Just wondering where your B.Tech (mfg & mech) places you in this mix
of building designers you are talking about.
I do disagree with a lot of what you say below but this has dragged
on long enough and I have more important things to do so have decided
not to try to extend the discussion.
At 05:15 PM 14/08/2009, you wrote:
>Gil, and others
>
>Gil, I don't disagree with you there. They get's what they pay for!
>
>Part of the original issue is what value the structural engineer? If the
>structural engineer is only interested in simple frame and fabric box like
>structures, then they cannot expect to gain a large remuneration for their
>contribution to a project. They should also expect and be aware that the
>skills/service they are offering also overlap with those of other
>occupations, from architects to engineering associates. As a consequence
>their services may be dispensed with all together.
>
>Also if the market place, does limit everything to simple boxes, then it
>could be said the market has little need for structural engineers, and
>greater need for say structural engineering associates. But gets complex, if
>a 50% pass mark gets a B.Eng, then "engineers" operating at level of
>engineering associates. If 50% gets associate diploma/degree, then
>engineering associates operating at level of drafters. But some engineering
>associates get 100%, and are operating at a level above the lower level of
>those with the B.Eng. These engineering associates hit a problem turn to an
>engineer, and fail to find the level of competence they expect. If increase
>the minimum pass mark to 90% then create an entirely different environment.
>Or from another aspect if market only requires structural engineering
>associates, then civil engineers will suffice and no need to extend to
>providing structural engineers. {But what can a modern time (2000's) civil
>engineer do? Test water quality?}
>
>The collectives of architects, structural engineers, and engineering
>associates have little to do with the market place, such titles and
>classifications refer to idealistic specifications of competence and service
>provision. The market place is much more complex, people have to get by with
>the limited resources they have access to. Creating licenses does not help.
>The license simply defines the absolute minimum quality of service to be
>provided, and required to be provided. Anything more is unnecessary
>otherwise it would be in included in the license requirements. Thus fees
>diminish to the level of the licensed task: which has little to do with
>design or engineering, and more to do with code checking.
>
>Also from an historical perspective: Robert Stephenson, who built the
>Britannia bridge, turned to Fairbairn for advice, mostly experimental, he in
>turn, sought the assistance of Hodgkinson for a more mathematical
>assessment, using those new fangled theories from the continent. Who or what
>we call the people on the project is largely irrelevant as long as the
>required skills for the project are enlisted: and adequate evidence of
>suitability for the proposal is produced.
>
>Thus community can either look for an architect or look for Frank
>Lloyd-Wright or Frank Gehry. It can look for a structural engineer, or seek
>the services of Ove Arup. For the most part however, people will look for
>some one with a local reputation: the name and reputation more important
>than the group they belong to. Unless group is the name of business: like
>Arup.
>
>On the other hand icons can be important, icons set very high bench marks:
>now who is the current icon of structural engineering? Trehair for steel,
>Hancock for cold-formed steel, and Holmes for wind loading, Murray for
>vibration. But who for structural engineering?
>
>Which individual or which business is the Mega-Star of structural
>engineering? Are they represented on this list? Further more who is the
>favourite in line to replace them when they retire? What will we loose or
>gain in the process?
>
>The discipline of structural engineering exists, because the field overlaps
>civil engineering, mechanical engineering, architecture, naval architecture
>and aeronautical engineering and has additional requirements as well. But
>this doesn't mean that all the structural engineering aspects of
>architecture and naval architecture should be handed over to structural
>engineers, nor that civil and mechanical engineers should be excluded from
>practising in the areas. When turn to the structural engineer really looking
>for that additional specialist aspect of their skill base, not the common
>aspect which over laps with other fields. That specialist aspect however,
>typically has infrequent demand, and thus a small market. So the bread and
>butter work, typically has significant over lap with other occupations,
>hence large number of potential suppliers, but still not a great volume of
>work.
>
>Universities and learned societies defining jobs is a major problem and
>obstacle to technological progress. One group of people concerned about
>their status, another simply want to get the real job done, not some
>idealistic perspective of what the job should be. The community wants
>buildings and machines, not pictures of, nor calculations about. The market
>doesn't care about the professions, and nor does business. Business will
>organise in what ever way it sees fit, to supply to anticipated demand.
>
>And for the most I would say the modern engineer has become the Hodgkinson,
>or Euler: great at mathematics, but for everybody's sake should probably
>keep most of them well in the background. It is a complicated balance: we
>need people with the higher analytical ability but in so acquiring they tend
>to loose perspective of the more practical aspects of design. Those with the
>more practical skills tend to lack the higher analytical ability. Need the
>balance of skills in both individuals and within the community.
>
>That balance is where we have an increasing problem. The middle area is
>shrinking. The trade/technical skills are diminishing at one end, and the
>analytical skills increasing at the other end, and a huge gap in between. So
>can analyse complex systems, but cannot get made. So the system is
>simplified to what the skill base can produce and then the system is seen as
>defective. But our society is focused on pushing people through university
>to the neglect of the more practical technical skills. Any attempt to direct
>education to be more in tune with the needs of the community, is seen as an
>attempt to deny access to university. So university is what the market
>demands, but not necessarily what it needs. In response create all kinds of
>new occupational degrees, and new professions, or rather new higher status
>titles for old jobs. More pride in their job title and profession, than the
>quality of their work. Increasingly degrees are pursued as a ticket to
>employment, and not any real interest in the field of practice: just which
>profession gives the highest remuneration for the least effort.
