No Professional Cult Should be Permitted to Dictate A Person's Occupation

I part found what I was looking for, the article:

A Short History of Professional Engineers in Australia
by Dr. Brian E. Lloyd, AM, HonFIEAust. {I don't have a formal copy of the article, but last time I found it I copy/pasted it into a text file. The website now seems to be dead.}

Though what I was actually looking for maybe in the longer article: Engineering in Australia: A Professional Ethos. Any way the quotes are from the first article.

Specifically, in the 1990s, the drive that arose within labour unions for competency-based recognition as an engineer, without qualifications, could not have occurred. There would have been no need, therefore, for the protective measure of admitting Engineering Technologists and Engineering Associates to membership. But let us return the narrative of our actual professional evolution.

What does without qualification mean? What is a qualification, if not recognition of competence?

The Charter defined the Objects and Purpose, and the Powers, of the Institution, in regard to the primary purposes relating to recognition and professional status, in the following clauses: 

4. The other objects and purposes of The Institution are:

(a) To raise the character and status and advance the interests of the profession of engineering and those engaged therein.
(b) To maintain contact and communicate with the governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and of its States and Territories and with local and municipal governing bodies and other public and private organisations on matters of concern to engineers, and to the engineering profession and to the wider community.
(c) To increase the confidence of the community in the employment of engineers by admitting to The Institution only such persons as shall have satisfied the Council of The Institution that they have an adequate knowledge of both the theory and practice of engineering.
(d) To promote honourable practice and repress malpractice and to settle disputed points of practice and to decide all questions of professional usage and etiquette affecting members of The Institution.
5. The Institution shall have the following powers:
(a) To encourage the study of engineering and to improve and elevate the general professional and technical knowledge of persons engaged or intending to engage in the profession of engineering and for such purposes to test by examination or otherwise the competence of such persons and to donate on such terms and conditions as may from time to time be prescribed prizes or other awards or distinctions and grant certificates and institute and establish scholarships grants and other benefactions.

Interesting I haven't noticed the institution do any of that. I reiterate, my viewpoint, the Institution of Engineers Australia, the trading company Engineer Australia, is not a learned society, or otherwise can only be considered the world's most useless learned society.

There is no truth in the myth that the Institution did not want to engage in the ‘dirty
business’ of industrial relations. It was legalities that prevented the Institution from pursuing that objective: as a body of both employees and employers, the Institution could not be registered as an association of employees before the Commission.

In 1946, the leaders of the Institution fostered the formation of the new body, the Association of Professional Engineers, Australia (APEA), and they gave unstinting support to the quest for status and reward for employee engineer members. It was a long road to success.

Interesting, yet the institution is still confused and operates more like a trade union, demanding closed shops than fulfilling the functions of a  learned society.

Mr Newlands explained that the case could not be based simply upon defining a profession on the basis of functions performed. That had been tried in the USA in the 1950s, when the Taft Hartley Act was intended to protect the professionally qualified people by defining a profession in terms of functions performed by members. But the US courts held that if a person, qualified or not, could demonstrate performance of even limited professional functions, they had to be accorded professional status.

Professional status is not the issue. Competence to do the job, that needs doing, is the issue. If the professional cult requires a fake honours degree, no problem with that, if you want to join the cult then that's what you have to have. However, membership of a professional cult does not equate to competence to do the work that society needs doing.

A four year degree is not required to be able to use applied mechanics and design structures to be fit for purpose. A bachelor degree isn't required to design machines, HVAC systems, or electrical devices. I'm not talking about trivial calculations in manufacturers catalogues to select components, I'm talking about using technical science to evaluate fitness-for-function.

The equation M=WL/8 is a trite calculation, and to spend a 40 year career stuffing numbers through such formula is not engineering. An engineering associate can use such formula, they can also derive it from first principles, including formula such as M=wL^2/12 for indeterminate beam. If they can't then they are not engineering associates.

Many years back, I was at a chartered status introductory meeting. A person who may have been an engineering associate asked if they needed to be able to design a concrete column. My view was, well it's part of your formal education, so yes, if you are structural. I didn't say anything. The presenter indicated it depended on area of practice.

Engineering Associates can design, roads, stormwater drainage systems, HVAC systems and electrical systems for buildings. Associate Technologist maybe a better name, as they are dealing directly with specific technologies. Much of the design is a drafting exercise. Much of design is also a documentation exercise. Engineering Associates tend to work on projects where the bulk of design is on a "drawing board", and it is necessary to move back and forth between drawing and calculation. I don't know what use a structural engineer is, that doesn't work on a drawing board: I wouldn't hire them. (eg. Bolts don't fit in flange of  steel beam. Too much steel reinforcement in cage to actually get concrete in to form a reinforced concrete beam)

The High Court of Australia and the Professional Engineers Case (1959-61) established the principle of definition by qualification: a Professional Engineer is one who possesses a qualification recognised by the Institution, as the prerequisite for the performance of professional engineering work.

If engineering is, work which can only be done by the professional engineer, then I don't have a problem. If engineering is everything that a professional engineer does, then I have a problem. The Queensland legislation is a problem, and hindering largely because it does not contain an acceptable definition of engineering.

Many keep complaining that engineering has become commoditized. It has not, the stuff that has become commoditized is not engineering. Adapting established technologies for a specific purpose applying scientific principles is not engineering. It is technical design.

Engineering takes place where we do not have an established body of technical science, do not have an established technology. Engineering is a high risk activity, making decisions in the face of extremely incomplete knowledge, with highly uncertain outcomes: but not by wild guessing.

Therefore we need to be clear that designing a beam is not engineering, designing a building is not engineering. The engineering begins when the literature doesn't provide an answer, and we have to do experiments/testing for reasons more than simply to collect data. Determining the breaking load of a structural connection is not engineering. It is just applied science, and can be done by technicians.

Have the profession, have the status, be elitist. But don't claim something is engineering because you have deficient education and believe you are the only subspecies of humanity that can do the work.

By 1989, the number of engineers of working age in Australia was just over 92,000, while membership of the Institution had fallen to less than 37 per cent of that number. Engineering academics and the Institution were failing to project an image of value to engineering graduates.

As before, Engineers Australia is a poor quality learned society. Membership is expensive and it provides no learned value. Most professional engineers working for large organisations would have little problem paying the fees. But owner operators of small consultancies would consider otherwise. More importantly though, afford it or not, it has to have value, and if looking for a learned society then it has no value.

A learned society is the guardian of a body of knowledge, it provides focal point for discussion of actual practice and problems met in practice. It is not a discussion group for industrial relations problems and issues of status and prestige. Its task is to ensure a body of knowledge is understood and put to proper use.

There was no ambiguity as to professional occupational identity, and well-designed educational provisions were in place for the para-professional occupations of the engineering work force. At that time, any idea of combining professional engineers and engineering technical officers and drafting officers within a ‘profession of engineering’ would have been treated as a sick joke, perpetrated by people having no grasp of the path travelled by the Profession of Engineering in the previous 40 years.

Yes, well in that 40 years you should have defined engineering without reference to the word engineer. You still haven't got adequate definition of engineering. So an engineer meets the educational requirements of the WFEO Washington accord. So what? It doesn't make everything they do engineering.

The achievement of a well-recognised professional status came with change in attitudes to collective representation. When everyone has a degree denoting professional status, sight is lost of a need for a qualifying association. Today, well-paid engineers consider that an engineering degree and a good curriculum vitae do not need an added hallmark of Institution membership. The Institution now is confined to functions that most engineers ignore: learned society functions, accrediting degree courses and hallmarking for Chartered status. By 1999, out of a Professional Engineering Labour Force of some 138,000 engineers of working age in Australia, only 38,000, or 28 per cent, were members of the Institution. In the absence of any overt action to promote and defend the occupational identity and professional status, Professional Engineers at large saw no value in membership.

But it doesn't perform the functions of a learned society. That which it does do, is not anywhere near good enough.

The ideal of collective representation came under additional pressure in the era of economic rationalism, individualism and competition. In the evolution of social change, first came deengineering, as exemplified in local government: the well-known engineering identity of the Shire Engineer was transformed into ‘manager of technical services’, implying that engineering was a secondary feature and that a professional engineer was not necessarily required. Towards the end of the 1980s, the major engineering employers were the public works departments, electricity commissions, roads and water authorities, and similar public sector engineering organisations.  However, all soon were dismantled or reduced to shadows. Even as early 1990, a notable feature was the large number of engineers self-described as sole practitioner consultants, the results of public-sector ‘reform’, as outcomes of ‘downsizing’, ‘outplacement’ and early retirement.

Once again, they don't know what engineering is, hence the task at hand gets done by a manager. The technology exists its been implemented, it's there, its working. It doesn't need engineers to invent it, it doesn't need engineers to figure out how science can determine if a proposal is  fit-for-function. We now have the technologies and we know what the science is, and how to apply it to the technology, the engineering is over. Last year's engineer is this years technician. The task is now to apply, adapt, operate, manage and maintain. Irrespective of the title on your degrees you are not doing engineering: you are not engineers.

