Australia No Shortage of Engineers

Following on from politics of professions, and defining engineering, it should be clear that Australia does not have a shortage of engineers hindering the launch of potential mining and construction boom.

The construction is associated with the mining, it is the dependent infrastructure required by the mining activity. It includes bridges, roads and railways, and ports and harbours, and associated stormwater drainage and water resources management.There may also be need for storage and processing buildings along with offices. All established technologies with an established body of scientific knowledge concerned with planning, design, analysis, evaluation and management.

The mining is either open cut, underground. Underground mines seem to more typically have sloping access shafts than vertical shafts. The sloping shafts make it viable for vehicles to access the mine: thus trucks can be loaded in the mine. The alternative is a need for rail carts to be loaded or vertically raised skips. When these get to the surface they have to be unloaded, possibly onto belt conveyors and transferred to storage or loaded onto road vehicles for transport elsewhere. Thus extra handling compared to loading road vehicles in the mine. Though not all mines suitable for sloping access shafts. Any case the point is relatively ancient and established set of technologies, no "engineering" required.

Now it has been indicated in recent article I read, that there is increased use of the industrial internet of things (IIoT). New technology maybe, but not exactly as demanding as programming CNC machines, or programming PLC's. It is mostly plug and play technology, hooked up to the internet and controlled by software as a service. And it's not really new as sensors were added to remote belt conveyors some 20 years ago to monitor wear. Whilst factories, industrial plant and mechanical handling systems have been getting increasingly automated for decades. So once again no "engineering".

Just to be clear: Engineering takes place at the frontiers of science and technology.

Roads, Railways and Traffic Controls

Who as a member of the public believes it takes 4 years to learn how to design a road properly? If it takes 4 years to learn how to design a road, would you expect your local streets and roads to be the hazard they are?

Hopefully you agree it doesn't take 4 years, and if they do take 4 years then the roads should be better designed than they are. It does not take four years to learn the technical aspects of road design, the social, cultural, political and psychological aspects of road design may require further study but such are not covered. Since these latter subjects are not covered we have hazardous road network. In the current discussion however not concerned with demolishing the existing network and improving the network, just concerned with getting more of what we already have. Furthermore the roads concerned with are remote area roads, with heavy vehicular traffic and few users. Roads which once the resource is mined out will likely cease to be of any value.

Sure there are some roads in populated areas in the vicinity of ports and harbours. These roads may need widening to allow increased traffic flows, they may also need strengthening to carry higher loads. There will also be a need for modification and improvement to traffic control systems.

There will be need to assess the relative merits of road transport over rail transport. Railway locomotives can typically haul longer trains with heavier loads. Not aware of 1 km long road train. Once again road and railway technologies are established technologies with no need for "engineering".

For certain there is need for project specific drawings to be produced, and there are the so called "numbers" which need doing. But we as a society know what numbers, need doing. We don't have to survey learned journals to find new scientific theory, we don't have to devise a scientific hypothesis and conduct experiments to verify. The theory is established, and how it shall be applied to the established technologies is also established. Just have to look in the appropriate industry manuals, review regulations, and national codes of practice.

The people required are technicians, people conversant with the relevant tools and techniques for designing, analysing and evaluating proposed adaptations and implementations of the established technologies. If you don't like the generic meaning of technician, and prefer occupational classifications and refinement of words: then the people we need are Technologists, Associate Technologists, and Applied Scientists, Design Technicians and Trade Technicians, absolutely NOT Engineers.

Sure an engineer maybe able to do the job, but to be able to do so, they need a large amount of on the job training to become conversant with the established technology for which they will be held responsible. The point and purpose of educating and training the other occupations is that they are already conversant with the technology and how the science shall be applied to the design of such technology. Their education is not inferior to that of engineers, it is different, and better matched to the task at hand.

To reiterate my other essays. The 4 year B.Eng (AQF-8) typically consists of a common first year concerned with science and mathematics, leaving 3 years to cover some 2 to 5 major areas of practice. So that is 3/5ths to 1.5 years to cover each area of practice. So a programme in a specific area of practice can be designed to be a 2 year (AQF-6) or 3 years (AQF-7) programme. Such programmes if anything being superior to the 4 year B.Eng, because they provide greater coverage of the area of practice, more knowledge of the specific technologies. With all programmes having the same first year, an AQF-5 qualification in science and mathematics. Having the same foundation, it becomes easier to articulate to another area of practice.

Back to the roads and railways, these ribbons of impermeable surface pose a stormwater management problem. On the one hand stormwater needs to be managed around the roads and railways to prevent from getting inundated with water, which will hinder vehicle movement. On the other hand the road surface drains water to places it didn't previously flow.

So there are earthworks to be designed and managed during construction. There are materials to be provided to remote regions as well as people required for all the work: there are thus logistics problems to be solved. In a consulting organisation most of these tasks are carried out by different people, not by one person, but by teams of people. That is after graduation, someone with a B.Eng gets locked into a specific area of practice and specialises, and are typically hindered from moving to another area of practice: so a large part of their degree ceases to be of value. So industry not willing to retrain them in another area of practice and technology, and lack of appropriate study and qualification programmes to extend their knowledge themselves.

Thus there will be specialists in:

1. Roads
2. Railways
3. Traffic Management and Controls
4. Stormwater Drainage
5. Earthworks & Geotechnology
6. Bridges
7. Construction
8. Logistics

All of which are established areas of technology, with established bodies of science. For all of which it should be possible to design a 2 year programme to educate and train a suitably qualified Associate Technologist. This isn't entirely new, Australia's Engineering Associates were already so capable, until the 1980's, when Engineers Australia elitist objectives scuttled them. If really want an "engineer" to be in charge, then we have enough available already: as the majority are not doing anything remotely worthy of the description engineering.

With appropriate AQF-5 qualification in science and mathematics, the capabilities of many drafters, planners and other technical officers can be increased. With AQF-6 qualifications in specific areas of practice and technologies, then the capabilities of many practicing engineers can be improved, whilst an army of people with appropriate skills can be educated in the first instance. Those with the B.Eng will be able to fast track through the AQF-6 programmes as they will only need to study the those subjects extending the area of practice and covering the specific technology. Those with the AQF-5 will only require one year of extra study to articulate to a specific area of practice.

Consideration of Required Numbers

I have previously suggested the world land area be divided into cells 5 km in diameter, of which I get 7,585,452 such cells. The world population is approximately 7.53 billion, so would get around 993 persons per cell. {Though when looking at in detail cells should be hexagonal not circular}

For Australia there are 391,752 cells, most of these cells are not populated, but at least one park ranger and/or environmental scientist could be appointed to each cell. With population of 24,234,900 people, we could assign 62 people per cell.

I believe membership of Engineers Australia is around 100,000 members, and top heavy, biased towards B.Eng. I also believe it only represents about 30% of those who graduated in engineering. So there seems potential to appoint one civil engineer to each cell. On the other hand there is probably less than one third of the cells requiring any significant development over the period of 40 to 50 year career. Whilst the hub of a city may require more than one technical specialist, it does require not more than one engineer.

By comparison compare India: 167,419 cells, and population of 1,409,517,397, enabling 8,419 persons assigned to each cell. Plus it reportedly graduates 1 million engineers each year, so it definitely has the potential to assign 1 civil engineer to each cell in India and for that matter also each cell in Australia.

These people however don't need to be engineers, and need to work as part of a team. There appears to be around 2.8 million people between the age of 15 and 24 in Australia. So around 13.7% should  be studying:

1. Surveying
2. Cartography
3. Environmental Science
4. Agricultural Science
5. Geotech
6. Civil Infrastructure

Not sure how current system works. But those in grade 12 used to study either all arts and humanities subjects with one science subject, or all science subjects with one arts and humanities subject. My arts and humanities subject was geography, my science subjects were: maths 1&2 (otherwise known as double maths), physics and chemistry.

So my proposed AQF-5 would expand on grade 12 science and mathematics in one year, then a further year to AQF-6, would have people capable of contributing to the above areas of practice. Furthermore, such AQF-6 level academic programmes are also more appropriate to foreign students who are supported by their respective governments to go get an education and return to help develop the nation. 

Getting Side Tracked with Other Issues

Mapping and charting the continent of Australia and its resources: sure we have such data already, but individual development projects require more detailed information. Development requires identifying location for new roads and railways, water catchments and flood mitigation technologies, along with farming and mining activities. The whole environment needs zoning and developing accordingly. For example why has agriculture been permitted to go beyond the Goyder line and become dependent on pumped irrigation? How do we sustain food production dependent on fossil fuels, both for fuel and feedstock for agrochemicals? Choices of individuals in the market does not lead to collectively sensible behaviour. Rather the results are not in the best interests of the population at large nor are they ultimately of benefit to the individual.

We have land, coastline and coastal waters to both manage, develop and otherwise look after.

Note that I didn't include mining in the list. This is because the priorty is to identify resources and zone the environment. Then get infrastructure to access the regions for agriculture and mining. For example passenger trains travelling at 200 km/h to 300 km/h are important to getting people to the remote interior. Whilst civil aircraft may have cruise speeds from 300 km/h to 900 km/h, it is railways and roads which open up the country not isolated airports. Australia can basically be enveloped by a rectangle E/W: 4000 km by N/S: 3860 km (includes Tasmania). So the interior is around 2000 km from the coast line. Typical rural road speed 100 km/h, so the interior is around 20 hours away. By rail, at 200 km/h it is reduced to 10 hours, and air at 900 km/h down to 2.2 hours. However we are not typically travelling that far into the interior for farming and mining, a lot closer to 500 km to 1000 km from the coast. Whilst the remote central interior is 500 km to 1000 km radius of Alice Springs.

Put simply to make it more attractive for people to work in the remote mining and rural tends we have to make them less remote: by developing the infrastructure which connects them to the more populated coastal regions: and they have to be connected, so that goods can be delivered from these regions to the coastal regions. Once we have supportive infrastructure in place, secured our water supply and food production, then we can consider new mines and expanding existing.

We already have 1,687,893 people educated to AQF-5 and AQF-6, and 2,882,838 people educated to AQF-7. The primary problem is they don't have the necessary experience and expertise in the established technologies. With 1,675,632 people in engineering and related technologies, and 634,774 in architecture and building, and 222,831 people in Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies.

So it seems if anything there is a shortage of people in agriculture. Farmers have been advising there is a shortage and a lack of interest, with concerns where the next generation of farmers will come from. The problem with farming is that it is now mostly a one person activity, with lots of machinery. So assuming a 40 to 50 year career, the next generation have a long time to wait, for their parents to retire. They want jobs now, and the lifestyle the big cities promise. Hence the largest area being Management and Commerce with 2,149,808 persons.

