Happy Graduation to my seniors. Over 20 of them are graduating and you can see them and their gold hardhats of Facebook. The good news is most have jobs or grad school offers. Most of those going to grad school are staying with us, as you would expect with a student body where many have family responsibilities and jobs. They will do well and they are well prepared for the work world. Don’t believe me? Ask their employers.
My students are back from the ASCE Southeast Regional Student Competition. They received 2 second place awards out of 18 contests. Not too shabby considering there were only about 30 students that were active in putting this together, all going to school full-time, and many working and supporting families. And they were competing against 30 other schools, including several far bigger engineering schools like the Universities of Florida, Alabama, and Central Florida and Auburn University.
So how did they do? Let’s start with the canoe. The canoe was indestructible (see photo). The students rowed well given very little experience. Far better than some of the other schools despite the wind and currents in the canal. The canoe was 700 lbs and it still floated. They finished second on plan reading and professional paper competitions. The environmental filter worked super well the first trial. A little plugging on the second but a good job regardless. The balsa bridge held 700 lbs and the 186 g 2 x 2 x 2 inch cube – 1400 lbs. They also did surveying, shuffleboard with concrete materials, and several others. All good efforts, and each year gets better.
If you have never seen these competitions, you need to. The students work hard, compete well and have fun. It is a good means to meet other students and see what they do. The key is to autopsy the results to help the next students. Overall a good experience for all of them. So congratulations!
Sorry I have been off-blog for over a week. Things can get crazy as we all know. Collegiate activities accelerate after Spring Break, which was the first week of March for the Florida universities. Now we are on to midterms, finishing projects and competitions. So this weekend is the southeast competition for ASCE student chapters. Those of you who are civil engineers likely remember the competitions. Concrete canoes, steel bridges, soil stabilization, water treatment (filters), and a variety of other “contest” abound. We had concrete Frisbees when I was in school. I think I saw where a school in Oregon has carried on a tradition that has never made it to the southeast competition. Some think these competitions are purely a weekend on fun, but that fails to recognize the effort put into the contests by students. Yeah, it’s fun, but a concrete canoe takes many hours of effort by dozens of student to insure it floats. Problem solving is needed to insure the concrete is both lightweight and strong enough to hold up. Might get rammed you know. Seen it happen. It is a good place to meet other students and faculty to exchange ideas. Many practicioners act as judges to the connection to the “real” world is present as well.
We get back from the ASCE contest for the Concrete Expo on campus, which is an opportunity for the students to meet practicioners in a seminar environment (outside of course). It is an opportunity to meet students and very helpful if you are looking for the next generation of people to fill your jobs. Except that we are seeing most of our seniors with jobs before they graduate, sometimes as early as late junior year. That means the economy is improving so jump on the good students early.
After the concrete expo we have the FWEA student water/wastewater design contest. So our students are competing and their project is an indirect potable reuse concept to recharge wellfields for a local community that has looked at the idea. We have researched the subject here before and did some work to demonstrate we could remove phosphorous to under 10 ppb and remove the constituents of emerging concern – the pharmaceuticals etc. Worked great and I think most of our papers are out on the project. Our students looked at and improved it for their contest entry. Then it is time for the FE, final capstone projects and graduation. So much in a month.
