team and the client to agree on “what will work best”? This implies finding the right solutions that will best achieve the client’s vision for the project and also enabling the skills and capabilities of the supply chain to be effective and efficiently mobilised.

Collaboration is, after all, about working together for mutual benefit. Decisions or solutions that fail to embrace the competing demands of the entire team are unlikely to deliver sustainable results.

Our work on the NUS AS8 building saw a huge amount of rigorous design and robust detailing by engineers in collaboration with the construction team and the architects – creating a buildable structural frame that could not only resist huge lateral earth loads from the sloping ground but also achieve the architectural intent of discontinuity in space volumes.

Only through deep collaboration across the team from the start can this complex web of competing needs be addressed satisfactorily.

Technology as the enabler for the better design solutions

Of course, none of today’s increasingly complex and technically challenging projects would be possible without huge investment in innovation and digital technology. The advent of 3D design tools and Building Information Modelling made possible today by technology is what we could only dream of in the past.

On the Scotts Tower project, the design of the novel “outrigger” transfer system to mobilise the stiffness of the central spine core walls using a pair of splayed balanced cantilever fin beams connected to secondary tie beams on four inclined mega columns would not have been possible without modern design tools.

Similarly, the design and planning for the hybrid, cost effective foundation solution for the SBF Center using both piling and a ground bearing raft foundation to work around the constraint of historic underground pile obstructions, would have been difficult if not impossible without digital technology.

However, while leveraging digital technologies is crucial for better efficiency and to accelerate the delivery of creative solutions, it is vital that the power of these tools does not lead professional engineers towards the wrong solution. Once more, a reference to that clearly established vision for the project is crucial to aligning the team’s knowledge, experience, and technology to deliver the desired project outcomes.

Surbana Jurong engineers scoop BCA awards

Surbana Jurong engineers Aaron Foong Kit Kuen and Allan Teo Kok Jin were recognised by the Singapore Building and Construction Authority with the top award for creative engineering solutions[1]. An unprecedented scoop of all three Awards made across the Residential, Commercial Building, Institutional & Industrial Building category, saw Aaron and Allan, both of Surbana Jurong’s  subsidiary, KTP Consultants Pte Ltd, rewarded for innovative engineering solutions which overcame project challenges for safe designs and construction[2].

[1] The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) of Singapore’s annual awards are made to a small number of professional engineers each year to recognise engineering excellence as part of its work to champion the development of an excellent built environment for Singapore.

[2] Aaron was handed an Award in the Residential category for his work on the complex 30 storey Scotts Tower and in the Institutional & Industrial category for the National University of Singapore AS8 building. Both featured complex ground conditions and challenging structural forms to overcome.  Allan was also recognised with an Award in the Commercial for his work on the SBF Center project Singapore Central Business District, which at 184m tall, has a floor plan width of only 20.2m and a slenderness ratio of 9.1.

In today’s globalised world, an appreciation of cultural diversity, and knowing how to leverage it, not only breaks down barriers but also leads to better organisational performance.

Cultural diversity is rarely given its due in discussions around organisational success. The world focuses on intelligence quotient (IQ) and emotional quotient (EQ) as traits for success, but often forgets about cultural intelligence. Large, multicultural companies demand culturally intelligent leaders with the ability to synthesise diverse attitudes, perceptions and cultural influences into a cohesive and integrated identity.

Cultural intelligence is a differentiator for successful leadership. Since leadership is ultimately what shapes an organisation and determines its course of action, it is imperative that the leadership team recognises that it needs to do things differently in different cultures.

A successful leader in today’s multicultural environment always works to the strengths of others, helps employees develop an awareness of cultural differences, wins the trust of the different people they collaborate with and is sensitive in their communication.

An appreciation of cultural differences allows you to maximise every employee’s unique strengths

IQ involves an individual’s intelligence, which may have nothing to do with their capability on the job, and EQ is interpersonal intelligence that comes into play during interactions at work. However, cultural quotient (CQ) is more advanced, encompassing how one uses this intelligence to work across boundaries, spot opportunities and respond to change.

A leader’s ability to appreciate cultural differences is crucial to both performance and creating value for an organisation. Recognising what these differences can or cannot do for your business is important and you must ask yourself: ‘How do I maximise what everyone is bringing to the table?’ The collective experience across multiple cultures should be used to add value to and increase the performance of business.