Though statistics outside of education, indicate the largest areas of employment are: education, health care and retail. Mining and agricultural collectively account for less than 5% of the population. However these industries have flow on effects, as in mining needs infrastructure so there's a flow on construction boom. Whilst mining and agricultural materials need processing, so there's a potential increase in local manufacturing.

Any how, we may have a small population, and if they were busy doing the right work, there wouldn't be any shortages of people. The apparent shortfall of people in agriculture just means that there are fewer people looking after the potential tracts of land, plus the populated coastal cells more in need of architects and civil "engineers" than agriculture and environmental science: thus no shortfall.

If we were to increase the workforce by 1 million people we could assign at least two people to each of the planning cells. That is one environmental scientist, and either a agricultural "engineer", a mining "engineer", or a civil "engineer". That is we could employ one years production of engineers from India. But what we going to get them to do?

Got a block of land 5 km in diameter in the middle of nowhere and in less than one year of surveying to identify its of no consequence, and just needs a park ranger assigned responsibility.

Have a block of land in the middle of a cattle or sheep station. Is it a matter for environmental science or agricultural science? Once all the land is zoned, it then primarily becomes the responsibility for park rangers, and environmental scientists.

Our coastal waters are the responsibility of environmental scientists and civil/coastal "engineers". Our farm land the responsibility of environmental scientists, agricultural scientists along with agricultural "engineers". Our mining lands the responsibility of environmental scientists, and mining "engineers". We operate in the natural environment, we draw resources from the environment, we exhaust waste to the environment. We need to understand and monitor the environment. First and foremost we need an army of environmental technicians and scientists.

These people will either hinder development of land for: farming, mining, cities and industrial plant, or they will significantly boost the ability to implement. At present there is public opposition to increased mining, wind farms and various farming operations. It isn't decreased monitoring activity we need it is increased activity which is required.

For example we have protests which suggest we should stop mining coal. This is naive and suggests we only use coal as a fossil fuel. Coal however is an important source of carbon (not an abbreviation for carbon dioxide) based materials. Similarly oil and gas are also feedstock for material production including agrichemicals. So we cannot just stop the mining, we still need the raw materials. Amongst the raw materials are polymers used for insulation, required for energy efficient buildings. We have to better understand the industrial food chain, not simply halt production.

We need better monitoring of our rivers and the use of water for irrigation, and better stormwater management and water resource management. Much of the work required could be provided by Certificate IV (AQF-4) qualifications. Some monitoring could be provided by appropriate sensors and the industrial internet of things (IIoT): but such need installing under the supervision and operating by some one at least at AQF-4 level. The IIoT reduces the number of people required to run around taking remote measurements.

So remote cells can be monitored by remote controlled cameras atop tall towers, alternatively remote controlled flying drones can provide the means of monitoring. The land becomes occupied and under surveillance. One person could then potentially survey more than one cell in a day, or if not necessary to survey each day, they can survey several cells each year: and then cycle round again each year.

We have the population to occupy and survey the land. More to the point there are 798,400 Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander, so they can occupy the land with at least two people per cell.

Whilst there are 673,100 unemployed persons, who can occupy the land with at least one person to each cell, with two to some cells. Assuming these people want to work, then we have the required army to train to Certificate IV (AQF-4) and Associate Degree (AQF-6) level. So why haven't we? Partly because wasting national resources educating people, supposedly to AQF-8  over 4 years, and then scrapping half that education once they have found employment. Better to spend 2 years educating people to AQF-6 in the areas of practice we actually need skills. In 12 months we have planners, drafters and trade technicians. In 2 years we have the designers we need.

It should also be noted that whilst some of the AQF-4 qualifications take 4 years, these programmes are outside the classroom and on the job doing work. It isn't 4 years of academic study, it is mostly on the job training, developing proficiency in the work. So we can get the trades people for getting on with the work in short time. The people required to supervise takes slightly longer, and the people required to determine the work which needs doing, will take longer still, but should not take more than 2 years.

Now the cells are just for a planning exercise: to declare the land can be occupied and that at least one person is responsible for each block of land. I can however plan a square kilometre with a 500 x 500 m hub, to have more than 5000 single storey sole occupancy units. The maximum densities so far recorded around the world are 100,000 people for each square kilometre. These people are clearly not mining or farming as they are not occupying suitable land. And as they are already occupying buildings they don't need buildings.

Given 5000 single storey dwellings are suitable for couples with a baby, and extending the dwelling to two storey would make suitable for 2 adults and 2 children, and so increase population to 20,000. It seems relatively easy to increase the population to 100,000 by increasing the buildings to 10 storeys (5x2). But what are the 100,000 going to do with their time? What are they doing? Focused on education, health care and retail doesn't seem very productive. But if we do have such educational capability, then we definitely shouldn't and wouldn't have a shortage of suitably qualified persons.

Now whilst we can increase the population density of our cities who would want to live in such cities? More importantly from where do we get the water supply, we already have water rationing. So we have more work to do before we go increasing the population to get more workers to do the work.

The fundamental task is to maximise the benefit from the available but otherwise limited resources. The people we have in charge don't appear to have such ability.

So the numbers are available. We, just couldn't manage a booze up in a brewery.

Anyway the point is that a single agricultural or civil "engineer" should be able to develop a cell 5 km in diameter over a 40 year career. If we want it developed faster then we need more than one "engineer" involved with planning and design.

Just to note that is 5000 single storey or 10 storey dwellings designed once, and implemented 5000 times. Our building and construction industry in South Australia, oscillates between 5000 and 15,000 dwellings each year. So it would take less than one year to build a town. Does a mining town need more than 5,000 people or 100,000 people? Roxby Downs population 4500, Broken Hill population 17,814. Or take Leigh Creek (SA) population reduced from 2500 to 245. Mining towns are short lived. Some are unlikely to last for more than one generation: children are unlikely to follow in their parents footsteps and go work for the mining company.

Humans have legs, they are meant to be mobile. So not just about mobility across occupations it is also mobility across the planet. No one wants to buy a house in a place it will get abandoned, and no one else will want to buy. The houses cannot be permanently anchored to the earth's surface, the houses need to be transportable. So the road network as to permit transport of houses into the region and out off the region. So people are mostly going to want to live close to the developing cities, and the services they offer. Thus it is important to improve transportation infrastructure between the coastal cities and the interior rural and mining towns. If want to get people to live and work there, and do so for a reasonable duration, then access needs to improve. The towns need an adequate supply line bringing goods into town. Then they need personnel to provide all the appropriate services.

Also say it takes a team of about 5 people 90 days to build a house, then in 1 year they can build 365/90= 4 houses. So 5000/4 = 1250 years, or over a 50 year career, 50x4=200 houses. But want the houses built in 1 year, so need 5 people/team x 1250 teams=6,250 people. Thus needs more people than in the town. On the other hand in the detail the 5 people are not working continuously for 90 days. The plumber and electrician certainly aren't, they contribute at most about 2 days each. So they can each do 365/2=182.5 houses each year. So 5000/182.5=27.3, so would need about 28 plumbers and 28 electricians. For one years worth of work and then stop. If we shift the work into a factory we cut down on travel between sites, and the work can be reduced to a few hours. In short if we build a temporary factory at the destination, then the 5000 people are more than enough people to build their own houses in one year. The trip from factory to site also reduced. So trucks supply materials to the one factory rather than multiple sites.

Apparently in Australia there are approximately 105,000 homeless people. Thus 105,000/5000, so around 21 small towns, which if they are provided with resources and opportunity they can build themselves in one year. The 500m x 500m hub of the town I described is where retail stores and services are located. So the town would have own schools and hospital.

The most likely system implemented though is multistorey building, or infill housing, making use of existing stores, maintaining if not increasing unemployment.

There is a problem concerning getting the job done, and dragging the job out because don't have other work to go to. But there is plenty of work to do, obviously because they are declaring occupational shortages. More work just requires imagination, backed by resources and opportunities.

Most of the problems in this country and the world can be solved if we just got to work implementing the known solutions. Apparently 150 million world wide homeless, and 1.6 billion lacking adequate housing. So governments need to provide license to occupy and use land, and the resources and opportunity, and all can build their own homes. Furthermore the problem of shelter resolved in one year: technically. Socially and politically is another issue.

I mean what's the problem with implementing the millennium development goals in one year, of 7.53 billion only 1.6 billion people need shelter and there is enough for them to set about building their own homes. It's not even as if the development goals were about eliminating problems, they were half baked. Even the new sustainable development goals are half baked. Like end extreme global poverty by 2030. First redefine extreme poverty, so there isn't much of it, so it is then easy to eliminate over an excessively long period.

The primary problem is logistics, getting goods and services to and from the locations. Developing supply and distribution networks. How do we mobilise the world population and get them going to where the work is?

How many plumbers does Africa need? I have already indicated requirement to get houses built. But once the houses are built how many need to be retained? One rough statistic is in any given year around 5% of households will need some kind of maintenance service. So 5% of the 5000, so that is 250 each year. Most of the activity will take less than one day. Assume 50 productive weeks in one year, and 5 days per week, then have 250 productive days per year. So one plumber for every 5000 dwellings on condition that all demands do not occur on the same day. The more plumbers we have to cater for the multiple emergencies in the one day, and the less work any individual plumber does in a given year.

So with less guess work and more robust data sources than I have, it should be possible to map out a good estimate of how many plumbers the world needs and where they need be located, and do likewise for other occupations. There is no shortage of people. Though they may need training, such training should not take long.

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[25/03/2019] : Original
[05/05/2019] : Minor Edits and Added Formatting

More on the AQF

I suggest that in the main qualifications awarded under the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) do not quite live up to the objectives. So what follows includes how the AQF is working, and proposals to improve some aspects.

The objectives of the AQF, are to allow employers to identify people competent for the task at hand and improve occupational mobility. The educated should not be trapped in some silly occupational class or locked out by some elitist professional cult.

The AQF qualifications are supposed to improve mobility, movement up through the levels is meant to result in increased depth of knowledge, increase in independent thought and increase in personal responsibility.

Content vs Duration

The qualifications are meant to be defined by content not by duration, unfortunately the university sector doesn't comply they base awards on duration. So a 4 year B.Eng rather than being defined by required content is defined mostly by the duration.

That is graduates having spent 4 years to get a degree, believe they are superior than other graduates, who only spent 3 years to get a B.Sc or B.A. The other degrees however are not occupational degrees they are traditional academic degrees and typically involve far greater intellectual rigour than an occupational degree like a B.Eng. {The 4 year duration, seems to be mostly because of breadth of subject matter, slowness of the students, and and time spent on industry experience. In other words it lacks academic content, rather than such graduates being paid more on graduation they should be paid less. (we have industrial awards which set pay and conditions, and the award says they should be paid more)}

Anyway as a consequence of other occupations and industries not paying too much attention to content and more interest in status of higher awards, some minimum durations were imposed. Minimum durations do not entirely help, as an isolated topic can be presented rapidly in 1 hour, or it can be dragged out over several hours. Though expect that there is an optimum time in which learning can actually take place.

