State of Play 2013/wk37

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Brain leak: Pricing, Labour Costs and Politics

Price is NOT the sum of cost plus profit, but the fee the buyer is willing to pay and the seller is willing to accept.

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

There is little point producing something which does not recover the total costs of supply. Note that is the total costs of supply, not costs of production. More often than not people complaining about undercutting, and product dumping, are only comparing unit costs of production, when should be comparing total costs of supply for the enterprise, along the industrial food chain. Furthermore costs are not altogether tangible, also time and risk are important considerations. Most costing theory is based on production and retailing of goods, rather than services. Services can be considered partially analogous to perishable goods (typically foods).

If I go out and buy something, then the price paid is part of the cost of supplying to my business. There is a cost associated with seeking out, researching and finally purchasing of the item. For small business such costs are typically ignored: most of the labour supplied by owners is typically ignored because it has no identifiable cost. For small business owners the profits of the business equals their personal income, no profit then no wages. As for employees, they are paid or owed, whether the business makes a profit or not. Furthermore employees are often paid to produce stuff that cannot be sold.

A business is not exactly a tribe, a cohesive social group, battling for survival in the wilderness of the economy. A business is something of an abstract entity which resides on paper in the form of its financial accounts: its has no social purpose, no soul, and cares not for people or the environment. It is thus not surprising that many new businesses are centred around the invention, selling and buying of financial instruments: simply a scrap of paper. When everything is reduced to monetary terms, all that matters is getting money to flow in your own direction so that can exchange it for the essentials of survival. All that is required is a mutually agreeable transaction.

Consider: Have an IOU for say $2, which will eventuate 2 years from now. Cannot wait 2 years, need $1.50 now, so I sell the IOU for $1.50 to someone who is willing to wait for 2 years. A year later that person sells it for a $1.20 to someone who is willing to wait the remaining year. Now multiply by millions and take that the original IOU was based on wishful thinking.

Business is in general a high risk real world experiment: a game of chance. Except this game of chance potentially has better odds than the lotto, than poker, than poker machines, than casino's. You get rich owning the casino and the poker machines, not playing them. Gambling is just using money to make money. Just like banks use other peoples money to make money. If no willing participants, no willing buyers, then there would be no transactions of exchange and no business. During the 1990's just about every business adopted the mantra: the purpose of business is to make profit.

Thus instead of getting industrual engineers (IE's) to minimise costs, to eliminate waste, instead optimise for maximum profit. After all the minimum cost of everything is zero: don't do it. If choose to do it, then maximise profit, and the simplest way to maximise profit is to increase unit price. But increase in unit price tends to bring about a reduction in sales volume. But this may not be a problem, as Akio Morita of Sony pointed out, will supply 10,000 units at $100/unit or 100,000 units at $1000/unit. The wholesale distributor thought he had his graph upside down. But not so. Supplying 100,000 units required significant investment in increasing the capacity of production, with the risk of only having a supply contract for one year. There after Sony set up their own distributors. As may also be aware Sony betamax video format is apparently superior to VHS, but they lost market since nothing to put on the tapes: a supply chain problem. Which they resolved by part or fully purchasing CBS: now they have no problems putting stuff on any new media format they may invent. Given the merging of computers and home entertainment multimedia centres, what ever new format emerges is likely to be totally transparent to the user: or is that opaque and hidden. Basically already at the point where data is stored on some remote drive somewhere, and downloaded to some usb device, or wireless technology device.

After all just how many times can people change, LP's, audio cassettes, video cassettes, CD's, DVD's to still some other media. Similarly 5-1/4 disks, 3.5 disks, Zip disks, CD's, to memory sticks. Further more just how many of these things can individual people own. How many photo albums, family video's? How many books, and how much paper can one person accumulate? I'm personally buried in books and paper.

For business to continue with its its forward distribution, it really needs to develop the reverse channels of distribution, so as to unclog the channels and permit movement and flow, to develop a cycle. Its like a magic number slider game: cannot play if there is not an empty space to move into. To play the game also similar to a rubiks cube, have to be willing to scramble the order thus far achieved to reach the final fully ordered solution.

Thus far business has used "built in obsolescence", whilst this ensures that people have to replace goods and so provides for continuity of the business, it hasn't resolved the problem of where to get rid of the old stuff. Simplistically, it is supplying defective goods, and not providing, space to move new goods into. It's not just a little matter of video cassettes out, and DVDs in. The problem extends to the cities, to nations to the world.

Take Singapore and Hong Kong, almost a constant state of construction. I recollect some figure of 1 apartment every 2 minutes in Singapore. These near city states, have next to no land available for construction. It is definitely a magic slider game: the people are the sliders and buildings are the spaces. Existing buildings either require further internal division, extra floors adding above, or demolishing and replacing with taller buildings. For example knock down a 10 storey building and replace with a 20 storey building, move people from another 10 storey building into the new building and knock the empty building down.

