Walter P Moore tops the list for the third year

Structural Engineer honors the firms with great workplaces in its annual ranking, a much-anticipated resource that shows which firms are "putting it out there" and seeing how they stack up against their industry peers. Job-seekers value the list as a source of unbiased information to see which firms are focused on workplace practice issues, and non-job-seekers love to see how their firm fares.

With Walter P Moore a three-time favorite, Structural Engineer welcomes No. 2-ranked Beaudette Consulting Engineers, Inc., to the top tier for the first time. Additionally, we welcome back PCS Structural Solutions to this esteemed upper echelon. Review the top 25 and honorable mentions below. What’s more, you can pick up some tips from the top-tier firms to help improve your work environment.

Participants

More firms applied for the Best Structural Engineering Firms To Work For this year than ever before in the five-year history of the program. A total of 49 firms applied; 51 percent of them did not participate in 2006. Of the 2006 applicants, 26 percent did not apply this year, including three firms in the top 10. As expected with programs like this, even firms that make the list might not apply year-after-year. The reasons vary, but often we hear from firms that they decide not to apply again because they have scheduling conflicts, are too busy, have had a change in leadership, have recently acquired a new firm, or made a major policy change—all reasons that make it difficult or not in their best interest to take on such a significant endeavor.

All firms that applied met the following specific requirements:

a) At least 51 percent of the firm’s 2006 revenue must have been derived from the practice of structural engineering, or at least 51 percent of the firm’s engineers must conduct structural engineering services on a full-time basis.

b) A registered professional engineer must be the owner or an officer of the company.

c) The firm must employ at least five full-time structural engineers.

d) The firm’s headquarters must be located in the United States or in a U.S. territory.

For the purposes of this program, structural engineering is defined specifically to include services such as, but not limited to, design and analysis of structures, including buildings and bridges. Since structural engineering is a subset of civil engineering, firms that meet the requirements for the structural engineering list automatically meet the requirements for the civil engineering list if the firm employs at least 10 full-time civil engineers.

The process

The evaluation process did not change remarkably from last year. Following is a description of the contest process.

Structural Engineer announced in January that applications were being accepted and posted the application form (known as the Corporate Survey) online. Firms responded to the questions and returned the application. Next, the firms launched an Employee Satisfaction Survey to their staff. Firms were told to achieve a minimum 20-percent response rate for the anonymous survey.

Next, our staff graded the Corporate and Employee Satisfaction Surveys, which make up the two equally weighted components of the grading process, for all firms and determined a raw score for each component. (The method used to determine the raw scores is described below.) We used the standard deviation and mean to distribute the firms’ scores for each component, which gave more weight to firms that scored well outside of the average. We used the sum of the distributed scores for both components to rank the firms. The top 25 firms and five honorable mentions will be honored.

The top three firms made it to the final round. The judging panel members re-ranked these firms based on their best judgment. We tallied the judges’ results to establish the ranking order of the top three firms.

To determine the raw scores used to rank the contestants, the Corporate and Employee Satisfaction Surveys are evaluated objectively in the following manner:

Corporate Survey—Our staff graded the Corporate Survey (CS) for all competing firms. Most questions on the Corporate Survey were graded using one of two methods. The first type compared a firm’s response with the median response of the contestant pool. If a firm met or exceeded the median, then a point(s) was awarded. For example, the median voluntary turnover rate for all the firms that applied was 7 percent. Therefore, if a firm had a 7 percent or lower turnover rate, it earned points; firms with a turnover rate higher than 7 percent did not earn any points. Questions deemed to quantify more important aspects about firms were worth more points than those questions indicating less-important information about firms. For some particularly important questions, bonus points were awarded if a firm met or exceeded the third quartile (75th percentile) of all firms.

The second method simply awarded a point(s) if a benefit was offered or if the affirmative response to a question was given. For example, if a firm offers a flexible medical spending account to staff, it earned points; likewise, if a firm said it has a non-discriminatory culture regarding age, gender, race, and religion, it earned points. More important attributes were worth more points; for example, hosting a company picnic annually wasn’t worth as many points as beating the average voluntary turnover rate.

Questions were arranged by categories, including culture, benefits, performance/
recognition, compensation, professional development, recruiting and retention, and general.

