Peer Review - Small Structural Concrete/Steel Projects 6

[GreatDane2022]

Good evening gang-

I have been in construction most of my 25 year career but over the past few years have found myself designing more. I design very small concrete and/steel projects usually in the areas of retaining walls, pergola, and the occasional swimming pool. Despite a rather strenuous check-list, I still feel a peer review is very important not only from my clients but to further grow my expertise.

Are there any other one-man shops that practice this way and if so, how did you find your peer reviewer, what is your service-level agreement, fee structure, etc.? Any intel in much appreciated.

It is my understanding that it is against the rules of this site to trade contact information but if it is not, please feel free to post and/or contact me.

Thanks!
Texas PE

 

[Eng16080]

I think it's very smart to occasionally have your work reviewed.

I would contact local engineers to see if they're interested in doing this, preferably somebody you already know who does good work (and also isn't a competitive threat). I wouldn't enter into any long term agreement. Just keep it on a project by project basis. That way you can gauge how good of a job they did. From there, you can decide if you want to use them again.

One way to assess if the reviewer is any good is to create a dummy plan set, where you purposely add mistakes which range from easy to find to very difficult to find. (Make sure that you don't use this plan set for any other purpose though!) I've had my work reviewed by terrible reviewers who essentially did nothing. You don't want somebody like that.

 

[milkshakelake]

When it's something I'm not sure about, I definitely pay for peer review and/or training. I paid quite a lot for a firm to help me set up my standards for demolition and concrete, but it was worth every penny. I also had them peer review one of my concrete projects and I gained a ton of knowledge that way.

Now that I'm pretty confident, I haven't needed a paid peer review for a while. I've even improved the methods they taught me by a mile. The last time I needed peer review was a few years ago, on a gigantic support of excavation project with sheet piles and tiebacks. I can do those on my own now.

So in conclusion, it's a wonderful idea! It'll advance your business tremendously. Just make sure you actually get someone good. The number of bad engineers far outnumbers good engineers in my experience. How do you know if the engineer is good? That's pretty difficult, because you need a base of engineering knowledge to evaluate that. Everyone will say that they're the best.

Also, I think the number of engineers who will be willing to go the extra mile (like help you set up standard calculations and details) might not be from your local area. Because of competition and giving away "secrets." So there's also the option of using someone from the next town or city.

 

[KootK]

1) I love peer review work and set aside a couple of days each month to do some. My contact info is on my profile page if you wish to reach out.

2) The biggest difficulty that I've had with peer review work in the past is that it always falls to the bottom of the priority heap. Nobody needs an MBA to know that peer review is a shit business model. Tiny $$$ and no direct relationship with a reliable, high volume client. So I do it:

a) Mostly for sport/fun.

b) For small fees that I don't bother to charge for until they accumulate to something worth the effort.

c) At a small enough scale that I actually get around to it. Past lessons learned...

So, yeah, I keep it pretty informal.

3) If you attempt to give me some kind of qualifying quiz, I'll just have you screw off and never speak to me again.

 

[GreatDane2022]

Thank you all for your input, it is most helpful.

@milkshakelake - Where did you find such a firm to seat up standards and such? Likely someone local that you knew? I have been out of the industry for several years so I feel like an island right now but I am working on networking.

@KookT - I was not able to locate contact info for you on profile. I would love to reach out. I will keep looking as it may be my old eyes.

 

[GreatDane2022]

@KootK - now I feel silly...I get it.

 

[Eng16080]

3) If you attempt to give me some kind of qualifying quiz, I'll just have you screw off and never speak to me again.

That seems a little harsh, but I get it. My comment above about leaving a few mistakes in a plan set to see if a reviewer picks up on it is meant for somebody I've never worked with before, not somebody I already trust. I've had enough lousy reviews of my work that it really bothers me, especially considering this is one of the best ways to learn in this profession. The last thing I want is to go through my entire career not really knowing what I'm doing and getting zero meaningful feedback from others. It's not like we get to try out a building design and test it to see how it does.

OP: If you have some way to share your email, I'd be willing to review one of your projects when I have a chance. I'm more experienced with wood design than concrete and steel, but I'm sure I can still provide something of value. I don't care about a fee for this.

 

[phamENG]

It's not like we get to try out a building design and test it to see how it does.

If that's what you want to do, there's a career path for that: YouTube:Torturing Homes for SCIENCE! Wind, Fire, Rain, and Hail Destructive Testing at IBHS

 

[milkshakelake]

@GreatDane2022 I found a large local structural firm (like 50+ employees) that was willing to do it for me. It cost a lot. I couldn't find anyone else willing to go the extra mile and help me set up my company. They aren't a direct competitor; they pretty much exclusively do high rises while I do much smaller buildings, so I think there was no conflict of interest. I think you should just ask around. This kind of service isn't advertised anywhere, but you might be surprised what some firms are willing to do.

