Engineering Fees
Engineering Fees
(OP)
So I just read the whole "co-worker not claiming all hours worked" thread that included an interesting discussion of engineering fees, or the lack thereof. I would like to get a thread going that is focused solely on this topic.
I have seen the commoditization of engineering services accelerate over the past few years. I work in the construction industry and I can think of several reasons for this occurance.
One of the big drivers is the advent of "design-build". Rather than retaining a professional services firm to design a product that meets their requirements, many owners have resorted to hiring a contractor that can give them "something" as cheap and fast as possible. Government project managers have been driven to this contract type by the unreasonable schedules manadated by Congress for certain programs. The private sector is driven solely by first cost. I think that 10-20 years from now, both entities will realize that their money would have been better spent on a high quality product instead of something cheap and fast. Essentially, design-build has reduced the demand for superior design services, thus destroying the suppliers who are capable of delivering a high service level.
A second reason for the devaluing of our services is the eagerness of the majority of firms to capitulate to the demands of the "cheaper and faster" market place. If professional service providers were less willing to push the quality level down to "just barely good enough to meet code", then the demand side of the market would have to adjust to the limited supply of "cheap" engineering. If we do not value our services, then no one will.
There is also a noticeable decline in the technical ability and confidence in the emerging generation of lead engineers. I feel that this has been brought on by a job market that rewards frequent employment changes and punishes loyalty with mediocre salary adjustments. If firms would fairly reward their top performers these individuals would be less compelled to seek greener pastures. The only real way for engineers to learn is to see projects through from craddle to grave. Given the duration of most projects, this is not possible unless a position is held for 5 or more years.
Lastly, we as individual engineers are far too meek when it comes to what we will tolerate for our working conditions. If we refused to work for "sweat shop" firms, then these firms could not exist. It is ultimately up to us to demand fair pay, reasonable schedules, and a work life balance. Given that we are highly skilled, integral to the modern world, and historically in short supply, we are in a unique position to command respect. We should encourage a sort of arrogance in the junior engineers that we mentor and expect it from our collegues. We should always talk in jargon that is impossible for outsiders to understand and we should reveal as few of our methods as possible. These are the things that doctors and lawyers do, why should we be any different?
I want to write more, but I must go to bed. I have a 12 hour day in a salaried position waiting for me tomorrow...oh the irony.
I have seen the commoditization of engineering services accelerate over the past few years. I work in the construction industry and I can think of several reasons for this occurance.
One of the big drivers is the advent of "design-build". Rather than retaining a professional services firm to design a product that meets their requirements, many owners have resorted to hiring a contractor that can give them "something" as cheap and fast as possible. Government project managers have been driven to this contract type by the unreasonable schedules manadated by Congress for certain programs. The private sector is driven solely by first cost. I think that 10-20 years from now, both entities will realize that their money would have been better spent on a high quality product instead of something cheap and fast. Essentially, design-build has reduced the demand for superior design services, thus destroying the suppliers who are capable of delivering a high service level.
A second reason for the devaluing of our services is the eagerness of the majority of firms to capitulate to the demands of the "cheaper and faster" market place. If professional service providers were less willing to push the quality level down to "just barely good enough to meet code", then the demand side of the market would have to adjust to the limited supply of "cheap" engineering. If we do not value our services, then no one will.
There is also a noticeable decline in the technical ability and confidence in the emerging generation of lead engineers. I feel that this has been brought on by a job market that rewards frequent employment changes and punishes loyalty with mediocre salary adjustments. If firms would fairly reward their top performers these individuals would be less compelled to seek greener pastures. The only real way for engineers to learn is to see projects through from craddle to grave. Given the duration of most projects, this is not possible unless a position is held for 5 or more years.