Employee Satisfaction Survey—All of the non-narrative Employee Satisfaction Survey (ESS) questions were graded (other than the demographic questions) using a method that compared, for each question, a firm’s average positive response to the average positive response of the contestant pool (referred to as the Benchmark). For example, employees were asked to respond on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 is the most undesirable response and 6 is the most desirable response, how well their firm provided a team environment. For each firm, we calculated the percentage of respondents who responded with a 5 or a 6, and compared it to the percentage of respondents overall who responded with a 5 or a 6 to this question (the Benchmark). If a firm met or exceeded the Benchmark, it earned a point for the question. Additionally, bonus points were provided for firms that met or exceeded the 90th percentile on certain questions, which are the most telling/important of those asked in the ESS.

Questions were arranged by categories, including culture, benefits, performance/ recognition, compensation, professional development, recruiting and retention, and general. For each firm, the total points earned for each category were normalized so that each category had a total of 10 points. This step helped to account for the fact that there were many more graded questions in some categories than others and that some categories’ questions weren’t necessarily as important as others with fewer questions. Next, a unique weighting factor was applied to each category’s normalized point total. The weighting factors are based on data collected from the 2004 Employee Satisfaction Survey conducted for the Best Civil Engineering Firms To Work For Contest. We asked many questions about what was important to the employees of civil engineering firms so that we could better determine how to weight types of questions in the future, rather than going by assumptions. For example, we learned that employees believe that a firm’s culture is more important than its professional development programs. More than 12,000 employees’ responses were incorporated into these findings. Finally, the sum of the weighted total points for each category was determined; this was the total raw score for the ESS component of the overall score.

Finally, the mean and standard deviation were used in combination with the CS scores to rank the firms. This puts the ESS and the CS on a level playing field for determining the final ranks. (Otherwise the CS may seem worth more than the ESS, or vice versa, if the point ranges aren’t similar.)

Overall Ranking: (See Top 25 and Honorable Mention lists below.)

First place: Walter P Moore (WPM)—For the third year in a row, WPM has taken first place in the Best Structural Engineering Firms To Work For contest. And just as it has in the past, this year the Houston-based firm—established in 1931—improved upon its already solid reputation. "Even as a past winner of this award, WPM does not rest on its success, but has continually worked to improve as a top engineering firm," commented judge Greg Churchman, owner of Churchman Consulting Solutions, Fort Collins, Colo.

For example, in 2007 the 365-person, privately owned firm reduced the number of eligibility hours for full benefits to 20 per week. And as a corporate sponsor of Engineers Without Borders, WPM further demonstrated its devotion to charities and philanthropic work by giving staff two additional days off for community involvement initiatives. According to WPM CEO and Chairman of the Board Raymond Messer, the move was well received by staff. "There are so many needs in our communities that can be addressed with a little extra corporate and personal commitment, and this benefit supports that end goal," he said.

One of WPM’s main strengths is its ability to communicate effectively and openly with its people. John Geddie, principal at Martin-Simonds Associates, Inc., of Albuquerque, N.M., admired the firm’s open-book policy regarding its financial position: "They recognize the significant buy-in that such openness instills among employees.

Indeed, in the Employee Satisfaction Survey, 90 percent of WPM employees responded positively to the statement, "I am well-informed about important financial information regarding the firm." In contrast, only 67 percent of survey respondents industry-wide responded positively to this statement. "I am particularly impressed with the effective communication strategies the firm implements," commented Lori Oakes-Coyne, principal with ZweigWhite, headquartered in Chicago.

Staff is also pleased with the distribution of company profits, according to responses to the Employee Satisfaction Survey. "We strive to be technically innovative, but we also respect the need to have a well-run business," said Messer. "We are not ashamed to be profitable, and we use that money to reward, not just the owners, but all staff."

In addition to financial compensation, WPM gives back to its employees through further training and education. "WPM’s accreditation by the International Association of Education and Training as an authorized provider of continuing education adds to an already-varied program for employee learning," pointed out Carol A. Metzner, president of The Metzner Group, LLC of Myersville, Md.

