Job titles, responsibilities and expectations (and $$$)

[Struct1206]

In my experience, it is typical in a structural engineering office to have several tiers of engineering staff. At the bottom, there are EIT's and young engineers; then above them you have mid-level engineers who have their PE's; and at the top you have Senior Engineers/Principals/Owners, etc. Typically, I have not seen anyone below the top tier have the ability/responsibility of reviewing and stamping drawings. It was always left up to the principals to review/oversee the work of the work of the younger engineers. My thought is that there are distinctly different responsibilities and pay scales at each level or tier. This seems reasonable correct?

If a company was to employ only a single structural engineer, who had to review and stamp his own work without any oversight, what would you say the minimum requirements for that position would be? ie. Is it reasonable to put someone who just passed their PE into that spot? Would that position command the same salary as someone in a larger engineering group with an equal amount of experience? Let's say that the engineer doesn't have an extensive amount of experience (4-8 years). At a larger company this person would be a mid-level engineer that worked under a senior engineer, would you say that the expected salary of these two positions would be different? Why or why not and to what extent would you expect the salary to differ.

I know this might seem silly to some but it has been bugging me and I'd really appreciate some input from some other engineers.

Thanks,

 

[rb1957]

to me, someone who has just passed their exam has just entered the pool, and there should be a considerable learning curve afterwards before they can stand on their own.

If I was looking for a person as you describe, my minimum requirement would be PE/SE exam plus 10 years experience, and then I'd check on the experience.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[CBSE]

I went out on my own after 7 years of experience. That being said, I have resources available to me and another engineer to bounce ideas off of. If you have had a great mentor in the beginning of your career, then the step is much less painful. I would say that it isn't reasonable for someone who just got their stamp to go out on their own...unless they have had the 6-10 years of experience already.

For pay, a one or two man firm will be much less than a big firm. The reason is overhead. It doesn't make the one or two man shop any better or any worse than the bigger firms, it just means they have less overhead costs to worry about.

There is also a very distinct perception about costs relative to small and big firms. I don't charge much more than I did with the company I came from, which was a larger company. However, since I am small, there isn't the push back on my costs. I used to get told a lot that my fees were really high...now I don't hear anything about that at all and my fees aren't any different...maybe 10% lower.

 

[msquared48]

To me the 10 year figure was what I came up with before I read IR's post. I still thought the same afterwords... Personally, though, I did go out on my own after only 8 years of licensed experience. So there you go...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[JAE]

You can go out on your own at any time assuming you are a PE.

HOWEVER, per most USA state engineering provisions, any licensed engineer should not practice engineering beyond their abilities and experience.
So the earlier you go out on your own, theoretically the less you can offer in terms of services.

Some PE who only wants to design simple wood beams for residential houses would be fine.
But offering to design a six story framed building without any experience applicable to that type of structure would be acting outside the limits of the engineering laws.

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

 

[Struct1206]

Thanks for the replies guys. Here's my actual situation...I have my Civil BS ('06) and my PE ('11), so 8 yrs experience. About a year ago I took a job with a multi-discipline AE firm (200+ people total) expecting to be working under a seasoned engineer (20+ yrs) who would be reviewing (and likely stamping) my work. As it turns out, I am actually working completely unsupervised and stamping my own work, without review by anyone but myself. I feel like there is a distinct difference in expectation and responsibility in the two and I feel like my compensation is more in line with the former, rather than the latter. I feel like an unsupervised, full responsibility position should command a higher salary than a supervised position. Does that seem reasonable? Or is compensation based solely on experience and not so much on the responsibility of the position? Thoughts?

 

[WiSEiwish]

mwhite1206,

I am in the exact same position as you, and share many of the same concerns. I was hired to help a senior level engineer who then left prior to my arrival. My department manager has experience and is able to help, but there is no senior level engineer involved in the design. Changing jobs has been on my mind to find a place with a senior level engineer.

Although frustrating at times, my time at this company has been beneficial as the burden of responsibility has made me embrace the profession more fully.

 

[rb1957]

if you feel you deserve a pay raise, talk to your boss ... outline the case why (responsibility), illustrate with comparables (similar sized companies, similar positions or independent consultant). what are the job responsibilities of your position ? it sounds like you were hired to work under an experienced engineer and now "you are he".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[dhengr]

Mwhite1206:
There are way to many companies these days that are glad to hire young engineers at a low salary, and then to ride along on that engineer’s P.E. stamp and licence until something goes wrong. Then that engineer gets hung out to dry. Now days, it seems that even AE firms don’t appreciate, respect or know what real engineers do, or their responsibilities and obligations. For starters, I’d be damn sure that their E&O and liability insurance covered you and your work explicitly, including your defense in any suits. Then you say an AE firm, with 200 employees, and one Structural Engineer. The proportion of common sense and engineering knowledge to Arch. fantasy just doesn’t sound right at that office. Seems to me that a normal AE firm that size would have a Structural Engineering Dept. with a couple engineers with a lot more than 8 years of experience riding heard over younger Structurals and a bunch of other crazy designers (maybe Archs.) or other techs. Sounds like you are being used.

 

[Leftwow]

Shit, at my job they hire supposed "25 year experience" engineers that come in and don't know the difference between a moment and shear connection. Then they bring no resources for calculation with them. A big waste of money for the company.