Another politically correct ideology also arose. In the early 1990s the Institution had to
combat the metals unions and the Commonwealth Public Service against a doctrine of irrelevance of education to occupational competence. In response we took control of the educational and competency definition of the Professional Engineers, Engineering Technologists and Engineering Associates, by creating carefully defined Institution membership grades. We defeated the competency ideology. We protected the professional identity of engineers. By the end of the 1990s, even in the new circumstances of social change, the Profession of Engineering was in as good a shape as it could be. But then the white ants began to gnaw.

They protected the identify of professional engineers maybe, but crippled our technical workforce, with confusion. They didn't create an identity for engineering associates, they created an identity for engineering officers. A thing no one in industry had heard about before.

A new factor arose in the 1990s: a restructuring of the leadership of the Institution according to the ideology of business: the Council was reduced from a widely representative body to a small number, who soon forgot that the core ‘business’ the Institution remained as promotion and protection of the interests of professional engineers.

QED. Not a learned society. A rum corp, a professional cult.

In 2005 our forgetful leaders became intent upon a redefinition of the Profession of
Engineering as including technical officers, the para-professionals with 2-year TAFE diplomas, the academic equivalent of about one year of degree studies. They were forestalled by the vote of Corporate Members, but their intentions remain. The present leaders of the Institution are prepared to flout the will of members, as it was clearly expressed in 2005, and they ignore the Charter of the Institution. How is it possible to support the idea that a person with a 2-year TAFE diploma could be a member of the Profession of Engineering? The proposition is ludicrous.

This is arrogant garbage. The profession was not and has not been redefined. Engineering associates are not professional engineers, engineering technologists are not professional engineers. None of them carry out the task that is professional engineering.

The problem is the professional engineers are not performing professional engineering, because they cannot properly define engineering. If the engineering technologist can do the work, it is not professional engineering. If the engineering associate can perform the work it is not professional engineering. If you have the 4 year degree, do something that requires the degree, something which only a person with such degree can do. Or simply accept that you are not engineers, that your education alone does not make you an engineer.

And a 2 year TAFE diploma is not the academic equivalent of about 1 year of a degree. They don't understand the AQF, and have made no real effort to properly articulate qualifications.

A certificate I is not a 1 week program to avoid tripping up over your own boot laces and falling in a ditch. A certificate I qualification is defined relative to an area of practice, an area of competency, relative to an occupation or vocation.

There has been a split in the AQF, such that at level 6, an Advanced Diploma is considered lower status than an Associate Degree. Nonetheless, both an Advanced Diploma and an Associate Degree will typically grant status to 2 years of a 3 year or 4 year bachelor degree. Though they are not properly designed to properly articulate from one level to the other.

By 2009, out of a Professional Engineering Labour Force of some 189,000 engineers of
working age in Australia, just under 38,000, or 20 per cent, are members of the Institution. The remaining 4 out of 5 Professional Engineers at large see no value in membership. If the intended debasement of the ‘Profession’ succeeds, and engineers at large realise that their professional status has been undermined by the Institution, their indifference is likely to be replaced by hostility.

Once again, the institution is not a learned society, it has no value. It became a full trading company, it sells MIEAust, CP.Eng and NER credentials irrespective of whether it is indirect. Legislation would provide legitimacy to such sales, where none should exist.

If the profession has been debased it is because they are not doing engineering and do not know what engineering is.

When we see such views espoused by our current leaders, we are witnessing rejection of the 90 years of professional heritage. In their view, what we created was a waste of time.
Unless the Institution can regain its primary purpose, in representing and protecting the
professional status of Professional Engineers, it has no relevant future.
In this, our 90th year, if engineers at large no longer see value in a clear professional identity, and no value in the interdependence denoted by membership of their professional Institution, the professional ethos is dissipated among isolated individuals. We no longer have a Profession. Can we hope for a resurgence of professional consciousness before our centenary?

I do believe that 2019 is the centenary, thats this year. The function is not to protect the professional status of engineers, it is to be a learned society, to be guardian of a body of knowledge, to extend the existing body of knowledge, to ensure that body of knowledge is applied correctly.

If professional engineers want improved status then they should do professional engineering, and not do the work of engineering associates. Furthermore they shouldn't be diminishing the status of engineering associates to drafters, so that professional engineers can then falsely claim the work they are doing is professional engineering. If want the status of professional engineer, then do professional engineering, put that 4 year degree to work: or shut up.

So I suggest engineering associates regain control over their occupation, starting by scrapping the engineering officer title and the traditional title and adopting a new title: Associate Technologist. The work you do is technical design. Sure a professional engineer can do it, or should be able to do it, but it is not professional engineering.

The word engineer and engineering needs to be ripped from legislation. We need to make it clear what technical design is, and how it differs from engineering. It needs to be made clear what an Associate Technologist controls, and why a professional engineer needs to back off and stay out off the way. But also need to make clear when the professional engineer takes control.

However, it should be clear that the education of all persons is inadequate, and all people need both a greater depth and breadth of knowledge. Because bean counting technicians the likes of professional engineers have been making a mess of society, and they need to be stopped.

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[11/02/2019] : Original

Not Opposed to Engineers, just those who Claim Sole Use of the Word and Distort Language

Just in case anyone has got the idea I don't like engineers, that is not so. The thing I dislike is professional cults claiming sole use of a word and then distorting the use of language.

Here in Australia, we had an institute of engineering associates, and in south Australia we had an industrial award for technical officers. The award being named: Draughtspersons, Planners And Technical Officers Award. {Though at the moment I cannot find a digital version. Hopefully I still have the printout to check its details. But fairly certain it also included South Australia in the title, though other states do have similar. Though some variations replace the term technical officers with technical workers}

The technical officers award referred to engineering technicians and engineering associates. The engineering associates were at a higher pay and responsibility level than technicians. The academic award was typically an Associate Diploma for engineering associates and some Advanced Certificate for technicians. In terms of the new Australian Qualification Framework, engineering associates would have an Associate Degree or Advanced Diploma (AQF-6), whilst technicians would have a Diploma (AQF-5) or Certificate IV (AQF-4). Technicians are not drafters and nor are engineering associates. Duration of education does not determine if a person can design or "engineer", it is the type of education which does.

Thus a 2 year Associate Diploma in Mechanical Drafting is not the same as a 2 year Associate Diploma in Mechanical Engineering. The latter can calculate forces, stress and strains, do the calculations necessary to make a mechanical system fit-for-function, or a structural system for that matter. Depending or where the engineering associate studied they may have sat in the exact same lectures as those studying for a 4 year B.Eng.

When the IEAust (now full trading company Engineers Australia) absorbed the institute of engineering associates in the 1980's, at first it seemed a good thing: as it made the IEAust similar to the UK institutions. Having all grades in the one institution should be good for a learned society tasked with disseminating knowledge, and otherwise identifying flaws and deficiencies in accepted practice (eg. Australia standards and codes of practice are highly deficient, but know real forum to discuss such.).

Unfortunately the move by Engineers Australia turned out to be a political tactic, and more aligned to sabotaging our technical workforce than improving it. As the only interest, of a large segment of Engineers Australia membership, is those with the 4 year B.Eng.

It is tiresome listening (reading), about these idiots claiming sole right to the title engineer, declaring that plumbers, train drivers, sound recordists, aircraft mechanics, steel fabricators are not engineers and have no right to the title. My question is compared to history, and contribution to scientific knowledge, contribution to developing technology, contributing to advancing society, what do these mere number crunchers do that is of value and worthy of title engineer? These people in the main only have a subset of the skills that their worthy ancestors had, and so have no more right to the title than a plumber or train driver.

These number crunchering B.Eng's are also of limited importance to society and civilisation: as they didn't discover the knowledge, didn't figure out how to apply to develop technology, didn't build civilisation and are certainly not required to maintain or advance it further.  Mostly they have used legislation directly or indirectly to push themselves into a place where they are not needed and are mostly an hindrance, and are otherwise not wanted. In the main design something once, and make millions of times. Design is also mostly qualitative not quantitative, so prowess with mathematics is not a benefit to the task: being a mere number cruncher makes the person a nuisance to a project not a benefit. And all the testing to get the B.Eng is about number crunching.

So when the institute of engineering associates was absorbed, the academic programmes were also ignored. With emphasis placed on the stupid notion that a clever country is the one with the most graduates with bachelor degrees, and the largest percentage of population with bachelor degrees. There is no point in having large numbers of people in design and management if got no one willing or capable of doing the making and building. The industrial awards give people with bachelor degrees higher wages irrespective of needs of the business: though there are some market forces at play, the market has to push wages above the minimums in the awards before it has any influence, and that may not happen if the award wages are too high.

The politics was increase the number of degree qualified engineers, get into management, limit employees to these people, and then seek legislation to further restrict work to the degree qualified. Warning: Queensland, the renown banana republic, Australia the land of the rum corp, why would the rest of the nation want to implement their silly form brigade (RPEQ's): it certainly does not have anything to do with technical competence and protecting the public.

..o0o..

