Ramblings on Pricing and Selling Time

"The successful producer of an article sells it for more than it cost him to make, and that's profit. But the customer buys it only because it is worth more to him than he pays for it, and that's his profit. No one can long make a profit producing anything unless the customer makes a profit using it. " [Samuel B. Pettengill]

Price is not cost plus desired profit. Price is the mutually agreed value of exchange between buyer and seller. Further more unless there are crazy laws in place, it is not necessary to make a profit on each item, it is the over all business which needs to make a profit. Considered another way the contents of a retail store are an assembly of components, it is the sale of this assembly which has to make a profit, not the sale of an individual component within the assembly. If a sole proprietor does not make a profit then they will not get fed: profits are their bread and butter. If a proprietary limited  (Pty Ltd) company with owner-operators does not make a profit, it does not matter as the owners are paid wages by the company which is a different entity than the owners themselves. Therefore a Pty Ltd company can operate as a zero profit company. If there are non-working shareholders then the company needs to make profits.

Desired weekly wages, annual salary or hourly pay rate, are simply numbers pulled out off a hat, they are subjective opinions, they are not a matter of science. At any point in time, there are items in the market place available at some currently defined price. Some of these things are essential to the individual for  survival, others are imposed needs by society, and still others are optional extras. Thus we can identify 3 different levels of income:

1) Survival
2) Social
3) Optional

For an individual can also identify their current level of income, this may be higher than the minimum social level but less than the desired optional level. Whilst we can calculate these levels based on prices in the market place none of these levels are fixed. The survival income for one person can be considerably different than that for another. There will also be differences between different geographical locations, and different cultures. The income levels are therefore relative values not absolute values. Further more individuals have differing capacities to adapt and improvise: so that whilst one person may struggle with a specified minimum wage, another person may flourish or at least get by comfortably. As I have mentioned many times before, once something is released to the market and environment, people will find uses for it way beyond the original intents of the designer.

In similar manner to the income levels for individuals, it is possible to work out different price levels for goods and/or services. However when working these prices out we should also give consideration to the entire assembly of goods and services, or the over all product mix, and  the over all performance of the business. Most important of all is what the buyer is willing to pay. An amount for the price which exceeds what the customer is willing to pay, isn't a price. The amount the customer is willing to pay, is an impression, a feeling, a perception of worth: something pulled out off a hat. That whimsical intangible perception of worth, is transient and can be changed.

So can work out accurately how long a job is going to take and then multiply by an hourly rate, the resultant value however is not the price unless a customer is willing to pay such amount. There should be no buts or may be's about it, the hourly rate was pulled out off a hat. Sure may have checked industrial awards for minimum rates, and checked job advertisements for market rates in excess of the minima: but at the end  of the day all the numbers were dreamed up by someone, and the numbers felt right, or they were all they could afford. Not much point conducting complex mathematical calculations with fiction.

So calculated an amount from time and hourly rate, and the customer perceives it as way too high. If the customer can perceive it is too high, then the person doing the calculation should also be equally able  to perceive that it is too high. Now could review the project, reduce feature's and thus reduce total time, or otherwise revise estimates of times for the existing features, however the real problem is that not every hour is worth the same value.

By being focused on selling time and using a constant hourly rate as a measure of self worth, proposed prices are exceeding the markets willingness to buy. If can pull a number out off a hat for desired annual salary or for hourly rate, then can also pull a number out off a hat to define a fixed price for a project.

Prices placed on goods in a retail store are an indirect negotiation with the customer. If they like the proposed prices they will buy, if they do not like the proposed prices then they will not buy. The retailer therefore has to adjust their prices in response to the market behaviour.

In a more traditional market place, there is a more direct negotiation between buyer and seller. Further more the buyers go to the sellers: there is no annoying people who are not in the market to buy. Such people have no stated need for the items, and no stated discretionary income they are willing to spend on such items, then some seller comes disturbing them: the negotiation has one major outcome no current sale and no future sale. No future sale because there is no price low enough to encourage keeping such an annoying enterprise in business.

Like a retail store, or mail order catalogue, the proposed price has to be there to be found by the potential customer. That means that potential customers need to have reason to visit the vicinity of the stores even though they have no need or intention of buying anything. Shopping malls, plaza's and precincts draw people in with regular consumable services, and whilst there, they may then become buyers of more discretionary items.

So for example, the confectionery stall in a department store draws parents, with kids, into the store. If the confectionery stall is near the middle of the store, the customers then have to pass more expensive items, where upon there is potential to buy such things. The confectionery may not make much profit itself, but it is essential to the over all experience of the store which ultimately results in sale of high value items. Similarly the cafe, potentially makes less profit than the department store selling electrical gadgets and operating from the same precinct. But without the cafe, the precinct is likely to be empty and no one buying tthe electrical goods. Owners of such shopping centres should take such things into consideration before charging the shop rents which are typically seen as extortionate. Be certain as to who is generating the traffic, and who is benefiting from such traffic.

The point is, that price, cannot be calculated. Calculate expected times, give consideration to the cashflow requirements over the time frame of the project., use an hourly rate if must do, but make the final proposed price a judgement. This can be done by applying weightings either to the over all calculated price or to the components of the calculated price.

It should also be noted that whether selling goods or services, there is a component of work which is not directly attributed to the product being sold. The cost of this work needs to be recovered by applying an overhead charge to each item sold. Say for example that intend to spend 2000 hours per year, but only 1000 of those hours are directly billable. The other 1000 hours is used up on adiministration, research design and development of product made available, marketing and finding new projects to work on, learning and training to keep up to date and develop greater proficiency, and a multitude of other minor activities too small to identify or otherwise track. So every hour billed has to cover the cost of every two hours worked. if throw sick days and vacation time in, then every hour worked has to cover even more indirect costs.

That a product has to be designed before it can be made, isn't always noted by the customer, plus many products are just repetitive copies, so there is an expectation that costs of design have been recovered already. Additionally such costs of design are hidden from the customer with respect to physical goods like cars and electrical gadgets, whilst with services it is not all that apparent that design is required in the first place. So can end up formulating an hourly rate which is heavily weighted by factors which have little value to the buyer of services.

Consider a retail store again. The store sits there and people come in and either buy or don't buy the goods which are on display. At the end of the year either the shop made enough money to cover the living expenses of the owner or it didn't. One major problem for the store owner is not so much the price of the items, but the mix of the items and whether or not they are of any value to any of the people who visit the store. If have the wrong product then it won't sell at any price. If have the right product but wrong price then it won't sell.

Now goods and services are interchangeable. A product previously offered as a goods, can be converted to a service or substituted/complemented by a service. A product previously offered as a service can be changed into a physical goods. For example when lawnmowers are few and expensive, then more likely to hire someone to cut the lawn with a mower. When lawn mowers are plentiful and low cost then people more likely to cut their own lawn, if they have the time. There are thus competing  circumstances which shift the demand in favour of either the service or the dependent product.

Similarly designing a building is time consuming activity, but if design the building once and distribute the cost of design across many buildings then the cost of design per item is considerably reduced. This is essential for small buildings, as the cost of engineering is not proportional to the size of the building but to the complexity and risk involved. Small buildings with the same structural form as large buildings require the same design effort. With small buildings therefore the cost of engineering can exceed the cost of the building. With large building projects, fees are likely to be a proportion of the capital value of the project: this can be far in excess of the costs and therefore highly profitable. Whilst for the small buildings the cost exceeds the market price of the engineering: and therefore its is not a viable business to engineer small buildings on a one-off project basis. There has to be repetitious use of the engineering, in the form of documentation, so that the cost of the engineering can be recovered by the sales of multiple documents. Price is therefore intimately tied to the product definition.

Another example is the design and development of web sites, this can be a time consuming exercise and expensive. However today there are many blogging platforms, and more general purpose platforms like WordPress. Almost everyone can build themselves a website in a few minutes. The value of the services offered by the website designers/builders thus decreases significantly. The web designers can jump up and down and complain about the quality of such sites, identify flaws, wish for regulations and monopolies, talk about solutioneering and insist that custom design is a must: but at the end of the day they have to prove the value of their services. Just like architects and engineers of buildings the majority just talk about custom design for the site, they don't actually do it.

A general principle is to introduce no more than 20% of the total features as new, novel and original. These 20% of the features will take 80% of the time. The implication is that if we therefore know 80% of the features or characteristics with certainty then we can calculate the total time for the project: however doing so is likely to generate an unacceptable time frame and unreasonable price if we resort to selling time.

Rather what it tells us, is that the time for 80% of the characteristics is relatively certain, and that it effectively defines a fixed product with a fixed price. The other 20% of the characteristics involve a high level of uncertainty, and therefore a highly variable cost and consequently unknown ultimate price to the buyer. I would contend that the majority of people want to buy off-the-shelf exactly what they want. They do not want the uncertainty of custom design at the point in time they seek suitable product to satisfy their needs. Designers and makers therefore need to be pro-active and make product available for selection. Concept documents are easier to produce than full production documentation, and documentation is easier than actual manufacture of physical object. When it comes to computers and digital products then production and distribution are relatively low costs.

A society built around selling time is going to be in big trouble when production times are cut to near zero. Whilst time may be a measure of an employees work, it is not a measure of the employees contribution to the income of the business. People become self-employed so that they get a greater share of the income that they perceive their work actually generates: though without all the resources of their previous employer the usual result is that the self-employed person earns less but possibly with less pressure. Some employees have to generate income to cover wages of other employees: employees who do not produce directly billable or saleable work.

