A Better Way: Joe Pomerenke
Preparando audio para descarga.
Escucha patrocinada. El audio empezará en pocos segundos...
Escucha sin anuncios y sin esperas con iVoox Premium
Pruébalo GratisiVoox Podcast & Radio
Preparando audio para descarga.
Escucha patrocinada. El audio empezará en pocos segundos...
Escucha sin anuncios y sin esperas con iVoox Premium
Pruébalo Gratis
Joe Pomerenke has a background in architecture, engineering, and construction. He’s currently a partner and director at ARCO/Murray–not to mention the author of the new book, A Better Way: Engineering Value with a Design-Build Partner.
AROC/Murray is responsible for designing and building projects with heavy-hitting companies like Whole Foods, Topgolf, and Campbell’s Soup. In his new book, Joe explains a better methodology for merging together design, engineering, and construction into one highly efficient process. In our talk today, we chat about Joe’s passion for building things, the state of the construction industry, and how changing to a design-build process, as he explains in this book, changes the entire game.
If you’re in the design or construction industry, I think you’ll take a lot away from this conversation and even if you’re not, I think you’ll still find what Joe has to say as interesting as I did.
Nikki Van Noy: I want to go ahead and take us in the way, way back machine for a minute–tell me how you came into this industry in the first place? What’s your background?
Early Interest Joe Pomerenke: I take a lot of pride in my story, so pardon me if it is longer than it’s intended to be. But I was a very well taken care of young boy on a farm, in a farming community in North Central Missouri. It was really a great way to come into this world because it gave you an enormous appreciation for the built environment. I grew up in a place where you didn’t see another building for a half a mile and then I went to grade school in a town where the largest structure might have been three stories, maybe four, or it was a grain silo.
So, as I was growing up, I became fascinated by these road trips that we would take to the bigger cities. My grandparents lived in a town of about 150,000 people, they had a 20-story building in that town, and I thought that was a skyscraper.
The buildings were absolutely inspiring to me. They were a sign of progress and sort of like a symbol of hope for opportunity. People had dreamed that we were going to build this building to the sky and we just did it. There was just something fascinating about architecture. Then the construction part of it–getting things done–playing in the dirt, that was just part of my nature. I was outside all the time, I liked to move things, I was very mechanical. So, the bottom line is, I go to high school in the bigger city, and actually, my folks moved me to the town where that skyscraper was.
I was a city slicker then. I was a normal guy in high school, pretty good student, did well in testing, was very analytical. Basically, I decided to test myself on what I should do for a living with those career exams, and the number one score was architecture, which sounds logical, “I love buildings, I’m supposed to be an architect.”
I’m not an artist, I’m a scientist as it relates to the way my hand moves with a pen on a piece of paper. I was given the opportunity to go to college at a very well-known architecture program, but it wasn’t a very technologically enabled architecture program because they were very classical in their design. A lot of the early stage classes in architecture were art classes and I didn’t do great. I was a good student my whole life and I thought, “If I’m not doing great, maybe I’m just not applying my skills correctly.” It was a logical step to then move from architecture to engineering so that I could still focus on the built environment and still build buildings or design buildings.
As I got further along in my design education, I met some designers and I got a chance to learn about their jobs by doing some internships. It just never really clicked for me to be in a very detailed calculation mode for the majority of my professional day. I wanted to be more extroverted than that, more social than that, more of a leader than that. I wanted to be involved in the whole process, and I was very interested in the business dealings and how things came together. So, I took an internship in the construction industry and that was a great experience for me.
Between the two experiences, I realized I had to decide. I leaned to construction because I felt that it wasn’t exactly what I wanted to do because it’s not as technical, and it’s a little bit more management than I want, but these people seem to get a different level of fulfillment out of delivering these buildings. At least that’s what I felt when I did it.
I decided to go into construction and by a total stroke of luck, I ended up working for ARCO/Murray right out of college. They were a design-builder, which was different than construction and it was different than design. Because they were a design-builder, I actually got the opportunity to do both. It was literally good fortune that I landed in a position to be able to manage the whole process.
Then from there, the rest is history in the books, it’s career development.
Design-Build Nikki Van Noy: I love your cover. I’ve never seen a cover like this before–there is something about the sparseness of it that just really appeals to me. Start there while you’re feeling so inspired.
Joe Pomerenke: I am inspired, you’re going to hear that a lot in this conversation. The cover is stark because it actually looks like a book called Getting Real. I’m in construction and these were people in the technology industry telling me they were respected in this way.
