Solutions for: not enough time, fee, training, etc. 1

[jike]

How do we solve these problems which we all seem to face?

In this competetive world, sometimes we are our own worst enemies. There is always someone who will do the job cheaper or faster. The architect often doesn't realize or doesn't care that there may be a difference in quality he will receive.

Instead of just complaining about it, let's do some brainstorming to see what solution we can come up with.

 

[UcfSE]

As long as there are people out there who will some a crap job for nothing there's not a lot we can do other than make the client or potential client aware that you get what you pay for.

I've found that keeping myself very organized helps me cut down on time spent on a job so that I am able to meet dead lines and so on. If you are an employer, get your engineers some decent software for God's sake! I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and I can't do a job by hand as fast as I can with good software. If it saves me, say, 4 hours per job how long does it take to pay for itself at $85-$120 an hour? After that it's gravy.

 

[jike]

When things change, that affect the amount of time or fee or your ability to get the job out the door, you need to speak up, loud, clear and without ambiguity! Don't be afraid; standup for what you need to do your job. If you need more time, say it. If you need more fee, say it. If you need specialized software, say it.

And don't wait for 2 weeks before you say anything. Your silence will be taken as your agreement.

This will also train those who think that they what your job is all about. Little do they know......

You may create some waves the first time around but they will quickly learn the second time.

 

[whyun]

We have to put in an effort in letting the clients (mostly architects I presume) be aware of "cheap, fast, good: pick two".

Also encourage architects to "educate" their clients the same.

In my experience, it was self-defeating when you try to compete with the other local engineering firms on price. It is always better to set your rate and stick with it. "Cheaper clients" will solicit other cheaper engineering firms and perhaps learn the value of good engineering the hard way.

It's tough out there... Good luck to you all.

 

[connect2]

We've walked away from traditional clients that want a competetive bid process wrt. engineering fees. Simple as that. Its always better to look for new clients or concentrate on the work in hand than work for nothing. It seems to never fail that when your working for nothing some opportunity presents itself that one can't take advantage of.

 

[ashhafPE]

From my experience, I have seen the engineers that work for less and do sloppy work come and go. They will not last. Sooner or later something will go wrong for them. I agree with
whyun. Set your price and do good quality work and you will always have and find work.

 

[tsboxman]

There will be firms and people that will do a job cheaper (not less expensive - cheaper) but we cannot give up all standards to compete. The biggest I see is trying to compete with overseas competitors.

Here is what I try to do when I can:
1. The new guy. New employees may be well qualified and may not be. I try to get a feel for them but try not to intimidate them. Sometimes they may be afraid to admit they do not know something fearing looking stupid amongst their peers. I try to explain things simply (but not as if they are a kid) so they can understand the "why". Sometimes you think "they should know this" but keep it to myself. I don't feel threatened to teach people in my business what I know. I may also have them tag along with experienced personnel and send them to machines to get knowledge from experienced people that deal with our work outputs. They offer many suggestions and opinions (sometimes too many that are not feasible) that are beneficial, and if nothing else they can get an understanding in where we are coming from. Remember - it rolls down hill.

2. The pow-wow. I try and meet suppliers (the grunts, not just salespeople) to sit down and get a feel for what they do and what problems they face. It also develops a bond and can be easier to work with on later tasks. I also try to explain problems I face or why I do things the way I do. I am not trying to say I teach my suppliers to do what I do or the opposite, but get a feel for what each other does. It takes time but may resolve bigger problems later on.

3. Time/money: Go hand in hand. It cost money for a good work environment (software/hardware/etc.) but increases productivity. I have gone from a Corvette of a CAD system to a Pinto but still expected to race the same. Not effective. Possibly try to figure time studies on certain types of tasks. This will at least give some backing to complaining and support your position when talking to higher ups. Every task will vary, but you may get an idea how long it takes to actually input certain types of designs.
Salary/Compensation: Tough one. Sometimes when all goes right we are lucky to come out with some marginal profit. Competition is tough especially with overseas competition. Then when things go wrong, and they do (Murphy's Law), we look at a loss. Hard for the little guys to re-coop. I figure gain as much experience as I can and look at alternative possibilities before I become atiquated. I do not expect to retire with a company. Hard to do but don't be bitter. I have tried, doesn't help.

4. Communication. The hardest. KISS - KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID. With so much out-sourcing and all these new buzz words that make life on the grunts more complicated, it has been tough to get proper info. I have created very detailed, yet simple, drawn-out requirements I give to suppliers and salespeople. A "what I need" list to eliminate having to go back and forth multiple times to get the information that should have been done the first time. It is a lack of knowing what is needed. We all have been in those shoes. Being patient and explaining your position helps for the next time.

5. The boss. Hard to communicate your position at times. They are under the gun as well. Sometimes the best thing to do is be honest, damn the consequences. So many "yes-men" are willing to tell people what they want to hear but in the end the truth prevails. Have to explore all options and creativeness before saying "no" though. It can become "he is a stubborn, unwilling to excel and try harder employee." Dangerous ground which I have been in the hot seat. I would rather be in the hot seat upfront and realistic than in the end though.