Lastly, we as individual engineers are far too meek when it comes to what we will tolerate for our working conditions. If we refused to work for "sweat shop" firms, then these firms could not exist. It is ultimately up to us to demand fair pay, reasonable schedules, and a work life balance. Given that we are highly skilled, integral to the modern world, and historically in short supply, we are in a unique position to command respect. We should encourage a sort of arrogance in the junior engineers that we mentor and expect it from our collegues. We should always talk in jargon that is impossible for outsiders to understand and we should reveal as few of our methods as possible. These are the things that doctors and lawyers do, why should we be any different?
I want to write more, but I must go to bed. I have a 12 hour day in a salaried position waiting for me tomorrow...oh the irony.





RE: Engineering Fees
That is the definition of an efficient design, is it not? you might wish to add bells, whistles and flags, but frankly if the client doesn't want them why should he pay for them?
Why design a mall for a 30 year life when the code says 20 and in all likelihood the thing will be flattened in 10 years?
Cheers
Greg Locock
SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Engineering Fees
Thanks for starting it- but unfortunately I disagree with your own point of view almost entirely!
Very funny that you should blame design/build for our collective woes, because I blame the design consulting/EPC model for exactly the same thing!
I'm a chemmie and not at all in the building contruction field, but we're a "design/build" operation (i.e. we have a factory attached to our design office, in which our own employees build the equipment and systems we design). We're set up this way PRECISELY because it allows us to be properly compensated for our engineering services!
A wise engineer once explained to me that to him, an engineer was someone who could safely execute for a dollar what any damned fool could do for ten. I believe that wholeheartedly. Where we've failed is in two primary ways:
1) Being satisfied with receiving $0.02-$0.10 of every dollar the client ultimately pays for the thing they're building, rather than profiting on the full $1, and
2) Permitting ourselves to be contracted under compensation systems where we're more likely to design a system which costs $3 than $1, because the we get ZERO percent of the savings we generate- and worse still, every dollar we SAVE actually generates RISK for US!
By integrating engineering and manufacture, and by bidding fixed price for design AND fabrication lumped together, WE are afforded choices that the T&M design firm does not have. If we innovate, become more efficient in what we do, or take calculated risks to save money, we can choose whether to take the money we save as profit or to pass all or part of it on to our client as a reduced price for the finished product in order to attract business. Of course there's risk in there too, which is a fair trade for the added reward.
In my view, the commodification of engineering services has arisen from the following things, amongst others:
1) First and foremost: we're training too many engineers. FAR too many engineers. In Canada, only 1/3 of engineering graduates actually WORK in engineering occupations. Our profession is not immune to supply and demand!
2) The "time and materials" billing model of the engineering consulting industry: by separating engineering services from MOST of the value chain, price competition on an hourly rates basis becomes automatic. Many clients have no meaningful basis upon which to judge the quality of the services rendered, hence all engineers become equal- a commodity. Downward wage pressure, uncompensated overtime etc. are a natural result.
3) The rise of the "stationery engineer" (no, that is not a spelling error!): engineers whose only product is paper drawings, specifications and other documents, a great many of whom are NEVER afforded an opportunity to see the true product of their designs. Feedback is ESSENTIAL toward making an engineer better. Far too many engineers confuse the process with the product!
4) Too many of us are self-important prima donnas who believe the hype about our own profession. We think we're in demand and we're important, so we believe stories which validate that point of view- sometimes even in the face of factual evidence to the contrary. We even try to RECRUIT people into our profession! Too many engineers cling to a 1950s notion of what an engineer is, even though we're being paid less than HALF what a 1950s engineer was paid in comparision with other professions!
5) A reliance on codes, standards and specifications etc. as an excuse NOT to do real engineering. A view that the responsibility of a professional engineer to hold the public safety as paramount requires over-design, over-specification and an utter avoidance of risk. Resulting designs are suboptimal, costing the client more money, simply because engineers are unwilling or unable to take on their professional responsibility.
I'm very interested to hear what others think on this most important topic!
RE: Engineering Fees
Because of the current econmic condition every firm in my area is treated strictly as a commodity. Give me the cheapest price for you services as possible because that is who owners are going with. It makes it almost impossible to compete. What really ruffles the feathers is that I look at drawings are competitors and the drawings are not that good, but no one but another engineer would know it.
