Industry Structure: What is It? How does it affect the consulting engineering profession?

Transcription

1 Industry Structure: What is It? How does it affect the consulting engineering profession? Scenter NEVI Dean Kashiwagi, P.E., PhD Director, Professor Performance Based Studies Research Group CIB W117 Coordinator Fulbright Scholar IFMA Fellow Pbsrg.com October 7, 2013 SKEMA Business School PBSRG GLOBAL

2 Observable characteristics of the industry [consulting professional engineers] Emphasis on price becoming stronger Consulting engineers profession is losing value in value chain Industry is based on relationships and trust Risk is transferred Risk is minimized by E&O insurance More time is spent on admin, coordination, meetings and correspondence 2

3 Our curse in life Technical detail information Never have enough information not well understood by others outside our profession Risk adverse Communicate in code Profession is detail oriented, highly technical, and filled with risk Education is based on detailed and how much we know 3

4 Are consulting engineers unique? Doctors Architects Pilots Quantity surveyors Specification writers IT systems implementers and providers 4

5 Simplicity/Dominant Information Professional consulting engineers User Contractors Procurement Stakeholders Silos Created by Organizations 30K Foot Level Technical Details w w w. p b s r g. c o m

6 Performance Industry Structure High III. Negotiated-Bid Minimized competition Long term Relationship based Vendor selected based on performance IV. Unstable Market II. Value Based Buyer selects based on price and performance Vendor uses schedule, risk management, and quality control to track deviations Buyer practices quality assurance Contractor minimizes risk I. Price Based Wrong person talking Management, direction, and control (MDC) No transparency Client minimizes risk Low Perceived Competition Performance Based Studies Research Group 2012 High

7 MDC Systems Create Confusion, blindness, and reactivity High Owners The lowest possible quality that I want Contractors The highest possible value that you will get High Maximum Minimum (technical, subjective) Low Low

8 Non-Sustainable Business Model Customers Outsourcing Owner [utilizes expertise] Consulting Engineers Highly Trained Partnering Owner MDC [Price Based] Medium Trained Minimal Experience

9 Micro-management 9

10 MDC is a practice of the blind MDC does not work It has not worked in delivering construction or other services, it does not work in academia with innovative research or teaching methods, it does not work in history or in the family MDC is a practice of the blind or silo based win-lose relationships Procurement personnel blame the laws, they say they can t do anything about it

11 Micro-manager s Code The movement of risk... YES Is It Working? NO Don t Mess With It! YES Did You Mess With It? YOU IDIOT! NO Anyone Else Knows? YES You re SCREWED! YES Will it Blow Up In Your Hands? NO Hide It NO Can You Blame Someone Else? Yes NO Look The Other Way NO PROBLEM!

12 Reactive [MDC] vs.. Expert Leaders Me vs.. Them Client, user, designer, and inspector etc.. Us Client, user, designer, and inspector etc.. Risks Risks Inexperienced contractor Experienced contractor Technical Requirement Don t Control Control Don t Control Performance Based Studies Research Group 2012

13 System Created to Assist People to See

14 System Created to Increase Value and Performance

15 Best Value Approach Uses natural law to identify that there is no control over human beings Identifies that people who cannot see cannot be forced to see Creates a system that does not control but allows people to deliver higher performance Uses understanding of humans to make learning more efficient

16 Future Delivery of Services Supply Chain approach instead of silo based approach Minimization of use of MDC Utilization of expertise Minimization of risk Transparency and dominant metrics 16

17 Model of the Future: Performance Information Procurement System Expertise identified by natural law Expertise is utilized SELECTION CLARIFICATION/ PRE-AWARD MANAGEMENT BY RISK MINIMIZATION BV expert s proposal must be acceptable to user Procurement Planning/PM/RM Project Management Execution 17

18 Paradigm Shift Scenter NEVI Dean Kashiwagi, PhD Director, Professor Performance Based Studies Research Group CIB W117 Coordinator Fulbright Scholar IFMA Fellow Pbsrg.com October 7, 2013 SKEMA Business School PBSRG GLOBAL

19 1976 (37)

20 1992(21)

21 Simplicity/Dominant Information Parents Myself and my Wife Children Children s Future Families Children s Future Jobs Children's Future Children We Are Supply Chains 30K Foot Level Technical Details w w w. p b s r g. c o m

