FOM about visit to Neuberger Hall at PSU

CE111 FOM1 Smith

Strong FOM Example - Annotated.docx Page 1 of 3

FIELD OBSERVATION MEMORANDUM

To: Patrick McLaughlin

From: John Smith

CC:

Date: October 30, 2014

Subject: City of Portland Engineering Offices Visit

Team D from the CE111 Introduction to Civil Engineering class visited the City of Portland offices at

1310 SW 5th Avenue on Wednesday October 24, 2014. The purpose of this visit was for students to learn

about the different types of work civil and environmental engineers do for the city. Our host was

Lawrence Terrell, a civil engineer for the City of Portland in the Bureau of Environmental Services

(BES). The visit lasted approximately one hour. Five engineers and one construction manager,

representing three bureaus, discussed their work for the city. We then briefly toured the work spaces on

the 13th floor. This memo presents my observations and discussion of the visit.

Observations Mr. Terrell began with an overview of the departments and bureaus in the City of Portland. He then

introduced Tim McCurdie, who works in water facility planning for the Portland Water Bureau. Mr.

McCurdie discussed the need for watershed improvements in the urban environment and described ways

that the city is currently working to increase the capacity and efficiency of the water infrastructure.

The next speaker was David Valdez, an engineering analyst with the Portland Bureau of Transportation

(PBOT). He described an engineering analyst’s fundamental job as “analyzing a system in order to figure

out how it works, how efficiently it works, and if it can be improved.” He explained that on a daily basis

he analyzes field data such as signal timing to see if a delay in traffic or pedestrian movement can be

eliminated. Mr. Valdez also described his training for his job. He did an internship with PBOT as he

completed his B.S. and he obtained an M.S. with a specialization in Transportation Engineering so that he

was well qualified to work on traffic issues for the City of Portland.

The memo used the course template.

The first sentence provides specific information about who, where, and when. The second sentence tells the purpose of the visit.

The subject line is short and specific.

The concise first paragraph provides the basic information about the visit: length, host, what was included.

This statement tells of the purpose of the memo. It also tells what content is coming (first observations, then discussion). Make sure the purpose of your memo is clear in your introduction (in addition to the purpose of the visit).

The writer uses a quote from a speaker and also provides concrete details about what that quote meant (i.e., what the engineer does and how he makes systems more efficient). These specific details add depth to the observations.

The red comments point out important strengths of this example.

The Observations section consistently focuses on observations – not providing interpretations or discussion of the observations yet.

CE111 FOM1 Smith

Strong FOM Example - Annotated.docx Page 2 of 3

Following Mr. Valdez were four employees of BES. Charlotte Bailey, an environmental engineer, spoke

about her role in maintaining the sanitary sewer system. She primarily designs repairs for the system and

upgrades to meet new regulations. Patricia Johnson works as a supervising professional engineer. She

emphasized the impact that permits and regulations have on city projects. They often determine when and

where work can be done, and they require careful planning that allows time for the permit process. Sam

Patterson, also a professional engineer, spoke about his work in stream and habitat restoration. He

explained that timber harvesting along many of our rivers and streams removed woody debris which had

prevented erosion and provided habitat for wildlife. One method he often employs to mitigate the

negative effects of the timber practices is to place large logs and root wads along the banks of the rivers.

Finally, George Caruso spoke to our team. Mr. Caruso is a construction manager who often works with

the city’s engineers. He described his role as “the science of successfully implementing designs in the

construction phase.” In other words, as he explained, he supervises crews who build the objects that were

designed by engineers.

The final part of the visit was a five-minute tour of the 13th floor. The floor was divided into cubicles,

with larger, glassed-in offices along the outside walls. Four people were having a discussion around a

drawing on a white board in one of the outer offices. Otherwise, the floor was very quiet and most

cubicles were empty. We were unable to see many engineers in the midst of their work.

Discussion The speakers covered diverse types of work for the city. However, two major themes were apparent in all

the speakers’ comments. The first theme concerned the large number of challenges that come from

working within the city. The speakers mentioned the number of permits, the need to retrofit old designs

of water and sewer systems to fulfill new laws, the high volume of traffic on small roads, and the

difficulties of trying to make a natural watershed in an urban area. Many of these conditions would not

be as challenging in a rural area with lower population. The second theme concerned the teamwork

required on every project the engineers mentioned. Engineers in different bureaus worked together, as

when BES and the Water Bureau speakers both talked about watershed issues. Engineers and

construction employees must also collaborate, as Mr. Caruso made clear. All the speakers mentioned

The writer concisely introduces four people into this paragraph rather than wasting words repeating “The next speaker was Charlotte Bailey... The next speaker was Patricia Johnson... After Ms. Johnson was Sam Patterson...” The following observations provide concrete information about what the speakers said.

This sentence is very important for concretely explaining what the quotation means. The previous part of “Observations” covered what the writer

was told by the speakers. Now the writer describes what he saw. Both are appropriate for the “Observations” section.

The writer is adding his own interpretation of the situation here. This is appropriate because he is discussing observations and reflection on what he learned.

Although many things were covered by the speakers, the writer focuses on TWO themes. Pick TWO or THREE major points to develop in your Discussion.

CE111 FOM1 Smith

Strong FOM Example - Annotated.docx Page 3 of 3

how their work was just one part of a larger project. Previously, I had not thought about how many

different people play roles in the successful completion of a project. In addition, because I am interested

in transportation, I found comments by Mr. Valdez especially helpful. I plan to look into internships with

PBOT as I complete my B.S. degree.

Conclusion Overall, the visit to the City of Portland engineering offices was very useful for increasing my

understanding of engineers’ work in the city. I also learned more about training for my specific interest in

transportation engineering. The trip would have been even more educational if I had learned more about

an engineer’s typical day at work. For the future, I recommend asking the engineers to explain what they

usually do each day or to tell what they were working on earlier that day.

The writer is reflecting on his own learning, as required for this assignment. Using “I” in a few sentences to tell about your thoughts and experiences is appropriate. It is also appropriate to discuss points that are especially meaningful to you even if they were not the main focus of the visit. Here the writer emphasizes what Mr. Valdez said because it applies to his interests.

The writer succinctly summarizes the visit’s impact on his learning. Notice that he does not just say the visit was “useful” or “interesting.” He tells exactly what was useful about it.

The writer chooses to make a recommendation for the future, and he explains the reason behind his recommendation. Making a recommendation is optional.

The writer has proof-read carefully. There are no typos or no errors in grammar or spelling.