I do know what it would take to make people to treat us differently.
RE: Engineering Fees
I think another reason to add to your list is computer software. There is software now available which in the hands of the right designer makes them capable of "calculating stuff" and making pictures and graphs and things that look really engineery, but mean very little. Since management doesn't really care about engineering they are game to buy the software and get rid of the more capable engineers. Besides, with software your choices are limited on the direction of your investigations. If there isn't a software routine that performs what is needed then we don't have to worry about that aspect, right?
RE: Engineering Fees
I can see the advantage of design build if a single firm is delivering the whole package. It seems like this works well in the manufacturing realm. In the construction industry, design build means engineering firms working for contractor firms, who then work for owners. So now when there is an issue where standard of care conflicts with cost, the contractor demands that cost prevail and has no professional risk because they are not stamping the plans. The whole arrangement puts engineers in a very bad position.
I don't see any hype about our profession. Please name one TV show about engineering. I can name 10 each about doctors and lawyers. There should be some hype. I don't know where you went to school, but I had to work my arse off for my engineering degree. I would have had a lot more free time in college had I gotten an economics degree instead of ME. Our work is complex and not everyone can do it. I see a lot of engineers who don't fully get it. I want to see some hype so that I can start duplicating it and spreading it around.
I agree with dvd's point about software. The powerful calculation tools available to us today are a dangerous thing in the hands of an inexperienced engineer. Just punch in the numbers and the answers come out. There is no perception of whether those answers are even reasonable. We specifically structure the calc process to force the engineer to perform some hand calcs so that they have to stop and open the black box. Only a limited amount of output can be used and a hand calc is required prior to ultimate equipment selection.
RE: Engineering Fees
Cheers
Greg Locock
SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Engineering Fees
I do see the same thing, and I relate to all you are saying.
Cheap design/build projects with nightmares of maintenance, accessibility, durability and so on, are very common.
They say D/B is 30% faster and 15% cheaper. D/B is also 70% less value. The materials specified, the wrong systems in place, systems that do not work after building sare turned over to owner, etc.
The contractors have this wrong notion that cheaper fees mean lower construction costs. Foolishness.
Granted that on the other hand, higher fees do not necessarily mean cheaper costs of course.
As for engineers commanding fees and respect: I do not see that happening in the near future. The employers do not value engineers at all, we are just commodities, no more.
You can tell a good employer by the training his employees get.
How many engineers get a training, or a seminar per year? compared to doctors and other trades. They put together a series of brown bag sessions with salesman catered lunches to listen to a sales pitch and call it XYZ company university, that's the definition of continuing education at most companies nowadays.
RE: Engineering Fees
many times yes, the stated requirements do not get met. the client is often not technically capable of even realizing this without it being pointed out to them. in the current economic climate, trying to sue the client for non-enforcement of RFP criteria is a risky move.
RE: Engineering Fees
Whatever level of service is demanded will get supplied, I agree with Greg to surpass this is bad engineering. If customers demand higher specs that is what they will get and be charged for.
Everything in life is only worth what someone will pay for it, the environment, houses, stocks and shares everything.
If you want to make a difference lowedogg next time you go to buy a car instead of trying to reduce the 30K asking price say you are willing to pay 45K as you feel the standard of engineering involved is worth more money, do the same with your house and everything else. Get enough people to think the same as you and all these problems will go away, if you are not prepared to do this or find other people who will why would any company?
If enough people want a car built to Rolls Royce standards and are prepared to pay for it that is the standard cars will be built to, until then things will stay as they are, or get worse.
RE: Engineering Fees
To influence clients perception from viewing professional services as commodities, professional service firms need to educate them on the value of services offered (... champion knowledge-based relationship). That said, I will not be surprised if the marketing budgets for professional firms - as a percentage of revenues - is significant less than the design builders.
