Expertise vs. Experience 3

[JohnnnyBoy]

I have a general question in regards to when an engineer should and shouldn't get involved in a project. Common sense, as well as Professional engineering code of ethics, says do not take on a project in which you do not have expertise and experience in. This goes without saying as not a single engineer that I have met wants to take on un-needed liability or risk being sued.

In saying the above does anyone have an opinion on when one can take on a project even without experience in that particular design. For example, if an engineer has designed water contained concrete structures but not swimming pools should they not complete a swimming pool design unless another engineer in the office does have experience in that particular design. Another example would be designing a flagpole vs a streetlight. Both would have similar design processes although requiring the use of new codes.

The reason I post this is many times in the forum a question gets asked (many times with little information) and it gets shut down with a comment "If you're asking this you should find someone with experience to complete the design". Many times the OP is inexperienced and should not be designing it but I am sure sometimes the OP just hasn't done that specific design but many similar type projects.

 

[glass99]

I obviously pretty silly to say that a flag pole is fundamentally different from a light post, and its also incorrect to say that a responsible engineer would not evolve their skill base over time. I think in terms of ethics, there is a fairly big band of adjacent areas which you can responsibly take on.

One aspect is transparency. For example, your client may love you bc have amazing communication and service and they ask you to take on a historic renovation when you are normally focused on new build. If in that case you are clear with them and you do what is necessary to ensure its a successful project, it is completely ethical.

 

[glass99]

moltenmetal: large firms are really not big integrated groups, but independent fiefs flying under a common marketing banner. Getting someone from the mechanical group to join the project when you have been dealing with the structural group is almost as hard as getting a new firm involved.

 

[CWB1]

Say I've never done a post-and-beam wood framed building, but have don't lots of stick built buildings. I can pick up a book on the subject and read it, watch a few webinars on the topic, consult with other engineers on the topic, and discuss or observe similar work being built by others. I still have zero experience in the subject but have become qualified by education to perform the engineering.

TehMighty, so a few hours' education is equivalent to a decade or more's experience? I'd wager that no-experience couldn't effectively compete when challenged to efficiently design a post & beam kit product for a worldwide (less regulated) market, experience most likely winning out in terms of efficiency when folks have stiff competition rather than only the local-yokels and large safety factors and generous codes are thrown out in favor of juggling statistical failure analysis, manufacturing expertise, shipping cost/weight, and a number of other factors. Sorry but no, unless you've got experience guaranteeing world-class expertise for a niche then you cannot ethically be the engineer is responsible charge. As a former product manager once said to me, "we don't pay you for a functional design, we pay you for a BETTER design, ALL factors considered."

In the auto industry we hold engineers to very high ethical standards because efficiency is king, and you simply cannot be efficient without experience. I often am asked to apply my extensive experience in casting, forging, and machined part design outside of my specialty (a few particular systems within the larger powertrain) and I can, but am ethically required to defer to the brake/body/other lead engineer's expertise as to my assumptions of part loading, failure modes, etc.

 

[Lomarandil]

That's probably a difference between the mechanical world (where efficiency is critical), and the structural world, where almost everything is a prototype/unique solution.

(Not to mention that in the structural engineering world, our technical precision is of much less importance to the final product cost than things like.... architecture... and permitting fees... and contractor mobilization)

----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

TehMighty, so a few hours' education is equivalent to a decade or more's experience?

Depending on the structural challenge in question and presuming that the years of experience by the structural engineer prior to that job can be built upon? Yes.

To build upon what Lo has stated. I've worked on many jobs where my technical expertise added no value and pretty much any structural engineer could do the work. Sure, a more experienced structural engineer might make a slightly more efficient design but those engineers charge for that experience. Thus, they'll actually be at a disadvantage over someone with less experience. If the owner is designing a garage they don't need a world class engineer to design it and certainly would be foolish to pay for it.

You are correct that, while the above is true for most cases, it's not true for all. There are plenty of situations this does not hold true; someone who designs footbridges will not be prepared for being the EOR of a multi-span bridge no matter how many books they pick up.

In the end it may boil down to the differences between mechanical engineering and structural engineering.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[CWB1]

Depending on the structural challenge in question....

I've worked on many jobs where my technical expertise added no value and pretty much any structural engineer could do the work. Sure, a more experienced structural engineer might make a slightly more efficient design but those engineers charge for that experience. Thus, they'll actually be at a disadvantage over someone with less experience. If the owner is designing a garage they don't need a world class engineer to design it and certainly would be foolish to pay for it.