37Signals was a small consulting development company in technology development like app development and software development. They wrote a book called Getting Real, which had a perfectly black cover and said the words Getting Real. It talked about a new and better way to develop software and it came out somewhere after the .com boom. Anyway, long story short is I’m reading this book about the Agile methodology through developing the technology.
I realize, “Holy shit, everything they’re talking about in how the technology world has discovered a better way to build technology products is exactly what we do for the construction industry.” The design-build methodology and the agile methodology are actually in parallel, identical.
When I thought about writing a book, I thought, “The best thing I can do for my industry is the same thing that these folks at 37Signals did for their industry,” which was discussing a methodology that could improve the delivery of the product that they were offering.
I started realizing who my audience is, and I started realizing how it can be leveraged as a thought leadership piece. I really started realizing that it adds a ton of credence to my existence professionally and my businesses existence in the industry, and it’s totally inspiring. So, I thought, “Man, these people in technology really figured it out.” Plus, the other thing that’s really crazy is that technology industries have only existed for like 30 years.
We’ve existed for 3,000 years. The only thing you hear about from anybody that is an innovator or that’s a leading-edge thinker is that construction has not evolved–that construction is antiquated, and people like to give construction a bad rap.
It’s slow-moving and nothing’s changed. They’re kind of right because we still build buildings somewhat the same way as we did 50 years ago or a hundred years ago. We don’t build them differently. We build them a lot differently than we did 300 years ago just because material sciences have changed. But process-wise, we build them pretty much the same as we did a while ago.
They’re right. It’s not that technologically advanced of an industry and it’s not very digitized on the management and business side of it. Primarily because the people who are willing to do it are also actually welding steel and nailing boards together, and as much as they love a computer, it’s not going to get the brick laid.
The point is, I sort of resent the fact that the construction industry is labeled as not having evolved. I work in a business and own a business with a lot of really intelligent practitioners that build buildings, with a methodology that actually is very advanced.
I think what we do from a process standpoint is very advanced. I just wanted to shine a light on that and I wanted to try to communicate it as simply and as logically as possible by telling the story of how our company evolved, and then how the process has evolved as our company has evolved as one of the leading players in the industry for this process.
That’s where the words A Better Way come from. It is sort of our mantra and that is why the book is simple, straightforward, and no-frills. It’s just a simple process and it’s not that complicated, but it is very advanced for what we do.
Nikki Van Noy: How long was this book idea marinating in your mind?
Joe Pomerenke: Probably 2017. Really, earlier in that year, I went to a conference and thought, “Uh, I hate the idea of being just another vendor with a booth,” so I was searching for ways to potentially differentiate the way we present ourselves as a service provider. Then later that year, I had been given the opportunity to lead our new technology division inside of our company because I’ve always been one of the leading promoters of innovation in our business. Innovation to us is really allowing people the space to think of new ideas, and the freedom to invest in them, try something different, and potentially fail.
I was the guy that was promoting that innovation and when it came to hiring a new technology team, I was very instrumental in building our technology leadership, because of their role in driving innovation and business. I hired the first technology project manager, and his name is Rick. Rick and I used to ride to work together and talk about ways to innovate our business. About two or three weeks into the ride, he said, “You really need to read this book about the agile methodology by 37Signals, I think it’s exactly what we’re talking about.”
As soon as I picked up the book–it took me three days to read it–I put it down and said, “This is exactly what we’re doing that I’ve never been able to describe.” I could write a book and it could be about what to do. I got with marketing and embarked on the journey to start the book in early 2018. Life happens, and it took me a little while to get it all written down. Quite frankly, I’m glad that it took a little while because we got it a lot better.
I’d say that the idea has really been coming together for about three years.
Specialization Nikki Van Noy: That’s fascinating that you were working so similarly in such a different industry without even realizing it.
Joe Pomerenke: I’m glad you bring that up because the more I’ve thought about it and the more I look at other industries in an abstract way I see the same thing. One of the things this book talks about is the nature of innovation and how innovation drives more specialization. More specialization drives dislocation because as people get deeper at any one silo of understanding of a part of a process, or a segment of an industry, the industry becomes more siloed. As things become more siloed, they become more bureaucratic, and more problematic to efficiently execute the life cycle of a process.
After I wrote this book, I realized, because I’ve got a lot of family members that are in healthcare and I’ve recently had some opportunities to witness the healthcare system, the same problem exists in healthcare that exists in construction.
