Are standards slipping? 10

[youngstructural]

I really want input from actively consulting engineers, and particularly Structural. This is about the technical standards in our particular specialisation of the profession falling, and relates directly to Structural Engineers.

There is a great deal of debate on at the moment here in New Zealand as to whether or not the standards of Structural Engineering, Architecture, and Construction have slipped. A local Structural Engineer (John Scarry - The name is just a coincidence with what he's complaining about) wrote a 100+ page Open Letter to the Institute of
Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) regarding the sorry state of affairs and demanding changes be made to improve the situation.

I agree with him on many of his points, if not on the implication that it is a problem restricted to New Zealand. I wanted your opinions as to what the state of affairs is like where you practice, wherever that may be.

I will give you some of the main complaints of the Open Letter:

1. Fees have slipped, particularly through the 1980s period, from between 3 and 6% of total building cost to sometimes less than 1%. This creates unreasonable timelines (due to less dollars meaning less design hours) and unsustainable pressure upon the skilled professionals and tradesmen involved.

2. Detailing of structures has reduced to bare minimum
levels. Connections, flashings, cover, layouts, etc have been reduced while sections and elevations are fewer and fewer.

3. Cross checking of designs by a verifier (ie: an engineer not involved in the original design work) is nearly non-existant. This has been leading to gross oversight errors, such as lateral load systems overstressed 1000% (not an error, one THOUSAND percent) in the event of an earthquake.

4. Training of Engineers at University has been reduced from 40 to 50 hours minimum plus multiple assignments each week to between 20 and 35 hours with many fewer assignments. Where Engineering Interns were once able to count on senior engineers for guidance and additional training, tight budgets and tighter timelines have errored
te input by senior engineers and left juniors often performing works they are not prepared or qualified to handle on their own. This is further compounded by point number 3.

5. Trade apprenticeships where done away with here in the early 1980s. Now a construction worker is only as good as their foreman and experiences happen to make them. They very often do not have any clue about other trades and routinely damage, or at least negatively impact, one another's work. Leaving the Engineers and Architects to
try to clean it up.

6. Architecture was previously taught on a practical level,
concentrating on flashing and building envelope, structural layout and load systems, etc, stuff until the third year of study. Now the Architecture training has gone nearly completely Kafkaesque (John's term) with little to no content about the practicalities of putting a building together.

From my personal experience, the standards of practice are slipping. My father attended lectures Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm, and Saturday from 9am to 1pm. My degree had less than half the class time, however did have slightly more laboratory time. I really don't think that's an appropriate trade-off.

From my experience in design offices, the commercial interests do have the potential to negatively influence the practice of Structural Engineering. I have found less than adequate checking in many practices, as well as little to no formal or adhoc training of junior engineers. This is not true of every practice, however it does exist, and that is a serious problem for our profession.

I look forward to reading your replies, and hearing your thoughts on the matter,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[hokie66]

YS asked a question, and he is getting lots of answers to another question, which is only vaguely related. Could we please get back to the OP?

 

[csd72]

Kenat,

There is a show exactly like that called junkyard challenge.

Anyway back to the main point. Enginnering no longer gets the cream of the crop as far as students is concerned, management,medicine and accountancy get most of those. Of course standards are going to drop.

 

[hokie66]

I don't think engineering ever did get the cream of the crop, but the difficulty of the courses always weeded out about 2/3 of those who started. We referred to engineering as "prebusiness".

 

[SomptingGuy]

Is product quality/safety/enginuity getting better or worse? I'd say better on average. Sod the educational test results.

- Steve

 

[hokie66]

Quality is better in manufactured products, but not in buildings, which is what this thread is about. Safety, yes, that is better. I think ingenuity is the same as it has been (excellent), which may be part of the problem. Ingenious solutions have overrun the capacity of the workforce to use.

 

[rapt]

I am an older engineer (but not ancient yet) and I do think the quality/ability of younger engineers is dropping, and yes I put part of that down to the training they are (not) getting at university.
I do not think the starting ability relative to the total attending university of the engineering students is any worse as some suggested. I think that the school system is the start of the problem in that the overall level of all students is dropping, partly because we cannot put too much pressure on the little darlings, so they are not allowed to be in a competitive situation at school.