That would imply that a top engineer has some ability that others in their niche dont. Top engineers charge for experience, reputation, and to a lesser extent proprietary tools, not ability. Unless a junior isnt qualified by education and experience, they should be able to (and commonly do) do the same work in a very similarly efficient manner for less money. Difficulty of the project is irrelevant, they all require proven unquestionable competence. If an engineer is uncomfortable being in responsible charge for any project due to high difficulty or has to waste a customer's money on unnecessary material or labor costs then they have no business leading work in that niche.

Ultimately, ethics and laws are black and white, not gray, so everything we do must also be black and white. A project either meets the customer requirements or it doesn't. The design has either been independently reviewed to ensure quality or it hasn't. The responsible engineer can either prove world-class ability by pointing to past difficult projects, or they can't. There's no judgement to engineering or "Depending on..." situational circumstances, one either can prove they thoroughly know a niche and can guarantee the highest quality work or they should not be approving work in it.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

There's no judgement to engineering or "Depending on..." situational circumstances, one either can prove they thoroughly know a niche and can guarantee the highest quality work or they should not be approving work in it.

My point was about simple jobs that don't require expertise in a niche. It sounds like you're saying one can't be an ethical engineer of record unless their at the top of their field? You say it needs to be black and white but at which point does someone transition to being able to "guarantee the highest quality work"?

Incidentally, I hope you're not telling your clients you provide them a "guarantee the highest quality work". That's a great way to invalidate your liability insurance and get you in a pickle with the lawyers. I would hope you instead provide a "standard level of care".

The design has either been independently reviewed to ensure quality or it hasn't.

Interesting you mention that. I'm not aware of any universal ethical requirement that a project be reviewed independently. Certain projects make it impractical to not have independent review and local codes or jobs may require it, but there's plenty of jobs that can be done by a single engineer self-checking his or her work.



Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[CWB1]

My point was about simple jobs that don't require expertise in a niche. It sounds like you're saying one can't be an ethical engineer of record unless their at the top of their field? You say it needs to be black and white but at which point does someone transition to being able to "guarantee the highest quality work"?

I am saying that to be ethical an EoR's competency within their niche should not be limited, they should be an expert in their specific chosen field. They don't have to be widely known or considered in some arbitrary percentage relative to others, but they should have proven history creating or applying the latest technology and analytical methods within their niche, and their work generally reviewed and accepted as being modern practice. If they choose to apply simple methods to simple projects as a cost savings to customers that's their prerogative, but selling oneself as an expert (particularly to the uninformed public) when one isn't is fraud and ignores the obligation to both clients and the profession.

I'm not aware of any universal ethical requirement that a project be reviewed independently. Certain projects make it impractical to not have independent review and local codes or jobs may require it, but there's plenty of jobs that can be done by a single engineer self-checking his or her work.

I've had the need for 100% independent peer review requirement drummed into me from engineering ethics 101 through each successive employer's required ethics training and into society membership. We owe clients due diligence, and every quality control methodology preaches the fallibility of humans and the need for independent quality control/peer review because checking one's self simply isn't effective. Statistically speaking, the "simple" projects and tasks are the ones where most mistakes are made. Deeming a project simple enough not to need a design review simply defies common sense, so I don't see how it could be considered ethical.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

CWB1: Your first paragraph is clear and makes sense to me now. I generally agree with it.

I also agree with your second paragraph in that I agree with the merits and uses of 3rd party review. However, that's the unfortunate nature of the structural consulting industry is it's not only not required but probably not even done in the majority of cases. I personally seek out 3rd party review where practical or am required to have it done due to my work predominantly being delegated engineering. That said, right now the current market for structural engineering doesn't generally required 3rd part review and thus a structural engineer is at a disadvantage quoting jobs where they include it. By all means, I would love to see this change in the future for structural work as it would solve many problems, but it's not something the industry appears to be eager to do.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[IRstuff]

I don't see why 3rd party review would be an ethical requirement, per se, since it's simply best practice, unless, of course, it's something that was promised, but not actually done.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[HuckleberryFinn]

I am saying that to be ethical an EoR's competency within their niche should not be limited, they should be an expert in their specific chosen field. They don't have to be widely known or considered in some arbitrary percentage relative to others, but they should have proven history creating or applying the latest technology and analytical methods within their niche, and their work generally reviewed and accepted as being modern practice. If they choose to apply simple methods to simple projects as a cost savings to customers that's their prerogative, but selling oneself as an expert (particularly to the uninformed public) when one isn't is fraud and ignores the obligation to both clients and the profession.