>
>As I said in an earlier post. Structural engineers are simply an industrial
>product, which like any other product can be displaced from the market.
>Already have architectural engineers with overlapping skills, with emphasis
>on building structures. And building engineers, who combine the skills of
>the electrical and mechanical engineer for building services. Given an
>engineering degree is 4 years, and an architecture degree 5 to 6 years, it
>is not difficult to perceive that the architectural engineering and building
>engineering degrees could be combined to create a single say 5 year degree
>taking account of the over lapping arts and sciences.
>
>Human knowledge can be organised into all kinds of different packages to
>create a whole variety of different professions at different times. Whilst a
>professional title may remain, a large portion of the knowledge base may
>not.
>
>Therefore the value of a structural engineer, and their contribution to a
>project, has to be investigated relative to the resources available in the
>local market environment. The meaning of the term itself also has to be
>considered relative to a given local environment. In Australia anyone with a
>B.Eng is considered to be a professional engineer (PE), the top echelon is
>the chartered professional engineer (CPEng.), or those with state
>registration/licenses which may or may not be compatible with
>NPER(structural). Thus in Australia a structural engineer, may well be
>deficient of skill and experience, but if don't employ NPER(Structural),
>then cannot expect high quality. But does community really know NPER exists?
>
>Largely doesn't matter because people look for persons who can provide the
>services they require, compatible with what they can afford. Whilst safety
>is governed by codes of practice, and various review and approval processes.
>
>Achieving compliance with codes is a given. Quality and Value of service is
>determined by that provided over and above the routine. And such is not
>provided by collective groups (architects and engineers) and others who want
>to protect titles, rather quality and value is provided by individuals. Such
>individuals also tend not to make too much reference to any particular
>professional group, for to do so is to undervalue the full extent of their
>skill base: their skill base is not so limited. So status lies in personal
>reputation or that of the business they have built.
>
>So those looking for higher remuneration simply because belong to a
>profession, and think profession deserves more, then they have the wrong
>attitude. They as individuals have to contribute more, and extend themselves
>beyond merely doing the job. It is also their choice as to whether they let
>their enhanced reputation rub-off on a chosen profession.
>
>As for fees. I don't believe fees should be based on percentage of
>construction costs or capital value of works, nor hourly rates. The client
>has a budget, which cannot be exceeded. The principal consultants task is to
>distribute the use of that budget to get the maximum possible value
>end-product. Kitchens, bathrooms add value to houses for the first owner and
>all future owners, concrete hidden in the ground does not add value, but
>represents cost, a cost which may not be recovered by sale. Engineering
>drawings, calculations and the construction labour simply add costs, but no
>real long term value to a project. A good design adds value, quality labour
>adds value. The objective is to distribute the materials in the structure so
>that provide maximum possible value.
>
>The principal consultant accepts project for the available budget, if they
>can get the end-product for 50% of the budget they keep the other 50%. If
>they use 99.9% of the budget to get the end-product then they only get to
>keep 0.1%. If consultant has in-house wages to pay at hourly rates, and
>spending too much of budget on such wages, then will have to work smarter
>and harder to get the end-product from the remaining budget: for they have
>to supply the end-product within the budget. That is their task: achieve the
>maximum benefit from the limited but available resources. Any fool can do
>the job for more than the available budget. If task seems impossible within
>the available budget, then don't accept the job. Of course it really helps
>if fulfil role of both chief builder and chief designer. So if we choose to
>be sub-consultants to architects and similar, then our value to the project
>is transformed into a cost to be reduced: therefore expect fees to be pushed
>down. Need to get control of project in whole, to get maximum possible
>portion of available budget. And design-construct is not some new fangled
>thing: it is ancient tradition. I believe we need to get back to it, and
>ensure enterprises are available with a skilled workforce in-house: none of
>this reliance on labour all being individual sub-contractors. It is
>basically a matter of individuals starting businesses and setting new
>benchmarks of quality, rather than settling for the status quo: no easy
>task, but may be interesting.
>
>
>
>
>Regards
>Conrad Harrison
>B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
>mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
>Adelaide
>South Australia
>
>
>
>
>
>******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
>* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
>*
>* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
>* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
>* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
>*
>* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
>*
>* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
>* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
>* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
>* site at: http://www.seaint.org
>******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
Regards Gil Brock
Prestressed Concrete Design Consultants Pty. Ltd. (ABN 84 003 163 586)
5 Cameron Street Beenleigh Qld 4207 Australia
Ph +61 7 3807 8022 Fax +61 7 3807 8422
email: gil@raptsoftware.com
email: sales@raptsoftware.com
email: support@raptsoftware.com
webpage: http://www.raptsoftware.com
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********