Letter to the Editor

Your October editorial ("What owners want from CMs," p. 3) pinpoints a weakness so common in building projects of all types these days. The lack of project management is usually the source of frustration and wasted time and money in design/construction projects.

For the last 25 years, I have worked as a consultant providing project management services to owners who did not have an architect or engineer on staff. Frequently, the owner's lack of knowledge is simple deferred to a design firm with the expectation that the designer will read the owner's mind. Too many details are left to someone on the "drafting board" without knowledge of the owner's preferences.

The term "construction manager" is a poor choice if the owner is looking for project management services. CM originated with (fast track) multi-contract expedited design/construction. All too often, a CM is relegated to cost/schedule monitoring or after design second guessing in the name of value engineering. This is a far cry from managing.

Project management starts with defining the owner's wishes. This takes up-front interviewing and understanding of what the owner wants in physical facility, cost, and schedule. This can be placed in "project criteria." The PM then reviews the design as it progresses. Sometimes it takes bridling of design ego. Then, the PM monitors construction through completion and may assist in arrangements for move-in and follow-on maintenance contracts.

Properly executed, PM can save the average owner many dollars and irritation because it anticipates the needs of the owner before costly mistakes are made. I think it would be helpful to your readers to distinguish between CM and PM. I know from personal experience that PM services, as I have described, save more money and time than their cost to the owner.

William D. McEwen, P.E. Lawrenceville, Ga.