Solutioneering

For those who missed the memo [New Scientist magazine] during the 1980's, solutioneering is not a good thing it is a bad thing.

Solutioneering is not problem solving, it is not design. Solutioneering is having a solution and applying it to every problem which encounter, or applying it where there is no problem at all.

I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. [Abraham H. Maslow (1962), Toward a Psychology of Being]

Most engineers are not problem solvers, despite what they as a community may promote. They are solutioneers, they don't solve the real problem they apply the technological solutions they have in their toolbox.

For example if have a river to cross. The civil engineer is most likely to put a tunnel under the river. The structural engineer a bridge over the river. The mechanical engineer a cable car. The naval architect set up a ferry boat. The aeronautical engineer provide a ferry service using an helicopter. Whilst an aeromarine engineer a ferry service using hovercraft.

Whilst all of these technologies get from one side of the river to the other, they do not tackle the actual problem which gives rise to the need or most likely desire to get from one side of the river to the other. To solve the real problem all of these technologies along with new technologies need to be assessed for suitability. When assessing the suitability both the advantages and disadvantages along with negative side effects need to be considered.

Situations identified as solutioneering include mandatory seat belts, mandatory bicycle helmets, mandatory smoke alarms, mandatory residual current devices (RSD's). The technologies themselves are not solutioneering, its the way the technology is applied and/or imposed that is solutioneering. These technologies were made mandatory in Australia largely because the need is relatively low: the vast majority of the population, the vast majority of the time, will never experience a situation which would make these technologies useful. Those few people who want such technology would not have been able to afford to buy such technology, therefore to increase the market and lower the price,  the technology was imposed on everyone. In these situations fear was and is used to convince  people that they need the technology and further that they would be irresponsible if they don't use.

Bicycle helmets for example do not protect cyclists from breaking their collar bones: shoulders will typically hit the ground before a persons head. Bicycle helmets don't protect cyclists from being crushed by a car. Kids experience head injuries when they fall off bikes or in general play. Bicycle helmets were made mandatory on basis adults should set example for kids and to increase the market. The market increase is largely nonsense as helmets have to be the correct size and growing kids will need to change their helmets. Helmets however are not necessarily safe, check the product safety site, the helmets are now being worn for general protection from head injuries but the helmets are the hazard, now resulting in deaths. Having a kid wear a helmet, is not going to protect the kid from falling off the edge of the elevated decking; a decking which is less than 1 m high and therefore doesn't need a guardrail. Another example is a swimming pool fence merely compliant with the swimming pool fence code will place an obstruction to free movement of people which will be a hazard since it does not comply with the loading requirements fro barriers. The swimming pool fence code only provides strength requirements to keep kids from tampering with the fence so as to get pass the fence. It doesn't provide adequate loading for adults at a backyard party from leaning against the fence and pushing it over: and certainly not suitable for fences at a marine park with an audience.

A more current situation is the internet of things. Whilst connecting something to the internet is possible, it doesn't mean it should be done. Doing something because you can doesn't mean you should. To start with main frame computers posed a whole host of problems, many of which were resolved by microcomputers and personal computers: putting everything into the cloud brings many of those problems back.

Now most of the time people don't want to waste time finding solutions to problems, their general preference is to go into a supermarket and find a suitable solution sitting there on the shelf. The solution sat on the shelf may not solve all their problems, or fully resolve a problem, but it will provide just enough capability to be useful for the time being. As I have mentioned in other posts, once a product is released to the market it will be used for purposes beyond the intents of the designer. A product is merely raw material and it is the responsibility of the end-user to determine its suitability for their purposes: it should not be the responsibility of the designer to consider every possible use and misuse.

Supplying solutions is not the issue. Every manufacturer and retailer supplies off-the-shelf solutions. The problem of solutioneering is applying the available solutions in an improper manner to inappropriate problems.

So promoting your business on the basis of providing solutions not product, informs me that you don't know your knee from your elbow. That you do not know how to solve problems as you have merely implemented some new age marketing hype.

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[10/7/2016] : Original

Housing and Living Space

My basic premise is that multi-storey buildings are not necessary, more over that humans have legs and are meant to be mobile. Further more that multi-storey buildings are not a solution to urban sprawl they are the cause. Urban sprawl is a consequence of focusing all attention on one single centre, no matter how distant that location is. Multi-storey office blocks and retail stores require large hinterlands or catchment areas. If insist on putting roots down, rather than staying mobile, then smaller walk about villages separated by park lands or nature reserve would be better. As for  needing too much land: I disagree.

Assuming that the maximum sustainable human population of this planet is 10 billion people, and assuming that a city 100km in diameter can be home to 10 million people and no more, then 1000 cities are required to house the world population. Assuming that 2/3rd of the city area goes to infrastructure: then person would get a block of land 16m x 16m, and a 12m x 12m building could be put on that block of land. Further assuming 3m x 3m rooms, then such building would have 16 rooms. The basic room requirements are:

1. Kitchen
2. Bathroom & WC (they can be separate but wouldn't need more than a single 3m x 3m space)
3. Laundry
4. Dining
5. Lounge
6. Bedroom
7. Garage

There is thus potential for additional 9 bedrooms, and therefore for significantly larger population in the space. The new metric handbook [Tutt and Adler] indicates  that some building regulations place a minimum of 25 sq.m for one person flat. Such can be achieved from a 5m x 5m building, given that 2.5m is potentially too small for a room especially once wall thickness taken into consideration, also given that building preference is multiples of 300mm, a 6m x 6m over all building would be preferable. Given such space it can be divided into 4 equal areas, and provide 1) kitchen, 2) combined laundry and bathroom, 3) combined lounge and dining 4) bedroom. Car parking or garage space would need to be additional. Thus land requirements can be reduced below 16m x 16m and with walk about villages forming the 100km diameter city: the city centre can be limited to cultural facilities, with business centred in the villages not centred in the city.

Consider the following sketches [dimensions are in millimetres]:

1 Acre as square area

Division of Acre into the Quarter Acre Block

Division of Acre into Sixth Acre Blocks

Typical Housing Block with 4 Bedroom House

Typical block with small Housing Units, no parking and walk about.

Extra Space added

More space Added

Typical Housing Block with 8 dwellings plus parking

Five Dwellings and Improved Access

6 Dwellings, improved parking and access

5 Dwelling with some parking for visitors

Dwellings replaced by 8 Caravans

7 Caravans with some visitor Parking

What the planning regulations are more likely to allow

The proposals above ignore the planning regulations, which impose minimum land areas for detached dwellings and for shared land. When planning regulations are imposed, only likely to be able to subdivide the typical housing block to provide for two dwellings.

My basic view is that housing in the vicinity of schools, hospitals and similar facilities should be high density, and rent only. People should move in and move out. For example, the elderly and sick need closest proximity to hospitals. Whilst students and young families need closest proximity to schools. By moving people in and out of these areas, it avoids the need to abandon such facilities and to develop new facilities. 