Therefore expect with the passage of time, the content of programmes will increase as the time required to present a subject decreases. However also expect that in lower level programmes the time taken will increase and the content will decrease, as more effort is expended to develop higher level of  proficiency and make them more conversant.

Education vs Training

However developing proficiency is why in previous posts I have suggested that we split education from training. We restrict education to foundational knowledge and enabling competences, and is more evaluation than learning. Whilst training academies focus on increased proficiency: lots of repetition until achieve the required level of performance.

With a split between education and training, most of the trade oriented qualifications will comprise of two parts: the AQF award and an associated Certificate of Practice (CoP). Prior AQF's will be identified as containing the CoP, modern awards will indicate explicit exclusion of the CoP. So people can get the foundational knowledge and then become adequately qualified to gain experience. If they cannot gain the AQF award then they are not adequately qualified to gain experience. The training academies become an important filter between education and industry.

Once someone has a CoP, at some future date they may have to complete supplementary training and assessment to verify that they still meet the minimum requirements. Whilst initial training maybe anything from 2 weeks to 250 weeks, corroboration of ability may only take 1 day.

Mobility

Improved mobility is achieved by recognising common foundational knowledge and skill sets across various occupations, and creating appropriate educational awards and study programmes. Obviously this may result in programmes which contain content not relevant to a given occupation. However if an occupation or profession is defined by breadth, then it can be defined in terms of multiple AQF awards rather than one. We should not be defining bachelor degree programmes because of required breadth.

If need a ticket to belong to a profession or occupation, then that can be separate to the AQF awards and CoP's. A national organisation can issue a card the size of a credit card which lists occupations for which are qualified, on the front and AQF awards and CoP's on the back., along with a separate document providing a detailed summary. Basically little different than becoming a graded member of some qualifying body: the membership grade is the qualification not the educational awards. However for the proposal the qualifying body would ultimately be an international organisation, with national branches.

There should be no issue having multiple low level AQF's to define an occupation, if an occupation is required.

Knowledge Content and Academic Rigour

There seems to have been a split in the AQF at level 6 where have the advance diploma and the associate degree. Where the associate degree is seen as more academically rigorous than the advanced diploma. This also indicates the split between the university education sector and the vocational education sector.

This is where things have got messed up, along with the senior secondary certificate of education (SSCE) which doesn't properly fit into the AQF. The problem is that after grade 10, students can study towards AQF awards, or pursue grade 11 and grade 12 to get the SSCE. Some AQF programmes require the SSCE for entry, whilst others don't.

So for example to enter into a bachelor degree programme (AQF-7/AQF-8) would require to complete the SSCE. But can otherwise get advanced diploma or associate degree (AQF-6) and gain status for upto 2 years in the degree programme. Some people got the advanced diploma without SSCE, either because in the past it was possible to start without such qualification, or because of adult entry.

Clearly there is inequity, in that the original 5 year programme to get a 3 year degree has been collapsed to 3 years (Original: 2 years for SSCE + 3 year degree).

Therefore my proposal is that we scrap the SSCE, and after grade 10, start on AQF awards. No repetition in grade 11, grade 12 and first year at university. All is properly coordinated, and all education requires stepping up through the AQF, no jumping levels.

If cannot jump levels, then only one way to get a AQF-7 qualification and that is to successfully pass through the 6 previous levels. To get a bachelor degree you have to get an advanced diploma, no buts doubts or maybe's about it. This means those persons at a higher level in a more supervisory role, are aware of the capabilities of those educated at a lower level.

In other words we don't waste education because a whole heap of school leavers have got a B.Eng gone into an organisation and got the idea that those with an advanced diploma are only capable of drafting because that is where such persons have been stuck. Both those with AQF-6 and AQF-8 levels of education need opportunity to put their education to work and gain experience to develop competence and confidence.

Furthermore if you have progressed up the ladder rather than having jumped in at the top, and started work at the lower level you will be aware of the education required to complete a given task. Thus appropriate people can be trained and put to work. No false claims of shortages.

I'm not against providing visa's and allowing foreigners to do the work. I am however against the foreigners being exploited to do the work, and then being unceremoniously tossed out off the country when no longer needed. I am also against high level people being brought in to do something which is trite from their viewpoint. We should get the right people to do the work, and if we can educate and train them locally then we should do so. But training becomes impractical if all the time we declare there is a shortage of people with bachelor programmes and 5 to 10 years experience. It suggests we have a loss of leadership, and therefore not capable of assessing if  people are adequately qualified.

If we can say that designing a structure only requires a 2 year Associate Degree and educated people at that level and provide them opportunity, we save significant resources, and reach our objectives faster.

Take engineering each discipline can be broken into about 5 major areas of practice, according to NCEES in the USA.

Civil Engineering:

1. Construction
2. Geotechnical
3. Structural
4. Transportation
5. Water Resources and Environmental

Mechanical Engineering

1. Basic Engineering Practice
2. Mechanical Systems and Materials
3. Hydraulics and Fluids
4. Energy/Power systems
5. HVAC/Refrigeration

Industrial Engineering (management)

1. Facilities Engineering and Planning
2. Systems Analysis and Design
3. Logistics
4. Work Design
5. Ergonomics and Safety
6. Quality Engineering

Architectural Engineering

1. Building Systems Integration
2. Electrical Systems
3. Mechanical Systems
4. Structural Systems
5. Project Management and Construction Administration

Note that in all these lists they are referring to technology not to the technical science.  So my formal education covers mechanical, industrial and manufacturing engineering, I also took options in structures and agricultural engineering.

Structures and mechanical systems are dependent on engineering mechanics both statics and dynamics, along with the mechanics of the strength and stability of materials. Therefore civil engineering and mechanical engineering overlap, except that most civil's wouldn't cover dynamics.

Water resources is dependent on hydraulics which is specialisation of fluid mechanics, the last 4 items in the mechanical engineering list are dependent on thermofluid dynamics.

The architectural engineering branch covers the structural and mechanical technologies as they relate to buildings. There is no coverage of the design of fabrication and construction processes, or logistics of supplying materials to the construction site. That project management stuff will be more about money, schedules and contract law.

Also note that there are 6 areas in industrial engineering, not just 5. Also elsewhere it maybe described as industrial management rather than engineering.

So as before, if take the first year of a 4 year programme as covering the common science, then that typically leaves 3 years to cover 5 areas of practice. So a 2 year AQF-6 programme can easily maintain the academic rigour of a 4 year B.Eng and cover a single area of practice which only gets 1 and 3/5ths of a year. So in a 2 year programme there is 2/5ths of a year available for increased focus on the area of practice.

For example an Associate Degree in Structures: could cover the basic engineering mechanics, statics and dynamics, structural mechanics (analysis), and the mechanics of the strength and stability of materials as well as cover more technology specific requirements such as building structures and bridge structures.

A 2 year programme would stick to frames. Whilst a 3 year programme would extend into plates, shells, cable-nets and tension membranes, vibration and fatigue of structures.

Now I missed the soils and geotechnical aspects of the technology. Very important as the structures, no matter whether buildings, bridges, machines or other non-machine structure, all stand on the ground. However geotechnical is increasingly becoming a specialisation. If it is critical and important then want a specialist, if not critical then it's not that complex. The basics of footing design can thus be covered in the 2 year qualification for structures.

Now if geotechnical depends on knowledge of structures, then it adds the 3rd year after studying AQF-6 in structures, as an alternative to studying alternative structural forms. I doubt however it is so dependent, it depends on mechanics and that should be covered in the first year.

The first year would become an AQF-5 in technical science and mathematics. It should cover the content of the American FE breadth exam. Whilst the AQF-6 programme covers requirements for FE depth, and PE depth exam but lacks PE breadth.

We shouldn't need the likes of the American FE/PE exam if the academic institutions examinations are rigorous enough, and the requirements for getting the AQF award are robust enough.

Similarly we should not need registration or licensing requirements if people are properly educated and trained.

So the problem with the sign post falling over and the cracks in the Opal towers is because people adequately qualified in structures did not design the structures and people with still greater capability in structures did not properly review and approve the evidence-of-suitability. Licensing people based on current academic records and professional memberships will not resolve the issues. We need people more competent in structural design, we need better managed projects, we need better controlled projects.

... to be continued ...

Loss of Status

All existing bachelor degrees will loose status. This is not a problem as all academic awards should loose status with the passage of time.

That which can be studied in the first 10 years of education can be increased with the passage of time. As more books are written and published, more information becomes accessible. Furthermore books improve the presentation of subject matter with time. On the other hand subjects can also  become increasingly complex with the passage of time. One subject also builds upon another subject, so that have subjects, involving studying the studying of the subject, or studying the people studying the subject, or the history of the subject. Some times these are important complements other times they are irrelevant and unimportant.

Furthermore books can give way to video, and animations and  interactive programmes, so that learning is made easier and assessment is made more robust. So that hopefully the certificate I from last year is not as good as the certificate I from this year. And hopefully it is never the other way around, with last years qualifications being superior.

Also last year needed someone special to find a solution to a problem, this year and there after, people with lesser knowledge can be educated to apply the solution. So at one point we needed to know how to design beams, and how to design walls of circular tanks: now that as a society we hold such knowledge, now we, just need to train people to use such knowledge.

If there is a defined body of knowledge used to define a profession then that body of knowledge can be published and should be published. As a designer I like to know what a carpenter should be capable of doing, and also what they are willing to do or have the resources to do. Armed with such knowledge I can minimise my documentation. Alternatively I can expand documentation and save them time. But if I expect the carpenter to have more knowledge than they have, and the carpenter believes they know more than they actually do, then we have a problem.

Clearly has human knowledge increases we expect to have more specialists. So now we have hundreds if not thousands of people who now have a bachelor degree defining their job, and giving rise to more and more professional cults. Yet the need for these degrees in the main has little to do with the needs of the work, and more to do with poorly defined and poorly designed jobs.

Now clearly if each area of practice is only given 1 and 3/5th of a year in a 4 year programme (AQF-8), but an AQF-6 programme, well gives it 2 years and provides more content, then the AQF-6 programme makes that individual more competent and capable in the given area of practice. Furthermore the next generation will require 5 x AQF-6 programmes to get the same breadth. Assuming that all are based on a common foundation at AQF-5, then that is a total of 1 + 5=6 years of study versus the 4 year programme.

In terms of breadth the 3 and 4 year programmes should fall out of favour. But new 3 year programmes should emerge which properly cover depth and appropriate specialisations.

Societies Confidence

As I say no need for registration and licensing, proper education and training and recognition of such through the AQF should take care of such.