22

23

24 Natural Laws The Number of Natural Laws PAST = PRESENT = FUTURE 100% Laws 100% Laws 100% Laws Laws are not created they are discovered. 24

25 Conditions Always Exist PAST PRESENT FUTURE Unique Conditions Unique Conditions Unique Conditions Conditions are unique and change according to natural laws 25

26 Natural Laws identify the future outcome Initial conditions Laws Time Final conditions Laws 26

27 Natural Laws [always work] Every future condition is predictable No person can control another person Everything is related and relative Every person is doing the best they can Every event happens only one way Characteristics are related Decision making, MDC, communication, transactions, inefficiency, high cost Transparent, dominant metrics, logic, visionary 27

28 Characteristics of Consulting Professionals Relationships Trust Transfer of risk Utilization of expertise Experts who can see into the future and understand people Visionary vs.. technical expertise Transparency Minimizing risk Decision making 28

29 Language of Metrics Dominant information Transparency (clear, simple, no decision making) Need for trust is minimized Need for relationships is minimized Utilizing metrics is easier than making decisions 29

30 Non-Transparency Relationships Trust Complexity More functions in supply chain and transactions Decision making [win-lose] Lower quality and value Costs may be % higher 30

31 Performance Increase Value of Expertise and Profit High III. Negotiated Minimized competition Long term Relationship and trust based Vendor selected based on performance II. Value Based (vendor controlled) Buyer selects based on price and performance Vendor uses schedule, risk management, and quality control to track deviations Buyer practices quality assurance Expertise and professionalism IV. Unstable Market I. Price Based (owner controlled) Wrong person talking Management, direction, and control (MDC) No transparency Win-lose Low vendor profit Low Perceived Competition and Cost High

32 What problems do we foresee? Paradigm shift [getting away from trust and relationships] Utilization of expertise Importance of visionaries Transparency and value of expertise Taking over control from the owners and users Creating transparency Being a leader vs.. being abused 32

33 Best Value Approach Scenter NEVI Dean Kashiwagi, PhD Director, Professor Performance Based Studies Research Group CIB W117 Coordinator Fulbright Scholar IFMA Fellow Pbsrg.com September 8, 2013 SKEMA Business School PBSRG GLOBAL

34 Utilization of Expertise vs. MDC See into the future Communicates with dominant language Project manager first, technical expert second Utilize expertise Accountable using dominant information Before the event happens Has a plan that can be measured against Plan comes before coordination with stakeholders 34

35 Deductive Logic Changes present vs.. future Silo Based Based on leverage Nontransparent win-lose Price based Based on minimum requirement Management, direction and control Decision making Designed by practice Relationships and trust Supply chain based Efficiency and effectiveness Transparent win-win Best value Best available Utilization of expertise Minimized decision making Designed by observation of natural laws Metrics and dominance 35

36 Risk Mitigation Decision Less Structure No management, direction and control (MDC) Approach (use expertise) Results Transparency Accountability Experience and expertise Detailed pre-planning 36

37 Risk Model 50% 50% Whose Fault? Decision Making Transparency Risk Accountability 37

38 Risk Model 100% 0% 38

39 Overall Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E Group F Group G Owner Causes Most Project Deviations Best Value PIPS records sources of all deviations PIPS creates transparency General Overview PIPS allows vendors to identify and mitigate risk that they do not control PIPS forces client and buyer to be more accountable Total Number of Projects Total Awarded Cost ($M) $ $0.19 $37.81 $17.24 $5.07 $29.50 $ $12.36 Projects where BV lowest cost 54% 0% 83% 42% 33% 33% 55% 0% Percent Awarded Below Budget 6% 11% 1% 9% -13% 12% 5% 29% Cost Increases Overall Change Order Rate 8.83% % 4.04% 1.27% 2.54% 10.16% 4.53% Client 7.61% % 1.08% 0.33% 0.34% 8.83% 1.16% Designer 0.69% % 2.07% 0.63% 1.57% 0.33% 2.55% Contractor 0.01% % -0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.21% Unforeseen 0.52% % 1.06% 0.31% 0.63% 0.51% 0.62% Schedule Increases Overall Delay Rate 47.17% % 1.59% 16.38% 7.44% 51.68% 12.73% Client 21.92% % 0.00% 7.41% 3.93% 24.13% 5.45% Designer 4.47% % 1.59% 8.97% 0.00% 4.48% 7.27% Contractor 2.65% % 0.00% 0.00% 3.51% 2.42% 0.00% Unforeseen 4.54% % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.04% 0.00% Satisfaction Ratings Number of Close Out Surveys Vendor Selection Process

