Brain leak: Price, Product, Promotion and Place : Engineering Services

This week Read this:

http://smbizstoryteller.com/2012/03/06/do-you-think-youre-charging-too-much/

http://buildingmadesimple.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/weekend-challenge-change-worldfor.html

http://www.beamcalcs.com/instant/index.html

http://www.steelbeamcalculator.co.uk/

Which led me to write this brain leak:

One of the first places I worked, the state manager had the view that engineers sold time: I disagree with that view point. My view has generally been that engineers sell solutions, provide risk management and a share in their insurance. I disagree however that engineers, are necessary to maintain the health, safety and welfare of society, and that engineers face grave liabilities. The latter however can be considered a matter of semantics. As I keep harping on about, the currently practicing engineers have failed to understand the defined capabilities of the members of the modern engineering team. Engineers may have originated our modern civilisation, but they are most certainly not necessary to maintaining it. It is a gross exaggeration and the height of arrogance to suggest that if we got rid of all engineers, our civilisation would collapse. It would not: modern professional engineers, did not invent, originate nor build our civilisation.

When Telford built the Conwy Suspension Bridge, he didn't know when scaled up to the Menai Suspension Bridge that it would not collapse. Similarly when Navier did his calculations for his first bridges, he didn't know they were going to collapse. Strangely as a society we have adopted Naviers approach: over reliance on theory and code compliance and lack of prototypes and lack of empirical evidence. Prototypes are important. They not only confirm theory regarding performance of the end-product, but also permit testing the fabrication and construction process, and help train the supervisors for the real project. However, for large structures like buildings and bridges it is not altogether practical to build prototypes. No that cannot be right, that is what Telford and Stephenson did.

The buildings and bridges of the past represent heritage, statistical evidence that the forms of construction are fit-for-function and something against which to calibrate theory. So if all of our available knowledge is put to use then, we expect failure under defined circumstances and with the rare and unpredictable causes being beyond our current knowledge. Society therefore has expectations of success. This is typically represented in the cost of professional indemnity insurance, which is relatively low, and which otherwise increases in proportion to value of projects contributed to and the risk for the type of work.

Insurance and Geotechnical Engineering
So for example a few years back, during the construction of the Lane Cove Tunnel, when the roof of the tunnel collapsed and the corner of an apartment block above collapsed, the cost of insurance for geotechnical projects skyrocketed. This occurred to the extent that many consulting engineers contended they could no longer afford to work, and there was something of an up roar in the engineering community. Insurance costs settled down. In South Australia, the main work of civil engineers has largely been residential footing construction reports (FCR's), basically sizing slabs and footings located on highly reactive soils. In the past a large amount of cracking of brick work, led to some City Councils being sued: since then the development act 1993, removed the councils ability to give advice. There is now a requirement for independent technical check. Note the council is always there, consultants and builders come and go, and council grants approval, so they tend to be the first to be questioned over failures. So in the past failure of footings and cracking of brick work something of a problem, today however footings designed to AS2870 have a low risk of failure. To lump such work in with geotechnical engineering, is unreasonable: the risk is no where near the same as mining and tunneling activity. So a need to rationalise the insurance, if going to have people available to do the work: and the right people to do the work. Noting that in most other Australian states, where do not have the same level of reactive soils as South Australia (SA), footings can be sized directly from AS2870 and no engineer is required: just need soils people who take bore logs to classify the site to AS2870. Even in SA, some 80% of footings can be taken directly from AS2870, without need of blackbox software like Chord and Slog. Such work should be in the capabilities of 2 year qualified civil/structural engineering associates (they are not drafters or technicians), and such is covered in their academic programmes. Problem is getting the opportunity to put their studies to work, they mostly get put on a drawing board, and never get opportunity to progress, except may be with stormwater drainage design: which is heavily biased towards technical drawing.