If the buildings providing such facilities are 4 storeys, then adjacent high density housing should also be 4 storeys and diminish in height to single storey in less than 1 km from the centre of such facility {average walking speed is 5km/h, therefore 1 km is about 12 minutes away}.

Planning should also support houses being moved in and out from a block of land, and provide for the blocks of land to have service modules which provide the utility services normally connected to a house. That is the use of caravans and motor homes should be integrated into the community. Population in an area shrinks and grows, and so do employment opportunities, people should not be enslaved or otherwise held prisoner to a specific block of land.

It should have been apparent during the early 1980's, that there is need to increase the mobility of the people, not mess around with mortgage rates. People in South Australia (SA) were going interstate to find work, but had mortgages on houses in SA they still needed to pay off, and they couldn't sell the house because no one wanted to move into a state with no employment. The way large employers are closing down, history is going to repeat itself.

We do not need multi-storey accommodation in Adelaide to prevent urban sprawl, rather we need to remove the need to go into Adelaide. Constructing a massive hospital in Adelaide is only benefit to politicians not to the people. The community was advertising just how far away medical services are, they needed and wanted local hospitals in the mining and farming towns.

We really need to develop the interior of the continent away from the coast line. The population needs to be mobile but have the comforts and conveniences of fixed dwellings. Development does not require construction of buildings, but construction of infrastructure that supports the functions of those buildings.

The above sketches illustrate that existing housing blocks can provide for more dwellings. Rather than construct a 4 bedroom home, 2 to 4 dwellings would be more flexible. The design problem is how to make the 4 dwellings function as 1 dwelling whilst kids are young, then function as 4 dwellings when the kids are older? How to have primary and secondary dwellings on the one block? This is going beyond the granny flat, as there are planning restrictions on the function of such building: there has to be dependency between the granny flat and the main dwelling: they cannot be two independent self-sufficient dwellings. That typically means there are restrictions on putting two dwellings with kitchen, bathrooms and laundry on the one block of land: one has to be dependent on the other for such facilities.

Subdivision of the land into separate properties is a different matter. My concern here is not having parents invest in large houses, providing large bedroom studies to support their kids in further education, then there being a future problem of finding their own affordable house. Whilst the parents otherwise need to downsize their house for retirement. Clearly the large family house only serves a temporary need: but its presence obstructs the provision of more affordable and suitable housing for both the young and old alike.

So somehow a single property, building or land, needs to be split into multiple private zones. The above sketches show individual dwellings, but a large dwelling could be divided internally. The latter concept being pushed a few years back and known as zoning. One of the zoning concepts is the idea of renting part of a large house out to others to pay for retirement. Another idea is that the kids buy the house from the parents, both still live in the house, but ownership shifts hands. One version of the latter idea is that the parents own the house, and they therefore provide the mortgage to the kids: a mortgage that the banks may not otherwise provide. Another version is that the kids have better jobs and more income, so they pay off the mortgage and take ownership of the property, and thus enable their parents to stay in the family home on retirement.

There are a multitude of possibilities: the main requirement is to get away from the idea that the Australian dream home is a quarter acre block. Its a stupid idea, its not as if people spend that much time in such houses any way. There is increase in people eating out, so large kitchens and dining rooms not really required. They spend more time at work, or on the road. So for the most part really only need a storage facility and somewhere to sleep.

Land ownership is also more problem than benefit. If the state/government wants to put a highway through your property then they typically can do so. There may be a dragged out court case, and compensation owing, but ultimately the highway is likely to go through: especially if that is what the public at large wants. If a nation is defined by geographical boundaries, then the land should remain in the ownership of the state. People should not be granted ownership of land, but rather granted license to occupy and use.

If at all possible the cost of land and buildings should be separated. Though I would go further and say that land should only be rented. If land rent goes up, then possibly a good idea to move or rent less land. Such would possibly encourage mobile homes, and keeping homes to sizes which can be transported without special permits. Better yet the increase in the widths of roads to accommodate wider loads without special permits. Broadloom carpet for example is about 3.6m wide, so rooms which are whole multiples of such dimension would have the less waste in the use of such material. Further more 3m to 3.6m width is a better width for a room than the approximately 2.4m width of a shipping container. So allowing a maximum of 300mm for wall thickness, would result in a minimum building width of 4.2m, then allowing 300mm clearance either side would result in a minimum road lane width of 4.8m or 9.6m for a road.

On the other hand transporting buildings is largely transporting empty space, so better to have something that can collapse for transport and expand for usage. A shipping container can be slit down the middle creating 1.2m wide segments. Single extension panels can then be placed either on the outside or the inside. On the outside the panels could be 1200mm wide whilst on the inside they could be limited to say 900mm. Therefore the building could be increased in width by an extra 1.8m to 2.4m: giving a building that is from 4.2 m to 4.8m in width.

Further more buildings don't need to be made from rigid materials, they could be made from light weight textiles. A large percentage of a building is just covered space, it needs some weather proofing, but it does need to be constructed to keep other people out for the purpose of securing contents. Even so walls can be made secure, and fabric roof placed over, if the walls are high enough then access via the roof would not be convenient for thieves to take advantage. But once again planning regulations have to permit fabric structures.

It should not be necessary for the whole of a building to be designed to resist earthquakes or hurricanes or any other extreme environmental event. To start with, the buildings designed to the codes will not resist: the designs can and most likely will be exceeded, and the buildings destroyed by earthquakes or hurricanes. It is better to design a building that collapses in a relatively safe manner: single storey buildings have better scope for fail-safe behaviour than multi-storey buildings. Multi-storey buildings are death traps, no matter what codes they are designed to. Light weight, soft textiles are less likely to cause severe injury on collapse than heavy rigid materials.

We need planning regulations that enable and empower the individual, but which prevent the creation of over crowed slums. If blocks of land are properly serviced, have boundary fences, and minimum clearances of the building envelope from the property boundaries then creation of slum areas is reduced.

A lot of the new large house developments are on the way to becoming slums, what with their near continuous roofscapes, and lack of circulation around the buildings. Building rules set minimum distances from property boundaries based on fire resistance levels. The South Australian development act, adds extra requirement of building either being on the boundary or 600mm away. The problem is that the 600mm seems to relate to the wall not the building envelope. So dumb building designers set wall 600mm from the fence, have 600mm eaves overhangs to the roof, and the 100mm to 150mm wide gutter over hanging the property boundary, encroaching on the neighbours property.

