Recent data indicate U.S. design and construction firms have been losing market share in international business. An ASCE task committee assesses the impact of a global economy on U.S. firms and concludes that the firms may be losing their competitive edge. The committee identifies factors that limit U.S. firms, including an insufficient supply of highly competent employees, increased research spending by foreign firms, growth of foreign firms in the U.S. market, emergence of regional trading blocks, use of integrated project teams, reduced financial incentive for U.S. firms and individuals, and insufficient government support. Findings of the committee indicate U.S. firms may decline in domestic as well as international business unless corrective measures are taken. This paper discusses the findings and recommended actions, including assignment of responsibility to the engineering profession, construction industry, educational system, and the government.

This paper compiles a complete, concise, systematic systems‐engineering methodology that is practical for typical engineering planning applications. Systems engineering is a general methodology using a top‐down apprach to defining problems and evaluating solutions. It consists of an iterative sequence of functional analysis, requirements analysis, and architecture definition. It is a modification of the classical engineering approach that employs system descriptions of products or programs of interest. The functional description is introduced to complement the traditional physical or task descriptions, and is used to define the problem prior to the engineering of the solution. Another modification of the classical engineering approach is to require that the system approach be used in problem solving. This is necessary to ensure that all feasible alternatives are examined equally and that point solutions are avoided. Although systems engineering applications traditionally have focused on design of large physical systems, the process may be effectively adapted to planning applications. To do so the primary change necessary is to use performance objectives rather than performance requirements.

There is a good chance that a practicing civil engineer will be deposed or have to testify at trial sometime during his or her career. A typical civil engineering university education does not prepare the engineer for the deposition and trial process. This lack of experience results in the civil engineer being at a distinct disadvantage and usually under significant stress during the first deposition or trial. It is likely that the most difficult point in the civil engineer's first testimony will be during direct examination by the opposing attorney, when the opposing attorney may try to discredit or impeach the civil engineer. Because of these factors, the initial deposition or trial testimony tends to be a bad experience. Yet civil engineers should try to view their first deposition or trial testimony as a positive process, and especially a learning experience, to give them confidence and prepare them for their next encounter.

Most of the damage sustained from the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake in Northern California was not a surprise to civil engineers and knowledgeable building officials. As early as the 1900s, engineers knew that unreinforced masonry buildings, and buildings built on poorly compacted soils are serious earthquake hazards. And the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake taught us that multiple‐deck highway structures similar to the infamous Cypress structure are incapable of sustaining lateral loads. Not only were the types of vulnerable structures known, but what was needed to be done to improve their seismic strength was known as well. The reasons for this inaction are numerous and semilegitimate, and the blame for it should be shared by the public who refused to pay the high cost of earthquake preparedness, by government officials who had their priorities in the wrong order, and by the engineering community who had historically opted not to play an active role in government and public policy. The fact that the epicenter of the earthquake was 60 mi (96.56 km) away from the densely populated San Francisco Bay area, and that the Cypress structure traffic on the day of the earthquake was much lighter than usual contributed to the controlled damage sustained. While the engineering and technical lessons learned from the earthquake are substantial and very valuable, the management and policy lessons went largely ignored.

This paper describes a study to investigate the need for, the usage of, and the teaching of computing technologies to civil engineering students. The investigation first comprised a survey of the computer facilities and programs offered in civil engineering departments in the United States and, secondly, a survey of graduates of Georgia Tech's Civil Engineering School concerning their needs for computer skills as practicing civil engineers. These surveys show that computing facilities and instruction within civil engineering programs are underfunded and understaffed. The graduates echoed this sentiment, preferring to have additional computing instruction beyond what is presently offered and access to more and better equipment. The graduates felt these items are necessary to better deal with computing issues pertaining to their jobs. The report concludes with a discussion of possible courses of action for improvements to computing instruction and facilities offered to students. The report acknowledges that students and professors in civil engineering programs have a wide diversity of computing experience. Education of both faculty and students may be necessary to improve the desired level of computer literacy needed by civil engineers in the 21st century.

The results of a survey, which reports the degree of involvement construction companies have in specific social activities and how construction companies quantify and report the results of these activities, are presented. Special consideration is paid to education, employment and training, civil rights and equal opportunity, urban renewal and development, pollution abatement, conservation and recreation, culture and the arts, medical care, and government. The responses from the survey showed that most companies were very involved in a few specific activities in the areas of civil rights, equal opportunity, and pollution abatement, but were only moderately involved in most other activities. Additionally, most construction companies did not quantify and report the results of their activities. To conclude, an overview of trends in the area is discussed and the relevance of socioeconomic accounting to project management is presented.

The biennial salary survey of the civil engineering profession conducted by the Committee on Employment Conditions during the second quarter of 1991 is presented. Results are analyzed on the basis of ASCE professional grades for consulting firms, construction companies, design‐construct firms, industry, railroad, and utilities, state departments and agencies and county and municipal agencies. Survey data are compared with those from the 1981–1989 salary surveys.