Workshop Detailers and Detailing.
Considering another situation, that of work shop detailers. I'm not sure when, but around 1990, most of the contract drafters I met, previously were fulltime employees of fabrication and engineering workshops. There was massive decline in the industry and many people were laid off. I did my work experience at an engineering fabrication company in the late 1980's, all the companies clients I met, described how in the hey day the place was overflowing with activity. This is whilst we were hidden in the dark, deep inside the workshop buildings, with a simple lamp at the workers workstation: during the day time. The workshops were basically kept in the dark, with spots of light here and there where people were working. The skylight windows not providing all that much light. So there was this decline in the industry, and fabricators shifted to employing workshop detailers on an as needs basis, rather than having on staff. Problem is if talk to these workshop detailers, the works not worth the effort. Miss a simple cleat off the drawings, and get hit with the bill for going to site, cutting off incorrect cleat and welding on correct cleat in right place: can end up costing more than got paid for producing the workshop drawings. Workshop detailing is something really need to work on, one project at a time without interruption. Since that time a lot of work shop detailers have retired, and very few people interested in taking up the work. This in turn is increasing the reliance on 3D CADD software and building information models (BIM). If talk to work shop detailers however this software is ok for routine stuff, and also in cases where can generate CNC code for suitable machines, but otherwise produces appalling drawings where parts have to be made by hand. But that is also another problem, many of the people using such software have poor knowledge of technical drawing, engineering graphics and production processes. Its all very well being able to view things in 3D, if know what to look at in the first place. Similarly all very well being able to connect members together in 3D, but it doesn't really help design a connection that is feasible to fabricate. Consequently we have a skill base that has not been sustained, at the same time the educational institutions are teaching how to use the software before teaching the fundamentals of engineering graphics. Being able to use a compass and set square is still important: there are no object snaps on the work shop floor or on a construction site in the Australian outback. The tools and techniques traditionally used on a drawing board were and are the same as those used on workshop floor and the construction site.

With the skills no longer held in house by the fabricators, large national detailing companies have emerged. But it is questionable as to whether they can be called workshop detailers, more like part detailers. The difference is that they no longer know what materials are in stock, what tools available in the workshop, and what labour skills available. Workshop details are meant to be produced for a specific workshop and its capabilities: they are not meant to be simply part drawings. For example engineering details may specify a fabricated angle folded from a flat bar, the steel fabricator may have a preference for welding up from flat plate. If specify welded angle, fabricator likely to complain about expense of complete penetration butt welds (CPBW). The workshop detailer is supposed to resolve such differences and detail for the workshop. Similarly the workshop may have offcuts and steel in stock which is not otherwise readily available, this may be employed on the project at lower cost and get project completed faster. The engineer typically cannot make these decisions, because the fabricator is not known until the project is put out to tender, and a general builder is awarded the contract and the builder appoints a fabricator.

Cost of Workshop Drawings
Now this process works fine for large projects, but poses unwarranted expense for smaller projects. The builders and owners want to know why they have to pay for additional drawings. All that they see is the need for more detailed dimensions on the development approval drawings. In the era of CADD if everything has been drawn correctly to dimension and geometry, adding some extra dimensions not a major problem. But at development approval stage, drawings are not necessarily dimensionally and geometrically correct. The pressures of limited time, result in some last minute changes simply being noted on drawings, and not being fully developed. So the hallway in the building may be dimensioned 1200mm wide, but still drawn its orginal dimension of 1000mm. As a consequence many workshop detailers, generally do not request the CADD drawings for a project. They prefer to work from the printed paper drawings, and build a detailing model from scratch. This becomes a final check on bringing all drawing data together: architectural, civil, structural, mechanical and electrical. Which then becomes a common complaint of workshop detailers, that not all problems have been resolved before they get the drawings, and design still taking place as workshop details being produced. Thus reinforcing the situation that few people want to take up workshop detailing. The workshop detailer is at the end of the line for documentation: from there fabrication takes place.

Engineering
When engineers check workshop details they usually disclaim responsibility for dimension and geometry, they only check member sizes, materials and connection details. That all is inaccordance with the design intent. It is thus workshop detailers and fabricators who experience the defects in design from project to project rather than engineers.

The activity of structural engineers is mostly concerned with strength, and stability for some rare and extreme event: consequently some period of 50 years or more may pass before defects in an engineers assessment and calculations becomes apparent. Though serviceability isues may arise in the day to use of the structure. For example a floor in a house having too much bounce.

