not sliced and diced into neat parcels. But need show connectivity.
At graduation engineering not really discipline specific: even though
study programme was.
One of first places I worked there was me Mechanical engineering
associate and a civil engineering associate (still studying)
The student civil engineering associate was put on drawing board
modifying mechanical drawings. ...
I mechanical engineering associate at the time, was put to work on
AutoCAD modifying civil drawings.
Not a particularly good idea since some 2 months later, was determined
I'd messed up the survey drawing.
But here is the problem: I asked just about everyone on the project to
clarify what they wanted me to modify and how.
No one at the time seemed to understand the problem and issue I was
trying to resolve. 2 months later importance apparent.
Part of the problem I believe was language: I was asking questions
from perspective of dimensional and geometric control and tolerancing
The civil and structural engineers didn't really seem to have a clue
what I was talking about when asking questions.
Each discipline evolves into having its own jargon and language: yet
has the same problems to resolve.
So we study engineering science: in schools of mathematics, physics
and chemistry. There after profession creates division.
Whilst we study maths, physics and chem, all of these subjects are
meant to be melded together in the mind.
All these subjects melded together in the mind are supposed to assist
form a complete and whole picture of the universe.
All the time resolving a conflict between breadth and depth.
The study of engineering doesn't stop after graduation: except for
those who have limited interest in what they do.
There are two basic situations: solving problems and implenting
solutions.
Most #engineers are not really involved in #design, their primary
activity is assessing fitness-for-function of others designs.
Fitness-for-Function, or suitability-of-purpose is largely determined
by compliance with codes of practice.
The essence of our regulatory systems is evidence-of-suitability,
demonstrating compliance with a code of practice
Mere compliance with a code of practice doesn't necessarily result in
good design: just compliant.
The legislation is understood to require that a building shall be
constructed to the approved documents.
Such is not quite the appropriate perception.
Constructing to the approved documents: at the extreme is likely to
get someone killed during construction.
Approved documents are a specification of the end-product, they are
unsuitable as process instructions.
The building works supervisor (BWS) is responsible for transforming
product specification into process instructions.
But fabrication and construction processes have to be compatible with
the design criteria of the end-product.
For example many shed erectors build walls on the floor and then tilt
the walls into vertical, buckling the cladding and girts.
If the steel erectors want to erect the steel shed in such manner then
the steel structure needs to be designed for such.
In manufacturing this is "over-the-wall" design. Product designer
throws over the wall to manufacturing, and manufcaturing throws back.
This situation arose because of a matter of history of division of
labour. Manufacturing knowledge lost from designers.
With design knowledge also lost from the manufacturers.
The design knowledge and manufacturing knowledge thus need to be
reintegrated.
My formal education at #UniSA was built around this principle of
combining the mechanical design back with knowledge of manufacture.
But I work in the building industry, with clients who mostly supply,
pre-engineered manufactured structural building products.
Pre-engineered manufactured structural building products are not well
covered by the development regulations.
Development regulations applied to manufactured product also poses a
hazard.
Manufacturer/builders give the impression they already have what the
customer wants and approval is a matter of simple routine.
What the customer wants seldom meets the standard solutions that the
manufacturers have approval for. And they have no technical staff.
The manufacturer/builder will not know their standard designs are not
compliant until council rejects and requests further information.
That then becomes a problem for the consulting engineers who are then
consulted at the last minute and hindered by councils time limit
There is simply a lack of integration. No real team work, between all
the parties involved. No one with a full picture.
Computer software is a particular problem, when it comes to structural
design.
Not general purpose structural analysis software used by engineers,
for that gives the information required to check and validate.
The problem is the software used by timber truss manufacturers, shed
suppliers, carport suppliers, sail-shade suppliers and similar.
The people who use the software do not know the limitations, and the
software simply prints out specification: no real evidence.
That makes it difficult to check. The software may get answer in
minutes, but those checking use general purpose taking hours.
So checking design can take significantly longer than its takes to
actually produce design. Design can take longer than to build.
There is basically something wrong with our application of science to
design. There is too much repetition, and yet not enough attention.
Design is universal it has no boundaries. And something is wrong with
our design processes and regulation.
Historically drawings were used by architect/builders to solve
problems and communicate work instructions.
The majority of the building industry now sees drawings as an
inconvenience to be produced to get approval.
Drawings more likely to be found in boot of car, than actually being
followed on site.
People can make things without reference to drawings, but not
necessarily what you want.
Everything seems to have devolved into mechanistic ritual and job
preservation exercise. With conflict between multiple professions
With each profession considering they are part of the solution: when
they are more like the cause of the problem.
Principle designers need breadth, and detail designers need depth.
Real world problems determine where the breadth and depth is needed
Brain leak: Easily distracted and diverge all over the place. Primary
reason for broad interests. Which seem unrelated to some.
