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.

 

[JAE]

You as the engineer are the only one who knows whether you are qualified by experience and expertise to design something. In the US, most state engineering laws are based on this self-regulation - essentially placing the initial burden of the decision on the engineer.

Later, if the engineer chooses to attempt to design something that they haven't ever done before, and something goes awry, then the state board can investigate and determine if the engineer did in fact have previous experience in that arena or not.

But in reference to some on this site who come here asking freshman-year type questions and then asking for others here to actually do their designs for them (what size of beam is required?) then they don't belong on this site. They aren't asking for "tips" within the realm of their own professional practice but are usually do-it-yourselfers looking for free engineering services.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Here is a good, personal example. I do both bridge and building designs, but have predominantly done structural engineering in building design, plus I do a lot of work with precast and have experience with prestressed concrete design.

We recently bid on and were awarded a job for some precast voided slab bridges. I have never done a voided slab bridge before. However, I have done a few solid slab bridges, many box culverts, and plenty of prestressed panels. I had no qualms about self-studying any missing aspects of my knowledge on voided slab bridges and their details. If someone questions my design and sees I have no previous projects of voided slabs I can point at all the similar work and overlapping skills and experience to both defend that I am practicing within my experience and training, and to ensure that I personally feel comfortable that I'm not overlooking key design steps.

If someone changed this bridge to a cable-stayed bridge I'd have to pass. I have no background that overlaps with a cable-stayed bridge. Could I learn it? Sure! Could I design is successfully? Probably. Could I be efficient in my design and ensure I wasn't learning on the clients dime? Not likely. Could I defend my design based on my experience or training? No!

If someone said to me "learn how to design cable-stayed bridges" I would go out and do just that. Then, after much training and studying, I could then pursue such a design; but not before. The trick is to know what the cutoff point is. For me, it's when I feel I could perform a design without software or worked examples to guide me. If I feel I could do that then I feel confident in taking on the design and learning any additional details along the way.

Regarding the forum; there's often a clear delineation between the two types of posts. You'll often see posts where an engineer is stating "I have never done X before, please help me with questions A, B, C. Any reference documents you know of would be great." Versus someone not competent saying "I'm designing a beam, my software said to use X, I don't understand. What size beam should I use?" The first clearly understands what items he doesn't know and wants some tips. The second wants the forum to do their work for them, is relying on some tool to try to pass muster, and is making basic errors that are fundamental to engineering.

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

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[SandCounter]

"If you're asking this you should find someone with experience to complete the design."

That is a lazy answer from someone who wants to come across as smart but if put to the task couldn't do it either, i.e. an internet "expert."

I used to count sand. Now I don't count at all.

 

[JAE]

Disagree with that SandCounter. I've used that expression on Eng-Tips numerous times.

It's not that I don't know how to answer the question - or am too lazy to answer.
The issue is that this site isn't intended for students, do-it-yourselfers, or those working outside their professional arena.

Usually when that type of answer is given the post soon is removed anyway.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[IRstuff]

We often tell OPs they need to find a REAL engineer, particularly when it's clear they're trying to get by with zero knowledge about what dangers they're incurring.

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

 

[Lomarandil]

As others have alluded, previous experience is not the magic ingredient (although it helps. A lot!).

Related experience and expertise are important, but not critical.

The critical bit is being aware of (ascending difficulty):
[ol 1]
[li]what you know[/li]
[li]what you do not know[/li]
[li]which of the things you do not know are important (and why)[/li]
[li]appropriate ways to find answers to those questions[/li]
[/ol]

Most posts that are met with "you need to hire a __ engineer" are between levels 1-2. If you are make it to somewhere near level 3, a forum like this can be a gold mine for information and experience.

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

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

That is a lazy answer from someone who wants to come across as smart but if put to the task couldn't do it either, i.e. an internet "expert."

I couldn't disagree more with this; further you've effectively insulted some very smart engineers here on eng-tips.

Similar to JAE, I've also used the phrase many times here on eng-tips and never once because I couldn't do the task or wanted to appear an expert. Rather because the question was fundamental and something I was capable of doing out of college. Beyond the ethical analysis of assisting a clearly unqualified person engaging in engineering, if I employ that statement it was because I felt the best help for that person was to let them know what they secretly already know themselves; they were out of their element and doing a task beyond their skill where it could cost people life or property.

If anything, I've been emailed multiple times by eng-tips staff for actually helping someone where I felt they clearly were not an engineer but had a simple enough question that I could safely get them an answer and put them on their way. Eng-tips staff regularly deletes such posts and dissuades other eng-tips members from rewarding posts by clearly unqualified "engineers".

I'll happily answer a question that's a low-hanging fruit for "internet expert" points; but I started putting my real name in my signature partly because I also will debate some higher-order topics and I don't want to ever feel like I can hide behind anonymity in stating my opinions without putting my reputation behind it.

That and free networking.

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

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[JohnnnyBoy]

Thanks all for the replies, I do agree that generally when a post gets the "Get a real engineer" it is mostly because of a generic question with obviously no attempt made (How do you design a skyscraper).