6. Communicate issues through publications. Putting out there a "here is what we face..." not just in industry specific publications but broaden it. Engineers talking amongst engineers is a great start but it needs to go beyond. A big complaint has been with architects - focus there. But keep it in a positive and understandable way. Don't overcomplicate it or the message gets lost. Focus on where the biggest problem lies and look for their input.

Some of this may be feasible to your industry some may not. It is just from my experiences and personal observations.

 

[J1D]

Jike,

It’s the reality. Clients’ knowledge, criteria and experience play a big role in the competitive world.

Being with different companies, from commercial field to industrial field, I experienced these things and noticed some differences. For industrial projects, “Cheaper” doesn't seem to be a super powerful bidding weapon. Bidder’s qualification, record and previous experience is a big deal. The clients are usually the owners of the end product. “Cheaper” design may not cheap in other aspects. And, most importantly, any problem in the product quality will cost their fortune directly.

 

[jjeng2]

This is a big oversimplification but my philosophy is to get one oppurtunity to show a client what we can do and wow them with service and quality of product. Clients seem to be longing for someone who is very fast on responding, meets every deadline, and does a ggod job, easy to work with, etc. Once you show them this they will pay more to avoid having problems. The hard part is showing them this. Its ethically questionable but doing a job for less than you usually would and telling the client that this is less(so they dont expect that in the future) is a way to get a chance to show them what you can do. Now you have to really wow them and they wont mind paying your normal fees in the future to avoid the hassles of getting the service that comes with the lowballer. Im ok with this approach as long as Im completely honest up front. Owners are businessmen first and engineers second.

 

[LPPE]

jjeng2 - I agree with showing a client what a good job you can do, unfortunately, after the first job, the client ALWAYS says "Well, you did job X for $A thousand. Job Y is almost exactly the same, and you want to charge us $A + B thousand? No way.".

Its a catch-22.

 

[miecz]

Agree with connect2. It's the competative bid process that had caused this situation. Here's a radical solution. What if all structurals engineers refused to give an engineering estimate.

 

[jjeng2]

LPPE,
You are absolutely right but...
If that is the approach you take you have to tell them up front that you will do this job cheap and possibly at a loss to have a chance to show them wheat you can provide. If they know the level of service you can provide your regular price will be less scary when you hit them with it.

 

[RARWOOD]

I've had a number of engineers ask me how their competition can design multi-family wood frame structures for such low fees. The answer I generally give is that I don't believe I could do a proper job of designing a multi-story wood structure for such a low fee. This is despite the fact I have over ten years of wood design experience.

A general piece of advice I give people, is that maybe they should not be trying to compete in that market. Instead maybe they should focus on the projects that make up their core business, where hopefully they can get atleast a reasonable fee.

Another thing I would recommend is to enforce your specifications on the projects you design. Its my opinion that many times firms who are working for very low fees are supplementing their income by providing consulting services to suppliers on larger projects. I think on those projects they also minimize their design efforts.

 

[samdamon]

Agree with sentiments in many of above posts. It is not at all easy to make a living as a consulting structural engineer. Most of my office’s clients are Architects and they typically request not-to-exceed proposals on a project-by-project basis. When something happens during the project that requires more of the Engineer’s time, that kind of agreement puts the onus on the Engineer to convince the Architect (and indirectly, the Owner) to pay more. Its usually an uphill battle from the start, since even getting paid on time for the base Scope of Work can be difficult.

Have heard several Engineers that have been practicing since the 50's comment that there has been a distinct, continuing downturn in the respect accorded the profession, and in particular how structural engineers are treated in a sub-consultant relationship. Is this somebody's fault? I don't know. I began working as an engineer in the late '80s, so from my perspective there has not been that big a change- just "more of the same old same old".

It would be great to work for an hourly rate on all projects and not have to bid or propose, but the reality is that none of our clients would hire us if that is all we offered. Some of you may be thinking that we should get better clients. Agreed. Easier said than done though. Anyway, that type of client if not extinct is definitely on the Endangered Species list.

Some of our clients shop around for a lower price on each project. My office, which is pretty efficient and has a relative low overhead, more than once has been grossly underbid by big firms who need to keep their large staffs busy. Sometime I think Architects ask for a bid from us just so they can use it to beat down the price of a consultant they really want to use.

On the other hand, my office has also been guilty of knowingly proposing a lower bid just to get a project, particularly as one poster said, when trying to get a foot in the door with a new client. Its very tempting to do.

Here's what I propose to remedy this. Its not the clients that is the problem, really. Engineers must appreciate their own value and skills. They must more consistently require fair compensation from clients while continuing to hone their efficiency and knowledge. Whyun's advice seems best. Figure out want you need to charge to cover your costs and make a living, and stick to it.

Whenever you are tempted to undervalue your services, either by charging too little, not speaking up when the Scope changes etc., remind yourself why you are an Engineer. For me it is the sense of accomplishment when a thorough, complete set of drawings goes out the door, and as I see the structure go up in the field. For others it might be the opportunity to work in one of the professions, compensation, enjoyment in using mathematics, problem solving etc etc.

Now remind yourself that in the long run, you will not be able to continue doing this work you enjoy if you undercharge. If you do try to stay in the field and undercharge, you will end up either doing poor quality work (The heck with that!) or going out of business.

Enough said. God bless all structural engineers.