PACE
Advisory Board
Meeting
Minutes and Discussion
June 2nd, 2011
Introduction:Dr. David Riley

Department has gone through changes in the past year with the largest grant PSU
has ever received
o Faced with a suite of energy related projects that need to be brought
together.
o Construction faculty has met to discuss how can we can maintain and
improve our success?
o PACE is faced with a new environment and different strategies will be
needed for it to maintain its strong role.
 Projects are large such as Smart grid topics and retrofit. These are
assets to the PACE program and PACE members.
PACE Discussion Issues
Industry members less involved with classes than in past years
 Why have industry members been less involved with AE 475 & 476.
o Some members did not see as a strong connection with the schools as they
had in the past.
o Industry members are willing to support faculty and want to be involved.
o It would be helpful for PACE to publish the areas they need help with or
advertise the need for industry members.
 Possibly establish an industry liaison for PACE to keep up
communication, transparency and organization.
o Industry member involvement is ultimately up to faculty members as a
course-by-course issue.
o Hiccups may be due to transitions and new leadership. Nothing is different
as far as policy.
Thesis Presentations
 Thesis presentations seemed too short and content was scaled back. Could
presentation time be extended from 14 minutes to 20 minutes?
o There is not much time for questioning and presentations are not as
comprehensive.
o Students are missing breadth, depth and analysis.
Integrated Thesis Presentations – John Messner
 Over the last three years there has been an experimental thesis group of 3 or 4
students.
o One student from each of the four options.
o All groups look at one building, for example, the Millennium Science
Complex.
o They’ve dug into the details looking at advanced modeling and design
recommendations and construction critiques.
o Typically selected 2/3 groups to present.
o Students gain more additional breadth because they are working side by
side with students who are studying other design options.
o Particularly impressed this year with the final outcome and thoughtful
solutions of the student groups.
 The lessons learned are different than those of the individual thesis
option.
o What model is better? Individual students model v. shift to a group
organized model.
 Some students want to learn about working with a team.
 Some think they’ll be able to slack off.
 Others are interested in the idea but are not sure and ultimately shy
away from it.
 It doesn’t necessarily draw the top performers because some top
performers would rather do their own thing.
o Some industry members would rather hire the students who can work in
team and not necessarily just the top performer who can get an A.
o We’d like to roll something out for Fall 2012. Decisions must be made in
mid-spring.
o Problems:
 Inequity of numbers in the different programs.
 Faculty doesn’t always have the required time of engagement
throughout the year.
 Fair way of grading, possibly peer review.
 If the shift is made - will need projects and project teams that will be willing to
interact with the students.
o Need some PSU alumni and various industry members.
Mentorship Program Updates
 Program has evolved with two levels
o Industry to student mentoring.
o Student to student mentoring.
 Student to student mentoring is very structured.
 Informal discussions about styles of professors and courses.
o Third yr paired with second year, fourth year paired with a third and fourth
and fifth are paired with alumni.
 Now run by SSAE and the Alumni Association of SSAE.
 Mentor for every student that expressed interest.
 Far more alums want to mentor than students are interested.
 Hoping student mentorship will create a culture that fosters more relationships
with industry mentorship.
Skill Level of Facility Managers
 Issue with the skill level with our facility managers with some of the more
complex buildings.
o Give them more training in school or right out of school so they can
operate a more innovative system.
o Building operators sometimes oversimplify whole control systems.
 20% building control systems actually perform the way they’ve been designed.
It’s only after two years after its commissioned works/operated the way it was
designed.
o Deep retrofit that improves the efficiency.
o Do you use the former facilities manager? Old school mentality or new
technology or control systems.
Sustainability & Energy
 Incentives and policy needs to happen. It’s a big part of smart grid and new
energy.
 Engineering economics is extremely important and has been embedded back into
the curriculum.
o We have classes that teach policy literacy and state policy.
 Fuel cell generators to replace power. Some of the stuff will be owner driven and
some will be manufacturer-selling power.
 Green is now the norm. “Green” Building should be every building
o If you are doing energy analysis then you should be obtaining LEED
Gold. What is the next frontier? Where is the next focus, the energy
and how we are consuming the product.
 Energy is easier to monetize then other aspects of sustainability.
 It’s easier to run numbers on energy than use environmentally friendly material.
 Not a common mindset to look at sustainability in whole: retention of the
employees, local jobs created, environmental impact of producers.
 What is truly creating these high performance buildings? It’s not just platinum or
gold LEED ratings. What’s the next step or facet of sustainable construction?
o Energy Star rating may be better energy efficiency rating.
o LEED is challenging but manageable.
BIM Standards
 What should be the role of the owner in BIM implementation?
o There is a lack of vision from owners.
 Version 2 of the National BIM standard initiative focusing on standard information
exchanges.
 There is a need for more definable standards for BIM.
 We need standard information exchanges so we don’t reinvent the wheel and have
to customize the interfaces.
 Indiana University has a self-report BIM scale to calculate a score.
 Owners should get more proactive with the industry.
o If they leave it up to the industry they’ll do it for their benefit.
o Owners need to write their own requirements and set a level of
expectations.
o How do you know you’re hiring the best person for the job?
 Construction option students need to know how to facilitate and operate.
o Right now, the curriculum is focused on specific technical problems. But what
about looking at problems that other disciplines need to solve?


There is always learning with new technologies but still management and scheduling
is not efficient or cost effective. Inefficient management on the jobs.
o Haven’t seen a reduction with the number of staff on a job. Will there be an
elimination of any components?
o What we spend now is more than what we ever have. We have more people
but the jobs are also getting more complex.
o When people become uncomfortable people revert to their old way.
o We’re seeing a lot more rework. Stuff is going in out of sequence or
something is wrong.
o On the field we need more eyes, holding the hands of the workers. The skills
are just not there anymore.
Inefficiencies with the design process. It seems like the CM and GC’s have taken on a
lot more.
o CM has 15-25 people and 2,3 people in the design trailer.
There needs to be an adaptation of technology in a small, medium and large
organizations.