40 Overall MEDCOM Performance by NTP Completed Projects NTP 2007 NTP 2008 NTP 2009 NTP 2010 NTP 2011 # of Projects Original Awarded Cost ($$) $181,945, $177,275, $183,989, $107,091, $16,278, Final Awarded Cost ($$) $193,881, $187,844, $192,602, $110,952, $16,352, Total Over Budget ($$) $11,935, $10,569, $8,613, $3,861, $74, Total % Over Budget 6.56% 5.96% 4.68% 3.61% 0.46% % due to owner 4.58% 5.59% 3.61% 2.36% 0.46% % due to Designer 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.21% 0.00% % due to contractor 0.11% -0.17% -0.01% 0.08% 0.00% % due to unforeseen 1.88% 0.40% 1.09% 0.96% 0.00% Total % Delayed 51.56% 48.43% 36.77% 28.53% 3.31% % due to owner 41.38% 39.96% 28.51% 16.53% 9.20% % due to Designer 0.00% 0.49% 0.00% 1.32% 0.00% % due to contractor 1.86% -0.02% 1.29% 0.12% -6.40% % due to unforeseen 8.32% 8.01% 6.97% 10.56% 0.51%

41 Proper Placement of Risk Buyer is financially responsible for risk Experts have no risk Use transparency to minimize risk Deliver at a lower price Have lower project cost Eliminate use of vendor contingency 41

42 V C B Buyer Controls Vendor Through Contract

43 V C B Vendor Manages/Minimizes Risk With Contract

44 What is a plan? Deliverables in terms of metrics Milestones [various stages of deliverable] Activities that you do not control Activities that you do not have enough information [best estimate] Plan is uncoordinated Proposed to stakeholders Stakeholders can respond Transparency [WRR] 44

45 Plan Detailed schedule from beginning to end Expertise used in areas where there is insufficient information Risk that cannot be controlled [requirements] Deliverables [metrics] Milestones [metrics] 45

46 Model of the Future: Performance Information Procurement System (details documented in manuals at pbsrg.com and ksm-inc.com) Expertise identified by natural law Expertise is utilized SELECTION CLARIFICATION/ PRE-AWARD MANAGEMENT BY RISK MINIMIZATION Identify expertise BV expert s proposal must be acceptable to user Dominant Simple Differential (non-technical performance measurements) Clarification Technical review Detailed project schedule Resource & Man- power schedule Expectation vs.. delivered Risk Management using metrics Quality Control Quality Assurance 46

47 Best Value Best value for the lowest cost Expert always performs better and minimizes cost Experts see into the future and have no risk BV structure can help half-blind vendor see Nothing for free Allowing vendors to write their scope, tasks and measurements creates efficiency The transfer of risk is a flawed and a costly idea

48 Best Value Research Criteria Metrics Founded 1993 by Dr. Dean Kashiwagi Department Del E Webb School of Construction Operation 20 years Expertise IMT & BV PIPS Projects and Services Delivered Projects and Services Delivered $5.7 Billion Customer Satisfaction 98% Client Rating of Process 9.0/10 Research Funds $13 Million Licenses 27

49 Additional Information 20 year research program ASU adopted system; difference is $110M/year First three tests net $100M investment 98% customer satisfaction 2005 Corenet Global Innovation of the Year Award 2012 Dutch Sourcing Award (DSA) for $1B Implementation on critical fast-track infrastructure construction 2012 IFMA Fellow 2009 Fulbright Scholar 49

50 Dutch Implementation Over-management of vendors Procurement and execution takes too long [12 years] Infrastructure repair is critically needed [drivers spend 1-2 hours on road going and coming] 16 project, 6 awards, $1B test of best value PIPS Goal is to finish 10 projects in 3 years 50 50