Confidence in Design

Defects in design are largely a consequence of pressure due to budget and time constraints: if don't sell time and don't believe all units of time have the same value, then not quite the same problem. On top of these constraints is owners/developers introducing last minute changes whether at the end of design or part way through construction.

Now this becomes a problem, when have inadequate checks and balances in place. The issue is not about who checks work, but how work is checked.

Design is a creative activity, it imagines potential solutions to a set of objectives and constraints, and the proposals are guided by qualitative appreciation of science. Where feasible some numbers are crunched to give some quantitative guidance. Designers work at drawing boards, they alternate between drawing and calculations. Drawings are used to resolve dimensional and geometric issues of fit, to get a clear picture of relationships. Whilst dimensions may well be calculated, sketches are used to define relationships, the geometry and shape of things. Scale drawings can validate or refute assumptions. For example, the arithmetic doesn't add up because missed dimension of a clearance, or a gasket or something not usually present.

Calculations and drawings therefore reinforce one another, one is a second opinion on the other: a check and a balance. You should have at least two ways of doing things, if the two ways give different answers and they should give the same, then need to find an explanation and then fix the approach which is giving the wrong answer or find other approaches better suited to the task.

The process of design should therefore be close to self correcting. However often have multiple conflicting requirements. So when finished and have documented the whole, then review the finished document and assess if it is fit-for-function and met all objectives: or otherwise explicitly identify the conflicting objectives and the compromises made.

Design-calculations are seldom suitable as Proof-Calculations. Once design is completed then need to do proof-calculations. For example wouldn't use AS4100 steel structures code to design a steel beam, it is too complex and convoluted. Rather design is carried out using simpler calculations, for example "find and get in the ballpark" using full section properties and a suitable design-factor. Then check compliance with AS4100 using the more cumbersome to calculate effective section properties. Of course we can simplify the process and produce design capacity tables (DCT's), and thus the process becomes more efficient as we can get a suitable section more directly with fewer calculations. We can speed things even further with span tables for specific applications. Faster still is to use computers. It is still however a "trial and error" exercise as the analysis calculations are dependent on knowing the properties of a suitable section, and the point of the calculations is to find a suitable section. So we guess and check, and use each previous guess to direct our next guess, until we converge upon the structural solution. Most other areas of practice are similar. There are few situations where it is practical  to rearrange the mathematical expressions and directly calculate the value we are seeking.

Irrespective we have this process of design-calculation which then results in a specification-of-intent
which we then need to check is a valid design-solution to our defined design-problem. So our final calculations provide proof of compliance with a code of practice and all other objectives and requirements. These proof-calculations form the first stage of the evidence-of-suitability for the proposal.

If the design is simple and non-critical then the designer can do their own proof checks a few hours or a few days later. If the system is not simple and is critical then another person should carry out an independent review. An independent review is not an arithmetic check, it is not a school teacher checking the work. An independent review is carried out using the specification-of-intent, and only such specification, the reviewer has no need to see the designers calculations. {My experience is large Australian consultancies do not carry out proper independent reviews they get graduates to basically do arithmetic checks. Who may or may not otherwise ask what is this all about? It is good if they do ask, as they can start learning how to do such calculations, and demonstrate that they have understanding of the concepts. It is however not a proper independent check, it can be used as a secondary check and learning exercise but not a substitute for formal review.}

Once the designer organisation is happy they have validated the design. The specification-of-intent can be released for regulatory review. Regulatory review is only concerned with compliance with regulations: if not in the regulations then of no consequence. It is therefore the designer's responsibility to highlight additional requirements which may go above and beyond the minima of the codes and to have had these properly checked and validated because the regulator isn't going to check or validate them.

Now once again the regulator should be capable of carrying out an independent review without reference to the designers-proof calculations. However:

An independent review can only be properly executed if there has been a deliberate intent to make a proposal suitable for purpose and a defendable assertion to that effect has been made. [sch]

The designer doesn't need to submit their proof calculations, but they need make declaration that they are capable of defending their claim that a proposal is fit-for-function. Traditionally that is as simple as several people working for the consultant signing off on the drawings. Typically would include the designer, chief-designer, and senior representative of the organisation. For small projects and small consultancies, it would just be the signature of the designer. {Unfortunately seems people are more concerned about intellectual property rights, and copyright than getting things right. So building designers drawings have business name on them and copyright notice, but seldom a signature or initials indicating that they are the designer responsible. The drawings bounce back and forth between council and themselves until it becomes compliant. Not really acceptable as the certifier is more designer, than independent reviewer.}

If there is no indication of who is advocate or proponent for the proposal, then the regulator shouldn't be wasting their time reviewing the proposal, as their independence from the design process will be compromised. The regulator would become more a design manager guiding the design process until it converges on a compliant design. Not their role.

So the regulator gets the appropriate documents (which do not include the proof-calculations), and can now independently review the project. The issue is that the regulator doesn't have enough time to carry out a proper independent review, and fees are inadequate for such purpose.

Possibly true. But it is also true that the regulators do not appear to put any time into developing suitable design tools to aid their specific role.

For example nailed plated roof trusses were a problem, because rapidly designed by software, and the output lacked detail. So lacks detail, but did the specification of intent lack detail? If can write software to rapidly design the trusses can equally well write software to check compliance: where was the compliance checking software, where is the compliance checking software? Doesn't exist because typically use general purpose structural analysis software, but such software is too slow. Therefore need more specific software optimised for the task at hand: it needed to be developed, it still needs to be developed. But that is just the assessment, by calculation.

There is still the issue of the specification-of-intent: was that adequate? The answer is no. A proper specification would have clear details regarding the connections. It would make it clear that nail plates fit and have adequate anchorage in each member. The information would be in the specification to allow checking that the nail plates have adequate resistance. If connections are not drawn to scale, then a lot of information is missing. It isn't always necessary to draw the connections, as some connections are simple and the fit is obvious. For example 2M20's into a 250 PFC likely acceptable, the same bolts in a C7510 is likely a problem unless the bolts are maybe side by side (but would still like to know about end distances and edge distance.).

If drawings lack the information to conduct an independent review, then the drawings are not good enough. The drawings may not give the information directly, but expect to find the information necessary to derive other information. Though if have to draw additional sections, may consider the drawings inadequate.

The review process is iterative. The detail of the review calculations depends on the specification. If the design is robust then a quick and simple calculation may justify its suitability. If the design is optimum, and pushing everything to the minimum, then more calculation effort would be required, and therefore more time needed.

Whilst the review process is iterative like the design process it requires fewer iterations than design. Design has to find a valid solution, review only needs to accept or reject a proposal. Review can stop as soon as it hits a point of rejection. However, review should be as refined as necessary before claiming rejection. That is to say there are no further refinements which could be made which by any stretch of the imagination would result in compliance.

In the first instance the reviewer should check all qualitative and attribute requirements before making any quantitative assessment. When they reject they should then identify all non-compliance checks upto the point of first calculation: making it clear that review has stopped. If the qualitative issues will affect calculations, then no point in starting calculation checks.

Thus the defects in buildings are not so much a consequence of poorly educated personnel, but personnel operating in defective systems. Furthermore ISO:9000 accredited organisations are highly likely to have defective quality systems, as typically all they have done is rename contract document management systems to QA systems.

They may monitor drafting errors, but they have few systems in place to monitor design errors, or this thing they like to call engineering. Whilst these days they may have software to do a lot of the calculations, something needs to check and balance the suitability of the software for the task. For example AS4100 does not cover torsion, therefore if a 3D frame has torsion, then would not expect that any 3D design software checking to AS4100 would make valid checks. So have two choices, follow tradition and avoid torsion, so go remove the torsion by changing the connections. Or check the suitability of the members for torsion. {Whilst this is outside the scope of AS4100 to provide a check, it is within the scope of the NCC/BCA that assessing suitability for such action is required, though no method of checking is provided. So code compliance doesn't mean fit-for-function, and NCC/BCA deemed-to-satisfy provisions do not satisfy. So I reiterate if something is merely code compliant it is low quality rubbish.}

So engineering consultancies need to improve their quality systems, understand quality robust design, and better monitor and control design errors. It is not about who to blame, it is about designing the correct process for design. It is about appropriate organisational structure and decision processes. It is about appropriate training and development of personnel. Not everything can be billable.

Writing career episode and work practice reports is not graduate development, and it is not training. Fast tracking graduates to CP.Eng is not in the best interests of society nor the interests of the graduate. They need to know how deficient their knowledge and abilities are, not elevated on a pedestal.

Confidence in design doesn't come from who did the design, but how the design was completed and how it was reviewed and checked.

I have no confidence in design approval  in Queensland and Victoria as it seems built around a self certifying authoritarian cult who fill in silly forms (Form 13 as I remember is used in one of the states). There seems no checks and balances on when they can self certify. And with self certifying there is no feedback to inform the "engineer" just how deficient their knowledge is and how defective their understanding.

For years I thought the SA system was defective because the people on the regulatory side have highly inconsistent competency. So builders move from working in one council area to another, as do the architects and engineers, and they complain about lack of consistency in application of the rules. "I didn't have to do that before", is a common phrase. From which get the impression they will go back to ignoring an issue on their next project in another council area.

Sometimes the council requests seem unreasonable and silly, and have to churn out a stack of pages to declare an issue to be: negligible, zero, insignificant. Pages which wouldn't be required if the regulator had appropriate experience, and knew the issue was of no significance. Various regulations now require that the people issuing certificates of an independent technical expert (CITE), have CP.Eng credentials. Unfortunately the people are mostly the same people as previous, and therefore the inconsistency remains. However, some are good and some are bad, and a designer learns from the good ones, a good designer learns from both. With good ones, it is possible to discuss issues with. The bad ones are authoritarian obstacles to be removed: they blindly apply codes where they are irrelevant, and seem to have little interest in learning and understanding the specifics of a project which make the code more hazard than benefit.

Still, good or bad, two people are more likely to find defects than one person. Also most of the criticism I put in my calculation reports seems to find its way into changes in the code. So by influencing one group of people I indirectly contribute to removing ambiguities and deficiencies in the codes. Not necessary to be out there with my name up in lights.

... continued ...

Confidence doesn't come from knowing that an electrician is licensed and they pay their license fees every year. Confidence comes from knowing that they were properly educated, trained and assessed as competent in the first place. Then knowing that they know their own limitations, and will put the work aside when their capabilities deteriorate with age. If not then expect that there are systems in place and feedback mechanisms which prevent them from doing serious harm.

If an electrician, plumber or builder does their work without it being checked or audited then it is not acceptable. But may consider that is an hassle, given had may have had problems finding an available tradesperson in the first place. However the checks and balances do not have to be direct inspection.

