ing Geologists (AEG), representing 3,500 engineering geologists. Once the new members were assimil- ated into the culture, the United States Universities Council on Geotechnical Education and Research (USUCGER) was next to join, representing 250 professors at 127 universities in the U.S. In 2015, GC entered into preliminary discussions with the Canadian Geotech- nical Society (CGS), representing 1,200 aca- demic and practicing engineers in Canada. What Has GC Accomplished? When the four organizations first began talks it was suggested that there should be a large industry congress that would include the meetings of all of the member organizations involved in technical issues. The sentiment at the time was, it will never happen. Wrong! We now have the International Foundations Congress and Equipment EXPO (IFCEE), which is held every three years. IFCEE 2015 drew 3,500 attendees representing four of the seven GC members who sponsored the event as a joint venture. IFCEE 2018 will be a joint venture of five of the GC members. This would never have happened had trust not been built at GC meetings. recommendations are in the best interest of the industry and the public. The changes are intended to make design work in the fields of anchored earth retention, deep foundat ions and micropi les more consistent with the actual state of practice in those industries. Mutual Needs All GC members recognize that they have a symbiotic relationship with one another. At times, each member organization repre- sents persons or corporations that are alternatively buyers or sellers of each other’s products. In addition, each member organization comprises buyers and sellers within its own organization. A simple example of this is the drill rig manufacturer who sells to the drilling contractor. Both are members of ADSC. However, not all relationships are as simple. For instance, the contractor members of both PDCA and ADSC need the support of engineers who are G-I and GBA members, when it comes to specification of their products. USUCGER member professors are educating the personnel who will be hired by the corporate members of all the other organizations. As such (hopefully), they are attentive to the needs of the other GC “In the world of politics, advocacy and influence, each organization is really a small fish in a very large pond. It has already been demonstrated that, by joining together, we can be far more effective than if we were to go it alone.” Another of the group’s successes was the creation of a GeoCoalition Task Force to create a document outlining an “industry opinion” about soil reports. Depending on what type of work was to be undertaken, specific recommendations were presented. And, another example of the group’s important work was a critique of Chapter 18 of the International Building Code (IBC). This effort included representation from all members of the GC. While it is extremely difficult to bring about changes in the IBC, the tough work of gaining consensus has been done, and all hope that, eventually, IBC officials can be convinced that the 118 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • SEPT/OCT 2016 In short, we can all benefit from cooperating with one another. GC is effectively breaking down barriers and making member-to-member access easier. The Future The list of outstanding issues that still need to be addressed is long and daunting. For example, GC is front and center in an effort to address turf wars between structural engineers, geotechnical engineers and geologists. These are not easy negotiations. If we achieve our objective, the result will be an improvement in the professional and business lives of all of our members. GC is also concerned about attempts to undermine, and even eliminate, the system of professional licensure in the U.S. In the interest of public safety, it is paramount that work in the geo-industry should only be performed by persons who are qualified to take on the challenges that are inherent in the projects our members undertake. There are real issues about appropriate levels of funding for university education, especially in the U.S. The GC will speak out on this matter. Now that a level of cooperation is in place, one that wasn’t even thought possible only 10 years ago, the member organiza- tions may also enter into other mutually beneficial joint arrangements. One example might be “mass buying,” which could very likely result in savings for members in the organizations that are part of the GC. Central to the GC’s mission is that each members. At the same time, those same professors may be researchers in the areas of earth retention, deep foundations or ground modification, and benefit by the support they receive from those in the industries identified. In addition, profes- sors desperately need and want input and participation of practicing engineers and contractors in order to assist with creating real-life learning experiences in their classrooms. The same applies to providing opportunities for student internships. As a further example, G-I’s academic members rely heavily on case history and other course materials produced by ADSC, DFI, GBA and PDCA. member is comfortable with the fact that, while a high level of cooperation exists between members, each member organiza- tion retains a high degree of autonomy. Nothing is ceded to another organization unless that GC member recognizes that it is in its best interest to do so. In the world of politics, advocacy and influence, each organization is really a small fish in a very large pond. It has already been demonstrated that, by joining together, we can be far more effective than if we were to go it alone. In unity, there is strength. That’s hardly a new concept, but one whose realization is far easier thought about than achieved. GeoCoalition is getting it done.
