Misadventures in Rubber Stamping 7

[KootK]

Obviously, it is a dangerous thing to admit to rubber stamping on this forum. Many members here feel that no version of rubber stamping is acceptable. They will want to chastise me and quote a whole bunch of state regulations justifying their stance. And I encourage that to some degree.

That said, my preference here is that the community discuss the ethical part of this amongst themselves, without involving me. I wish to not engage in that part of the discussion because:

1) It is my experience that those debates are unwinnable for me and can lead to unproductive conflict and;

2) My misadventure in rubber stamping has gone horribly off of the rails for reasons other than ethical ones. And it is that I wish to share with the community in the hope that I can prevent others from getting into similar trouble. I feel that we are often at our best when honestly discussing our practices and the pitfalls encountered in the course of our practice.

THE GENERAL SITUATION

a) ClientX is a manufacturer of things that are normally of a very small scale and come with very small potential consequences.

b) ClientX has worked with other rubber stampers in the past who clearly have never challenged them on anything. As a result, ClientX has the impression that they are capable of executing the structural design in full and that I am truly nothing but extraneous "sign off" required by the jurisdiction where they do work. This, obviously, is a negative consequence of engineers rubber stamping. It promulgates this perception in clients.

c) My signoff for one of ClientX's projects typically costs about $500 CAD. Cheap.

d) ClientX does not do great structural detailing. Much of it is antiquated and not in keeping with modern best practice. I let most of this slide because the work is of a very small scale and of low consequence.

e) ClientX also does not do proper shop drawings. They do higher level drawings and fabricate things themselves based on those. This makes pre-construction quality control difficult.

f) Why do I choose to work with ClientX? Two reasons:

i) I like them as people.

ii) There are many months where I earn $2,000 per month on ClientX's work where the effort involved is little more than the act of stamping and invoicing. Basically lawyer money.

THE SPECIFIC MISADVENTURE

a) Along comes a project that is 6X the height of a typical ClientX project. It's also vastly more complex with respect slenderness and geometry. In my mind, this one requires "real" engineering attention.

b) This new project tickled my Spidey senses but, at the same time, I optimistically thought this might be an opportunity where I could bring real value to ClientX's work. And I didn't feel that I could plausibly say "Nah, now that you have a project requiring real engineering, you'll need to find another engineer for that".

c) Naturally, ClientX wants this for the usual cost of $500 and 24HR turnaround. They bemoan my $2,500 fee and 3 week schedule but agree to it.

d) ClientX is unwilling to negotiate with the architect on anything. Not even things that would make the design and construction substantially easier with no meaningful compromise to the architectural vision. They view such negotiation as failure. This makes it difficult to prosecute the design. I can no longer do smart things for smart reasons.

e) ClientX is very difficult to deal with on what can only be an iterative design process. They fight me on absolutely everything. Everything that I do is needless overkill and not in keeping with what they've done with previous rubber stampers. Moreover, when they receive my suggestions, they respond with "Can we do this instead? What you've propose will be problematic for our fabrication team." That part is fine but what is difficult is that they are unwilling to share what it is about my recommendations that will cause them problems unless I tease it out of them painfully over the course of several days. Their proposals often do not work but I'm unable to tweak mine to please them because I don't know what they don't like about my recommendations for long periods of time.

f) I sketch ClientX beautiful connection details that are basically shop drawing level. Instead of reproducing my details, they condense them into a couple of notes to save effort. It's pulling teeth to get them to produce drawings that I would consider acceptable for the communication of a significant and complex design. And, as you can imagine, ClientX is frustrated with me "bullying" them into expending effort in the course of a work process with which they are not accustomed.

THE UNFORTUNATE RESULT

a) In terms of hours, I've now burned through my $2,500 fee twice over. And, worse, I've come to the conclusion that I won't ever be able to get ClientX to produce design drawings that I will be happy with on this assignment. But, nonetheless, I need to bring this assignment to a close. So there will be ethical compromise here that even I am not comfortable with.

b) My client is unhappy with my work.

c) I am unhappy with my work. It does not feel good to disappoint a client so utterly.

d) My cash cow, easy money relationship is dead in the water.

e) While I've been tending to this nightmare, I've been dragging my feet on other projects with clients that don't want to kill me (yet).

 

[skeletron]

Chalk it up as a lesson learned and move on. The experiment is over. Your other good clients will appreciate you and that's the work that we should focus on. The problematic client will move on, or might come around for another swing. You can make a decision at that time whether you will keep up with the $500 fee, or step it up to $600/700/750, etc. to silently re-coup the PIA fee you've been burned on thus far.

 

[Enable]

Perhaps from a strict view of professional ethics there is some issue with using one’s stamp in this way. But honestly, I feel quite okay, ethically, with what has transpired here. A routine item was evaluated in terms of probability of failure vs risk of failure prior to plan stamping in the first place. When the risks increased the approach was altered such that a greater level of attention was provided. To me this entire episode displays good engineering judgement when considering the reality that this is still a business at the end of the day.