Here in Adelaide, we are considered to be a large rural town: have a general reluctance to new developments and especially opposition to large mulitstorey buildings and high density dwellings. However, the city is spreading too far. The building industry keeps pressuring government to release more land. Not sure what they mean by that: I assume changing zoning of existing land, though some times they are referring to government selling off its land. In the CBD many government office buildings have been sold and converted to appartments. In the suburbs blocks of land are getting smaller and houses larger. The traditional Australian dream home, was on a 1/4 acre block, this dropped to a 1/6th of an acre, and now local government development plans specify minimum land areas and minimum frontages and minimum set backs. A block typically minimum of 300 sq.m if isolated, if part of a group 200 sq.m (eg. retirement units).

Market gardens have disappeared under housing, and more and more rural land is being sold for housing. All largely because they get more money now, by selling the land, than working the land producing food and fibre. Australia basically has houses built on prime agricultural land, and farms land with shallow soils: no deep plough agriculture here.

Now houses are typically large so that children can stay at home longer in formal education. But that has problems. For example high wages for parents to pay off a family house. Children who want independence, their own place, but cannot get because there are no low cost rental accomodation for singles and couples. There is a lack of accomodation for school leavers and the retired. Houses have become a financial investment for retirement, and so the owners oppose the construction of high density student accommodation and retirement villages. The result is retirement houses are in short supply and extremely expensive, the sale of the large house won't cover the cost of the house and provide money to live off. This results in people moving to remote rural and coastal regions where property is cheap, but facilities like hospitals poor. Its not natural: money based decisions are driving human behaviour against nature.

On Professions/Engineers
Also consider the growth of professions. These arise from some nonsense about protecting the welfare of the public. Professions are an alternative to a union, though a profession may also have a union (eg. IEAust and APESMA). A profession gives the impression that they are there to serve some greater need, and not just themselves. But it is nonsense, the greater need is secondary to serving themselves. During the nineties, most unions and professional bodies changed their legal structure and became full trading companies, with constitutions which maintain the rights of members of the orignal association. Thus the IEAust became Engineers Australia (EA). Creating legislation is not about the public welfare its about business: not profits for EA, but for the big businesses who make use of the EA, it is also about politics. Holding office in EA is good for promotion within the big businesses. Purchasing the post nominal detritus on annual subscription sold by EA, is good for promotion within the big business. Creating legislation which restricts practice to those who purchase the postnominal detritus, is also good for the big businesses. It doesn't have anything to do with technical competence or the welfare of the community. Sorry, but the EA/IEAust assessment process is the dumbest in the world it is so generic the stage 2 competences could apply to a retail sales assisstant, it has nothing to do with technical competence: and that applies to the newly revised stage 2 competences as well as the previous. The American FE/PE exams and the IStructE part 3 exam assess technical competence. The EA/IEAust work practice report stuff is far too much he says she says. It assumes that someone is actually under the supervision of someone who is competent. The work practice report just becomes hyperbole. I would place B.Eng. MIEAust CPEng NPER 2nd to the top of my list of incompetents. The IEAust keeps dragging Queensland up, because of registration of engineers, RPEQ: they are top of my list. The RPEQ's self certify way beyond their authority and competence: the Queensland's system is stupid not something to be held up as a bench mark. How do I know? Because manufactured structural products flow into SA, where we don't have registration, but demand an independent technical check. So the Queensland stuff first rejected for lack of independence, then when checked, further rejected because not technically correct. If going to have restrictions make sure they are valid.

The Queensland system was reviewed by the competition watchdog, because national consultancies considered it was an hindrance to cross border business. The basic conclusion was that it was in the interests of the public welfare most especially with respect to the building industry and also with respect to amusement rides. At the time there was some failures of amusement ride equipment. The IEAust response take MIEAust away from someone. Who cares? Many don't have in the first place, nor care about getting. In the review report there was a large appendix which tended to indicate that in Queensland a large amount of the work was done by 2 year qualified engineering associates, and consulting businesses also owned by such: their work needed to be reviewed and approved by RPEQ's. All very well but, there appears to be a lack of checking on the RPEQ's. A high quality assessment process is not a once off exercise: it cannot be achieved by granting authority and responsibility to individuals. There is need for constant monitoring: the more established the technology the greater the communities expectations for achieving expected performance requirements.

