[Ibpsausa] [Bldg-sim] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Thu Nov 17 21:42:32 PST 2011

Please note that this email contains responses to postings by both Mr. Haberl and Mr. Hittle.

Mr. Haberl:

The purpose of each JTA is to capture the job as currently practiced. Such a baseline document is essential in order to fairly and objectively identify knowledge and training gaps that exist between where any industry is and where it "should" be.

As such, we went to extreme efforts ensure that psychometrically valid sets of SMEs were selected to define the documents. Besides having to prove that they were current practitioners in the field, applicants were screened by a psychometrician (not DOE or NREL) using criteria such as geographic location, years of experience, and industry credentials to ensure that the selected group was broad with respect to all of these criteria (this is outlined in slightly more detail in the JTAs themselves). Bias in any one of these areas (experienced folks over novices, people from the east coast vs. the southwest, etc.) would have favored a particular group and skewed the resulting document in favor of that particular group's thinking. Since we were attempting to adequately capture the job as practiced in the U.S. (not as practiced by experts in the U.S., or by academics in the U.S., or how it should be done according to organization X, etc.), we wanted the broadest U.S. representation possible. This is also why there were no international participants.

Clearly, the inclusion of any professional society or organization directly involved in the development of such a document would also skew, whether meaning to or not, the resulting document toward the viewpoint of said organization. Indeed, to prevent this from happening, no outside reference materials were allowed into the workshops. Thus, the material presented in the JTAs comes directly from the first-hand knowledge of the participants. The resulting JTAs were all created by practitioners detailing what it was they did in their jobs.

I believe that the Boulder meeting you mentioned was the BEM Innovation Summit, which was hosted by RMI in Boulder last spring. The following is from PDF page 36 (document page 32) of the post summit report (http://rmi.org/Content/Files/BEM_Report_FINAL.pdf):
"Additionally, the DOE is currently sponsoring a project to develop (1) job task analyses (JTAs), which identify and catalog all of the activities a worker performs in a given job; and (2) the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), which define the minimum requirements necessary to adequately perform those tasks, for six building job categories, including "energy modeler". The project goal is to create "national guidelines" which will define a common body of knowledge that any training organization will be able to draw from when developing curriculum, helping to ensure consistent core competencies among training programs."

An action item identified in that same report (PDF page 38) reads: "Respond to Doe's RFP to develop "national guidelines" for energy modeling education."

Mr. Hittle,

Congratulations on your recent retirement; that is one of my near-term goals (to be accompanied by a private island though).

I believe that you may not have seen my previous email to Nick Caton, which I believe (again, opinion) may answer most of the questions you pose. If not, please feel free to let me know and I will do my best to answer them. Like I said in my last email, this thread is getting a little fragmented.

However, I can answer one of the questions you pose here. The Federal Register notice released by DOE (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-10-14/pdf/2011-26645.pdf) details the means by which they will accept public comment. While email is one of those means, said email must be sent to a specific email address and accompanied by a signed copy (there are other, less burdensome ways to submit comments as well). So in response to your question, no, this correspondence will not be officially documented as comments received on the documents.

Thanks all for the lively discussion!

Danny

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Studer, Daniel
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:32 PM
To: Doug Hittle; Nick Caton
Cc: Roth, Amir (HQ); Kendra Tupper; Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

All,

Apologies for the confusion. I had been responding previously only to the Bldg-sim listserv, as opposed to both the Bldg-sim and IBSPA-USA listservs. Below is my response earlier this evening to Nick Caton's email inquiry (again, sent only to the Bldg-sim listserv). Also, since things seemed to be quickly fragmenting, I have attempted to paste below all emails on this topic, so that everyone can easily reference them. I will follow up to the two most recent emails in a separate posting so that others may follow the conversation more easily.

Thanks,
Danny

Previous email sent to the Bldg-sim listerv only:

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org] On Behalf Of Studer, Daniel
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:27 PM
To: Nick Caton; Doug Hittle; Roth, Amir (HQ)
Cc: Kendra Tupper; Building Simulation
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Nick,

Your concerns are entirely understandable, but perhaps a little overstated. The intention with this project was to produce documents that could be used by the corresponding sectors to improve existing, or if necessary, create new, training/certification materials, thus leading to a more qualified and effective workforce. If you take a look at the job categories we targeted, I think you will see that we focused on jobs that have a direct impact on commercial building energy use.