The purpose of the 600mm boundary clearance is access for removal of litter and vermin. Narrow gaps between buildings will trap litter, and attract vermin, and if the gap is too narrow access to clean up is prohibited. It should also be noted that the minimum width of an industrial platform is 600mm, and increasingly ladders are prohibited for use when working at heights. So to be able to clear gutters, paint eaves boards, need space to install portable scaffolding platforms. So the 600mm boundary clearance should be from the building envelope. The 600mm eaves concerns windows, and summer and winter sun: less than 60mm doesn't provide adequate shading. Therefore minimum wall clearance from boundary is 1200mm. So 900mm to meet minimum distance from fire source, not acceptable on its own for deciding boundary clearance.

Building on the boundary should not be acceptable. Fist two adjacent buildings built on separate properties have a gap between them, an inaccessible gap: a gap which breaches the intents behind the 600mm minimum boundary clearance. That gap maybe less  than a 1mm, but it is still a gap, now what can 1mm width of rain water 6m high do to the walls? Besides the dirt and grime, and water that can damage the building materials, there is a lack of circulation around the building for both people and air. Take note the English terraced house have ginnels and paths behind. These ginnels being deliberate tunnels passing through the row of terraced houses, with the second storey passing over the tunnel. Construction of such ginnels is not something that is likely to be built by private individuals building their houses to the property boundaries. Terraced houses were and are designed and built as a block of houses. So building houses to property boundaries should not be allowed.

Private detached dwellings should have a minimum of 600mm path circulating around the entire building. If do not have such circulation then the buildings should be attached. If attached then there is no open gap between the two dwellings, the roof will span such gap. It is also important that attached houses are constructed such that individual houses can be demolished without damage to the other houses. With well designed terraced houses individual houses can be demolished.

To be clear, neither multi-storey buildings or two storey buildings should be required. A walk about village can be designed and constructed using single storey dwellings only. Increased insulation requirements for energy efficiency also typically means improved insulation against noise. Smaller houses have less surface area and volume, and require less heating and cooling if insulated.

A dwelling suitable for one person is typically also equally suitable for two people. Average household occupancy in Australia is 2.8 persons. A large percentage of 3 bedroom houses are occupied by one person, only 5% of households are considered to have too few bedrooms when judged against some Canadian quality of life index. There is a shortage of suitable housing for school leavers, students, and retiree's. Basically properties for single's and couples, despite a recent article which suggests a shortage of 3 bedroom apartments. Any further construction of dwellings is going to push occupancy to 2 persons per dwelling. Real estate agents therefore need to get better at managing available living space with the needs of the population. Families need moving into homes near schools, single people need smaller homes closer to something else: work, entertainment.

I contend we have all the family homes we need, some may need extending, but no others need constructing. Further construction should focus on single storey sole occupancy dwellings: such dwellings are likely to have a bedroom and office: possibly described as two bedroom house. Such dwelling would be equally suitable for 2 people: a couple.

However the most important requirement here in South Australia is shifting focus away from Adelaide as a business district: cultural and administration district I have no problem with, such activities do not require regular transport to and from the city centre. Regular business commuters to and from a city is a waste of fuel. Mining, farming and manufacturing tend not to be in state capital city centres they are remote in suburbs. These areas need developing into more diverse business centres. City centres are typically office and retail, and there is no need for people to be travelling large distances for office work or retail. So cities are largely obsolete, it is only their cultural facilities that are of real importance. Further if a country is to be considered developed then the physical geography of the country should be developed not just isolated spots. Australia's interior is largely a barren undeveloped wasteland: if you get lost there don't expect anyone to find you, and don't expect to live long enough to be found.

Given a typical car can travel at least 400km on a single tank of fuel, I suggest there is need to at least construct a network of small outposts on a 400km grid: so that no matter where a person is in Australia that person is no more than 400km from some concept of civilisation. Each outpost to have at least one medical doctor and a small hospital, along with a fuel depot. All part of getting the population mobile and exploring the region. The big problem for Australia is getting water to these outposts. Which raises another issue, pipelines are not necessarily the best way of getting resources to an area: a pipeline has to be filled and that waste the particular resource. So for example transporting water by truck is potentially better than water by pipeline. Water by truck is not as convenient as water by pipe, but it wastes less water in the transport system: all the water can be used.

Australia is not the only place that needs to consider future land development: the world has problems with supply of housing, schools and hospitals. Rather than bulldoze slums, it would be better to impose some simple planning criteria, to improve circulation of air and people, and otherwise improve sanitation. Large houses are not really required. Large houses need to be cleaned and maintained, most people cannot afford servants, and they don't have the time to look after such houses. People are thus pursuing lifestyles of the rich and famous but can only partially support such lifestyle: its crazy.

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[09/01/2016] : Original

In search of South Australian Building Industry Web Presence

The following is a list of various suppliers to and in the South Australian building industry. It is not a recommendation, it is just a search for suppliers I am familiar with and an investigation to what web presence they have, whether it is a web site, presence on social networks, or simply a listing in the white pages and or yellow pages telephone directories. Some of these businesses we have done design/engineering work for in the past, or otherwise specify their products, others simply have a presence in the market place which cannot be ignored.

Cold-Formed Steel Sheds:

1. Erecta Shed
2. Mark Lattin Steel Constructions
3. Alpha Industries
4. Delta Sheds {No longer trading}
5. Galpruffe {No longer trading}
6. Olympic Industries
7. Magnus Australia
8. Cockaleechie Industries
9. Fielders Endurance Structures
10. Ranbuild

Cold-Formed Steel

1. Lysaght
2. Stramit
3. Stratco
4. Fielders
5. Rondo

Panel and Block Construction

1. Rapidwall
2. Ace-Wall
3. Hebel

General Construction Hardware

1. Ramset
2. Hilti
3. Pryda {nail plates}
4. MiTek Building Systems {Gangnail, nail plates}
5. James Hardie
6. Nobles {Cables and Rigging}

Retaining Walls

1. Precision Fencing and Walls

Water Tanks

1. Aquamate

Soil Bore Logs

1. Geodrill
2. Frangos Nominees Pty Ltd

Land Surveying

1. Jeanes & Sommerville Surveyors Pty. Ltd.
2. Mattsson & Martyn

Building Surveyors &/or Private Certifiers

1. Tecon Australia

Drafting and Design Services

1. A Zummo Design

Work Shop Detailers

{No web presence found at moment for those I know}

Pergolas, Verandas, other Canopies and Decking

{Mostly Timber}

1. Pro-Form Pergolas
2. Alfresco Pergolas
3. Pergolas of Distinction
4. Outdoor Innovations
5. Craig Potter Construction {Steel}
6. Revolution Roofing (Steel)

Balustrades, and Pool Screens

1. Harkk

Concrete

1. M Whiting Concrete

Glass

1.  Hartley Glass

General Metal Fabricators

1. Williams Metal Fabrication
2. Dynamic Engineering and Maintenance (DEM)

Tool Makers

1. D and D Tooling

Houses and other Residential Construction

1. Abel Home Improvements
2. Rocca's Home Improvements
3. Winkler & Arndt Homes

Electrical

1. Goliath Electrical

Golf Nets and other Sports Nets

1. AEC Sporting Products

Consulting Engineers for Infra-Structure Size Projects

1. GHD
2. SKM

Consulting Engineers Commercial / Industrial Projects

1. John Bay and Associates
2. Terry Magryn and Associates

An attempt at presenting Structural Engineering Qualitatively.