As I remember the IEAust appeared to loose its status as a reliable indicator of technical competence around the 1980's. First I think union type laws prevent job advertisements stating a requirement for MIEAust, they typically have to make reference to elligible for membership. Some Australian standards make a reference, to MIEAust being the definition of engineer when so referenced: but there is little that actually requires an engineer. Also standards are recommendations, for the building code of Australia (BCA) to be incorporated into law, and its referenced standards, the language in those codes and standards needs changing. The BCA makes reference to CPEng and NPER, but that is just one option, the primary requirement is suitably qualified. That is important, because when it comes to new technology, an engineer may not be suitably qualified.

To create NPER and develop legislation which restricts, requires adequate number of registrants. Thus since its creation the IEAust has had periods of fast tracking MIEAust to CPEng NPER. The consequence of that is diminishing the whole system back down to the unreliable nature of MIEAust as valid indicator of technical competence. Competence has to be sustained in the workforce and in society, and the IEAust needs to work at that, it did not do so. I reiterate the proposal and achievement thus far is not about the community, it is about the status and recognition of those with a B.Eng, about political power, a grab for work, an illusion hiding monopoly and cartel controlling prices. This is already in play.

Take a look at something else to see how it all starts. The workers in child care facilities have recently been on the news declaring they cannot survive on minimum wages and should be on the same industrial award as teachers and educators not the state/federal minimum for those not otherwise covered by an award. The 90's saw a period of rationalisation attempting to minimise the number of awards: so try to create common professions and trades at various levels of responsibilty. This in turn partially aligned with the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) providing recognition of education and training.

On Professions/Child care Workers
The child care workers argument: they are not just minders but educators, responsible for the early development of children before school. Meanwhile the parents of the children are paying somewhere between $70 and $100 per child per day for child care. This is apparently equal to the mothers wages: which I think is more the issue than the mothers just working for child care (some article been written saying its a shared cost: which it is). Apparently the mothers are not working because they need the money now, but because they will need the money at some future date, and they contend they will have trouble getting back into the workforce if they don't stay in it.

Industrial Relations
The Australian industrial awards represent semi-regulation of the labour market. The awards set minimum conditions of work, minimum wages, maximum hours, define ordinary time, time and a half and double time, and possibly career progression. Market pay rates however may be higher than the award minimum. A sense of equity has been lost from the culture, so that whilst in the past there was little difference in wages,  there are now deliberate attempts to ensure wage relativities: the greater importance or one person or profession over an other. This is somewhat silly at a society level, unfortunately attempts to create enterprise level agreements meet opposition from unions. Take engineers for example, they believe they should be paid more than a drafter: rubbish. Such view stems from a single minded view of organisational structure, a single type of business, with engineers at the top controlling. With also the view that those controlling should get paid the most. Once again refer back to small business, due to the industrial awards the owners are highly likely to earn less than the employees. Only the owners income can fluctuate up and down with changes in the market. The result is that the workforce typically shrinks and contracts rather than wages.

Engineers think they should be paid more than a teacher and more than scientists, because engineers have 4 year degrees and the other only 3 year degrees. Once again rubbish. Engineers also always dragging doctors up: once again nonsense arguments. The importance of a profession is not merely relative to a society, but also a point in time, and to an enterprise and a situation. There is no point holding doctors in high esteem when people are starving, the important people are the farmers. Once food is in high supply then feeding twice the amount of food to the sick maybe possible, and doctors may then become important, for production of food is taken for granted. If doctors are taken for granted, then they also loose importance: there has to be sickness and ailments which only doctors can treat for them to be of high value. So there is the doctor versus pharmacist, and the pharmacist versus the local supermarket.

So if attempting to determine the cost of something need to place a cost on labour. But what is the cost of labour? Its what the worker is willing to work for. The cost of labour may however be distorted by unions and government interference. A business can keep operating by contracting wages back to award minimum only if the workers agree, but they cannot reduce to lower than award minimum. Some local businesses, have attempted to work at less than industry awards, to keep traditional enterprise going, but whilst have the agreement of the workers, the unions may otherwise oppose. The current labor government (thats a joke, should try reading constitution doesn't mention anything about political parties: further executiive council is not the government it executes the will of the government: all members of parliament and the senate are the government. But let mass media talk about government and opposition. Anyway thats another story.)

The labor party basically drove a campaign against the previous governments "workers choices" system, and with a partial mandate to make union membership compulsory. Their view being that unions defend the industrial awards, so all persons who benefit should contribute to the funds. They oppose enterprise agreements and individual contracts. During the nineties, and "the recession we had to have" under a labor government the unions were making agreements to the effect: can reduce labour force as long as those that stay behind get paid more. Not surprising membership of unions only 40% of workforce. As stated earlier, they have the legal structure of full trading compaines and have employees on staff. They are businesses, cartels, they sell labour, and shouldn't be granted any form of government sanction. Political power is extremely important to pricing.