Hello! Queensland floods: again! Super competent they are! Flood design, qualitative first, quantitative second. Qualitative: rain typically falls at the top of hills, runs downhill toward the ocean (high school geography). If have flooding then too much water, moving too slowly towards the ocean: so what's blocking it, what is holding it back? Why is it overflowing the banks of rivers, and designed drainage channels? Where is it falling and where is it collecting? This is all descriptive on the ground, what have we got? Very little complicated about it. What are the political hurdles? If you are a kid growing up in Queensland, what would you want to do, solve the flooding problem or join a professional cult? Hopefully you choose solving the flooding problem, because joining a professional cult won't provide the solution. Clearly civil engineers skills are deficient, clearly environmental engineers skills are also deficient. If the problem could be solved by application of established technology then wouldn't have a problem. If problem needs something new, then clearly the "engineers", are not actually capable of engineering: as they haven't proposed anything new and haven't implemented anything new. Thus the profession is a loss. The profession was a loss some 50 years ago: it's why my preference was to study science not engineering: history showed that improved understanding of the world led to development of new technology. Engineering is not about problem solving its about implementing established solutions: despite what they, the mob with the B.Eng, think they are capable of doing, they not have such capability. They need reducating to have such capability.

During the 2010/2011 Queensland floods it was relatively clear that the typical Queenslander house had been permitted to be modified. The vernacular construction brought about by experience and qualitative design,  put houses on stilts above the flood level. But now the space between the stilts has been filled in with an extra room. The room gets flooded: no surprise there. But water is now prevented from flowing overland towards the low points: rivers and ocean. Water, now cannot soak into the ground and flow underground. Simple qualitative stuff, ignored and now big problem. Climate change or dumb politics?

Here in South Australia, the driest state on the driest continent on earth. we get people complaining about flooding, when they are located where: gee where? The Adelaide flood plains. Bah! Humbug! That's just semantics. Why would the flood plains, flood, it's just a fancy name right? No! They are the flood plains? So why build there? Coz, its flat and close to business and industry and the land is cheap.

We do however have some development rules. First our stormwater and sewage systems are separate. The stormwater mains in the street was however designed based in certain assumptions of property development, such as minimum open space, and minimum landscaping requirements. Thus rainwater is expected to soak into the ground and flow away along the subterranean water table. It is not viable or overly practical or affordable to upgrade all the stormwater mains. Hence, most local councils require that the water flowing of the property is limited to the original design levels. So whilst there is subdivision, and blocks of land are getting smaller and houses bigger: there is a need to detain larger volumes of storm water on the property.

Consequence of this rule, is that apply to build a carport and find you have to also install a detention tank. The council may also provide an orifice plate which controls the release of water from the tank. The detention tank is not for rainwater harvesting it is for flood mitigation, it is meant to be empty at the time of a storm. Though rainwater harvesting tanks and detention tanks maybe combined, if designed to full fill both functions.

There is another issue, and that is water is required in the ground, holding back too much water, will result in the ground drying out. Or as noted on a recent commercial/industrial project the council may have concerns about holding back too much water because it affects the wetland component of their community stormwater drainage system (water sensitive urban design). So the quantifiable aspects of the design can be complicated, balancing the amount of water that needs to be allowed to run off and the amount which needs to be detained.

People using rainwater harvesting, and making use of greywater, also posed problems in terms of operating sewage system: has potential existed for too little water getting into the pipes to allow the system to work.

Any case as the driest state we shouldn't get flooding, and Queensland subject to tropical cyclones should be better designed to make flooding less of a disaster and more an inconvenience. Neither place is going to get where it needs to be by churning out more people with B.Eng degrees. The stormwater drainage systems need building, and paying for, but small changes, lots of them, can go a long way to reducing the problem.

We as individuals are all connected to a whole, and you, I, and our neighbours are all part responsible for flooding. So how much landscaping do you have that allows water to soak into the ground? How much pavement and roof area do you have flowing directly to the street or to the street main? How much do your neighbours have?

People solve problems, not elitist gits who hold knowledge to ransom. These so called engineers who want improved status, need to put more effort into enabling and empowering people, not making them dependent and creating legislation to make people even more dependent.

..o0o..

I got side tracked again mostly because I couldn't find an article I was looking for.

The gist of the article is that Engineers Australia takes pride in having scuttled our technical workforce by eliminating the institute of engineering associates. Legislation like that in Queensland is flawed because it has a poor definition of engineering.

I don't have a problem is engineering is defined without reference to education level, and without reference to the words: engineer and engineering.

For example:

1. Engineers Originate, Technologists Adapt, Technicians Apply
2. Engineering takes place at the frontiers of science and technology
3. Engineering: the art and science of maximising the benefit from the available but otherwise limited resources
4. Engineering: rational scientific approach to planning, design and management

None of these 4 definitions requires a 4 year B.Eng. More importantly it doesn't declare that duration of education is relevant to competence. The need for legislation comes from achieving the accepted level of performance from established technologies. For example the public has certain expectations about stormwater management systems: if they get flooded they assume there is either a defect in the design or the implementation. They do not assume it is beyond our society's ability to understand the problem, and beyond our ability to find solutions. Though they may expect there is some political obstacle to implementing the known solution.

The point is, if definition (4) about rational scientific approach to planning, design and management applies, then the traditional 2 year qualified engineering associates are competent to do the work. The problem is finding organisations where they can get the experience to put their education to work: as the majority of those with a B.Eng did not climb a ladder, they took a shortcut and they jumped to the top. They do not know the capabilities of others, and therefore they assume job requires a B.Eng and the engineering associates are disrespectfully or ignorantly relegated to being drafters:  alongside cad jockeys who aren't even qualified drafters.

Ah! But! The Grenfell tower, the Lacrosse tower, and the Opal tower, they should have been designed by engineers! No they shouldn't they should have been designed by people competent in the design of buildings and building structures. See anything in the term civil engineer which implies competent in building design? See anything in the word architect which mentions buildings? What is an architect, a failed graphic artist, messing up our environment: they don't seem capable of much, of anything else?

So restrict to architectural engineers/technologists? Well no! Because has I indicated in previous post, they either focused on buildings: structure, electrical and mechanical systems, or on bridges: structures and aesthetics. So how do we know we have the right architectural engineer, no better than civil engineer. Furthermore the problem isn't with these upper levels. The problems at the lower levels. So got a valid specification, how do you control the supply line? How do you know that the material which arrives on site is the fire protected version of a product? How do you know the strength of the steel bolts? The supply chain needs controlling. In manufacturing, reputable manufacturers would test all inputs, and inspect and test suppliers capability.

As for the NCC/BCA who cares about it? The ABCB deliberately removed information from the loading code and put it in the BCA, to get structural "engineers" to use the BCA. All the BCA does is list structural standards. At the time the Australian standards catalogue was a lot lower price and a lot more useful reference: because you design things from first principles and then look for community expectations of performance.

Further the NCC/BCA is not about buildings it barely mentions buildings, nor is about construction or structures in general. It doesn't cover bridges, radio masts, light poles etc... It doesn't cover infrastructure such as steps, jetties, fishing platforms, sports nets. It is not suitable as a single point of reference for the built environment.

The NCC/BCA is primarily about spaces. Energy flow into and out of the space, people moving into and out of spaces. It basically doesn't mention the building envelope, the building fabric, or building components. Such things as ground floors, suspended floors, below ground floors, walls, ceilings and roofs: no required performance criteria. Performance criteria are required for these building components, because performance criteria for the space they enclosed is not good enough. Floors have too much bounce because no criteria for floor vibration. It is not appropriate to put in the loading code AS1170 series of standards, even though most structural standards are largely concerned with buildings and no other structure. The structural standards however are applied to structures other than buildings: other standards however provide more product specific criteria: like the crane code for example. So criteria for floors should be in the NCC/BCA. Also construction tolerances should also be in the NCC/BCA.

There is no value forcing people to become familiar with a code of practice, when the code doesn't provide anything of value, and the NCC/BCA provides little of value: except maybe the deemed-to-satisfy fire rated forms of construction: which are increasingly being ignored by wannabe fire engineers.

And here's a thing! Polymers, plastics they tend to be flammable. Maybe ditch digging mud waddlers not aware of such. But they are flammable, so why would anyone approve such material unless have extensive information about its suitability as a construction material? Oh! Yeh! they use thundering great blocks of the stuff under the footings.

As for aluminium well it melts relatively easily. Ok! I  melted the egg poacher as kid.No one told me needed water in it. I just put margarine in the plastic cups. Ok! Now we're stuffed. Ok! So there are advanced "engineering"  polymers which can be specifically developed for high temperature situations: and they may be nonflammable.

..o0o..

Ok! Side tracked again

The point is that people who hold, as their main concern, a ticket to employment, and membership of a professional cult, have little interest in science and technology and defective planning, design and management processes.

If you hold the view, that if it was important, it would be in the code, then you are not going to seek to do better than the code. If you hold the view, that formal education imparted all the knowledge required for the job, then you are not going to read industry manuals, or technical journals. The B.Eng gave you what you need for the job and that's all that is required. Screw history and how the knowledge came to be in the first place: all that needs to be known is already known. They have the authority to declare: do has I say. They don't care if it's illogical, unreasonable or devoid of common sense, they got the legal power to enforce. So people don't give them anything. reject legislation which grants greater power to these imbeciles, and push to have existing legislation removed.

