×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm
3

Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
I've often thought that it might be fun to work as a structural engineer within an architecture firm. In my head, I imagine that there would be a lot of collaboration early on in projects that would be fun and fruitful. One the flip side, one is always concerned about being a second class citizen at a big A / little E firm. You'd never be as close to the paying clients as you would be in a engineering only firm. But then maybe that would have some perks too. I'd have to think that internal clients would be a bit more accommodating than external clients.

Anyone have any thoughts on this that they'd be willing to share?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

And you are limiting your structural department to a single architect client... cutting you a lot of potential jobs !

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

I worked at a small engineering firm for 6 years that was partnered directly with a mid-size (maybe slightly smaller than the average mid-size) architecture firm in the same office space. We worked together on the majority of projects that required both A&S. It was actually quite pleasant. Collaboration happened early and often and was generally more productive than my other experience.

We could easily explain why what they wanted wouldn't stand and could come up with solutions on the spot just by popping a desk or two over.

I wasn't meeting clients much at that time in my career though. The company (engineering) owner generally did all of the meeting clients and selling the company type stuff that happens mostly at the beginning of the project.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
It would be limiting work to a single architect. That being said, larger architecture firms that are set up this way in my area have an almost infinite supply of available structural work. Most of it is done out of house. It would just be a matter of competing for that work to be done internally. It would basically be canned business development which has some appealing aspects to it.

It is true, though, that exposure to new clients would be very limited as there would essentially be only one client.

@Jayrod: would you ever consider returning to that kind of environment or do you prefer to be "out in the wild" so to speak?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

You know what, I straight up don't know the answer to that.

The money is better at the bigger firm (typically) and the diversity in the projects is also much higher at the bigger firm.

But at times I do miss the generally slower pace, and the camaraderie of the small firm.

I have also found so far that at the smaller firm I worked off of drawings that were much more complete architecturally at the start of a project compared to the large firm. However that could be strictly due to the architectural firm we were with. They were a wicked architect to work with.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

we have Arch, SE, Civil, Landscape Arch. it seems to make sense for our situation... small firm in a small town without any big towns nearby... and we tend to hit a lot of renovation jobs. all those renovation surprises turn a nightmare into a bigger nightmare when dealing with consulting designers. The SE in this scenario is more of a utility player in the Arch Dept and we still end up using Structural subs when the design requires analyses by software that isn't financially worth licensing.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

A couple of disadvantages:

1. If you are the only structural engineer at the firm, you would not have any peers to bounce ideas off of or give you a sanity check

2. If times got tough, you might be the first expense they cut

Advantage:

1. An architect's piece of the pie (10 to 15%) is often much larger than our piece of the pie (1 to 2%).....maybe some of that $$$ would trickle down to you (in a perfect world)

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
Excellent points all -- thank you.

Quote (MotorCity)

1. If you are the only structural engineer at the firm, you would not have any peers to bounce ideas off of or give you a sanity check

Eh, I get most of my sanity checks here these days anyhow.

Quote (MotorCity)

1. An architect's piece of the pie (10 to 15%) is often much larger than our piece of the pie (1 to 2%).....maybe some of that $$$ would trickle down to you (in a perfect world)

It's a nice thought. However, I would have to beat out external firms with regard to fees in order to get work. I suppose that I could ride the line a little closer than usual knowing that, in the event of a tie, I'd be the preferred consultant.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

I am employed by a small eng shop and we have an agreement with another mid-sized architecture firm to do work with them. The whole idea from the start is as you put it - save a lot of time by working hand in hand thought the project as opposed to sending revisions back and fourth on the back end.

Also make a clear devision of work and practices early on - with a few of my projects where I am working directly with an arch she left me out of the loop on a couple of small project changes which I am scrambling to incorporate for a building permit set she wants to file for tonight!

I would be hesitant to jump right in and try to get 100% of your projects from the arch firm, especially if this is in Alberta. Ask to see their project history for the last year or so and check to see if you would have enough work after taking into account the slowdown!

Perhaps working directly for them, but having them set up an engineering division where your meat-and-potatoes every day work would come from in house projects, but the cherry pie & ice cream is out of house design work to keep your day full.

I really like the idea if they are a creative group - it would be great experience & could result in some awesome looking stuff.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
Thanks for the feedback Signious. I am in AB so the slowdown is a consideration. The scenario I'm thinking of would be where I was the A/E firms internal structural engineering department.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

Yah, I think that would work as long as they give you the freedom to seek outside work.