How to cost labour, or services? APESMA publishes guidelines for determining contract rates. Basically start with the award minimums of 38 hours/week and 52 weeks/year, to get 1976 hours/year. These hours are what everyone gets paid for, but not the hours they actually work. These hours are therefore reduced for sick day allowance, vacation time, long service leave, and a multitude of other benefits provided in the industrial awards. Then an allowance of 20% is allowed for extra time searching for work between short term contracts, thus two charge out rates are determined: one for short term contracts another for long term contracts. This is for labour hire only, so no costs of equipment considered. Now this determines the hours worked and actually billable, but what about the price? Where do we get the price from to determine the hourly rate? Well thats simple, pull a number out off a hat. You, the individual choose what annual salary you want, and divide this by the expected billable hours to get an hourly charge out rate. A starting point is the industrial awards, and the APESMA salary surveys.

At the end of the day however the income generated over a year may be greater or lower than that estimated, and likewise the hours worked. No real need to mess around with the hours, just pull a number out off a hat for the hourly rate. Large consulting engineer business tend to rely on contractors, they allow the business to expand and contract as the economy varies, contractors have a fixed rate no time and a half, or double time, and contractors, even casual labour, may work some 50 to 90 hours per week. Contractors may also work until they have the job complete. So whilst workers, work 9 to 5 (not sure where that actually comes from: try 8:30 to 17:15, to provide 45 minutes unpaid lunch break. And forget about the 37.5 or 38 hours/week in the awards.) Contract drafters may work through the night, and be on their way home, when the employees are just starting work. Contractors can have several days, to months off, due to the income they have generated whilst working, and not generated through high fees, but by working a full years hours in half a calendar year (365.25*24=8766 hours/year, sleep 1/3rd leaves, 2/3rds for activity: 5844: a life of luxury).

People who make a living doing what they like, and therefore don't require income and time off work to pursue other interests, are unlikley to determine hourly rates following guidelines like those put out by APESMA. The problem is rooted in Simonian Simplification of (S2,S-squared as my lecturer called it). S2 is the simplistic view that all persons behave the same, that they act in self interest, and that the collective behaviour benefits the individual in the group. As shown in much of mentioned above, the collective behaviour of individuals result in adverse effects on the individual. For example if everyone opposes contruction of retirement homes to maintain value of their property so that can finance retirement, then have no alternative buildings for retirement. A house is not a financial investment, it is a life support system: it should be designed and built to be livable now and in future retirement. Is it in any way possible to put money aside for future needs? I don't believe it is possible, the value of money is itself pure fiction.

If the purpose of business is maximum profits, and the simplest way to do that is to increase price, then the costs to labour increase (they have to pay more for goods they need). Labour therefore demands a greater share of the business profits, without shouldering any of the variable risk: their increase in income is permanent: if not sustainable it will be met by future unemployment for some if not all. With increase in labour costs, the profit to the business decreases. it remains as in the past, a never ending poltical battle to grab what the individual or collective considers a fair share of the available but limited resource: in general the single resource of money.


-- Interrupt for tea --

Business and Geography
The purpose of the abstract financial entity on paper may well be to increase profits, but that is not the purpose of the people who breathe life into a business enterprise. There are increasing calls to buy nationally produced goods, and still further calls to buy goods produced more locally, to use more local businesses. People have a connection to place: after all they have or are investing a great portion of their lives into a mortgage on property which locks them to that place. I have mentioned in previous blogs that in the past people in Adelaide have had a mortgage on a house here, whilst renting and working interstate. They being unable to sell their house in Adelaide since no employment for others to move to. Houses are not a financial investment, and increasingly they are poor life support systems. New types of housing are required along with alternative business structures. It should also be noted that many cities also have the legal structure of full trading companies.

Economics texts attempt to differentiate between capitalism and communism and between economic and political systems. Doing so is not all that helpful. The problem of scarcity which economics supposed to study, generates the need to exercise power and control over limited resources: economics is political. The difference between capitalism and communism is purely academic, it has no practical value: reality is a continuous spectrum of alternatives. A market is just an ecosystem of exchanges which supports a cycle of life. The invisible hand of the free market gives rise to markets in regulation and centralised planning. Modern western government is just a market sector with businesses vying for their share.

Just about everything has been reduced to economics. Marriage maybe a religious ceremony, but mostly it is a civil law contract for economic gain: typically restricted to a single partner with non-commercial benefits and advantages. But mostly an economic contract. When take divorce into consideration and the custody and support of children. Then it represents the formation of a special kind of economic entity which cannot be broken. Increasingly businesses are being seen has holding similar responsibilities to their employees has parents do to their children. Whilst government has similar responsibilities as parents to its citizens.