But I put the main part to the training they are not getting once they start work. Again there are several causes to this, many being cost related, but the workplace training they get now is nothing like it was 30 years ago.

The other side to this is they expect to do everything on computers from day 1. And a lot of the older engineers let them because computers are so good (I am allowed to be sarcastic aren't I). Yes, to whoever it was that said they will eventually be able to do it quicker, I agree. But will they be able to decide if the answer they are getting is correct and will they be able to detail it correctly? Will the "experience" they gain by doing it by computer be sufficient to make them better engineers. Or will they just accept the computers answer like I find many do. It depends on the person and how they use the computer.

I most cases, and I am a software developer, from my experience the answer is no, they will not get to the same level. In the training I am doing for software (RC and PT concrete design software in my case) I am finding less and less understanding of design and how concrete works and less and less understanding of design codes and basic design logic. I put this down almost entirely to a generation of engineers who are relying on the computer to apply the code and produce the design. Many of them do not even know the code rules any more and even more do not understand what portion of those rules any particular software package is actually applying and how well it is doing it. If they did, some well know design programs would never be used again or would have to pick up their acts very quickly.

I have been asked recently to supply not design software but "Productivity Software", because the people in question were employed to produce drawings (designing buildingd had nothing to do with it)!!!! They were not interested in what goes onto the drawings, that was the responsibility of the software.

My opinion is that we need to introduce an Internship (yes extra cost but interns get paid less) for engineers where, while still being allowed to use their computer software, must provide hand calculation checks to verify designs under the supervision of a senior engineer. The idea being to understand what it is doing and learn to question the computer and understand its limitations and what it is not doing for them.
They do not get a final degree until they have done that for say 2 - 3 years. Or maybe we can call it a Masters Degree because most of them will then know an awful lot more than someone with a Masters Degreee and no experience.

 

[carnage1]

Two points to make
One is a piece of advice I got from a retired Chem PE.
Take enough accounting classes to be proficient at communicating with accountants. As engineers we are not taught how to monetarily justify our work. Unless we can learn to do this at least in some basic way it will be assumed that all the benefits we provide just magically appear.

Point two is about education. I am attending Oregon Institute of Technology. My average upper-class size is 15. In order to teach some of the 300 and 400 level classes at the level they want to the college reprints some texts from the 1970's because they can't find newer texts that include the really complex stuff.
My physics teacher contacted the publisher of the textbooks he was using because they had removed some of the material he regularly taught. The text book company told him the large universities were pressuring them to remove much of the advanced material because they didn't feel they could teach it with as large as there class sizes were.
So I have to say yes, most of the large universities are cutting content inorder to stuff more students through for a lower cost.

 

[csd72]

Fasttracking projects is a major cause of the drop in quality. Trying to do things too fast and not allowing enough time for coordination.

 

[josephv]

carnage1 makes a great point, "yes, most of the large universities are cutting content in order to stuff more students through for a lower cost."

So this is quite ironic, in many places in North America tuition rates have gone up but quality of education has gone down. So many students pay more for an inferior education (not just engineering students but other post secondary students are affected). It is insane that this is allowed to happen.

 

[GregLocock]

So in a free ish market what can we assume from " tuition rates have gone up but quality of education has gone down."

?

I'll put my capitalist hat on and say that the hard courses have been weeded out, becasue students pay more and want good grades, and employers don't sufficiently reward those who take the hard courses. In other words the fundamental problem is us, the interviewers.




Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[youngstructural]

Hello Again All;

I have been away from the office and computers for two days, so I greatly appreciate the size of the thread (and Hokie's reining in the natural tangential tendencies of our Profession). I've been well impressed, and have thanked and starred several posts. I'm going to take a minute and address a few posters:

Hokie: Thank you for your point by point. I came to my current employer specifically because it was an NZ firm (NOT the only NZ firm) which I believed was doing it right, and who would invest in my development as an engineer.

1. Fees: Competition may be good, but it can only be allowed to happy to a certain degree. It is interesting to read Milo Ketchum's (the junior, but not junior junior I believe) November 1982 editorial about price competition in Engineering. Other than being overly optimistic (a "flaw" of nearly every engineer I know), he correctly foreshadowed what was to (and now has!) come. Please read it at

http://www.ketchum.org/milo/sep4-Competition.html.

