Engineering Fees 12

[lowedogg]

So I just read the whole "co-worker not claiming all hours worked" thread that included an interesting discussion of engineering fees, or the lack thereof. I would like to get a thread going that is focused solely on this topic.

I have seen the commoditization of engineering services accelerate over the past few years. I work in the construction industry and I can think of several reasons for this occurance.

One of the big drivers is the advent of "design-build". Rather than retaining a professional services firm to design a product that meets their requirements, many owners have resorted to hiring a contractor that can give them "something" as cheap and fast as possible. Government project managers have been driven to this contract type by the unreasonable schedules manadated by Congress for certain programs. The private sector is driven solely by first cost. I think that 10-20 years from now, both entities will realize that their money would have been better spent on a high quality product instead of something cheap and fast. Essentially, design-build has reduced the demand for superior design services, thus destroying the suppliers who are capable of delivering a high service level.

A second reason for the devaluing of our services is the eagerness of the majority of firms to capitulate to the demands of the "cheaper and faster" market place. If professional service providers were less willing to push the quality level down to "just barely good enough to meet code", then the demand side of the market would have to adjust to the limited supply of "cheap" engineering. If we do not value our services, then no one will.

There is also a noticeable decline in the technical ability and confidence in the emerging generation of lead engineers. I feel that this has been brought on by a job market that rewards frequent employment changes and punishes loyalty with mediocre salary adjustments. If firms would fairly reward their top performers these individuals would be less compelled to seek greener pastures. The only real way for engineers to learn is to see projects through from craddle to grave. Given the duration of most projects, this is not possible unless a position is held for 5 or more years.

Lastly, we as individual engineers are far too meek when it comes to what we will tolerate for our working conditions. If we refused to work for "sweat shop" firms, then these firms could not exist. It is ultimately up to us to demand fair pay, reasonable schedules, and a work life balance. Given that we are highly skilled, integral to the modern world, and historically in short supply, we are in a unique position to command respect. We should encourage a sort of arrogance in the junior engineers that we mentor and expect it from our collegues. We should always talk in jargon that is impossible for outsiders to understand and we should reveal as few of our methods as possible. These are the things that doctors and lawyers do, why should we be any different?

I want to write more, but I must go to bed. I have a 12 hour day in a salaried position waiting for me tomorrow...oh the irony.

 

[MRM]

Krautso,

I like the way you said it too!

 

[Gumpmaster]

"Just barely good enough to meet code" in the building industry only means that you'll get a building that likely won't fall down. It doesn't mean that you'll have a useable structure that meets the clients expectations.

Designing strictly to the code doesn't mean that your doors will open in 5 years. It doesn't mean that your floor won't shake when somebody walks down the hall. It doesn't mean that your brick veneer won't be cracked to pieces after a couple of years. If you want any of these desireable featurs, you'll probably have to exceed the code.

Oftentimes the engineer knows what the client wants, in technical terms, better than the client does. All the client knows is that he wants a pretty building that will meet his functionality needs. His technical knowledge is negligible.

I can't tell you how many times we've been called in to fix useability problems that were caused by other engineering firms who were retained by the low bid contractor. It would be cheaper to the client in the long run to pay for a superior product up front rather than to fix the product after a couple of years, or even months, of use.

 

[KENAT]

So, having skimmed the thread, it seems like the customer isn't properly stating their requirement, perhaps due to not knowing enough to state ther full requirement.

Some companies take the requirement literally and bid the bare minimum.

Others, anticipate what the real requirement is and bid accordingly.

Or perhaps occasionally, the customer may state their requirement fairly well but don't know enough to realize it isn't being met.

Either way, seems a lot of the problem is with the customer. When going to a doctor, or for expensive car or house repairs, the idea of a second opinion often comes up. Maybe that's what the customers should be doing, I don't just mean competatively tendering initially but employing an independant entity to review the bids for technical merit etc. if they don't have the expertise in house.

Another option, that I've used before is to talk the customer up. Be it by raising questions on the requirement & potentially having it amended or making clearly stated assumptions/exclusions in your bid. Obviously the down side is that if another company bids a bare minimum approach to the original reqt while you bid to the updated reqt, and the customer doesn't take this into account when looking at cost you're hosed.

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at posting policies:

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484

 

[ScottyUK]

The recurring theme of over-supply of engineers rears its head again. I don't think it is as anywhere near as clear cut as a simple case of over-supply. With some industry sectors crying out for engineers it seems we actually have a problem with supplying the wrong 'product'. If you allow me to extend the analogy of universities as a manufacturing operation, it seems like education is guilty of churning out masses of the products that are easy to make and making little or none of the those that are hard to make.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[moltenmetal]

ScottyUK: yes, the unis are churning out too many easily made engineering widgets. But the businesses who are screaming "shortage" are short of people who they themselves didn't hire ten years back as fresh grads. Unis can't crank out what these people want, EVER.