Most of the previous threads focused on external forces that led to less than ideal remuneration for professional services. My take is we - the professional services community- fell asleep at the wheel as other competitive forces penetrated our market. Professional service firms need to have strategies on how they will remain competitive in this dynamic market. I recently worked for a 300 person MEP firm that did not have a strategic business plan! That boggled my mind!
RE: Engineering Fees
In Ontario you can practice engineering without being licensed as long as a licensed engineer signs off and takes responsibility for the work. If it was a requirement that ALL engineering graduates working in the field of engineering were to obtain a license then you would see this problem greatly reduced. Instead you find companies with only one or two engineers and a team of unlicensed graduates/technicians/draftsmen/surveyors produce a product at a much lower cost than the companies which dedicate a team of engineers to the task.
I'm not saying to get rid of skilled trades and technicians as they are invaluable to almost any product but the balance that used to exist is no longer there. It is this framework and lack of action by our regulatory organizations that has placed significant pressure on our profession to drive down costs for highly skilled work.
Unlicensed engineering graduates and a lack of clear delineation between engineering and tech/survey/drafting duties is leading us down a path of deteriorating costs, product quality and image of our profession.
Its easy to blame the guy down the road for doing more or inferior work for less but the ability to control this lies in our hands as a self regulated profession and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.
RE: Engineering Fees
The solution - the only acceptable, ethical one in light of the above - is to keep it's value completely concealed by constantly striving towards never exposing the most accurate yardstick by which it can be meaured.
Too bad it makes no business sense to a board of directors. Money, not quality, not safety, is what drives business. Business understands two things: (1) higher profits are good (2) higher costs are bad. So, what businesses do, especially when profits are down, is cut costs by getting rid of engineers and their services. By some convoluted logic, with a view towards mitigation of liabilities arising from the consequences of error, they view it as more cost effective to spend money on crafty accountants and good lawyers.
The value of good accountants and lawyers is readily quantifiable: both can either help the widow and children of the deceased plant operator maximize the money received in the ensuing settlement, or help the business minimize the amount paid out. Meanwhile, the value of the good engineer can only be measured by the disgruntled plant operator who goes home to his wife and children every night complaining about what a pain in the backside engineers are and how the world would be better off without them.
However sad it might be, let's keep it that way.
Regards,
SNORGY.
RE: Engineering Fees
We need to have engineers become licensed. It's the first step to gaining more respect with the public, and within our own group.
I've also noticed that employers promote junior engineers to senior engineer positions within a couple years out of school. Some of the "senior" engineers I've seen haven't even passed their PE yet (although they may be planning to take it). This is probably a result of the employer not wanting to lose good talent, since careers are very "fluid" now and it's easy for an employee to pick up and move to another firm. What to do about that one? Not sure yet.
My understanding is that in the good old days, becoming an engineer was quite a bit more work than it is today. There were more credit hours required in school, you had to work under an engineer directly, you probably had to call him "sir" while you were learning from him, and you had to do some work in the field for a good chuck of time-maybe for a decade. There was a certain level of respect expected out of a green engineer. There was a hierarchy. Now all of that seems to be gone.
One thing I'm enjoying about being back in grad school is the differences in how we interact with our professors. I'm actually enjoying addressing the faculty using the title "Professor." I like the fact that they command some level of respect with their students and colleagues. It's quite a contrast to my days in my old engineering firm. One reason I'm excited about this is that when I finally finish, I'll know I'll be in a fairly exclusive club especially when they invite me to call them, "Jim," for example. You've got to hand it to them: academia has done a pretty good job of making sure they get a certain level of respect. This clearly increases their perceived value to society, whether it's actually justified or not.
Don't think for a minute that doctors and lawyers don't play up their own exclusive club throughout medical and law school...
Just some thoughts.
