New system worries engineers

Pitt’s engineers used to be responsible for a few buildings.

But for the past few months,… Pitt’s engineers used to be responsible for a few buildings.

But for the past few months, each engineer has been responsible for half of Pitt’s campus, and some engineers believe the new system will cause more problems.

In March, the engineering system was changed, dividing the campus in half along Fifth Avenue and assigning engineers to be cover all the buildings within their half of the campus. The engineers are also now divided into two groups – preventative and reactive – those who repair buildings before problems arise, and those who respond to problems, respectively.

“Until recently, the operating engineers were stationed at specific buildings, leaving a majority of buildings untended and causing workload disparities,” Ana Guzman, associate vice chancellor for Facilities Management, said in her comments announcing the change.

But the building engineers were not asked for input before the changes were made, six Pitt building engineers said. Instead, they were presented with a new system and told to make it work. The engineers said Guzman and others involved with the decision to change systems might not totally understand the role of an engineer on campus.

Although the engineers requested that their names be withheld for the safety of their jobs, their union, the International Union of Engineers, local 95, voted unanimously for the group to speak to the Pitt News on behalf of the bargaining unit at Pitt.

The engineers did not oppose change, they said, but they opposed the lack of training for the new jobs they were given, and they felt Guzman misrepresented them.

Guzman and the Office of Facilities Management refused to comment in response to the engineers’ statements.

Before the system changed on March 10, the engineers were dedicated – or assigned specifically – to the building in which they worked, while they maintained the mobility to help in surrounding buildings when the engineers in those buildings were unavailable. In each building cluster, engineers had experience in up to five buildings. Now, each engineer must be accountable for as many as 20 buildings, they said.

It takes at least one year to know a building, according to the engineers.

Guzman also said in her speech that she expects to see a “noticeable improvement in the way the building systems operate, because there will be a lot more attention to preventative maintenance, instead of waiting for things to malfunction and fixing them.”

Tom Tyghe, the executive assistant to the general president for the International Union of Operating Engineers, said there were “a lot of issues” that would make a dedicated engineer, like in the old system, more desirable than a rotating one, like in the new system. When an engineer works in one building, he or she gets to know it “intimately” and can become more comfortable in it, assuring the safety that comes from knowledgeable engineers, Tyghe said.

“If you have a proven success – and the University of Pittsburgh does – you don’t normally change,” said Tyghe, who worked at Pitt for 10 years.

He added that having a dedicated engineer is best for everyone’s welfare.

In response to Guzman’s explanation for the change – that buildings were left untended under the old system – the engineers said no building was ever untended, even though 21 daytime engineers were responsible for looking after 62 buildings. Even under the new system, there will be workload disparities when problems affect one area of campus, they said.

The engineers also defended their ability to take preventative action under the old system.

“We never sat around waiting for something to happen,” one of the engineers said.

Before most people were in class or at work, the dedicated engineers had already checked the critical areas of their buildings and taken care of many of the complaints they received, leaving time later in the morning for preventative care, they said. With the new system, the engineers are unable to take time daily to check the critical areas.

“We’re not complaining. We’re not bitter engineers,” one said. “We just want [our buildings] to work right.”

Working in the same building every day allowed the engineers to know the building’s tenants, who consequently knew who to go to with their problems, the engineers added.

The engineers also expressed concern about the division of building engineers into two different types, which they said could cause problems if only preventative engineers are available when someone reports a problem that demands a reactive engineer, such as an elevator entrapment or the sounding of a fire alarm.

Since Pitt is a major research university, homeland security is important as well, they said. If there is a chemical problem in one of the research labs, an engineer who is unfamiliar with the building is less likely to know how to address it and will require more time than a dedicated engineer to fix the problem.

Mice used for research on one floor in Clapp Hall were all “fried” because of an error with the new system, they said.

“These things do happen, but they can be prevented,” one of the engineers said.

But in spite of the problems Pitt’s engineers pointed out in the new system, the design seems popular among large universities. Penn State University and the University of Maryland both have systems dividing their campuses into different zones or areas, with a group of engineers devoted to each one.

According to Gary Ward, PSU’s director of operations, each engineer can be assigned to work in up to 30 or as few as 10 buildings. The zones are divided into areas based upon the workload in each area.

Jack Baker, Maryland’s director of operations and maintenance, said their system is “very similar” to Pitt’s new system. The number of buildings the engineers are responsible for depends on the buildings; zones with research facilities have fewer buildings than zones with classroom buildings, for example.

He added that the system has been in place for at least 15 years, and engineers with more experience in an area can be taken along with engineers less familiar with a building.

The Pitt engineers said Pitt’s situation is not entirely the same, explaining that differences arise because PSU is in a rural area while Pitt is in an urban one.

Ultimately, engineers say they are unhappy because, if the new system fails, they do not want to be responsible for harm to anything or anyone.

“It’s [Facilities Management’s] right to manage, and we’re going to do what they tell us to do,” Bill Cagney, the business manager for the local chapter of the union, said. He added that the engineers wanted Pitt’s leaders and community members to be aware of the changes and potential problems.