If don't sell time then what do you sell? In the main sell expertise and know how, and willingness to do the work required. For example the person selling lawn mowing services could charge by the hour or sell at a fixed price. They have a willingness to do work that the home owner may not be interested in, further more they can develop expertise in grass and weeds, they can turn a weed ridden patchy lawn, into a well manicured lawn. Household lawns have relatively similar sizes therefore all take similar time to complete, so a fixed fee would be possible. However different lawns irrespective of the size may require different amounts of work to maintain depending on the environment, and depending on whether in a poor state needing improvement or a good state needing maintenance. This may therefore suggest having hourly rates and selling time. I suggest this is a bad idea.

To start with most things have a minimum fee. So for example say that decide want $30/hour and determine that the time required for the job is 0.5 hours, therefore the fee for the job is $15. From a perspective of convenience however people are likely to have more $20 dollar notes in their wallets than fives and tens, at a sale price of $15 the supplier needs a ready supply of $5 dollar notes to provide change to the customers. The hourly rate was a desired rate, its not an absolute. Does $20 seem unreasonable for the work? Note that people go into stores and hand over a lot more than that, for physical goods, in a few minutes.

Take from another perspective the job takes 2 hours and therefore the fee would be $60, does that seem reasonable and is it convenient to pay? Would it be better if the fee was dropped back to $50? Similarly is an hourly rate of $29.95 a sensible rate to have? It may mislead some people into working with blocks of 20 instead of 30, which is roughly the marketing objective of such prices: however the customer is not going to be happy with the final price if they believe they have been misled.

Note that it is the seller setting the buyer up with perceptions of price. A seller should have some awarenesss of average incomes, and disposable portion of income, for their market sector. Also if accept cheques or credit cards then the inconvenience of various denominations is removed, but then again there are minimum fees which are acceptable.

Given that in an industrialised nation less than 10% of population is involved in agricultural, can assume that the majority of the population is attempting to grab a share of the disposable portion of peoples income, that portion not required for food or other essentials. Assuming that with time all the other essentials also only requires a small portion of the population: housing for example, once it is built it can last for 50 to 100 years possibly longer: so with the bulk of the housing existing already do not expect many people involved in housing construction. So have a relatively small percentage of population supplying essentials, and rest trying to find something to supply.

Time isn't really something that people want to buy, especially if the output of the work effort is lower quality than they could produce themselves, and their own hourly pay rate is less than that of the service purchased. The funds available to the buyer are an important aspect of how they perceive value. For example say that a person can put $50 away each week, then they can save $2600 per year. Then chances are they are not going to be impressed paying some $1800 for a weeks worth of design producing a few drawings and some calculations: if the perception concerns selling and buying time and the report they get turns out to be defective relative to their needs but otherwise what they asked for. The longer it takes to save the money the more discerning the buyer is likely to be about the purchases they make: on the other hand they may lack adequate knowledge to make a proper selection of suitable supplier.

{... lost my track.}


However, just because should avoid selling time, doesn't mean shouldn't measure time.

State of Play 2013/wk37

Been working setting up wordpress for business website. Having closed down the office and retracted the business back home, now need to make better use of the Internet. Most especially with the intended future move over to Maitland on the York Peninsula. The business exists mainly because we are local. That is people attempt DIY building development applications, council advises they need structural engineering. They ask what is that and they are given a list of consultants who submit work for the area. Only one of the consultants is actually in the area, and as both individuals and small builders, have no desire to go into the city or the other side of the city, they come to us. Moving over to Maitland therefore is potentially a major stumbling block.

On the other hand there has been a down turn in work, our regular clients have experienced a reduction in work and that has flowed onto us. As for private individuals, and small builders with one-off projects, whilst they represent some 80% of projects, they represent very little in terms of income, like around 20%, yet they consume a disproportionate amount of time. Their emergencies and urgencies tend to result in them applying pressure to jump to the front of the queue, and otherwise cause delays for our regular clients. Their projects also interfere with our capacity to pursue larger projects. They contribute to keeping our earnings low and barely scraping in incomes equal to the Federal minimum wage. That I don't so much mind, but I object to the hassle and the pressure.

I mean, there are people in the world who don't have housing and our time is wasted by people who don't follow the rules get into a mess and expect we dig them out off a hole for a low fee. Meanwhile people who try to do the right thing, have to have extreme patience, as they keep getting pushed further and further along the queue.

To me it seems there is a need for some means of providing engineering services like legal aid. Though I did take a look at legal aid services, they seem to have highly restrictive requirements as to who can get such aid.

The alternative is to design a service which properly informs people, so that they don't build stuff without approval, and so that they don't produce DIY applications. More prescriptive building solutions are required along with the necessary evidence-of-suitability.

The problem however are people who do not care, think they know what is required, and do not do any research. Such people are always going to be around, the main people to serve are those who go looking for information but cannot find anything suitable. Those who don't do the research, and think they can do what ever they want on their property no matter what hazards it poses to the rest of the community, will hit a bigger problem. That problem, will be no one to get them out off a mess. Since they don't see any reason to get building approval in the first place, they also don't see any reason to pay for the design and engineering services required to get approval. So this bunch are not really worth while clients. Can generally tell who they are from the start by their attitude, the difficulty is telling them to take a hike at the first meeting, and that not interested in their project. I believe it is preferable to refuse service to these people, Assisting them just encourages them to continue disregarding the rest of the community. Members of the Engineering team have sworn to a code of ethics, which typically places the community first, above the client and above the employer.

Sure much of the time, the city councils are just being picky, and its all a matter of just getting paper work in place.  The city council doesn't really want to enforce a demolition order: it makes them look mean. But there are some members of the community who need to learn that their property is part of the greater environment and just about everything they do to their  property has an impact on their neighbours.

Any case there has been a down turn in work load, and locality is not really a major issue any more. As most work has always flowed in from regular clients either by the telephone, fax, post, or email. In terms of post that is often in the way of clients dropping documents off in our post box after hours. We have lost our land line telephone number, but most clients already have either our email address or mobile phone number: and for a while now most work has flowed in via email. With only occasionally seeing people in person. Not getting out off the office can be some what depressing.

Still it would appear that an Internet based information resource, both with information provided gratis and other information provided for an up front fee, would resolve many issues. Admittedly there are plenty of sites already, but few providing the engineering information, and further more it is clear that people are not finding the information that is available.

Informing people has always been a problem for small business and organisations. Mail leaflet drops can be expensive, and reach few people, with the leaflets typically going straight in the bin. Yellow pages advertisements don't really attract much attention, may be good for some services but not much use for engineering: its too specialised. People may look in yellow pages when told they need an engineer, but they don't look otherwise, they don't know what they are or that they need such services. Engineers services are thus not altogether in the appropriate place in the phone directory. Being elitist not necessarily a good thing: engineers really need to be along side the drafters, fabricators and the builders.

Door knocking just presents the individual as a nuisance, as does phone calls. Advertisements in local paper can be useful, but delivery of  this paper is poor, with it just being thrown into gardens, the plastic wrap is not much protection. So during winter the paper gets soaked with rain,  during summer it can soaked by sprinklers watering the gardens. The result the paper often just gets picked up and thrown straight in the bin. Advertisements in other papers more useful, but can otherwise be expensive.

The fundamental problem is that engineering is relatively abstract and esoteric, and consequently of little interest and value to the community. Engineering services need to be made more accessible, more tangible and more value to the community which they serve.

Not sure how I can do that, but if do not seek, will not find.

---

Earlier in the year I created some additional blogs. I have now modified this blog, removing some of the pages and changing their menu tab to link to these other blogs. I have also added some extra tabs to link to other sites where I have uploaded stuff.

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

Industry must be picking up, projects hanging around from end of last year finally got go ahead, and enquiries from old and new in the shed/canopy industry. Some looking for software, whilst others have issues with size of sections their designs currently use and being unable to compete.

The cannot compete because of size of structural section doesn't make sense to me, and never as and probably never will. I know it is possible to put a product in the market which is some 8 times more expensive than all other products in the market, and for that product to grab the majority of the market displacing all other players. And I know that this is because of a better product design: stronger, more durable, more robust, functionally safer, and better aesthetic.

I also know that the costing methods employed in the building industry are over simplistic and unrealistic, being based on $/metre or $/tonne. These approaches are fine for ball park figures determined by quantity surveyors to determine if project is feasible for the intended buyer. But such costing methods are inappropriate when in a highly competitive market. Highly competitive market does not mean that supplier should keep dropping their costs, rather they should be able to identify cost, quality and value.

I read somewhere that 2/3 of manufacturing costs are tied up in inventory. But do not be confused, this did not relate to funds tied up in raw materials stuck in a warehouse, nor to finished product locked in a warehouse. It related to the costs associated with managing an excessive number of components and excessive variety of products. Benefit comes from the discipline of Design for Assembly (DFA).

For example if have a product which comprises several parts which are bolted together, then that represents a large number of components to be designed, documented, fabricated and handled. If redesign so that can be welded together,then at the minimum eliminated all the bolts, nuts and washers, and replaced with welding wire. Further redesign however can eliminate the welding wire, and simplify to a few die-cast or injection moulded parts which simply clip together. Still further design and can reduce to a single part. There is a lot of cost tied up in having multiple parts.

A few years back the ASI developed a rationalised costing methodology in an attempt to get better pricing of steel structures rather than based simply on $/tonne, it had cost factors for various fabricated parts and assemblies. Unfortunately it is probably seen as too complex and time consuming to be used for one-off-projects. The shed and carport industry however is a different matter: for a single design is used for production of multiple units. Determining cost, waste and lack of quality is important to staying in business.