Now citizenship is a strange thing. I hold dual citizenship: Britain and Australia. Prior to the 1986 Australia act, most commonwealth subjects with permanent residency, automatically gained similar rights to Austrailian born citizens. The 1986 Act and associated laws was going to change that, so prior to its introduction many immigrants took up Australian citizenship. But it was silly, British subjects required to swear allegiance to the Queen, the head of the commonwealth, her heirs and successors. Like already required to do that by nature of birth in a monarchy. Which therefore raises a question, why don't all citizens have to swear allegiance to the nation which they expect to support them? Like if have a true democracy, and the government has true legitimacy, then the majority of inhabitants of the land will owe allegiance: if not then the nation, the government is illegitimate. Further if the government is little more than a business enterpise which provides certain services through a collective centrally planned model, then will people buy services from the available providers. Under the Australian system it is compulsory, mandated to vote the useless, dishonest, integrity lacking low skilled politicians into power. Its relatively pointless exercise since just a bunch of fools changing seats. As I mentioned above, there is not meant to be a so called government and opposition: that is a creation of the mass media. There was no problem at the last election, for once everything went right, not wrong as the media made it out to be. We the people, the electorate, elect representatives. They form parliament and the senate, collectively the government. From these the governor general appoints the members of the executive council to advise and execute the will of the government. The prime minister is not supposed to belong to a political party and represent that party, the prime minister is supposed to represent the government and the electorate.

But politics divides the government along party lines, and it also suits the mass media to create stories. In practice the political party with the majority of seats forms the executive council and the governor general agrees, more over the governor general ultimately ends up being appointed by the political party. The political party excluded from the executive council, then becomes the shadow cabinet or opposition. The executive council then dictates to the government, rather than executing the will of the government, because it is now referred to as the government. If the opposition doesn't oppose enough the mass media call them weak, if they oppose too much they are referred to as obstructive. It seems to exist for the benefit of mass media rather than actually carry out the functions of government. Australia also has a unique industrial relations system, with unions belonging to a state level trade and labour council (TLC), and the TLC's belonging to the national Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU),  which resides in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) along side the federal government. Labour has a significant influence over government, an influence which business is largely and deliberately excluded from. At the last election the unions basically destroyed the resident government, but they didn't achieve that much of a success, to place the Labor Party with a clear majority: hence a perceived problem. Surprisingly they did this by opposing a set of industrial relations reforms called "workers choices", and they did it with advertising amongst which was an advert where by some twit in a suite says he was laid off and job given to someone else for $25,000 less. Laid off, the true revolutionaries would have put him against a wall and shot him. The cost difference is someones entire salary. But no, you are supposed to feel sorry for him and his family, which no longer has an income. Sorry! But no way, some people didn't and don't have incomes in the first place because industrial awards set minimum rates which are too high: and to a certain extent make the employees the biggest bludgers in the land. Loosing sales to imported goods, dumped on the shores. Not really dumped, but produced by people who are actually working trying to achieve the life of luxury which Australian's and most westerners take for granted. Loosing overseas markets because of the same problem.

Ability to Buy
A small cold-formed steel shed may only cost around say $2000, and may provide a simple shelter. We have regulations which hinder building sheds and turning them into houses over a period of years, which was common in rural fringes. Still even in the suburbs there are houses whereby verandahs and garages have been converted into extra living space without actually compliying with BCA requirements: this is usually highlighted when background checks on approvals are checked at sale time. Anycase we have expected levels of quality for various products, housing and others. Various organisations keep checks on quality supplied, such as Choice magazine. None the less individuals can still choose to live in a shed if they wish to, if they can find some place to do so: however typically costs more than a garden shed, and otherwise made habitable, but at significantly lower cost than a brick veneer on timber framed house.

In developing countries after buying food even with government assistance, people have less than $2 to spare at the end of the year, it would therefore take 1000 years to pay off the capital on a $2000 shed. If we make it, we cannot sell it to them, for our labour costs are too high. They however can make at much lower costs, and exported to the west, supply costs can be significantly lower than local. Such lower prices allows westerners to redistribute their income, more surplus for nonessentials, for luxuries. But at some point we cease to have employment and cannot buy anything. The invisible hand of the economy doesn't care about community: the community has to care.

Now Australia has raw materials, from mining and agriculture, and whilst a major supplier in these areas, it doesn't mean have great control over prices. First we don't have the population to produce, first a shortage of numbers, and secondly a cultural shift away from such hard manual labour. A land increasingly of:, business executives, sports stars, entertainers, and retailers.