The starting point for design is the needs of humans: which leads to
water and food.
Just been reminded of something.
#Lean Business System Asia Pacific | LinkedIn http://goo.gl/ahJu4 is
now an open group.
Trendy fashion terms in management, QA, TQM, Lean,Six-Sigma, business
process re-engineering. May provide brand and sell solution.
But selling a solution doesn't solve a problem.
I find it amusing that manufacturing wants to be more like
construction. Minimum inventory of everything.
Lean as been adopted in construction: with lean construction.
Clarify something: There is big engineering and then there are the
more common small engineering projects.
As my mangament lecturer was always saying: couldn't manage a dim
sim shop.
The point he was making is that all managment theory is aimed at big
business, with a vice president for everything.
The building industry primarily comprises of sole practitioners.
Everything seems to have devolved into mechanistic ritual and job
preservation exercise. With conflict between multiple professions
With each profession considering they are part of the solution: when
they are more like the cause of the problem.
Principle designers need breadth, and detail designers need depth.
Real world problems determine were the breadth and depth is needed
Brain leak: Easily distracted and diverge all over the place. Primary
reason for broad interests. Which seem unrelated to some.
The starting point for design is the needs of humans: which leads to
water and food.
Just been reminded of something.
#Lean Business System Asia Pacific | LinkedIn http://goo.gl/ahJu4 is
now an open group.
Trendy fashion terms in management, QA, TQM, Lean,Six-Sigma, business
process re-engineering. May provide brand and sell solution.
But selling a solution doesn't solve a problem.
I find it amusing that manufacturing wants to be more like
construction. Minimum inventory of everything.
Lean has been adopted in construction: with lean construction.
Clarify something: There is big engineering and then there are the
more common small engineering projects.
As my managment lecturer was always saying: couldn't manage a dim sim
shop.
The point he was making is that all managment theory is aimed at big
business, with a vice president for everything.
The building industry primarily comprises of sole practitioners.
Sole practitioners are chief cook and bottle washer: if it needs doing
they do it.
Got to know where to optimise. Optimising a business enterprise does
not create an efficient industry.
The building industry seems not be be overly concerned with quality.
Buildings are expensive and rework even more so.
So builders have built many buildings before all mostly similar. So
they rush ahead, until hit a problem.
Then contractual dispute arises, and then compromise has to be
reached. Typically loss of architectural features. Or send contractor
broke.
Put simply have a culture built around over-the-wall design, and
conflict between designers and builders.
Builders don't think designers know what they are doing, and the
designers have similar view of the builders.
Surveys have been done which indicate that there has been a decline in
the quality of documentation.
I equate this partly to difference between data and information in
computer science.
Data is raw material. Information is data transformed to permit
decisions to be made and action taken.
So whilst the architects and engineers argue that the contractor had
the information: that is not so they only supplied data.
Contractors will only find what they know to look for. So if
introducing something different contractor needs to be properly
informed.
There is a certain pyschology involved in producing contract
documentation that is going to be used and helpful to a project.
There is a difference between the documents required for development
approval and those required to manage the construction process
But for the most part here in SA, we have few resident on site design
offices. And seems contractors don't have time to transform documents
And why would they contractors job is to build, not design the
construction process. Or is it?
@Engineer_Chic Drawings only have real importance where the
builder/trades have no real experience of any part of project.
@Engineer_Chic Wouldn't #ValueStreamMapping need be applied by each
sole practitioner contributing to a building project.
@Engineer_Chic Yes I am aware of lean and its application to
construction: Lean Construction Institute
http://www.leanconstruction.org/
@Engineer_Chic Problem is getting builders to understand that the
problem is not the quality of the building but service provided.
@Engineer_Chic And who is the customer? The person who pays is of low
importance compared to end-user.
@Engineer_Chic The most important people are the workers who have to
fabricate and build, and end-users who will ultimate operate.
A rational process of design, is an ideal. The need for engineers is a
perspective of engineers and universities not business and industry.
Producing drawings and written specifications is a perspective of
designers and regulators not builders and producers.
Is pipeline open now? {< Twitter had error and wouldn't post tweet}
A rational design process is something imposed on the supply system, it
is something that has to be sold to builders and producers.
Though builders tend to have design imposed on them. Whilst some
manufacturers have no product with out engineers.
But that is part of the problem. Some projects require design, others
simply need building.
Regulation however increasingly imposes documentation on projects that
should simply be built.
There are simple projects that where the documentation and approval
takes longer than building.
Not to mention projects where the documentation and approval costs
more than materials and labour costs of the building.
Now one of the problems with industry sector I work. Is that private
individuals see that they can make themselves for much less cost.