In rough terms once a structure is engineered, then the quantity of steel in the structure is fixed: however the steel can be redistributed to achieve fewer parts and lower labour costs. Costing a building on the basis of $/tonne therefore doesn't give an accurate cost of the building. Similarly steel erectors basing their fees on plan area of building doesn't give an accurate indicator of cost. Such costing approaches also hinders any improvement and innovation in the industry. Reduce the number of operations, or reduce the time to construct a building, and there is no cost benefit because the tonnage of steel not changed and the floor area not changed.

Now the cold-formed shed or carport industry is seen as an easy entry by builders, since little setup cost. Get a standard design which envelopes most of the buildings in expected market. Then fill in purlin punching sheets and send off to rollformer. Then a pallet of steel: girts, purlins, frame and cladding is then delivered direct to site, another pallet coming from supplier of any fittings required. A workshop may be required, if frame members have to be mitre cut and end plates welded. This requires the rollformer to deliver to the workshop rather than to site, thus involving additional processes, handling and transportation costs. Since the traditional cold-formed shed has welded end plates, the latter approach has been the more common. So straight off there is a cost difference for new players who can use straight cut c-section direct from the rollformers, and who have some standardised connection components. Such cost difference means that one supplier has potential to supply a given shed in larger c-section.

Should also consider the basis of standard calculations. Shed manufacturers want standard calc's on the cheap, so they state the span and size of c-section they want to use and then want calc's for maximum height, they can then use such calc's for any building which falls within the span and height envelope. One manufacturer wants to use C25024, another C20019: depending on wind loading: C25024 can get to height of 6m plus, whilst the C20019 to around 4.8m. But the majority of the market for both suppliers is 2.7m high, for which C15024 would be suitable.

{On notation: C-sections and z-sections are typically described by depth and base metal thickness (BMT), so C15024, refers to c-section 150 deep made from 2.4mm thick steel. On site can only measure the total coated thickness (TCT), which is the BMT plus thickness of galvanised coating. The notation isn't very useful because it ignores the breadth of the flange and dimensions of the lip used to stiffen the flange, such vary between manufacturers, so not altogether interchangeable.}

So its not really a structural issue, its a matter of the economics of getting designs. Most fabricators get designs on an as needs basis. The consequence of which, is that the designs rarely envelope one another in a rational manner. They therefore do not have designs which indicate the limitations of the available c-sections. Further more there is no mandated size for the structural sections, the fundamental requirement is that the structure is suitable for purpose, and that involves more than assessment of stress and strain, or strength and deflection.

We have the pre-engineered timber framing code AS1684, because in the past builders working on the same new development complained about the size of timbers used and argued about not being able to compete. Why can they use 70x35 F7 studs and I have to use 90x45 F7 studs? Well the answer isn't about minimum strength of the structure, but quality and robustness of the structure. For example, I know a builder who wouldn't use anything less than 45mm thick for the wall studs. The reason is that 35mm is too thin when it comes to installing plaster board panels. When 70x35's are used additional studs have to be installed where the plasterboard sheets butt: this may be at every 2nd stud. However it is unlikely that the plasterboard installer will have the extra timbers and install: it is an interruption to their workflow, and extra cost and operation. If the builder puts in the extra stud, chances are the plasterboard will be installed differently and the butt joints won't aligned with the extra studs. The production process is therefore more quality robust if the larger 70x45 studs are installed throughout. By having the pre-engineered solution in the form of AS1684, builders can check the minimum structural requirement and then factor in all the other issues themselves, and thus avoid arguments with the engineer of having oversized the structure. Unfortunately it does contribute to fostering the mentality: that its the law how large a structural section should be. There is no such law.

This mentality leads to industry associations writing silly letters to Standards Australia, complaining about internal pressure coefficients. We cannot compete because others in the industry are using lower internal pressure coefficients: its the law that the internal pressure coefficient should be ??. No it is not, there is no law. The fundamental law is that the structure is fit for function, suitable for purpose as demonstrated by compliance with various performance criteria of the Building Code of Australia (BCA). The BCA is the subjective opinion of a committee or individual people: it is not science. Hence we argue, why do we have to design for this load, where does this load come from. So make a change to probabilistic design, then argue why 1/500 probability of exceedance for wind loading, why not 1/1000.? Simple answer we tried 1/1000 from 1989 to 2002, building industry complained about increase in wind load compared to previous permissible stress design. So as a matter of subjective opinion and judgement the value was changed to 1/500, increasing risk of failure. It is not however necessary to wait till the codes change, it is upto designers to justify their design decisions. For example prior to 2002, I was using the probabilistic models in the appendices to wind loading code (AS1170.2) on a regular basis to assess carports and verandahs which had been constructed without approval. The construction took place many years before, the city councils discovered and imposed a requirement to seek development approval or remove. By making use of the appendices and commentary, need was shown for the methods, that 1/1000 not suitable for all structures. The result being that the methods were shifted to the main body of the code, and expanded.

There is no sense in taking pride in merely complying with the code of practice. Such attitude simply says the supplier would produce rubbish if no code of practice was in place. A quality supplier is one who sets the standard, who designs to their own standards, and their standards exceed those which are mandated. Further more their standards continue to surpass mandated standards even when the mandated are improved.

We appear to have an industry, that wants to say this is the legal size of c-section to use, if supplier using anything else then illegal, shutdown their operations, so that I can have more of the market. Not really business, complaining to parental government, rather than stand on own two feet. The suppliers which loosing business too, follow the same code, they get approval. Designers using the same codes, and working from the same customer brief will design two different buildings. If not either they are both hopeless designers or the codes are too restrictive. Performance based codes are not too restrictive, prescriptive codes are too restrictive.

So one supplier has design based on C25024, not because that is the minimum size which can be demonstrated suitable, but because, that is the size specified in their enveloping design, if they had more designs they could use smaller section. If the industry had software, as it increasingly does, then all would be getting closer to the C15024 of the example. But there are still a multitude of parameters to judge, which have to go into the design, which can result in a still smaller section size, or which may result in a larger section size. Design is subjective, and even science based engineering design does not produce a single result because the inputs are subjective.

Now from the example in the first place, the market place does not have a supplier who is supplying the minimum size section, only a supplier using a smaller section. So straight out minimum size section is not the issue, just lower price than competition. Now if the suppliers all have sheds based on different size sections, then customer is not comparing apples with apples. Now retail sector already introduced unit costing, or was that had imposed on them. The purpose of the unit costing is so that customer can getter a better feel for comparative prices. That is the larger can of food has a lower $/gm than the smaller can, so whilst the smaller can costs less, the buyer is paying more $/g for the contents. However, the smaller cans have added value to some users, and so there is more to consider than $/g. However for the shed customer $/tonne or $/m may be a useful comparison. But not if the manufacturer has costed all buildings on the same $/tonne or $/m rates. The customer needs assisting with value analysis, which is going to be a problem for the industry because they cannot value their own products, so how is the customer going to assess comparative value. Can only really be competing on price alone, when comparing like with like: exactly the same product. Comparing like with like is retail sector, and the primary issues are not the goods bought, but proximity and convenience of access to supplier, and quality of service provided by supplier.

Shed and carport suppliers do not supply the exact same collection of goods and services, they do not have anything which can be compared like for like, they cannot compete on price. If potential customer makes a decision based on cost to them, then the other suppliers have failed in the sale of their goods and services: not in the magnitude of their price. Dropping the price is not the requirement, making the customer aware of the value of the goods and services offered is the requirement. In the main most customers are just plain unaware of how appallingly useless most shed suppliers are at getting development approval.

Which raises another issue. Elsewhere in the world they refer to pre-engineered buildings (PEB), or pre-engineered metal buildings (PEMB), or pre-engineered metal buidling systems (PMBS). For the most part there appears little pre-engineered about the structures and buildings and, high end software is used to achieve rapid custom design. However, whilst the terms PEMB and PMBS are seemingly used interchangeable, I think a distinction should be drawn between buildings and building systems. A pre-engineered building system (PBS) is a collection of pre-engineered components which can be used to design a large variety of buildings. Whilst a pre-engineered building (PB), is an entire building possibly designed from a PBS, there can be no custom variations what so ever to a PB. A kit form garden shed or lawnmower locker is a PB. Light industrial buildings however are more typically PBS, which require custom engineering to transform PBS into a building. The cold-formed shed and carport industry in Australia does not have a PBS, it has standard calculations for portal frames (gable frame). To fit doors larger than the spacing of the frames, they crop the columns, the standard calculations then become invalid, for now have a different rigid frame. To meet customer requirements, salespeople are making unacceptable changes to what is closer to a PB. The result is either delays in getting council approval, or approval being granted by building surveyors who have poor understanding of the structural form and treat in similar manner to timber framed house construction: namely lintel required to support the rafter of the cropped frame. The process would be equal to car salesman agreeing to supply customer with a 3 wheel version of a 4 wheel car, because the customer thinks would be cheaper to maintain. Cheaper to maintain possibly, but not going to get except for major RD&D investment, at significant expense and over at least 5 years.

The building industry can only do things by calculation if there has been research to validate the calculation models. The cold-formed shed businesses are not putting in the RD&D they rely far too much on external consulting engineers. Engineers, who in many cases should stick to concrete, for they have inadequate knowledge of steel design, and don't put effort in to achieve necessary competence. Why would they, if they rarely get asked for such designs, because its mostly for standard calc's or variations to on an as needs basis every few years, if not long periods of 10 years or more: and then back to concrete design. Get the picture as to why the connections are not fully assessed, and thus can be demonstrated inadequate. Full engineering can push the others out off the industry, not necessary to drop price. More necessary to demonstrate have a quality product: both in terms of goods and services.