Retailers are political
Retailers are political. Whilst most capital cities are more or less open 24/7, Adelaide the sleepy backwater rural town, has vocal business associations which hinder such trading: and bills are passed in state parliament to set trading hours. Its seems everything is on the basis of one in all in, one out all out. The argument is that small business cannot afford to employ staff to operate 24/7, if they are not open when the big retail stores are  then they loose business income and may have to shutdown. Secondly the owners of large shopping plaza's and malls, typically require all stores to be open, since looks bad when most stores are closed. This is an entirely different issue to operating hours restricted due to noise and traffic generated by industry.

As mentioned above the suburbs once contained market gardens and rural fringe. It was possible to go for a drive not too far into the country and buy fruit and veg direct from farmers from road side stalls, also flowers on mothers day. This practice died out a while back. Whilst an increase in population may have increased traffic flows along roads, getting to and from the road side stalls wasn't exactly an hazard. But retailers basically squashed the practice, on the basis of such declared hazard. The other issues raised were rents on shops, versus using public property (questionable if stall on farmers land). Basically the new bricks and mortar retailers were loosing market share to these road side stalls, so they removed the suppliers. Approaching Mothers day, families with gardens may have sold flowers at the street side. But once again retailers loosing market share squashed the practice, as I beleive a license is now required to set up such flower stall. Though people may give the fruit grown in their gardens away via roadside stalls.

Get the Government to Make Your Products Mandatory
It is not about free markets but exercise of power in the political arena. Take bicycle helmets, smoke alarms and residual current devices RCD's, these items have become compulsory and mandated by law with fines for non-compliance. This mandatory requirement is largely to create a large enough market to sustain business providing. (And these power brokers want to know why the republic debate keeps failing. The people don't want to give such draconian governing political parties any greater power, and desire a democracy not a republic: want to get rid of the ruling elite.)

Retailers and Credit Cards
Retailers most recent activities concern credit charges and online sales. For use of credit cards they wanted to charge people a higher price: argument it costs them more. Missing issue, the point of accepting credit card is guaranteed payment compared to no guarantee with a cheque. This in turn results in higher sales, and potentially improved cashflow. Now there is a bank advertising, on basis that customers who use credit cards are withholding payment to the retailers, who typically have to wait 4 days before getting funds on credit card payments from banks. I think the bank is offering same day. Still seems to be missing the point: like business to business operates on time frames of anything from 30 days to 120 days. Some manufacturers also supply the retailers with goods on credit and take them back if the retailer doesn't sell. The retailers don't really have a difficult time, and mostly have lost this argument.

Retailers and Online Sales
The argument against online sales is that there is no goods and services tax (GST) on online sales, and typically no import duties. Not altogether true, such taxes and duties will be applied as passes through customs, and is dependent on the cost. The retailers lost this argument. People not really concerned about a 10% GST, it is significantly less than the 2 to 5 times the price retailers are selling stuff at.

Delivery/Transportation Costs
I typically order books from Amazon. I did try engineers australia books at one time, but if not going to filter metric from imperial units, and dificult to find books they advertsie in Engineers Australia magazine, and the delivery time still around 4 weeks whats the benefit? The Amazon website is easy to navigate, almost allows me to look through books as I would in a retail store, and separates book price from delivery costs. I recently found out about Booktopia an Australian equivalent of Amazon, so I thought I would check out their prices: far more expensive and just as long to wait, and books not in stock. Their pricing is likely all wrong. Namely it appears, they have added the price of obtaining a single book from over seas source to each and every book, the highest possible delivery price. To this is then added the delivery fee to get the book to the buyers door, or maybe they have supposedly free delivery. The problem is that for the overseas delivery fee a large number of books can be obtained. A buyer can therefore hold off on buying books until they can minimise their transportation costs.

Business needs to know what to hide in prices and allow to vary without the buyers knowledge and what needs to be disclosed. If detail too much then buyers argues about not wanting or otherwise not getting. If don't include any detail, then buyer may go elsewhere.

Whinge about dumping, and fee's being undercut, but don't expect anyone to take it as a serious and real issue: it identifies no grasp of the uncertainty and experimental nature of business. Price is simply a number pulled out off a hat, which the seller hopes to get the potential consumer to agree to.

Farmers, Small Retailers and the Supermarket Chains
Farmers and small retailers have been critical of the big supermarkets and retail stores, and the competition watchdog. Apparently checks by the watchdog, indicate no wrong doing on the part of the big retail chains. Competition is apparently good and so is the loss of small local stores, all that matters is lower prices and access to greater array of goods. Destruction of community not an issue. That action taken by the individual in their best interests, taken collectively not good for the community and in turn ultimately not good for the individual. Human behaviour needs regulating. Unfortunately government controls are seldom regulators, just interfering control. A true regulator is dynamically adaptive: it returns a system to an equilibrium position even if its a shifted position.