RE: Engineering Fees
Licensure and the restoration of projecting a professional image, the way doctors and lawyers do, would go a long way towards mitigating the erosion of our professional dignity. The onset of the cancer that has brought us all here might well have been the day that suits and ties no longer became required office attire. The psychology of that little change - what seemed a great idea at the time - is what gave rise to more open-door, less structured relationshps throughout the rank and file of the organization chart. That was the day when the CEO's name changed from "Mr. Burns" to "Monty" (to paraphrase). It is possible that, in trying to achieve a balance between formality and familiarity, we went too far the other way, and now we have a system of sweat shops in which the accountants and MBA's rule and the former bourgeoisie have become the proletariat.
Speaking from experience, it's gone so far that throughout the local EPC industry where I now work, the junior accountants, secretaries and file clerks tell the engineers what do do in surprisingly condescending tones, and the *engineers* actually make coffee for *them*. In my case, I am extremely fortunate to have found a work culture where people just do that sort of thing to be nice to each other - without the condescending tones - because everyone values everyone. Nonetheless, the fact remains - as one client actually put it to me when I was on loan in his office to help him tie in 148 gas wells within three months - "...Engineers are worth just a little more than the white stuff that you sometimes see on the bottom of your shoes...".
I think we probably need to do a better job of marketing to the public and to the schools what it is that we do and why it is that we do it. It starts with young kids. I have a colleague at work (the General Manager) who is actively involved with high school kids as a coach in the First Robotics competition program. To watch those kids "think" and "create" - before their minds are poisoned by the cycnicism and self-flagellation that we, ourselves, have installed in the workplace environment that we, ourselves, have created - is a refreshing reminder of the way things in engineering could be. I have seen what Texas Instruments is doing (or trying to do) with their calculators (TI NSpire, TI-83 / 89 / 89T etc.) and their training for teachers in how to use these products and tools in the classroom towards the understanding of real-life phenomena, and I believe that this is what we need to be doing more of. Every physics lab, every chemistry class where a concept is taught, we should be doing a better job of explaining where in life this is of use. In post-secondary education, professors would do well to support the theory that they are lecturing with real-life practical examples, since not all of their students are destined for a career in academia.
Lowedogg states:
"We should encourage a sort of arrogance in the junior engineers that we mentor and expect it from our collegues. We should always talk in jargon that is impossible for outsiders to understand and we should reveal as few of our methods as possible."
I am not sure that is quite the way I would put things, but stripping away the word choice, I believe the core message - that we would all do well to put a bit of pride in ourselves for what we do, and do a better job of expecting the same from employers and the public at large - has a distinctly clear ring of truth. We are living the legacy of not doing that: cube farms, less-than-professional pay, chronic self-depreciation, obnoxious bosses, and bullies for clients, some of whom are actually complete idiots. However, my preference would be to put all of our cards and skills on the table and educate everybody we come into contact with - in plain and respectful layman's language - and hide nothing. In my mind, elitism and misplaced arrogance spawn resentment and mistrust, giving rise to counterproductive adversarial posturing between us and the very people whose respect and trust we are trying to earn.
Out of the ashes of all this mess that we have created rise the true visionaries of the "Engineering Business", like Scott Adams. What a brilliant mind! Yet, sadly, while I commend the genius, the flipside of it is that "Dilbert" is yet another wildly popular example of how we have encouraged en-masse the perpetuation of our image as simple, nerdy buffoons who are destined for a future of rejection, ridicule and submission to the authority held by others of considerably inferior intellect.
We get what we ask for.
Regards,
SNORGY.
RE: Engineering Fees
As a result, we license about 20-25% of graduates from Canadian engineering programs.
We have these BECAUSE the United States has what amounts to a general exception from licensure for anyone who works in industry.
...and since only about 30-35% of engineering graduates here actually WORK as engineers, the licensure scenario isn't as bad as it seems at first blush.
The engineering labour market, on the other hand, IS every bit as @)(*) up as it appears to be.
What we HAVE is a MASSIVE OVERSUPPLY OF ENGINEERS!
Licensure isn't the solution. Even if we had and could enforce a universal licensure requirement, we'd STILL have far too many engineers. We would not eliminate fee and hence wage competition.
