Award Evaluation Methodologies

ASC Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference
University of Cincinnati - Cincinnati, Ohio
April 6 - 9, 2005


Award Evaluation Methodologies

William W. Badger and Peter H. Bopp and Michael K. Campbell
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ

Following in a series of awards related studies, this research examines the means by which construction awards may be influenced and enhanced with a focus of improving industry image. A key finding from the early study period validated the belief that awards do reflect on the industry and that by “keeping score” the manner in which awards information is publicly presented can be influenced. Additional research conducted via focus group generated concepts that appear to be influential when applied to awards. “Prestige” emerged as a prevalent message underlying the industry’s most respected awards. Further research has resulted in a well-tested methodology by which one can “profile” or measure the prestige exhibited by an award. By analyzing four factors, Purpose, Projection, Process, and Practice, and the metrics that support such concepts, one can gain a greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses exhibited by an award. Such a mechanism can be used for analyzing and ranking awards. However, the power of the methodology is found in its usefulness as a self-analysis and continuous improvement tool. This paper explores the development of this methodology and presents a detail discussion of the profiling process.

Key Words: Construction awards, prestige, awards profiling, spider graph, self-assessment


Scope

For the past two years, the Del E. Webb School of Construction has been engaged in research focused on awards programs and processes administered within the construction industry. The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of, and identify the wisdom within, the programs and processes of awards based recognition. The wisdom gained can subsequently be utilized in a variety of ways to enhance the image of the construction industry. Such wisdom must not only serve the construction industry, but also have value throughout the business and academic community regardless of industry focus and specialization. A significant focus of the author’s recent research has been directed toward the evaluation of awards programs and the subsequent listing of those programs whose awards exhibit and transfer significant amounts of prestige. Thus, by publicizing the most prestigious industry awards, the researchers are initiating and promoting an awareness of these awards. As awareness, interest, and competition for such awards increases, so will the value and prestige of the awards.

Previously published papers address in greater detail the evolution of the processes that the researchers utilized to create a viable award evaluation methodology. This paper introduces the researcher’s refined evaluation methodology and provides guidance regarding its use. With little or no modification to the methodology as presented below, the awards analysis process may be utilized to gain a stronger understanding of awards programs regardless of specific business or industry orientation.


Review and Credibility of the Evaluation Methodology

Any attempt to evaluate and publicize data, regardless of its nature, requires sufficient review of the process and means by which the evaluation is conducted. To ensure the credibility and value of this study’s award evaluation process, the researchers maintain a continual link with the professional community to provide oversight of the team’s research and to provide enhancement recommendations. Industry interviews were initially conducted to obtain guidance and direction as to the development of an evaluation methodology. As part of the ongoing effort, the researchers periodically conduct focus groups, bringing together leaders representing construction, business, military, academia, and student populations, to analyze, review, and redirect the research efforts. Through this continual quality oversight and control process, the researchers have been able to develop a viable evaluation methodology as detailed below.

The credibility of the methodology may also be reinforced by what is called a “Self Select Process.” Self-select means that an award program may opt in or out of the review process. A limited amount of information concerning an award and its associated administrative processes is publicly available. By opting to participate in the review process, the award program will in fact support the credibility of the process.

Prestige and the Four P’s – Critical Principles

As previously noted, the analysis and evaluation process derived in this study examines an award’s degree of observed prestige. In order to evaluate prestige, one must identify traits or components that are measurable and thus enable the evaluation of this intangible asset. The researchers propose four aspects or critical principles, which when combined, promote prestige. Each of these principles incorporates a number of elements or sub-criteria. These critical values, presented in Figure 1, are Purpose, Projection, Process and Practice.



Figure 1: Purpose, Projection, Process and Practice.


Awards Evaluation Methodology


Any attempt to evaluate, compare, and rank awards requires the use of criteria and metrics that drive valid, reproducible results. For a given award, data associated with each criterion and metric, as discussed subsequently in this paper, is initially gathered via a questionnaire or checklist. A numerical value can be assigned to all criteria and metrics. An initial indication and measurement of each of the four critical principles (purpose, projection, process, and practice) is obtained through a simple summation of the numerical results for each metric on an individual award basis. The highest scoring awards may then be evaluated at a greater level of detail through direct communication with the awarding organization and recent award recipients.