As mentioned above there is much done by small business which is not counted as a cost, but is so counted by large business. People coming from large business and setting up their own small businesses, tend to count costs others in their new market do not count. Their prices thus appear too high. They are paying more attention to what they want rather than what the market needs. When it comes to service industry, there is a fine line between what you believe is required and what the market actually wants.

Satisfying Market Needs, Not Yours
The child care workers are simply minders not early development educators. Some of the agencies may provide early development education, and have people qualified to do so, but not all. Furthermore how does early development education differ from traditional parental care? The issue is that there is a market, and an acceptable market price, but no clarity as to what is being purchased. The parents primarily require some facility in a convenient geographical location: they find and then pay the price. There is not a great deal of option, as with schooling. With little option, market prices can be near constant across suppliers, but with vastly different supply of services: and costs incurred.

Unlike engineers, architects are regulated in all Australian states. But for what purpose? The SA building contractors Act, grants architect as being equal to licensed building works supervisor and doesn't need to obtain such additional license. The act is mostly concerned with supply of housing. People mostly go direct to builders, building designers and drafting service businesses rather than to architects. Architects are seen as people who design works of art not practical buildings. Architects also seen as people who charge extortionate prices for conceptual scribble no use to anyone: except an architect who is going to develop further for still more fee. Architects may have set the original datum for consultancy fees, but others can supply more for such fee, do it faster, or otherwise supply faster and more for lower fees. They are not supplying architectural services, because they don't have that which makes an architect an architect, and thus makes the architects services unique. What ever that something is, most people have no need for and don't want to buy at the price offered.

As far as the buyer is concerned they get the same from an architect as they get from a drafter: a set of drawings which will be checked for compliance by a building surveyor, and development approval granted. What they want is a building, and they typically wanted it last week. So they typically go to builders, the builders may produce their own drawings or employ a drafter. If they go to an architect, the drawings likely produced by a drafter, and specification written by another specialist not an architect. So the question is what did the architect supply other than additional cost?

With builders the cost of the drafting maybe hidden in the cost of the building: and otherwise considered free. The problem with that approach is that some buyers get the drawings from one builder then shop around for lower building price. Similar happened with timber suppliers and free material take-offs. Now more builders and timber suppliers charge a separate fee for drawings and material take-off's. A cost which was once an overhead and distributed across all projects becomes an explicit upfront charge to the project. Also something which may have been done in-house may now be outsourced. The result is that services which once appeared to be free, now sky rocket in price. The price increases because the new suppliers are businesses in their own right, and now incur additional overhead costs. Drafters once housed in the builders premises now require their own offices. Further these drafters now have other issues to consider, other then the needs of say a builder. Drafting becomes a product, an end in itself rather than a means to an end.

Similarly goes for engineers. The buyer simply gets a collection of drawings and maybe a pile of numbers. The drafting service can be isolated from the engineers. Then the engineers simply provide the numbers, which is a lot clearer than what the architects are supplying.

Once a product is released to the market, it will be put to uses way beyond the original intents of the designers. Engineers are in the main ignorant of the history of the market place. Art and crafts first, trade second, drafters, then designers and finally applied scientists and engineers. Engineers are not the top of an hierarchy: the hierarchy is their work of fiction. Engineering associates, technicians, and technolgists are not subordinate to engineers. They only become subordinate when employed by engineers.

Many small businesses would benefit from engineers on staff. But they view engineers as too expensive, compared to sales people on commission, and the trades people they employ. I would have thought the sales commission would surpass the industrial award for engineers. I think the real problem is engineers arrogance and consequently the perceived little value that engineers would bring to the business. That is the engineers do the numbers, and only do the complex calculations, other people can do the rest. The engineer is seen as highly specialised and of limted value. Whilst engineers themselves also tend to refuse to contribute all that they could to an enterprise: for example design drawing is below them and a drafter should be employed: or they produce conceptual drawings and expect a work shop detailer to do the rest. Put simply they are educated for, and get their training in businesses which have high division of labour, and cannot actually take a job from start to completion. Consequently engineers do become of limted value. With the emergence of software to do the numbers, engineers of even less value. Further it should be noted that in many instances engineers have been imposed by regulations. Things were being built long before drawings and long before calculations, and long before need for regulatory approval to go ahead and build. So drafting, architectural and engineering consulting services are services not entirely wanted, and an imposed cost to be eliminated as fast as is possble. Standard designs and computer software are providing the means of eliminating this unwarranted cost. The historical role of engineers was pushing technological frontiers forward, not life safety. Many engineers are definitely inline for a rude awakening: well especially if they cannot get their grab for work legislation passed. Life safety is not a quantitative issue resolved by carrying out complex calculations, it is a qualitative issue. A lot more community consultation is required for large projects, and there is a lot more feedback on all products.