The book talks about how in construction, we’ve innovated, and we’ve got skyscrapers now that are 3,000 feet tall. You’ve got to have a very skilled structural engineer, you got to have a very skilled concrete engineer, you’ve got to have a very skilled steel engineer, you’ve got to have a very skilled architect and a very skilled glass designer. And so, you end up with all these specialists and no one really knows enough about what every else does or is responsible for knowing enough about what everybody else does, so that there’s the responsibility of the continuity of thought. Inevitably what happens is the process takes longer, it’s more expensive, and it’s less reliable.
It’s the same thing as healthcare, you’ve got all the specialists, but you don’t walk into the hospital and get a project manager who understands what all the doctors do that guides you through the process from beginning to end.
Our industry has evolved. In fact, it has innovated, and material sciences have improved the way that we deliver and design buildings. But because of their complexity, the way that you actually execute the delivery of them has gotten less reliable, it’s less good. It’s less fun too because it’s segmented.
It has been sort of interesting for me to really reflect on our industry and see that a lot of other industries that are big and older, and maybe even highly specialized, have become somewhat dislocated and they need something like this to pull back together.
In fact, as it relates to the healthcare industry, the most interesting thing I’ve watched in the last three months was a documentary on the Mayo Clinic. The reason why it was interesting was that the Mayo Clinic is the better way–they are the design-build of medicine. You show up, you get a doctor, the doctor sends you to all the specialists, but then they all get together and they’re all responsible for the interconnectivity of their recommendations as it relates to the holistic outcome.
People get better and they have a more efficient process.
Nikki Van Noy: I think that a lot of people can relate to that and have had that experience in the healthcare system, so that drives it home. So, talk to those of us who aren’t in the field about the difference between design-build and construction?
Joe Pomerenke: Basically, it’s really design-build versus what we call in the book, the plan and spec methodology or a lot of people call it the traditional method. Effectively, the way that a typical building gets built is an owner will have a need, so let’s say we want to build a new office building. I need X amount of square footage and I hire an architect, and the architect brings my vision to life by drawing the building.
Then the architect goes out and hires a bunch of subspecialists to design all the different aspects that will allow that building to be built. There’s a structural engineer, a mechanical engineer, a fire protection engineer, an electrical engineer, and the list goes on and on.
All those designers put their sheets into a set and that set is accompanied by a big, thick, sometimes five or 600-page specification document that talks about every little thing that’s going to happen inside those drawings to make the contractor or the general contractor capable of building from those plans. Then the owner goes out and takes those plans and specs, and they bid it out to general contractors.
The general contractors open up the drawings, they look through it, and there are consistencies in every building, so they become experts. They can look at these drawings pretty quickly and know exactly what they’re delivering, and then they put a price to it. The general contractors, they generally go out the same way that the architect goes to the sub-specialists, the general contractors go to trade sub-contractors, such as a drywall company, an electrical company, and a concrete company. They get all these different individual people to bid their portion of the work that exists in those documents, and then they consolidated all of that to a price that includes a management fee and sends it to the owner.
Then the owner typically picks the lowest cost general contractor through a competitive bid process. The owner hires the general contractor and they start building the building.
Well, there’s a whole lot of challenges with that process, because of some of the reasons I was talking about earlier with specialization and dislocation. None of it is driven by any one member of the processes.
It’s just the nature of the complexity of a building. Imagine you’ve got 200 drawing sheets that were put together by 10 different people. Who is checking to make sure that all those people drew all those lines and all those notes in the exact same way? Or simple things, like I’m going to put a floor drain here and the pipe comes through the other side of the ceiling here, but there’s a light fixture drawn there.
So, the coordination of all those things and the coordination of all those things is what becomes a challenge in the documents. Then the problem with the general contractor is that they’re just looking at the documents and providing a price, and they’re asked to do that really quickly.
They’re not studying every little detail–they’re relying on other people to study those details. If you can imagine the game of telephone that happens when something’s wrong, you got the subcontractor saying, “I can’t do it.” And then the general contractor is saying, “We can’t do it and am documenting that to the designer.” And the designer is saying, “Well, change it and do this.” And the general contractor’s saying, “Well, I’ll change it and do this, but it’s going to cost that and it’s going to delay me by two days because I didn’t know that was wrong.”
What inevitably happens is it becomes this sort of game of telephone and then the game of telephone gets exhausting to everybody in the process, and it becomes a game of finger-pointing, “Again? Why? Well, this time it was your fault, and this time it was your fault.”