The development of specific training/certification materials however, is being left up to the training/certification providers in each industry. Our goal was to eliminate the heavy lift for such organizations by facilitating the identification (by industry, not by DOE or NREL) of what tasks were required in each job category, and what knowledge, skills, and abilities were required to perform each of those tasks. The idea is that organizations who have existing training/certification programs can self-compare their program to the developed JTA to determine if they are adequately meeting industry's needs. Or, for industries where few training/certification programs exist, organizations could use the developed JTAs to immediately start developing curricula (the DACUM method is often used to create curricula at the community college level). Through these mechanisms, the idea was to improve the quality and amount of training available to the end-user (in this case, the modeler), with the ultimate goal being a reduction in real energy use at the building level.

Additionally, the JTAs can be used as a standardized metric of sorts to evaluate existing training/certification programs. We are currently working on a tool that will allow an end-user in each of the six fields to examine what content different training/certification programs cover, using the JTAs as a baseline (so that folks are comparing apples to apples, instead of apples to oranges). That way, they can make a more informed decision about where to invest their time and money when pursuing professional development activities.

I do know that GSA is planning to utilize the JTAs to support efforts related to the Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010. What other items (new licensure/certification/PDH requirements for government/military contracted work, etc.) will come out of this work I cannot speak to, as those decisions are likely to be out of my control and should they arise, will likely be made within each corresponding organization, far from my purview.

I know this is another long response, and that I did not directly address several of your questions. However, I felt that clarifying the project purpose would actually eliminate the need for such answers. If you feel differently let me know and I'll try to go through and provide more specifics.

Thanks,
Danny

From: hittle.doug at gmail.com [mailto:hittle.doug at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Doug Hittle
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:00 PM
To: Nick Caton
Cc: Studer, Daniel; Roth, Amir (HQ); Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org; Kendra Tupper
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

My apologies Daniel, I suddenly realized that I am so old as to be before your time. I was project manager on the BLAST energy analysis program and my colleague and thesis adviser, Curt Pedersen was head of the BLAST support office and one of the project managers of EnergyPlus. We both have been very active in ASHRAE Technical Committee 4.7, Energy Calculations and 4.1 Load  Calculation.  I recently retired from Colorado State University where I taught HVAC design including energy modeling (BLAST, EnergyPlus via DesignBuilder, TRACE, TRANSIS, etc.). I feel fortunate that a number of our former students are now your colleagues at NREL.

As you no doubt know, the words "certification" and "licensure exam" (see your clarifying email) are loaded phrases in the consulting engineering community. While most practitioners support professional engineering exams and licensing, requirements for additional, new certification are not likely to be widely embraced, at least not until they can be shown to have some economic or other value. Furthermore, it may not be enough for cognizant organizations to be aware of your JTA work. Groups like NCEES and ASHRAE have to be early proponents of any certification or licensing program that might result from your project. Otherwise Republicans and Tea Partiers will claim that you are proposing more intrusive, job-killing government regulations (be clear, I am NOT expressing this opinion).

Aside from the (probably) uncontroversial goals of guiding training and education, and helping with job descriptions, what are the project goals and expected outcomes. Are the results to be used to create an industry standard (like standard 90)? Are parts of the work to be incorporated into building codes? Do you hope to create a Professional Engineering Exam for Energy Modeling? Perhaps the answer is "all of the above." The JTA report is vague about this, perhaps intentionally.

Just exactly why are you and your team doing this work? Who are its proponents? What are the hoped-for impacts? Who will be affected in the long run? I am not trying to be critical by asking these questions but without the answers it is hard to review the report.

Lastly, many energy modelers have a personal mantra that is not listed in your report: "It helps to know what you are doing!" If I were hiring that would be the main qualification.

Regards,

Doug Hittle

PS Can we all assume that these email exchanges will be considered as qualifying comments on the report as requested by Dr. Roth?
________________________________

From: Jeff Haberl [mailto:jhaberl at tamu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:58 PM
To: Jason Kirkpatrick
Cc: Studer, Daniel; Doug Hittle; Roth, Amir (HQ); Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

O.K.

So much for me reading my email...in fact, I did indeed get this but did nothing.

However, even though there was an email about this, there was no discussion about this at the June IBPSA-USA meeting, nor was there a request for this to be put on the agenda at the June ASHRAE meeting for TC 4.7, Standard 140, or other committees of interest. In addition, Charles Eley has held several conference calls (some of which I've attended), which have discussed COMNet, yet this was not mentioned on any of the calls I attended.