Money is not only the route of all evil, it is the route to abrogating your Professional Duty of Care to the Public in order to put food on your family's table. Your children cannot eat your principles... I am fortunate to have been born to a Structural Engineer who got out of the game early and could impart to me a sense of what MUST (not merely should) be done, and in a country with an inherent engineering tradition of modesty.

2. Detailing- Purely fees driven. (pronounce the period, or full stop, as your english may dictate)

3. Checking- This just cannot be considered an option, or a glance-over. It MUST be, at a bare minimum, a detailed comprehensive check of at least a sample of the works, as well as a complete review of the HOW it will all work, if not a repeat of the actual calculations.

4. Education/Training- I think the Universities are producing a broader skilled engineer, but at a cost of the fine level, practical, technical training. Academia rules the day, and the industry training simply has not picked up on the need. See item 1.

5. Australia, and anywhere with effective long term apprenticeships in construction, is very fortunate.

6. ARCHITECTS. They problem here is that they have not bothered to consider their TECHNICAL core competencies as a product for their customers to buy into. They sell on appearance, not on practicalities.

Rapt: Your point about Interns is very apropos indeed, however I would point out that, at least in Canada, this system is in place. I was an Engineering Intern until I received my License, and this was what both my business card and all title blocks stated at that time.
"YS - Real Name here"
"B.Eng., EIT"

As for being an "Engineer", I was not allowed to call myself an Engineer, just like Ussuri spoke about, until I was awarded my P.Eng.

I was fortunate to work in a firm that valued my enthusiasm and provided an ENORMOUS and energetic practical training scheme. A small firm that probably spent more in training me than I could have possibly been making for them. They checked EVERY calculation I did, no exceptions, and pulled me up on each and every failing, no matter how small. The lessons learned in being so scrutinized will never be lost on me, and the experience laid the foundation for the engineer I became. I owe to my family, and particularly my Father, the WHO of the man I am becoming, but I owe to that excellent Structural Engineering firm the PROFESSONALISM, and a great deal of the fundamental understanding, of the P.Eng. I have become.

My University did a good, and competent job of producing an Academically qualified engineering INTERN. They DID NOT PRODUCE AN ENGINEER. That, if it has yet occurred, will come in time. My personal belief is that a Structural Engineer is made after a minimum of 12 years (including University) exposure to the fundamentals and practicalities of the Industry. I do not yet meet my own acid test, although my title does call me a "Structural Engineer", and I often use the nomiker.

As a group we must decide whether or not there is a problem, and then work to find a solution. I believe that the problems of the present (lack of care and passion in the new generation of graduate, lack of time and resources to train the graduates, lack of time and resources to properly address the details of project, etc, etc, etc) will be solved by our new technologies.

I have been, and will continue to, try and imagine solutions to our problems. I read voraciously, I am constantly trying to expand my skills. I contribute here to approximately one quarter of the threads I read... I make damn sure I understand what is being said when I cannot contribute.

Given that I believe there is a problem, I think that we MUST establish and enforce an online (or perhaps correspondence based, or blended) system of Structural Engineering Intership. A series of courses on practical, rational analysis and code application routed in engineering fundamentals, available to any young structural engineers interested in continuing their learning. The system need not even be formal; Just AVAILABLE.

And after that, If you've actually this despite the length, I'd like to thank you for getting here.

Cheers,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[rapt]

youngstructural,

I do not know the Canadian system of internship. However seeing some designs results from Canadian companies, it does not always work. It all depends on how it is controlled/applied. My main point was to ensure that designers get a good understanding of how structures work, to understand the design process and to question the tools they are using. Just being an Intern for a few years does not ensure this unless the training is handled properly. And from what I am seesing worldwide, generally this is not happening.

The problem is supervised manual practice (not "how to run a computer program"), not online tutorials. Unfortunately, we are now at a stage where a lot of the "supervisors" do not have the grounding required to do that job properly, so we end up with the blind leading the blind!