An attempt to present structural engineering qualitatively, without the numbers, but with reference to mathematical expressions to define relationships between physical characteristics of a structure. Also includes some of my usual meanderings.


Qualitative Structural Engineering

What is Engineering Design?

As defined by Engineers Australia:  National Committee on Engineering Design (NCED)

Link to NCED web Site.

Daily paper.li Newspaper with articles collected from Twitter: #Engineering Design

---

Revisions:

[28/08/2011] : Original
[26/02/2019] : Deleted Links as become obsolete

The Applied Science, Technical Science and Engineering Science Cycle

Whether applied science, technical science or engineering science comes first, is similar to the chicken and egg story, none the less there is a cycle from one to the other. It is also similar to the folklore that the C programming language is written in C. As I understand the compiler for the C programming language was written in assembly language, but then needed something to test the compiler, and so the compiler was rewritten using the C programming language itself, then compiled: the result was more compact efficient machine code. The compiler thus became the one that was written in C itself, and the language and associated compiler can be extended by programming the extensions in C and compiling using the existing C compiler: it thus evolves itself. It is thus a matter of timing, and an iterative cycle or sprial.

For nearly one hundred years there has been an on going debate about the meaning of the words: engineer and engineering. There are those that declare that: those who carry out engineering are engineers. This group has to define a filter to identify and classify that which is to be called engineering. Then there are those who declare that: engineering is what engineers do. This group has to define a filter to identify those who can be placed in the box of engineers. The two groups never agree, and are unlikely to ever resolve the problem, for they the latter group in particular wants to place legal constraints on the use of the English language. When the public refers to something having been engineered, they are not referring to activity carried out by someone fitting in the box of engineers, they are referring to something that was brought about by deliberate intent. The persons that bring this about are referred to as being engineers, architects, planners or draughtsmen. Take note of the latter: once upon a time, draughtsmen had more esteem than they currently do. Technical drawing was an important problem solving and communication tool. Technical drawings are one of the lowest cost prototypes that can be produced. Being able to find the true lengths of lines and the true shapes of planes, for 3D ojects that do not yet exist, is an important skill. The technical training of the first formally trained, so called engineers, was in technical drawing, engineering graphics or descriptive geometry as it is otherwise called.

Telford and Coulomb are not engineers, because they designed and constructed things, but because they did so at the frontiers of science and technology. Telford used a rational scientific method when he built small scale prototypes before building much larger versions of his bridges. He also used proof loads to test materials that were installed within his constructions. With a qualitative understanding of the materials available he made judgements, which turned out successful, with out need of complex mathematical analysis. His prototypes, not only assessed the performance of the end-product, but also tested the construction process, and tested the supply lines for materials and labour. Navier on the otherhand taking a mathematical theory which had not been validated by empirical evidence experienced problems, with bridges apparently collapsing during construction: the result was need for some material testing and large design factors to calibrate the theory against real world behaviour. Thus sustaining the ancient Greek debate between the empirical and the theoretical. The human senses cannot be trusted therefore need the theoretical, but what good is a theory that doesn't reflect reality?

Unlike Telford, Coulomb had at least two years of formal military training in science and mathematics, largely biased towards descriptive geometry. As a miltary engineer he was engaged in building fortifications and machines of war. During construction of fortifications Coulomb encountered problems with collapse of soil embankments and collapse of the walls of trenches. This led to Coulomb experimenting and otherwise developing the fundamentals of soil mechanics.

For most of history technology has been developed by a process of trial and error. By themselves rational methods cannot solve problems, they merely validate that a solution obtained by other means is an actual solution to a problem. Problem solving, invention, and innovation require creativity and imagination, and thus far such cannot be imparted by any formal education process. Most technology was invented by people operating at the coal face of where a problem was experienced, and who also have the skills to make and the opportunity to put the technology to use. Eureka moments are typically experienced by people deliberating searching for a solution to a problem, but otherwise taking a break from such search. Thus when they tripped over the solution, they were able to recognise it has such. Being at the coal face is also important, for designers can come up with all kinds of ideas, but often all kinds of opposition to implementing the ideas arise and therefore opposition to implementing and trialing the technology. When the technology arises at the coal face, the person is willing to trial alternatives, to modify their approach to doing things. So real world experimentation takes place, mostly qualitative and observational rather than measurable and quantitative. Science in the first instance is about observation and recording, not measurement.

It has been said that the steam engine was made before the science of thermodynamics. Not entirely so, it may be that the steam engine was made before the science of thermodynamics was named and quantified, but science was otherwise there before the steam engine. Before the steam engine someone had to have observed the boiling of water and the action of steam: whether Hero's kettle spinning an axle or a lid lifted off a pan, some action of steam was observed. From the observation an hypothesis posed and technology built in the hopes the hypothesis would prove true. Further observation and/or hypothesis that more steam and larger engines would provide more energy. So no point building smaller engines to get more power. But bigger engines taking up more space and burning more fuel, was not desirable. So ask a question: is it possible to get more power from the existing engines? What modifications can be made to get more work from the engines whilst using less fuel?

An important question, for one of the first uses of steam engines was to pump water from coal mines, the coal was required for coking iron. Actually there had been something of an environmental crisis, forests or woods were being cut to produce charcoal to coke the iron to produce steel. This deprived the population of the wood they needed for cooking and heating. The discovery that coal could be used for coking iron and otherwise be used as a domestic fuel reduced further stripping of the wood lands, though brought about atmospheric pollution. All designs have detriments and benefits. Whilst the coal fired steam engine pumped water out of the coal mines, the amount of coal used was the greater share of the extra coal able to extract. If there was to be any point mining this extra coal the steam engines needed to be more efficient. Scientific observation starts to lead to something that can be measured: coal extracted versus coal consumed, and the amount of water pumped and the height raised. From the technology a quantifiable science starts to emerge. This observation, measurement and recording: is applied science. Applied science simply states what is, and provides hypothesis of behaviour that can be validated by more experiments and testing.

Knowing that the steam engine consumes more coal than desired, that the plank of wood used as a bridge snaps when the span is too great, that the stone wall collapses when too high, does not help achieve specific objectives. Imagination is required to pose a scientific hypothesis and so also is imagination required to invent methods of testing such hypothesis and validating it: merely collecting supporting evidence is not adequate scientific proof. All the evidence may support the idea that all swans are white, until encounter the black swans of Australia. But what now the hypothesis? Can we expect to find say blue swans? Just because we have not found doesn't mean do not exist? Is there a clue in the DNA that suggests blue swans not possible? Science is about curiosity, posing questions and seeking answers. Scientific knowledge is the collection of answers and solutions found: such knowledge is often simply abbreviated to science.