If an electrician does some work on a house then the as-built drawings need to be revised, which means the as-built drawings need to exist. The as-built drawings then get submitted to the regulating authority. If there are issues with the drawings the site can be inspected immediately, if no issues with the drawings the site can be inspected at a much later date. If there are issues at a later date then all the sites can be inspected: which therefore requires knowing all the sites.

Better however is the presence of an independent inspector just prior to the work being closed up and hidden from view.  No payment needs to be made for the work until both the electrician and inspector sign-off on the work. This is not an exercise in collecting signatures and identifying where to lay blame.  It is simply a check on the quality of the work. So a system independent of names and scrap paper can be implemented if possible. For example both electrician and inspector have tagging tools, each receives appropriate tags from the regulator, and each tags the work. The electrician cannot tag the work as inspected because they don't have the right tags and tagging tool. Though something more robust than that is preferable.

The requirement is that the work needs to be demonstrated as correct and that no hazards have been created. So a certain set of tests can be mandated which have to be witnessed by the building owner.

So education, training, and quality assurance system. No registration, no licensing, no system to administer and no licensing fees.  Just need operational systems which have built-in checks and balances. Systems which catch mistakes when the electrician or other trade is having a bad day.

..o0o..

 I got side tracked. I had more to write about the certificate programs. The stepping through the programs, and need for breadth. But cannot remember what it was.

Something along lines of minimum duration of 1 year programme 1500 hours. All programmes start with certificates. But first year is broken into 5 substages. For academic programme, that is minimum of 300 hours for each substage. A maximum of 5 strands to cover breadth. So 60 hours for each strand. A year divided into 50 productive weeks, so 10 weeks for each fifth. Resulting in 6 hours each week for each strand. Possible strands are:

1. Technology
2. Technical Drawing / Descriptive Geometry
3. Mathematics
4. Physics
5. Chemistry & Materials

This leaves out such subjects as:

1. Management
2. Biology
3. Geology
4. Psychology

If these are important subjects, then it maybe seen that the breadth is not great enough. Alternative may consider broader subjects, from my earlier breakdown of subjects:

1. Design
2. Technical Drawing & Engineering Graphics
3. Process Technology: Manufacturing & Construction           
4. Product Technology: Building Construction
5. Management, Business and Office Procedures
6. Legal Framework

This suggests expanding to 6 strands, though legal framework could be combined with the management strand. Also this doesn't directly address mathematics and science, as this is buried in the design and technology subject areas. Or define other broad areas:

1. Technology
2. Design
3. Science
4. Mathematics

With this approach introduce the technology, then move onto design of the technology, give rise to need for science which in turn gives rise to mathematics. All four strands are increased in depth during the first year, then in second year only science and mathematics are increased.

If more breadth is required then first year may have to comprise of multiple certificate 1 programmes, and therefore will not complete Certificate V in the first year, and will not move onto an associate degree in the second year.

However with proposed system we are now starting the programme at grade 11 not after grade 12. So we have an extra 2 years to the typical 3 year bachelor programme, in which appropriate depth and breadth are developed. Hence my earlier proposal for Diploma I to Diploma V, and Masters I to Masters V. Where grade 11 = Certificate V and grade 12 is Diploma I, and 3 year bachelor degree is Diploma IV, and graduate diploma = Diploma V. Which also means that grade 12 = Associate Degree and thus no longer provides any status in a bachelor programme: as all bachelor programmes have to be completely redesigned to increase depth on the associate degrees.

The importance of the redesign is that people will be ready to enter the workplace earlier and they are qualified to be employed on meaningful work. So they can work whilst they study for higher level qualifications. This is important because many are studying because there is need to get a ticket to employment, low skilled jobs are rapidly taken, therefore difficult to get a job to pay for studies. Not everyone can get a job stocking shelves in a supermarket or working behind a bar: they need qualifications to get a job. So the qualifications need to be quicker to get, but more robust assessment of capability is required.

The staged progress from AQF-1 upwards is the more productive, efficient and higher quality approach than jumping to AQF-7 straight from school. We filter people out at AQF-1, and onwards. So AQF-1 has the harshest and most demanding assessment requirements. For example at AQF-1 expect some 50% are rejected and cannot progress further, by AQF-5 expect only 5% are rejected: by such point people should be on the right path. After AQF-5, still expect that programmes are split into 1/5th blocks or 10 week blocks, and that progressive assessments are made so that a person can quit before going to far. For example they can halt progress to AQF-6 and take another path starting with any other lower AQF level that they have passed. They may decide that AQF-5 is their limit and just choose to increase breadth at that level.

A clever workforce is not one with great depth of knowledge, but rather an adaptive workforce with broad multi-skilling. A builder who has skills in electrical and plumbing work is preferable than need for a group. At an abstract level plumbing and electrical systems are similar: both involve networks with some driving force. For that matter could design and build a fluid power computing device. Which raises the issue that plumbers don't go near fluid power systems whether hydraulic (typically oil) or pneumatic. A plumber is thus not a mechanical engineering technician.

So if could get plumbers and electricians to become multiskilled and move to the next level, that is potentially far better workforce than pushing people through bachelor degrees. As much can be designed and built at the technician level. And more is possible at that level if knowledge was being properly pushed down to where it can empower and enable people to do what they need.

Licensing doesn't enable and empower people to get things done, it hinders them. If I design something which is electrical do I need an electrician to make it, especially if it works of a battery? I can see the need for an electrician if needs to be plugged into the mains. However, they are not electrical technicians, so they wouldn't be entirely capable of  assessing the technology. So we get to the point where the license is the hazard not the safeguard: and we otherwise have no safeguard in place.

What I am doing designing electrical? Why wouldn't I, it's the main power source for factory automation besides fluid power. I know I don't know enough to fully verify fitness-for-function, but I can still design, propose and get full fitness-for-function verified by someone else. Design of a fluid power control system doesn't immediately consider the fluid mechanics, as need to specify a control system before start sizing pipes and pumps. I could probably verify the pipes and pumps if had an appropriate industry manual. Not so much a matter of science, but a matter of design data and standard practice.

Consistent and good practice is dependent on appropriate industry manuals and design data and such references based on local practice are in short supply or just plain none existent. It tends to reflect an inappropriate culture where knowledge is being held to ransom, rather than being appropriately shared to enable and empower the people. {By sharing, I don't mean knowledge has to be available at zero fee, I mean it has to be available from a variety of alternative sources.}

..[23:48]..

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[17/02/2019] : Original
[26/02/2019] : Minor Edits

Brain leak: Price, Product, Promotion and Place : Engineering Services

This week Read this:

http://smbizstoryteller.com/2012/03/06/do-you-think-youre-charging-too-much/

http://buildingmadesimple.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/weekend-challenge-change-worldfor.html

http://www.beamcalcs.com/instant/index.html

http://www.steelbeamcalculator.co.uk/

Which led me to write this brain leak:

One of the first places I worked, the state manager had the view that engineers sold time: I disagree with that view point. My view has generally been that engineers sell solutions, provide risk management and a share in their insurance. I disagree however that engineers, are necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of society, and that engineers face grave liabilities. The latter however can be considered a matter of semantics. As I keep harping on about, the currently practicing engineers have failed to understand the defined capabilities of the members of the modern engineering team. Engineers may have originated our modern civilisation, but they are most certainly not necessary to maintaining it. It is a gross exaggeration and the height of arrogance to suggest that if we got rid of all engineers, our civilisation would collapse. It would not: modern professional engineers, did not invent, originate nor build our civilisation.

When Telford built the Conwy Suspension Bridge, he didn't know when scaled up to the Menai Suspension Bridge that it would not collapse. Similarly when Navier did his calculations for his first bridges, he didn't know they were going to collapse. Strangely as a society we have adopted Naviers approach: over reliance on theory and code compliance and lack of prototypes and lack of empirical evidence. Prototypes are important. They not only confirm theory regarding performance of the end-product, but also permit testing the fabrication and construction process, and help train the supervisors for the real project. However, for large structures like buildings and bridges it is not altogether practical to build prototypes. No that cannot be right, that is what Telford and Stephenson did.

The buildings and bridges of the past represent heritage, statistical evidence that the forms of construction are fit-for-function and something against which to calibrate theory. So if all of our available knowledge is put to use then, we expect failure under defined circumstances and with the rare and unpredictable causes being beyond our current knowledge. Society therefore has expectations of success. This is typically represented in the cost of professional indemnity insurance, which is relatively low, and which otherwise increases in proportion to value of projects contributed to and the risk for the type of work.

Insurance and Geotechnical Engineering
So for example a few years back, during the construction of the Lane Cove Tunnel, when the roof of the tunnel collapsed and the corner of an apartment block above collapsed, the cost of insurance for geotechnical projects skyrocketed. This occurred to the extent that many consulting engineers contended they could no longer afford to work, and there was something of an up roar in the engineering community. Insurance costs settled down. In South Australia, the main work of civil engineers has largely been residential footing construction reports (FCR's), basically sizing slabs and footings located on highly reactive soils. In the past a large amount of cracking of brick work, led to some City Councils being sued: since then the development act 1993, removed the councils ability to give advice. There is now a requirement for independent technical check. Note the council is always there, consultants and builders come and go, and council grants approval, so they tend to be the first to be questioned over failures. So in the past failure of footings and cracking of brick work something of a problem, today however footings designed to AS2870 have a low risk of failure. To lump such work in with geotechnical engineering, is unreasonable: the risk is no where near the same as mining and tunneling activity. So a need to rationalise the insurance, if going to have people available to do the work: and the right people to do the work. Noting that in most other Australian states, where do not have the same level of reactive soils as South Australia (SA), footings can be sized directly from AS2870 and no engineer is required: just need soils people who take bore logs to classify the site to AS2870. Even in SA, some 80% of footings can be taken directly from AS2870, without need of blackbox software like Chord and Slog. Such work should be in the capabilities of 2 year qualified civil/structural engineering associates (they are not drafters or technicians), and such is covered in their academic programmes. Problem is getting the opportunity to put their studies to work, they mostly get put on a drawing board, and never get opportunity to progress, except may be with stormwater drainage design: which is heavily biased towards technical drawing.