51 Results Program results: 15 projects finished (expectation was 10) Delivery time of projects accelerated by 25% Transaction costs and time reduced by 50-60% for both vendors and client 95% of deviations were caused by Rijkswaterstaat or external [not vendor caused] NEVI, Dutch Professional Procurement Group [third largest in the world] adopts Best Value PIPS approach Now being used on complex projects and organizational issues RISNET and Professional Engineers are rewriting risk model and delivery of services 51 51

52 IT Networking Performance at ASU 52

53 CL Business Outcomes: Costs Business Outcomes Pre MSA MSA (2010) MSA (2013) MSA Baseline $12.29M $10.81M $11.96M Growth Out of Scope N/A N/A $1.15M Value Add N/A $0.43M/yr $0.98M/yr *see appendix for details Net MSA $12.29M $10.38M $9.83M CenturyLink ASU MSA Annual Review August 2013 PAGE 53

54 CL Business Outcomes: Reliability & Satisfaction Business Outcomes Pre MSA MSA (2010) MSA (2013) # of Major Outages N/K % Uptime Customer Satisfaction (max 4.0) 3.81 (max 4.0) % of Tickets within SLA 94% 97% 97% CenturyLink ASU MSA Annual Review August 2013 PAGE 54

55 Business Outcomes: Technology Business Outcomes % Network supported (Not at end-of-maintenance) % 1Gb- Wired Connections Pre MSA MSA (2010) MSA (2013) 89% 99% 99% 57.0% 71.5% 96.0% % Wireless(n) 9.0% 8.7% 92.6% IT Spending Ratio 6/94 (New vs.. Maintenance) 26/74 (New vs.. Maintenance) 56/44 (New vs.. Maintenance) Includes New Growth Includes Wireless-n CenturyLink ASU MSA Annual Review August 2013 PAGE 55

56 Business Outcomes: System/Process Description KPI Dashboard Improve our Capabilities of Measurement Change Mgmt Reduction in Outages Manual KPI tracking Not Formally Documented Online KPI tracking (weekly/monthly) Formal CM Process ITIL based Detailed MOPs Engineering Review Project Tracking Create transparency Manual Project Tracking SharePoint New Growth and Operations Projects CenturyLink ASU MSA Annual Review August 2013 PAGE 56

57 Business Outcomes: System/Process Description Engineering and Architecture reviews Design meets Industry best practices Single level of Engineering review Multiple levels of Engineering review Local/UTO/Cisco ATAC CCIE Redundancy Testing Reduction in Outages Security Meet Audit Requirements Not scheduled One Network, Allow Everything Bi-annual Testing Mitigate any issue NG-Firewalls Segmentation Malware Protection Logging CenturyLink ASU MSA Annual Review August 2013 PAGE 57

58 Delivering Better Value for $$ Invested Avaya Maintenance Total Cost of Ownership reduced 21% Cisco Sparing Total Cost of Ownership reduced 11% End of Support Switch Upgrade Capital Expenditures reduced by 13% Offer the right services at the right quality and right price Reduction of IT Budget (Initiative) % Savings P&L Business Impact Avaya Consolidation (reduced maintenance) 21.20% $636,304 Cisco Sparing (reduced maintenance) 11.40% $568,116 EoSupport Upgrades (354 device reduction) 13.30% 1,000,000 Total P&L Benefits* $2,204,420 *see appendix for more detail CenturyLink ASU MSA Annual Review August 2013 PAGE 58

59 Customer Satisfaction ASU Tempe Campus Average Rating (0-4) Faculty/Researchers (241) 3.8 IT Departments (14) 4.0 Average Satisfaction 3.81 Answered No Answer Service Orders (Full Data Set) Qty: 367 Survey Response Received Qty: 241 Statistically more significant than online survey due to higher population base No Info CenturyLink ASU MSA Annual Review August 2013 PAGE 59

60 Canadian BV PIPS Projects Yukon Government University of Alberta University of Saskatchewan Simon Fraser University University of Manitoba Dalhousie University Mexico 60

61 Partnering with Practitioners Local academics do not participate Corenet Global presentation Supply Chain Management presentation CIB Industry presentation (+65) Australian government representatives have tremendous interest Potential partner to run first tests

62 $14B Inga3 Hydroelectric Power/Dam Project Inga3 is first phase of seven phases 4,800 megawatts Power plant will be largest in the world Twice the power generation of the 3 Gorges Dam[40,000 megawatts]