They may want a piece of that work if you are doing it in their building, but it could result in better job security for you diversifying out their income. Just give them some sort of guarantee that they are first in the pecking order for your time.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

So you would be their internal structural department yet still have to compete against outside firms? I would think the overhead savings would be sufficient enough.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
That's exactly right Dcarr. The hope is that the overhead savings might be enough to allow fees to be a little fatter. I could certainly attempt to compete for work with other architects. I would have to imagine that the likelihood of that would be pretty slim however. Architects don't usually care to buy their consulting services from other architects.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

diarrhea of the fingers, take what you want - leave what you don't, but here are my 2 cents:

I would be cautious about moving in house and still bidding internal jobs. You will save on overhead but it leaves you open to all the risk with the architect taking the lions share of the benefit. Nothing is keeping joe-schmo rubber-stamp from undercutting you.

Also, all those delicious billable consulting hours for conversations now become grey area as you are in-house and what constitutes an interpersonal-conversation over a consultation.

The phrase, 'Don't half ass two things, full ass one thing' comes to mind with this. You are either an external consultant or an internal employee.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
Thanks for that Signeous. Another issue, along similar lines as your concern regarding billable conversations, is extra scope items. If one of my architect buddies shows up at the end of a project wanting me to design structural support for toilet paper holders, I'll have little choice but to say yes.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

Hi guys - this is my first post on this forum but it is about something that is quite close to my heart.

I am all about the spirit of total collaboration and I can imagine a setup where the architect and engineer working in the same organisation, towards a common goal, would be advantageous.

I currently work for one of the worlds largest industrial engineering firms, but I start a new job on Monday with what can only be described as a "micro-consultancy". Six guys in a room trying to work towards the common good.

I thought early on in my career that working for one of the big firms would be great for team-working and interdisciplinary cooperation but it has turned out to be quite the opposite. We all work in our discipline teams blinkered and it is sometimes almost like all the disciplines work in different, competing companies!

I think Ove Arup had the right idea - total architecture and full collaboration between all interested parties is the way forward for the creative process. It's just such a pity that he said this around fifty years ago but we still don't seem to be able to achieve it.

Do you think our ego prevents us from fully realising our creative potential?

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

I started out my career at an A/E firm that did mostly commercial work. While it was a good way to learn a lot fast.....I'd never do it again. For one thing the architects would make (major) changes on a job and my budget would not adjust accordingly. Any complaints I had in this regard were disregarded. The other aspect of it was they had a low view of engineers. So I've done industrial work ever since (and in firms that do a lot of that type of work: when architects are involved, they have to explain themselves when they start acting crazy, i.e. they are under an engineer's control).

So its got its pros and cons....but mostly cons.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

I work in a large company that does it all in house - structural, civil, architectural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, fire protection, and process. It is primarily design/build fast track projects, roughly 30% new buildings and 70% retrofits. The structural department began approximately 8 years ago, before that all the work was contracted out. My previous background was in a more traditional structural consulting company. I've noticed a couple differences.

-From a coordination standpoint - the communication isn't as good as it was in my previous company. While conversation are easy because everyone is a couple desks away, there seems to be a mentality that coordination meetings aren't necessary, and that any changes made (equipment layout, column spacing, etc) will be quickly and promptly picked up by everyone else working on the project because all of the Xrefs are shared.

-There is a lot more coordination work that continues into construction. When the work was contracted out, they would receive a set of construction drawings and build them. When I started, (and there was a slow transition from contracting the work to keeping it in house) I noticed more and more changes being made after the start of construction on projects that we designed in house. Relocating rooftop units, for example. I believe this is because it's much easier to walk across the room to make changes than it is to sign a contract for additional services with the consultant. This late-coordination progressed into people simply not doing their job until construction has begun. We've had projects where the number of rooftop units doubles, or units double in size, and I believe it's because the mechanical designers think that the structure can be changed on the fly when they walk across the room.

-The work gets pretty far away from designing buildings sometimes. Someone mentioned checking the strength of toilet paper holders up above, and while that hasn't happened yet, it wouldn't surprise me.

-Often when someone gets an answer they don't like, "No, you can't just remove that cross bracing", they imply the consultant we often used would let them do it. Often times, its absurd what they want to do and I think they're just trying to use some leverage to get away with it. It gets a little tiresome..