Workshop Detailers and Detailing.
Considering another situation, that of work shop detailers. I'm not sure when, but around 1990, most of the contract drafters I met, previously were fulltime employees of fabrication and engineering workshops. There was massive decline in the industry and many people were laid off. I did my work experience at an engineering fabrication company in the late 1980's, all the companies clients I met, described how in the hey day the place was overflowing with activity. This is whilst we were hidden in the dark, deep inside the workshop buildings, with a simple lamp at the workers workstation: during the day time. The workshops were basically kept in the dark, with spots of light here and there where people were working. The skylight windows not providing all that much light. So there was this decline in the industry, and fabricators shifted to employing workshop detailers on an as needs basis, rather than having on staff. Problem is if talk to these workshop detailers, the works not worth the effort. Miss a simple cleat off the drawings, and get hit with the bill for going to site, cutting off incorrect cleat and welding on correct cleat in right place: can end up costing more than got paid for producing the workshop drawings. Workshop detailing is something really need to work on, one project at a time without interruption. Since that time a lot of work shop detailers have retired, and very few people interested in taking up the work. This in turn is increasing the reliance on 3D CADD software and building information models (BIM). If talk to work shop detailers however this software is ok for routine stuff, and also in cases where can generate CNC code for suitable machines, but otherwise produces appalling drawings where parts have to be made by hand. But that is also another problem, many of the people using such software have poor knowledge of technical drawing, engineering graphics and production processes. Its all very well being able to view things in 3D, if know what to look at in the first place. Similarly all very well being able to connect members together in 3D, but it doesn't really help design a connection that is feasible to fabricate. Consequently we have a skill base that has not been sustained, at the same time the educational institutions are teaching how to use the software before teaching the fundamentals of engineering graphics. Being able to use a compass and set square is still important: there are no object snaps on the work shop floor or on a construction site in the Australian outback. The tools and techniques traditionally used on a drawing board were and are the same as those used on workshop floor and the construction site.

With the skills no longer held in house by the fabricators, large national detailing companies have emerged. But it is questionable as to whether they can be called workshop detailers, more like part detailers. The difference is that they no longer know what materials are in stock, what tools available in the workshop, and what labour skills available. Workshop details are meant to be produced for a specific workshop and its capabilities: they are not meant to be simply part drawings. For example engineering details may specify a fabricated angle folded from a flat bar, the steel fabricator may have a preference for welding up from flat plate. If specify welded angle, fabricator likely to complain about expense of complete penetration butt welds (CPBW). The workshop detailer is supposed to resolve such differences and detail for the workshop. Similarly the workshop may have offcuts and steel in stock which is not otherwise readily available, this may be employed on the project at lower cost and get project completed faster. The engineer typically cannot make these decisions, because the fabricator is not known until the project is put out to tender, and a general builder is awarded the contract and the builder appoints a fabricator.

Cost of Workshop Drawings
Now this process works fine for large projects, but poses unwarranted expense for smaller projects. The builders and owners want to know why they have to pay for additional drawings. All that they see is the need for more detailed dimensions on the development approval drawings. In the era of CADD if everything has been drawn correctly to dimension and geometry, adding some extra dimensions not a major problem. But at development approval stage, drawings are not necessarily dimensionally and geometrically correct. The pressures of limited time, result in some last minute changes simply being noted on drawings, and not being fully developed. So the hallway in the building may be dimensioned 1200mm wide, but still drawn its orginal dimension of 1000mm. As a consequence many workshop detailers, generally do not request the CADD drawings for a project. They prefer to work from the printed paper drawings, and build a detailing model from scratch. This becomes a final check on bringing all drawing data together: architectural, civil, structural, mechanical and electrical. Which then becomes a common complaint of workshop detailers, that not all problems have been resolved before they get the drawings, and design still taking place as workshop details being produced. Thus reinforcing the situation that few people want to take up workshop detailing. The workshop detailer is at the end of the line for documentation: from there fabrication takes place.

Engineering
When engineers check workshop details they usually disclaim responsibility for dimension and geometry, they only check member sizes, materials and connection details. That all is inaccordance with the design intent. It is thus workshop detailers and fabricators who experience the defects in design from project to project rather than engineers.

The activity of structural engineers is mostly concerned with strength, and stability for some rare and extreme event: consequently some period of 50 years or more may pass before defects in an engineers assessment and calculations becomes apparent. Though serviceability isues may arise in the day to use of the structure. For example a floor in a house having too much bounce.

Once had a client who turned up and wanted a floor  designed, and wanted it in timber because steel has too much bounce. Strange situation. It is the Australian institute of steel construction (AISC) or now the Australian Steel Institute (ASI) which produces the guideline publication for floor vibration, not the timber development association (TDA). However the timber framing code AS1684, has span tables which consider stiffness and floor vibration. Hence a timber floor selected from the timber framing code typically does not have too much bounce. But if engineering calculations are required then the floor is outside the scope of the timber framing code, possibly beyond the capabilities of timber. Since manufacturers of glulams and LVL's produce span tables similar to the timber framing code, no engineer is required for a timber floor. Thus a timber floor is likely to have superior performance to that custom designed by an engineer, because the span tables are produced by engineers who in the main know what they are doing. The custom designed steel floor has too much bounce because it has not been fully designed: just assessed for compliance with the codes of practice. There is no mandatory constraint on deflections, there is a requirement for checking serviceability, but no specific performance criteria: codes of practice are not design manuals.There is more to engineering than simply checking code compliance, and more to know than simply the content of codes. It does not require an engineer to get this right. It requires someone highly familar with the technology being considered. A structural engineer highly conversant in the design of concrete water tanks is not necessarily competent enough to design the components of buildings. Similarly someone highly conversant in concrete design not highly familiar with steel design. Whilst they may have the foundational knowledge to understand, their projects do not necessarily permit the time to become adequately proficient, and exercise the desired duty-of-care.

The engineer as defined by WFEO, is more concerned with the frontiers of technology than the established, their formal education is meant to be more directed towards the sciences than established technologies, and technologies viewed in a more abstract and generic sense: highly fluid and adaptable to new circumstances. It is the role of engineering technicians, engineering associates and engineering technologists to deal with the established technologies and adapt them to familiar circumstances. So cranes, storage tanks, silo's, chimneys, buildings, and bridges are all familar technolgies and well established. Graduate engineers are not suitably educated for being job ready to design such things: they are not meant to be, for designing such things is not there job. It is the job of the other members of the engineering team to design these things, and for their education to be specifically directed at such task. The problem with the WFEO definitions is the assumption that an engineer can be educated straight out off school: crazy notion. To be a competent engineer, a person really needs to have spent considerable time in the role of other members of the engineering team before tackling a project at the frontiers of science and technology. Telford and Stephenson could more readily trackle projects at the frontier because so little was known and community expectations of success lower than they are today. We do not tolerate inferior versions of the wheel being released into the market: new products have to exceed the performance of existing. Today it is necessary to be highly familiar with a technology and get it right first time, every time: not altogether practical, but that is the expectation.

In the modern world the majority of people we call professional engineer are not operating in the WFEO role of engineer, they are actually operating in the roles of the other members of the engineering team. They are not push any frontiers, they are not stepping into the unknown, they are not taking major risks. Well actually they are taking a major risk.

That major risk is that they are pushed for time, operating in a competitive business environment, product has to be released to market and buildings and bridges have to get built, and money flow into organisation to cover research, design and development costs. Being pushed for time, the persons involved in a project are not necessarily highly conversant with the technology they are dealing with. Thus a structural engineer, sizes some mechanical anchors for an aluminimum balustrade and specifies welding to a base plate, without reference to the aluminium structures code, and with inadequate knowledge of metals. {eg. they should have stuck with dirt and concrete.}

On Consultants
So have a problem has industry becomes increasingly reliant on outsourcing and using the services of consultants. An aluminium fabricator, knows they need designers of aluminium products, most likely a specofic aluminium product. So such fabricator can take on so many graduates of engineering, across the full engineering team and train them relative to their product and the materials used. Thus they develop expertise in the required area.

Consulting civil/structural engineers spend most of their time dealing with concrete and steel, and designing buildings and bridges and other large structures one at a time. So when a manufacturer comes along and wants their product design updated, the consultants are not up to speed, with either the material or the technology, nor methodology. The approach required for a structural building system or the components of, is different than that for buidlings. It is totally inappropriate to describe the project as multiple one-off projects.

For example one contract engineer described a case he about, regarding a consultant who after a year of work issued a shed manufactured with a bill for $50,000, the case went to court. The contract engineer thought the fee was unreasonable, since one-off shed designs for such manufacturers typically of the order of $550 at the time, I didn't think it unreasonable as a total fee. I thought the fee is unreasonable for what they actually get: a collection of individual shed designs. My preferred approach is more along the lines of industrial product design, and the design of a structural building system: this would take a year or more to do, and cost considerably more than $50 thousand. Such system would simplify selection of components when customising the product to the end-users needs: and so eliminate or at least significantly reduce the number of designs rejected by the regulating authority. My general view is that most of the companies would be better off replacing one of their relatively unskilled sales people of estimators with an engineer or at least engineering associate. Its not likely to happen however: the owners of the business likely to come into conflict with qualified technical personnel.

The other issue is that most of the businesses are small family businesses, and cannot afford large scale up front investment in design, nor can the small consultancy businesses afford to carry the cost of RD&D for them. Hence, they generally get a one-off design, which becomes an envelope for what they do sell, they then get other one-off designs on an as needs basis. The problem of doing this, is that there is no rationale to the designs, the designs do not determine the limitations of structural sections: one design is not necessarily enveloped by another. Consequently their guesstimation based on the standard designs held can be flawed, and way out. They thus look to consultants who can assist them to make estimates of member sizes for quotations. These estimates are needed any where between the next 5 minutes, the next 30 minutes to the next 48 hours. It is something better provided in house rather than by consultants. By relying on consultants they experience delays, not to mention lack of interest. Due to the nature of these manufacturers consultants tend to reach a point where they no longer wish to speak to the manufacturer. So the manufacturer is left with the problem of which consultant will talk to them this week. When talking cold-formed steel that doesn't leave many consultants.

So businesses do not necessarily have the right mix of people. So one thing graduates and consultants could look at is the needs of existing businesses which may benefit from having engineering services more readily available.

On Calculations
Engineers are typically seen as the ones who do the numbers. This is a problem, and an important one to take note off. Engineering is not about calculations, it is about understanding the relationship between the varying characteristics of a system, and using that to design a solution to a problem. A brainless unimaginative block of silicon can crunch numbers but it cannot solve problems. However it has to be noted that it is people who solve problems. The traditional training of many people was dependent on their ability to evaluate mathematical expressions: and a primary part of their careers involved doing so. With the emergence of electronic calculators, the time spent on such calculations reduced, and with electronic digital computers the time reduced further. Hence the fallacy of engineers sell time.

When I started with cold-formed steel design, my view was: there was no way could be done for such fee. But after a few projects, and progressively building spreadsheets in Quattro Pro, I had reduced the time from a week, I no longer had to study and learn cold-formed structures code since done that, and the hand calculations progressively automated. Thus getting closer and closer to getting the answers the client wanted in 5 minutes. Whilst otherwise pushing the standard calculation fee up from $550 to $990. Not only were the calculations done faster, but some 5 times more calculations were carried out to provide significantly more detailed assessment of connections. Not particularly valued, because seems everyone knew some issue with the connections, but not wanting to change. Still an issue trying to resolve. I've had more testing done at the University of South Australia (UniSA) as a student project, but still got to bring about change. The problem is that the available connection design manuals are not readily available (little from the ASI is: commonly out off print very rapidly.), further more such manuals for hotrolled steel and not a national standard. Result an apparently common attitude don't need to use, and not relevant for cold-formed steel. May be so, but the mechanics of the connection is similar: and making some assessment is better than no assessment.