Back to Design for Assembly (DFA) issues. It would be inappropriate to price c-sections or any structural section soley on the basis of $/tonne of the raw material. The difference in price of a C25024 and a C15024 should not be merely the difference in weight. Australia's shed industry currently built around c-sections, rest of world largely built around tapered sections fabricated by welding plates. With tapered sections, typical structural form is a 3-pinned arch: the heaviest part of the section being at the knee. Alternative to welding up from plate, there is the option of cutting an approriate sized universal beam (UB) diagonally and then welding on additional flange plates to create tapered sections. From this approach, in very rough terms, can see that halving the amount of steel compared to using a constant size section: {eg. get 2 rafters from the one length of UB}. Similarly when using c-sections back to back to form I-sections, it is apparent that end frames have half the load width, and therefore only a single c-section is required for end frames. However, when making frames in UB, making the end frames from parallel flange channels (PFC) is a false economy. It introduces additional components, to be detailed, fabricated, handled and transported, and fitted into the production schedule, all for the sake of 2 frames in the over all structure. Further more at a future date the end frame causes problems with extension of the building: since now require a UB frame as no longer end frame but internal frame.

Now with tapered beams and c-sections, may consider that primary input is steel plate or steel coil strip so cost should be soley derived from a $/tonne rate for raw material. But not so, doing so is not realistic cost of supply. Looking at c-sections, manufacturers have a large variety of depth and thickness combinations. To provide this variety they need steel coils of differing thickness, and differing widths. If the raw steel strip coils, are say 2400mm wide, then the rollformer needs to slit these coils into widths suitable for each size of c-section, which may be based more on current demand than optimum layout for the coil. There will thus be waste narrow width of coil of no use to the rollformer. One way to achieve greater economy, is to buy coil already slit to the width required for the c-sections, the supplier of the coils has a different set of economies and can sell the narrow coil strips to businesses which do sheet metal work involving stamping and blanking.

Since C7510 is commonly used for girts and purlins, or more generically cladding rails, it is to be expected that this would have a relatively low price compared to C30030 which is rarely used. It is also to be noted that many of the rollformers only have a single production line. So to change from C7510 to C30030 requires shutting down the line, resetting the tooling, changing the feedstock, starting the rollforming with a lead strip which becomes waste. Due to the waste strip to get the processed started, it is preferable that once a coil is loaded it is entirely rollformed into section. But since part of the production process involves punching holes into the flat sheet, then rollforming into a section and cutting to required length: it is preferable than rollforming be to meet orders. If not too meet orders then can only rollform to typical production length of 12m, without any holes. Stock lengths of c-section have different economic order quantities (EOQ), than rollformed to order. So for example the thick rollformed Duragal channel (upto 8mm) is typically not economical for builders to use for beams in house renovations  because minimum order length of 6m from some suppliers is too expensive and a waste of material for the typical projects. Builders need suppliers who can supply lengths to order, for such suppliers the offcuts have markets.

A shed manufacturer rolllforming their own materials can achieve benefits by having at least 3 production lines:

1) Cladding Rails
2) Cladding
3) Main frame

Though cladding rails the same size as the main frame can have benefits, and thus reduce the number of production lines. There are benefits also to be had from plain channels which nest, and so can be used as top and bottom plates, studs, as well as splices for other members. Now changing from C25024 to C15024, is less of a burden than changing to C20019. The former only requires change in feedstock strip width, whilst the latter requires change in BMT and feedstock strip width. Additionally with respect to the main frame, changes in section size also require changes in the components required to fasten the frame together. Keep changing the size of section to meet the minimum structural requirement of the frame is not economical, not to mention it causes delays in supply.
One reason for using c-sections over UB's has to do with DFA. If use UB's then typically have cleats welded to the UB's to which the c-section girts and purlins bolted. If use c-sections, then the c-section frame is punched, and the cladding rails are bolted flange to flange with the main frame. The cleats are thus eliminated and the number of bolts reduced from 2 to 1, also bolt changed from being in shear to being in tension. Still further reduction can be achieved by using Tophat's for cladding rails: no pre-punching is required for these, they are fastened in place with self-drilling screws.

The greatest reduction of all is just to have the cladding: no frame, no girts, no purlins. This is the approach taken by USA buildings direct, which has a deep cladding profile, used to build arched buildings. Which appears to be a derivative of the Nissen and Quonset huts of World War II. Not sure how they put light fixtures and such in, without putting holes in the building fabric, but should be ways, not all that different than shell of a car, ship, or aircraft. Anyone, running around finding consulting engineers, to produce standard calc's for lighter shed structures, is not the way to innovate and compete. Engineers need to be on staff, and continuously assessing variations in design, take both end-product and production process into consideration.

Often automation requires heavier sections than manual operations, but the benefit is faster production and more consistent quality of product. Drilling holes manually is slow, and welding is preferable. But manual welding is a high skilled activity, so when the skill not available bolting is preferable. Hotrolled sections typically had to be drilled manually. The drilling was slow, however, cleat plates being small, easy to handle can be punched to form holes. More than that, cleats can be cropped to length and punched with holes in a single operation. So producing cleats and welding to a UB, is faster than drilling holes along the length of the UB for flange to flange bolting. But then rollformed sections came along, these can be punched with holes rapidly, so if suited for frames, can produce a steel framed building more rapidly than with hotrolled steel.  Though it should be noted that prior to hotrolled sections, the traditional way to produce an I-section, was from plate and angles, and lots of rivets: thus lots of rivet holes would have been required. Thus expect that where these riveted beams were being used that technology would develop for rapid production of holes, and so it is that automated beam lines would have taken their initial form. Today there are hi-tech CNC automated beam lines for drilling and welding of hotrolled sections and otherwise fabricating castellated sections and tapered sections. But I hazard that where c-sections are suitable, then c-sections would dominate the market sector. It should also be noted that c-sections typically fabricated from steel with yield strength of 450MPa, whilst hotrolled steel typical strength is 300MPa. Given we don't have mandatory deflection limits, the higher strength steel gives a lower weight structure than the hotrolled steel. If deflections are considered in design, then makes little difference because elastic modulus (E) is the same for both strengths of steel: and a section with appropriate second moment of area needs be found (inertia Ixx, Iyy).

Since deflections are not mandated, once again different designers can make different judgments about appropriate deflection limits and consequently will produce differing designs: one lighter than the other. But does this mean the lighter structure automatically costs less. The simple answer is no. The ligher structure likely to require more fabrication: tapered beams versus UB. If using C-sections, the lighter structure may require more frames placed at closer sections, it may require more flybracing, and it may require connection components not held in stock due to little demand for. Each and every manufacturer has to determine their own production economics, and not compare product to others on assumption of similar production costs.

If a manufacturer or supplier starts off using C150's then they want to get the maximum range of possible buildings from those C150's, so as not to require fabricating additional connection components for say C200's, or should they move into using say C250's? Where does the larger sector of the market lie, would they be better off introducing frames from C250 and having slightly oversized for some buidings, or introduce C200's and loose some projects because cannot accomodate?

We have the simplified wind loading code AS4055, due to economics of manufacturing. It is easier to produce windows and doors suited for wind class N1, than to mess around producing such products for a continuous spectrum of loading conditions. Its better to design for a step class of loading conditions, than a continuous spectrum. Similarly the residential slab and footing code is written around stepped classes, rather than a continuous spectrum. Sure if at the lower end of the class, then custom design may prove more economical on paper, but that doesn't mean that it is viable to get the materials or components. For example the span tables for wind class N1 and N2 are the same: this is largely because something other than wind loading is controlling member size. However, if at the lower end of wind class N2, it may be economical to get tie-down system designed for the AS1170.2 wind load, rather than for the wind class. But if choose to do that, then future attachment of a carport may be problematic, because won't have any reserve in the connections for the extra uplift from the attached carport. Cheaper now, problem in the future. And even if do this for tie-down, the off-the-shelf framing brackets which choose to use, likely to have some surplus capacity, since cannot get the calculated capacity exactly. Further the windows will still have to be N2, if want custom designed then they will be more expensive. Custom designed and custom manufacturerd costs more than stock standard off-the-shelf.

The reason people buy cold-formed sheds is because they want to avoid the delays of design, they want buildings which are already approved for purpose, and so development approval will be a simple matter, and fast. They also want the buildings supplied fast. Delays caused by not getting approval, by not having the right materials in stock, by not having the right designs available, all becomes an irritation to the buyer. The buyer could have gone to an architect and engineer in the first place, then shopped around to find a builder, and got prices on more or less the same thing from each builder. But they didn't because this industry, said it had buildings available, could organise development approval, and custom manufacture. Problem there: is no reference to custom design. Development approval just seen by suppliers as a need to supply a picture of intjention: scribble on an order form. As long as stick within constraints of their standard calc's not a problem, but they are sales people not technical people, they have no idea when they step outside the scope of their standard designs, they rely soley on council to request further information.

Put simply if not buying a shed to put garden lawnmower in, then get drawings produced by an independent party. Take these drawings to the shed producers, and get proper quotes. In first instance drawings don't have to be engineering drawings. The drawings just need detail to obtain planning consent. If planning consent obtained, then can consider requirements for building rules consent. If buying a shed still don't need engineering drawings, but do have to cover all the architectural building issues of the building code. Once got the architectural issues resolved then shop around for service and price. {Don't need building rules consent,just documentation with a high likelyhood of getting the consent without modification.}

If go direct to an engineer, then chances are they will not design anything which is available from any of the shed suppliers. Treat similar to housing. Get plans drawn up, then shop around builders. The builder choses a  timber supplier, and the timber supplier gets a timber estimator to do a materials take-off to the timber framing code (AS1684) or otherwise choose a truss manufacturer and they use software to size the truss members. Once a materials take-off is produced, it is submitted to council to obtain final development approval. All other BCA  issues have however been resolved before the timber framing is sized. Most shed manufacturers and suppliers do not build the shed, nor do they do any of the required siteworks such as carparks, stormwater drainage. So that low cost shed can suddenly become a pallet full of steel dumped on site, waiting for someone to build.