63 Current Performance of the Delivery of Construction in Congo 16 current projects [average value $162M] Time and cost deviation: 50% The cost of not meeting delivery of construction is $4.8M/day [$2B/year] 63

64 Existing Inga 3 Project Situation Traditional approach will deliver financial closing in if everything goes right [ ] The cost of not meeting delivery of construction is $4.8M/day [$164M/month, $1.958B/year] Cut delivery of contractor financial closing in 2015 saves $4B. 64

65 Five cities: Mysore, Bangalore, Pune, Chennai, New Delhi 16 presentations, 1250 attendees Mysore JC hub: MOU and license Teaching IMT/PIPS in Aug 2014 Research tests with developers

66 State of Oklahoma Best Value Projects Performance Oklahoma Best Value Project Information # of Best-Value Procurements 20 Estimated Value of Best-Value Procurements $100M Protest Success Rate (# of protest won / # of protests) 3/3 # of Different Services 13 % Where Identified Best-Value was Lowest Cost 71% Project Performance # of Completed Projects 8 Average Customer Satisfaction 9.5 (out of 10) Cost Savings $29M % On-time 100% % On-budget 100%

67 DHS Foster Care Metrics [vendors measured against proposal and environment metrics] Pinnacle Plan Standards OKDHS 2012 Baseline 12 Month Projection # of total approved homes per year 1,669 1,169 1,728 % of children placed on the same day Not Measured Not Measured 77% # of foster parent training sessions per quarter Not Measured 47 Not Measured # of different available training sessions Not Measured 4 Not Measured % of children with less than three placements 58% 50% 69% % of "positive move" placements Not Measured Not Measured 65% # of child-nights spent in shelters per year 0 52,558 UNK % of children not maltreated 99% 99% 100% % of children placed with all siblings Not Measured Not Measured 51% % of children placed with at least 1 sibling Not Measured Not Measured 70% % of children placed with no siblings Not Measured Not Measured 42% % of same school placements Not Measured Not Measured 16% % of same county placements Not Measured Not Measured 63% % of families dropped due to poor customer service 0% 15% UNK

68 Traditional Model vs.. PIPS/PIRMS Overall Comparison Criteria Traditional PIRMS Factors # of Outsourced Services 31 Cost of Services $274,480,342 $189,001,943 Added Value - $72,762, Average Customer Satisfaction (CS) Different Users, 31 projects, 30 different services Cost of services decreased on average by 31%. Suppliers were able to offer the buyer 38.5% more value, totaling up to $72.76M. Average customer satisfaction of services provided increased by 4.59 points on a 1-10 scale (134% greater than the traditional customer satisfaction rating).

69 Different Service Types Information Technology Network Tri University Furniture Contract Public Relations Help Desk Dining Services Bookstore Services Document Services Television Services SHIP Insurance Bottled Water Calibration Admin Support Elevators Laundry Services Overhead Door Services Pest Control Insulation Services Plant Water Treatment Scales and Balances Storeroom Management Sterilizers / Lab Washers Table Top Water Systems Computer to Plate State Light Bulb and Fixture Hazardous Waste Removal Electronic Document Management Services Education: Grades 3-8 Testing Commercial Off the Shelf Tax Software Mental Health Services Workforce Enhancement Stimulus Measurement

70 Moving best value approach into India Signing MOU with Arizona State University Teaching the best value approach starting in Fall 2004 Will become a source of the new approach in India Developers 70

71 Best Value Process Scenter NEVI Dean Kashiwagi, PhD Director, Professor Performance Based Studies Research Group CIB W117 Coordinator Fulbright Scholar IFMA Fellow Pbsrg.com October 7, 2013 SKEMA Business School PBSRG GLOBAL

72 Model of the Future: Performance Information Procurement System (details documented in manuals at pbsrg.com and ksm-inc.com) Expertise identified by natural law Expertise is utilized SELECTION CLARIFICATION/ PRE-AWARD MANAGEMENT BY RISK MINIMIZATION Identify expertise BV expert s proposal must be acceptable to user Dominant Simple Differential (non-technical performance measurements) Clarification Technical review Detailed project schedule Resource & Man- power schedule Expectation vs.. delivered Risk Management using metrics Quality Control Quality Assurance 72

73 Selection Phase Describe capability, risk [cannot control, what is not in the project scope, insufficient information/assumptions] and value added Use metrics [cannot be misunderstood] Cost components 73