The thing we really need is improved education so that it is appropriate for the task at hand, and appropriate legislation which properly controls process. If have appropriate education and appropriate legislation controlling process: then can also get rid of licensing for plumbers, electricians, builders, and drop registration of architects and engineers, and drop whatever the medical profession has. No! we won't end up with problems as a direct result: none of the legislation prevents the problems as it is.

A simple registration system, just requires the institutions of higher learning to register all graduates on a national register. No need for an annual registration fee, no need to remove any one from the register. If they are not doing things right, then they need to be on a register not struck from the register. So we don't need to register the competent, just the incompetent.

Take a builder for example. If not blacklisted then probably ok! However, maybe it's their first job, so could be risky. Does licensing resolve this issue? No it doesn't. But what do we expect? Mostly, that people start at the bottom, prove themselves and work their way up the ladder of demonstrated competence. We expect certain stable institutions and businesses. We expect that people acquired their skill under the supervision of people with significant experience, not the supervision of people with trite experience. If not familiar with their former supervisor or the work of the former supervisor then maybe we don't want to take the risk.

But maybe we do decide to take the risk. In doing so, we expect there could be a loss, and we need to control the extent of the loss. In other words you don't gamble or bet if you cannot afford to lose.

If we decide to take a risk, then we need a back up plan, and a control system to limit our losses. Part of which is an alternative supplier who we have more confidence can supply with significant lower loss. So we would probably have a short list of at least 3 suppliers, and a set of criteria for putting the supplier on the list. So not just going through the yellow pages and concluding some business exists and is in your area, and available for work at an affordable price. Hopefully we are making a more informed judgement than that, and getting more specific.

Like met the builder, and clearly couldn't read the drawings and therefore unlikely to build the building described on the drawings, therefore doesn't get on the short list. We question, we interrogate, and if the builder treats us as an idiot, then we don't employ them. The builder or any other supplier should be able to answer your questions and provide the confidence you need to understand what is going to be provided.

Now take this thing called engineering. I don't know what you want and I don't know what it is going to cost. No confidence there, and lack of options, so go ahead anyway. One thing is for certain, you don't expect a massive bill. I read an article where a farmer wanted some highly specialised mechanical handling system, after a year or more still had no suitable system, and the cost was extortionate.

How do we protect such people? It starts with process. Simple question what the hell was the project? You do not spend hundreds of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars without clearly identifying the project, and without breaking the project down into manageable stages. Stages at which the project can be terminated and prevent any further loss or waste. It doesn't require specialist training in management to figure out. You just don't jump to the top of the ladder, you'll miss, you'll fall, you'll get hurt. You climb the ladder, properly, step by step.

But has we were constantly being told when studying management: it ain't common sense.

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[11/02/2019] : Original

Proposing Change to the Australian Qualification Framework

I propose the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) be modified to provide more complete coverage of education. I also suggest education be considered in 5 year blocks.

For example there are typically 5 years before starting school, traditionally 10 years of compulsory education, and the 3 year Bachelor degree typically requires 2 years of prior study to matriculate and get on such programme. So actually a 5 year programme, if include grade 11 and 12 as preliminary requirement.

I therefore suggest that grade 10 is identified as AQF-0. If wish to refer to the individual years then can use decimals. So that grade 1 is AQF-0.01 and grade 10 is AQF-0.10. Whilst time prior to school is AQF-0.001 to AQF-0.005.

Further, the current use of the terms diploma and advanced diploma, mess up prior usage of diploma being equivalent to a 3 year qualification, equivalent to a degree, issued by an institution not having the charter to issue bachelor degrees. Whilst associate diploma was a 2 year qualification.

So I suggest that AQF-5 rather than being referred to as a diploma is retitled to Certificate V. That AQF-5 is 1 year in duration, whilst other certificates are measured in fifths of a year. So Certificate I is one fifth of a year., whilst Certificate IV is four fifths of a year.

The academic year being nominally taken as 50 productive weeks. With total student workload for a year being 1500 to 1800 hours. So that is 30 to 36 hours per week. Whilst one fifth of a full year programme is 300 to 360 hours. With only Certificate I being permitted to be less than 300 hours.

AQF-6 to AQF-10 will be named diploma I to diploma V. Whilst an additional 5 levels added, AQF-11 to AQF-15, to be named  Masters I to Masters V.

Training

Training to be separated from education, and carried out in different institutions. Education to cover foundational knowledge and enabling competencies. Education primarily an evaluation process, either a person can grasp a competency in a few trials (no more than 5) or they cannot.

Training, to be carried out in specialised training academies. Typically 1 year of training for every 5 years of education. Training is what olympic athletes, soldiers, and firefighters do. It is highly repetitive of technique, it develops proficiency and makes response second nature. Training involves 20 or more repetitions until achieve the required performance. Only a certificate of practice (CoP) will be awarded for completion of training: it will identify the multiple AQF awards it relates to.

No one can progress from one AQF level to the next unless they achieve 80% raw pass mark: no statistical wrangling. If a person achieves less than 80% , but more than 50% then they can do training at current level, if they achieve 80% or better on training then they will be permitted to progress to next level. Progress between levels is not dependent on training. Training typically takes place when reached the education level desired and prior to entering the workforce. No degree will contain industrial experience requirements: industrial experience will be met by training programmes. No rubbish masters of engineering practice and similar nonsense, just a certificate of practice.

If a person fails to get more than 50% then either they didn't put in the effort or they require more training at the lower level. For example if fail to complete an AQF-1 qualification then require more training at AQF-0. Grade 10 involves completion of 3 five year blocks, but it is unlikely that someone needs training across all 15 years. Likely cover the first 5 years in one day or less, and second 5 years in one week of less. It is the last 5 years which mostly need reviewing. Therefore 1 year of training  should be adequate to review and develop proficiency.

Student and Citizen Handbook

Furthermore all the subject matter for grades 1 to grade 10, should be documented in a single volume book, around the same size as Pears Cyclopedia. The book can make reference to dependent references, such as novels to be read. The major subject matter however is to be placed in the book, and the book is to identify the years it is intended to be relevant for (eg. 1970 to 1979). The book will be a students primary source of reference: starting at grade 1. If they can read the entire book in one year, that is good, but as students they still have to work through the study matter relating to the subjects.

The books allow the comparison of generations and countries.

Back to AQF

People who get less than 50% at grade 10 level required to do AQF-0 training before moving onto studying for AQF-1 or permitted to claim any form of unemployment benefit. All foreign students also required to complete AQF-0 training.

Typical breakdown of the proposal is shown in following table, there is no secondary school certificate or matriculation certificate in the proposal, just the AQF levels (as a result the existing doesn't mesh well with the proposal ):

Level	Description 1	Description 2	Description 3	Existing	Age
AQF-0.001	1st Year		Age 0 to Age 1
AQF-0.002	2nd Year		Age 1 to Age 2
AQF-0.003	3rd Year		Age 2 to Age 3
AQF-0.004	4th Year		Age 3 to Age 4
AQF-0.005	5th Year		Age 4 to Age 5
AQF-0.01	Grade 1				6
AQF-0.02	Grade 2				7
AQF-0.03	Grade 3				8
AQF-0.04	Grade 4				9
AQF-0.05	Grade 5				10
AQF-0.06	Grade 6				11
AQF-0.07	Grade 7				12
AQF-0.08	Grade 8				13
AQF-0.09	Grade 9				14
AQF-0.10	Grade 10				15
AQF-1	Certificate 1	Certificate I	1/5th Grade 11	Certificate I	16
AQF-2	Certificate 2	Certificate II	2/5th Grade 11	Certificate II
AQF-3	Certificate 3	Certificate III	3/5th Grade 11	Certificate III
AQF-4	Certificate 4	Certificate IV	4/5th Grade 11	Certificate IV
AQF-5	Certificate 5	Certificate V	5/5th Grade 11	Diploma
AQF-6	Diploma 1	Diploma I	Grade 12	Associate Degree	17
AQF-7	Diploma 2	Diploma II	1st Year Bachelor Degree	Bachelor Degree	18
AQF-8	Diploma 3	Diploma III	2nd Year Bachelor Degree	Graduate Diploma	19
AQF-9	Diploma 4	Diploma IV	3rd Year Bachelor Degree	Masters	20
AQF-10	Diploma 5	Diploma V	Graduate Diploma	Doctorate	21
AQF-11	Masters 1	Masters I	Masters		22
AQF-12	Masters 2	Masters II			23
AQF-13	Masters 3	Masters III			24
AQF-14	Masters 4	Masters IV			25
AQF-15	Masters 5	Masters V			26

Upto Masters II expectation is work will be via study of established body of knowledge from Masters III onwards expect original research. Can also add extra 5 year block, Doctorate I to Doctorate V.