Calculating each criterion’s numerical total, subsequent to the secondary, in-depth evaluation, lends itself to a graphic indication and measurement of each of the four critical values. A single graphic presentation of the four critical values and their sub-elements can be presented as shown in Figure 2. An objective measure of prestige may be obtained in this manner and a list of prestigious awards may be generated.

The larger the area under the linked measurements for all criteria, or the closer this area gets to the outermost circle, the greater the award’s prestige. No single criterion dominates and the prestige of awards with very specific focus can still be evaluated and compared. This form of presentation also visually presents the harmony among the four critical values.



Figure 2: A single graphic presentation of the four critical values and their sub-elements



This measurement concept can be refined at will to provide any detail or measurement desired. Awards with a high degree of prestige are able to raise the standards of the industry, draw new practitioners and young people into the industry, and propel the recognition process beyond the AEC industry.


Evaluation Criteria and Metrics Introduced

In order to utilize the 4 P’s (Purpose, Projection, Process, and Practice), also termed the 4 Critical Principles, as a means to measure prestige and evaluate awards, each principle must be broken down into distinct criteria and measurable metrics in such a way as to enable an accurate evaluation of each principle. Appendix A summarizes such a breakdown and serves as the questionnaire and checklist previously introduced. The evaluation of each metric must be objective and reproducible. All criteria and metrics must exhibit clarity and facilitate comprehension. The discussion below introduces each Criterion and Metric at the detail level. A discussion of selected metrics, the process of evaluation, and the definition of a related point level will follow an overview of general concepts underlying each criterion. For a complete discussion, see http://www.constructionawards.org/ for the full paper with the entire Evaluation Criteria and Metrics discussion.

The Criteria for the Purpose Principle are the 1) Message, 2) Focus, and 3) Horizon
Message is best defined as the “Reason” that the award was created and presently exists.
Clear and Concise Mission. The mission, or why the award was created, is clearly and concisely articulated. Text and description are adequate to convey the information, but not so wordy as to distort the understanding.
Objectives are Relevant to Broad Industry Segments. Broad objectives and wide reaching intent indicate that the award is applicable across many, diverse segments of the industry rather than narrowly focused.
Focus is defined as the area, concept, or accomplishment for which the award is bestowed.
Innovative or Creative Achievements Driving Industry Advancement
Professionalism or Effectiveness in One’s Business, Career, or Craft
Distinguished Service to an Organization or Population as Specified Social Responsibility and Environmental Awareness Contribution to the Greater Good of Society including Advancement of Humanity

Horizon indicates the industry level toward which the award program directs its attention: industry-wide, internally, or externally, and what level of achievement is awarded.
Does the Accomplishment Drive a Tangible Benefit. The goal of this metric is to understand the result or impact of the award. The metric considers financial, productivity enhancements, innovations that improve processes and performance, positive social impacts, etc.
No Conditions, Limitations, or Exclusions Exist. This metric considers the impact of any and all conditions and requirements dictating eligibility for the award. However, membership requirements are not to be considered under this metric.
Award Bestowed To: Individual, Company, or Project. Awards bestowed to specific, uniquely identified individuals recognize the great impact one person’s achievement can have on an industry. This metric recognizes awards bestowed to an individual as the highest honor.

The criteria for the Projection Principle are 1) Credibility, 2) Recognition, and 3) Value

Credibility seeks to understand the values of an organization, the combined efforts of multiple bestowing organizations working together, the trust and confidence that can be placed in those associated with the award, and the expertise exhibited by the selection committee.
Stature of the Nominator. This metric focuses on the credentials and expertise of the individual/s submitting the nomination for the award. It does not focus on “Who” the nominator is. Credentials of the Selection Committee. This metric evaluates the level of trust and expertise that can be placed in the award selection committee. Higher levels of expertise and diversity ensure the most qualified party receives the award. The metric examines whether the awarding organization values and promotes the credentials of the committee by communicating this information.
Multiple Organizations Unite to Administer and Bestow the Award. When more than one organization is a party to, and jointly administers, an award this act indicates a high level of industry interest, involvement, and prestige. Frequently the unity of multiple organizations striving to achieve a common purpose indicates a highly significant potential impact resulting from the achievement being awarded.
Bestowing Organization Publishes a Mission or Value Statement. In today’s corporate environment, unifying goals and ethics are critical to the enhancement of all industries.