 

[JedClampett]

I don't read that as he's the only structural engineer, but that he's left alone on projects and expected to QC his own work. There might be dozen structural engineers in the same situation.

 

[dhengr]

Jed:
And, his OP, 2nd para. starts/says... “If a company was to employ only a single structural engineer, who had to review and stamp his own work without any oversight, what would you say the minimum requirements for that position would be?” He sounds pretty lonesome to me (maybe kinda overwhelmed), what with today’s codes AHJ’s and crazy designers. Then, he has a Civil BS and a P.E., maybe with primary course work/interest in structures, he doesn’t say. He’ll have to clear that up. Even you and I would have felt kinda overwhelmed, 3 years after our P.E. in an office that size, if we were the only Structural Engineer, with no one else to bounce ideas off of, and able to cross check each other. Of course, we should all be checking our work, and hoping for few red lines on our calcs. and drawings.

 

[JedClampett]

I thought that was just an example of what he felt like.

 

[CELinOttawa]

This thread reminds me of the difference I found between working in a small firm, carrying the Owner's family name, a larger non-ISO 9001 certified firm, and a large ISO 9001 certified firm.

Each has benefits and deficits, but here is my personal view:

- In a small firm, particularly when the Owner's name is on the door, the mentoring is above reproach. The jobs are varied, but of limited size. A fantastic place to spend your first years as an intern.

- In a large firm without formal QC/QV/QA processes (whether ISO cert or not), you will find that leveraging is king. That means a minimal amount of "other designer" review, with some cursory looks by more senior people when you really demand it... BUT, the advantage is that you will tend to get a great deal of variety of small and medium jobs which larger, ISO cert or similar firms simply price themselves out of because of the cost of their overhead and process burden.

- In a large, highly structured, detailed QC/QV process driven firm you get the largest of the largest projects as well as the role of third party independent design reviewer for truly enormous public jobs and large corporate jobs. These are wonderful and impressive works, but the variety drops and the duration of the projects tends to increase. Nearly anyone with good people skills and a license is going to wind up doing supervisory work in addition to their normal duties. Liability for being the QV engineer is frequently considered as high or higher than the original designer, and there is never the fee(s) remaining to pay for as thorough a job as the process and company want.

ON THE OP'S QUESTION: Know your company. Learn everything you can about how they run their business, YOUR business, and show yourself to be an adaptable and resourceful member who makes the TEAM more effective. Once you *know* you have succeeded in this, go see your boss and negotiate your worth. The more essential you are, the more you are worth. If you can be replaced, you will not get the raise. Brutal, but true.

 

[Struct1206]

Just to clarify for dhengr, I have my civil BS but it wasn't really concentrated on anything specific. I also took a few semesters of grad classes while working (mostly grad level structural classes) but got laid off, relocated and wasn't able to finish.

I'm actually pretty comfortable with the position that I am in, it's a little new to me but I'm ok with it. I do have a senior engineer that I can bounce things off of but he isn't my supervisor (as odd as that seems) and he isn't checking my work or reviewing my drawings. He works for our parent company and feeds me work but doesn't necessarily supervise me. My issue is that I feel like my position carries a lot more expectation and responsibility than what I original thought I was signing up for and I would like to see an increase in pay to make up for that. I feel like there should be a distinct difference in pay between and engineer that is essentially riding solo vs one that works under the supervision of a more experienced engineer, regardless of the level of experience of said solo engineer. Last week I mentioned this to my "supervisor" but he seems to think that my salary is on par for someone with my level of experience. That being said, he is the head of a civil engineering department that does mostly water and waste water treatment work. He says its pretty commonplace for their guys to get their PE and start stamping their own work with minimal oversight. I feel like that's crazy and I don't feel like that's how things typically work in the world of structural engineering. I tend to agree with several of the previous posts in that a structural engineer who just got his PE is still young and unlikely ready to "fly solo". Is there anywhere that I could find reliable salary information to compare with what I am making? Do you guys feel like I am off-base for expecting more for the job I am doing as opposed to the more supervised position I was expecting? Again, I appreciate your input.

Thanks.

 

[structSU10]

In my firm only the partners stamp the drawings (they also review the design though), even with almost all of the engineers having their license - it is due to the way the liability insurance is set up. I would think your firm would have to have an insurance policy for every engineer to have you stamp your own stuff and be covered; I may be off base on this, but that is how I understood how it all worked.

 

[Struct1206]

That is my understanding as well, that some companies limit who can stamp drawings because it lowers the cost of liability insurance.

 

[JAE]

Most liability insurance in the USA governs the firm - not the individual engineers.


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

 

[Struct1206]

So, assuming that there are no liability insurance issues, does it seem reasonable that an unsupervised engineer would command a higher salary than a supervised engineer or an engineer with less responsibility, even if the two had the same level of experience? I feel like it's a risk and reward sort of deal; and it seems to me like there's a lot more on the line when you are working in an unsupervised capacity.

 

[GregLocock]

Sure, if you look at the 'standard' level descriptions for an engineer you are probably talking about a 1 level difference. The good news is higher levels are paid more. The bad news is that the delta is down in the noise, about 5% or so.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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