So not just a matter of doing calculations, but the right calculations for the system, and in the right time frame. If can provide calculations faster that has a premium. Calculations which identify problem with current design, and problem that everyone is ignoring, are not wanted. If only skill contributing to a project is calculation, then can be readily replaced by software.

I am aware of one engineer who apparently day after day, hand writes out calculations that a 250 PFC is several times stronger than required. Not once showing that a C25024 cold-formed c-section is also several times stronger than required: for to do so would require considerably greater calculation effort. The physical problem requires something 250mm deep, and something the shape of a channel: so 250 PFC is the off-the-shelf solution. The development act requires evidence-of-suitability, so calculations are churned out. The said engineer is close to retirement, and I suspect provides significantly more to his clients than such calculations. It is just most likely that direct payment is for printed documents, not for conversations with the builder. So the calculation effort can be significantly automated, and more economical solutions possibly sought. But it is a matter of whether the alternative solutions are actually sought, and whether anyone wants to implement. It is also a matter of whether the builder recognises the full service that they actually get from a member of the engineering team.

Consider another situation. A plan drafter or builder draws up plans for a house, draws a big black line and points to it with a note: beam by engineer. They submit to regulating authority and get request to supply calculations for beam-by-engineer. They then seek services of an engineer and get calculations, approval is granted and some weeks later the builder who contracts to build, turns up at engineers office complaining beam is over sized. Argument breaks out and dispute not resolved. The builder then goes else where for engineering: my office for example. They come through office door cursing and swearing, council idiots for approving stuff that's wrong, engineers that don't know what they are doing etc ...

A problem. In all probability the engineers calculations are most likely correct. The problem is the deep beam doesn't fit below ceiling in the available 300mm space, and further more it cannot be man handled through the front door of existing house. If have to take roof off house to crane the beam in there is no point. Its not that the calculations are wrong, it is that the incorrect design problem was solved. The plan drafter wanted a beam, they got a beam. Council wants a code compliant beam, they got a code compliant beam, approval was granted. No real design was carried out. Usually the builder turns up, dumps the drawings down and wants to nick-off. Got to grab the builder back, and explain they are part of the solution process: they have to be willing and able to implement the design-solution: otherwise its not a design-solution. As with the workshop detailers, have to choose between willingness to weld the steel bracket up, or to fold it. This case what is the builder willing to do. As long as engineer only seen as doing the numbers their service is low value.

But consider aside from the numbers, there are many other people who can do what an engineer does, and do it much better. It is the mathematics, and the numbers primarily why people approach engineers in the first place. An engineer is thus something of a hindrance and delay to the whole process: especially if the technology is highly established.

On Retired Engineers and Regulations
The South Australian development act requires independent technical check. Independence requires no involvement with design. The building code of Australia (BCA) requires evidence-of-suitability. So whilst the development act permits building surveyors, private certifiers and councils to request calculations, there is no actual requirement for.

On a few forums I have read complaints about retired engineers in various parts of the world, rubber stamping, and accused of under cutting fees. I don't see any such thing. Once again, there is no need for calculations, or the crunching out off numbers. Engineers approaching retirement or in retirement, have crunched the numbers many times before. Sure codes have changed, but the solutions seldom change, for codes are typically calibrated against previous codes to get similar answers. Codes are not typically revised to make changes to the traditional 80%, but for the 20% of cases which is becoming increasingly common and for which the code is no longer adequate. So for the traditional the engineers can simply look at and based on past experience and understanding of relationships know whether additional calculations are required to confirm compliance with current codes, or whether it is ok by inspection. So yes they can just rubber stamp. Their experience, knowing the answer has a premium, and so does supplying an answer rapidly. Who needs the answer, the builder, and building surveyor, who also already know the answer. But there is a regulatory system and ritual to go through. So just because you has an individual haven't had the repetition and the experience to know, and you don't fully understand what you are doing, and simply crunch numbers as a ritual without understanding, doesn't mean others have the same deficiency. However the requirement is for evidence-of-suitability, and anything that approaches ESP to concluding a structure is adequate is not acceptable. That being said it is not necessary to keep generating the evidence on each and every project. Hence we have such things as the timber framing code.

Since my formal education is in industrial, manufacturing and mechanical engineering I seldom solve problems project wise, and seldom design structures project wise. I typically view with respect to future projects and industry wide solutions. Whilst I solve the project specific problem, I also develop design tools to assist with future projects. This may cause delays in getting the first solution, but becomes increasingly faster on future solutions. As a business we do not charge the client directly for the cost of such development, it is distributed across many future clients. I read a statisticians website the other day, he said he didn't charge by the hour because he did the work much faster than everyone else: he charged a fixed fee. As a consulting engineering business we do similarly.

Our fees are something of an intuitive feel for the market: not altogether mathematically worked out. We can check industrial awards for minimum hourly rates for occupational classes, various published statistics indicate whether the market is paying over award wages, and various clients also provide feedback of the fees in the market. Businesses we work closely with, typically suggest we can charge more, they will pass on to their client, private individuals on the other hand typically want lower fees. If people phone up and suggest they can get for lower, we typically recommend they take the offer. For the most part we are not looking for work, dealing with enquires occupies far too much time: limiting our ability to actually do the work. People always wanting to push to the front of the queue: need answer in next week, next 48 hours, by the end off the day. These are not projects we are working on, these are new enquiries, people with problems. They don't want to talk to a receptionist, they want to talk to someone who knows the answer, who can help solve the problem. That is why retired and semi-retired engineers get the work. This is not work pushing the frontiers of technology, it is all estbalished technology, with solutions implemented already, the industry wants to know what those prior solutions are: they want the services of someone who knows.

It is another reason I view problems as industry problems. I can wait until someone asks me to design a 21m clear span cold-formed steel portal frame, or I can detemine the limitations of cold-formed sections and know the solution already. I can use the computer, to gain the knowledge I would otherwise need an entire career to acquire.

Whilst I don't have the required qualifications to act as an independent technical expert and issue certifcate as such, I can act in accordance with the BCA, and issue a certificate of adequacy on basis of suitably qualified. That certificate can be checked by an independent technical expert and approval granted. Whilst the independent technical expert doesn't have calculations to check, it shouldn't matter because they are meant to check compliance of the proposed structure with the BCA. They have a certificate which contends that it is compliant with the structural provisions and gives some simple parameters and outputs which can be validated (eg. maximum moment in structure given, and little else). Do not want the technical expert checking arithmetic, want them checking the specification. If they cannot do a quick check then they probably shouldn't be checking that type of structure. The issue is not mere technical competence but proficiency. I reiterate it is established technology: in mos instances the builder has selected on past experience: they want someone else to confirm and provide required evidence of suitability to get approval. Hence the retired engineer is the one they want. So 50 years ago could have spent and justified the time to calculate the answer on the project, because then no one knew the answer, now many people do: and there is ritual to provide required evidence.

So whilst there is a premium on knowing the answer and supplying the answer quickly. The answer itself has low value, because everyone knows the answer, what is required is rapid supply of evidence-of-suitability. That is where computer software comes in, and online engineering services.

Online Engineering Services.
When engineering is reduced to simply providing required evidence-of-suitability in the form of engineering calculations, then that service has low value. Clearly such is not sustainable as a business year after year, fees are going to decline as the value diminishes. The value diminishes as the design-solutions become a matter of routine applied on a regular basis by everyone and know by everyone.

Additionally it is clear that, end-users typically don't get much involvement in the design process. Engineering services are perceived as expensive, and seldom present options to the right person, or even consider alternatives. So there is a trend for people to be able to make and assess design changes for themselves, relative to what matters to them. Remove a column from a building: how does that affect the size of the beam supported and impact on the cost of the structure? The end-users solution to the problem may be significantly different than that of the structural engineer or builder, but more desirable. But end-users typically do not have the know how to assess the impact of such changes: hence they become dependent on others. This dependency causes delays. The dependency exists because imposed requirements about public safety: if the person was going to build and never sell, and never have guests, and was isolated in a remote location: then probably wouldn't care too much what they did. But that is not the case, and the community wants the built environment regulated. So we are dependent. The desire for self expression and independence acts against this system dependency. Consequently more prescriptive solutions are required, which have already been approved, and more computer based parametric adaptive models are required which permit end-user customisation.

So software like Microstran and Multiframe may meet the needs of structural engineers, but it doesn't meet the needs of end-users who want the structures. End-users are not interested in loading codes and materials codes, they are just interested in their house. Its easy to erase a wall on a piece of paper: but what impact does that have on the structural adequacy of the house? Is it in any way possible for the end-user to assess this change without the services of a structural engineer? The answer is yes. Consider that the products by Sony are all based on the simple concept of timeshift. Cannot attend that once in a life time opera at the end of world war II. But transistor radio brought it into the house without the loss of time to travel, tape recordings made the opera available at a future date.

The same applies to engineering services, they do not need to be provided at the time the end-user needs: that is probably too late any how. The engineering services can be invested at some prior date, as with Sony embodied in the products they manufacture or otherwise supply.

The value of the engineering is not the time spent on a project, that is worthless. The value of the engineering services is the value invested in the product supplied, both goods and services.When it comes to consultants, the real focus by the customer is on the goods supplied: namely the documentation: not really the service. Just as consulting engineers design buildings, they also need to design their business and the product they supply. Instead of complaining about declining fees they need to understand the value of the product they are supplying.

Once again, only members of the engineering team can do the numbers, everything else is typically within the scope of others. Others are no able to do the numbers without the aid of the engineering team. Others will increasingly be empowered to do the numbers with out the aid of members of the engineering team.

So if a person classed as an engineer, has no real creativity, no real problem solving skills, no ingenuity, no talent what so ever which gives them claim to the title engineer: then they will mostly certainly be replaced by a brainless unimaginative block of silicon.

More and more engineering services are going to appear online, and offered for lower and lower fees, permitting end-users to review various design options at a low cost.

Off-Line Engineering Services
Engineering was never about doing the numbers. It is about understanding the nature of the real world, and harnessing this to achieve some objective. This typically resulted in some enterprise being created to produce and supply a physical product. However as indicated the economy changes, and technical personnel of all kinds end up outside the production companies as consultants. Whilst there are benefits to consultants there are also problems.