The Recognition criterion evaluates the breadth of the population serviced by the awarding organization and the degree of recognition or reach within the industry that such an organization may exhibit.
Ratio of Nominations to Size of Selection Pool. This metric examines the number of nominations received for an award compared with the breadth of the actual selection pool. The ratio may be a rough estimate, since the exact size of the selection pool can generally only be estimated.
Awarding Organization Serves Broad Industry Segments. Similar to a previously discussed metric, but maintaining a differing focus, this metric evaluates the breadth of the industry population served by the awarding organization.
Membership Size of the Awarding Organization. An industry association or agency’s power and prestige are frequently tied to the size of the membership and thus, the size of the industry population served.
Awarding Organization is a Corporation or Publication. Occasionally, corporations, publications, or other non-membership based organizations bestow awards to other outstanding organizations or individuals within the industry.

Value is a criterion aimed at understanding the significance of the role the award plays, and the impact its bestowal has, within the industry.
Form of Award: Financial, Trophy, Plaque/Certificate, Name Recognition. The form of award metric evaluates a portion of the award’s significance based upon the physical form in which the award is presented. Financial awards and trophies are given the highest point values under this metric due to the significance and prestige represented by these two physical award forms.
Cost Associated with the Nomination Process. Nomination cost is a limiting factor in an award process. However, the willingness of nominating parties to submit a nomination fee indicates a significant level of importance and prestige exhibited by the award.
There is a Resulting Impact on the Award Recipient’s Business or Career. Some awards are so significant and of such importance that the recipient of the award experiences a resulting positive impact focused on his/her business or career. Frequently this may be due to the utilization of the award as a marketing tool. However, other impacts such as job promotions, pay increases, and industry-wide respect may also result.
The Award Provides a Competitive Advantage to the Industry, Awardee, or Nominator.
Awards that enable a competitive advantage for any party involved in the process exert prestige and influence. Inquiry of an involved party may be required in order to evaluate this metric, as he/she is the most knowledgeable about the resulting competitive advantage.

The criteria for the Process Principle are 1) Independence, 2) Nomination, and 3) Selection as associated with the actual process of bestowing the award.

The goal of the Independence criterion is to understand the degree to which an award strives to achieve unbiased decisions in the actual award program and process.
Award is Competitive versus Non-competitive. This metric considers whether the award is bestowed in a competitive environment. A competitive award is one in which the recipient must compete with other entities, achieve goals, and be selected as the most deserving recipient. Membership in the Awarding Organization Required. Restricting eligibility for an award based upon membership in an organization reduces the pool of potential nominees and reduces the degree of independence exhibited by an award.
Selection Committee Members are Exclusively Internal/Members of the Awarding Organization vs. Selected from Outside the Organization and from Diverse Backgrounds. This metric evaluates the breadth and independence possessed by the members of the selection committee. The greatest levels of independence will be achieved when members of such committees are drawn from many organizations and diverse, yet qualified, credentials.

Nomination is a criterion aimed at evaluating the ease, clarity, and promotion of the award nomination process.
Nomination Process is Well Defined and Relevant Details are Easily Accessed. This metric examines the clarity of the nomination process, how well it is defined and explained, and ultimately how successful the process may be in gathering relevant information upon which to base an award decision.
Nomination Process Facilitates the Submittal of Adequate Information to Ensure the Selection of the Most Qualified Nominee. This metric evaluates whether the nomination process requires the relevant type, and adequate amounts of data in order to make an award decision. While the metric is somewhat subjective, it results in points being awarded to programs that are extensive and thorough in the nomination process.
Call for Awards is Carried Out via Brokering as Compared with Publication Only of the Notice. The most prestigious of awards solicit nominations from entities and parties who will ensure a strong pool of potential award recipients.

Selection is the criterion that evaluates the quality of the actual decision and selection process.
Quality of Articulated Selection Principles and Criteria that are Made Available. Points are awarded under this metric for the level of quality, and degree of articulation, in the definition of the selection principles and criteria.
Feedback is Provided Upon Request to the Non-selected Award Nominees. While an award program must use finesse when providing feedback to a non-selected nominee, if done correctly, such a process helps the nominee better understand the awarding criteria and what areas he/she may need to improve in order to attain the award.