Once we have the qualitative and/or quantitative scientific knowledge explaining the behaviour of steam engines, beams and columns etc. then we have Technical Science. With technical science we can make sure the plank of wood is thick enough that it doesn't snap when we use as a bridge across a creek. With technical science we can make the stone wall thick enough in the first instance to match its height, self weight and the roof load it supports. We don't have to build the wall until it buckles and collapses, make it thicker, build flying buttroses and the likes by trial and error until the wall stops collapsing. We can minimise the number of trial and error experiments, because we have a scientific record of past experience, to use to direct future action. Technical science does not invent the steam engine, nor invent the wheel, technical science simply tells us how to make a steam engine fit for a specific purpose. Technical science provides us with the means of checking a proposed specification for a wheel to determine if we can expect it to perform satisfactorily. Technical science removes the need to re-invent the wheel, and also ensures that we do not invent an inferior version of the wheel should we choose to be innovative. The science itself does not provide the innovation, just the means of testing the innovation.

As indicated earlier, for me engineering takes place at the frontiers of science and technology. Not the frontier of the scientific method but the frontier of scientific knowledge, a point where there is no technical science. No technical science and the technology exists merely as a concept, an hypothesis. Whilst pure science poses hypothesis about behaviour of the natural world, engineering science poses hypothesis about deliberately directing the behaviour of the natural world through the implementation of technology. The contention here is that when the technology has been implemented, and the hypothesis has been validated by applied science, then the engineering science becomes technical science. Last years engineer becomes this years technician.

When the institution of structural engineers (UK) was founded it was done so largely with a focus on a new fangled material in the form of steel reinforced concrete. Applied science needed to determine the limits and capabilities of this composite material. Engineering science needed to determine a rational method of design for the material to be used in a large variety of different structural forms: for example plates, shells and frames. Structural forms for which technical science did not provide practical methods of structural analysis whilst the proper form and proportion of reinforced concrete itself was not understood. Today there are plenty of text books, industry handbooks, national standards and codes of practice covering the technical design of reinforced concrete. It is now a matter of technical science and the community does not expect reinforced concrete structures to fail unexpectedly.

Modern industrial society has an abundance of technical science but is otherwise failing to produce people who are adequately competent in the application of such knowledge. There is far too much focus on teaching, collecting parchments and other credentials than on exercising a duty of care.

So called professionals are creating an environment in which peoples confidence in doing for themselves is destroyed, but it also goes for the professionals themselves. They assume they know all they need to know, if they weren't taught, then they don't know and don't need to know, or they need to return to formal education and be taught some more. They are not people with curiosity, who ask questions and seek answers. Furthermore they only pursue knowledge work during the hours they are paid, they tend to expect to be given a job, and to be paid for further training to help keep the job. Professionals they may call themselves but none the less they are cogs within the machinery of industrial society. Which wouldn't be so bad, but they are defective cogs, and the machine is defective as a consequence.

Whilst it may be possible to write exact specifications for the cogs required by the machinery of industrial society to run smoothly: the machine itself only requires so many cogs. Society however produces more cogs than the machine requires, but not enough to build another machine. The existing machine is therefore inadequate. Whilst people may not want to be part of the machine, and consider themselves more than cogs in the machine, their survival is dependent on slotting into the industrial machine. Creativity and imagination is required to live outside of the industrial machine. Creativity and imagination are also required to adapt and modify the machine so that it better serves the people it is meant to benefit, rather than enslave them. Formal education cannot impart this creativity, it can only pass on the knowledge of technical science, and hope to enhance and direct existing creative talent rather than destroy such talent.

The point is, that it is not necessary to go to university to study technical science. The original engineers had no universities to go to, and there was no technical science to pass on to them. The physical world was their university, and the scientific method their principal tool. Also who first came up with a theory, who a theory is named after is not so important as to whether the theory reflects the real world. A designer in the modern world, with in industrial society has a responsibility and a duty of care to become conversant with the technical science appropriate to the technology they are dealing with. Such technical science may not directly relate to prior learning. If can find somebody else who has such prior learning, then good, but resource constraints mean that is not always possible. Such resource constraints also mean that there may not be adequate time, to become fully conversant with the available technical science: decisions have to be made and actions taken. This means that in hindsight, risks taken could have been avoidable if more resources been available, to make proper use of the available technical science.

--o0o--
{
I will leave for now, but at some future date I will essay how I believe modern professionals have hijacked the human knowledge base for profit, and are otherwise becoming a public menace. Rather than people learning to satisfy their own basic and higher needs, they are entering formal education to gain a ticket to employment and join a profession. Markets don't work on the basis of supplying to demands, rather on the basis of: this is what I have, this is what I actually need, I demand an exhange take place, else I have no need to recognise rights of ownership. Establishing and sustaining professions involves much politics, as does survival of the individual. We are not training, accrediting and licensing professionals because we need the professionals. Professionals are just like any other manufactured product, and as such can be substituted or complemented by a variety of other products. We are producing the professionals therefore largely due to lack of attention to our real needs, and also due to some social and political manipulation on the part of the professions. That is failure to write proper specifications for the cogs that the machinery of industrial society needs, and also a failure to produce universal cogs that can be put any where in the machine and dynamically adapt to their environment. This is not to say that individuals are not creative, or dynamically adaptive, but that the industrial system is not capable of producing as a matter of routine.

Further more all systems in place are creating greater restrictions on personal actions and greater dependence on professionals. Whilst quality of service and public safety require some level of regulation the current regulatory systems are inappropriate: the systems seem to deteriorate until the incompetent are in authority. The problem is technical science, it can validate solutions but it cannot solve problems. Regulations are too rigid, the environment too dynamic and a lack of imagination to fuel foresight. The rational promotes the rational and pushes out the creative, and our ability as a society to recognise forth coming probems and solve them is diminished. Also "they" are wrong, mathematics does not teach nor develop problem solving, its teaches solutioneering: problems are not actual problems but mathematical models with known evaluation techniques. Real problems have to be mapped onto the available solutions. It is highly unlikely that those that study only mathematics will ever solve the unsolved problems of mathematics: they cannot take the innovative lateral tangential leap in thinking required to find the solution. They are, merely repeating old behaviour expecting different results: their trials and errors are not on new ground. It is not an issue of a complete shift to encouraging creativity, it is an issue of getting the balance right, and otherwise denying the professionals authority to rule as a new aristocracy.

But as I said that is for another time.
}

Previous Index Next

Height Versus Span Design charts for Steel Sheds

Height Versus Span Design charts for estimating member sizes for cold-formed steel sheds.