Second Place: Beaudette Consulting Engineers (BCE)—BCE may be small—established in 1990, the Missoula, Mont.-based company has 28 employees and three offices—but it has the mindset of a large firm. "It has policies and practices of companies that are 500 to 1,000 employees in size," said Churchman. Rising from 11th place on the Best Structural Engineering Firms to Work For list in 2006, BCE prides itself on family atmosphere and happy, satisfied employees. Oakes-Coyne recognized that in terms of overall employee happiness as a great measure of being a Best Firm to Work For, BCE takes top honors. "There seems to be a pervasive atmosphere of trust and mutual respect between staff and management. Emphasis on work-life balance and the ’family atmosphere’ result in satisfied employees and great firm retention. On top of that, some of the benefits BCE provides are so impressive for such a small firm: fully covered employee and family insurance is rare indeed in the industry, as well as overtime paid for all employees."

One of BCE’s recent workplace improvements is the development and implementation of a more defined mentor program to help make its engineers-in-training more productive and feel more valued. Geddie commended BCE for its formal mentoring plan: "It is encouraging to see that the firm not only establishes goals between the mentor and mentee, but also reviews them regularly."

According to Matthew Schmidt, president of BCE, the assets of the firm walk in and out the door every day. "We have concluded that keeping the brightest and most tightly knit group of individuals is the most direct path to success. Our areas of success in this primarily stem from listening to employees. I have found it much easier to help people maintain a positive and cohesive attitude by letting them share their thoughts on those matters either directly or indirectly."

BCE’s management approach is clearly working, as indicated in the results of the Employee Satisfaction Survey. Staff reported 100-percent positive responses to the following statements and questions: Do you believe that your firm is one of the best engineering firms to work for?; your firm provides a caring, "family" atmosphere; satisfaction regarding the company’s practice of balancing work and personal life; I would recommend my firm to a friend seeking a new job; and an overall rate of satisfaction with my work experience at this firm. In contrast, all employees that took the survey industry-wide indicated positive responses ranging from 71 to 88 percent in regard to the same questions and statements.

Dan Ryan, senior consultant with The Human Capital Group of Brentwood, Tenn., found the level of employee satisfaction to be a significant factor in BCE’s success. "There is a beauty to being small and successful. A smaller firm requires a great level of cooperation and persistence to make sure all of the gaps are covered."

Third Place: PCS Structural Solutions (PCS)—Headquartered in Tacoma, Wash., and established in 1965, PCS is a firm that has developed and maintained its foundation of success. "As another past top-winner of the Best Structural Engineering Firms To Work For, PCS continues to stay in the forefront," remarked Churchman.

As evidenced by the Employee Satisfaction Survey, PCS’s 53 employees are confident about their place of work. One-hundred-percent positive responses were provided regarding competent leadership/management; job security without the threat of downsizing in the coming year; and the firm’s practice of abiding by its mission, vision, and/or core values—compared to the positive responses ranging from 85 to 89 percent of all employees that took the survey industry-wide.

One of PCS’ most noteworthy programs is its Individual Operating Plan (IOP), a semi-annual process for setting goals for each employee, which also provides employees with a forum to share ideas about the company. "The IOP process is a positive way to tie employee goals to corporate strategies," commented Geddie. "It allows an employee to have some say about their own future within the firm and maintains strategic alignment." Oakes-Coyne also recognized the importance of the IOP process: "It is a proactive way to both foster staff communication, as well as provide career development and interactive goal-setting for the staff."

After a very successful 2006, PCS awarded all of its employees with a bonus of an additional 100 hours of salary. Clearly, a firm that values its people, perhaps its true test of success is staff longevity. CEO Daniel Putnam, as well as Executive Vice President James Collins have devoted their entire careers to the firm; therefore, it is not surprising that the firm’s median employee tenure is 7.6 years. "PCS has a turnover rate of only 4 percent, a clear indication that the policies the firm has implemented that make it a great place to work are working," noted Geddie. "I am impressed by the focus on keeping employees motivated and engaged."

The proven ability to grow within the company is encouraging to PCS employees. "We are not stingy with ownership; we are transferring ownership to the third generation that culminated in naming a new president from our third generation this past year," stated Putnam. "We are already grooming potential fourth-generation leadership. All of our employees recognize that they are working for a company that will perpetuate itself into the future and they can plan a long career here if they choose."