The criteria for the Practice Principle are 1) Publicity, 2) Profile, and 3) Constancy and are focused on understanding the administration of the award program.

Publicity is an evaluation criterion that examines how the award presents itself to, and how the award is received, within the industry.
Breadth of award publicity/marketing mechanism. This metric examines the breadth and reach achieved by the principal, as well as, secondary means and methods of marketing the award to its intended audience. Means of publicity may be general or industry specific periodicals, national or local newspapers, the Internet, organization newsletters and brochures, etc.
The most recent award recipient publicizes the award. Whether an award recipient publicizes the award is a strong indicator of the potential value and sense of accomplishment the recipient associates with the award. This metric is most easily evaluated for firms, corporations, or governmental entities as they may utilize the award as a publicity or marketing mechanism.
Ease of locating award information on the awarding organization’s website. This metric simply examines how accessible the awarding organization has made its awards information on its website. Generally, organizations that place a great emphasis on, and understand the value of, an awards process make this information directly available via a direct link from the home page. Percentage of criteria and metrics that can be evaluated via information presented on the awarding organization’s website. This metric calculates a simple average (number of evaluation points complete/number of evaluation points possible) to measure the completeness of the awards information that an organization presents on its website.

Profile is the criterion that addresses the emphasis that is placed on both the bestowal of the award, as well as, the continual improvement of the award.
Award presentation forum. The forum and degree of formality, which surround the actual presentation of the award to the recipient, correlate strongly with the importance and prestige that the awarding organization associates with the award.
The awarding organization conducts a formal process to periodically review the award program, the associated results, and to implement necessary changes and improvement. This metric examines the organization’s commitment to the continual improvement and enhancement of the award process.

Constancy is a criterion that enables the evaluation of the award program’s administrative infrastructure and the degree to which the program is able to consistently achieve its goals.
Consistency of the award program mission. The consistency of mission metric examines whether the mission or the intent of the award has remained steadfast over the life of the award. Occasionally, the intent and goal of an award changes with the times, focusing the mission where the program sees most fit.
Consistency of the achievement of the award. The consistency of achievement metric examines how successful the award has been in routinely achieving its mission. One means of evaluating this measure is to understand whether the bestowal of the award is mandatory or optional.
Frequency of award bestowal/presentation. If an award is bestowed too frequently, its effect on the industry is diminished and the award appears to be routine.
Longevity of an Award. The period of time that an award has been in existence and continually bestowed indicates the award’s staying power and influence within the industry. Such impacts are related to prestige. The longer an award remains effective and provides its service and support to the industry, the more prestige it will garner.
Extensiveness of infrastructure available to support the award. The formal infrastructure existing to support an award is indicative of the importance that the awarding organization and the industry indirectly, associate with the award. Even the smallest of awards requires a significant amount of time, energy, and expense in administration.


Methodology Summary

The preceding discussion introduced an array of significant detailed aspects that can be utilized to better understand an award program and process. To approach an award analysis and evaluation appropriately, the analysis must be broken down into a series of criteria and metrics. This methodical breakdown allows the evaluator to examine many critical components on an individual basis. At the most basic of levels, this process may be likened to examining the individual components of any functional mechanism. Such components working together and operating efficiently is what makes the mechanism, such as an engine, computer, etc., function efficiently as a whole.

This model introduces both the researcher’s methods of evaluation and a universal award evaluation tool. The tool has been rigorously analyzed, tested, and reconfigured in a continual progression toward efficiency and effectiveness. The researchers will continue to work toward achieving a highly refined tool that benefits a broad range of business and industry. Much of this ongoing advancement will come as others utilize the tool and provide feedback to the researchers. This feedback will be combined with further understanding gained by the researchers’s continual testing and use of the tool in their own pursuits.

Upon a gaining, a thorough understanding of the criteria and metrics addressed in the discussion, the reader can then apply the methods to any type of business and better understand the awards processes. The above criteria and metrics have intentionally been written in a somewhat generic format to facilitate a wide range of use. The method can be easily utilized by other industries simply by focusing any individual metric directly toward the industry type of interest.

An award program can perform a self-analysis, or utilize the services of the research team, to understand its strengths and possible weaknesses. By such analysis, improvement efforts can be continually redirected to those areas in greatest need of improvement or redirection.