Wind TC3 to AS1170.2

Wind TC2 to AS1170.2

Full range of design charts for TC3, with variable frame spacing

For manufacturers one use of the charts is to plot sales history frequency of various size sheds on the charts and use to determine an optimum section for a range of sheds. It is not economical to keep changing size of components, just because of minimum weight structure: doing so does not provide minimum cost structure. Set up times for roll forming, material change overs from C150 to C200 or variations in material thickness all add cost.

For further discussion join the linked In group:

PreEngineered Manufactured Building Systems Group


For the application I wrote to generate the charts, join ExcelCalcs.

---

Related Posts:

Cold-Formed Steel Shed Industry: part:#1

Cold-Formed Steel Shed Industry: part:#2

Cold-Formed Steel Shed Industry: part:#3

PEB, PEMB, PMBS Cold-Formed Steel Sheds and Canopies #pt2

Height Versus Span Design charts for Steel Sheds

The Section Weights ...

Weight of Steel does Matter?

Kleinlogel Rigid Frame Formulas

Manufactured Structural Products And Simplified Wind Classification

Other Blogs:

Shed Design: pt#1 (Basic Procedure)

FW: Rate of compensation for Structural Tech... And my usual long winded diversion.

To: seaint@seaint.org
Subject: RE: Rate of compensation for Structural Tech... And my usual long
winded diversion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is too long to be posted to this list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food for thought.
A real engineer operates at the frontiers of science and technology, is
project manager, principal designer, principal scientist, principal
mathematician and chief builder, and has complete and total authority over
the project. None exist, and a 4 year B.Eng straight from school is grossly
inadeqaute for the purpose.
However most of what takes place is the application and adaptation of
established technologies through the application of established scientific
principles: the work of technians and technologists or applied scientists
and industrial mathematicians.
Simply phrased: Technicians APPLY, Technologists ADAPT, Engineers ORIGINATE.
As a society we do not take kindly to defects in established technologists
due to failure to apply the established science.
The NCEES FE/PE exams are not really about engineers, it is more about
ensuring provision of competent technicians/technologists to plan, design,
assess and manage established technologies. We cannot exam that which is at
the frontiers of science and technology, and cannot operate competently at
the frontier unless developed a high level of competence and proficiency
within the established science and technology.
It seems clear that the NCEES has divided each major discipline into 5 major
areas of practice, and with the breadth and depth format proficiency is only
required in one area of practice, but some competency across all areas.
The B.Eng is largely 4 years in duration as a consequence of history
concerning prestige and status in a class structured society, where typical
degree is 3 years in duration. By adding an extra year it was thought status
would improve. Which may have been the case if it was an academic year and
demonstrated increase in depth. But it is really a bogus year made up of
project work and industrial experience or breadth rather than depth of
knowledge. The lack of depth is important relative to the rest of the
engineering team for it means the other members of the team cannot really
turn to the modern engineer for that additional expertise: they still have
to turn to applied mathematicians and applied scientists for that extra
knowledge.
Breaking the B.Eng down. Most now comprise of a common first year, basically
the breadth requirements of the FE exam. That leaves 3 years to cover 5
areas of practice and the depth requirements of the FE's: a total of 6
streams to be covered in 3 years, or half a year per stream: on average.
That means the FE's are covered by 1.5 years of study, and a specific area
of practice can be covered by an additional half a year, to create a 2 year
study programme. However not all the fundamentals are required for a
specific area of practice, so the programme could be shortened to 1 year.
And most such things seem to follow pareto type rules: so that 80% of
projects only require 20% of the knowledge base. So the programme for a
specific area of practice could be shorted to say AQF Certificate I. Taking
criteria from the Bolgna process of 1500 to 1800 hours student work load per
year: leads to a 300 hour to 360 hour Certificate I programme. The
professional publications (PP) reference manuals seem to suggest a 300 hour
review programme to prepare for the PE Exam. Whilst a specific area of
practice would 750 to 900 study programme, after having completed 1.5 years
of FE's. Such half year of study is not beyond the realms of learning on the
job under the supervision of competent and experienced personnel. Neither
the academic year or regular hours of employment make full use of the time
available in a year. So the B.Eng may now be the normal and accepted path
towards becoming a so called "engineer", but it is neither the traditional
nor only path towards a high level of competence in an area of practice. Put
bluntly the B.Eng is just like any other commercial product: its dumped into
the market place without any real thought and consideration to its impact.
Occupational degrees are amongst the dumbest inventions ever. Traditionally
people got a science degree, and then they either had the imagination and
ingenuity to make use of that advanced knowledge on the job or not: and it
permitted progress. Now the knowledge base is locked in for a given
occupation, and consequently bring little new perspective to associated
industries. With the degree alone being used to confer status rather than
actual contribution. Most especially here in Australia, where we have a
crazy industrial relations system.
One major problem with the purely academic route to engineer, is that those
who go to school then on to university and then into industry have zero
understanding of the training and capabilities of the other members of the
engineering team. The result is that the so called "engineers" believe that
most of the work actually requires some one with a B.Eng which is just not
so. If they had followed the more traditional path, from shop floor up
through the ranks of the design office, then they would be more fully
conversant with the capabilities of others, and also with their
responsibility to share and pass knowledge onto the next generation of
designers.
In Australia we have state and federal industrial awards which define
working conditions and minmum rates of pay, depending on the economy and
markets people can get paid significantly more than the award rates of pay,
but not less. The awards however are defined more in terms of education
rather than actual contribution to the business and job responsibilities.
There are awards for technical officers, professional scientists and
professional engineers. A person with a B.Eng is most likely to get paid
according to the professional engineers award, even if only carrying out
work at the level of a technical officer, and the individual really has no
ability to operate at the level of an engineer. Since engineers typically
get paid more than technical officers, the B.Eng is the better product to
buy out off school than the advanced diploma.
However apparently we still currently have a shortage of engineers. Not
however really true. We have a shortage of technically competent people, and
the university 4 year B.Eng or fast track with summer programme to 3 years,
will not resolve the issue: because graduates are not proficient and we need
the skills now, not 4 years from now.
Now most consultancies I have worked. There are engineering associates (2
year qualified)documenting and largely designing HVAC systems, electrical
systems, and setting out roads and stormwater drainage. But come to the
structural section and anyone who can operate CAD is employed as a drafter:
basic operation of CAD. Using CAD is the only training they have. They have
no concept of true lengths of lines and true shapes of planes, or any other
knowledge of engineering graphics and solving problems on a drawing board.
On top of which they have little understanding of what they are drawing, and
little interest in. The result is drafters sat around waiting for sketches
from engineers, and a great deal of revision to correct errors. Because they
are not drafters they do not know the national drafting standards, they also
have little skill in presentation, and they also are unable to develop
additional views and sections. They need a great deal of supervision by the
would "engineers". But replace these CAD jockeys by one mechanical or
structural engineering associate, and the process efficiency rapidly
increases. The engineering associate can put a structure in the building as
defined by the architects drawings, develop additional sections and details,
roughly size the members using back of envelope calculations. All whilst the
engineer is finishing off the previous project and before they have looked
at the current project. And if the engineering associate was given the