One of the prime benefits contended of consultants is a certain independence from proposed solution. That is if go to building contractor who specialises in concrete, then building provided will be in concrete. The consultant is supposed to provide a solution from the most appropriate material. This doesn't really occur, engineers become specialised in a particular material, and have biased preferences, so typically for example design concrete structures. A lot of buildings which have collapsed in earthquakes were inappropriately designed in reinforced concrete. This is not because concrete is inappropriate for earthquakes, it is because the method of construction and materials supply was inappropriate for the location of the building. the buildings needed to be designed with far greater consideration of the process of supply. Sure the numbers indicated that reinforced concrete could provide the required performance, but the number crunchings says nothing about the capability of getting the required performance in the location of the building.

So both architects and engineers need to be thinking a lot more about the capability of industry to supply the buildings they have specified. Not just considering the performance of the end-product. Back to workshop detailing example again: welded steel bracket versus folded steel bracket: two different processes which one is available? Further more which process is the more robust and least subject to human error? For a simple angle bracket where should the weld be placed, what form should the weld take? For the folded plate, what radius the bend, and how does that affect its stability? Little things can make a big difference.

Builders replacing multiple nails with a few large bolts: weaken the structure rather than strengthen it. Why? Because they have taken more material out off the member, and placed more force on the individual fasteners. But builders want to make certain changes: one is the large bolts look stronger, the other is it takes less time to install. Once again its not about the numbers but a qualitative appreciation of which way the numbers are going to go, without need to actually evaluate them.

If an engineer takes an arrogant stance of being smarter than builders and end-users then in all probability likely to fall flat on their face. It is a matter of perspective. Whilst the engineer is considering that the builder and end-user doesn't understand, they are thinking the same about the engineer. When the engineer thinks they have a great solution, everybody else may think otherwise. No one is really interested in mathematical prowess. People are only interested in the practical solutions which result from the mathematics. As for graduates, well hate to disappoint you, but the answer is in the book over on the office book shelf. No need to spend all day doing algebra we as a society have known the solution for some 50 years already. Some of the more common solutions were part of academic studies, so should have verified the handbook formula already. That is also part of the difference between education of engineering associates and engineers, the engineering associates more likely to have used industry handbooks and be familiar with: engineers have to become familiar with on the job and chances are going to spend all day doing calculus instead of implementing the known solution: chances are they will get the calculus wrong as well.

Consultants need to know what the product is that they have to supply to the market. Get away from those mega infra-structure projects and everything changes. Consultants should not be complaining about the skills of graduate engineers, when graduate engineers are not the people they need for their projects. We seem to have developed a society in which people expect to leave school, get a degree and be at the top. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to the top by only learning and knowing what everybody else knows, you need to know more than that. The title engineer may be the preferred and desired title, but the WFEO engineer is not what industry mostly needs. There is no global shortage of engineers as such.

There are shortages of;

1) Imaginative and ingenious individuals who can come up with innovative products and or solutions to the worlds problems.

2) Technically competent people to assess and evaluate proposed technologies, and take them from concept to implementation.

The innovative solutions sought mostly involve people not physical systems, whilst proposed technologies are variations of established technologies. Buildings are typically variations of established technolgies, no structural engineer required, but competent engineering associates and engineering technologists are required. Instead of wasting 4 to 5 years training a civil engineer, we can train a structural engineering associate in 2 years. Once again I reiterate engineering is not about high end mathematics and crunching numbers. Mathematics and numbers are just a tool, a means to an end,  they are not everything. Some consultants have made the numbers everything and are not really serving their clients. Fancy finite element models take time to make and don't really contribute any real value. Likewise 3D CADD models and BIM do not contribute real value to projects. It is necessary to understand the nature of the projects dealing with.

The custom engineering for a portal frame shed is relatively low value engineering, such as most likely been done a 1000 times already, and can probably go to a supplier who already has a suitable stock standard design. But increase the span of the building, so that there is no longer a single steel section which can be used as a rafter, then it becomes an entirely different problem. The structural form is now no longer known, and some real structural design is starting to take place: it has significantly more value. Further more now starting to move towards experiencing fabrication and construction issues with which the builders are not familiar. The project now starts to move towards being a project in which significant engineering supervision is required throughout the project. But once again still not necessarily requiring an engineer. Note the people currently practicing as engineers, and have been doing so for the past 30 to 50 years have solved many problems which previously had no solution. These solutions can now be passed onto engineering technologists in their education, not engineers. The engineers task is the unsolved problems, not the established solutions hidden in some text some where.

Implementing a solution has lower value than inventing a solution. Inventing an inferior solution to an existing solution available in industry publications, has lower value than the available solution. Consulting engineers are not all that different than engineers working for hitech manufacturers. For example Betamax versus VHS video tape. What matters is what the market wants and what are able to supply. If you've missed the boat then you have missed the boat. Minever Cheevy suffered a terrible fate: born too late. Might like to be an errant knight, and can live in a dream world like Don Quixote, but just going to be lancing at windmills.

So the numbers are going to be increasingly crunched by computers. Manufacturers are going to want this software to allow end-users to customise a relatively generic product to better meet their needs, and this is going to be increasingly done on line. Custom software will need to be written because existing software requires specialists to operate. The availability of manufactured structural product is going to decrease demand for consulting engineers as more of the lower end project work is supplied by the available products. Those manufacturers are likely to employ more engineering personnel on staff to adapt the product to improve manufacturing efficiency: to provide a higher performing product at lower cost and faster.

It should be noted that some consultants already have restrictions in place, they cannot do work for manufacturers similar to their principle client: if they do then they loose future work from that client. To be able to impose such constraint the client has to be able to supply a lot of work.

Also since the 1993 development act came in and brought private certification, some consulting engineers have taken on the role of councils checking development applications for building rules compliance: only the council can grant development approval: but others can do the checking and certification.

One consultancy is not the same as another. Even if they deal with structures each is different. Even if they appear to work in the same market, they should still have noticeable differentiation. I contend that it is wrong to contend that fees were undercut, and jobs bought, just because lost the job due to a lower fee. As technologies become increasingly established the value of the engineering service currently provided diminishes. The fees only rise when the engineering service is in short supply: but there is no real increase in the intrinsic value of the service. People just tolerate paying more until a solution is found to better satisfy the demand.

It is therefore necessary to innovate to increase the value of the service, or otherwise maintain its value.

As I indicated earlier people want to talk to someone who can provide the solution to their problems, not a receptionist. This takes consultants away from the design and documentation task. On mega projects can afford a design team, with people dealing with project enquiries other preparing tenders for new projects, others visting sites and still others doing design and documentation. For small scale projects and small businesses, cannot afford such teams. Employing someone, to start with, does not increase productivity but decreases it, as spend more time supervising and training the new recruit. Put bluntly programming a computer is a more productive exercise: and shows gains a lot more immediately.

The problem with employing people on low end work is that the work does not have high value, but there is a lot of it and it needs to be done quickly. Priorities for the work can change by the minute: the unfortunate few may not get their job for 12 months, even though only a few hours work involved. So the problem is managing the waiting line.  So have a problem: proving that have developed the technology to supply faster and to be able to do so consistently, and therefore charge a higher price. Technology is required because it increases the value whilst additional personnel simply increases the cost beyond the recoverable value. Its a matter of emergent behaviour, or synergy. The value is less than the sum of the costs, therefore sale price cannot recover the cost. Price is not cost plus profit: price is what the market is willing to pay. Get your product wrong then you make a loss.

So can work project fees out on the basis of time taken and hourly labour rate, but for small projects chances are the fee is going to be seen as extortionate by the market: more over beyond their capacity to pay. If the fee is beyond the capacity of the market to pay then do not have a business. A given market will support a given lifestyle with a given approach to that market. Change the approach and can change the lifestyle it can support. So if there is a market for the MacDonalds of engineering or Amazon.com then someone, somewhere will eventually provide it. That someone is unlikely to have traditional engineering skills: could be a drafter, a computer scientist, or steel fabricator: who saw a need and filled it. As I have said before business is a real world experiment: you try something and then respond accordingly to feedback.

So identified a market: know what they want, what price willing to pay, and how fast they want it. The big question is can you design a business and product that meets that need, and then supply it?

Whilst consulting engineers may know a great deal about bridges and buildings that they assist to design and build: they don't necessarily know enough about the product they actually supply: their engineering services. Most who have implemented quality assurance systems have no real idea about quality, simply converted document control systems for contract management into ISO9000 quality accredited system: but they have no real quality system with respect to the product they supply. They have missed the point. Every revised drawing represents defect in design and documentation: defeciency which should not exist, defeciency which should be removed. Some consultants have revision number systems which confuse real revisions with document issues. Either way more effort is required in the design of the design and documentation process. That engineer didn't have adequate knowledge of aluminium design at the start of the project, and still doesn't at the end of the project. Are more projects in aluminium coming this way? That engineer really doesn't have adequate knowledge of storage tank design. That engineer lacks knowledge of bridge design. Does the consultancy tender for projects, or does the work just flow in? Does the consultancy supervise construction or just produce design documents? What is it that the client wants rather than what the consultant wants to supply? The owner of a building may want the architect and engineer to supervise construction and the contract. But the builder client doesn't need or want such supervision: they just want the design documents, they have others to ensure compliance with their specifications.

Supermarket chains for example impose discounts on engineers just like they do on spud farmers: they treat all suppliers the same. Government and large corporate clients get small projects that big city engineers not interested in, or otherwise charge too high a fee for. So they seek out small business, no tendering, they ask for submission of a a fee. But then they start getting into requirements for this and that: like ISO9000 accredited QA systems, evidence of insurance, copies of this document and that document., fill in this form and that form, and comply with this contract. Up shot, hey we are not interested in your work, we do engineering, if you want to keep your administrative staff employed go else where. All of this other stuff is superfluous to the task: fees only cover the actual task not this irrelevant stuff. If really want all this other stuff then go to some consultant that also has administrative staff to keep employed. These businesses don't want what they get for the lower price: they want gift wrapping and a fancy bow to tie it up. They want something more than the generic product. Once again important to know where your market is: not just as supplier but also as buyer. As a buyer you don't go into a used car yard and start demanding features only available on new cars. You go to the right place in the first instance. With service providers its more difficult to select the right supplier because cannot see what you are going to get.

A few years back I criticised Engineers Australia engineering excellence awards: because there was no real evidence of excellence in engineering. For all I know the building contractors could have fixed a multitude of errors in the engineering constribution, and the engineers could have been bumbling about in the dark until they fell over a solution, and produced documentation in constant need of revision. In short the engineering contribution to an otherwise excellent project was rubbish. It is thus difficult to tell as an outsider whether a project turned out well despite the presence of a useless consultant on the project, or because of an excellent consultant.

Its getting beyond the numbers and finding out what the real contribution is. Many consultants talk about supplying more: but don't really walk the talk.

I'm thinking sleep would good: Sat 2012-Mar-10  03:36

REVISIONS:

1. Original