If shed supplier doesn't erect the steel work, they may recommend a builder, if they do so, then they are required to offer at least 3 names of builders. Now some suppliers, have the sheds built, using the services of one or more builders. This can be a cost absorbed in the overall price of the shed, or itemised. These suppliers are typically locked into steel erector fees based on $/sq.m some may base on $/tonne. I will hazard a guess that the original fees were based on $/tonne for hotrolled, but cold-formed steel is lighter construction, so converted original fee into $/sq.m rates. Costs and pricing are complex, at the very core is the need to make enough money for food, clothing and shelter, no matter how much work get. The firefighter has to maintain their skills and make a living whether fighting fires or not. Similarly the welder has to make a living, no matter how much welding work available. Therefore hourly rates are not something which can be fixed or locked in at higher values. Time is money, and selling time is nonsense.

If I modify the design of a shed so that the steel erector can construct more sheds in a year, it doesn't mean that they can win work to build more sheds, or that there are more sheds around to be built. If there is lower demand for sheds, it doesn't mean that the price will drop, the builders have less work to obtain their annual income from, the unit cost per shed will slowly increase, and the number of players in the market reduce. It is a complex juggling and balancing act.

But the building industry in particular seems focused on them over there are breaking the law, their products not up to spec, whilst my product over here twice as good as needs to be. Take them out off the industry. Its really technically inept, and plain nonsense. If product is truly better than the competition, then it will sell at significantly higher price. So if loosing sales to lower priced product, then as a supplier, you have little to no understanding of the real value of your product, nor the real needs of the customer.
Assuming customer is driven by price. {eg. they make $200 /year and after food, have $2 surplus at end of year. So buying a $2000 shed as a home, is a 1000 years of savings} Then the aspect of the price to tackle is not the magnitude, but the payment methods. If have to get a loan, then a higher price, means a larger mortgage and higher interest payments. Builders dealing with large volumes of money daily, therefore should get better deals on loans, and therefore potential to offer lower interest rates. The issue is also the total cost of the project, not just the cost of the building. Therefore need to assist the buyer to understand what the total costs are, so that they can negotiate with suppliers. With one supplier the shed may be a higher price, but the site works at a lower cost than another: yet the total costs for the two are the same. But is what the buyer is getting really the same.

Now if the buyer is driven by price and willing to spend time shopping around, are they also willing to spend time getting to understand the differences between products: to become informed and educated about the product. See the building industry in particular is based mostly on supposedly "secret" knowledge, and a lack of sharing, a lot of bluff. There is a fear of getting caught out, a fear of loosing advantage if others know what you are doing. Yet it is through an educated and informed market place that low quality suppliers are pushed from the market. Informed buyers don't buy based purely on price. However, quality and value are matters of individual perception, so sellers have to develop and build those perceptions.

The cold-formed shed industry basically competes on basis: my rubbish is cheaper than theirs, so buy my rubbish. No why would a surf life saving club, be buy a cheap shed to store thousands of dollars worth or life saving equipment? They would only do that because they didn't give any thought or consideration to their needs, and what would make the most suitable building. If buy a camera, a mobile phone, a car, a computer, then have technical specifications available to assist in making choices. If buy a shed or carport, no technical specifications, just silly brochures with pictures of buildings, not necessarily those built by the supplier. They do not supply technical specifications, because they don't have any. If they did have specifications, they would also consider it telling others what is required to start in the industry. Also there is no accounting for getting approval for one thing, and buying and installing something else.

But once again not always clear cut. There are accusations of selling rural sheds for suburban regions. Such may be so, but what is a rural shed? For the most part, rural sheds are designed to the farm structures code, which permitted a 20% over stress: but not on every rural shed, a shed had to meet specific criteria for that to apply. Buildings with large numbers of workers would not comply. Further just because a code of practice permits lighter structures, does that make economic sense to the individual

For a business, even though not required, it may well be beneficial to have buildings constructed for post-disaster level of importance. Then when a disaster happens, the business is first off the mark, supplying people again. Similarly will that cheap farm building, provide adequate protection to pigs and chickens? That million dollar thoroughbred horse, does it want to be stabled in a cheap shed?

The cost of a structure is not purely dependent on its weight, there is all the associated manufcaturing costs. Even if section size can be reduced, there is no particular reason to do so: as it decreases resistance, decreases durability and robustness, and reduces life expectancy of shed and increases risk of failure. basically it decreases its value.

Now if all supplier has to do is order c-section from rollformer, it may appear that cost of c-section is controlling issue. Still however, the different suppliers have differing over head costs, and the workers different expectations of lifestyle they wish to support. More sales staff, then probably more people sat around doing nothing failing to make sales: but still however needing a basic income to keep going. Further there is still the differing costs of the connection components used by different suppliers.

Even though ordering the c-section, rather than rolling in-house, there is still the economics of excessive variety and availability to consider. Set some standards, eliminate some customer choices, and put a larger volume of larger size c-sections through the rollformers facilities and get trade discount, because reduced the rollformers change over costs and the variety of coil strip they have to have on hand.

The more functions in the supply chain under the control of the one supplier, the more waste which can be removed from the process. So cannot reduce the cost of erection when locked into subcontract at $/sq.m, but bring in-house and the costing can be changed. Move more fabrication off-site and into factory, can implement more automation, faster production and still more unit cost reductions.

See! Personally I don't care that C20019 is adequate for a main frame, because I wouldn't want the frame unless it is 3mm thick or greater, but there is no C20030, so may settle for C20024. Then again walls of brick veneer houses are typically 240mm thick, so therefore a C25024 may be the preferred size to go with. Similarly wouldn't want C7510 girts and purlins, stick with C25024 installed between frames rather than to outer surface. Having chosen a larger section, wouldn't stick with typical 3m spacing, would increase this to limits of the C25024. That is having chosen C25024, design structure to suit.

Those C7510 cladding rails, were originally for fencing. They are relatively dismal sections, and can barely span the 3m spacing of typical frames. The result is that cladding is not installed at its maximum span. Cladding another issue of economics, for manufacturers are always trying to make deeper profiles which span greater distances, problem is they also have less coverage: so whilst have fewer cladding rails to install have more cladding sheets to install. Further greater distances between purlins (roof cladding rails) represents increased hazard working on the roof, either during construction or during future maintenance operations. Whilst for the walls, typicall window sill at 900mm and window head at 2100mm, so for typical small workshop/office need at least 4 girts (wall cladding rails, around the girth). For taller buildings, should girts match spacing of some expected future multiple storeys or mezzanines, or simply relate to maximum cladding spans.

Another issue when considering weight, this is Australia, not the USA, UK or Europe, the weight of snow crushing the building is not an issue. The critical loading condition is wind loading, uplift forces, if make the structure lighter, then have to find some other means of providing the weight to hold it down. The solution is usually a lot of concrete in the footings. Concrete may be cheaper than steel, but drilling the piers could be a problem. Also if floor slab to be installed some time after shed has been built then the weight of concrete in slab not available to assist building hold-down, so larger footing piers required at the beginning.

There are more than the structural mechanics issues to consider, to achieve a building structure which can be supplied at the right price, at the right time, in the right condition.

Clearly some of the larger players have better advertising and promotional campaigns than some of the other players, but they don't necessarily have better products. There is little point in smaller players competing with them across the full range of products. Smaller players need to find the right niche market, and out perform the bigger players in that market sector. For example win the larger buildings on the quality of both goods and service. Sure may still loose some on price, but that just means still haven't got the right product: the appropriate combination of goods and services, and still otherwise failed to educate the public.

Think small local retailer versus supermarket. The supermarket is going to beat the small local retailer on price, the small retailer therefore has to determine the right combination of goods and services that the supermarket cannot supply: specialisation. Rather than looking to compete, look at diversification. Problem with shed industry is everyone jumping on same bandwagon, everyone wanting a piece of the same pie. If seek diversity in the industry, then require innovation, and result is creation of a different pie to offer.

If have exactly the same product, then the cost difference would have to be your profit, wouldn't it? Now if the product varies, then what would the cost difference be? Want the public asking questions about the product, not the price. People can cost the materials retail, and then determine they can get the design done, and build themselves for less money. If that happens, then suppliers have got their product all wrong. Given we have a large DIY and owner-builder population, the building industry really needs to improve its product: goods and services.

Mon 2012-Oct-08  00:11

---

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

Movie: Engineers, Education and Employment: To Sir, with Love. #purposedu

To Sir, with love: one of my favourite movies. I think it is also the basis of Please Sir and The Fenn Street Gang, which I also liked. Also a book we read and studied at school, though we were almost prevented from finishing. Half way through the book, certain words beginning with 'f' were found. Most parents however weren't really concerned, why would they be: most kids learn such words in their first year at school, even if parents never use such words around their kids. Plus many of the parents and kids unable to utter a single sentence without the use of such words. Put simply we were very nearly the kids in the story: therefore more objectionable not to permit us to read it. The same year we also read "A Patch of Blue" and watched the movie. Part of the lessons was comparing the movies and books. Both movies star Sidney Poitier.

In "To Sir, with Love" Sidney Poitier plays an unemployed engineer (Mark Thackeray), the only job he can get being that of a teacher at a school in London's equivalent of a violent playground. The kids don't see any point in learning what is being presented, and don't see any future, even following in their parents foot steps is remote. Is an unemployed engineer, stuck teaching going to convince them otherwise? If getting higher education is so important why his he not employed as an engineer?