In addition, such documents like this, if they are coordinated with ASHRAE, will usually be sent to RAC then to the TCs for comment, back to RAC and then back to DOE.

Finally, if this effort was truly important to DOE, why are there no other participants from the other National Labs? Why is NREL the only lab with expertise in this area? Or for that matter, why are there no individuals from outside the US? Or even Canada?  Seems fishy.

Somehow, I still don't get a warm, friendly feeling about this.

Jeff

8=!  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=(  8=)  8=()  8=)  8=|  8=)  :=')  8=)8=?

Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E., FASHRAE..............jhaberl at tamu.edu

Professor............................................................Office Ph: 979-845-6507

Department of Architecture.............................Lab Ph:979-845-6065

Energy Systems Laboratory.............................FAX: 979-862-2457

Texas A&M University.....................................77843-3581

College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..................URL:www.esl.tamu.edu

8=/  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=()  8=)  :=)  8=)  8=!  8=)  8=? 8=)8=0
________________________________
From: Jason Kirkpatrick [jason.alan.kirkpatrick at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:29 PM
To: Jeff Haberl
Cc: Studer, Daniel; Doug Hittle; Roth, Amir (HQ); Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th
Jeff,

The following went out on the Bldg-sim listserve in March 2011.

Also, the IBPSA Wiki known as BEMBook is mostly empty. Maybe there's another one that I am unaware of?

Jason Kirkpatrick

Building Performance Analyst
Skidmore Owings & Merrill
Phone: 415-352-3811
_______________________________________________

Opportunity Announcement

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is currently
sponsoring a project to develop (1) job task analyses (JTAs), which
identify and catalog all of the activities a worker performs in a
given job; and (2) the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), which
define the minimum requirements necessary for a person to adequately
perform those tasks, for the following six commercial building job
categories:

- Energy modeler
- Operating engineer/building technician
- Building energy auditor
- Energy/sustainability manager
- Commissioning/retro-
commissioning practitioner
- Facility manager

The project goal is to create "national guidelines" which will define
a common body of knowledge that any training organization will be able
to draw from when developing curriculum, helping to bring the core
competencies imparted by training organizations to their trainees into
common alignment. This body of knowledge will also be used by the
General Services Administration and the Department of Energy to help
meet the requirements of the Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act
of 2010.

To facilitate development of the JTAs/KSAs, Professional Testing,
Inc. is seeking current industry practitioners who are interested in
helping to define, promote energy efficiency in, and support their
field of practice by participating in these JTA/KSA development
workshops. Interested individuals are invited to submit their
credentials at http://proftesting.rapidinsites.com<http://proftesting.rapidinsites.com/>. Please note that
each JTA/KSA workshop will take place in Denver, Colorado and is
anticipated to last 3 full days (not including travel). Reimbursement
for travel costs up to a fixed amount and a travel per diem will be
awarded to individuals selected for participation. Additional project
details, including how practitioners will be selected and where to
direct project-related questions, can be found using the above link.

NREL and Professional Testing, Inc. are excited to present this unique
opportunity for individuals to have their voices heard in this
important discussion. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
The NREL Commercial Workforce Development Team
_______________________________________________

From: Jeff Haberl [mailto:jhaberl at tamu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:10 PM
To: Studer, Daniel; Doug Hittle; Roth, Amir (HQ)
Cc: Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org
Subject: RE: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Daniel.

I'm afraid I can't agree that you conducted "extensive outreach" to prepare this document. For example, there was no discussion of this, before it happened, on any of the list servers before it came out. In addition, there was no "call for experts" that I was aware of. Normally, for a document like this that is sponsored by DOE, one would expect a call of some sort through the usual list servers.

In addition, I noticed from your list, that there is nobody who directly represents IBPSA-USA, nor even ASHRAE TC 4.7, which is the responsible ASHRAE TC for energy modeling. Although there are several individuals on the list who attend IBPSA and ASHRAE meetings and are well-known. It seems like little was done to notify others in IBPSA-USA or ASHRAE.

You should know that IBPSA-USA has also worked for some time on such an effort, which now exists as a wiki, under Joe Deringer's guidance. It also held a workshop in Boulder, and developed the BEM exam with ASHRAE. Yet, I see no reference to this or any of the previous efforts, nor efforts made to contact those of us who worked on this.