The most important factor however is that progress from one level to the next there is an increase in depth of knowledge and specialisation, not an increase in breadth of knowledge. Most professional bachelor degrees are optimised bundles of AQF-6 qualifications, and why I call them fake degrees. The MBA being the biggest fake masters of them all, typically graduates have inadequate knowledge of business at the undergraduate level: they do not have a B.Bus and have no right to a masters in such discipline. (Nor Bachelor of accountancy, industrial management, or economics.)

On Engineering

{NB: Most of this refers to current AQF levels, not my proposal}

Here in Australia where typical degree is 3 years duration, engineers think themselves superior because they have 4 year degree, and think they have honours degree. But it's not an honours degree. Most students have only one interest and that's a ticket to employment in a job they see as highly paid. Though they really don't have the aptitude.

Since Engineers Australia absorbed the institute of engineering associates in the 1980's , our technical workforce has been effectively sabotaged to meet the elitist whims of professional cults. They largely get paid more not because of the work they do, but because of their education, and industrial awards based more on educations, than actual contribution and value to individual business. I think it was APESMA or whatever name it had at that point in time, that indicated the issue is potential: that is they should be paid based on potential to do higher level work, not actually doing higher level work.

The problem is that high levels of unemployment, favoured ignoring job requirements and raising educational requirements to do simple work. But the educational awards not relevant to the job. Now we have people who think that such education is necessary, and complain we have a shortage of people, when we don't have such shortage. People haven't progressed through the ranks they have jumped to the top of the ladder, they are not fully qualified to be where they are: and yet...

Queensland doesn't require an army of so called "engineers" (RPEQ's) to resolve its stormwater drainage nightmares, nor to get its stalled mining and construction boom moving. It needs an army of tradespeople, technicians and Associate Technologists. In terms of mining also need to raise the common intellect to comprehend to mining technology. Or raise the intellect of the mining engineers, so that they comprehend just how deficient and defective their own knowledge is.

But regarding stormwater drainage all that is required is one chief "engineer" for the state to be responsible for water resources, backed by a team of appropriately qualified persons. The B.Eng would not be an appropriate qualification for such team.

I reiterate the 4 year B.Eng is not an honours degree, it is not even a bachelor degree, it is an optimised bundle of AQF-6 qualifications. The requirement of the AQF is increased depth of knowledge from one level to the next, not breadth. Breadth of knowledge is acquired by gaining multiple AQF awards: it is important to full articulation of awards and mobility of the workforce.

A typical degree in the traditional disciplines covers no more than 5 major areas of practice. So that is 4/5th's of a year for each area of practice. So if only cover one area of practice the programme is less than 1 year duration: AQF-5.

However, recognising that unlikely to cover all the dependent mathematics and science, the required breadth branching into the depth. Then typically the first year of the degree is becoming a common mathematics and science year. So that leaves 3 years to cover 5 areas of practice, or 3/5th's of a year for each area. So full programme in any area of practice would be less than 2 years, the programme can be increased to 2 years (AQF-6) by providing more background knowledge in the specific area of practice.

An army of appropriately qualified persons can thus be educated in 2 years, from scratch. Or if consider others have appropriate foundational knowledge, then they can be trained in 1 year.

Thus if we are to promote science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), and it is so important. Then an AQF-5 qualification in technical science and mathematics, should form the foundation of all higher degrees. They would then have a common foundation to build upon, whether it is B.Sc, B.AppSc, B.Tech, B.Eng, B.Arch. And there I guess the architects would object.

To get to AQF-6 there needs to be an increased depth of knowledge, and likewise to get to AQF-7, and onto AQF-8. There are very few strands in occupational degrees which have a depth extending for 3 or more years, furthermore I contend the intellectual depth is missing from these bachelor degrees. That is the depth of knowledge and understanding that we would expect from someone with the traditional B.Sc or B.A.

A brain dead computer can crunch numbers: prowess with mathematics (more often arithmetic) is not a measure of intelligence. We have to stop taking it as such.

Some B.Eng's do have fewer than 5 areas of practice, and possibly allow for specialisation, but that poses another problem. These degrees focus on technology, the graduates are not engineers. Mechatronics is not engineering, it's just a combination of two areas of technology. Water resources is a specific set of technologies. Mechanical and Manufacturing Management: areas of technology. Industrial engineering: where's the engineering, why's it called engineering instead of industrial management? Architectural engineering: once again technology. Architectural engineering either focuses on the technical science as it relates to buildings, such as structure and the electrical and mechanical systems. Or it is more focused on the design of bridges, both the structural and aesthetic design. None the less we are dealing with technologies.

Real Engineers are not concerned with established technologies, their concern is technologies we do not yet have.

For the established technologies we as a community have expected levels of performance, when they are not met, we are not happy. Buildings are an established technology, we expected them to be fit-for-function, we expect the people designing the buildings to know how to design them to be fit-for-function. To do so requires knowledge of buildings, therefore a civil engineer is not qualified to design building structures, nor are they qualified to design bridge structures. An architectural technologist on the other hand should have the necessary knowledge because they have studied the specific technology under consideration.

Consider this. A team of architectural technologists, versus team of architects, structural engineer, HVAC engineer and electrical engineer. Which team is more likely to get the air conditioning duct going through a principal structural beam? I suggest it will be the latter team of specialists who have no idea what the others are doing. One chief architectural technologist coordinating the design team of architectural technologists. Each architectural technologist capable of doing whatever is required to be done for the current project: no shortage of structural engineers for this project, or need for an extra HVAC engineer.

So the full articulation of the AQF should be used to kick the professional cults into line. We cannot permit technological progress to be hindered by professional cults, who think they are the only ones that know.

Also note our higher places of learning are not like the American's show in the movies, we don't have teachers: teachers are for school. In university you study, and the text book is more often than not more informative than the lectures, and takes about a quarter of the time to read. Tutorials are not school class, you do the work before turning up or don't bother turning up. Tutorials are to get help with problems, if you haven't tried then your problem is lack of effort (so go away and come back when you've done some work). Too many think they are still at school and want to be fed the answers, memorise and regurgitate during the exams.

Graduates with occupational degrees are not our intellectual elite: and often barely competent in the technology they profess expertise. However it is not entirely the graduates fault. They have been misled by professional cults into believing their knowledge is greater than it is, and that they have superiority which they don't. As I say these professional cults need kicking into line: especially those seeking legislation to grant them a monopoly on work. Furthermore those with monopoly should have it taken away. No one would come to harm as a consequence of such change, they will come to harm for the same old reasons: some twerp thinks they no more than they actually do, and all parties concerned failed to exercise adequate duty of care.

In short I am declaring that there is something significant missing from occupational degrees which makes them unworthy of the award title bachelor degree (AQF-7), and it would better serve mobility of the workplace if they were presented as what they really are, and that is optimised bundles of AQF-6 qualifications.

AQF-5 Technical Science and Mathematics

{NB: Still largely using existing definitions}

People studying for qualifications in applied science, technology, engineering, surveying, computer science, would all take the same AQF-5 qualification in technical science and mathematics. It would not be optimised for a specific programme. It would have breadth, but no more than 5 independent strands. Furthermore it shall be broken down into 5 sub levels, Certificate I to Certificate V.

A starting point would be the bachelor of mathematics. What topics does such degree contain, by comparison what does a physics student study compared to an engineering student?

If we do such breakdown, do engineers only have a Certificate I in applied mathematics? Is there 300 hours of mathematics in a 4 year B.Eng? Just maybe. Typical existing programme somewhere between 26 and 36 weeks duration, the shorter programmes have swot vac and examination periods, the longer programmes examine in class (eg. TAFE). So say mathematics typically spread across 2 years though could be compressed to first year. So 300/2 = 150 hours per year, and thus 150/26 = 5.7 hours/week. Just possibly, noting if have 3 hours of lectures, then total workload likely around 2 times that. If have tutorials then for each hour of tutorial can expect to spend 1 to 2 hours studying, so only magnify the tutorials not the lectures. So 2 hours lectures and 1 hour of tutorials, gives 2 + 2(1) = 4 hours per week.

So maybe can define a Certificate I in mathematics, however, also need to cover physics, chemistry and materials, and a variety of of subjects. Computer science and programming part of mathematics, likewise technical drawing is part of mathematics as descriptive geometry. Subjects like geology, biology, and astronomy may also be important. Philosophy and language also important, along with management. Some of these subjects are independent others are dependent.

Physics and chemistry are dependent on mathematics so they could be left until Certificate II. On the other hand there are some parts of chemistry to which mathematics is irrelevant.

When defining the subject matter it should not split into 5 independent Certificate I programmes: such as Certificate I mathematics, Certificate I physics. Much of it can be considered as applied mathematics or technical mathematics: and the principal strand thus remains applied mathematics.

When I was studying first year contained engineering mechanics, and computing was part of second year mathematics. For that matter vector calculus was part of second year mathematics, yet applied physics was first year subject, and the topic electrostatics depended on vector calculus.

Mechanics is a specialisation of physics and it can be put into second year. Whilst programming computers is a more general skill that should be brought into the first year. All the mathematics could be completed in the first year. On the other hand much of that presented using calculus doesn't require calculus, so it could be removed and included in second year.

