Since the Hyatt Regency Hotel walkway collapse in 1981, the engineering community and the public have been especially concerned with quality in the constructed project. A number of workshops and roundtable meetings have been held to discuss this concern. One of the recommendations that has come forth is the use of project peer reviews to enhance the quality of constructed projects. One designer has endorsed the project peer review concept for a number of years and has made it an integral part of the design and plan preparation process.

Because of concern in ASCE and the engineering community with quality in the field of design and construction, a task committee was appointed in 1986 and charged with developing details of a program for conducting organizational peer review within public agencies. Similar programs exist for peer review of private‐sector firms. The committee was also charged with training reviewers, conducting pilot reviews, evaluating the process, and making recommendations for further development of the program. The ASCE's Peer Review Program was introduced at the International Civil Engineering Convention and Exposition held on October 25–28, 1987, in Anaheim, California. Three public agencies that had undergone pilot peer reviews were participants in the session “Peer Review—A Key in the Quest for Quality in Engineering.” The session featured discussions on various aspects of the peer review program and included objective evaluations by these three agencies. The pilot peer review conducted at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Engineering and Research (E&R) Center in Denver, Colorado, occurred in August 1987. The bureau's experience, as recounted in this paper, can provide insight into the peer review process and constructive analysis for agencies or others who may participate in future peer reviews.

The first test of the pilot program for “Peer Review in the Public Sector,” which was developed by ASCE, was conducted in the Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, during the period of April 13–15, 1987. The review was performed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Peer Review Manual, published by ASCE. The team examined overall management, project management and program execution, financial management, management of human resources, public relations activities, and our posture in developing and maintaining technical expertise. In this examination, considerable attention was given to the professionalism of the organization and its knowledge and utilization of the latest state of the art in computer aided design and drafting. In the opinion of this writer, the test indicated that the review procedures developed were valid. The methodology used in conducting the test was most effective, the review team was highly qualified and well prepared, and the findings of the team were relevant and constructive.

Build‐own‐operate‐transfer projects are receiving renewed interest in many countries. These include the United Kingdom where the government nevertheless imposes strict rules on their application. The first major infrastructure project in modern times in the United Kingdom to receive this treatment was the contract for the Dartford Bridge in 1986. The promoters and financial advisors so contained and allocated the various risks that the necessary debt was raised without any substantial equity base, thus minimizing the concession period and cost to government. Build‐own‐operate‐transfer projects can also be of value in lesser developed countries. But host governments need to understand the commercial realities and the promoters need realistically to assess the political risks and the inevitable extra costs. Failure on both sides has led to many disappointments. Engineers have a major part to play in this process, whether they exercise their discipline as contractor, consultant, or in the public sector.

The ASCE Environmental Engineering Research Council has produced a position paper on the problems and needs of environmental infrastructure in the United States. The status of current infrastructure in the areas of water distribution, wastewater collection, water and waste treatment, air pollution control, and solid and hazardous waste management is addressed. Alternatives for both managing and funding current and future infrastructure needs are discussed and reviewed with emphasis on local, state, and federal options. The council recognizes that while considerable progress has been made in environmental infrastructure development in the past four decades, a number of factors are combining to compromise the future of these successes. The quality of engineering education and the inability of the nation's educational system to produce enough fully qualified civil engineers to deal with the infrastructure problems are addressed. In addition, the effects of institutional disincentives provided by recent environmental legislation and the misallocation of resources by funding programs are recognized. The council also proposes that one of the major problems to be addressed in overcoming infrastructure problems is the adjustment of public opinion.

The world's civil engineers have designed and built a new habitat for man that has led to improved health and prosperity in virtually every country, while the momentum of continuing global changes presents a new set of challenges for civil engineers. World population is continuing to increase, primarily in the developing countries, with major growth in city populations, World food production per person is increasing, and this is also contributing to increased urbanization. Cities can be considered as productive units, and there is a widening range of opportunities for location for manufacturing. A major problem in world cities is inappropriate transport facilities with growing incompatibility between urban form and urban transport, which has a consequential impact on the economic efficiency of cities. There is a growing world demand for energy and electricity, and increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are causing concern about climatic changes and rising average sea levels. Uranium is seen as a preferred energy source for electricity on environmental grounds. Excessive legalism in some countries, e.g., the United States, imposes additional costs on engineering and the economy.

System engineering has many definitions. In this paper it is defined as a total disciplined process of defining, creating, and operating large complex engineering systems. A brief history of the development and practice of system engineering is presented. Other definitions of system engineering are explored. On one extreme are system modeling and optimization activities and on the other are acquisition, requirements, and specification activities. Civil engineering, like other disciplines, has fragmented into many specialty groups. The common skills of integration, verification, and synthesis are often ignored by these specialty groups. System engineering skills are commonly focused on the definition and translation of needs and solutions at each phase and level of a system development. New computer technology permits the process of system engineering to be automated and performed in real time and at much lower costs. The question raised in this paper is whether the civil engineering profession currently practices computer assisted system engineering or whether it should embrace system engineering to improve its practice.

The ethics of engineering practice include the entire relationship of employer and employee. The proper treatment of employees will return many benefits to the engineering firm. Employees should be treated as professionals and should be expected to perform in a professional manner. A professional relationship in the engineering office will benefit the progress of any engineering project. There are a number of employer actions that can lead toward this favorable end result.