Is our profession being ruined? 24

[MIStructE_IRE]

Ruined by red tape, paperwork and seemingly everything BUT engineering!

For years we issued planning reports to the local authority for all projects. This was standard in my country for decades to gain approval prior to commencement.

Now, the planning process involves the usual report, a basement audit report, a construction management plan, a construction waste management plan, a flood risk assessment and a road safety audit! And of course no one wants to pay more for it!!

Then...we eventually get the project moving, have stage 1, 2a, 2b, 3 and 4 reports/letters/presentations, not to mention the endless meetings and emails.

The job ultimately gets to site and we have client advisors breathing down our necks to see if the aggregate used in the concrete mix complies with standards X, Y and Z - or that the mill cert for the rebar used expires halfway through the job and how will we ever deal with that!!!!

Christ Almighty!! Isambard Brunell, Thomas Telford and Ove Arup would be spinning in their graves to see the administrative clerks we have become!

I suffered a 3 hour meeting last week with a baby faced architectural technician telling me how structural elements are to be inspected..

Honestly, this stuff is pushing me closer and closer to the door!

I really hope things are different on your side of the Atlantic..

 

[phamENG]

dauwerda and Celt83 - I agree with both of you! Unfortunately, all of the economic conditions won't align simultaneously. The decline in supply is going to lag behind the implementation of the "program" but the program will still need funding in the early stages. Then, the ability to raise fees will be dependent on the combination of decline in supply and the increase in the quality of the product. Both of which will lag behind the implementation of the program. This lag will likely be at least 4 years (you'd have to grandfather anyone already in the pipeline).

 

[Celt83]

This lag will likely be at least 4 years

I'd peg the lag at something like 30+ years meaning this is change that our generation will need to start but won't see the benefit from.

Open Source Structural Applications:

https://github.com/buddyd16/Structural-Engineering

 

[TheDW]

In order for engineers to get trained/paid like doctors, we'll need a huge insurance-like industry that we can bill whatever we want and not ever have to explain or justify billings to the actual customers. We will probably also need a government agency willing to step in and pay for peoples houses to get designed and built if they cant afford it themselves, who we can also bill whatever we feel like.

Until then, nothing much will change.

 

[phamENG]

TheDaywalker - paid, I agree. Trained, not so sure. I think changes can be implemented within the current framework. It will be far from easy, but it could be done.

 

[Klitor]

I think you are going the wrong way with this. If a similar program was somehow brought to fruition, the "resident" engineer would start at a similar salary to what they do now (40-60k?). This salary would then triple as you noted, once complete. The reason for this, is there would be less licensed engineers, as more that are able to skate by now would be eliminated in the "residency". Less engineers but more competent overall = higher demand = better pay.

MDs though have a much steadier market and pretty constant demand so its much easier to implement.
On the other hand, we are constantly 'cycling' up and down... I feel like today everyone can get a job as a SE, but massive layouts and high unemployement in a couple of years wouldnt be unheard of

 

[structSU10]

I think the mandatory peer review is a step in the right direction. If peer reviewers must be fully vetted by a competent panel so not just anyone can do it, and the pool of reviewers were selected randomly, then there is some form of consequence to poor design which should be able to weed out the incompetent quickly.

There can also be a minimum hourly rate / fee for peer review set, such that the design team could directly use that concept to boost the standard hourly rate. Perhaps with such a system the benefits could be realized sooner.

 

[bones206]

As to implementing something, I'll leave that to people much smarter than me. I just think that's what needs to happen to make a meaningful change. My opinion was obviously influenced by my observation of my wife's career development experience and comparing to my own. Not sure if there needs to be a radical change or maybe a series of significant tweaks to the existing framework, but I'm an optimist and our industry is chock full of brilliant minds, so I believe it could be accomplished if we put the effort in.

 

[SteelPE]

I didn't read this whole thread, but the suggestion that the program is too easy is almost comical.

