Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm 3

[KootK]

I've often thought that it might be fun to work as a structural engineer within an architecture firm. In my head, I imagine that there would be a lot of collaboration early on in projects that would be fun and fruitful. One the flip side, one is always concerned about being a second class citizen at a big A / little E firm. You'd never be as close to the paying clients as you would be in a engineering only firm. But then maybe that would have some perks too. I'd have to think that internal clients would be a bit more accommodating than external clients.

Anyone have any thoughts on this that they'd be willing to share?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[jike]

I ran the structural department in a small to medium size Architectural firm in the upper Midwest in the US for 27 years. Firm size about 24 in the early years growing to about 75. We started off doing a 50-50 mixture of industrial-commercial and eventually changed to almost 90% commercial. We had plenty of variety and were always busy, probably due to a good economy and aggressive marketing. I was always treated fairly and treated others the same. I developed my own clients although when things got busy, I always felt that management did not value them even though they contributed to our bottom line.

We certainly had the opportunity to give early input on projects. We had some very challenging projects and it was enjoyable collaborating with numerous architects and clients. We expanded our Architectural firm with a Design-Build Firm, We had a lot of fun and earned a little money in the process. It was a great ride......

The success and enjoyment of all this depends upon the honesty, integrity, skills and personalities of the management, employees and clients.

 

[sandman21]

Worked for 250+ A/E firm.

Collaboration was worse than when I was working as an outside consultant with other firms. The budget you are given will be below what a consultant will get and your work load will increase. Any exclusions you would have had typically are now included in the contract. A complete Change to the lateral system two weeks before plan check, no extra budget for OT or extension to schedule. No structural engineers in management or position of power means you will always be an employee. Obviously this will depend on the A/E firm but things you should find out about before jumping on board.

 

[jgailla]

My experience in civil working for architects in the same company was similar to sandman's.
No budgetary control, no change orders, last minute ridiculous requests, management pressure, etc.

 

[KootK]

Thanks for the latest, diametrically opposed, round of comments. Very helpful.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[darthsoilsguy2]

big firms = crappy internal collaboration.... subtext of this conversation.

 

[jike]

With over 40 years of hindsight, I believe the lack of coordination between disciplines is NOT necessarily related to whether the disciplines are in house or out of house, but related to a faster pace of work and lack of knowledge and a bit of laziness among younger employees. I have noticed that more seasoned employees know very well how to coordinate among disciplines and do it very well. You can't just sit at your desk, produce a drawng and hope that the other disciplines find the needle in the haystack that is different from the previous drawing. It is all about team work and communication with other members of the team. You must anticipate what they need and work together.

Lack of coordination has been a TREND over the last 30 years. It is NOT a race to the finish line and to heck with the other disciplines that can't finish in time. You need to work as a TEAM so everyone can finish together with a quality product.

 

[medeek]

Out of curiosity how many other engineers are running a one man show like myself? I've worked in the corporate world for a number of years but the freedom and flexibility of having my own firm trumps the money IMHO.

At the end of the day I like having full ownership of my work and any of my designs. Working as an employee does not work for me anymore.

All of the designers and architects I've worked with so far have been pretty good to work with, so no complaints there. My biggest beef is the low pay offered by residential jobs, a few more commercial jobs would be a nice boost to the bottom line.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE

http://www.medeek.com

 

[RFreund]

My biggest beef is the low pay offered by residential jobs

Is there a lot of competition for this near you? This was problem at a previous company. We raised our price, gripes increased slightly but we still got the job cause there was no where else to go and we did a pretty good job (IMO). Although it seems like a lot of small SE firms go through this phase where you start out doing small residential for nothing, get tired of it and raise your price as you get more commercial work and don't really need the residential stuff. So there might be someone else out there that does it for cheaper but maybe test the waters?

EIT

http://www.HowToEngineer.com

 

[medeek]

I'm kind of getting to that point of needing to raise my prices. I work pretty hard on some of these residential jobs but the pay I'm seeing is probably equivalent to about $25.00-$30.00/hour if I calculate all of my time spent.

There are a couple of other engineers in the area, one typically concentrates on larger industrial jobs and the other under prices the residential jobs and then provides a bear minimum of analysis. On the other hand the quality of my work is good and I have tried to keep my prices low in order to compete with the under pricing engineer, as a result I have picked up a lot of work in the area and have a lot of satisfied customers and a lot of referrals.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE

http://www.medeek.com

 

[ajk1]

My worst experience in 50 years of practice was when we as structural engineers were required to work together in the same office as the architects for a particular project. The architectural project leader was demanding our time so much with his questions, and demands for immediate answers, that we could not get our own work done. Then the architect started telling our people how to do the drawings, that we had to be full time at all meetings even if they were not related to structural, and so on. It was perhaps not the same set-up as you are contemplating, but I suppose it depends upon the people involved and their personalities and ability to get along and how strong their desire to work as a team. Some (many?) architects consider the structural engineer a minor player and even more enlightened architects are not going to consider the structural engineer to be an important part of the team.