Once had a client who turned up and wanted a floor  designed, and wanted it in timber because steel has too much bounce. Strange situation. It is the Australian institute of steel construction (AISC) or now the Australian Steel Institute (ASI) which produces the guideline publication for floor vibration, not the timber development association (TDA). However the timber framing code AS1684, has span tables which consider stiffness and floor vibration. Hence a timber floor selected from the timber framing code typically does not have too much bounce. But if engineering calculations are required then the floor is outside the scope of the timber framing code, possibly beyond the capabilities of timber. Since manufacturers of glulams and LVL's produce span tables similar to the timber framing code, no engineer is required for a timber floor. Thus a timber floor is likely to have superior performance to that custom designed by an engineer, because the span tables are produced by engineers who in the main know what they are doing. The custom designed steel floor has too much bounce because it has not been fully designed: just assessed for compliance with the codes of practice. There is no mandatory constraint on deflections, there is a requirement for checking serviceability, but no specific performance criteria: codes of practice are not design manuals.There is more to engineering than simply checking code compliance, and more to know than simply the content of codes. It does not require an engineer to get this right. It requires someone highly familar with the technology being considered. A structural engineer highly conversant in the design of concrete water tanks is not necessarily competent enough to design the components of buildings. Similarly someone highly conversant in concrete design not highly familiar with steel design. Whilst they may have the foundational knowledge to understand, their projects do not necessarily permit the time to become adequately proficient, and exercise the desired duty-of-care.

The engineer as defined by WFEO, is more concerned with the frontiers of technology than the established, their formal education is meant to be more directed towards the sciences than established technologies, and technologies viewed in a more abstract and generic sense: highly fluid and adaptable to new circumstances. It is the role of engineering technicians, engineering associates and engineering technologists to deal with the established technologies and adapt them to familiar circumstances. So cranes, storage tanks, silo's, chimneys, buildings, and bridges are all familar technolgies and well established. Graduate engineers are not suitably educated for being job ready to design such things: they are not meant to be, for designing such things is not there job. It is the job of the other members of the engineering team to design these things, and for their education to be specifically directed at such task. The problem with the WFEO definitions is the assumption that an engineer can be educated straight out off school: crazy notion. To be a competent engineer, a person really needs to have spent considerable time in the role of other members of the engineering team before tackling a project at the frontiers of science and technology. Telford and Stephenson could more readily trackle projects at the frontier because so little was known and community expectations of success lower than they are today. We do not tolerate inferior versions of the wheel being released into the market: new products have to exceed the performance of existing. Today it is necessary to be highly familiar with a technology and get it right first time, every time: not altogether practical, but that is the expectation.

In the modern world the majority of people we call professional engineer are not operating in the WFEO role of engineer, they are actually operating in the roles of the other members of the engineering team. They are not push any frontiers, they are not stepping into the unknown, they are not taking major risks. Well actually they are taking a major risk.

That major risk is that they are pushed for time, operating in a competitive business environment, product has to be released to market and buildings and bridges have to get built, and money flow into organisation to cover research, design and development costs. Being pushed for time, the persons involved in a project are not necessarily highly conversant with the technology they are dealing with. Thus a structural engineer, sizes some mechanical anchors for an aluminimum balustrade and specifies welding to a base plate, without reference to the aluminium structures code, and with inadequate knowledge of metals. {eg. they should have stuck with dirt and concrete.}

On Consultants
So have a problem has industry becomes increasingly reliant on outsourcing and using the services of consultants. An aluminium fabricator, knows they need designers of aluminium products, most likely a specofic aluminium product. So such fabricator can take on so many graduates of engineering, across the full engineering team and train them relative to their product and the materials used. Thus they develop expertise in the required area.

Consulting civil/structural engineers spend most of their time dealing with concrete and steel, and designing buildings and bridges and other large structures one at a time. So when a manufacturer comes along and wants their product design updated, the consultants are not up to speed, with either the material or the technology, nor methodology. The approach required for a structural building system or the components of, is different than that for buidlings. It is totally inappropriate to describe the project as multiple one-off projects.