The whole process is just challenging. It’s not wrong, it’s just challenging. What we do in design-build is we sort of kill all that noise and we say, “Owner, you hire us, and we’ll take care of all of that.” We manage the design with an understanding of what it’s going to take and a responsibility to build it. There is no one to point the finger at, and there is no other person that can be responsible for a coordination issue. It puts a lot more responsibility on the individual service provider. Quite frankly, we execute it the same way–we still go out and hire all of those specialists and we still go out and hire all those trade people.
We carry a different level of responsibility because we are responsible end-to-end. I think what that does is it elevates the level of respect for things like coordination and things like listening to the supply chain and then letting it inform your design decision. So, if the electrician is saying, “I have a really hard time getting that type of light fixture,” you are able to tell that to your architect before they ever draw it into the drawings because they respect the fact that you have to deliver. So, you can say, “Hey, let’s look for three other types of light fixtures that might work because this electrician is telling us this fixture takes forever to get. It never comes in right and it is expensive.” The sum total of all of that makes it more efficient, more enjoyable, and what we think is a better way.
Too Much Room for Error Nikki Van Noy: I am a pretty organized person, but hearing you talk about the 500 to 600-page book and all of the different contractors makes my head spin. I have to imagine that among other things it has to leave a lot of room for error.
Joe Pomerenke: Yes, so that is the other thing that is so fascinating to me. We leave a lot of room for error because it is so complex. Also, because people want things in today’s society faster than they ever wanted them before. It’s so funny, the smartest people are the designers and they are given the least amount of time, the least amount of money, and the most amount of demand for excellence.
So, it is just interesting. Inevitably what happens is a lot of decisions still need to get made when you start the process of building. That’s a little scary if you think about it, but at the same time that’s not that scary because that is how anything works. You have an idea and you formalize that idea as close to the final answer as possible and then you start. Then you work through it with your team or your service provider as best as you can. You adapt, and you make decisions as you go, then you end up with the final product.
Nobody has renovated a kitchen, drawn exactly what they want, and then walked in six months later to a new kitchen and seen exactly the same thing. There was an electrical problem there, the fridge was discontinued, or the granite cracked. Something happened. The point is, I think that the more interesting thing about the way that design-build solves for some of that sort of level of detail and challenge is that it aligns the decision making.
In any process, you’re going to still be making decisions after you start, but in our process, that level of complexity requires a thousand decisions versus just ten. It is really great to have an incentived partner who is really well-aligned to make all of those decisions with you. We call that dollarizing decisions. What we’re experts at is looking at something that the owner wants and telling them good, better, and best and what it costs before we draw it.
Once someone sees a version of their vision, to change it is really hard. If you want to drive a Tesla and I show you a picture of a Tesla, and then I tell you, you can only drive a Volt, you’re not going to be thrilled, even if that is what you end up driving. You know why, but you are going to get in that car every day and be like, “Man that is kind of a bummer.”
Nikki Van Noy: The other thing that occurred to me is with doing it this way, bids it seems like they would be almost meaningless because things are going to shift so much as you move along in ways that you can’t predict. I would imagine it is really hard to keep costs where you predict they are going to be.
Joe Pomerenke: That is exactly right and you’re very astute–by the way, have you built something before?
Nikki Van Noy: Thanks, Joe, you know Legos are my specialty.
Joe Pomerenke: You are very astute, and it is great to hear that you are able to logically put together how challenging it is. But yes, of course, it is very difficult to have a reliable bid. I think people give themselves a false sense of comfort. When you get to dial it in, you crunch down all the fees, and you look at all the numbers, and you analyze those costs to the nth degree, and you have this high level of confidence.
Well, what you’ve also got is a high level of risk. The more you define something exactly, the less opportunity there is to adapt. So, part of the beauty of not defining some building in 600 pages, but defining it in 60 that everybody can understand, but maybe it isn’t to the pin size level of detail, is that you have the ability to adapt together as you go.
Historically there have been general contractors that have taken advantage of the fact that they know it is not right. Someone told me the example one time of a general contractor defining a line in a closet on a page because of the way the line was drawn and that there was no note on it. So, the owner finished their project and they walked in and they opened the closet.
The contractor literally had taken a string and strung it across the closet. The owner says, “What in the world in that?” And the contractor said, “Look at the drawing, there is no note. It is exactly what you asked for.” And then the owner said, “You know that is supposed to be a closet rod for me to hang hangers on.” And the contractor says, “Well, that would be 1,800 bucks, please.”