-When I started university at "Average Joe U" the entering civil engineering class was 45 people +/-. We were all in one single class first semester freshman year.
-I graduated 4 years later, not one person from that class stood next to me..... although 8 other people did (say 20% were left)
-Of that, 75% passed the FE exam (0.75*0.2= 15%)
-Of that, 4 years later, 33%+/- passed the PE exam I took (structural focus).....(0.33*0.15= 5%)

So 8 years later, from starting at "Average Joe U" there were only 2 would have ended up as structural PE's. I don't know exactly how much more exclusive you would want to make the club. I suppose 0 people from "Average Joe U" would be better than and everyone should come from "Super School of Technology".

 

[dauwerda]

One could argue that California has already implemented (or is well on their way to) a fairly robust pier review that is publicly funded. I do not have any first hand experience with plan and calculation submittals in Californa, but I have seen my coworkers go through the process. I know that their stuff was actually reviewed by another engineer (this was for a large industrial project) and came back with markups and questions/clarifications on some of the design methodologies. This of course is still different in each jurisdiction in CA, but it is the most robust review I have seen done by a building department.

If they started tracking major issues with submittals they could essentially develop a "report card" for each engineer. This could then be used to weed out less than competent engineers or to show potential clients that the cheapest rates aren't the best rates...

 

[phamENG]

structSU10 - peer review will help with medium to large projects, but for a house or a small office building where the structural fee is less than $10k, the cost increase to provide a mandatory peer reviewer will be a significant percentage of the initial design. It seems to me a lot of the "incompetent" practicing engineers exist in the small to medium project space where mistakes, when made, are more readily corrected by contractors or the consequences are much less.

Come on, bones - haven't you ever heard the saying "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem"? Kidding aside, I wouldn't sell yourself too short. You're in a relatively unique position to offer insights into another way things could be done. Most engineers will be approaching the problem (if at all) from within the industry and what we're used to. Those outsider-from-within viewpoints can be quite valuable to the discussion.

 

[bones206]

I didn't read this whole thread, but the suggestion that the program is too easy is almost comical.

Agreed. It is already really hard to become an engineer, and I guess the point of this thread is that it's even harder to BE an engineer. I don't think that weeding out should be the goal, but rather a natural by-product of a more rigorous and structured training regime. I think the goal should just be better, more consistent, and more formalized post-education on-the-job training. I think that would produce a lot of good outcomes across the board.

 

[phamENG]

SteelPE - just to play devil's advocate, how many of those 45 students entered with the intention to become structural engineers? My starting class was a little bigger - closer to 80. But there were only 4 or 5 of us who wanted to become structural engineers. Of those 4 or 5, we all graduate, and we all passed the FE. I know at least 3 of us got jobs in structural engineering, and I believe at least 2 of us passed the PE on the first try, and the other passed on a later try. So while that's only 3.8% of the class - it's still about 60% of the class with the stated goal of getting there. Maybe I misunderstood your post and your numbers reflect the structural group at your school - if so, forget I said anything.

The PE isn't an easy test by any means - but the PE structural isn't all that hard either. Especially when you look at all of the PE training classes you can take that operate on the fringes of ethical conduct. I paid the money and took one - at least half of the instructors had written questions for the previous cycle. Rather than a general review to prepare you for "anything that might be on it," they taught the test. I "binged" the course in about a week and a half in the month leading up to the exam, printed out the slides and bound them, and carried them in with the codes listed on the reference sheet. Guess what - everything on the test was in the course, and nearly nothing else. That's why they can boast a pass rate of 95%+ when the general public is passing at less than 50%. Of course, that's the only way they can justify $1500+ price tag.

 

[structSU10]

peer review will help with medium to large projects, but for a house or a small office building where the structural fee is less than $10k, the cost increase to provide a mandatory peer reviewer will be a significant percentage of the initial design. It seems to me a lot of the "incompetent" practicing engineers exist in the small to medium project space where mistakes, when made, are more readily corrected by contractors or the consequences are much less.

This keeps relating it back to current fees. I do think peer review should be limited to the larger projects, but fees across the board should be higher.

In other threads there is discussion on this subject. Someone posted a video where the speaker related it to a real estate agent. They get 3-6% of the building sale price - generally higher than the construction costs our fee is based on - each time a building is sold. We also accept liability for a building for its life, and get a small fraction of that amount. Yes, there is a perceived value to real estate agents where the good ones can make you more money, and structures tend to stay standing despite some peoples best efforts at bad detailing. How do we correct this point of view? I'm not sure.