The competitive advantage arising out of leveraging cultural diversity is a bit like a fine watch.  The dynamic competencies required to work cohesively are like the wheels inside a watch. Should one of the wheels not turn, or turn in the wrong direction, the watch won’t work.

In an organisation like Surbana Jurong, which operates in 44 countries and includes about 70 nationalities, you must inherently believe in the value of working together and understand the strengths of everyone’s contribution.

Employees who are open to cultural diversity are more self-aware  

Interacting with different cultures can make a person self-aware. Having the openness to accept alternative perspectives allows us to better reflect on, recognise and adapt to cultural differences. It helps us understand our own weaknesses and learn from them, and see how to apply our strengths to develop interpersonal relations.

Unfortunately, not all employees have exposure to various cultures, and hence organisations should institute cultural awareness programmes to remedy this. Having the opportunity to work in cross-cultural teams is important to one’s career growth, and should be a part of every employee’s toolbox. It helps them pick up on all kinds of cross-cultural skills – from learning how to address people from another culture to dealing with disagreements in the workplace.

Cultural intelligence gains trust at every level of the organisation

I believe that trust is the greatest differentiating asset of any successful organisation. Without a natural trust in their leaders, employees will not give their best.

Winning the trust of all employees becomes more challenging for leaders as they move outside of their culture. With more scope for misunderstanding and miscommunication, trust becomes more fragile. More simply, different cultures have different frameworks for defining trust.

Cultural intelligence in a leader is therefore a requisite tool, helping them navigate uncertainty, unify people, and build trust to define outcomes and solve problems.

Good leaders must understand the nuances in communication across different cultures

The best strategy in the world will work only when people feel empowered. To reach the desired cultural outcomes, leaders need to think of different ways to communicate and maintain meaningful dialogue with people. Otherwise, however promising your organisational strategy, it will not take off.

In a multicultural organisation, you must first understand cultural nuances before implementing strategies and changes. When people feel they are engaged, you can then walk projects with them and sell successes.

For example, in an Asian culture where people are quiet and don’t challenge things, management has to intervene to break those barriers. At Surbana Jurong, we have Friday get-togethers to allow management and employee teams chat intimately about day-to-day lives.

I myself adopt different styles of working with different people. Scandinavians aren’t as outgoing as most Europeans and may require a consensus before reaching a decision, so I am careful about understanding and managing that. With Africans, I encourage them to speak up more and express their opinions. I don’t want to have them just take orders from other people in the team.

Here’s an interesting example of how I would typically communicate bad news to two different cultures – Indian and Australian. When I need to communicate bad news to the Australians, I tell it to them straight. Australians are direct and they want you to be direct with them. But Indian employees won’t be comfortable with that. I will first need to speak to the manager and agree on the ways to communicate the same news.

Leading by example

Personally, despite the cultural diversity I have seen, every new experience brings new challenges. In coming to Asia, I’ve learnt to be more patient and adapt myself to the different working styles here. In a continent like Asia that offers so much cultural diversity, I have also learnt to better appreciate differences and embrace the advantages that they bring.

It is important that leaders share their experiences with the rest of the organisation. We need to empower our people and give them clear cultural outcomes and identify genuine, memorable values that are shared throughout the organisation. Creating an environment based on this shared understanding will allow cultural appreciation to flow throughout the organisation and across geographies.

Perspectives, developed by SJ Academy, is our platform to explore new ways of tackling some of today’s most complex challenges. We draw on ideas and opinions from our staff associates and experts across different businesses. Click here to read more about Technology & Innovation, Infrastructure & Connectivity, and Design Leadership.

The Quantity Surveyor and Cost Engineer professions have the opportunity to embrace a broader vision for the future and redefine traditional roles. As new technology sweeps rapidly across the construction industry, existing professionals and new graduates must evolve to meet the changing demands of global clients.

There is a saying that “what got us here will not get us there”. For professionals working in the rapidly evolving built environment sector, this is increasingly true.

Cost engineers (CEs) and quantity surveyors (QSs), in particular, are facing a critical moment in their professional lives as the traditional infrastructure project delivery practices are being disrupted by new modern, digitally enabled and data driven processes.

Like every other profession in the built environment, CEs and QSs face a major challenge to redefine their role and stay relevant in this new world; a world in which clients are more demanding, more informed, and expect greater value from every professional service that they buy.