With an industry which has little demonstrated quality of service,
more lack off: people will choose the lower cost DIY option.
Further more people also seem to be choosing the avoid getting
development approval.
Bad news #Adelaide if you don't get development approval for your
building project, you will be found out.
It takes some 2 to 5 times longer to assess compliance of existing
construction than it takes to design and specify.
Councils are typically lenient, and will request that development
approval be sought or demolish.
Major problem though, if only way to strengthen is to dis-assemble the
whole structure, then rebuild.
The point of design is to assess suitability-of-purpose or fitness-
for-function before wasting materials or causing harm.
My interest is the interface between end-product and process. And
addresssing variability in production process and final operation
As indicated over-the-wall design is a problem, and the building
industry is founded on such process.
When Telford built prototype bridges: such action tested both the end-
product and the construction process.
More innovation is required in the building industry.
Take transportable houses. In SA these are built no differently than
any other house.
Sure there are some design changes in the product specification for a
transportable house to cover transportation issues.
But the process of building the transportable house is no different
than a house built in-situ.
The transportable house builders do not have a factory. They build in
a yard, and use sub-contract labour.
There is no real benefit, or added value in the construction of the
transportable house.
By the way the brick, in a brick veneer house is close to pure
decoration. Extremely expensive decoration, when footings considered.
Residential house footings in #Adelaide are controlled by reactive
clay soils and the desire for decorative brick veneer.
#Adelaide your house footings are equivalent to tossing money in a
hole in the ground.
Go to a builder, or plan drafter and immediately get the site cut and
filled and concrete slab on ground.
Go to architect and engineering team and more likely to get something
better suited to the site.
Unfortunately I cannot say the architect and engineer will produce
something better because they may not have the interest or ingenuity.
#Adelaide consider: A transportable house can be considered as an
internal liner for a brick veneer house.
However there is no real benefit to using a transportable house as a
starting point for a brick veneer house, when no productivity gain.
Whilst an electrician can wire up several transportable houses in the
builders yard, they can do like wise in new housing development.
The benefit of builders yard is thus only achieved if subbies would
otherwise be running around houses all over the city.
But without a factory do not have benefit of 24/7 operation
irrespective of the weather.
Also with increasing OHS&W requirements for working long hours in the
burning sun, factories beneficial.
Of course one attraction of the building industry is working out
doors, and in many places. So cannot simply impose a factory.
Sure there are all manner of ways to make business and industry more
efficient, but they have to be aligned with the culture.
It is seldom a lack of a technical solution that is a problem: the
problem is mostly social, cultural and political.
The social, cultural and political aspects of the design problem make
finding an appropriate technology a requirement.
#Appropriate #technology is not something just for the thirdworld, it
is technology for the world, technology for humanity.
It is the global population that has a water and food security
problem. It is humanity that is in need of a solution.
Engineers in general do not solve problems but implement solutions.
The discipline of Civil #Engineering is a collection of solutions.
The discipline of Mechanical #Engineering is a collection of
solutions.
The discipline of Electrical #Engineering is a collection of
solutions.
The discipline of Structural #Engineering is a collection of
solutions.
The discipline of Industrial #Engineering is a collection of
solutions.
The discipline of Production #Engineering is a collection of
solutions.
The discipline of Quality #Engineering is a collection of solutions.
The discipline of Mining #Engineering is a collection of solutions.
The discipline of Agricultural #Engineering is a collection of
solutions.
The discipline of Medical #Engineering is a collection of solutions.
The discipline of Genetic #Engineering is a collection of solutions.
The discipline of Computer Systems #Engineering is a collection of
solutions.
The discipline of Electronic #Engineering is a collection of
solutions.
The discipline of Nuclear #Engineering is a collection of solutions.
Making errors in the implementation of these known solutions is not
acceptable to society.
Mentioning value stream mapping and lean: is selling a branded
solution. It is not dealing with the problem.
Engineering science and engineering design has no disciplinary
boundaries: it can tackle any problem.
But people and professionals get polarised into implementation of
specific solutions, rather than solving actual problems.
It is not necessary to give fancy names to tools in order to use those
tools.
But naming things does help sell them.
-------
RT @theeconomist: Global opinion poll: Communist China is now a
stronger supporter of capitalism than America http://econ.st/dYuq2G
Why equate capitalism and the free market: they are not the same
thing.
Capitalism involves an elite minority controlling capital: and they
typically want to control the market. Deregulate so they can control.
As indicated earlier optimsing a single business enterprise
doesn't optimse the industry or the nation.
So a deregulated market may result in individual businesses being
efficient, but national security threatened by lack of diversity.
It is not a competition watchdog that we should have. Should protect
diversity not competition.
Once again a matter of perspective, and perspective determined by the
words chosen and focus created.