Preliminary Evaluation Results – AEC Industry

As this research originated from within the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry, a recent effort was made to better understand and analyze awards bestowed. The evaluation model was a success and the researchers were able to identify distinct groups of awards that, on a combined basis, appear to achieve the greatest breadth, depth, and effectiveness. In the researcher’s opinion, these awards that attained the highest scores upon initial evaluation, appear to exhibit the greatest levels of prestige within this industry.

Of particular importance is an understanding that this evaluation and the publication of its results are not all-inclusive nor is it the definitive source of identifying prestige. It is merely a single, highly researched indicator or prestige exhibited by an award, and an attempt based upon information available to measure that prestige. While some awards exhibit greater levels of prestige than others awards, all well managed awards recognize important, valuable achievements and those who earn such awards are to be commended. This study and methodology is not intended to lessen the significance of any award, rather its focus is to provide data that enhances the industry image.

It must be noted that not all awards within the AEC industry have been evaluated. For an award to be evaluated it must be in the researchers web database. This is only possible if the researchers have successfully identified the award through their searches, or if a third party submits the award and associated information to the researches via post, email, or the researcher’s website. In some cases, even when the researchers are aware of a specific award, the information necessary to thoroughly evaluate the award is not accessible. As the researchers continue to expand their database and as contacts are made and relationships established with the award program administrators, the pool of awards and available information will become ever more complete.

Appendix B presents a Preliminary list of the most prestigious awards bestowed within the AEC industry. Position on this list is not indicative of individual evaluation scores. This list is the culmination of a significant volume of research and refinement and provides a valuable breakthrough in the study of awards processes and benefits.


Conclusion

This paper discusses in detail many concepts that may be used for evaluating award programs. The process introduced here may be individually tailored and directed toward any specific area of interest. The researcher’s efforts have identified four factors (Purpose, Projection, Process, and Practice), which by gaining a strong understanding of each will guide the understanding of prestige levels in awards. The paper also introduced in significant depth, the metrics and point systems used to measure the four critical factors. The evaluation system is generic and can be utilized in any area of business or industry that maintains an interest in the awards process. Metrics may be adjusted to best direct the individual researcher’s interests. Greater, or fewer, evaluation points may be required depending upon the nature of the awards being examined. However, the model presents a strong basis to facilitate an effective analysis of awards.

The process of identifying and analyzing awards is a sensitive, involved process. One must be cautious in several aspects while performing such a process. First, objectivity is a key point to an effective evaluation process. Objectivity ensures that the examination process considers all awards on the same basis and that the results are reproducible.

One must also exercise caution when publicizing results of any evaluation process. When examining awards, it must be evident that the researcher is not attempting to indicate which awards are better. Awards exist throughout various industries for very noble purposes. Awards are used to recognize achievement and spawn innovation. Awards inspire and uplift. The evaluation process introduced in this paper may better be identified as an Awards Profiling Process. Ranking and evaluation refer to systems of comparison and often carry negative psychological association for “non-winners.” Profiling, on the other hand, refers to a system of better understanding an award’s strengths and weaknesses as they relate to the focus of the research.

Awards related research is scarce, and this paper provides new insight to the awards process. Awards are invaluable to the efforts and industries that they serve. Organizations that bestow awards, and the sponsors that facilitate the process, are critical keys to uplifting and enhancing the industry. The researcher’s efforts are to not only better understand awards processes, but to assist the owners of those processes by providing a key to unlock greater potential of industry awards. Understanding where one currently is, where one may improve, and then acting on that information, creates an expanding and evolving process that increases the value of the awards process. Accordingly, the awards process then continually drives innovation, achievement, and performance in the industry. Through such an evolutionary process the industry advances and is able to improve and enhance its own image.

References


Literature searches in major journals produced no papers or articles on construction awards. Some articles were found on the use of the Internet in the construction industry. To the extent they proved useful, these articles are listed below, together with the precursor to this study.

Badger, W.W. & Bopp, P.H. & Campbell, M.K. (2004). Awards; A means to enhance the construction industry’s image. Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 40^th Annual Conference. Retrieved October 22, 2004, from http://www.asceditor.usm.edu/archives/2004/GET04.htm.

Badger, William W. & Rich, Spencer (2003). “Construction Industry Awards” Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 39^th Annual Conference, 59-66.