If I were to go looking for a new job today, I think I'd prefer the more traditional consulting company.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
Thanks for the comments guys. The last couple of posts pretty much sum up all of my fears regarding this arrangement. I think that a lot of what keeps structural engineers from pursuing this model is earning potential. As a commercial/residential structural engineer, most of your value is embodied in the relationships that you have with the local architects that distribute the work. As an in-house structural engineer, you're really just developing those relationships with one architect. And, even at that, it's an architect unlikely to use you if you leave.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

For me, it would come down to money and the possible lack of variety of the types of jobs you would be working on

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

I ran the structural department in a small to medium size Architectural firm in the upper Midwest in the US for 27 years. Firm size about 24 in the early years growing to about 75. We started off doing a 50-50 mixture of industrial-commercial and eventually changed to almost 90% commercial. We had plenty of variety and were always busy, probably due to a good economy and aggressive marketing. I was always treated fairly and treated others the same. I developed my own clients although when things got busy, I always felt that management did not value them even though they contributed to our bottom line.

We certainly had the opportunity to give early input on projects. We had some very challenging projects and it was enjoyable collaborating with numerous architects and clients. We expanded our Architectural firm with a Design-Build Firm, We had a lot of fun and earned a little money in the process. It was a great ride......

The success and enjoyment of all this depends upon the honesty, integrity, skills and personalities of the management, employees and clients.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

Worked for 250+ A/E firm.

Collaboration was worse than when I was working as an outside consultant with other firms. The budget you are given will be below what a consultant will get and your work load will increase. Any exclusions you would have had typically are now included in the contract. A complete Change to the lateral system two weeks before plan check, no extra budget for OT or extension to schedule. No structural engineers in management or position of power means you will always be an employee. Obviously this will depend on the A/E firm but things you should find out about before jumping on board.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

My experience in civil working for architects in the same company was similar to sandman's.
No budgetary control, no change orders, last minute ridiculous requests, management pressure, etc.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
Thanks for the latest, diametrically opposed, round of comments. Very helpful.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

big firms = crappy internal collaboration.... subtext of this conversation.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

With over 40 years of hindsight, I believe the lack of coordination between disciplines is NOT necessarily related to whether the disciplines are in house or out of house, but related to a faster pace of work and lack of knowledge and a bit of laziness among younger employees. I have noticed that more seasoned employees know very well how to coordinate among disciplines and do it very well. You can't just sit at your desk, produce a drawng and hope that the other disciplines find the needle in the haystack that is different from the previous drawing. It is all about team work and communication with other members of the team. You must anticipate what they need and work together.

Lack of coordination has been a TREND over the last 30 years. It is NOT a race to the finish line and to heck with the other disciplines that can't finish in time. You need to work as a TEAM so everyone can finish together with a quality product.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

Out of curiosity how many other engineers are running a one man show like myself? I've worked in the corporate world for a number of years but the freedom and flexibility of having my own firm trumps the money IMHO.

At the end of the day I like having full ownership of my work and any of my designs. Working as an employee does not work for me anymore.

All of the designers and architects I've worked with so far have been pretty good to work with, so no complaints there. My biggest beef is the low pay offered by residential jobs, a few more commercial jobs would be a nice boost to the bottom line.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
www.medeek.com

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

Quote (Medeek)

My biggest beef is the low pay offered by residential jobs

Is there a lot of competition for this near you? This was problem at a previous company. We raised our price, gripes increased slightly but we still got the job cause there was no where else to go and we did a pretty good job (IMO). Although it seems like a lot of small SE firms go through this phase where you start out doing small residential for nothing, get tired of it and raise your price as you get more commercial work and don't really need the residential stuff. So there might be someone else out there that does it for cheaper but maybe test the waters?

EIT
www.HowToEngineer.com

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

I'm kind of getting to that point of needing to raise my prices. I work pretty hard on some of these residential jobs but the pay I'm seeing is probably equivalent to about $25.00-$30.00/hour if I calculate all of my time spent.

There are a couple of other engineers in the area, one typically concentrates on larger industrial jobs and the other under prices the residential jobs and then provides a bear minimum of analysis. On the other hand the quality of my work is good and I have tried to keep my prices low in order to compete with the under pricing engineer, as a result I have picked up a lot of work in the area and have a lot of satisfied customers and a lot of referrals.

A confused student is a good student.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson, PE
www.medeek.com

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

My worst experience in 50 years of practice was when we as structural engineers were required to work together in the same office as the architects for a particular project. The architectural project leader was demanding our time so much with his questions, and demands for immediate answers, that we could not get our own work done. Then the architect started telling our people how to do the drawings, that we had to be full time at all meetings even if they were not related to structural, and so on. It was perhaps not the same set-up as you are contemplating, but I suppose it depends upon the people involved and their personalities and ability to get along and how strong their desire to work as a team. Some (many?) architects consider the structural engineer a minor player and even more enlightened architects are not going to consider the structural engineer to be an important part of the team.

Expect to lose the independence and authority of an engineer with a consulting engineering firm, and the benefit that comes from working with a large number of other structural engineers and the cross-pollination of ideas and information, and the variety of work.