However, they also have a major opportunity to strike out and reposition themselves in this new and evolving world; driving new levels of efficiency, creating competitive advantages and providing the value added services demanded by modern clients.

To achieve this goal, CEs and QSs will have to change their professional approach and the services they provide. While some of these changes might be considered evolutionary, others, as will require more fundamental rethinking.

Merger of minds – birth of the CEQS profession

The traditional concept of employing a QS to measure quantities and a CE to provide advice on costs is becoming a relic of the past.

Today’s clients expect more flexibility and broader professional advice. They will turn to the CE for advice on issues as wide as procurement management and engineering or look to QSs to estimate costs of preliminary designs without drawings but using their experiences, data sheets and rules of thumbs.

Given this blurring of responsibility, a merger of the two professions as CEQS is an obvious win. This new group of professionals would provide a range of services covering cost advice, procurement management and strategic advice, design reviews, facilitation based on risk and value, and perform value engineering exercises.

The role would be transformed from passive individual to become an effective, central contributor to the client’s entire project team. With an inherent knowledge of design efficiency, combined with a deep understanding of cost drivers and structure, the CEQS will be in a unique position to provide clients with holistic advice on project cost, time and quality.

The need for a knowledge upgrade and networking

Of course, this transformation would require the CEQS to substantially increase their understanding of construction technology and basic engineering principles. In addition, they would require good knowledge of contract law to help the CEQS offer procurement advice to promote the modern partnering arrangements sought by clients as they seek to boost productivity.

And clearly enhancing skills across the professions will require an environment that actively supports learning. As such, a professional knowledge network would be critical to support and drive the development of required skills across businesses and ensure that the learning and efficiencies gained are shared across the emerging profession.

Similarly, a programme of mentoring throughout the new CEQS profession would be vital to ensure that younger professionals can learn quickly from the experience and knowledge of colleagues around them.

Facilitation and the art of collaboration

More often than not, the CEs and QSs find themselves at the heart of the design discussion, using and demanding information from all design disciplines and ensuring that information is correct and verified. They play a critical role to bring parties together – facilitating communication and promoting collaboration – a role that is increasingly in demand by modern clients and that should be embraced by the CEQS profession.

The roles and responsibilities of a facilitator are wide and may include conducting cross-disciplinary workshops, to help understand the emerging issues and find collaborative solutions. Again, as with other new skills required by CEQSs, special training programmes for such facilitation would be required.

The use of computational BIM

Technology will be central to the future role of the CEQS profession. Specifically, computational BIM, the next frontier of BIM tools, will be critical. Such advanced BIM modelling requires designers to better understand the BIM model and get the best out of the data.

For the CEQS profession this presents great opportunities due to their inherent closeness to, and familiarity with, the project data. But it also presents great challenges, not least from the need for the new profession to accelerate its own understanding of the emerging discipline.

Some form of computational BIM will have to be taught to CEQS professionals so as to expose them to the outer limits of the use of BIM. That will mean understanding how to interrogate models, how find optimum solutions for value engineering purposes or how to identify cost drivers.

It will be a big challenge as the speed of technological advancement is so rapid. What once took design team months to do, can now be carried out in minutes. The CEQS profession must evolve to keep up.

Operating in the global environment; operating in the virtual environment

Meanwhile, the world is getting smaller as actual and virtual borders are being torn down. Firms are increasingly moving the main bulk of their measurement activities to more cost-effective parts of the world, leaving traditional graduate roles “outsourced”.

However, this challenge opens up great opportunities for the young CEQS who will now be tasked with acquiring the new skills required to manage these outsourced processes. They will, in effect, move further up the project value chain, adding greater client value and commanding greater reward.

Conclusion

The scale and pace of change sweeping across the construction industry means that leaders must act now to embrace the new world. While the core skills of cost management and cost engineering will always remain embedded in the QS and CE professions, there is a need to broaden the vision of existing professionals and new graduates to align with the new world of intense competition, client-centricity and technology advancements.

Building underground has numerous benefits, especially for growing cities, and this can be seen in Singapore’s success so far.

“Going under to stay on top” is a phrase first coined in 1976 by Charles Fairhurst – the then-head of Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering at the University of Minnesota. He wrote an article in the inaugural issue of the journal Underground Space explaining the central premise around the use of underground space in our crowded cities. As a graduate student studying rock mechanics at the university, Fairhurst’s article sparked my interest and eventually led me to a career in the dynamics of using underground space.