So, if you think about it, a good contractor could really screw you because they would know that your drawings were inadequate, and they would load their costs knowing where the inadequacies were and where the changes were coming. Then by the time you make it to the change, they are under contract and they’re the only person that can deliver it. Now you are paying whatever they say the cost is to get it right and that honestly has happened.
I think that is why over the last couple of decades or maybe even the last century, the profession of general contacting has lost a degree of honor if you will. Sometimes people don’t think so highly of general contractors because I think in some circumstances the way that this process and the traditional process has worked has allowed general contractors to abuse it.
Nikki Van Noy: Yeah and if you are not directly responsible, there are just so many areas that leave room for that. This is probably not that relevant, but it keeps coming to my mind, do you know about the Big Dig in Boston?
Joe Pomerenke: I know a little bit about it, yeah.
Nikki Van Noy: So, Boston decided that they were going to take their highway system and bring it underground, which was going to totally transform the city. It was going to create so much more open space in a small city, people would be able to get around easier and it was federally funded to an extent because it was viewed as a pilot project for other cities that might take their highways underground. It was such a disaster from the beginning.
It came out that the plans they had accepted, the contractor had forgotten to put off-ramps on the freeway. So, there was no way to get on or off this freeway. It was so bad that ultimately, they had to install windows looking down into the project so that the city could observe what they were doing, because everyone was so pissed, and all their tax dollars were going into this complete nightmare of a project. That is not exactly what you’re talking about, but it was a great example of how things can just go really horribly wrong.
Joe Pomerenke: Honestly, that is exactly what I am talking about. I mean that is an extreme and layered and scaled version of the challenges of dislocation. I mean who was responsible for delivering the Big Dig and who were incentivized to make sure none of that shit happened? I mean the reality is no one and once you had 50 people in the process with 50 individual responsibilities and no one responsible for collaborating those responsibilities, it was never going to be a success.
I am sitting here in Chicago looking at this highway renovation that should have been done a year ago and I am just watching them every day and I am thinking to myself, “The contractor is making up for the fact that they bid it tight, and that something is missing from the drawing, and the city is bureaucratically still arguing over the change, and the designer probably hasn’t been paid, and when they get paid, they are going to have to hustle because they were supposed to deliver that yesterday.”
It’s just a mess and honestly what is funny is I haven’t figured out how to scale my process to that size because a lot of what we do is figure all that out and take the risk at the beginning. That is the limitation of my process. We couldn’t do the Big Dig. It is just too big and too much to try to figure out. We would need like a year and a half to quote it and they don’t have a year and a half to quote.
Nikki Van Noy: Well, clearly on projects like this, it might take up more time upfront, but I am guessing it would still be more efficient in the long run.
Joe Pomerenke: No doubt.
How to Begin Nikki Van Noy: So, for people who are in the traditional design-bid-build model right now, how tough is it to switch from that to design-build? What does it entail?
Joe Pomerenke: You have to start the process that way and you have to have a lot of trust. The way you get trust is you either find a really good partner and you work out a way to be transparent, which we do with most of our customers or you have a really great set of qualified providers.
That is the challenge with our methodology. There are just not a lot of people that are qualified providers, because it is relatively new. So, I think to switch, you just have to have an openness and a philosophical understanding to recognize the benefits. Then you have to have a certain level of trust that the people that you’re talking to are in fact in it for the long run, not looking at a potential project and giving up control, because you are giving up a lot of control. You are basically placing all of your trust in one person’s hands.
I think that the evidence of why it makes sense to make the switch is in the stats about repeat, and not just with our company. I think that if you look at the nature of the growth of design-build as a project delivery method, or even other versions of it that are called integrated project delivery where the contractors and all the stakeholders are brought in really early together as a team and cross incentivized between all of their performance, you’ll see that the adoption has risen rapidly.
In our business, as soon as we can convert a traditional buyer one time, they typically never buy a different way. But that the first time you feel like you’re really giving somebody else control and I think that is hard for people.
A lot of times, people will try it on a very small scale and then they will graduate to a bigger scale. So, we’ll win a job that’s $750,000, and then they’ll try it on a $5 million job, and then they’ll try it on a $50 million job.
Nikki Van Noy: That makes perfect sense, especially in an industry that has such an entrenched way of doing things. I think even when it is pretty clear things are not working optimally if that is just the way they’ve always been, you have got to crack through that to make a change.
Joe Pomerenke: Well there is another point I’d love to make if you’d allow me, and I don’t know if this is exactly on that topic, but it just popped in my head.
Nikki Van Noy: Of course.