opportunity to do what they were trained to do, then they could produce the
final calculations as well: and as with the engineer with out the need of
computers: but why do it the slow way.
To me an engineer is not defined by the 4 year B.Eng, but by the equivalent
2 year Associate Degree in Engineering Science contained within the B.Eng.
It is this which permits them to learn the breadth of knowledge across
discipline specific areas of practice without restriction of discipline. If
the area of practice is not dependent on the 2 years of Engineering Science,
then the person so practicing is not properly operating at the level of
engineer and to me has no right to the title engineer. The status of real
engineers is diminished by calling all design-scientists or
technical-designers engineers. When an enginering associate can see that the
engineer, is conducting calculations and design tasks well within the domain
of their own education, then the status of engineers is diminished: more so
when the engineers visualisation and design skills are poorer than those of
the engineering associate: so that the only skill the engineer brings to the
project is number crunching: which a computer can do faster and with fewer
errors.
If the person in question is a true structural technician, not a drafter,
then they should be able to take simple projects from conception to
implementation without the need for an engineer, except for the imposed
legal requirements for an engineer.
Having failed 2nd year advanced engineering mathematics in B.Eng, and
dropped back to the Associate Diploma Mechanical Engineering, moved onto the
Associate Diploma Business (major Industrial Engineering) and then Bachelor
of Technology in Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering. The issue for me
is: I know that the majority of the structural engineering only requires a
final year structures option in two year associate diploma, so when a
graduate B.Eng Civil cannot do simple structural design I am not impressed.
Want to be employed as an engineer then need to convince me I need an
engineer. Want the title engineer then need to convince me deserve such
title. I have no title, I have an education and either it serves the needs
of clients or it doesn't. And given the abusive comments most clients have
about some engineer, and the rubbish they have supplied, I wouldn't want the
title engineer.
(So all those engineering associates and engineering technologists and
drafters using the title engineer stop. Why associate with professionals who
lack the real competency required. Demonstrate that we do not need the so
called engineers (B.Eng) and that they do not make it happen: and never did.
That the bulk of the work is done by and can be done by engineering
associates: don't need the technologists either.)
In Australia the status of engineers will improve if we have full
articulation under the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF), such that
AQF Certificate I is the starting point and cannot move up to the next level
unless get 80% or more as a pass mark. So all persons with a B.Eng are fully
conversant with the skills of other members of the team because their
education took them through that path. Therefore once on the job they will
know just how relevant their education is to the job, and as employer can
employ people appropriate to the work at hand: rather than on the basis of
professional status irrelevant to the task at hand. Occupations and
porfessionals are something of an hindrance to meeting the needs of society.
The medical profession for example major obstacle to providing effective
and efficient health care. Likewise teachers focussed on improving eduction
by employing more teachers: how? I was under the impression I read the books
and sat the exam's not the teachers. Teachers what did they do other than
get in the way, and waste my time with irrelevant subjects. Lectures take
place because the printing press had not been invented: and one person can
read the book out loud and many people can produce a hand written copy and
go out into the world and as scholars pass that knowledge on: compared to
one person reading the only book available on a topic and producing a single
copy. With the gutenburg and caxton printing presses that ceased to be
necessary and helped spawn the industrial revolution: people reading and
putting knowledge to use, and then writing about it and spreading the
knowledge further and enhancing the knowledge on a topic. But those channels
started getting stifled and clogged up: where are the modern day
phamphleteers like jonathan swift. The internet has provided a new channel
of communication, and better get with the idea that formal academic study
programmes are way slow and contain trite information. Consequently
independent examination boards are going to be of extreme importance in
maintaining the reliiability of established technologies. Examining and
qualifying someone is not the same as wasting their time contending to be
teaching them. For the most part we do not need to be teaching people but
qualifying and recognising the skills people already have beyond their
original education and training: and then permitting them to get on with the
job.
Then there is the matter of business. Who cares whether a person is a
drafter, structural technician, engineer or has another other trite title.
If the person contributes to the reputation of the business and such
reputation generates future work, and the individual contributes signifcant
part of the effort towards completing that work then they should be rewarded
accordingly if intend that they stay. Otherwise they can always leave and
set up business on their own. As I have said in earlier posts, and
reinforced here: what value is the engineer?
80% of projects are trivial, well with in the capabilities of engineering
associates, with out need of a computer, but modern computer software makes
the projects even more trivial. Real engineers, as I started out with,
operate at the frontiers of science and technology, once frontier removed
then the area of practice is brought within the domain of established
science and technology. So that last years engineer is this years
technician. Thus as an individual have status of engineer for removing that
frontier, but those entering into the area are no longer engineers but
technicians. Therefore expect that as technology is developed and evolves
that tasks will shift to persons with more rapid and more specific training.
Engineering consultancies which lack unique and innovative solutions to
problems will ultimately be displaced by computer software implementing
stock standard solutions to routine problems, at high speed with few errors.
Remember that historically the likes of Robert Stephenson sought the
guidance of researchers and mathematicians like Hodgkinson. Mathematics is
important, but it doesn't make a person an engineer. People don't want
pretty pictures of hospitals or pages full of silly numbers they want a
hospital and they wanted it yesterday. Likewise they wanted bridges: people
sought the services of Telford, Brunel and Stephenson to build bridges not
draw pictures. So when engineering is reduced to producing pictures,
crunching numbers and providing inspection and minor supervision of the real
builders: the value of engineers diminishes. Basically incapable of
supplying the whole job. Such division of labour taken to the extremes means
that the drafters and techncians can just call in the engineers, for that
last minute review, assessment and final approval.
It is also important to recognise the difference between a CAD Techncian and
a Structural Technician. The CAD technician needs supervision and guidance
by someone familiar with the technology being designed, such as structures,
the structural technician understands the technology being designed and
calls upon higher qualified persons for assistance.
It is therefore a matter of perspective as to whether have structural
technicians seeking the asssistance of engineers as their projects becoming
increasingly challenging. Or whether have engineers who subdivide complex
projects into simpler units completed by engineering technicians. Either way
can work, and for the most part all persons tend to work on projects which
become increasingly challenging and seek the assistance of more able persons
to assist with completing the project.
As I understand the review of Queensland's engineers registration, there are
a large number of design businesses owned and operated by engineering
associates, but all their work has to be reviewed and approved by registered
engineers. This situation was one of the main reasons for retaining the
registration system. As I see it, not because of protecting the community,
but keeping the local engineers employed, and limiting national
consultancies completing work out off state.
We have a market driven economy, and work will flow to who ever can maximise
the benefit from the available but otherwise limited resources. That is
giving the customer maximum value for money. Market prices are traditionally
set by hours taken, new players start with new technology, and the hours
taken is reduced compared to tradition. Consequently new players can