 

[KootK]

My comment above about leaving a few mistakes in a plan set to see if a reviewer picks up on it is meant for somebody I've never worked with before, not somebody I already trust.

Yeah, I assumed that to be the case when I read your original comment.

That seems a little harsh, but I get it.

Alright... softer then.

Like everyone's opinion on everything, mine is based on my unique experiences in peer review work which are these:

1) When I do peer review, it's usually a "favor" for the most part. Peer review is rarely a lucrative business opportunity. As with quizzing folks in job interviews, I feel that this sets up the rules of the road as far as the power dynamic and etiquette goes. If I'm doing someone a favor, I expect them to show me a certain amount of respect simply by virtue of my being an adult and a licensed professional.

2) Hiding mistakes on me in a Where's Waldo fashion is subtly questioning both my professionalism and my competence. It's tough not to find that offensive in the context of favor doing. If I agree to paint your garage in exchange for a beer and a slice of pizza, I don't want to find out that you've been deliberately botching the wallboard taping to make it hard for me and thereby "test my skills". I can buy my own pizza.

3) I'm a pretty seasoned veteran when it comes to the whole SE thing. Even so, I find that most peer review clients have a handful of "hot button issues" that I can't anticipate unless they specifically tell me that they have bees in their bonnets when it comes to those things. As an example, I have a client that has had some bad experiences with fillet welding the radii of HSS to stuff. One one assignment, they mentioned their surprise that I didn't flag that as a "no go" in an exterior application. So now that's on the list of stuff that I check for that client. My point is that every engineer has a shit list in their head of stuff to look out for. And, even with an excellent reviewer, their shit list is likely to be different from yours unless you've reviewed the shit list together at the outset.

4) In the kinds of peer review situations that I get into, I feel that the proper etiquette is this:

a) Vet me for the peer review work the usually way. Check out my resume, ask for some work samples, check a reference. Cross your fingers.

b) Take a chance on a smaller assignment and engage me for peer review without insulting me.

c) If you don't like my work, don't hire me again. Vote with your feet. Or refuse to pay me. It's small $$$ so I don't much care either way.

I feel as though this is how one normally does business with other grown ups in modern North America.

5) I'm sure that there are some crap peer reviewers out there. And I sympathize with your frustration if that has been a substantial part of your experience with peer review in the past. I suspect that much of that underperformance has something to do with this:

2) The biggest difficulty that I've had with peer review work in the past is that it always falls to the bottom of the priority heap. Nobody needs an MBA to know that peer review is a shit business model.

Well intentioned, competent reviewers may still struggle to do a good job of peer review because, to put it bluntly, it simply is not important work for them. I myself was surprised how difficult it is to do peer review work ethically for exactly this reason.

I once volunteered to do a pro-bono structural design for a new, Humane Society animal shelter (I like dogs). I underperformed on that assignment too, keeping folks waiting too long for the information that I owed them. Same thing. Pro-bono = less important than the work that pays the bills. I'm much more careful with what I take on these days.

 

[Eng16080]

KootK,

This would be an internal metric (for somebody I don't know). It's not an interview or quiz. They don't know about it. It's not meant to insult anyone's ability. If I'm paying somebody a real fee (not a favor) for a review, I would hope that they might find a stupid mistake that I could make on a set of plans. If I leave a mistake similar to one that I might actually make, on purpose, I think that's a valid metric. I'm not doing this with a friend who's checking my work as a favor. Also, if they don't find the mistake but otherwise provide a meaningful review, that is totally fine. I understand that nobody checks everything and everyone has their go to stuff.

Perhaps I need to reevaluate this attitude and just trust that the reviewer is competent.

In any case, I appreciate the feedback.

 

[KootK]

This would be an internal metric (for somebody I don't know). It's not an interview or quiz. They don't know about it.

I feel that I understand the situation that you're describing perfectly and have from the get go. The feelings that I've expressed on the matter pertain precisely to:

1) Getting a peer review from someone who's work you don't know well and;

2) It being an internal metric as you say.

They don't know about it.

Personally, if you're going to do this, I think that the reviewer should know about it. As a general principle, I feel that most things done in secrecy probably need a second look from an ethical perspective. After all, a secret is sort of a lie of omission.

Perhaps I need to reevaluate this attitude and just trust that the reviewer is competent.