Finally, there are also at least a dozen or more educators within IBPSA-USA who teach Energy Modeling at the University level, yet not one of these individuals is mentioned in your list of contributors, only one academic appears on your list.

Hence, I suggest that if DOE is serious about making this a consensus document, then it needs to do a better job contacting the relevant organizations to obtain input and not rely on an email response after the fact.

Clearly, this is not the case with this document.

Jeff

8=!  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=(  8=)  8=()  8=)  8=|  8=)  :=')  8=)8=?

Jeff S. Haberl, Ph.D.,P.E., FASHRAE..............jhaberl at tamu.edu

Professor............................................................Office Ph: 979-845-6507

Department of Architecture.............................Lab Ph:979-845-6065

Energy Systems Laboratory.............................FAX: 979-862-2457

Texas A&M University.....................................77843-3581

College Station, Texas, USA, 77843..................URL:www.esl.tamu.edu

8=/  8=)  :=)  8=)  ;=)  8=)  8=()  8=)  :=)  8=)  8=!  8=)  8=? 8=)8=0
________________________________

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Nick Caton <ncaton at smithboucher.com<mailto:ncaton at smithboucher.com>> wrote:
Daniel,

Thank you so much for this clarification!  I have to sympathize with Mr. Hittle in that, despite the apparent efforts to "spread the word," I too feel somewhat unsure of what the real implications will be for myself and my colleagues in the energy modeling world.

My current impression is that the results of this study will ultimately manifest as some sort of new licensure/certification/PDH requirements for modeling services in future LEED and/or military/government contracted work (i.e. DoD/GSA contracts)...  does that sound right?

Maybe an illustration would be helpful... This is from the comment document:

"JTA is traditionally used by secondary and postsecondary educators, test developers, and business, industry, government, and military trainers to help identify core knowledge areas, critical work functions, and skills that are common across a representative sampling of current practitioners."

Can you provide an example of what JTA's have accomplished for those working in the above industries?

For better or for worse, my concern is this study is going to add additional layers of beauracracy to the job description... Great news (enforced business) for those in the licensing/training industries I suppose, but will there be a net benefit for the actual practitioners?  Are my concerns unrealistic or missing the point?

Thanks again for your time and efforts!

~Nick

[cid:image001.jpg at 01CCA571.1BA7A1C0]

NICK CATON, P.E.
SENIOR ENGINEER

Smith & Boucher Engineers
25501 west valley parkway, suite 200
olathe, ks 66061
direct 913.344.0036<tel:913.344.0036>
fax 913.345.0617<tel:913.345.0617>
www.smithboucher.com<http://www.smithboucher.com>

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Studer, Daniel
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:56 PM
To: Doug Hittle; Roth, Amir (HQ)

Cc: Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

Mr. Hittle,

My name is Daniel Studer and I am an engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I also happen to be the project lead for DOE's commercial job/task analysis development work.

I can assure you that we have conducted extensive outreach to ensure that persons who operate in the spaces targeted by these JTAs are fully aware of the work being performed, including ASHRAE.

The energy modeler JTA itself was created over the course of three days by eleven practicing energy modelers who were guided through the process by a professional psychometrician. The names and associated organizations of each of these folks are listed at the back of the JTA, in case you are curious. DOE and NREL had zero input into the content of this document. And to ensure that the document is truly reflective of the industry, DOE has decided to make the documents available for public comment. That way, individuals such as yourself can provide DOE with constructive feedback to ensure that the document content is both appropriate and valid.

The intent of the project, as stated on the project website, is to:
Provide a basis for developing and comparing new and existing training programs in the commercial building sector. This will help individuals identify opportunities to enhance their professional skills, enable industry to identify an appropriately skilled workforce, and allow training providers to ensure that they are providing the highest quality product possible.

In short, we are trying to document the job as it currently exists so that training/certification providers can ensure that they are providing high quality products in line with industry's identified needs. Additionally, gathering this information using the objective approach that we have also has the side benefit of creating a sort of baseline document that can be used to help a training/certification end user better understand how their current skill set and existing training/certification options fit together.