Sevier, Robert (2003). “The Problem with Prestige” University Business, 16-17.

Bodapati, S. Narayan & Naney, Dawn (2001). A perspective on the image of the construction industry. Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 37^th Annual Conference, 212-223.

Orth, Daryl L. (2000). The use of Internet, intranet, E-mail and web-based project management software in the construction industry. Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 37^th Annual Conference, 191 – 199.

Schexnayder, Cliff & Wiezel, Avi (1999). The Use of Internet by Construction Students and Professionals. Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 35^th Annual Conference, 349 – 361.

Wiezel, Avi & Chasey, Allan & Schexnayder, Cliff (1999). Building a Web Site for Construction Organizations. Associated Schools of Construction International Proceedings of the 35^th Annual Conference, 285 – 297.


Appendix A

Evaluation Criteria & Metric Summary
Principle	Criteria	Metric	Point Value

Purpose	Message	Clear and concise mission	3, 2, 1
		Objectives are relevant to broad industry segments	3, 2, 1
	Focus	Innovation or creativity	1
		Professionalism or effectiveness	1
		Safety	1
		Quality	1
		Social Responsibility	1
		Service	1
		Contribution to Society	1
	Horizon	Award mission & focus broadly defined and far reaching	3, 2, 1
		Does the accomplishment drive a tangible benefit	2, 0
		Do conditions, exclusions, or limitations exist	1, 0
		Award bestowed to: Individual, Company, Project	3, 2, 1

Projection	Credibility	Stature of Nominator	3, 2, 1
		Credentials of Selection Committee	3, 2, 1
		Multiple organization unite to bestow the award	1, 0
		Bestowing organization publishes a mission/value stmt	1, 0
	Recognition	Ratio of nominations to selection pool	3, 2, 1
		Awarding organization serves broad industry segments	3, 2, 1
		Membership size of awarding organization	3, 2, 1
		Awarding organization is corporation or publication	1
	Value	Award form – Financial, trophy, certificate, recognition	4, 3, 2, 1
		Is there a cost associated with the nomination process	1, 0
		Is there a resulting impact on awardee’s business, career	2, 0
		Does the award create a competitive advantage	3, 2, 1

Process	Independence	Award is competitive or non-competitive	1, 0
		Awarding organization membership not required	1, 0
		External / Internal Selection Committee	2, 0
	Nomination	Nomination process is well defined and easily accessed	3, 2, 1
		Process ensures submittal of adequate decision data	1, 0
		Brokering vs. publication of call for nominations	2, 1
	Selection	Quality of articulated selection principles	3, 2, 1
		Is feedback provided to non-selected nominees	1, 0

Practice	Publicity	Breadth of the award publicity/marketing mechanism	3, 2, 1
		Most recent award recipient publicizes the award	1, 0
		Ease of locating awards information	2, 1, 0
		Percentage of questions answered via website	4, 3, 2, 1
	Profile	Importance placed on Award Bestowing Event	3, 2, 1
		Presence of a results auditing and improvement process	1, 0

	Constancy	Consistency of award mission	2, 0
		Consistency of award achievement	2, 1
		Frequency of award bestowal	2, 1, 0
		Longevity of award	4, 3, 2, 1
		Degree of infrastructure to support the award	3, 2, 1

Appendix B Prestigious Awards List
Bestowing Organization	Award Title
Associated Builders & Contractors	Contractor of the Year
	Craft Professional of the Year
American Council of Engineering Companies	Distinguished Award of Merit
	Engineering Excellence Grand Award
	Engineering Excellence Grand Conceptor
	Engineering Excellence Honor Award
American Institute of Architects	25 Year Award
	Firm Award
	Gold Medal Award
	Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture
American Public Works Association	Distinguished Service Award
	Public Works Project of the Year
	Technological Innovation & Management Award
American Society of Civil Engineers	Puerifoy Award for Construction Research
Civil Engineering Research Foundation	Pankow Award for Innovation
Construction Industry Institute	Carroll H. Dunn Award
Construction Writers Association	Marketing Communications Award
Design Build Institute of America	Distinguished DB Leader Lifetime Achievement
	National Design Build Award
National Academy of Engineering	AM Bueche Award
National Association of Women in Construction	Crystal Vision Award
Pacific Coast Builders Conf. / Builder Magazine	Gold Nugget Awards