So what we then get is the possibility of an AQF-6 award in technical science and mathematics. Which means its application to technology doesn't arrive until after a 3rd year of study. The problem however is that most technology doesn't, most absolutely does not require 3 years of study, to acquire required design knowledge.

So whilst an Associate Degree (AQF-6) in Technical Science and Mathematics is useful and can stand on its own, it is not relevant to design capability.

Another issue is: should it be optimised? Should there be separate programmes optimised for physics and optimised more for biology. Also technical emphasises application to technology, where as applied science and mathematics can be independent of technology.  For example meteorologists apply scientific knowledge, they don't design or manage technology.

Therefore Certificate I, would start out as applied science and then become specialised in technical science. On the other hand, application and relevance is often better met by application to technology, so starting out as technical science and becoming applied science may be better.

From another perspective. Grade 11 will become Certificate V, and grade 12 becomes Diploma I. When I studied if I remember correctly we took 6 subjects in grade 11, and dropped one for grade 12 matriculation. So that means need to allow at least 6 strands rather than limit to 5 strands. Then again it also means that grade 11 is divided into 6 individual certificate I programmes each less than 300 hours duration. (NB: Don't want to reinvent the UK O-levels and A-levels)

Ok! AQF-5 to AQF-6 can contain upto 5 strands and no more. When move to AQF-7 there has to be specialisation. That is AQF-7 is a single strand, and likewise AQF-8 extends further upon that single strand.

So in the new proposal upto Diploma III there can be breadth, at Diploma IV there has to be specialisation. However specialisation can occur at Diploma III, and where possible it shall be given priority over breadth.

Thus there can be no AQF-6 (exist) in mechanical engineering, but there can be AQF-6 in HVAC, structural/mechanical design or fluid power.

And whilst can study applied mechanics, and thermo fluid dynamics to AQF-7, it is unlikely that can study HVAC to AQF-7.

We lack the people expert in applied mechanics and we don't have such experts teaching mechanics to wannabe engineers, they are "taught" by think-they-are engineers. Which probably explains why much of the so called engineering practice only occurs at the level of AQF-6, and why there is so few contributing to progress in science and technology.

The existing education system is too myopic, and we don't have the people to expand it, and that is because it has become too linked to employment. Not linked because of employment needs but linked through a crazy industrial relations system, and presence of professional cults instead of learned societies. Such fools can regulate the system to a grinding halt.

The existing AQF-7 is not important, but AQF-6 and below are important. In terms of STEM, we need more people at AQF-6 and below, not AQF-7. We also need more rigorous assessment process. We also need to encourage more breadth at AQF-6 and below.

Only one person is needed to design, hundreds to thousands of people are needed to build. People need to step up the AQF ladder not jump to the top. All professions can be broken down into stages of progression, and school leavers don't need the qualification at the top to get started.

Take medicine as another example. How well is the system currently articulated between nursing assistant, to enrolled nurse, to registered nurse, to doctor, to specialist. Poorly I would imagine, as those wanting to be doctors jump in at the top, they don't progress upwards. The doctors don't spend time as nurses, and the nurses don't spend time as nursing assistants, and the registered nurses pursue careers in direction other than becoming a doctor. In short they gain inadequate experience working with patients: as patients seem secondary to careers for some of the newer batch. There is something the goods ones have, which is not part of their training, it is just a natural part of their being, and therefore cannot be imparted by training. The filtering system that is in place is therefore defective in terms of getting rid of those not truly suited to doing the work they are meant to be doing.

The articulation between occupations is not yet properly built into the AQF and it needs to improve.

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[09/02/2019] : Original

Regulation Should Monitor and Control Process not License Occupations

Introduction

My email inbox presented some annoying articles which led to further annoying articles. For example:

1. Victoria Considering Bill to Create Scheme for Registration of Professional Engineers
2. HVIA says leave us out of Victorian Engineers Registration Bill
3. Introducing a new engineering registration in Victoria, Australia
4. MORE LABOR RED TAPE SET TO STRANGLE ENGINEERING
5. Worth being a chartered engineer?
6. Alternative to CPEng
7. Freak freeway sign fall seen in shocking video nearly dooms driver in Australia
8. Tullamarine Freeway sign falls and crushes car, injuring woman
9. Opal Tower report reveals 'structural design and construction issues'
10. Opal Tower report reveals ‘structural design and construction issues’
11. Experts confirm Syd Opal Tower is 'sound'
12. Opal Tower report due Friday to identify causes of cracks
13. Welcome to the Faulty Towers state, where any mug's an engineer
14. SCOSS/CROSS
15. CROSS Australia (CROSS-AUS)

So defective road signs and defective buildings, and this shows need to grant license and monopoly to engineers, to protect the public. Grant a monopoly to a what? An engineer! oh! Whats is one of these  engineer things? Most probably a twerp with a fake honours degree (4 year B.Eng (AQF-8)) and maybe even a fake masters degree (MBA).

The Current Situation

Without regulation, at the very minimum a person wouldn't get anywhere near the design process unless they have the fake honours degree. Does the degree cover the technology over which these people claim expertise? No it doesn't, it covers  applied science and applied mathematics. Knowledge about the established technologies depends on industry. Therefore we rely on industry to impart knowledge. We also have learned societies which discuss practical application of science and codes as applied to established technologies, including the deficiencies of such codes and theories. Except in Australia, here we don't have learned societies we have Professional Cults. Confused organisations more closely related to trade unions, modern day rum corp and cartels, than learned  societies.

But still Engineers Australia has this additional assessment criteria where by it attempts to check experience in the real world. Depending on the year that maybe identified by MIEAust or by CP.Eng, the criteria for each maybe equal or different. However, either way, the criteria are so generic that all they really do is identify someone as a suitable as an employee. Someone working for McDonalds fast food outlet could probably pass the requirements, just they are not eligible for assessment as they don't have the fake honors degree. Significantly different than the American (USA) FE/PE exams or the UK part 3 examination of the IStructE.

Assessment Beyond Education

But still employment tends to be tied up by professional cults, hence the big national consultancies will push graduates through graduate development programmes, and would tend to ensure its employees have CP.Eng. So the design will have been carried out by people with a minimum of either:

1. B.Eng
2. B.Eng MIEAust
3. B.Eng MIEAust CP.Eng

Exactly the criteria which Engineers Australia wants to use as the basis of granting monopoly through legislation. Even if the person designing the building was only B.Eng, most existing legislation is likely to reference CP.Eng as the requirement for those persons doing the regulatory checks and granting regulatory approval to go ahead and build.

The Regulation Problem

The problem however is that those people on the regulatory side are likely less experienced than those on the design side. Also the checks are likely to boil down to checking the designers calculations: such a check is not a valid independent check. Such checks end up as simple arithmetic checks, rather than a rigorous review of the logic and reasoning of the design decisions.

For example a designer may have used the simple formula M=wL^2/12 when a simple look at the drawings would indicate that the correct mathematical model would have been M=wL^2/8: so it doesn't matter if the numbers pushed through the first formula are correct, the mathematical model of the structure is invalid.

Design-Calculations vs Proof-Calculations

On large projects should distinguish between "design-calculations" and "proof-calculations". On small projects design calculations and final proof calculations are typically the one and the same: this is largely because on small projects, the design is repetition of what is known to work and only really producing proof-calculations. That is do not have to discover what works, we know this, we are just verifying the proposal is valid and does work.

Design calculations do not need to be conducted in accordance with codes of practice, or using exact theories, they can be quick and simple rules of thumb. Proof-Calculations do need to be in accordance with codes of practice, as their purpose is to demonstrate compliance with such codes.

Independent Check

However, the independent checker does not require the proof-calculations, they should only require a statement that they have been done, that the designer asserts that the proposal is fit-for-function, and that is by deliberate intent not wishful thinking. The checker then starts from scratch, and reads the drawings and written specifications and assesses if the specification-of-intent does truly propose something which is fit for its intended function. It is not a rubber stamp exercise by members of a silly form brigade (RPEQ's, RBP's).

Not Who, But What!

The problem isn't who is doing it, the problem is what is not being done. The consultants are not conducting a final review of calculations and decision process. Additionally consultants maybe cut-off from workshops and construction sites. Furthermore there is little design and management of the fabrication (workshop) and construction (site) process.

There is a silly notion that the documents approved by the local council are construction documents, and that such can be used to go ahead and build. Whilst on large projects there maybe something called workshop details produced, with the advent of high end software these drawings are likely diminished to part drawings.

Product Specification vs Process Specification

The difference between part-drawings and workshop details is that workshop details are produced for a specific workshop to meet its specific communication and documentation requirements and match its manufacturing processes. Proper process-drawings show raw materials and the correct orientation to jigs and fixtures. One workshop may drill holes using drilling templates or jigs, another may use a CNC drilling machine, and still another may align the drill by sight. The latter is likely to produce highly variable parts if producing more than one. Tooling and processes need designing and documenting. The people need training, and the process needs to be monitored and kept in control.