 

[lansford]

In my experience engineering firms will not turn away a job even if they do not have experience in that area. For example, firms that have no medium voltage experience, will not turn away a substation job. If they can't or more often won't get someone who has the expertise, they will wing it. Unlike doctors who routinely refer patients to other doctors, engineering firms don't operate that way.

 

[Lomarandil]

Only the ones who haven't learned the hard way...

Nothing will kill your year/division/company like taking on the wrong project.

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

 

[MotorCity]

Using your example, I would say that just because you have experience designing water containment structures does not mean you are qualified to design swimming pools. Design is more than calculations and equations (i.e. plug and chug). You need to know the ins and outs of what you are designing. The general considerations are strength, serviceability, safety, constructability, and cost. Designing for strength is the same in both situations. Its the other considerations that vary based on what you are designing.

 

[drawoh]

JohnnnyBoy,

Maybe we need to define terminology here. An engineer is qualified because they have some level of training and practical experience that makes you confident they can do the work. An engineer is competent if they have demonstrated they actually can do the work.

How do you fit in the term expertise?

--
JHG

 

[NorthCivil]

I didn't get into engineering to do the same task over and over again. I enjoy getting into new types of projects I haven't done before.

That said, as a structural/buildings guy, I'm not going anywhere near big bridges (though I have dabbled in small pedestrian bridges and platforms). Nor would I touch a wastewater or civil design . But I know local structural engineers who dabble in stormwater management, and don't fault them for that.

Then again, most structural guys love new building design. I prefer getting into alterations and restorations - I love diving into the unknown and making things work that don't always necessarily meet the letter of the code.

Of course, when trying something new, you will rarely get to charge full rates for all the hours invested in the particular job. because a lot of those hours in reality, are invested into yourself. broad experience can give you a lot of perspective on your specialized discipline (if you have one), IMO

 

[CWB1]

Simple answer - no, you cannot ethically step outside your specialty with zero experience unless you are under the supervision of someone with experience in that niche. This is a personal peeve of mine having been the engineering review for many failed projects done by "consultants" hired by clueless management. Unethical folks may get away with it in simple applied design, but in proper engineering what you don't know will cost your customer a ton of money, possibly hurt others, and is quite literally the difference between being an engineer and a CAD jockey. If you cannot point to several years working similar projects and cannot guarantee the customer's success then don't do it plain and simple. The classic example posed on most every FE exam and study guide is the SE with experience in commercial structures being asked to take on a residential project, its unethical due to lack of experience despite being very similar work.

"If you're asking this you should find someone with experience to complete the design review".

If you change the ending, you get what every junior engineer should be hearing at least several times weekly.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

CWB1; I don't disagree but would modify every time you said "experience" to be "education or experience". That's the specific language in the engineering ethical clause and the practical nature of engineering.

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

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[CWB1]

TehMighty, I have always found that phrase rather misleading. If engineers are truly qualified by "education OR experience" then experience wouldn't be necessary for licensure, yet in reality education is the unnecessary part. IME courts also could care less about education however attorneys commonly focus on experience, often spending an excruciating amount of time qualifying and/or discrediting testimony based on it. Beyond all that, how many folks do we all know that exemplify the "educated idiot" stereotype about engineers, or grads who cant handle actual engineering and move into other fields? Common sense says that one can replace the other, but not the other way around.

Personally I believe that phrase to be a nod toward the fact that education isn't necessary, not that it should be considered a sole qualifier.

 

[oldestguy]

There is a house being built near me. The builder age about 60 is doing much by himself. In watching what he is doing and discussing things with him in general (I hold back any suggestions since I know he has built maybe hundreds, etc.) his reasons for why things work do not always fit my knowledge or experience as to what I would do. However, his job is working, in spite of soil freezing and maybe lifting footings or potentially pushing a wall in. How many of us would backfill basement wall, no house on it yet, with concrete wall 7-1/2" thick and two horizontal re-bars 10 days old in below freezing weather? A crawler backhoe handling some filling even drove onto that loosely dumped sand backfill. The builder indicated he was unhappy with the operator, for darn good reason. In general while this guy has had no engineering training, his experiences are working for him if even to the point where SF is 1.0 I'd not sleep at night seeing some of his procedures if they were for me. But it is his house and he probably will "get away with it". Good thing for building codes, but they don't cover everything. This is a plus for experience I hope. I don't work that way.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

CWB1: I believe (or at least my intent was) for "education" to count means education specific to a job. 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.

This obviously has limits just like experience has limits; but my intent was to say that someone can learn to ethically perform an engineering task without experience (within reason).

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

https://americanconcrete.com/

 

[moltenmetal]

This is the ultimate judgment call. Nobody can extend their expertise without taking on things somewhat beyond it- the key is knowing how far you can stretch that without putting people in harm's way or wasting your client's money. A larger firm in theory has a broader base of experience to draw on so that whatever a client asks of them isn't too much of an extension beyond what the firm's staff currently knows well enough to deal with competently. That of course assumes that the staff talk to one another, which is not at all guaranteed.

I've seen groups that would rather struggle along and do something incompetently in return for billings by the hour, rather than bring in expertise to help do the job right.