Lowedogg and cry22: I do not work in your industry and hence do not know how it works. I freely admit that. However, it appears your argument is that you know better what your client actually needs than they do- enough that you're happy to spend THEIR money to buy it for them. Surely that's why they hired you, after all?!
This begs the question: who wrote their bid spec, and who is reviewing the bids? Who figured out what the client needed, and wanted, and put it into writing? Did they actually DO that, or did they short-cut that effort by piling on a bunch of ill-considered, inappropriate boiler-plate specifications that the client didn't even bother to read? And who is inspecting both the proposals and the construction to ensure that the stated requirements are met?
Is your argument that it is impossible for that job to be done adequately UNTIL the design work is done?
In our "design/build" operation, it's not "the engineer working for the contractor". Rather, it's BOTH working for the CLIENT, making optimal use of their money to meet their needs. Exceeding their needs benefits nobody- it WILL waste their money in ways they won't even notice or care about
The notion that making engineers responsible to use their client's money wisely inherently compromises the integrity of their design is ludicrous. ALL engineering is a dynamic balance between cost and function. Fail to maintain that balance in EITHER direction and you won't be in business for long!
RE: Engineering Fees
I've seen exactly what you're talking about concerning secretaries, accountants, etc. After a while, I realized that they had (very effectively) somehow trained ME to do things for them that they should have been doing themselves.
Accountants, especially, seem to be very unique and special people (just about everywhere I go)... there were times when they were very condescending in how they responded to my simple requests to, say, prepare an invoice right away for a client, or to prepare a listing of the hours spent on a project, etc. I asked myself more than a few times who was the one bringing in the money and business and who was supposed to be supporting that person-but I held my tongue. It's not surprising that I held my tongue either-this whole discussion is about how engineers tend to not want to control their own destiny by managing their profession!
moltenmetal,
I agree with you that we have a massive over supply of engineers. I don't agree with you, however, that licensure is not the answer. On the contrary, you're helping me prove my point in a way:
Licensure would help those individuals who want to become recognized as Professional Engineers to do just that. Because there is a set list of requirements, we would eventually find that there would not be as many people that the public knows as "engineers." Over time, those who are not Professional Engineers would be known more as engineering assistants, technicians, or other engineer-supporting roles.
Therefore, the supply of engineers has just decreased all because we're doing nothing more than just being more specific about what a professional engineer is and defining what gives them that tremendous responsibility to the public that they have.
If the medical doctors were having a problem similar to the problem the engineering profession is having at the moment, everyone would be indiscriminately calling everyone they come across in a hospital "doctor." They would be calling the nurses, x-ray technicians, and lab people all "doctor." If this were to happen, the supply of doctors (as perceived by the public and by the owners of the hospital) would certainly be increased. If everyone is running around actually thinking they are a doctor, over time, others will too. Pretty soon, the hospital board of directors would not be able to give everyone a doctor's salary. As I mentioned before, though, the medical profession has been careful to not allow this to happen to them.
RE: Engineering Fees
Universal licensing would make it much easier to control this issue, keep engineers employed, raise the profile of Professional Engineers and improve the final product as well.
RE: Engineering Fees
RE: Engineering Fees
co sign
RE: Engineering Fees
I like the way you said it too!
RE: Engineering Fees
Designing strictly to the code doesn't mean that your doors will open in 5 years. It doesn't mean that your floor won't shake when somebody walks down the hall. It doesn't mean that your brick veneer won't be cracked to pieces after a couple of years. If you want any of these desireable featurs, you'll probably have to exceed the code.
Oftentimes the engineer knows what the client wants, in technical terms, better than the client does. All the client knows is that he wants a pretty building that will meet his functionality needs. His technical knowledge is negligible.
I can't tell you how many times we've been called in to fix useability problems that were caused by other engineering firms who were retained by the low bid contractor. It would be cheaper to the client in the long run to pay for a superior product up front rather than to fix the product after a couple of years, or even months, of use.
RE: Engineering Fees
Some companies take the requirement literally and bid the bare minimum.