I've been in this "profession" coming on 20 years. There's never been a time when I didn't hear a media report about a shortage or looming shortage. I sense a pattern...

 

[MechEng2005]

I (once again) agree with Kenat. I strongly support reviewing the project with a potential customer when the bid is submitted. Indicate you have included everything they explicitly specified. Then, go over items that you could have done cheaper, but decided that it would be best for the customer that a little more money was spent for the ease of use and life of the product. Also, discuss ways the cost could be reduced by eliminating some of the "bells and whistles" you've added if the customer doesn't think they are worth the money. Perhaps there are also some specifications the customer has that could be bent. If the spec says that all components must be rated to a temperature of 1200 degrees, maybe you can point out that you could get a different version of a large cost item rated at 1150 for much cheaper than if it MUST be capable of withstanding 1200 degrees. Of course, this needs to be discussed and verified.

If all you provide is a total cost, then that's all the customer has to judge it on. Of course they'll go with the lowest bid. However, if you tell them, "This is why it's worth the extra money to give the project to me," then they have something to think about.

The downside is that you can't be sure that the customer won't take your "bells and whistles" to somebody else and have them create the product anyways. Then, the customer gets a better product based on your knowledge, a competitor gets business and their name on a quality product, and you get nothing. Also, sometimes the decision-makers ONLY look at the total cost and aren't terribly interested in why the other costs were higher.

-- MechEng2005

 

[ScottyUK]

Molten -
"But the businesses who are screaming "shortage" are short of people who they themselves didn't hire ten years back as fresh grads."

We can agree on that at least!


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[csd72]

ScottyUK,

I 100% agree.

There are a few things that are caused by the industries lack of willingness to train fresh recruits.

Lack of experienced engineers and lack of experienced CAD people.

As I have said before, the amount of training in my wifes industry makes a laughing stock of the pittance of training I have received over the years.

 

[mauricestoker]

My opinion matches pretty much with Moltenmetal. The instantaneous gratification, get in, maximize profit, and move away quickly, is sufficiently bad as to have the Government reissue directions in an executive order to require life-cycle costing, and not just cut the crap out of scope and design support services in order to make obligation date. Unfortunately, those are high thoughts but have no meaning in the breech. Otherwise, so many truly crappy DB and T&M contracts would not be issued. I'd rather run a letter contract than a DB or T&M (after running several hundred million in facilities projects). DB's are useful for meeting the unrealistic award dates, but the risk/contingency that the GC builds into the proposal usually ends up being paid out by the government as design unfolds and "unforeseen conditions" and "site changes" occur.

The shortcoming is not just with the GC short term profit scheme, but with the financing and with the customers. My experience is that the mentality is very much different for O&M industry, going for smaller, continuous profit margins and a natural emphasis on repeat business. Poor O&M shows up much more quickly than poor design, and if you aren't doing repeat business, you won't stay in business, at least without moving on a regular basis or novation change.

Unwillingness of customers, or lack of technical expertise, is usually the starting point of clusters. If the customer knows that they want a lab expansion, but don't realize that the chiller or steam distribution is tapped out, the scope starts out bad and everyone moans about busted budget. Throw the lack of technical expertise with unwillingess to plan or hire an A-E or owner's rep based on
short term cost has resulted in so many mod's after award that some firms hire a temporary staff to pick apart every nickel and dime before the ink is dry on the contract.

As a note the government is not allwed to compete A-E services based on price, only professional capabilities and experience. Nowadays I see the AP accreditation as much as the PE. Since that is fashionable, should all engineers be forced to get LEED AP as well PE? If doing life cycle costing instead of "grab a fistful of dollars and run", should additional licensing be needed? That would make A-E selection easy, count how many acronyms are after each title. If they can get the whole alphabet, then overlook the last three jobs they fup duck.

I see nothing wrong with the younger engineers as compared to peers that have been around for 20-30 years, other than the experience level. Software isn't the cause of mistakes, it just accelerates how fast that impressive looking back-up material can be generated. Pretty much why I've seen so many really stupid PowerPoint presentations. Those same type mistakes have been made for decades, it's just that before the wrong application of equations took more time to buttress using a typewriter and slide rule. With some experience and general rules of thumb to verify magnitude, that same engineer and software saves weeks of time; I surely do not miss doing TFM calculations on spreadsheet, or worse, by hand.

If you think the schools are turning out too many engineers, things could be much worse. Those potential engineers could be studying to be lawyers.