We all eventually agreed we would need to grow the firm in order to be successful, to outgrow the inherited debt, and to attract the best talent. As I looked around the industry, I couldn't help but notice that as engineering firms crossed the 80-person-or-so threshold, they seemed too often to crash and burn. After paying close attention and talking to a lot of folks, it seemed to me that the main reason for these firms' failure was their attempt to run an 80-person firm the same as a 20- or 50-person firm. I was convinced that there was a major difference in the two. I wasn't about to let that happen to us.

First, we organized around a strong corporate structure. I was the President and CEO with technical discipline department heads as Vice Presidents reporting to me. The board was arranged with five members consisting of three of the four other principals and two at-large members voted on each year. As CEO, I was to take direction from and report to the board of directors. Therefore, we deemed it appropriate that I not sit as a board member. I was truly to be accountable to the board and to this day formally report to them on the company's performance on a quarterly basis. Once the board members left the board meeting, they would take their positions as senior managers and would be accountable to me as CEO. This type of 360 degree accountability seemed to work far better than the single President, CEO, Chairman and majority stock holder model of the previous management. Everyone knew what was expected of them, and each person was accountable to someone else.

As we began to grow, I paid close attention to our organization and how it would adapt to a larger company. We instituted several operational changes over the next six years. First, we established a strong Production Management department consisting of dedicated Project Managers, CADD Support, IT, and Security Administration (we do a lot of federal contracting). A Director of Operations was named to oversee this function. We have set up a model where the Project Manager is the clients' representative to the design team.

Second, I looked at some of the administrative functions in the office and recognized some weaknesses. The Accounting and Human Resource functions were being overseen by a single individual who had been trained on the job for bookkeeping and took on HR as an 'interest.' When the opportunity presented itself, I replaced the retired individual with a degreed accountant and a degreed HR professional. Sometimes you don't know what you don't know until there's someone there to show you. Of course, two professionals are more expensive than one, but 'you must adapt if you're going to succeed' was what I kept telling myself and others.

Quality control was an area that we all talked a lot about but actually did little about. I re-hired an employee who had left a project management position three years prior for greener pastures. He became our new full-time quality control manager. Over a relatively short time, quality control became part of our culture and not just something that the marketing people talked about.

We realized that we couldn't be all things engineering to all people needing engineering so we decided to focus our efforts on five markets (these have morphed over the years). We assigned a senior manager to each chosen market as a 'Market Director.' This individual has the responsibility of knowing the market, procuring the work, and serving as the principal-in-charge for projects within that market. For the past nine years, Department Heads have worn hats as both Department Heads and Market Directors. We're recognizing the need to split these responsibilities as we grew past 100.

As our technical disciplines grew, we recognized that one person just couldn't oversee the work of 30, be responsible for scheduling, have ultimate technical responsibilities, and serve in a marketing capacity. We eventually changed from a single Department Head to a Department Head supported by a Chief Engineer. The larger departments were also organized internally around team leaders with three to five direct technical reports under the team leader.

We've now at almost the 200 people and are very successful in terms of revenue, profit, growth, and employee retention. My latest direction from the board is a result of our recent strategic planning retreat: double the firm over the next five years through increased market share in existing markets, geographic expansion, and additional service offerings. We're already thinking about what a 500 person firm should look like.

I wouldn't be so bold as to suggest that what we've done is the only way, or even the best way. What I would suggest, however, is that as companies grow, they need to be sure that they are organized to operate efficiently when they reach where they're headed, not through finding out what isn't working and trying to fix it, but through recognizing what will work in the future before you get there.

Michael W. Matthews, P.E. is President and CEO of Hankins and Anderson, Inc., a 200 person Civil/Structural/M/E/P firm with offices in Richmond, Virginia Beach and San Diego. They specialize in Federal building engineering design. Mike is also the current president of ACEC/Virginia and serves on the ACEC Federal Liaison Committee at the national level. He has a BS in Mechanical Engineering and is currently working on his MBA at the University of Richmond.