For example one contract engineer described a case he about, regarding a consultant who after a year of work issued a shed manufactured with a bill for $50,000, the case went to court. The contract engineer thought the fee was unreasonable, since one-off shed designs for such manufacturers typically of the order of $550 at the time, I didn't think it unreasonable as a total fee. I thought the fee is unreasonable for what they actually get: a collection of individual shed designs. My preferred approach is more along the lines of industrial product design, and the design of a structural building system: this would take a year or more to do, and cost considerably more than $50 thousand. Such system would simplify selection of components when customising the product to the end-users needs: and so eliminate or at least significantly reduce the number of designs rejected by the regulating authority. My general view is that most of the companies would be better off replacing one of their relatively unskilled sales people of estimators with an engineer or at least engineering associate. Its not likely to happen however: the owners of the business likely to come into conflict with qualified technical personnel.

The other issue is that most of the businesses are small family businesses, and cannot afford large scale up front investment in design, nor can the small consultancy businesses afford to carry the cost of RD&D for them. Hence, they generally get a one-off design, which becomes an envelope for what they do sell, they then get other one-off designs on an as needs basis. The problem of doing this, is that there is no rationale to the designs, the designs do not determine the limitations of structural sections: one design is not necessarily enveloped by another. Consequently their guesstimation based on the standard designs held can be flawed, and way out. They thus look to consultants who can assist them to make estimates of member sizes for quotations. These estimates are needed any where between the next 5 minutes, the next 30 minutes to the next 48 hours. It is something better provided in house rather than by consultants. By relying on consultants they experience delays, not to mention lack of interest. Due to the nature of these manufacturers consultants tend to reach a point where they no longer wish to speak to the manufacturer. So the manufacturer is left with the problem of which consultant will talk to them this week. When talking cold-formed steel that doesn't leave many consultants.

So businesses do not necessarily have the right mix of people. So one thing graduates and consultants could look at is the needs of existing businesses which may benefit from having engineering services more readily available.

On Calculations
Engineers are typically seen as the ones who do the numbers. This is a problem, and an important one to take note off. Engineering is not about calculations, it is about understanding the relationship between the varying characteristics of a system, and using that to design a solution to a problem. A brainless unimaginative block of silicon can crunch numbers but it cannot solve problems. However it has to be noted that it is people who solve problems. The traditional training of many people was dependent on their ability to evaluate mathematical expressions: and a primary part of their careers involved doing so. With the emergence of electronic calculators, the time spent on such calculations reduced, and with electronic digital computers the time reduced further. Hence the fallacy of engineers sell time.

When I started with cold-formed steel design, my view was: there was no way could be done for such fee. But after a few projects, and progressively building spreadsheets in Quattro Pro, I had reduced the time from a week, I no longer had to study and learn cold-formed structures code since done that, and the hand calculations progressively automated. Thus getting closer and closer to getting the answers the client wanted in 5 minutes. Whilst otherwise pushing the standard calculation fee up from $550 to $990. Not only were the calculations done faster, but some 5 times more calculations were carried out to provide significantly more detailed assessment of connections. Not particularly valued, because seems everyone knew some issue with the connections, but not wanting to change. Still an issue trying to resolve. I've had more testing done at the University of South Australia (UniSA) as a student project, but still got to bring about change. The problem is that the available connection design manuals are not readily available (little from the ASI is: commonly out off print very rapidly.), further more such manuals for hotrolled steel and not a national standard. Result an apparently common attitude don't need to use, and not relevant for cold-formed steel. May be so, but the mechanics of the connection is similar: and making some assessment is better than no assessment.

So not just a matter of doing calculations, but the right calculations for the system, and in the right time frame. If can provide calculations faster that has a premium. Calculations which identify problem with current design, and problem that everyone is ignoring, are not wanted. If only skill contributing to a project is calculation, then can be readily replaced by software.