And somehow I missed St. Paddy’s day……
As water and sewer utilities, the public health and safety of our customers is our priority – it is both a legal and moral responsibility. The economic stability and growth of our community depends on reliable services or high quality. The priority is not the same with private business. Private businesses have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders, so cutting services will always be preferred to cutting profits. Therein lies the difference and yet the approach is different. Many corporations retain reserves for stability and investment and to protect profits. Many governments retain inadequate reserves which compromises their ability to be stable and protect the public health and safety. Unlike corporations, for government and utilities, expenses are more difficult to change without impacting services that someone is using or expects to use or endangering public health. Our recent economic backdrop indicates that we cannot assume income will increase so we need to reconsider options in dealing with income (revenue) fluctuations. If there are no reserves, when times are lean or economic disruptions occur (and they do regularly), finding funds to make up the difference is a problem. The credit market for governments is not nearly as “easy” to access as it is for people in part because the exposure is much greater. If they can borrow, the rates may be high, meaning greater costs to repay. Reserves are one option, but reserves are a one-time expense and cannot be repeated indefinitely. So if your reserves are not very large, the subsequent years require either raising taxes/rates or cutting costs. An example of the problem is illustrated in Figure 1. In this example the revenues took a big hit in 2009 as a result of the downturn in the economy. Note it has yet to fully return to prior levels as in many utilities. This system had accumulated $5.2 million in reserves form 2000-2008, but has a $5.5 million deficit there after. Reserves only go so far. Eventually the revenues will need to be raised, but the rate shock is far less if you have prudently planned with reserves. You don’t get elected raising rates, but you have a moral responsibility to do so to insure system stability and protection of the public health. So home much is enough for healthy reserves? That is a far more difficult question. In the past 1.5 months of operating reserves was a minimum, and 3 or more months was more common. However, the 2008-2011 economic times should change the model significantly. Many local governments and utilities saw significant revenue drops. Property tax decreases of 50% were not uncommon. It might take 5 to 10 years for those property values to rebound so a ten year need might be required. Sales taxes dropped 30 percent, but those typically bounce back more quickly - 3-5 years. Water and sewer utilities saw decreases of 10-30%, or perhaps more in some tourist destinations. Those revenues may take 3-5 years to rebound as well. Moving money from the utility to the general fund, hampers the situation further. Analysis of the situation, while utility (government) specific, indicates that appropriate reserves to help weather the economic downturns could be years as opposed to months. The conclusion is that governments and utilities should follow the model of trying to stabilize their expenses. Collect reserves. Use them in lean times. Develop a tool to determine the appropriate amounts. Educate local decision-makers and the public. Develop a financial plan that accounts for uncertainty and extreme events that might impact their long-term stability. Take advantage of opportunities and most of all be ready for next time. In other words, plan for that rainy day.
When we ask what the biggest issues facing water and sewer are in the next 20 years, the number one answer is usually getting a handle on failing infrastructure. Related to infrastructure is sustainability of supplies and revenue needs. Resolving the infrastructure problem will require money, which means revenues, and overcoming the resistance to fully fund water and sewer system by local officials, the potential for significant costs or shortfalls for small, rural systems and the increasing concern about economically disadvantaged people.
The US built fantastic infrastructure systems in the mid-20th century that allowed our economy to grow and for us to be productive. But like all tools and equipment, it degrades, or wears out with time. Our economy and our way of life requires access to high quality water and waste water. So this will continue to be critical.
ASCE and USEPA have both noted the deteriorated condition of the water and wastewater systems. In the US, we used to spend 4% of the gross GNP on infrastructure. Currently is it 2%. Based on the needs and spending, there is a clear need to reconstruct system to maintain our way of life. This decrease in funding comes at a time when ASCE rates water and wastewater system condition as a D+ and estimates over $3 trillion in infrastructure investment will be needed by 2020. USEPA believes infrastructure funding for water and sewer should be increased by over $500 billion per year versus the proposed federal decrease of similar amounts or more.
Keep in mind much of what has made the US a major economic force in the middle 20th century is the same infrastructure we are using today. Clearly there is research to indicate there is greater need to invest in infrastructure while the politicians move the other way. The public, caught in the middle, hears the two sides and prefers less to pay on their bills, so sides with the politicians as opposed to the data. Make no mistake, our way of life results from extensive, highly efficient and economic infrastructure systems.
In many ways we are victims of our own success. The systems have run so well, the public takes them for granted. It is hard to make the public understand that our cities are sitting on crumbling systems that have suffered from lack of adequate funding to consistently maintain and upgrade. Public agencies are almost always reactive, as opposed to pro-active, which is why we continuously end up in defensive positions and at the lower end of the spending priorities. So we keep deferring needed maintenance. The life cycle analysis concepts used in business would help. A 20 year old truck, pump, backhoe, etc. just aren’t cost effective to operate and maintain.
Another part this problem is that people have grown used to the fact that water is abundant, cheap, and safe. Open the tap and here it comes; flush the toilet and there it goes, without a thought as to what is involved to produce, treat and distribute potable water as well as to collect, treat, and discharge wastewater.
