Project Overview
This case study focuses on how I addressed a blocking dependency in proposal development by building an automated tool that allowed project management to estimate reinforcement quantities and pricing before plans were available.
Capabilities Demonstrated
[1]
Analyzing workflow dependencies and enabling parallel progress across engineering and project management.
[2]
Translating operational needs into functional requirements and measurable performance targets.
[3]
Automating repetitive engineering calculations to accelerate project planning and proposal development.
[4]
Translating reinforcement provisions, geometric constraints and detailing rules into calculation logic.
PROJECT CONTEXT
Project
The company I worked for delivered manufacturing, logistics and climate-controlled facilities. Project management (PM) developed the client’s requirements and coordinated engineering and operations to prepare a proposal defining the project scope and pricing. The company was preparing many proposals at once, so quick turnaround was important.
This work focused on reinforcing steel used in concrete elements such as wall panels, foundations and slabs. PM needed quantities to negotiate contractor pricing and prepare the client proposal, often before architectural or structural plans were available.
Personal Scope
My role in summer 2023 was to support the senior project manager in coordinating engineering and operations. After noticing that engineering turnaround was delaying proposal pricing, I asked to focus my time on developing a tool to improve that workflow.
PART I
Workflow Analysis
This section explains how I mapped the proposal workflow and identified where engineering turnaround and manual calculations delayed pricing.
1.1 Original Workflow and Critical Path Analysis
In the original workflow, PM established the client’s requirements and worked with engineering to develop a facility’s design. Engineering then provided the plans and reinforcement quantities PM needed to negotiate with contractors and prepare pricing which was often a long process that contained plenty of back and forth across teams.
Alternatively, PM could work around that dependency by attempting to calculate preliminary quantities manually which was a cumbersome process. Those calculations used early project dimensions and reinforcement assumptions, but repeating them across a spectrum of concrete elements while simultaneously developing other proposals consumed a substantial amount of time.
Figure 1.1: Original Workflow and Dependencies
The main blocking dependency was the wait for engineering to provide reinforcement quantities for pricing, so I identified that automating the preliminary calculations offered a way for PM to develop a proposal independently of the engineering team finishing their designs.
PART II
Automation and Workflow Redesign
This section explains how I translated the workflow problem into tool requirements and developed calculation logic that allowed proposal pricing to progress alongside engineering design.
2.1 Requirements Definition and Decomposition
Project Objective
Shorten proposal turnaround by enabling PM to estimate reinforcement quantities and pricing from early project requirements without waiting for architectural or structural plans.
Concept of Operations
During proposal development, PM enters preliminary dimensions and requirements based on the client’s intended building and use, along with estimating assumptions and unit costs. The tool applies programmed reinforcement rules to calculate element quantities and combine them into a project estimate. PM uses the resulting quantity and cost summaries for contractor discussions and proposal pricing.
Table 2.1: Requirements Definition
I derived the following requirements from FR-02 and FR-03 to define how the tool would establish reinforcement arrangements, calculate element quantities and produce pricing outputs.
Table 2.2: Requirements Decomposition
2.2 Tool Design
I organized the calculations around 13 classes of concrete elements, including wall panels, foundations and slabs. Each element used its own dimensions and reinforcement rules, with the resulting quantities combined into an outputted project package.
DIAGRAM KEY
Tool component
External input or output
System boundary
Information exchanged
Figure 2.1: Tool Inputs, Processing and Outputs
The tool begins with information PM can establish from the client’s intended building and use–the ones independent of the engineering team. For example, proposed building height provides an approximate wall-panel height, while the intended footprint provides an initial slab area. PM then enters this information which provides a starting point for calculating reinforcement quantities.
I programmed the calculation logic using ACI 318 reinforcement provisions and standard detailing references, including CRSI guidance. The tool applies the selected rules and project location information to determine applicable seismic requirements and then establish the preliminary reinforcement layout.
These rules account for items such as minimum steel area, spacing limits and concrete cover, and the clearance between the steel and the concrete surface. For a wall panel, its assumed thickness and the applicable reinforcement ratio from the provisions establish a minimum steel area that the tool translates into a preliminary rebar size and spacing.
The tool calculates bar counts and lengths from the element dimensions and reinforcement layout, and standard rebar reinforcement tables supply the weight per foot for each bar size, allowing it to convert those lengths into steel weight. It then applies programmed waste allowances and supplied unit costs to produce quantity and cost estimates for each element and the overall project.
2.3 Outcome
Using the tool, PM could develop preliminary reinforcement estimates while engineering continued developing the plans. This reduced reliance on engineering turnaround for early pricing and helped the company prepare client proposals sooner. Automating the calculations also reduced repetitive work across simultaneous proposals.
Anderson Todd
Engineering Portfolio