I am aware of one engineer who apparently day after day, hand writes out calculations that a 250 PFC is several times stronger than required. Not once showing that a C25024 cold-formed c-section is also several times stronger than required: for to do so would require considerably greater calculation effort. The physical problem requires something 250mm deep, and something the shape of a channel: so 250 PFC is the off-the-shelf solution. The development act requires evidence-of-suitability, so calculations are churned out. The said engineer is close to retirement, and I suspect provides significantly more to his clients than such calculations. It is just most likely that direct payment is for printed documents, not for conversations with the builder. So the calculation effort can be significantly automated, and more economical solutions possibly sought. But it is a matter of whether the alternative solutions are actually sought, and whether anyone wants to implement. It is also a matter of whether the builder recognises the full service that they actually get from a member of the engineering team.

Consider another situation. A plan drafter or builder draws up plans for a house, draws a big black line and points to it with a note: beam by engineer. They submit to regulating authority and get request to supply calculations for beam-by-engineer. They then seek services of an engineer and get calculations, approval is granted and some weeks later the builder who contracts to build, turns up at engineers office complaining beam is over sized. Argument breaks out and dispute not resolved. The builder then goes else where for engineering: my office for example. They come through office door cursing and swearing, council idiots for approving stuff that's wrong, engineers that don't know what they are doing etc ...

A problem. In all probability the engineers calculations are most likely correct. The problem is the deep beam doesn't fit below ceiling in the available 300mm space, and further more it cannot be man handled through the front door of existing house. If have to take roof off house to crane the beam in there is no point. Its not that the calculations are wrong, it is that the incorrect design problem was solved. The plan drafter wanted a beam, they got a beam. Council wants a code compliant beam, they got a code compliant beam, approval was granted. No real design was carried out. Usually the builder turns up, dumps the drawings down and wants to nick-off. Got to grab the builder back, and explain they are part of the solution process: they have to be willing and able to implement the design-solution: otherwise its not a design-solution. As with the workshop detailers, have to choose between willingness to weld the steel bracket up, or to fold it. This case what is the builder willing to do. As long as engineer only seen as doing the numbers their service is low value.

But consider aside from the numbers, there are many other people who can do what an engineer does, and do it much better. It is the mathematics, and the numbers primarily why people approach engineers in the first place. An engineer is thus something of a hindrance and delay to the whole process: especially if the technology is highly established.

On Retired Engineers and Regulations
The South Australian development act requires independent technical check. Independence requires no involvement with design. The building code of Australia (BCA) requires evidence-of-suitability. So whilst the development act permits building surveyors, private certifiers and councils to request calculations, there is no actual requirement for.

On a few forums I have read complaints about retired engineers in various parts of the world, rubber stamping, and accused of under cutting fees. I don't see any such thing. Once again, there is no need for calculations, or the crunching out off numbers. Engineers approaching retirement or in retirement, have crunched the numbers many times before. Sure codes have changed, but the solutions seldom change, for codes are typically calibrated against previous codes to get similar answers. Codes are not typically revised to make changes to the traditional 80%, but for the 20% of cases which is becoming increasingly common and for which the code is no longer adequate. So for the traditional the engineers can simply look at and based on past experience and understanding of relationships know whether additional calculations are required to confirm compliance with current codes, or whether it is ok by inspection. So yes they can just rubber stamp. Their experience, knowing the answer has a premium, and so does supplying an answer rapidly. Who needs the answer, the builder, and building surveyor, who also already know the answer. But there is a regulatory system and ritual to go through. So just because you has an individual haven't had the repetition and the experience to know, and you don't fully understand what you are doing, and simply crunch numbers as a ritual without understanding, doesn't mean others have the same deficiency. However the requirement is for evidence-of-suitability, and anything that approaches ESP to concluding a structure is adequate is not acceptable. That being said it is not necessary to keep generating the evidence on each and every project. Hence we have such things as the timber framing code.

Since my formal education is in industrial, manufacturing and mechanical engineering I seldom solve problems project wise, and seldom design structures project wise. I typically view with respect to future projects and industry wide solutions. Whilst I solve the project specific problem, I also develop design tools to assist with future projects. This may cause delays in getting the first solution, but becomes increasingly faster on future solutions. As a business we do not charge the client directly for the cost of such development, it is distributed across many future clients. I read a statisticians website the other day, he said he didn't charge by the hour because he did the work much faster than everyone else: he charged a fixed fee. As a consulting engineering business we do similarly.