Expect to lose the independence and authority of an engineer with a consulting engineering firm, and the benefit that comes from working with a large number of other structural engineers and the cross-pollination of ideas and information, and the variety of work.

I also notice when reading structural drawings prepared in decades past by a large architectural firm that had their in-house structural engineer, that the design and drawings were not the best. They eventually gave up the in house structural. I heard it once said that the architectural firms that seemed to get in trouble in the city were those who had their in-house engineering.

Having said all that I imagine it could be quite pleasant with the right people, the right attitudes and the right team spirit and respect for each other.

Personally I would never do it.

 

[KootK]

Thanks ajk. Much does seem to depend on the group in question. Obviously, Bill Baker over it SOM is doing alright. The mean experience, however seems to be a good deal less satisfying.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[RefEngr]

My experience is the opposite of ajk. For the most part where I work the architects have a high respect for the in-house engineers and see the benefit over working with an outsider.

As an engineer in this role you need to embrace that the architects are going to use you as a resource for things you wouldn't consider part of your scope if you were an outside consultant.

The quality of documents depends on the individuals' standards regardless of where they are. I've seen both very good and very poor documents out of consulting firms and in-house engineers.

 

[dcarr82775]

How big is your personality Koot? I think the stronger personality can match up 'ego to ego' with an architect and find a middle ground where each understands the other. A more passive engineer will get rolled over. Go big or go home.

 

[Archie264]

KootK,

I’ve withheld answering until now because I didn’t want to let my experience prevent you from doing something that might be right for you. I’ve worked in both a structural-only shop and in a multidiscipline firm and for me I much preferred the structural-only situation. In the structural shop we didn’t have to justify why we did things, everyone understood. In the multidiscipline firm I often had to explain seemingly obvious things. That wasn’t a big deal but it is something to bear in mind.

Something else to bear in mind is that the level of care and attention to detail that go into structural drawings is necessarily higher than with other disciplines. Architects can draw pretty “eyewash” over multiple drawings but structural drawings have to elegantly convey all the information required to build the structural components and, ideally, nothing else. It takes a lot of time to produce clean, accurate structural drawings and sometimes other disciplines don’t understand why it might take us the same amount of time to produce 4 drawings as it does for them to produce 10, especially when our drawings, in their elegance*, often seem to show less. (And that’s not a slam against architects; the two disciplines necessarily must show their work differently.)



Medeek,

You've shown us samples of your work and it’s clear that you do indeed put a lot of effort into it and it certainly is beautiful.

Regarding residential structural design I believe my mentor put it most succinctly: in the time it takes to design all the structural components of a house we could have designed a bowling alley and actually gotten paid for our efforts. But, that’s not to say don’t do residential work; there’s a place for both. But, in my opinion, there isn’t a huge market for producing highly detailed residential drawings. Or, rather, the clients won’t pay you for it. You’re the best judge of your situation, of course, but I wonder if it might make sense to keep your prices low but turn them around more quickly by showing less details? That way the rate you are “paid” might be closer to the rate you are billed. I only mention that because I’ve seen people raise their rates on residential work only to then get less business. But, it is an excellent way to generate business and get your name out there and in due course the “bowling alley” work will follow, if you want it. I also know of others who’ve specialized in residential work and done only that so that can be done too, of course.

Just my $.02 worth.


*”Elegance” as used here is intended to refer to mathematical elegance, that is, showing all the information required using the least amount of terms. I.e., the opposite of how this post was written. But, then, as Abraham Lincoln supposedly wrote, “if I had more time I’d write you a shorter letter.”

 

[KootK]

This conversation when on without for a bit while I was on holiday. A couple things to add:

How big is your personality Koot? I think the stronger personality can match up 'ego to ego' with an architect and find a middle ground where each understands the other. A more passive engineer will get rolled over. Go big or go home.

I agree completely. I'm no shrinking violet but, at the same time, it's tough to honestly assess the "bigness" of one's own personality. We shall see.

@Archie: I appreciate your excellent, detailed feedback. All we can do is tell our own stories, from our own perspectives, based on our own experiences. Thank you for taking the time to share yours.


I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[XR250]

@Archie264:

I have been wanted to express that to Mdeek for a while now, but you are certainly much more eloquent.
Showing too much detail in residential not only kills your hours, but makes you lose clients as they will gravitate toward the engineers who offer them lower construction complexity and costs.
I think many engineers go thru the necessary "Mdeek" stage - I certainly did and it is a great learning experience. You learn pretty quickly that about 1/2 the details shown on your drawings do not get implemented.

 

[Ron]

Eh, I get most of my sanity checks here these days anyhow.

From us? Are you nuts?!

 

[Archie264]

XR250, thanks. Medeek's twice the engineer I am so I was mostly trying to remind him to be fair to himself.