- Repetitive Manufactured Structural Products
- Pre-Engineered Manufactured Structural Products
- Technical Praxis: The Art of getting things done
- Technical Praxis South Australia
- Technical Praxis Bridge to The People
- Technical Praxis: Technology, Evidence for Suitability of Purpose
Previous names:
Previous names:
Some of the posts I placed on these groups I will now post on my other blog: Metamorphs: Technical Praxis.
Whilst will otherwise put more focus on the remaining Linkedin group:
Also proposed to rename this group by removing the prefix, so that just called: engineered manufactured building systems. Whether I will keep this group, I'm not certain about at the moment, unlike the other two groups, it has developed a large membership, over 2500 members at present, whilst the other groups only had 30 and 1 member. However, my primary interest is informing buyers of such products and improving the information resources available to them from suppliers. So objective is to be able cover technical issues in a manner that the public will understand, rather than engineers. Though I do have an issue with the engineering supplied to manufacturers by consulting civil engineers: first their assessments are incomplete and not adequate for structures placed into the built environment at the rate of some 1000 units per year. Secondly the information resources they provide are not adequate to inform the suppliers and buyers. Unfortunately the consultants are partly handicapped by what the suppliers request and are willing to pay for.
I do not believe that professional associations or industry associations can solve the problems, as these organisations typically have agendas beyond the welfare of the community: such as legal reform so that they can grab monopolies. Monopolies are dangerous, they do not result in openness and sharing of knowledge, and thus a vast increase in the communities understanding. Rather such organisations create closed shops, and prevent sharing and in the long term result in loss of knowledge to the community: loss of knowledge both inside and outside the organisation. They seek monopoly because of desire to exercise power and authority over others, and use arguments about asymmetry of knowledge between suppliers and buyers, the contention is that through legislated monopoly for the profession they can protect the buyers. Its nonsense, licensing and registration schemes do not work when it comes to protecting the community. First the public need to be able to readily check the validity of license. But even if the license is valid, it does not mean the licensed individual or business is actually capable of performing the task required. Buyers need a more reliable system.
Consultants emerged to help protect buyers from builders, who whilst skilled in construction, may not be skilled in design and thus what they build may not be fit for purpose. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that the consultant is competent at design or as adequate knowledge of the established technologies. The controlling factor in all cases is knowledge and part of that knowledge is proper procedure and suitable bench marks.
Any case the point is that a blog or public forum may be far better for my needs than a Linkedin group. The problem with Linkedin is that even though the group can be publicly visible on the internet, the groups typically do not attract the public: that is the groups are better for business to business, rather than business to consumer. However, the suppliers are one of the stakeholders, so will see what I can do to more effectively use a blog and my Linked group, along with the other groups I belong to. Though a lot of the groups take objection to posting own blog posts in the group discussions.
I do not believe that professional associations or industry associations can solve the problems, as these organisations typically have agendas beyond the welfare of the community: such as legal reform so that they can grab monopolies. Monopolies are dangerous, they do not result in openness and sharing of knowledge, and thus a vast increase in the communities understanding. Rather such organisations create closed shops, and prevent sharing and in the long term result in loss of knowledge to the community: loss of knowledge both inside and outside the organisation. They seek monopoly because of desire to exercise power and authority over others, and use arguments about asymmetry of knowledge between suppliers and buyers, the contention is that through legislated monopoly for the profession they can protect the buyers. Its nonsense, licensing and registration schemes do not work when it comes to protecting the community. First the public need to be able to readily check the validity of license. But even if the license is valid, it does not mean the licensed individual or business is actually capable of performing the task required. Buyers need a more reliable system.
Consultants emerged to help protect buyers from builders, who whilst skilled in construction, may not be skilled in design and thus what they build may not be fit for purpose. Unfortunately there is no guarantee that the consultant is competent at design or as adequate knowledge of the established technologies. The controlling factor in all cases is knowledge and part of that knowledge is proper procedure and suitable bench marks.
Any case the point is that a blog or public forum may be far better for my needs than a Linkedin group. The problem with Linkedin is that even though the group can be publicly visible on the internet, the groups typically do not attract the public: that is the groups are better for business to business, rather than business to consumer. However, the suppliers are one of the stakeholders, so will see what I can do to more effectively use a blog and my Linked group, along with the other groups I belong to. Though a lot of the groups take objection to posting own blog posts in the group discussions.