I also notice when reading structural drawings prepared in decades past by a large architectural firm that had their in-house structural engineer, that the design and drawings were not the best. They eventually gave up the in house structural. I heard it once said that the architectural firms that seemed to get in trouble in the city were those who had their in-house engineering.

Having said all that I imagine it could be quite pleasant with the right people, the right attitudes and the right team spirit and respect for each other.

Personally I would never do it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
Thanks ajk. Much does seem to depend on the group in question. Obviously, Bill Baker over it SOM is doing alright. The mean experience, however seems to be a good deal less satisfying.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

My experience is the opposite of ajk. For the most part where I work the architects have a high respect for the in-house engineers and see the benefit over working with an outsider.

As an engineer in this role you need to embrace that the architects are going to use you as a resource for things you wouldn't consider part of your scope if you were an outside consultant.

The quality of documents depends on the individuals' standards regardless of where they are. I've seen both very good and very poor documents out of consulting firms and in-house engineers.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

How big is your personality Koot? I think the stronger personality can match up 'ego to ego' with an architect and find a middle ground where each understands the other. A more passive engineer will get rolled over. Go big or go home.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

KootK,

I’ve withheld answering until now because I didn’t want to let my experience prevent you from doing something that might be right for you. I’ve worked in both a structural-only shop and in a multidiscipline firm and for me I much preferred the structural-only situation. In the structural shop we didn’t have to justify why we did things, everyone understood. In the multidiscipline firm I often had to explain seemingly obvious things. That wasn’t a big deal but it is something to bear in mind.

Something else to bear in mind is that the level of care and attention to detail that go into structural drawings is necessarily higher than with other disciplines. Architects can draw pretty “eyewash” over multiple drawings but structural drawings have to elegantly convey all the information required to build the structural components and, ideally, nothing else. It takes a lot of time to produce clean, accurate structural drawings and sometimes other disciplines don’t understand why it might take us the same amount of time to produce 4 drawings as it does for them to produce 10, especially when our drawings, in their elegance*, often seem to show less. (And that’s not a slam against architects; the two disciplines necessarily must show their work differently.)



Medeek,

You've shown us samples of your work and it’s clear that you do indeed put a lot of effort into it and it certainly is beautiful.

Regarding residential structural design I believe my mentor put it most succinctly: in the time it takes to design all the structural components of a house we could have designed a bowling alley and actually gotten paid for our efforts. But, that’s not to say don’t do residential work; there’s a place for both. But, in my opinion, there isn’t a huge market for producing highly detailed residential drawings. Or, rather, the clients won’t pay you for it. You’re the best judge of your situation, of course, but I wonder if it might make sense to keep your prices low but turn them around more quickly by showing less details? That way the rate you are “paid” might be closer to the rate you are billed. I only mention that because I’ve seen people raise their rates on residential work only to then get less business. But, it is an excellent way to generate business and get your name out there and in due course the “bowling alley” work will follow, if you want it. I also know of others who’ve specialized in residential work and done only that so that can be done too, of course.

Just my $.02 worth.


*”Elegance” as used here is intended to refer to mathematical elegance, that is, showing all the information required using the least amount of terms. I.e., the opposite of how this post was written. But, then, as Abraham Lincoln supposedly wrote, “if I had more time I’d write you a shorter letter.”

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

(OP)
This conversation when on without for a bit while I was on holiday. A couple things to add:

Quote (dcarr)

How big is your personality Koot? I think the stronger personality can match up 'ego to ego' with an architect and find a middle ground where each understands the other. A more passive engineer will get rolled over. Go big or go home.

I agree completely. I'm no shrinking violet but, at the same time, it's tough to honestly assess the "bigness" of one's own personality. We shall see.

@Archie: I appreciate your excellent, detailed feedback. All we can do is tell our own stories, from our own perspectives, based on our own experiences. Thank you for taking the time to share yours.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

@Archie264:

I have been wanted to express that to Mdeek for a while now, but you are certainly much more eloquent.
Showing too much detail in residential not only kills your hours, but makes you lose clients as they will gravitate toward the engineers who offer them lower construction complexity and costs.
I think many engineers go thru the necessary "Mdeek" stage - I certainly did and it is a great learning experience. You learn pretty quickly that about 1/2 the details shown on your drawings do not get implemented.

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

Quote (KootK)

Eh, I get most of my sanity checks here these days anyhow.

From us? Are you nuts?!lol

RE: Being a Structural Engineer at an Architecture Firm

XR250, thanks. Medeek's twice the engineer I am so I was mostly trying to remind him to be fair to himself.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources