Structural Consulting Fees 3

[KevinChez]

I work with a number of architect's and developers. Often (a couple times a month) I get a question or email that takes about 20 minutes of my time. I don't really charge for this because it often leads to more work or just strengthening the relationship.

Does anyone have similar experiences and/or thoughts and how to navigate the "hey I have a quick question for you" haha. Thx.

 

[BadgerPE]

Koot,

Sounds like we are on the same page. My offer stands if you ever want to return to Madtown.

 

[KootK]

Thanks Badger. Let's try to grab a beer next time I'm out that way. Should be shortly after covid settles down and the border restrictions relax.

 

[BadgerPE]

I’m in Koot. Hell, I’ll buy all night!

 

[kissymoose]

It pains me to say this but the answer is this: a real estate agent's performance is of more value to their client than a structural engineer's performance is to a structural engineer's client. For the the most part, nothing ever goes wrong with structures no matter who you get to design them (effectively no consequences).

I agree with this. Clients pay to match the perceived value of the service. So what is valuable to a client who doesn't understand building codes/structural performance? It's meeting the timeline, producing drawings that won't create problems during permitting and construction, availability when problems do arise, etc. I've had phone calls with clients where they bring up the expectation to be billed for our little chat; they have no problem paying for it because it was valuable to them. They had a question and I picked up when they called. Now try to discuss charging for the extra day or so it took to produce immaculate calculations. They don't care, as long as no problems arise in the future. And as far as building performance goes, there was a thread on here sometime back complaining about some Australian firm that was not producing good designs, and had buildings perform poorly during an event (I believe it was an earthquake). The poster then mentioned that the city or client hired the firm to analyze the buildings and repair/strengthen. The city/client didn't think to or didn't have the capacity to put the blame on the firm for poor performance, they gave them even more money to fix it!

 

[NorthCivil]

If you are a structural engineer who can hold a conversation and look someone in the eye, you likely have a much more lucrative career as a realtor than as an engineer.

The general public are much more likely to trust and hire a realtor who is a qualified engineer, I reckon.

Couldn't do it myself though.

 

[Enhineyero]

Want the big dinero as a consultant? Get into a consulting racket that has consequences

The structural engineering community has done well in doing its job (i.e. delivering safe and economical designs)). Imagine if our current engineering knowledge is poor and structural designs come with a waiver that says something like 'engineering design for this building has a 50/50 chance of collapse and that the engineer will not be liable'. People would value engineering differently. Same applies to other technology.

We essentially became part of something that works 99% of the time, hence our perceived value became low. How do we get out of this? well as a start we can stop cutting each other's throat and be like OPEC.