The client management side of things is a bit different. Perhaps for such things it may be better to pass on these (harder / complicated) assignments and let the client get mad at whatever engineer takes that on (they’d get mad at anyone I’d wager). There would most likely be a better chance of them coming back for help with the easy stuff going this route (inertia and all that).

 

[milkshakelake]

I don't rubber stamp anything. It's not an ethical or regulation concern for me; it's just so many headaches. I'm an aspiring minimalist and only try to take on good projects with as few problems as possible (one of the reasons why I rarely do small residential). The money isn't worth the trouble. If it was, I'd have a totally different stance on this. As it stands, I can do without an extra Rolex a year.

I have a similar potential cash cow. This client only went into one audit in 10 years, which is a sparkling clean record around these parts (better than me). Maybe a thousand buckaroos or so per project. I still didn't take it because of the extra liability and headaches.

Ethically, if everyone is doing it, I don't really have a problem with it. I'll probably get buried for saying that ("What if everyone jumped off a bridge!?") but it's one of those things that don't seem to be a real problem in my view. If anything, it puts an extra set of eyes on a potentially dangerous project.

 

[phamENG]

I don't see what @KootK was doing here as "plan stamping" in the typically negative connotation. The specifics of this arrangement would violate regulations where I practice, but in a broader ethical sense I would trust KootK to take the steps necessary to fully understand the problem, verify the soundness of the design, and proceed in a manner consistent with the regulations under which he is operating. The under valuing is another issue.

To me, the unethical 'plan stamper' is the one who will stamp just about anything for anyone with little to no question because they know that the AHJ won't look at it at all if it's stamped, and/or one who knowingly uses their seal in a manner inconsistent with the laws and regulations governing engineering where they are practicing.

Certainly a bad spot, though, KootK. Sorry about that. If, at the end of the day, it will result in a condition that you are not going to be satisfied with and the client isn't going to be satisfied with, wouldn't it be best to step away from the project? Because if you ultimately put your stamp on something that you don't feel is adequate - in any way you define that term - then I think you're getting into shaky ethical territory.

 

[Lomarandil]

Certainly a bad spot, though, KootK. Sorry about that. If, at the end of the day, it will result in a condition that you are not going to be satisfied with and the client isn't going to be satisfied with, wouldn't it be best to step away from the project? Because if you ultimately put your stamp on something that you don't feel is adequate - in any way you define that term - then I think you're getting into shaky ethical territory.

This was my line of thinking as well.

Of course, it's easier for me to burn one of your invoices than one of my own. But I suspect that whether or not this project gets completed, the client is somewhat likely to look for other options for their future work, just based on the description of e) and f). Your ability to be a positive influence is probably waning or over.

So I'd be highly inclined to walk away now, rather than deal with the ethical (and liability) repercussions of putting a bow on this iteration.

 

[Enable]

Ethically, if everyone is doing it, I don't really have a problem with it. I'll probably get buried for saying that ("What if everyone jumped off a bridge!?") but it's one of those things that don't seem to be a real problem in my view. If anything, it puts an extra set of eyes on a potentially dangerous project.

The bridge example is not on as solid ground as you may think

 

[canwesteng]

I'm sure rubber stamping is never ok by the book, and true rubber stamping is not ok by me, but if you can look at something and know it's going to be ok, then I don't it's unethical to stamp without calcing it all out. I had a contractor throw together a steel platform, and everything was quite strong and lateral load path was there, so I may have "rubber stamped" it, but I can easily show it works.

 

[JStructsteel]

Sounds like some education is needed for them. Can you sit down with them and go thru the "rubber stampable projects" vs non ones?

If they still dig in, then let them find someone else willing to take the risk from them. Chances are if thy get in trouble, the other parties will have nothing for them to take, so they still will be liable.

 

[LittleInch]

Interesting read.

Just goes to show how things can go South very easily when everyone steps outside their comfort zone.

This sort of client very clearly doesn't recognise the value of Engineering so the alarm bells should have started going when they moved out of their norm by a factor of 6.

I'm in a different industry, but recognise the client type.

Extricate yourself carefully.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I have some similar (but probably much more limited) experiences\
Case #1:
a) A client who manufactures various racks that a hospital wants to use.
b) Being an OSHPD project, they have to have calculations for these racks. They submit these calculations to OSHPD convinced that they will be good anywhere and that their engineering is top notch because they don't have complaints from their customers.
c) We (as the hospital's SE for the project) are asked to justify the use of these racks.
d) We perform our calculations and find that the racks do not work. We tell the manufacturer what sort of reinforcement would be required to make them work. But, they decline and client decides to use a different product with better documentation.

Note that in this first case, there was a rubber stamping engineer on the project before, but OSHPD rejected their calculations. This rack was almost certainly safe for most uses. It's just that it didn't meet OSHPD's standards which are as rigorous as they get. You want this equipment to be available (and totally undamaged) immediately after an earthquake.

Case #2:
e) A client has a project that is essentially done. A small structure in their back yard. But, when plan check comments come back the engineer is no where to be found. Presumably he died, retired or was gravely ill.
f) Client can't even find the calc package and only has the drawings. And, she hires me to essentially "rubber stamp" the design. I put together a few very simple calculations to justify a design that is obviously safe and may be overdesigned for "architectural" look. I get someone to redraw the details and such and we re-submit the package.