Moving on site the council approved drawings are just a specification-of-intent, they do not inform how to build anything, they describe what is to be built and provide a means of checking compliance. Additional drawings are required to manage the construction process, as with workshop fabrication there are additional tooling requirements, raw materials and workpieces versus final product. There are such requirements as:

1. Formwork
2. Shoring
3. Props and Bracing
4. Materials Handling (cranes and rigging)
5. Scaffolding

All of which needs to be designed, documented and demonstrated fit-for-function. Clearly this is not being done: New Royal Adelaide Hospital site in turmoil after crane collision provokes site shutdown.

The CRC for construction innovation produced some guidelines for improving construction safety but was largely a process of drowning in documentation, rather than promoting good design, as with most systems derived from ISO:9000 quality standards. This is not because the standards require such documentation, but because the practitioners initially and largely only have one skill: they read ISO:9000, they otherwise understand zero about quality.

Poorly Designed Systems for Quality Assurance

Most engineering consultancies have quality assurance systems derived from renaming their contract document management systems to QA system: along with fabricators, and QA certifiers, they also have missed the point.

Documents typically (hopefully) have two identification codes for telling the difference between variations:

1. Issue number 
2. Revision number

Some organisations mix revision number and issue number. If printing each issue from CAD files, then this may be valid, as likely cannot guarantee that previous printout same as current printout (eg. layers maybe switched off). For traditional masters document and prints taken from, an issue is different than a revision. A revision code identifies changes to the document, and issue codes identifies who it has been sent to and why.

Revision numbers/codes identify defects in the documents and defects in the production process. The defects could be in:

1. Design Process
2. Drafting/Documentation Process
3. Communication Systems

Last minute changes by the owners/client whilst construction is taking places indicates defects in the communication systems. The design consultants (architects and engineers) have failed to properly inform and/or educate their client. Thus they have failed to properly identify the needs of the client during the design process.

The old adage, whilst not necessarily numerically correct is: It costs $1 to make a change on the drawing board (in design office), $100 to make a change on the workshop floor, and $1000 to make a change on the construction site. This tends to hold true except for small projects where materials and labour are low cost compared to design services.

Increasingly though the greed of design consultants is pricing their services out of the process. Sure there are many who complain they should get paid more, but there are also many who should get paid considerably less. Why pay high fees to a design consultant when their knowledge is defective, deficient and otherwise inadequate? Trades complain of having to waste time fixing things because of design errors.

But we have a double problem the so called "engineers" think the trades don't know what they are doing, and the trades think the "engineers" don't know what they are doing. Both parties have inadequate education for the task at hand. Their knowledge should overlap, if there is no overlap then I suggest the "engineers" stay away from the trades people: you're not qualified.

Education vs Training

For the most part expect trades people to have at least certificate III (AQF-3) level qualifications: not a license or registration, but an education and adequate training. Training should be separate from education.

Education

Education concerns foundational knowledge and enabling competences, it would involve no more than 3 to 5 iterations or trials of a skill. Education is largely an evaluation process, either a person can demonstrate the skill after an introduction and a few trials or they cannot.

Training

Training is what olympic athletes, soldiers, and firefighters do. It is concerned with developing proficiency, it involves twenty or more trials, it is repetitive practice, it is making skills intuitive and desired responses second nature.

Qualification Frameworks

For each AQF award there should be an additional certificate of practice (CoP), it doesn't matter what level the award it will still be known as a certificate of practice.

Expectations of Increasing AQF Level

If the AQF was properly structured in its implementation, then moving from one level to the next would result in:

1. an increased depth of knowledge, 
2. increased independent thought, 
3. increased personal responsibility.

Unfortunately occupational degrees issued by the universities do not comply: they simply lump a collection of subjects together to meet the wants and whims of professional cults, diminishing the value of the bachelor degree and the universities in the process.

If education and training were separated then "engineers" and trades would start at the same place, and would progress from AQF-1 upwards to the appropriate level.

A person at AQF-1 could be supervised by a person at AQF-2 because their knowledge overlaps. The person at AQF-2 should know the limitations of the person at AQF-1, as they have been through that stage. However the person at AQF-2 may not have the same training as the person at AQF-1. That is the person staying at AQF-1 should have greater proficiency at that level, than the person who has moved upto AQF-2.

So in the first instance we don't need registration or licensing, we just need the people with the appropriate education and training doing the work: that is the appropriate credentials which show they have completed the appropriate education and training.

So just need to know someone has the appropraiate award AQF-6 for example and the associated CoP. If they don't have the CoP then they lack adequate training. This training can be provided by purpose made training academies.

As a start I suggest 1 year of training for every 5 years of education, where 5 years (BSc MSc) is considered near complete knowledge for a specific area of practice. Where a research doctorate closes the gap in knowledge. Assuming 50 productive weeks in each year, then reduces to 10 weeks of training for each year of education. And for a short 10 week program (AQF-1), 2 weeks of training.

So problem we have is that the WFEO Washington (AQF-8), Sydney (AQF-7) and Dublin(AQF-6) accords define the education requirements but not the training. Second problem is delusions of grandeur, so have too many people aiming for the AQF-8 award, when real needs of industry are AQF-6, but not the Dublin accord requirements. A Dublin accord technician is superior to a drafter, but inferior to Australia's original engineering associates (for which I consider a better name is Associate Technologist).

If we educate and train Associate Technologists then we can better implement established technologies where they are needed. Do we need multistorey buildings? No we don't, they don't ease urban sprawl they are the cause of it in the first place.

The problem is we don't have people studying the right things. The concern is more with joining professional cults than learning and understanding. The reason for this is that the professional cults hijack the market place, and use fear, uncertainty and doubt to mislead the public. I say mislead because they deliberately create asymmetry of knowledge by using jargon, giving the impression you don't know anything about the subject, when all they have done is given a stupid name to something. But it's worse than that, some cults change the stupid names used, so your knowledge in an area becomes redundant. It's not really redundant, just not able to converse with the new generation of twerps until learn their jargon.

I don't care whether plumbers, train drivers, or operators of recording equipment call themselves engineers, or if a barber wants to create a business called hair engineers. The typical modern civil "engineer" is a ditch digging mud waddler who wouldn't know their knee from their elbow. They did not design civilisation, they did not generate knowledge and share such knowledge, and they didn't build civilisation. Someone gave knowledge to them: beyond taking such knowledge they have contributed naught of value to society. If they were all rounded up and executed, only their relatives would experience a loss.

For certain our industrial society needs knowledgeable people, but those learned people are not "engineers" as the professional cults define them. Just because a person holds a bachelor degree it doesn't make them competent in a given area of practice. How many people with a B.Eng are employed in management, and have neither adequate skill in engineering design, nor in management?

Experience

So besides education and training also need recognition of years of experience, or more importantly variety of experience. Kind of like military service stripes, and boy scout badges: but not quite. Yet another problem is the modern nonsense about loyalty to employers: I say nonsense because employers typically do not show the same loyalty to employees as they show to the business. Employees typically get kicked overboard as soon as the business is in trouble, and the owners profits are dwindling.

The problem with the loyalty nonsense is it gets in the way of the traditional journeyman route to experience. A designer needs to gain a variety of experience, and they seldom get that from working for the one employer. They need to chase projects and technology, to go where things are happening.

For example if your employer is primarily involved in stormwater drainage design then the closest you get to bridge design maybe a culvert. If you wish to gain experience about bridge design then you need to move, to change employers. The problem is you are not experienced enough to design bridges, so not going to be employed as an "engineer", but you may get on the project as a drafter.
But not if you want too high a wage, not if you are less than competent as a drafter, and not if you are a troublemaker questioning all decisions.

You have to be there as a curious trainee, asking suitable questions, gaining experience and understanding, putting proper effort into the drafting, and attempting suitable calculations after work hours in own time. From there maybe able to move to a position as junior engineer on another project. slowly building experience on significant projects, until ultimately able to be the lead engineer on a project.

Silly Occupational Classifications

But this is where professional cults and occupational bias gets in the way. How is a junior engineer different than a drafter, different than an associate technologist? The basic answer is they ("junior engineer") have knowledge about things which they are unlikely to ever use.

We do not need the industrial relations nonsense, set in industrial awards, about level 1 to 5 engineering associate, level 1 to  5 professional scientist, and levels 1 to 5 professional engineer. These occupations form an hierarchy, and in many organisations there is no need for anyone with education level greater than AQF-6: the associate technologist.

If we paid more attention to the tasks of the work at hand, instead of the wants and whims of the professional cults, then a graduate with a B.Eng would be employed as a technical officer (TO) not an engineer, not a professional engineer, not a junior engineer, not an engineer in training: they would be designer, planner or manager technicians.

Ranking Technical Officers

Where minimum education for technician would be AQF-5. Qualified drafters would be technician level (TO1), whilst unqualified drafters would be TO Zero's (TO0).

The basic ranking is as follows:

1. (TO0) Technical Officer Level 0 
2. (TO1) Technical Officer Level 1 (AQF-5) - Drafter, Design-Drafter, Design-Technician
3. (TO2) Technical Officer Level 2 (AQF-6) - Associate Technologist
4. (TO3) Technical Officer Level 3 (AQF-7) - Technologist
5. (TO4) Technical Officer Level 4 (AQF-8) - Technologist
6. (TO5) Technical Officer Level 5 (AQF-9) - Technologist

The ranking doesn't show "engineer", as such title reserved for those who push forward the frontiers of science and technology: and go beyond what they were taught.