I disagree; As far as I know, there is no requirement in any of the states that I'm licensed in that one has to be an "expert" in their specific field to practice engineering, merely that they need be minimally competent to the general standard of care of their specific practice or industry. Bear in mind, the majority of us Structural folks are licensed after about 4 years of experience - I don't think you could call any of us "experts" right after the exam, yet we were judged by the States' we were licensed in as minimally competent to be placed in responsible charge of significant engineering projects. Properly vetting consultants for adequate experience to economically and efficiently provide professional services is (and always should be) the responsibility of the buyer - Caveat Emptor.

I've had the need for 100% independent peer review requirement drummed into me from engineering ethics 101 through each successive employer's required ethics training and into society membership. We owe clients due diligence, and every quality control methodology preaches the fallibility of humans and the need for independent quality control/peer review because checking one's self simply isn't effective. Statistically speaking, the "simple" projects and tasks are the ones where most mistakes are made. Deeming a project simple enough not to need a design review simply defies common sense, so I don't see how it could be considered ethical.

Independent peer review is a best practice for sure but again, there is no hard and fast law or ethical standard that I am aware of mandates it as a requirement for all projects (at least as far as the Structural Engineering profession goes - I grant you, I have no clue about the Mechanical side).

CWB1, Several folks have suggested to you thus far that perhaps the differences between the Engineering disciplines may be obscuring the issue a bit here. I'll go a bit further - I don't think that I, as a senior Structural Engineer with over a decade of experience and licensed in multiple states, could alone, adequately judge whether an equivalent Mechanical Engineer had provided their services in accordance with their relevant ethical and professional obligations. I would also suggest to you that the opposite is likely true as well.

-Huck

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Properly vetting consultants for adequate experience to economically and efficiently provide professional services is (and always should be) the responsibility of the buyer - Caveat Emptor.

Oof, now you got me playing devil's advocate (forgive the term CWB1):

"Caveat emptor" should ideally not apply to a licensed profession (within obvious reason). If someone professes to be a competent engineer and is licensed as required, the whole point is a layman doesn't need more than a minimum of responsible vetting to ensure they are hiring a competent engineer. Licensing is entirely there to protect the public from unqualified persons performing engineering and (in an ideal world) to eliminate the need for any "buyer beware" mentality.

Otherwise I agree with your post; but felt strongly enough on the above sentence that I had to comment on it.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL) Structural Engineer (IL, HI)
American Concrete Industries

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[D Scullion]

In direct reference to the OP's original question: should an engineer take on a project they do not have experience in? I would have to say from the big picture point of view, if an engineers never took on work they weren't experienced in, then they would never develop experience. I would suggest the discussion should be more around the conditions under which that work is undertaken: time allowance for learning, additional testing, experienced 3rd party review etc to ensure the final work can be guaranteed as required.

Differences between structural and mechanical I believe are very relevant here, I am mechanical. CWB1, you referred to being in automotive I believe, I would say that is one of the most regulated and controlled industries within mechanical. My work has always been with smaller companies who develop products that their market research indicates will satisfy a customer need and who then go out and try to sell those products (i.e. not tendering for a contract with one particular client).

If the company identifies a need for a product significantly different from their normal range, they rarely hire new engineers or consultants (unless a very specialised need) and since they are already investing in the development, they are quite likely to allow their engineers the time to learn about the new technology with the long term view of developing core competencies within the company. Engineers learning new things is a big part of R&D. At the end of the day, if the product fails in the market, the company has a lot more to lose than the engineer.

I worked for a time in agricultural machinery design where one project could have been a trailer, the next a grass cutter, the next a plough. One particular product was a machine to shred a bale of straw and blow it out a chute into pens for bedding. Aside from the structural, mechanism and hydraulic system design i remember having to learn about cutting/shredding systems to design the cutting head, learn about fan/ turbine design to generate the air flow to carry the chopped straw and I learnt about air conveyance systems for material handling to design the chute and ensure the airflow was adequate and the straw would blow out far enough. There was no third party review which was ultimately the companies decision, the design was verified through extensive testing.
I should also add I'm in the UK so possibly legislative differences are also relevant here, just wanted to throw in another mechanical perspective

 