Water and Sewer utilities are being funded at less than half the level needed to meet the 30 year demands. Meanwhile relying on the federal government, which is trying to reduce funding for infrastructure for local utilities is not a good plan either. We need education, research and demonstrations to show those that control funding of the needs. The education many be the toughest part because making the those that control funding agree to increase rates carries a potential risk to them personally. But there are no statues to those that don’t raise rates – only those with vision. We need to instill vision in our decision-makers.
We get to start the new semester this week. The economy is looking up in Florida. Unemployment is down, although the job growth appears to be mostly minimum wage jobs. So it is useful to look at last semester’s graduates and see how they are doing. The good news is they are getting jobs. In fact our seniors mostly have jobs or internships and none of them are minimum wage jobs. Excellent news, but let’s look at the new graduates and the workplace.
A lot of our assumptions about the workplace will change in the 21st century. The workplace at the “office” is less necessary and younger workers are more comfortable working outside the office environment. They may be more productive than 20th century managers think they will be because of the side benefits that flex hours allow. Their entry into the workforce places four generations at work at once: Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y or Millennials. The latter are the fastest growing segment of the workforce, and are already a larger percent of the workforce than Gen X or Traditionists. The Traditionalists are retiring and are expected to be under 8 % in 2015. Gen X and Gen Y will encompass about a third of the workforce going forward.
All of these groups have different perspectives. Recent studies indicate the following. Baby Boomers grew up post-WWII in a time of change and reform. Some believe they are instruments of change. They are optimistic, hard-working and motivated by position. Gen X grew up in an era of both parents working, so are resourceful and hardworking, but not as motivated by position. They are independent, and prefer to work on their own. And many are contributing to the way government operates throughout the world. They accept technology as a way to involve others. The use of online means to solicit feedback in government is particularly a Gen X phenomenon. Public participation, traditionally are arena where limited public involvement actually occurs except with highly unpopular issues.
Gen Y was born in an era when both parents worked, but in their off-time, the parents spent more focus on the kids. Think of no winners or losers in sports, but at the same time they have had unprecedented access to technology and are often well ahead of their work mates with respect to the use of tools in the workplace. But, they are resourceful and can easily overcome technology barriers in the workplace. They care about their image and the world around them. We can use that to implement change.
However, Gen Y is facing a workplace that clearly has winners as well as some skepticism about technology. While we can expect some difficulties, it is up to the Gen X and Baby Boomers to help Gen Y make the transition. They have fresh viewpoints as they have had to be creative to get ahead. Just doing things “the same old way,” doesn’t cut it. I actually find this refreshing and a positive challenge to me because I use these challenges to go back of evaluate what my thinking was (or is). We need to embrace this perspective and channel their energy and independence to solving today’s problems.
We need to help them acclimate to the business world, while understanding that their motivations are not the same as Dan Pink notes in his book “Drive.” We need new ideas and perspectives while welcoming them to the workplace. That is how we improve productivity, product new ways to work, and develop new tools. We need all of these in the utility industry as we need better ways to upgrade infrastructure and deliver our services.
There is a lot of talk about the difficulties that Gen Y is having getting jobs. They often lack experience, but how do you get experience if no one hires you. It is circular logic and we have all been there.
We need to give the kids a chance. I see a lot of potential in our graduates, nearly all of whom are Gen Y. I see many who are hard working and know how to find answers to their questions. They are far better prepared than many think. We get comments all the time about how good our students are. That is good, because the truth is, especially in the engineering and utility world, the Gen Y workforce does not understand why things were done a certain way in the past, nor why they should remain that way. I actually find this refreshing and a positive challenge to me because I use these challenges to go back of evaluate what my thinking was (or is). We need to embrace this perspective and channel their energy and independence to solving today’s problems. They offer fresh ideas – and don’t necessary understand why. That’s ok. Long-term engineering graduates will make contributions to our water, sewer and other infrastructure.