Others, anticipate what the real requirement is and bid accordingly.
Or perhaps occasionally, the customer may state their requirement fairly well but don't know enough to realize it isn't being met.
Either way, seems a lot of the problem is with the customer. When going to a doctor, or for expensive car or house repairs, the idea of a second opinion often comes up. Maybe that's what the customers should be doing, I don't just mean competatively tendering initially but employing an independant entity to review the bids for technical merit etc. if they don't have the expertise in house.
Another option, that I've used before is to talk the customer up. Be it by raising questions on the requirement & potentially having it amended or making clearly stated assumptions/exclusions in your bid. Obviously the down side is that if another company bids a bare minimum approach to the original reqt while you bid to the updated reqt, and the customer doesn't take this into account when looking at cost you're hosed.
KENAT,
Have you reminded yourself of FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies recently, or taken a look at posting policies: http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: Engineering Fees
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!
RE: Engineering Fees
I've been in this "profession" coming on 20 years. There's never been a time when I didn't hear a media report about a shortage or looming shortage. I sense a pattern...
RE: Engineering Fees
If all you provide is a total cost, then that's all the customer has to judge it on. Of course they'll go with the lowest bid. However, if you tell them, "This is why it's worth the extra money to give the project to me," then they have something to think about.
The downside is that you can't be sure that the customer won't take your "bells and whistles" to somebody else and have them create the product anyways. Then, the customer gets a better product based on your knowledge, a competitor gets business and their name on a quality product, and you get nothing. Also, sometimes the decision-makers ONLY look at the total cost and aren't terribly interested in why the other costs were higher.
-- MechEng2005
RE: Engineering Fees
"But the businesses who are screaming "shortage" are short of people who they themselves didn't hire ten years back as fresh grads."
We can agree on that at least!
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!
RE: Engineering Fees
I 100% agree.
There are a few things that are caused by the industries lack of willingness to train fresh recruits.
Lack of experienced engineers and lack of experienced CAD people.
As I have said before, the amount of training in my wifes industry makes a laughing stock of the pittance of training I have received over the years.
RE: Engineering Fees
The shortcoming is not just with the GC short term profit scheme, but with the financing and with the customers. My experience is that the mentality is very much different for O&M industry, going for smaller, continuous profit margins and a natural emphasis on repeat business. Poor O&M shows up much more quickly than poor design, and if you aren't doing repeat business, you won't stay in business, at least without moving on a regular basis or novation change.
Unwillingness of customers, or lack of technical expertise, is usually the starting point of clusters. If the customer knows that they want a lab expansion, but don't realize that the chiller or steam distribution is tapped out, the scope starts out bad and everyone moans about busted budget. Throw the lack of technical expertise with unwillingess to plan or hire an A-E or owner's rep based on
short term cost has resulted in so many mod's after award that some firms hire a temporary staff to pick apart every nickel and dime before the ink is dry on the contract.
As a note the government is not allwed to compete A-E services based on price, only professional capabilities and experience. Nowadays I see the AP accreditation as much as the PE. Since that is fashionable, should all engineers be forced to get LEED AP as well PE? If doing life cycle costing instead of "grab a fistful of dollars and run", should additional licensing be needed? That would make A-E selection easy, count how many acronyms are after each title. If they can get the whole alphabet, then overlook the last three jobs they fup duck.
I see nothing wrong with the younger engineers as compared to peers that have been around for 20-30 years, other than the experience level. Software isn't the cause of mistakes, it just accelerates how fast that impressive looking back-up material can be generated. Pretty much why I've seen so many really stupid PowerPoint presentations. Those same type mistakes have been made for decades, it's just that before the wrong application of equations took more time to buttress using a typewriter and slide rule. With some experience and general rules of thumb to verify magnitude, that same engineer and software saves weeks of time; I surely do not miss doing TFM calculations on spreadsheet, or worse, by hand.
If you think the schools are turning out too many engineers, things could be much worse. Those potential engineers could be studying to be lawyers.