I totally agree with you that items identified such as "time management skills" are not very measurable, and in fact seem both excessive and irrelevant, in the context of developing a training program or certification around this material. However, such information is very valuable in other contexts, which is why it is included in any JTA which utilizes the "developing a curriculum" (DACUM) method. The idea is that all aspects of the job should be documented so that the resultant analysis can be used for multiple purposes. For example, an individual wishing to develop a job posting may look at the JTA and include items such as "time management skills" or "spatial skills" in the job posting. They could then structure interview questions to better understand that person's abilities in those areas to make a more informed decision about a candidate.

In other JTAs that were developed under this project, SMEs also identified physical attributes necessary to perform the job (e.g., lift X lbs over head, see X feet). While these may also seem silly, they become very important when developing high risk assessments, such as licensure exams, in these spaces.

The real meat of each document is the DACUM chart located at the back of each. These charts identify the specific domain areas, tasks, and steps that the SMEs identified were necessary to perform the specified job. It is this content specifically that is of most use to training/certification providers, which is why DOE asked for comments on this specific chart in the Federal Register notice.

The proposed content blueprint tables (located near the front of each document), contain the SME's proposed weights for how often, and how important, each of the identified tasks is to the job. Such weights provide valuable context to training/certification providers by serving as guidelines for how much time should be devoted to each topic.

As part of this project, NREL will be facilitating a "survey validation" which will provide industry with the opportunity to adjust these weighting factors. However, to avoid the confusion that would occur with two "comment periods" occurring at once, this will not happen until DOE's public comment closes at the end of November.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.

Thanks,
Danny

From: bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> [mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:bldg-sim-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>] On Behalf Of Doug Hittle
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 1:17 PM
To: Roth, Amir (HQ)
Cc: Building Simulation; ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org>
Subject: Re: [Bldg-sim] [Ibpsausa] DOE Job Task Analysis for Energy Modelers: Open for public comment until Nov. 28th

I would like to be grandfathered in please. Who is scrutinizing this document (proposed regulation?) at ASHRAE headquarters? Have you had any input from ASHRAE?

If you were to do a jta for President of the United States it might not be so lengthy as the one for building energy modelers. (And, a lot of folks in the current primary would be automatically excluded). Is it possible that we have the cart before the horse? Perhaps we need a jta for building architects and building design engineers of which energy modelers could be a subset.  I am sure that if DOE proposed a regulatory test procedure for architects and engineers there would be plenty of comment.

I've looked at the document. What caught my attentions was the list of "skills and abilities." These included such thing as "time management skills," "critical thinking," and  "spatial skills."  Assuming that the goal is to define measurable skills, we might want to give energy modeler want-a-be s the SAT again.

Then I saw "common sense" and "patience" as skills and abilities. Now, not withstanding the jta, I consider myself a competent modeler of buildings and their energy systems. We don't need to vote on that but I also am reasonably sure that "patience" has only recently kicked in as a personal skill (maybe I am being optimistic). How are we going to measure the "common sense" of someone who wants to apply to be an energy modeler?

Dr. Roth, it is not clear that very many in the building sciences field are aware of your project, its history, and potential impact. Perhaps you could get on the agenda at an upcoming ASHRAE meeting and explain the process and your intent for the project outcomes.

Respectfully,
Doug Hittle

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Roth, Amir <Amir.Roth at ee.doe.gov<mailto:Amir.Roth at ee.doe.gov>> wrote:
Apologies for cross-posting,

The DOE has put together a job task analysis (JTA)--job description plus required knowledge and skills--for building energy modelers.  The draft document, created by a group of 15 energy modeling professionals, can be found here:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/commercial_initiative/pdfs/energy_modeler_jta_comment.pdf

DOE is accepting comments on this draft until November 28, 2011 at this URL: http://www.nrel.gov/ap/buildings_workforce_feedback/. Very few comments have been received so far. I urge you to review and comment on this draft as the final document will provide the foundation for future education, training and certification programs and will likely have to be complied with going forward by existing programs, e.g., ASHRAE BEMP. In addition to constructive critique, positive comments, e.g., "perfect, don't change a thing", are also welcome.

Thanks,

-Amir

============
Amir Roth, PhD
Building Performance Simulation Tools, US DOE/EERE
Ph: 202.287.1694<tel:202.287.1694>

_______________________________________________
Ibpsausa mailing list
Ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org<mailto:Ibpsausa at lists.onebuilding.org>
http://lists.onebuilding.org/listinfo.cgi/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111117/6c8c963c/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/ibpsausa-onebuilding.org/attachments/20111117/6c8c963c/attachment-0002.jpg>