The Judging Panel

Greg Churchman
Owner of Churchman Consulting Solutions, Fort Collins, Colo.














John Geddie
Principal, Martin-Simonds Associates, Inc., Albuquerque, N.M.













Carol A. Metzner
President of The Metzner Group, LLC of Myersville, Md.







Lori Oakes-Coyne
Principal with ZweigWhite, headquartered in Chicago










Dan Ryan
Senior consultant with The Human Capital Group of Brentwood, Tenn.














Mark your calendar!

If your firm didn’t apply this year, or if you didn’t make the list, you are encouraged to apply next year. To be sure you don’t miss out on the 2008 entry information, sign up today for our Contact List. Go to the Best Firm To Work For Portal at www.gostructural.com/bestfirm and click on the link "Click here to register on the Best Firms To Work For Contact List." Also, you will find a copy of the 2007 application documents so that you can review what is required to enter (although we may make adjustments to the requirements, so check back in January, even if you don’t meet the past requirements.) We will make adjustments to the Corporate Survey, but reviewing the instructions and types of questions asked will help you get a feel for the program. Expect to hear updates in January 2008.

One important note to newcomers: Rest assured that regardless of your ranking status, our staff will not disclose your score, nor will we release the names of firms that applied but did not make the top 25 or honorable mention lists. Hope to hear from you in 2008!

Best Structural Engineering Firms To Work For 2007: Top 25

Rank              Firm               Headquarters           Employees             Website
1 Walter P Moore and Associates, Inc., Houston, Texas, 365, www.walterpmoore.com
2 Beaudette Consulting Engineers, Inc., Missoula, Mont., 28, www.bceweb.com
3 PCS Structural Solutions, Tacoma, Wash., 53, www.pcs-structural.com
4 Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc., San Francisco, Calif., 35, www.forell.com
5 Barrish Pelham & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, Calif., 18, www.barrish.com
6 Timothy Haahs & Associates, Inc., Blue Bell, Pa., 49, www.timhaahs.com
7 KL&A, Inc., Golden, Colo., 43, www.klaa.com
8 ARW Engineers, Ogden, Utah, 26, www.arwengineers.com
9 Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Waltham, Mass., 318, www.sgh.com
10 Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc., Seattle, Wash., 150, www.mka.com
11 Quantum Consulting Engineers, LLC., Seattle, Wash., 19, www.quantumce.com
12 OBEC Consulting Engineers, Eugene, Ore., 111, www.obec.com
13 Halvorson and Partners, P.C. Chicago, Ill., 42, www.halvorsonandpartners.com
14 Degenkolb Engineers, San Francisco, Calif., 136, www.degenkolb.com
15 Pruitt Eberly Stone, Inc., Atlanta, Ga., 60, www.pesengineers.com
16 Wallace Engineering-Structural Consultants, Inc., Tulsa, Okla., 168, www.wallacesc.com
17 Bliss & Nyitray, Inc., Coral Gables, Fla., 53, www.bniengineers.com
18 Ehlert / Bryan, Inc., McLean, Va., 31, www.ehlert-bryan.com
19 Jaster-Quintanilla San Antonio, LLP, San Antonio, Texas, 27, www.jqeng.com
20 S. A. Miro, Inc., Denver, Colo., 75, www.samiro.com
21 Wright Engineers, Las Vegas, Nev., 166, www.wrightengineers.com
22 KingGuinn Associates, P.A., Charlotte, N.C., 12, www.kingguinn.com
23 DCI Engineers, Bellevue, Wash., 169, www.dci-engineers.com
24 Holmes Culley, San Francisco, Calif., 24, www.holmesculley.com
25 Nagamine Okawa Engineers, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, 22, www.nagamineokawa.com


Honorable Mentions

Rank            Firm             Headquarters             Employees              Website
Ruby+Associates, PC, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 32, www.rubyusa.com
Baldridge & Associates Structural Engineering, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii, 20, www.baseengr.com
O’Donnell & Naccarato, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, 112, www.o-n.com
Steven Schaefer Associates Inc., Cincinnati, OH, 57, www.ssastructural.com
Uzun & Case Engineers, LLC Atlanta, GA, 58, www.uzuncase.com