Our fees are something of an intuitive feel for the market: not altogether mathematically worked out. We can check industrial awards for minimum hourly rates for occupational classes, various published statistics indicate whether the market is paying over award wages, and various clients also provide feedback of the fees in the market. Businesses we work closely with, typically suggest we can charge more, they will pass on to their client, private individuals on the other hand typically want lower fees. If people phone up and suggest they can get for lower, we typically recommend they take the offer. For the most part we are not looking for work, dealing with enquires occupies far too much time: limiting our ability to actually do the work. People always wanting to push to the front of the queue: need answer in next week, next 48 hours, by the end off the day. These are not projects we are working on, these are new enquiries, people with problems. They don't want to talk to a receptionist, they want to talk to someone who knows the answer, who can help solve the problem. That is why retired and semi-retired engineers get the work. This is not work pushing the frontiers of technology, it is all estbalished technology, with solutions implemented already, the industry wants to know what those prior solutions are: they want the services of someone who knows.

It is another reason I view problems as industry problems. I can wait until someone asks me to design a 21m clear span cold-formed steel portal frame, or I can detemine the limitations of cold-formed sections and know the solution already. I can use the computer, to gain the knowledge I would otherwise need an entire career to acquire.

Whilst I don't have the required qualifications to act as an independent technical expert and issue certifcate as such, I can act in accordance with the BCA, and issue a certificate of adequacy on basis of suitably qualified. That certificate can be checked by an independent technical expert and approval granted. Whilst the independent technical expert doesn't have calculations to check, it shouldn't matter because they are meant to check compliance of the proposed structure with the BCA. They have a certificate which contends that it is compliant with the structural provisions and gives some simple parameters and outputs which can be validated (eg. maximum moment in structure given, and little else). Do not want the technical expert checking arithmetic, want them checking the specification. If they cannot do a quick check then they probably shouldn't be checking that type of structure. The issue is not mere technical competence but proficiency. I reiterate it is established technology: in mos instances the builder has selected on past experience: they want someone else to confirm and provide required evidence of suitability to get approval. Hence the retired engineer is the one they want. So 50 years ago could have spent and justified the time to calculate the answer on the project, because then no one knew the answer, now many people do: and there is ritual to provide required evidence.

So whilst there is a premium on knowing the answer and supplying the answer quickly. The answer itself has low value, because everyone knows the answer, what is required is rapid supply of evidence-of-suitability. That is where computer software comes in, and online engineering services.

Online Engineering Services.
When engineering is reduced to simply providing required evidence-of-suitability in the form of engineering calculations, then that service has low value. Clearly such is not sustainable as a business year after year, fees are going to decline as the value diminishes. The value diminishes as the design-solutions become a matter of routine applied on a regular basis by everyone and know by everyone.

Additionally it is clear that, end-users typically don't get much involvement in the design process. Engineering services are perceived as expensive, and seldom present options to the right person, or even consider alternatives. So there is a trend for people to be able to make and assess design changes for themselves, relative to what matters to them. Remove a column from a building: how does that affect the size of the beam supported and impact on the cost of the structure? The end-users solution to the problem may be significantly different than that of the structural engineer or builder, but more desirable. But end-users typically do not have the know how to assess the impact of such changes: hence they become dependent on others. This dependency causes delays. The dependency exists because imposed requirements about public safety: if the person was going to build and never sell, and never have guests, and was isolated in a remote location: then probably wouldn't care too much what they did. But that is not the case, and the community wants the built environment regulated. So we are dependent. The desire for self expression and independence acts against this system dependency. Consequently more prescriptive solutions are required, which have already been approved, and more computer based parametric adaptive models are required which permit end-user customisation.

So software like Microstran and Multiframe may meet the needs of structural engineers, but it doesn't meet the needs of end-users who want the structures. End-users are not interested in loading codes and materials codes, they are just interested in their house. Its easy to erase a wall on a piece of paper: but what impact does that have on the structural adequacy of the house? Is it in any way possible for the end-user to assess this change without the services of a structural engineer? The answer is yes. Consider that the products by Sony are all based on the simple concept of timeshift. Cannot attend that once in a life time opera at the end of world war II. But transistor radio brought it into the house without the loss of time to travel, tape recordings made the opera available at a future date.