significantly reduce the price of their services relative to the market
price without any burden: they don't have past commitments to pay off.
If do not keep the rest of the design team happy, so that they percieve they
have an equitable share of the distribution of income, then they have
potential to set up in business on their own and compete against.
Potentially they can grab some 80% of the projects away from you, and
complete 100% off on their own, whilst the remaining 20% only complete 80%
off and require specialist services for the remaining 20%, and the
technician is not likely to look to previous employer for that extra
service. Of course that can grow, just as the contribution of engineers to
architects work has grown.
The community does not care about architects and engineers, nor about the
difference between engineers and technicians (only the wanabee engineers
care). All the community cares about is businesses which provide them with
the goods and services they desire, in the right condition, at the right
price, at the right time, at the right place. If technicians can supply then
the community with buy from. Engineers can then bleet all they like about
the welfare and saftety of the community: but they need to show engineers
get it right 100% of the time all the time, when arguing techncians are
responsible for failures which some engineers wouldn't make. That is not
possible because many design failures can be demonstrated to be caused by
engineers who are less than competent design technicians.
So treat technicians with more respect. Differentiate between CAD,
Computer, and engineering technician. Properly describe the work which has
to be carried out by the business and determine who is able to contribute to
which tasks and how and to what extent. May find out that your specific
business and the services it provides are not quite so dependent on
engineers as thought. If that is the case then with rapid development of
software and other technologies, likely to find an increasing loss of work
to alternative suppliers: and the licensing system will only sustain some
work.
Put simply if do not have ingenuity and cannot assist architects turn crazy
dreams into reality, and not otherwise specialised in advanced analyis and
mathematics: then time is running out for many individuals practising as
engineers. In a more traditional environment I would hit an obstacle and
turn to an engineer for assistance for more complex analysis. But why would
I pay an engineer to push numbers through a computer program, a program I
can equally well operate and understand the limitations of. Put simply with
the engineer it is still my responsibility to decide whether the engineer
knows what they are doing, and to decide whether to scrap their results or
adopt. Still in control of the design, and don't go around adopting results
of mathematical models because suggests original approach too conservative.
May adjust if suggests original approach unconservative. At the end of the
day however only physical testing of prototypes provides a high level of
confidence and certainty: the mathematical models simply provide a guide
focused on critical characteritsics through the maze of infinite
possibilities. And bridges and buildings tend to be untested, unvalidated
real world experiments placing peoples lives at risk. So high level of
competence in the established science and technology is required. Now what
was that trivial 30 hours complaining about earlier.
And what about succession planning. Wouldn't it be better to develop and
promote experienced structural technicians to EIT's and onto engineers, than
to have inexperienced graduates as EIT's, who eventually become engineers?
Where is 80% of the work in the enterprise? Much of the drafting and number
crunching can now be automated? Thus major contribution to projects is
insight and qualitative understanding, inspection and supervision: rather
than ability to work through the mathematics. The number out off the formula
is not so important as the relationship between the characteristics modelled
by the formula: knowing which parameter to change to achieve the design
objective.
Knowing where we are going is the important issue. Engineers are characters
from history. The future requires highly skilled and competent techncians
fully conversant with the established science and technology, they may
require the educational content of a B.Eng, but to call them engineers is
not appropriate. Further more, whilst 4 years may have been required for
past knowledge base of engineers, potential exists to significantly reduce
the time frame required, thus a 4 year B.Eng could contain vastly more
knowledge in the future. Or the future graduate with a 2 year associate
degree may know the same as a past graduate with a 4 year B.Eng: because
technology makes it so. If the books don't exist then cannot read them, and
a technology not written about is less than established.
Society is dynamic and adaptive: it seeks to maximise the benefit obtained
from available and otherwise limited resources. Unfortunately the social
pyschology associated with the formation of professions tends to counter
that which is in the best interests of society if it diminishes the status
of the profession. Consequently health care and education systems are less
than desired. Likewise there are far more failures of engineered systems
than desired. And the total mess in the form of our cities created by
architects, town planners and civil engineers: whilst we criticise the mess
as a community, we seldom point the figure of responsibility at the so
called qualified professionals. After all their learned response would be:
"what would you know?". Well we know those with the qualifications don't
know any better. Politicians don't help either. Building a mega hospital in
the centre of the city gains status and prestige, whilst many smaller local
community hospitals in rural areas where really needed does not gain status.
Issues of status taking precedence over real need. Employing engineers gives
status to company, employing technicians does not. But what does the
business really need to sustain its operations in the long term? Technicians
slowly gaining experience and moving towards status of highly experienced
and competent engineer, or EIT's rapidly progressing to engineer and making
huge mistakes.
The current technicians may be the future of your business, the ones who
have the memory and experience to avoid future mistakes when the senior
engineers retire: important if company funding their retirement. Members of
a team have synergy and work in harmony not conflict. If drafters are
treated as lowly unimportant members of the team, then there is no reason
for them to have respect for engineers. Each member of the team has to
demonstrate the importance of their contribution to the whole. Each member
may be able to go it alone, but the team provides benefits. Synergy: two
people need less resources than two times one person, two people working in
harmony have greater output than two times one person. It is important to
build the team, and this long standing rift between engineers and others who
can carry out similar work to lesser or greater extent is not beneficial to
a productive team effort, nor to the long term success of a business. We
need to employ people who can do the job which needs doing, and compensate
them accordingly, not according to some concept of profession and the reward
perceived as being owed to such profession.
Sorry! From childhood I knew what architects and engineers did, and if they
were trained to do such things, then clearly what they were being taught was
nonsense. My prime interest is the process of design, and from papers I have
read the typical indication is that engineers are poor at design. If a
talented drafter can fill that gap, then they are an important member of the
engineering team: and just as the drafter needs recognise their own
limitations so does the engineer. And the engineer better be certain about
what they themselves contribute to the team. Placing mathematics on a
pedestal is not helpful, and skill with mathematics is really of limited
value. National decline with skills in mathematics is not a major issue, the
nations weren't built on such skills in the first place. As long as have
qualitative understanding of the mathematical models skill crunching the
numbers through the models not all that important: computers can do the
crunching: if really need to keep doing the same structural calculations
over and over again to confirm what we already knew on the previous hundred
or more projects.
Do not have engineers carrying out work that can be competently carried out
by technicians, make sure engineers are doing the work only they are able to
do. Better to have a competent technician who likes their work than an EIT
who would rather be doing something more complex: what 4 years of study to
do this trivia, don't you do any real engineering, where are the real
projects. The EIT likely to move on to find more interesting and challenging
work, but the technician will remain if operating at their potential and
fairly compensated.


Regards
Conrad Harrison
B.Tech (mfg & mech), MIIE, gradTIEAust
mailto:sch.tectonic@bigpond.com
Adelaide
South Australia

Previous Index Next