Local utilities are among the largest power users in their communities. This is why power companies make agreements with utilities at reduced cost if the utilities will install backup power supplies. The peak power generation capacity as well as backup capacity is at the local utilities and other large users. Power companies can delegate this capital cost to large users without the investment concerns. It works for both parties. In addition, power companies spend effort to be more efficient with current power supplies, because recovering the costs for new, large plants is difficult, and in ways, cost prohibitive. Hence small increment options are attractive, especially when they are within high demand areas (distributed power). The use of localized wind, solar and on-site energy options like biogas are cost effective investments if sites can be found. That is where the utilities come in. Many utilities have sites. Large water utilities may have large reservoirs and tank sites that might be conducive to wind or solar arrays. Wind potential exists where there are thermal gradients or topography like mountains. Plant sites with many buildings and impervious areas could also be candidates for solar arrays and mini-wind turbines. Wastewater plants are gold mines for digester gas that is usually of high enough quantity to drive turbines directly. So utilities offer potential to increase distributed power supplies, but many water/wastewater utilities lack the expertise to develop and maintain these new options, and the greatest benefit is really to power companies that may be willing to provide as much money in “rent” to the utilities as they can save. Power entities obviously have the expertise and embedded experience to run distributed options optimally. So why don’t we do this?
I would speculate several reasons. First, the water/wastewater utilities have not really considered the option, and if they do there is the fear of having other folks on secure treatment sites. That can be overcome. The power entities have not really looked at this either. The focus in the power industry is to move from oil-based fuels to natural gas to accumulate carbon credit futures, the potential for lower operating costs and better efficiency of current facilities to reduce the need for capital investments. Power entities operate in a tight margin just like water/wastewater utilities do so saving where you can is a benefit. There are limited dollars to invest on both sectors and political and/or public service commission issues to overcome to invest in distributed power options at water/wastewater facilities.
But a longer-term view is needed. While fossil fuels have worked for us for the last 100 years, the supply is finite. We are finding that all that fracking might not give us 200 years, but more like 20-40 years of fuel. We have not solved the vehicle fuel issue and fossil fuels appear to be the best solution for vehicles for the foreseeable future which means they will compete directly with power demands. Natural gas can be used for vehicles fairly easily as evidenced by the many transit and local government fleets that have already converted to CNG.
The long-term future demands a more sustainable green power solution. We can get to full renewable power in the next 100 years, but the low hanging fruit need to be implemented early on so that the optimization of the equipment and figuring out the variables that impact efficiency can be better understood than they are now. For example, Leadville, CO has a solar array, but the foot of snow that was on it last September didn’t allow it to work very well. And solar arrays do use water to clean the panels. Dirty panels are nowhere near as efficient as clean ones. We need to understand these variables.
Area that are self sufficient with respect to power will benefit as the 21st century moves forward. There are opportunities that have largely been ignored with respect to renewable power at water and wastewater facilities, and with wastewater plants there is a renewable fuel that is created constantly. Wastewater plants are also perfect places to receive sludge, grease, septage, etc which increase the gas productions. There are examples of this concept at work, but so far the effort is generally led by the wastewater utilities. An example is East Bay Municipal Utility District (Oakland, CA) which produces 120% of its power needs at its wastewater plant, so sells the excess power back to the power company. There are many large wastewater plants that use digester gas to create power on-site to heat digesters or operate equipment. Others burn sludge in on-site incinerators to produce power. But so far the utilities are only reducing their cost as opposed to increasing total renewable power supplies. A project is needed to understand the dynamics further. If you are interested, email me as I have several parties wishing to participate in such a venture.
As 2014 is only a month away, expect water and sewer infrastructure to become a major issue in Congress. While Congress has failed to pass budgets on-time for many years, already there are discussions about the fate of federal share of SRF funds. The President has recommended reduction in SRF funds of $472 million, although there is discussion of an infrastructure fund, while the House has recommended a 70% cut to the SRF program. Clearly the House sees infrastructure funding as either unimportant (unlikely) or a local issue (more likely). Past budgets have allocated over $1.4 billion, while the states put up a 20% match to the federal share. A large cut in federal funds will reverberate through to local utilities, because many small and medium size utilities depend on SRF programs because they lack access to the bond market. In addition, a delay in the budget passage due to Congressional wrangling affects the timing of SRF funds for states and utilities, potentially delaying infrastructure investments.
This decrease in funding comes at a time when ASCE rates water and wastewater system condition as a D+ and estimates over $3 trillion in infrastructure investment will be needed by 2020. USEPA notes that the condition of water and wastewater systems have reached a rehabilitation and replacement stage and that infrastructure funding for water and sewer should be increased by over $500 billion per year versus a decrease of similar amounts or more. Case Equipment and author Dan McNichol have created a program titled “Dire Straits: the Drive to Revive America’s Ailing Infrastructure” to educate local officials and the public about the issue with deteriorating infrastructure. Keep in mind much of what has made the US a major economic force in the middle 20th century is the same infrastructure we are using today. Clearly there is technical momentum to indicate there is greater need to invest in infrastructure while the politicians move the other way. The public, caught in the middle, hears the two sides and prefers less to pay on their bills, so sides with the politicians as opposed to the data.