The same applies to engineering services, they do not need to be provided at the time the end-user needs: that is probably too late any how. The engineering services can be invested at some prior date, as with Sony embodied in the products they manufacture or otherwise supply.

The value of the engineering is not the time spent on a project, that is worthless. The value of the engineering services is the value invested in the product supplied, both goods and services.When it comes to consultants, the real focus by the customer is on the goods supplied: namely the documentation: not really the service. Just as consulting engineers design buildings, they also need to design their business and the product they supply. Instead of complaining about declining fees they need to understand the value of the product they are supplying.

Once again, only members of the engineering team can do the numbers, everything else is typically within the scope of others. Others are no able to do the numbers without the aid of the engineering team. Others will increasingly be empowered to do the numbers with out the aid of members of the engineering team.

So if a person classed as an engineer, has no real creativity, no real problem solving skills, no ingenuity, no talent what so ever which gives them claim to the title engineer: then they will mostly certainly be replaced by a brainless unimaginative block of silicon.

More and more engineering services are going to appear online, and offered for lower and lower fees, permitting end-users to review various design options at a low cost.

Off-Line Engineering Services
Engineering was never about doing the numbers. It is about understanding the nature of the real world, and harnessing this to achieve some objective. This typically resulted in some enterprise being created to produce and supply a physical product. However as indicated the economy changes, and technical personnel of all kinds end up outside the production companies as consultants. Whilst there are benefits to consultants there are also problems.

One of the prime benefits contended of consultants is a certain independence from proposed solution. That is if go to building contractor who specialises in concrete, then building provided will be in concrete. The consultant is supposed to provide a solution from the most appropriate material. This doesn't really occur, engineers become specialised in a particular material, and have biased preferences, so typically for example design concrete structures. A lot of buildings which have collapsed in earthquakes were inappropriately designed in reinforced concrete. This is not because concrete is inappropriate for earthquakes, it is because the method of construction and materials supply was inappropriate for the location of the building. the buildings needed to be designed with far greater consideration of the process of supply. Sure the numbers indicated that reinforced concrete could provide the required performance, but the number crunchings says nothing about the capability of getting the required performance in the location of the building.

So both architects and engineers need to be thinking a lot more about the capability of industry to supply the buildings they have specified. Not just considering the performance of the end-product. Back to workshop detailing example again: welded steel bracket versus folded steel bracket: two different processes which one is available? Further more which process is the more robust and least subject to human error? For a simple angle bracket where should the weld be placed, what form should the weld take? For the folded plate, what radius the bend, and how does that affect its stability? Little things can make a big difference.

Builders replacing multiple nails with a few large bolts: weaken the structure rather than strengthen it. Why? Because they have taken more material out off the member, and placed more force on the individual fasteners. But builders want to make certain changes: one is the large bolts look stronger, the other is it takes less time to install. Once again its not about the numbers but a qualitative appreciation of which way the numbers are going to go, without need to actually evaluate them.

If an engineer takes an arrogant stance of being smarter than builders and end-users then in all probability likely to fall flat on their face. It is a matter of perspective. Whilst the engineer is considering that the builder and end-user doesn't understand, they are thinking the same about the engineer. When the engineer thinks they have a great solution, everybody else may think otherwise. No one is really interested in mathematical prowess. People are only interested in the practical solutions which result from the mathematics. As for graduates, well hate to disappoint you, but the answer is in the book over on the office book shelf. No need to spend all day doing algebra we as a society have known the solution for some 50 years already. Some of the more common solutions were part of academic studies, so should have verified the handbook formula already. That is also part of the difference between education of engineering associates and engineers, the engineering associates more likely to have used industry handbooks and be familiar with: engineers have to become familiar with on the job and chances are going to spend all day doing calculus instead of implementing the known solution: chances are they will get the calculus wrong as well.