74 Submittals and Selection Criteria Past Performance Information (PPI) Project Capability (PC) Risk Assessment Plan (RA) Value Added (VA) Price Interview Milestone schedule

75 Selection Criteria Weights Past Performance Information 5% Project Capability 15% Risk and Risk Mitigation 20% Value Added 10% Price and Financial Package 15% Milestone Schedule 10% Interview 25% Dominance Check and Clarification Period to follow

76 Project Submittals Project Capability, Risk Assessment, Value Added Limited pages Claims and verifiable performance metrics

77 Rating System Two components: Claims. Verifiable performance measurements (VPM) to substantiate each claim. High performance claim with VPM. High/Low performance claim with no VPM. If there is a blank sheet of paper. If a decision has to be made. Low performance claim with VPM

78 Project Requirement/Intent New hydroelectric / dam/ distribution systems Fast track project African environment Develop, finance, design, construct, operate

79 Project Capability Submittal Claim: best project manager in company, does only large hydro-electric/civil projects, best in the hydro-electric project arena Verifiable performance metrics: 1.last 10 years 2.5 projects 3.scope $500M 4.Average project duration: 3 years 5.customer satisfaction cost deviation 1% 7.time deviation 1%

80 Project Capability Successfully installed similar software package [indexes facility conditions and renovations] for ten users in the last year Customer satisfaction: 9/10 Project time deviation: -5% Project cost deviations: 0% Number of entries per year: 10,000 Number of existing software/platforms integrated into system: 5 Average number of trained personnel: 3 Number of man hours for training per person: 80 hours Number of people required to run program w/o vendor assistance: 1

81 Project Capability Software system has the capability to be maintained with minimal additional man hours Metrics 5 users, no additional man hours, increased funding to assets by 20%, customer/user satisfaction 9.0/10.0

82 Scope: $30M Failed Project Selection: Picked vendor based on expert opinion Vendor did not have a plan; in clarification phase spent substantial amount to try to create plan; disqualified after three months Second best value was so much more qualified, that user formed relationship immediately Signed contract with no plan User used MDC; refused to accept best value approach Vendor never came up with plan Procurement could not convince project management of using best value approach After year of contract, contract was terminated

83 How do you fix a mess? Project management wants to use MDC Vendor used agile project management approach Procurement personnel use their traditional expertise Plan from beginning to end, transparency, metrics are the only way to deliver IT systems

84 Best Value Structure Will only allow technical experts into environment Minimizes MDC, replaces with utilization of expertise Forces pre-planning, vendor to be accountable and utilization of expertise Uses transparency, dominant metrics, and seeing into the future to communicate Trust, relationship and agile project management are tools of the blind

85 Interview The interview of key personnel is the event when the selection committee can get the most dominant information to identify a best value vendor. The interview is different in the following ways: The key person who will do the work is the one who will be interviewed. The interview is searching for an "expert. The interview is non-technical. The interview is searching for an individual who can lead a team. The interview should have the following characteristics: Be as short as possible. A 20 minutes duration is sufficient. The number of questions should be limited to a few questions, and clarifications can be asked if the key personnel do not respond in a dominant fashion.

86 Dominance Check View all information PPI Project Capability Interview rating Cost Are ratings dominant? Is the best value the lowest cost or within 10% of the average bid price? If not dominant, override matrix and go with best value for lowest cost

87 Clarification Phase Deliverables [Plan] Scope of Work (what is in and out ) Detailed project schedule Cost/time Risk activities Performance measurements Risk mitigation plan Weekly Risk Report Milestone Schedule

88 Conclusion BV approach will minimize cost by 10 20% and get better performance Stops transactions by 90% Utilize expertise of consulting engineers Stop MDC Stop depending on the contract or insurance to minimize risk, but uses expertise Become leaders, visionary and paradigm changers Professional consulting engineers cannot keep blaming the client s project managers 88

89 Future Actions RISNET and Professional Engineers Find a visionary engineering firm and educate, assist and create a prototype Continue to educate and change the paradigm 89

90 Best Value Education Linked in Youtube Pbsrg.com ksmleadership.com Jan 12-16, 2014 Train the Trainer Tempe, AZ 2014 Best Value Education and Training Manuals [Theory and Application]