Case for Going Under

As a city grows and densifies, urban planners and decision makers are often driven to explore underground construction to accommodate growing needs. There are numerous benefits to building different types of infrastructure and facilities underground. These can be distilled down to four main concepts:

In the past, the primary reasons for people to go underground were the need to find shelter from the elements or in times of war, for a special-interest experience (e.g. natural caves), or for the option of a faster and more convenient means of travel like underground metro systems.

Metro systems and highways can also be built as surface or elevated systems. But when land is scarce, the initial attractiveness of those systems – such as lower cost and views for the travellers – is offset by problems such as noise pollution, visual intrusion affecting surrounding properties and the division of neighbourhoods.

This is especially true when such surface or elevated roads and rail sever a city from key assets like the waterfront. Often, in order to reclaim their waterfront as an asset for living rather than a cheap avenue for transportation, cities spend many times more than the initial savings   in investment between aboveground and underground.

Why, then, don’t urban planners, architects and engineers jump at the chance to build underground?

Factors to consider while planning underground infrastructure

Let’s revisit the idea that as cities grow, they will need to build deeper underground. Currently, most cities develop the underground in a piecemeal fashion. Also, only some villages and towns grow into large cities with a high demand for underground space, raising the question of whether underground planning is necessary for every community.

If underground construction is not a planned component in a three-dimensional city, it can lead to unplanned, and thus, inefficient, use of the valuable underground space. Additionally, underground construction often tends to be significantly more expensive in direct construction cost than surface or elevated facilities. And if you factor in our imperfect knowledge of underground conditions and the challenge of working around the already built piecemeal installations, the risk of cost overruns and delays only increases further.

It is also important to remember that all things being equal, people’s overwhelming preference is to live on or above the surface with access to daylight, even if it means they must live in high-rise buildings in densely populated areas.

Building upwards in a densely populated city provides ‘above the ground’ living and working environments, but at the same time increases the need for infrastructure services, service provision, and waste removal and treatment. So with increasing density the question should not be whether to build up or build down but rather how best to complement the two choices.

The way forward

With that in mind, my recommendations for making the best use of underground space in a city’s infrastructure development would be as follows:

1. Start early when planning a city’s underground space, in much the same way that we plan a 3D environment for surface usage. More planners, architects and policymakers need to understand the restrictions posed and opportunities offered by an intensive use of the underground – such expertise is often not part of their formal training or experience.
2. Weigh the costs and long-term impacts of urban infrastructure decisions along with future development restrictions when deciding on alignments and the type of service to be provided. Look towards the experiences of other cities worldwide for insights and for understanding the trade-offs.
3. Conduct a formal evaluation and plan for immediate and likely future uses of underground space in the case of densely populated or large urban areas with planned new towns or districts. Proactive planning will have significant benefits for future functionality, sustainability and resilience.
4. Build accurate databases of the urban geological conditions and existing (including abandoned) underground services, underground facilities and building foundations, and make these available in a form useful for planning purposes as well as detailed project design.
5. Explore ways to improve the attractiveness, comfort and safety for users and occupants of underground facilities that address the drawbacks such facilities can pose. There is research underway at Nanyang Technological University in this regard. We can also learn by studying the experiences of underground facilities that have been in operation in other parts of the world.

Lessons from Singapore’s success

The Singapore government has worked for more than two decades to maximise environmental liveability and economic growth in the nation’s physically small land footprint. An important part of this effort is to prepare for an increase in the use of underground spaces. Singapore has clarified ownership of its underground space, set up the mechanisms for creating and updating its 3D underground geology and structures databases, initiated underground space master planning for the island and studied the pros and cons of various types of candidate underground facilities.

The underground living conditions of the future envisioned in stories such as E. M. Forster’s The Machine Stops (1909) is not the aim of this effort. Instead, the effort is a response to the realities of continued urbanisation and a desire to preserve the surface environment for the enjoyment of life. This priority motivates us to relocate functions that don’t necessarily need to be on the surface to the underground, thus continuing the Singapore success story “City in a Garden” and reflecting the essence of the theme “Going Under to Stay on Top.”

Perspectives, developed by SJ Academy, is our platform to explore new ways of tackling some of today’s most complex challenges. We draw on ideas and opinions from our staff associates and experts across different businesses. Click here to read more about Technology & Innovation, Infrastructure & Connectivity, and Design Leadership.