That's gracious of you to say but, truly, you don't need to re-evaluate a damn thing. Do you. This isn't a technical thing where there's great value in our ironing out our differences. I've been interested to learn more about your opinion precisely because it differs from my own substantially.

 

[Eng16080]

you don't need to re-evaluate a damn thing. Do you

Sure it's worth re-evaluating, considering how controversial this is, at least based on a single data point, which isn't something I expected. That's the whole reason I go to this site, so that I might learn something from the collective knowledge of the group.

Recently I've been writing software, where I'm constantly testing it by creating scenarios that should fail, and then checking that the software catches it. This made me think it might be a valid approach to the peer review process as well. (This isn't to say that I consider a peer review engineer the same as a software system.)

The bottom line is that getting quality feedback is invaluable in terms of improving. The hypothetical scenario I presented might be out-of-line, or perhaps it's not. I'll need to think about it more.

 

[KootK]

It's a much longer story to tell but I actually feel that a high quality, mandatory, peer review process will ultimately be necessary to save our industry from becoming a low quality, mostly outsourced, commodity (some would argue that it already is).

In short, I've long felt that every job of any meaningful size ought to get peer reviewed by an anonymous 3rd party. And the results of that review should have the ability to hold up permit issuance.

Based on our discussion, I'm now feeling that I'd like something even more extreme. I think that the peer reviewer should:

1) Get 5% of the EOR fee or something like that.

2) Own 5% of the liability for any lawsuits that are caused by poor design or CD quality.

I know, that's extreme as I said. However, I feel that we need to create the following incentives in our self policed world:

a) A real incentive for the EOR to have a quality peer review done.

b) A real incentive for the reviewer to treat the review as a high priority.

 

[milkshakelake]

@KootK I'm against any type of more work, even if it's self policing. We have enough to deal with already. It's hard to finish and move projects forward. The industry is cutthroat and the fees aren't miraculous. I think peer reviews should be done when the EOR feels unconfident and they need a second set of eyes.

 

[KootK]

@KootK I'm against any type of more work, even if it's self policing. We have enough to deal with already. It's hard to finish and move projects forward. The industry is cutthroat and the fees aren't miraculous.

I disagree adamantly. Once in place, the review system that I propose would increase fees and elongate schedules. It's the very answer to the problems that you've described. It's how we get the space that we need to do our work well, get paid fairly for it, and make good engineering actually matter rather than continually racing one another to the bottom.

It sounds to me like you are imagining a scenario where you have to do a bunch of extra stuff with the same resources and schedule. It wouldn't be like that at all. Just as you add staff when your workload increases rather than killing your existing guys, you would add fee, schedule, and manpower to deal with review process. The keys are:

1) Making everyone do it uniformly.

2) Making it have consequences.

This is how we get un-cutthroat and start exhibiting some solidarity as professionals.

This has to be a regulatory thing unfortunately. We are, demonstrably, incapable of policing ourselves properly. In British Columbia, our association's right to regulate itself was actually revoked. No shit. And things are much better now as a result.

 

[phamENG]

I'm with KootK, but have some concerns. Primarily: what stops the shite engineers from cornering this market, or at least enough of this market, to lower expectations and eliminate our negotiating power for the additional resources?

Because somebody will be willing to rubber stamp these things, giving somebody else the ability to offer design services at a lower cost and with no schedule impacts.

 

[KootK]

Primarily: what stops the shite engineers from cornering this market, or at least enough of this market, to lower expectations and eliminate our negotiating power for the additional resources?

Easy-peasy my nautical buddy. As the EOR, you wouldn't get to select your peer reviewer. Rather, the AJH would assign an anonymous one to your project by way of a combined lottery / "who's qualified and available" process. Other features of the system, as I currently envision it:

1) Everybody with enough experience to do peer review has to do some peer review. Kind of like how all Israeli's have to do some military service.

2) The AHJ's role switches from doing project reviews to maintaining the stable of qualified reviewers. Who's good, who's good at what, who's available.

 

[Tomfh]

5% of the fee for 5% of the liability? DEAL!!

STAMP
STAMP
STAMP
STAMP
STAMP

 

[KootK]

5% fee for 20%% liability then. Whatever makes it make sense. The numbers are just conceptual and intended to be refined.

Moreover, I imagine that the AHJs would dole out review assignments in proportion to a firm's annual revenue. So nobody would ever be getting rich off of peer review. Rather, it would always be something of a chore; just a chore that you're paid fairly for.

I feel that progress in our industry is all but impossible if we're perpetually unable to shoehorn a little hope in amongst all of our raging pessimism.

Another hopeful outcome might be to allow those conducting peer reviews to count that work as professional development time. In my neck of the woods, this would probably fall into thee "contributions to knowledge" category.