When I was at school the teachers were all about you have to get a degree if have any chance of getting a job: therefore being pushed to do grade 11 and grade 12 matriculation. Subjects taken in grade 11 had to follow on to grade 12. But when got to grade 12, the rules relaxed, consequently grade 12 became largely a repeat of grade 11. Move on to university and first year of B.Eng largely a repeat of grade 12. It seemed relatively clear that the only purpose of the exercise, was to keep us from the unemployment queues and keep teachers employed: thus reducing the governments measure of unemployment. As Keith Windschuttle pointed out in the book "Unemployment: a social and political analysis of the economic crisis in Australia : the government statistics significantly under estimate real levels of unemployment.

The Machine that is Industrial Society
As I have mentioned in previous blogs, tradition was to start on the shop floor or construction site, then move into the design office as tracer, then attend night school or through self-learning, move through copy-drafter, to drafter, to design-drafter, to engineer, to chief engineer. If we look to the past, then all are not created equal, one has imagination, and ingenuity and ideas to implement, along with the power of leadership. They will make things happen. This person will be the chief engineer. Clearly if tracer and chief engineer start at the same time, then they will retire at the same time. The tracer will never rise to be chief engineer in that organisation. In fact an exceptionally good chance that the entire personnel in the organisation will retire at the same time. Further more if organisation is based on supplying an essential item, then chances are with in a few years they will have fully satisfied the demand. They will run out of work to do.

For a subsistence agrarian society where all people have access to the land and produce their own food, improving productivity provides more relaxtion time. In industrial society where there is dependency of exchange: increasing productivity starts becoming detrimental rather than beneficial. Where time is sold, reducing time to do the job, is detrimental to ones income. But industrial society became obessed with reducing production time to reduce costs, and that in turn led to higher levels of mechanisation. It should be understood that industrialisation, did not start with the machine age. Buckminster Fuller, in operating manual for spaceship earth: defined craft tools as those made and used by one person working alone, and industrial tools as those made and used by a group of people. As such spoken language is thus considered the first industrial tool. Industrial society is a machine itself and people are reduced to cogs with in this machine. Within industrial society less than 10% of the population are involved in agriculture, there is thus a problem as to what the remaining population do, to achieve access to the available food. Today the problem has extended to a global village.

Now a machine needs a certain number of parts to be fully operational. If we produce more parts than required then they are left stored in a warehouse. In manufacturing it became apparent that paying people to produce stuff stored in a warehouse is wasteful of resources: some statistics indicated that some 2/3rds of the total cost of production were related to inventory and part count. The concept of lean inventory and lean manufacturing were thus introduced. Traditional inventory known as push, with the new inventory concept known as pull. The idea is rather than push goods onto the shelves and hope someone will buy, only produce when there is actual demand, thus let demand pull goods through the system. Basically manufacturing aims to be more like the building industry. though the building industry needs to get more like the manufacturing industry. Its not really about zero inventory, but better balancing the flows within a production system. The idea basically evolved from a supermarket. After world war II, the Japanese visting the USA, were not impressed with Ford, but were with the idea of supermarkets: and they adapted that for their automotive industry. People basically expect the shelves of a supermarket to have what they need no matter what time they arrive at the the store. Though recently since the GFC, local supermarkets have been a bit scarce and unreliable in their supplies. That is currently may have to visit several supermarkets to get all that need: where as the whole idea is a one stop shop.

Back to Education
So back to education. The education system is a low quality supplier operating a push inventory system, filling warehouse shelves. Not surprising then that the pupils rebel against having their time wasted by persons presenting abstract eosteric irrelevances. Students study and learn. Pupils are imposed upon by teachers who present what they choose.

Poitiers, character, in To Sir, with love, is an engineer, not formally trained as a teacher. He adapts and improvises, he dispenses with the formal curriculum, and starts to make the subject matter directly relevant to the pupils needs. He stops treating the pupils as children and starts treating as adults. Reaching the responsibility of adulthood seems to be pushed further and further into the future. Any other species, and by the time they are capable of reproducing, they can look after themselves and have potential to look after the next generation: not so for modern humans. Or at least not in the eyes of teachers and educators: who think we have to learn more and more. The problem with the educators is that they are focused on body of knowledge and not generic competences. Focused on body of knowledge they produce cogs for the machine. Yet one of the first things they teach is: humans the most intelligent and adaptable creature on earth. Not after teachers have finished with them.

Professions and Higher Education
But not just teachers that are part of the problem so are professional bodies. Recently the national committee on engineering design (NCED), within the college of mechanical engineering of the institution of engineers Australia (IEAust), suggested forming a graduate school of mechanical engineering design and manufacture. I will blog on this at a later date. I think this proposal is indicative of a major problem in our modern society, everything seems focused on creating higher level bachelor and masters degrees, because undergraduate degrees are not seen as adequate. Why do we need these higher degrees?

When I was at school (1970's to 1980's) and they were saying how important a degree was. It was apparent that this was not altogether true. New Scientist magazine at the time indicated that there were thousands of people with bachelor degrees, masters and doctrates unemployed in Britain. The higher the degree the less the probability of getting a job. Further more government unemployment agencies, would not send people with higher education to low level jobs, because that would deprive those without education from employment. So the higher educated were deprived of work on expectations that they would get work in the future. Further more several countries were complaining about a brain drain., and technology parks became popular, centred around universities in an attempt to mesh education with industry and get innovation going. People educated by governments in one country were moving over seas to work. That is education and peoples interests did not match local needs. By the 1990's government based education became increasingly commercialised, by the 2000's education had become a major export for many countries. In the early 1990's less than 6% of South Australia's population has a degree, by the 2000's, around 20% had a degree. But not exactly the "Clever Country" the governments had been aiming for.

Currently we are declaring that there is a shortage of engineers, especially design engineers. But is this shortage real. Just because a few businesses cannot find the design engineers they need doesn't mean there is a shortage. I also don't know what they are talking about in terms of lack of design in degrees? It has always been known that lack of design in engineering degrees, and over focus on mathematical analysis. Both the associate diploma and bachelor of technology level studies I did, introduced industrial product design subjects to add a different perspective on design: including perspective drawing rather than orthographic. Also first year B.Eng we were taught that our role as designer was on the drawing board, that the drafters job was presentation and communication, our job to solve the problems. Still many were not happy about being on the drawing board. It should be noted that the proposal indicates a problem in the division between engineering disciplines: its not just mechanical engineers who have poor design skills so do other disciplines. From experience civil/structural engineers here in Australia have appalling design skills, and definitely object to working on a drawing board. Yet are highly critical of drafters. I reiterate the drafters job is to communicate, not solve the design problem, but solve the problem of communicating the proposed solution unambiguously. Drafters are part of a team, they are not subordinate underlings. What we have created is a generation who think that they are smart because of prowess with mathematics, missing what is important to the industry. They think they are an end in themselves, rather than a means to an end.

We do not have a shortage of engineers. There are people queuing up from over seas, trying to get work. For the most part they are wasting time trying to get their qualifications accredited by the IEAust. Why? The IEAust is a voluntary organisation, and there is only one Australian state where the title engineer is protected. There is no need to get educational qualifications accredited to actualy work, or do the work. The one issue may be getting a visa to enter and work in Australia. The government has some extreme constraints in place, to ensure no local is available to do the work, before visa's are granted to seek over seas employees, it also seems to be an expensive exercise for the employer.

The Movie Concludes
No difference there. Poitiers character (Thackeray ) had traveled to various places with the engineering projects he had taken on. For that is partly the nature of engineering, especially civil engineering. Not going to build a new dam or bridge in your back yard. But engineering as a knowledge based paper shuffling activity can be pursued any where. As one of the teachers commented in the movie: "Anyone can be an engineer". Thats the problem in the modern world its all about the formal education, not the actual practice. In the movie clearly the qualified teachers weren't too good at their job, and had given up Thackeray's class as a lost cause. the teachers weren't able to adapt, whilst Thackeray was otherwise killing time until he got another job in engineering. Near the end of the movie, he does get a job offer, but the movie ends as he rips the offer up. He does this after meeting two pupils who will be in the class next year. Why? Probably because the engineering job offer wasn't any where near as challenging as making a difference to the pupils passing through that school.

More on Professions
Professions are not all they are made out to be. As several documentaries have pointed out with respect to supposed glamourous roles of fashion model and air hostess: even if the job itself doesn't seem all that much hard work, there may be a lot of hard ship or discomfort behind the scenes. Even the altruistic role of nurse looses its appeal, once start dealing with the messy side of bodily functions, and otherwise obstructive personalities. As Blaster Bates puts it: John Wayne rides up on his nag, gets off, presses the plunger and the side of a mountain is blown up. No one shows the several days drilling, the placing of explosives and setting of wires: all the hard work that goes into it. And with respect to movies a whole life starts and ends in 2 hours. The Great Wall of China, as magnificent as it is, it would not exist if there weren't thousands of people making and laying bricks. I liked the hammer and sickle flag of the Soviet Union and their attempts to give recognition to the workers.

Engineering is presented falsely and inappropriately to the next generation. Engineers make claims and take credit for what they have not done, and did not contribute. Most promotional campaigns actually introduce students to industrial product design, and trade skills required to make stuff, whilst informing them they need a 4 year degree in engineering. No degree is required, clearly they were just doing it. Something like 25% of those starting a B.Eng actually graduate. Not surprising if they really wanted to take cars and other machines apart and put them back together. And take this gadget and that gadget and assemble togther to produce something to achieve some predefined purpose. Basically they are pushed into the wrong academic programme.