 

[youngstructural]

Fair comment Rapt, and I can only speak for the offices in which I have worked... I cannot, and would not presume to, say that Canada does it better than anywhere else. I do find that Canada has a unique system of producing a higher proportion of engineers who "know their limitations", but we still have our fair share of idiots. I simply believe that the structures are in place to permit it to be done right... Interns vs. P.Eng, etc.

No matter which country you name, without exception, you will always have failures, negligence, incompetence and neglect. In all professions, again without exception.

I hope we can agree to disagree on the online training... I think it could have great value. I certainly do not think it can be the only, or even the primary, method of continued instruction. It should be complimentary, but not necessarily optional. I should think it would be very useful if available... And I would love to hear a practicable alternative to brining the existing training standards up within the current economic/fee environment.

I believe very strongly that most of the training should be by manual, hand-driven, supervised practice (your words).

Cheers,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[davefitz]

The drive to reduce costs and accelerate schedules is one of the main causes for the apparent slipping of standards. Some contributing effects are;

a) primary contractor managed by MBA's whose recent , modern training includes a philosphy to absolutely minimize costs without ever recognizing the "cost" associated with lower quality implied by distributed design and manufacturing ( ie it is rarely the case that a large capital project is managed, desinged, fabricated, erected by the same single corporate entity with a single point of liability)

b) item(a) acelerated by improvements in communications which allows for outsourcing of each individual task to a global market of engineering firms and fab shops. For example , in the USA, a large boiler might be sold and managed by a small office in the US, desinged and detailed by an engineering office in India, fabricated by a shop in Korea, and erected by whatever subcontractor will accept the schedule risk.

c) general dumbing down of new technically trained engineers who are wholly dependent on computerized solution of all problems and who may have no capacity to proof check design by applying first principles to approximate calculations.

d) less corporate support for standards organizations which then limits the ability of the standards orgs to adjust to changing technology and market forces.

 

[csd72]

Yes, not accounting for hidden costs is a major failing of modern accounting and management.

 

[KENAT]

A more on topic response as my previous effort wasn't appreciated.

Similar comes up every now and again, for instance thread730-219181 thread731-220877.

It's not just in structural engineering that these or similar problems rear their heads.

The idea of cross checking work, especially with the kind of safety/financial impact that making mistakes in Engineering can have, always seemed logical to me. However with the advent of CAE the amount of 'checking' seems to have massively diminished (so I've been told).

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[Patgeotech]

This was a good thread to read and it appears the problem is world-wide...I have had an idea of how the problem could possibly be addressed at universities and technical schools.

As Engineers/Architects/Professional People we are often subjected to internal audits to assess our work - well I hope most of us do get audited or assessed at some level.

In terms of Universities, they are often or always assessed by outside or internal academical institutions (at least in South Africa and UK that I know of)- why not get a professional body of PRACTISING ENGINEERS to do the audits and function on behalf of the professional institutes - the assessment could be geared towards a practical approach in the particular field of interest and aimed at the final year students. Perhaps this assessment should be made by younger qualified engineers that can relate better to the younger students and provide essential tools to coping out in the real world rather than being thrown in the deep end. This could provide the tertiary institution with valuable information as to how their students are perceived outside of a theorical world. Just an idea that I am throwing out there!

As I young qualified engineer of 8 years experience, I often have to deal with younger engineers that are out of their depth on site (not a bad thing as I think it teaches one some valuable lessons in life and work and we all have that one site that haunts us when we sleep), but as soon as a practical solution/discussion takes place, then the younger guys are always interested (thinking from a geotech perspective). They (graduates) always appear more motivated. I suppose it also does come down to the people skills one has and how one communicates the idea.

Are there other ways we can put back the practical component and 'common sense factor' into the system?? I think it is time that we look into it.

 

[drebelx]

Young grads do not have tinkering experience. They are told by their parents and teachers to keep their heads down and do force fed homework and they will be good and successful people.

Exploration and curiosity with the physical world are not encouraged by the adults around them. The graduates we see today are a reflection of children who have had their minds walled off from the physical world in greater numbers than in the past.

 

[HgTX]

Funny, where I work now we're also told to keep our heads down and do our homework and we will be good and successful people.

Then they marvel that we have lower than the state average for passing the PE exam.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376