All graduates would start out as an unqualified drafter (TO0), demonstrate they have interest in the technology and its proper specification. They would slowly move from focus on mere documentation under supervision to responsibility for dimensions, geometry, fit and clearances. This would take anything from 6 months to a year or more depending on the aptitude and attitude of the individual and the nature of the projects. If demonstrated appropriate skill, then they would move onto being a qualified drafter TO1 (If drafting not relevant to the technical field then other criteria would apply).

As a TO1, the next step to work towards, would be that of design-drafter (still at TO1), this is still AQF-5 level, the design at this stage would be qualitative, except with respect to dimension and geometry, that is it concerns form and function.

For example a structure requires appropriate forms of connection, depending on these connections it may then require additional cross-bracing. If the architectural form doesn't allow installation of cross-bracing, then the connections may have to change. It is all qualitative determining what the structure looks like. When get round to doing calculations some of it may change.

Connection design for example is an iterative process between drawing and calculation. The TO1 can start looking at industry manuals and standardisations, and start looking at some structural calculations. Their supervisor likely will give them sketches with calculations on them. They can start doing back of envelope calculations themselves to guide their drafting, so their drawings closer to the expected end result.

Past experience determines initial starting size for beams, and the connections. Prior results can be modified via simple theory to suit current project. For example bending moment is proportional to the square of the span: so if double the span then quadruple the moment, and therefore need to select a steel section with 4 times the capacity of prior project. The detailed calculations likely produce a different result, but will be in the ballpark. If there is significant difference between the end result and back of envelope calculations then need to explain the difference. The TO1 (TO2 wannabe) would thus be a check on the work of the TO2.

The next step would then be to become a TO2, which would be at AQF-6 level, that is an associate technologist. At this stage the person can work on their own projects, producing drawings and calculations. They would work on simple projects, without need of a assistance, but under the supervision of a TO3. Once they are able to complete the work without error, then they can move onto larger projects supervising one or more TO0's, and TO1's. If AQF-6 is their highest level of education, then this is where they stay, and their prime requirement is to get ...

... interrupted to go resolve others operating system problems. Now lost train of thought 17:22.

Now I part remember. 

As an associate technologist, having demonstrated competence in analysis/design, their next task is to develop skills in management and training, so as to assist in producing the next generation. That is they increase their breadth by getting additional AQF-6 qualifications.

If they have higher education AQF-7, then they move up to TO3. At which point the projects become more demanding, requiring higher level mathematical and scientific knowledge. Such projects however will be rare, and the primary task of TO3 is to provide technical review and supervision of TO2's and ensure that project doesn't involve higher level skills than a TO2 has.

The actual need for education at AQF-8 and AQF-9 would be extremely rare, so becoming TO4 and TO5 would also be difficult irrespective of education: as dependent on needs of the project not the whims of professional cults.

It is also to be noted that the task of the higher levels is to push knowledge down the hierarchy, not hinder application of knowledge, but to empower and enable.

So if the task is not within the scope of those educated at AQF-6, then that is largely because those at AQF-8 haven't been doing their job properly. Knowledge needs to be properly organised and managed, disseminated and shared with those who need: not held to ransom.

The task of a learned society is to collect, hold and safeguard knowledge, be its guardians, and enable and empower people to put such knowledge to proper use for the benefit of humanity.

By contrast the task of a professional cult is to hijack knowledge, use fear, doubt and uncertainty to con the public into granting undeserved privileges and benefits to the cult. {NB: I use the word cult rather than profession because members of the cults believe profession relates to ethics and high level of competence. Whilst I equate profession to profiteer devoid of competence. If everyone follows the nonsense: "Jack of all trades and master of none", and each seeks to specialise and pose as master, then have no Jacks who can identify that the masters know zero, and that such masters are less competent than a generalist would be.}

On Medicine

As for medicine. Wouldn't want unqualified person performing brain surgery was in one of the articles. Maybe not. But how do I know?

I recently spent time in RAH due to a heart attack. How do I know the cardiologists are qualified? How can I check? How do I know the medications prescribed are relevant?

I'm fairly certain the medical cult have never heard of Karl Popper. I'm fairly certain that most medical science is pseudo science and mere quackery. That it is based on poor use of statistics, and heavily biased towards selling drugs, not about caring for people's welfare.

To provide exaggerated example: they test a drug on rats, 80% show beneficial effect, 15% show no effect, and 5% die. Lets focus on the 80% and ignore the 5%, we have something good here we can make a profit from.

Back to my stay in hospital: I wasn't prescribed medications because required, I was prescribed because that is standard practice. Well I'm the little black swan, the standard practice is wrong, all the accumulated evidence for white swans is no good: the science hasn't been done.

{This is because I am on medication for high blood pressure. Though there is no mention of taking medication for high blood pressure: it is prescribed for other purpose. Yet, it is highly unlikely that if I had high blood pressure that the medication would place my blood pressure at the low end of ideal or into the low blood pressure zone. If I ever had an issue in the past it is most likely because it was low. Yet the specialist, the expert, has provided no response to the rehab nurses nor the GP. And the only reason I am seeing a specialist is because a potentially illegal supply chain cartel passed me onto said specialist without choice or option of any kind.}

But the solution applied isn't about common sense, it's about politics and careers. So have to bridge the gap in knowledge: do more than accept who knows and who doesn't, and ask the right questions. Get them to justify their decisions, because they don't decide what is best for my health, I do. Their place isn't as my boss or as my manager, they are there to advise, and their advice maybe defective. If the GP is scared to question the cardiologist then you have to do that yourself or accept without question.

As I have mentioned before whilst it is ok to have blind faith in the existence of god, it is stupid and irresponsible to have blind faith in those who purport to be the true messengers of god.

It is equally stupid and irresponsible to have blind faith in those who hold positions of authority. They cannot be held to be right simply because they have the power and authority to impose their will. You, we, I have the power to remove their power and authority. If they cannot provide reasonable explanation and justification, then they are not competent enough to be making the decisions. We do not have to submit to the arrogance and authority of their purported expertise.

We can test their competence even if we ourselves do not possess adequate knowledge. We can do this because the testing is not about the knowledge we have now, but the knowledge and understanding we hope to have to make the decisions we need to make, and for which we are responsible. We can learn. We do not have to acquiesce to their authority. Though many people would like to blame everyone else for their bad decisions, we cannot displace our responsibilities onto others.

Back to Buildings

Getting back to the buildings how would we know the building is acceptable? That a certificate of occupancy was issued, would be one way. But who issues the certificate of occupancy and after what process? The "who" isn't the biggest issue, the process is the issue.

Compliance with a code of practice produces low quality rubbish. The building industry would be one of the few industries where people run around declaring that they do it to the code, as if everyone else doesn't and you would be lucky to find someone that does.
Other industries tend to promote their product on the basis, that they set the standards everyone else would hope to meet, or their product otherwise exceeds the standards. They attempt to inform,  and educate people into understanding how deficient codes are. Sometimes it may be misleading or misdirection, but they certainly don't run around declaring that they only do as little as they have to: and otherwise implying that if the codes were not mandated then they would do even less.

The building industry produces low quality rubbish and the design consultants are part of the problem: but they think they are part of the solution. The output is low quality because it fails to meet the needs of society and poses more problems than it solves.

We have multistorey buildings and large industrial complexes which all give rise to urban sprawl: centralisation with an excessive radial reach is what causes urban sprawl, not mechanised transport. We have overly complex tangled transportation corridors. Do these people really know what they are doing? So they can calculate the stresses in the bridge but did we need the bridge?

Thousands of engineers can design bridges, calculate strains and stresses, and draw up specifications for machines, but the great engineer is the man who can tell whether the bridge or the machine should be built at all, where it should be built and when.[Eugene G. Grace quoted in Beakley & Leach(1977), "Engineering : an introduction to a creative profession"]

To improve status not only do these "engineer things" need to get the calculations right, but they also need to be spending time doing calculations for the right things and for the right reasons.

A one hundred apartment, tower block, doesn't provide shelter for anyone until the whole building is finished. Whilst 100 single storey dwellings provide shelter as soon as the roof is constructed, and people can occupy as construction of each one is completed. Furthermore such dwellings can be located in walking distance of their own central commercial district. Even if all the dwellings are based on the same design, an error in the design, poses less hazard to the occupants than an error in the design of the tower block.

The single storey houses however don't have the same prestige as tower blocks, just like dealing with the common cold doesn't have the same prestige as heart surgery. Just as unnecessary surgeries have taken place, likewise unnecessary tower blocks are built.

Despite how it  seems that councils hinder development, there isn't any where near adequate control over the built environment.

Related Posts:

1. On Regulation ...
2. Why do I argue with B.Eng MIAust's? I should know better.

---

Revisions:
[(19/01/2019) 17:50]: Original
[(20/01/2019) 00:03]: Minor Modifications
[(09/02/2019) ] : Added Headings, rewrote some paragraphs, revised the technical officer ranking