As for civil engineering, thats a major dud. As far as I can tell it is the civil engineers who are most vocal about the lack of status engineers have. They perceive themselves in a grand role, and deserving of high status: due to the infrastructure they contend they provided which makes our modern life styles possible. But they didn't dig the canals, or bake the bricks, or lay the bricks of the great brick arch railway bridges. Further more, the ones currently complaining did not conceive any of the technologies. They are simply cogs in the machine, blood cells in a higher form of life, part of a team that adapts and replicates the provision of these technologies. Just as excess cogs get stacked in warehouses, so to do larger chunks of infrastructure. Empty office blocks, empty factories, empty retail stores, and toll roads and bridges that nobody uses.

Civil engineering is promoted to kids on the basis of great achievements: why? The Sydney Opera House, the Sydney harbour bridge: so what? What do they expect the next group of kids to do? These structures exist already. What is the current global demand for opera houses? What is the current global demand for highway bridges? Where are these bridges required? Having determined the demand for these structures, how many engineers does it take to design and supervise the construction of one bridge? In the modern world are the engineers who design the bridge, the same engineers who supervise construction? Further more where is the engineer really required in the whole exercise? What is the difference between a structural analyst, a stress analyst, mechanist, industrial mathematician and a structural engineer? Compared to the engineers, how many drafters are required, how many steel workers, welders, concrete workers?

Shortages on Everything and Failure to Sustain Expertise
Currently there are claims that we have a shortage of engineers. But we also have a shortage of licensed builders, people moving away from the land producing a shortage of farmers, and also a shortage of skilled trades people. We have a society similar to ancient China: the only way to improve ones lot in life, was to sit the exams which led to a job in the Bureaucracy. In the modern world, it is seen that the only way forward is to get a degree: so generation after generation of parents have worked hard to send their kids to university. Even if university is government sponsored, the actual time away from work and living costs are not. Further more there is the issue of kids working to help bring money in, to support the family: so time at school and university may be seen by many as unproductive waste. This was part of the issue in the movie "To Sir, with love". On the other hand government grants have been seen by many as a way of making a living: some people are very good at knowing all that is available. Whilst those for which the assistance is actually made available are completely unware of it.

Anycase getting a degree as become the issue: not real learning. The fundamental requirement is to learn how to pass the exams and get a degree: the ticket to employment. Except its not a ticket to employment, its a relatively unreliable indicator of required competence. Further more most job advertisments are for persons with 5 to 10 years experience. Why?

A degree in engineering is considered foundational knowledge and stage 1: enabling competence. A B.Eng has very little to do with the actual job practiced by so called engineers. Thus graduates require at least 3 years on the job practice, to become knowledgeable about the actual work, and develop some proficiency. Several years more practice, and proof of actual competencies acquired is required before considered fully qualified by the professional organisations which self-regulate the professions. None of which is really necessary to the actual practice of engineering. Its just that engineers employ engineers: its a professional culture thing. Members of a profession like to think they are the only ones that can do the job, or do the job right. Thus today Thackeray as an engineer would never get a job teaching unless it was teaching engineers.

Where as during the Renaissance, and industrial revolution learning was driving innovation, today formal education is killing innovation and creativity: its puts people into boxes. Cogs: education: it makes them, packs them and ships them out.

It most absolutely is not paper shuffling engineers that we need to be educating. Our cities have moved from primary industry through manufacturing to service industry. The main service industry being built are financial industries.

It partly makes sense. There are around 1 billion people on earth, in need of housing. Many of these people have less than $2 to spare after food each year. So even a $2000 steel shed about 6m x 6m, no concrete floor and no interior fitted out to make it comply with what our building codes consider habitable, would take about 1000 years to pay off, and thats before interest payments thrown in. The building won't last that long. So some creativity is required finding means of bringing about transactions between those who need and those who can supply. At the most basic either the cost of production severely dropped, or the incomes of the buyers significantly increased. Or the lifestyles of the sellers significantly reduced.

We live in a market driven economy, where law and business management are important. Result, degrees in economics, accounting, business and law tend to be chosen. Similarly degrees in computer science and information technology. Just one problem though who supplies the ideas for the businesses, and what are the computers put to use doing?

One principle criticism of Engineers Australia (IEAust) and APESMA is the over emphasis on MBA's. Personally I consider if MBA's are important, then they studied the wrong engineering discipline, they should have been studying industrial engineering not mechanical or civil engineering.

As I indicated above, the buildings and bridges exist already, many are not being used, so what is the future demand for these things? Sure it is often pointed out (by engineers), that engineers have crossed over to business but few if any have gone from business to engineering.

But they missed an important point. Most innovation takes place at the coal face, not in a consultants offices. It is trades people who want to do their jobs differently that seek innovative technology. Teach those on the shop floor more science, and give freedom, they will innovate.

Legend, folklore has it, that Toyota gave its workers an old power press and indicated they could play, experiment with it. They did so and dropped die change over time to around 3 minutes, they started aiming for 1 minute change over times in all processes. At the time Ford, thought this was a myth, and stayed with 12 hour change over time. When they discovered it was true, they did some improvment and dropped time to 4 hours. Culture was and is considered the major obstacle to further improvement. {Or so I recollect the story.}

The point is in Japanese organisations Industrial Engineers enable workers, rather than impose systems on them. Engineering is about enabling and educating. Getting a degree is a privilege, and makes a person a member of an elite few: there is a certain obligation to assist others: more so if education was government assisted.

Many modern engineers have an arrogant stance of superiority: you have to spend 4 years to get a degree to know how to do this. Rubbish: you do not need to spend 4 years at university to learn how to design a beam, nor select components of a machine. Our predecessors most definitely learnt such things on the job on an as needs basis. More than that, they developed the theories, right there on the job. But modern engineers think everyone else in the industry is subordinate, and that they the engineers drive the projects. No they don't. People with the needs drive the projects, especially in the building and mechanical industries. New innovative machines are more likley to have been built and operated by trades people, before any so called engineer has looked at them. It should be understood that these trades people are better at visualising and building the machines or buildings, than drawing them symbolically on paper: and as I said, they are usually the people with the need. Which raises another problem is the so called engineers do invent something, its all on paper and probably in the form of drawings or worst mathematical formulae: merely an untested theory. They then have to communicate this idea to a trades person: and 2D drawings don't always communicate the idea of a 3D object successfully. Like that sentence: cumbersome.

Now with the traditional system they started with the trade, worked their way into the drawing office, into the design office, and ultimately into businesss management. Most new production businesses, tend to be started by trades people: not engineers or architects. The latter tend to only create businesses which shuffle paper, and tend to have derogatory comments about accountants, public servants and others they consider to be the paper shufflers. Engineers believe they produce real things. Well so do the accountants, who made the money available for the project. The TV adverts for chartered accountants are superior than anything the IEAust has ever put out. Even the make it so campaign was something of a dud: a letter in January's edition of "Engineers Australia" magazine questioned the expenditure: apparently $2.5 million. Of the many proposals, some 5000 I believe, the one selected was relatively dull: convert agricultural waste into fuel. Sure it fitted with Engineer Australias, 2011's year of humanitarian engineering. But it doesn't really require innovation, or too much ingenuity: the requests concerning biomedical engineering did. As far as I know little progress made on the project, other than engineering students playing engineer. What really is EWB, but engineering students dumping poorly designed junk on the people of developing countries? {Possibly a bit harsh} 

Engineer's really should stop complaining about plumbers and train drivers using the name. They mostly have the name as a consequence of history. Others in the modern world have it as a consequence of a market driven economy: it sounds good. If the title engineer doesn't have status why would these others adopt it? what is it  they are trying to say when they adopt such titles? What do hair doctors and hair engineers do, that hair dressers and barbers don't? In the main they are implying they do something better, something more, something different than others in their industry. It does not in any way detract from what other engineers do. It is the other engineers who detract from themselves: for they aren't as important as they believe themselves to be. Hair engineer is not a profession, its a business, and if it cannot attract a market, or truly demonstrate superiority to others in the industry they will cease to operate: if not clearly seen as a joke by other members of said industry.

Modern civil engineers, and others are a joke. Telford was a stone mason, not a paper shuffler, what he designed could be built, and he could build it. But the bridges he built were far too large for him to build alone, so many more masons and other wokers needed to be coordinated: by the person who designed the bridge: to ensure the design was implemented. Many engineers never get near the real thing. Many builders think engineers and architects do not know what they are doing: a bunch of idiots.

To clarify, many engineers also spend their time fixing the problems caused by other engineers: people are paying twice for engineering. Potential therefore exists to double fees, and push still higher until people no longer willing to pay twice, and thus start pushing the low quality suppliers out off the market. It is civil, mechanical, and other engineers themselves who are responsible for lack of status: not those they accuse of stealing the title. The original engineers emerged from trades, or gave rise to trades. So they haven't stolen the title: rather there has been division of labour and each new occupation has retained the title. Mathematical analysis doesn't make a person an engineer any more than swinging a hammer. It is their ingenuity that made the ancient engineers. This is lacking in modern engineers: sure some have, but not all. It is the "not all" engineers have ingenuity that is the problem.

This problem is not resolved by declaring a shortage of engineers, and fast tracking people through a 4 year B.Eng in 3 years via summer vacation programmes. Nor by fast tracking people to Chartered status  (CPEng) and registration on national register (NPER). They are not engineers, and it is not engineers that are required: so why diminish the status, spend so much time complaining about. As Indicated above there is a problem of professional culture: engineers will only employ engineers to do any part of their job. The industry hasn't just lost experience: it really has no idea what needs to be done, and how to get it done.