Local utilities need to join the fray as their ability to continue to provide high quality service. We need to educate our customers on the condition of infrastructure serving them. For example, the water main in front of my house is a 50 year old asbestos concrete pipe that has broken twice in the past 18 months. The neighborhood has suffered 5 of these breaks in the past 2 months, and the City Commission has delayed replacement of these lines for the last three years fearing reprisals from the public. Oh and the road in front of my house is caving in next to where the leak was. But little “marketing” by the City has occurred to show the public the problem. It is no surprise then that the public does not recognize the concern until service is interrupted. So far no plans to reinitiate the replacement in front of my house. The Commission is too worried about rates.
Water and sewer utilities have been run like a business in most local governments for years They are set up as enterprise funds and people pay for what they use. Just like the private sector. Where the process breaks down is when the price is limited while needs and expenses rise. Utilities are relatively fixed in their operating costs and I have yet to find a utility with a host of excess: workers. They simply do not operate in this manner. Utilities need to engage the public in the infrastructure condition discourse, show them the problems, identify the funding needs, and gain public support to operate as any enterprise would – cover your costs and insure you keep the equipment (and pipes) maintained, replacing them when they are worn out. Public health and our local economies depend on our service. Keep in mind this may become critical quickly given the House commentary. For years the federal and state governments have suggested future funding may not be forthcoming at some point and that all infrastructure funding should be local. That will be a major increase in local budgets, so if we are to raise the funds, we need to solicit ratepayer support. Now!
In the field of engineering, the concept of sustainability refers to designing and managing to fully contribute to the objectives of society, now and in the future, while maintaining the ecological, environmental, and economic integrity of the system. Most people would agree that structures such as buildings that have a lifespan measured in decades to centuries would have an important impact on sustainability, and as such, these buildings must be looked at as opportunities for building sustainably. When people think about green buildings, what generally comes to mind is solar panels, high efficiency lighting, green roofs, high performance windows, rainwater harvesting, and reduced water use. This is true, but building green can be so much more.
The truth is that the built environment provides countless benefits to society; but it has a considerable impact on the natural environment and human health (EPA 2010). U.S. buildings are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions annually than those of any other countries except China (USGBC 2011). In 2004, the total emissions from residential and commercial buildings were 2,236 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), more than any other sector including the transportation and industrial sectors (USGBC 2011). Buildings represent 38.9% of U.S. primary energy use,72% of U.S electricity consumption (and 10% worldwide), 13.6% of all potable water, and 38% of all CO2 emissions (USGBC 2011). Most of these emissions come from the combustion of fossil fuels to provide heating, cooling, lighting, and to power appliances and electrical equipment (USGBC 2011). Since buildings have a lifespan of 50 to 100 years during which they continually consume energy and produce carbon dioxide emissions, if half of the new commercial buildings were built to use only 50 percent less energy, it would save over 6 million metric tons of CO2 annually for the life of the buildings. This is the equivalent of taking more than one million cars off the roads each year (USGBC 2011).
The United States Green Building Council (USGBC) expects that the overall green building market (both non-residential and residential) to exceed $100 billion by 2015 (McGraw Hill Construction 2009). Despite the economic issues post 2008, it is expected that green building will support 7.9 million U.S. jobs and pump over $100 million/year into the American economy (Booz Allen Hamilton, 2009). Local and state governments have taken the lead with respect to green building, although the commercial sector is growing.
Green building or high performance building is the practice of creating structures using processes that are environmentally responsible and resource efficient throughout a building’s life cycle, from site to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and deconstruction (EPA 2010). High performance building standards expand and complement the conventional building designs to include factors related to: economy, utility, durability, sustainability, and comfort. At the same time, green building practices are designed to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and use natural resources more responsibly by more efficiently using energy, water, and other resources, while protecting occupant health and improving employee productivity.