Is there a way to build in a fee paid to the design team each time a building is sold, with a clause that if that fee isn't paid all liability is waived? This doesn't help certain buildings in the public sector, and many others in the private sector that never get sold, so perhaps its a "liability tax" rendered each year, or every 5 years or so?

It all comes down to the fact that with our stamp we take responsibility for the building for its lifetime - there should be some more value given to that concept than the fees set up now that only account for getting it built plus a little bit of profit.

 

[phamENG]

I don't see the liability issue in quite the same way. For most government projects (especially federal), yes - liability for life. Most jurisdictions, however, have a statute of limitations. I think this recognizes the fact that, in most cases, issues with the design will probably reveal themselves pretty early. Of course this doesn't really apply to hurricane/seismic events, but such is the world of probability. Whether or not that's the actual intent, I'm not sure, but it seems to at least be a byproduct.

The longer a structure stands, the harder it would become to prove a design flaw was the cause. Materials will degrade, modifications could be made. Even if, 45 years from now, somebody comes back and says "we reviewed your calculations and found that you made an error and spaced your rebar at 12" o/c when it should have been 11.25" max," how much will they get out of me for cracking in the floor that didn't become noticeable until the building was 40 years old? Not a lawyer, so maybe the answer is my entire life savings; seems like it would be very little, though.

I agree as an industry we're not really paid what we're worth, or well enough for what we risk when we do our work, but I don't think trying to pull passive income to offset a diminishing risk is the right way to go about it.

 

[SteelPE]

PhamENG,

I know one who stated at the beginning he wanted to be a structural engineer. He dropped out of college and is now a steel erector (I will actually have dinner with him tomorrow).

I understand the statistics I have above are a little misleading. The passing rate for the normal PE is around 75% (I believe). I know all but one of the guys I graduated and still talk to obtained their PE's (civil). I was a bit more flexible with what I wanted to do.... I didn't start out wanting to be a structural engineer. When I graduated, I wasn't focused on being a structural engineer, I just took a job as one.... and here I am, 20 years later, working as a structural engineer (I'm probably the guy everyone is complaining about above).

I couldn't believe the passing rates when I took the test. I was sure I wouldn't pass.... but I did, first try. I should also say, I am not a SE, but rather a PE. I took the test at a time and in a jurisdiction where passing the SE wasn't required. They just required me to pass the PE with a structural focus. The passing rate for that test was 33%. I am sure it's not much better now.

 

[IRstuff]

I think someone is smoking something if they think their family doctor has it easy; my wife is one, and she spends as much, if not more time, doing your patient charts than the actual visit, just so that she can get paid. And there are certain HMOs and insurance companies that will arbitrarily reject claims just to keep her billing department occupied. And, there are prescription refill orders that have to done, regardless of what day of the week it is. My own doctor answers emails on Sundays, so she's likewise doing similar things.

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

 

[phamENG]

...who said Doctors have it easy?

 

[mtu1972]

As a third generation Civi Engineer (first to take structural option) I’d been listening to this argument since the early 1960’s. Dad and Grandpa were project engineers for the highway department. Two uncles taught at the local engineering university. Sunday discussion’s were often regarding reducing enrollments and graduation rates to help increase their wages due to reducing supply.

But I’m sure that the university wanted to increase enrollment to bring in more income.

First term Freshman Chemistry (3 lectures, 1 lab, and 1 recitation), Doc Berry says to the first lecture class, “Look to your right, look to your left; one of you three will be gone by the end of this term and another one of you will be gone by the end of the first year”. I’d bet he was right.

Four years later, of the 109 CE’s that graduated, only three of us had taken the structural option elective classes.

gjc

 

[r13]

I believe during 1950 - 1970, civil engineer had been the king of career choice. Then PC came on 1980, and waves of our sourcing since 1990, out profession is in a decline, because of the effect of "mass".

Medical doctors, if medicine can be computerized and out sourced, won't fair fare much better either.

 

[dauwerda]

Medical doctors, if medicine can be computerized and out sourced, won't fair much better either.

I would say this is already starting to happen to some extent - most insurance plans now have some sort of tele-doctor where you can video conference a doctor to get certain diagnosis and prescriptions.