Cogs for the Machine, and Problem of Sustainable Flows
The engineers claiming a shortage of engineers are looking for cogs for the machine, and are seemingly unware of the engineering team defined by the WFEO agreed to by the IEAust. They are also clearly unaware of history.

When I graduated, the first time, there were drafters and design-drafters with some 30 years experience, giving graduate engineers a hard time and otherwise showing them the ropes, and training the new drafters. Some 10 years, later I was the experienced one. Those with the 30 years experience had disappeared, they had not been sustained in the industry. There is a problem of flow. Some 10 years later, would make those previously with 30 years experience, those with 40 years experience and close to retirement, if not already retired. But if flows were sustained then there would still be people with 30 years experience in the industry. Some of our larger and older consultancies became filled with graduates with no real experience. At the dawn of the industrial revolution that would not have been a problem, also for industries today dealing with new technology, not a problem. For in such situations there are no as yet performance standards set, and the technologies and publics expectations have not become established. But for the building and construction industry and most manufacturing, the technologies are established and expectations of performance are high. This economy up and down like a yoyo doesn't assist in sustaining local capability and competence.

I don't have an objection to people getting degrees, I object to industry making irrelevant academic qualifications necessary to get a job, and otherwise complaining about the lack of competence of the graduates. Kids like those in the movie should be able to enter industry without need for getting a degree.

The industry should sustain its 40 years experience, and I don't mean 4 people with 10 years experience each: which is the rubbish many modern businesses are talking about. A business can only really have experience equal to that of its oldest member. So if someone founds a business at 20, and they are still going at 80, then the business has 60 years experience. If that person retires and the next inline only has 40 years experience, then the business cannot have more than 40 years experience. The experience from the first 20 years has not been sustained. It is highly unlikely to have a business where a person with 60 years experience, retires and is replaced by equal each and every year. Even 40 years is likely to be a struggle. Some industries like the automotive industry, where traditionally it took 20 years to get a design from the drawing board to the production line, may be able to sustain a presence of 40 years of experience, and possibly build upon that experience.

The building industry for example should have some 2000 to 4000 years of experience to build on: but it doesn't because the knowledge is neither passed on or sustained in the industry. Why complete an apprenticeship and become a full carpenter, when only requirements of job are to use nail gun and circular saw and throw house frames together. The profession not relevant to the needs of industry. Likewise for porfession of engineer. There is no need to fast track people through B.Eng programmes. I think it was early last year it started to dawn on some that TAFE level education is all that was required to meet needs. Especially has seen a decline in university enrolments and TAFE enrolments: mining and construction boom tends to lead to many highly paid unskilled labour jobs. Since education has been increasingly commercialised, people looking for some kind of employment to finance higher education. Unskilled labour jobs one way. But such jobs not available in a down turned economy. The mining and construction boom, is an here again gone again the next minute proposal. It cannot get going: its spluttering along. Thats because there is a skills shortage. Unfortunately industry is filled with people with no idea what skills are required. Most think they need to be replaced or replicatde by someone with the same academic education as themselves. To start with no one is going to get the exact same education. Even with professional bodies accrediting the degrees, there is no consistency in competence and capability. Further more none of the academic programmes match the specific needs of the individual business.

Business is becoming increasingly dependent on what it can buy rather than what it can make. Take software for example. Micosoft Windows XP, may have worked perfectly fine out of the box, on the computers first installed on: today with all the security updates those same computers are probably barely capable of operating: the principle virus/irritant in use of computers is allowed through all the protection: and that is windows automatic update: switch it off and get constant warnings that computer is at risk. The business starts being controlled by its suppliers. In similar manner business instead of producing the personnel it needs relies on others to supply. But given that some 95% of all businesses are small business accounting for some 48% of employment: most are not in a position to provide the training to meet the requirements of some profession. Additionally after providing training, the employees either go and get a higher level job else where, or quit and set up there own business: and otherwise take work away from their former employer.

As the principal rebel in the movie indicated: he had his own barrow and therefore wasn't dependent on certificates and recommendations from the school to get a job. Though as much as he disliked school, teachers and the system, he was offered assistance to get a job teaching boxing. Who you know is important, and so is what you can do with what you know. What you know is of no importance what so ever.

Knowing how to calculate stresses in materials is of no value. There has to be some proposed physical system in which it is important to know the material stresses before being able to calculate has any value. As I said the buildings and bridges are there. Or are they?

To get the mining and construction boom going, the resources have to be able to get from the Australian interior to the coast and be loaded on ships, to be transported over seas. Where no doubt these raw materials will be transformed into high value added product and imported back into Australia.

Anycase the ports and harbours need expanding, along with railways, and cross country conveyor systems, and the localised mechanical handling plant. But this is all expansion of established technologies. Its not oh! how do why mine coal and iron ore and get it from A to B? As an industrial society we should know, for we are doing it already. But these things are built once not every year. However they do need to be maintained every year. However maintaining doesn't require calculating what size electric motor is required to drive the belt conveyor: that has already been determined and specified. Just need to keep replacing with similar specified. It is more the management of technology that is required than the design or the analysis. But we keep churning out civil and mechanical engineers when these are not the people we really need: and keep complaining of shortages and lack of capability.

The people required to maintain are different than the people required to analyse and specify. There is little design involved, the form of the technology is predetermined. Some organisation some where should hold the calculations carried out for the original systems, preferable the one held responsible for maintaining. Actually maintaining is not very smart, any opportunity to improve should be taken. If shut down a system, don't repair it, but improve it. Preferably carrying out the analysis to make sure a change is an improvement. Still require fewer people to do the analysis than to implement the actual change.

Though there is another problem. Mining takes place in remote areas, may be once every 6 months people get to see the city, many become alcoholics or become extremely depressed. So not actually many locals who want to do the work. In the modern world people want the benefits of the city they were born into, being a pioneer out in the wilderness not very attractive. Being the one that makes the bricks to build the great wall also not all that desirable: too many want to be emperor and have status handed to them. There are lifestyles people want to maintain: for many that is the night life in a big city, not available in an isolated mining town. It is part of the reason that 2012 is Engineers Australia's year of regional engineering. Though thus far concentrated on those in the regions, rather than what they do, and any need for more people there.

Sun 2012-Mar-18  01:06AM

I will write more when I blog about the proposal for graduate school of design. But basically we already have the designers, they are called industrial product designers. Secondly most design occurs on a drawing board, it concerns issues of dimension and geometry, it requires familiarity with the technology, the kind that trades people and design-drafters typically acquire. Such dimension and geometry typically has to be resolved, before any mathematical analysis can be carried out. If the drafters with the 30 years experience have been lost, then so has what needs to go on the drawings. The established has just changed into inventing an inferior version of the wheel, finding 1000 ways a light bulb doesn't work: because as a society we no longer know what does. Why? Because a bunch of idiots said technology changing by the minute, therefore don't teach about the technology, teach generic science. Technology is not changing by the minute, it mainly builds on previous technology. The new technologies cannot be provided if the foundations on which it is built crumble and disappear. We have to sustain the established, especially the human scale technologies. If the population is getting degrees, then the entry level qualification for tracer becomes a degree. What is currently happening is that people are getting degrees and then put into positions where expected to supervise others. This is not just throwing them in the deep end, and seeing if they can swim, it is placing others at risk. There should be proper transition, from tracer, to drafter, to design-drafter, at least, if not a requirement to spend more time on shop floor or out in the field. Though more time on drawing board probably best for both trades and engineers. Drawings are a safer prototype to play with. If the academic education is of any value then even the one year qualified technician will achieve design-drafter status in 12 months. After 2 years, the 2 year qualified engineering associate will have progressed to analysis. Depending on the nature of projects after 3 to 5 years, they will be able to take projects from concept to completion with out need for supervision. For those with more than 2 years of formal education, well most of it is directed at advanced mathematical analysis, and unfortunately it is very unlikely that the majority will ever get to use any of it. So for the most part, degrees of 3 years and more they are just a personal things, a professional recognition thing, they have little to do with the needs of industry. Far better off getting multiple 2 year qualifications, in the appropriate areas of practice, and putting the knowledge directly to use. Barring as I said, that there is a professional culture problem: and they won't employ unless have same degree they have. We need  to destroy this arrogance of superiority that some engineers exercise, and build the industries back up. We need to put the foundations back, we cannot float a pinnacle in fresh air.

Engineers are part of the problem. Engineers complain about the accountants and bean counter business managers and owners, but fail to recognise they are themselves part of the same group of paper shufflers. They are equally responsible for destroying the foundations of our industrial technological systems: the loss of technical knowledge and expertise from within industry. A lot of the big national consultancies for example bid for jobs, win them, then go looking for the people they need. Problem is those sole practitioner contract drafters and engineers with the experience are not around any more. Further more they didn't get their experience on contract, they got it working on staff in government departments of large engineering fabrication companies which did their own RD&D. The work practice report methodology of the IEAust for chartered status is crazy, there are few really experienced people out there to actually supervise and ensure real competence is passed on or developed: most of those experienced people are close to retirement or semi-retired. Semi-retired because the experience is needed and secondly they are the transition group in the change over to superannuation: and therefore super is not adequate and nor is the pension. Plus likely to get bored to death in retirement. Even so, many not really in good health to keep going and handle the stress and pressures of the job. So need the experienced to be able to take a back seat whilst the younger next generation deal with the pressures. Basically the businesses and industries need to be redesigned, to sustain their needed knowledge and skills.


Sun 2012-Mar-18  02:04AM

Notes:
1) Approximate reading time 35 minutes.

REVISIONS:

1. Original