Note: I didn't consider this to be 'rubber stamping', even though my calculation package was minimal. It was just enough for me to demonstrate how the structure and load path was more than sufficient.

 

[phamENG]

@JoshPlumSE I don't see case 2 as "rubber stamping" in any sense of the term. You ran independent calculations, and even produced your own drawings.

 

[JStephen]

If you're in the same location, actually sitting down with them in person as opposed to emailing, etc., might help iron out some stuff.

Some issues are just hard to deal with. At a past workplace, the employers (all non-engineers) viewed engineering as "putting lines on paper". So the more diligent you were in your engineering, the slower that process goes, whereas, if I had just made up numbers, they would have been pleased as punch because it was faster. So basically, the situation was, the better you did your job, the less they liked it. Not a good situation.

 

[Eng16080]

Is this an April fools joke?

 

[Eng16080]

ClientX has worked with other rubber stampers in the past who clearly have never challenged them on anything.

I am truly nothing but extraneous "sign off" required by the jurisdiction where they do work

ClientX does not do great structural detailing.

ClientX also does not do proper shop drawings.

I just don't understand why one of the most brilliant minds here would subject themself to a client like this who clearly doesn't value engineering at all.

 

[KootK]

I just don't understand why one of the most brilliant minds here would subject themself to a client like this who clearly doesn't value engineering at all.

Firstly, thank your for that. Color me flattered. I do it for the money and for the opportunity to be useful. Seriously.

I have worked in a great variety of structural engineering environments. Boutique shops, national firms, on my own...

Unfortunately, not one of those work environments has ever rewarded me for my "brilliance". Or, at the least, there was no reward in terms of remuneration or power. The opposite really. Engineering firms are for profit businesses and being a pedantic technophile simply is not the path to increased profits or happier clients. At best, I was rewarded with a measure of internal respect.

In order to find satisfaction in my work, I find that I have to focus on:

1) Being helpful to my clients, whatever form that takes.

2) Earning a decent living.

3) Exerting myself technically on this forum and in my interactions with my structural engineer colleagues and clients (I subcontract).

Unfortunately, I have found that the technically interesting work is, almost without fail, low paying. In a way, I deliberately take on "crap" work in order to bank roll the work that I do find genuinely interesting from a technical perspective. 80/20. 80% mundane work that pays well and often entails enjoyable relationships; 20% interesting stuff that pays poorly.

This is really why I take on a fair bit of subcontracting work with other structural engineers even though that is fundamentally a horrendous business model. They are really my only clients that value my particular skill set in any meaningful way. And, even then, there are limits to that which I must be mindful of at all times.

For those who have suggested that I extricate myself from the situation du jour, that has already transpired. My client dumped me in frustration. While this may have business advantages, it saddens me just the same. I don't relish my client now being in a lurch to find another engineer on short notice. And, fundamentally, I feel that the public would be best served in this if it were me completing the work. The lost revenue is of little significance.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

KootK: Engineering firms are for profit businesses and being a pedantic technophile simply is not the path to increased profits or happier clients.

In a nutshell that's what I enjoyed the most about being the VP of Engineering when I was at RISA. I'd go to committee meetings and learn about code changes before they ever occurred. I'd read research papers and journal articles that might help the company handle cases that aren't directly addressed in the codes. I'd find references for techniques that would help the company implement a new or improved feature.

When that company ceased to exist, I went back into engineering practice.... A couple of times I was able to dive deep into some various calculation. But, mostly it was about the daily grind of cranking out drawings and calculations as quickly as possible.

 

[KootK]

In a nutshell that's what I enjoyed the most about being the VP of Engineering when I was at RISA.

Agreed. I've been talking to software vendors about similar positions on and off for years. I was even offered a cool gig at Sideplate that, unfortunately, would have been too disruptive for my family. I'm hoping that, eventually, remote work options will make something like this available as a retirement gig for me.

 

[human909]

Great post KootK. For its honestly, raising discussion about ethical dilemmas and just a good conversation started.

Unfortunately, not one of those work environments has ever rewarded me for my "brilliance". Or, at the least, there was no reward in terms of remuneration or power. The opposite really. Engineering firms are for profit businesses and being a pedantic technophile simply is not the path to increased profits or happier clients.

I'm really sorry to hear that KootK. As I agree with the comments of Eng16080 regarding brilliance. You are a great engineer.

Maybe you can use the opportunity to find the clients that appreciate your brilliance. How to do that I can't say, but I have had the fortune of obtaining two clients and one salaried employee that appreciates the skills I have. I'm sure I've been exceedingly lucky, but I'm just mentioning it as it is achievable.

Regarding this circumstance. It sounds relatable to an unhealthy partner/partner relationship. You can both work and enjoy each other for a while. But if the true value and respect isn't there then eventually it will die and you'll be better off.

 

[Flotsam7018]

Honestly this site should be paying @KootK some of that sweet ad revenue.