Joe Pomerenke: Think about where the young, really intelligent, hardworking and genius minds are going. Where is their adequate financial opportunity, adequate growth opportunity, and adequate intellectual challenge? Where are all the best people going?
I think about the nature of the construction industry and the dislocated part of it. The design profession is hard because you are really intelligent and you are providing great value, but they have commoditized themselves, and they have less opportunity to be rewarded for their value. It is a very thankless, demanded profession, and they’re great amazing people.
Then you have the contractors that have been also commoditized and their fees have been dwindled down. They’re dealing with inadequate labor supplies and difficult building conditions. There is nowhere in the industry that a lot of people that are really talented want to spend their time. So, what happens in today’s society? Most of the talent goes into highly educated service professions–consulting, legal, accounting, and finance, investment, technology. You don’t see a ton of people get into construction, right?
That is what I think is so cool about design-build. Part of my audience for this book is like engineers like me who are struggling to make that decision between design and construction. I tell them, “Hey, you don’t have to choose–there is a place where you can actually influence both, and that is design-build.” To me what’s also very inspiring about this is that it is going to bring in a new generation of people into an industry that’s huge.
It is an $11 trillion industry. We are going to bring great, intelligent people into this industry, give them the power to influence the change of this industry, and really innovate this industry. I just wanted to make that point because I think that what is really great about this process is that it gives more great people a chance to have an impact on a really large industry.
Nikki Van Noy: What other motivations really inspired you to write this book? What feels important to you about getting this out there?
Joe Pomerenke: Well, I think there are a few things. One, I think a lot of times our process is misunderstood, and I think it is because it is new. There are a lot of people trying to do it that maybe aren’t doing a great job of it, and it’s just not really perfected. So, I think I really just wanted a consolidated and straightforward way of describing what it is we do and why it’s different. I also wanted to describe the evolution of our business as it parallels the evolution of this process.
That’s a little self-serving to the founders of our company and my mentors because I think where they started their careers is a whole lot different than where I started my career. I feel it’s my responsibility to carry on their legacy by continuing to improve on what they’ve done. You know you can only see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. I have a lot of respect for the people that have taught me. I wanted to record their story.
I also think about the newest generations of people coming into our business. I have no other way of quickly and in a very sort of focused way, abstracting their thought to the full breadth of what it is we are actually doing so that they can conceptualize, with their brighter minds and newer thoughts and more innovative approaches, to take us the next step. You can only really take the next step when you understand where you are coming from.
I was inspired by that and I thought it has got to be written down. You have got to start somewhere, and I talk about it at the very beginning of the book. I am a big believer in the 80-20 rule. It’s 20% for 80% of the information. I think I got 80% here. Can somebody tell me what the last 20% is? I could use some help.
Please help and tell us where we’re going, and write the next chapters, because I am looking to be inspired by the next generation of innovation in this industry. I hope to be helping them in whatever capacity I can to reach their goals and continue innovating and being better.
Nikki Van Noy: What a great collaborative growth mindset thing to say. I love that.
Joe Pomerenke: Thank you. You know it’s funny, I don’t think I intended it. I think I just learned because our company has just grown so rapidly with this process. I feel so honored professionally to be placed in an industry that badly needs what I do, and that the way I do what I do gives me an opportunity to change the industry.
So, hopefully, this gives more customers a willingness to want to try working with us, and more bright minds that are thinking about entering the industry a place to land to do work together with us.
Nikki Van Noy: Yeah, my feeling is that it will do exactly that.
Joe Pomerenke: I hope so. It is a pretty specific book. I told my mom, “Mom, you are probably not going to want to read this. You will probably make it through chapter five and be like, ‘Uh, and Joe can keep this design and construction thing to himself.’” It might be a narrow audience, but it was fun. It’s fun to get it out there.
Nikki Van Noy: Yeah, I mean it is a specific topic, but for the people who it applies to it sounds really important. Joe is there anything we haven’t gotten to that you want to be sure to include here?
Joe Pomerenke: I think we have covered a lot of ground. I have talked a lot. I appreciate you letting me just keep rolling. Your questions are amazing, your insights are almost instinctive. I am thinking maybe there is a role for you at ARCO, should we talk further about this?
Nikki Van Noy: I mean I always figured that building is my next natural career move, so yeah.
Joe Pomerenke: Yeah you could totally do it. Sacramento needs lots of new structures, I know that for a fact.
The post A Better Way: Joe Pomerenke appeared first on Author Hour.
Comentarios