[GregLocock]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. If you can test the product before series manufacture then you can afford to learn as you go. There's even a way of formalising that approach - FMEA and DVPR - which makes innovating more robust. That does of course assume that the FMEA is done with integrity and that the resulting DV is feasible. Fortuntely in my case the company had a series of workshops on writing FMEAs run by an experienced systems engineer, who explained how to use them as a tool instead of a tick the box requirement.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

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

 

[HuckleberryFinn]

"Caveat emptor" should ideally not apply to a licensed profession (within obvious reason). If someone professes to be a competent engineer and is licensed as required, the whole point is a layman doesn't need more than a minimum of responsible vetting to ensure they are hiring a competent engineer. Licensing is entirely there to protect the public from unqualified persons performing engineering and (in an ideal world) to eliminate the need for any "buyer beware" mentality.

I think we're generally on the same page here Ian - my Caveat Emptor comment was more geared toward efficiency and economy over baseline engineering ability. Eg. if I tried to design a precast culvert, I could probably pull something together that would not completely suck and would generally work for the intended application but head-to-head, you'd likely smoke me on both material costs and design efficiency if we compared notes at the end. I do think that a lot of folks (maybe just my clients) mistake any warm body with a seal for someone that can effectively perform the design services they need (that being a competent/licensed engineer literally means you are also efficient and economical with your designs and that your designs are also generally safe and suit their intended purpose). That's probably a failing on our part there as a profession.


-Huck

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Huck, agree completely.

Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, VT, CT, MA, FL) Structural Engineer (IL, HI)
American Concrete Industries

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[CWB1]

As far as I know, there is no requirement in any of the states that I'm licensed in that one has to be an "expert" in their specific field to practice engineering, merely that they need be minimally competent to the general standard of care of their specific practice or industry. Bear in mind, the majority of us Structural folks are licensed after about 4 years of experience - I don't think you could call any of us "experts" right after the exam

From the common definition of competence - a degree of expertise which enables a person to engage in an occupation at a level which meets or exceeds minimal standards of acceptable practice for the occupation. Rather explicitly, you must be an expert in one or more niches and capable of performing work meeting or exceeding the quality of the average firm.

As for minimal knowledge, I wouldn't expect the "jack of all trades" roles to be good at much of anything after four years. However, after 3-5 years focused in a modestly sized niche most engineers should be well into the upper plateau of the learning curve with little to learn aside from future technologies, IOW experts in that niche. FWIW, a PE is like any other state license in that there is expected to be a large number of folks who obtain a license that lack of knowledge and ability ethically prevents them from using for awhile. Its no different than driving, after the token brief test on side streets some teens are ready to drive anywhere, others will need quite awhile to develop the skill to negotiate LA or NYC traffic.

Properly vetting consultants for adequate experience to economically and efficiently provide professional services is (and always should be) the responsibility of the buyer - Caveat Emptor.

Sorry no, licensing is an offshoot of the state's declaration that the public not have to vet engineers on technical matters. Beyond that, in many (most?) cases engineering firms are contractually prevented from discussing prior work, so customers commonly have little choice but to trust that licensed engineers holding themselves out in a field have extensive experience in that field and can complete their work correctly and efficiently.

Independent peer review is a best practice for sure but again, there is no hard and fast law or ethical standard that I am aware of mandates it as a requirement for all projects....Several folks have suggested to you thus far that perhaps the differences between the Engineering disciplines may be obscuring the issue a bit here....I don't think that I could adequately judge whether an equivalent Mechanical Engineer had provided their services in accordance with their relevant ethical and professional obligations.

Not sure why you or anyone else would suggest that ethics or practice are dependent on niche. All degree fields typically take engineering ethics 101 together, and we are all similarly judged by the board and courts. Furthermore, quality management systems & philosophies are standard across industries and many engineers and project managers move freely between industries and niches. IME this falls under the standards of acceptable practice and is more a large firm/small firm debate than it is between niches or industries. Large firms tend to adhere to rather strict ethics as a matter of standard process. Small firms OTOH commonly put profit above everything else in every niche and industry.

 

[D Scullion]

Agreed, A succinct summary of my experience as hinted to in my comment. I have a lot of experience with those small companies. I would add though (almost in their defence) that the profit they chase is most often return on their investment in their development. Their decision to favour profit over strict adherence is a conscious gamble rather than greed etc, ultimately they have a lot more to lose, relatively speaking, due to their size.

Declan Scullion CEng

http://www.leandfm.com