There is a market place, people with needs which need satisfying. The task of a business enterprise is to identify these needs and find a way to satisfy from the resources they have available, and at the same time satisfy the needs of the members of the enterprise. Need to get rid of the concept of employee which is rooted in the the old master and servant laws, which control employment. Companies can do that since they are independent legal entities.

I believe entities like the IEAust are duds, currently redundant. We have more libraries, more educational institutions, and more indusry specific organisations. Better to be an alumini of a university than a graded member of the IEAust. Further learning will come from the university, not an institution like the IEAust, its time has been and gone. Well actually its time had gone when it was created, it was too late to the game. a A matter of business, economics and politics.

A degree acredited by the IEAust is irrelevant as is WFEO. Their activities only show partial understanding of the market, one high end sector, and yet their assessment process is dismally inadeqaute for the sector considered, whilst otherwise either over the top or completely irrelevant to the rest of the market. hence desire for legislation to gain an helping hand. Not necessary, as I've already said its about big business. Big business can operate what ever internal systems it wants, it doesn't have to impose such on the rest of us though. Does the market want to pay for these extra costs, do they actually get any value from them? The basic answer is they don't want to pay the current costs, and no they won't get any extra value. The extra value is wishful thinking, it cannot be guaranteed. It is upto businesses and individuals to provide value.

Price is a number pulled out of a hat. Do what ever complex calcuations desire to arrive at a number, but ultimately it has to be agreed to by the buyer and it ultimately becomes a number pulled out of a hat. The task is finding out how to supply for the market price, or how to get the market to accept the price desired. For example a buyer may consider a price of $1000 too high, but otherwise accept 6 smaller fees of $200 each. Working out the features, details and value of what is being provided and assigning appropriate prices is the main task, not working out a notional hourly rate. Hourly rates are crazy, they don't contain value, simply work more hours get paid more, but still fail to provide the value promised.

Costing Methods and Pricing are Important
Costing methods and pricing are important. Quantity surveyors typically cost structures by the weight, say $1000/tonne of fabricated steel. Beside my figure possibly being out off date, the figure is fiction. The only way to reduce the cost of the building is to reduce its weight: but it is the inherent labour cost that needs to be reduced not the weight. Other costing is done by the area, so that only way to reduce the cost is too reduce the building area. Basically the adopted costing methods require removing value from the structures not waste: reduce resistance, reduce useable area.

Roughly speaking once a structure is engineered its material content is fixed. However the cost of the structure can be reduced by redistributing that material to reduce labour costs. For example C75 girts at 600 c/c have almost identical material content to C150's at 1200 c/c, but installation labour is reduced for latter. Such cost reduction cannot be realised for shed suppliers because shed erectors either charge a fixed fee or work out on the basis of building plan area. Change costing methods and can change price and demonstrate greater value to buyers.

Buy versus DIY
Shed suppliers along with carport and veradah builders also have a marketing problem. Small builders and house owners consider the prices are extortionate, even when they work out material costs based on retail prices of materials. Stuff which has passed through my office with prices on, has indicated similar to myself. It becomes even more pronounced when start asking questions and identify two people required for 2 days to install many of the items: based on industrial award rates of pay, there seems a lot of profit in there. But then again there is all the unaccounted for over head of attempting to sell the things, and the sales commission for the sales person who does sell. The point is, that whilst it may be a legitimate cost of doing business, it is not value to the buyer, and it shouldn't be there or it otherwise needs turning into value. For example the house owners most likely wouldn't have thought to build if such wasn't available in the market. Putting the idea in the market does have value. To a certain extent development approval authorities attempt to protect this value, and require each supplier to produce own evidence of suitability and not base their building products on the RD&D of other suppliers. Similarly for owner builders. They all have to get designs done, and that can eliminate the cost saving, since the market suppliers have distributed design costs across the sales of 1000 or more units per year.

It is simonian simplification to assume your costs are the same as everybody elses. To start with most new businesses have lower cost technology than existing players in the market, and so lower startup costs. That technology also makes them faster, and able to do more and with higher quality. Existing business has a multitude of internal politics and history to resolve before they can get full benefit from new technology. That can mean for example that a new start up can charge 80% of the market rate and make significant profit for their actual costs are say only 20% of market rate. They are not working at a loss, they are trying to make the service more accessible to a greater market: their concern the needs of the market, not the status and prestige of a profession. Secondly they probably really like what they are doing, and don't need extra money to pursue the activities they would rather be doing. There are lots of hidden intangibles in prices.

Sun 2012-Jul-01  01:03AM

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

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

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


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

Previous Index Next