High Performance Buildings are defined by incorporating all major high performance attributes such as energy efficiency, durability, life-cycle performance, natural lighting, and occupant productivity (EPA 2010). High performance buildings are constructed from green building materials and reduce the carbon footprint that the building leaves on the environment. A LEED-certified green building uses 32% less electricity and saves around 30% of water use annually (USGBC 2011). Building owners know that there is a return on investment of up to 40% by constructing a green building as a result of savings to energy and water (NAU 2012).
The cost per square foot for buildings seeking LEED Certification falls into the existing range of costs for buildings not seeking LEED Certification (Langdon, 2007). An upfront investment of 2% in green building design, on average, results in life cycle savings of 20% of the total construction costs – more than ten times the initial investment (Kats, 2003), while building sale prices for energy efficient buildings are as much as 10% higher per square foot than conventional buildings (Miller et al., 2007). At the same time, the most difficult barrier to green building that must be overcome includes real estate and construction professionals who still overestimate the costs of building green (World Business Council, 2008).
New data indicates that the initial construction cost of LEED Certified buildings can sometimes cost no more than traditional building practices. A case study done by the USGBC showed that the average premium for a LEED certified silver building was around 1.9% per square foot more than a conventional building. The premium for gold is 2.2% and 6.8% for platinum. These numbers are averaged from all LEED-registered projects, so the data is limited, but demonstrates that in some cases it does not cost much extra to deliver a LEED certified project which greatly improves the value of the building and lowers operating costs (Kuban 2010). The authors’ experience with the Dania Beach nanofiltration plant indicated the premium was under 3% to achieve LEED-Gold certification compared to standard construction.
So the question is, why don’t we see more green buildings? We know water plants can be green (Dania Beach Nanofiltration Plant), but that was the first nanofiltration plant in the world to be certified Gold. The SRF programs prioritize green infrastructure – so why do more people not pursue them? It may be an education process. Or maybe the market just has not caught up. CIties and states are leading the way here. Utilities may want to look at this as well.
Communicating effectively in both written form and public speaking is critical for the success of the utility. I have been reading several books on leadership and communication remains an ongoing issue throughout. We see many schools trying to incorporate this into the engineering curriculum, but that leaves far too many outside the training “program.” The problem is that many people think they communicate well, when in fact they do not. Nothing is more of a reality check than college students, too many of which write in “text message form” as opposed to real written words. Presenting utility concepts and ideas to different audiences is an integral part of the profession and unfortunately the technical nature of many of our issues requires technical people to communicate concepts to non-technical audiences. This s far more difficult than it appears, which is part of why the message may be lost. .Knowing this fact, aspiring utility employees must become familiar with using visual aids and computer-based tools to convey the important design details, so that, the client, regulators, politicians, the public and even other engineers can envision what the final product will look like and evaluate their ability to successfully execute the project.
We tell our students that technical communication for civil engineers is essential to the profession and is a prerequisite for a successful engineering career. It assists in conveying information, serves as a thought process tool, and is arguably just as essential as excellent analytical or computational skills. For some, writing well comes naturally, for others, it can be a struggle. The difference can be experience, confidence, and proper planning. Planning makes writing easier. A good place to start would be to make an outline of topics to adequately cover the necessary content and in the appropriate order that allows the reader to follow along in a logical fashion. Of course too many of them resist outlines and read very little.
Reading and writing go hand in hand. If you read a lot, you have a better chance of being a good writer than those o do not. The saving grace of the vampire books, Hunger Games, Game of thrones and 50 Shades series is that someone is actually reading the books. That is a first step. Of course the news is another matter. History, of course no so much. For utility folks, it is technical materials that must be read, digested and conveyed to the ratepayers. People are naturally suspicious of those they cannot understand, a huge barrier for the industry to overcome. I remind our students than when the general public is asked what engineers do, more than half answer: drive trains. Wow. the disconnect!
It is important to avoid overly long documents with too much technical detail, jargon or specialized terms, distractions and tangents.The consequences of poor communications clearly justify the amount of time and effort required to write well because, for example, the written word in a document is permanent; therefore, the bad impression left with the reader of sloppy work can be extremely damaging. We need to engage the public in a positive way. Communication needs to be a more robust goal for all of us than it currently is to engender that needed support.
publicutilitymanagement 