Consultants need to know what the product is that they have to supply to the market. Get away from those mega infra-structure projects and everything changes. Consultants should not be complaining about the skills of graduate engineers, when graduate engineers are not the people they need for their projects. We seem to have developed a society in which people expect to leave school, get a degree and be at the top. It doesn't work that way. You don't get to the top by only learning and knowing what everybody else knows, you need to know more than that. The title engineer may be the preferred and desired title, but the WFEO engineer is not what industry mostly needs. There is no global shortage of engineers as such.

There are shortages of;

1) Imaginative and ingenious individuals who can come up with innovative products and or solutions to the worlds problems.

2) Technically competent people to assess and evaluate proposed technologies, and take them from concept to implementation.

The innovative solutions sought mostly involve people not physical systems, whilst proposed technologies are variations of established technologies. Buildings are typically variations of established technolgies, no structural engineer required, but competent engineering associates and engineering technologists are required. Instead of wasting 4 to 5 years training a civil engineer, we can train a structural engineering associate in 2 years. Once again I reiterate engineering is not about high end mathematics and crunching numbers. Mathematics and numbers are just a tool, a means to an end,  they are not everything. Some consultants have made the numbers everything and are not really serving their clients. Fancy finite element models take time to make and don't really contribute any real value. Likewise 3D CADD models and BIM do not contribute real value to projects. It is necessary to understand the nature of the projects dealing with.

The custom engineering for a portal frame shed is relatively low value engineering, such as most likely been done a 1000 times already, and can probably go to a supplier who already has a suitable stock standard design. But increase the span of the building, so that there is no longer a single steel section which can be used as a rafter, then it becomes an entirely different problem. The structural form is now no longer known, and some real structural design is starting to take place: it has significantly more value. Further more now starting to move towards experiencing fabrication and construction issues with which the builders are not familiar. The project now starts to move towards being a project in which significant engineering supervision is required throughout the project. But once again still not necessarily requiring an engineer. Note the people currently practicing as engineers, and have been doing so for the past 30 to 50 years have solved many problems which previously had no solution. These solutions can now be passed onto engineering technologists in their education, not engineers. The engineers task is the unsolved problems, not the established solutions hidden in some text some where.

Implementing a solution has lower value than inventing a solution. Inventing an inferior solution to an existing solution available in industry publications, has lower value than the available solution. Consulting engineers are not all that different than engineers working for hitech manufacturers. For example Betamax versus VHS video tape. What matters is what the market wants and what are able to supply. If you've missed the boat then you have missed the boat. Minever Cheevy suffered a terrible fate: born too late. Might like to be an errant knight, and can live in a dream world like Don Quixote, but just going to be lancing at windmills.

So the numbers are going to be increasingly crunched by computers. Manufacturers are going to want this software to allow end-users to customise a relatively generic product to better meet their needs, and this is going to be increasingly done on line. Custom software will need to be written because existing software requires specialists to operate. The availability of manufactured structural product is going to decrease demand for consulting engineers as more of the lower end project work is supplied by the available products. Those manufacturers are likely to employ more engineering personnel on staff to adapt the product to improve manufacturing efficiency: to provide a higher performing product at lower cost and faster.

It should be noted that some consultants already have restrictions in place, they cannot do work for manufacturers similar to their principle client: if they do then they loose future work from that client. To be able to impose such constraint the client has to be able to supply a lot of work.

Also since the 1993 development act came in and brought private certification, some consulting engineers have taken on the role of councils checking development applications for building rules compliance: only the council can grant development approval: but others can do the checking and certification.

One consultancy is not the same as another. Even if they deal with structures each is different. Even if they appear to work in the same market, they should still have noticeable differentiation. I contend that it is wrong to contend that fees were undercut, and jobs bought, just because lost the job due to a lower fee. As technologies become increasingly established the value of the engineering service currently provided diminishes. The fees only rise when the engineering service is in short supply: but there is no real increase in the intrinsic value of the service. People just tolerate paying more until a solution is found to better satisfy the demand.

It is therefore necessary to innovate to increase the value of the service, or otherwise maintain its value.

As I indicated earlier people want to talk to someone who can provide the solution to their problems, not a receptionist. This takes consultants away from the design and documentation task. On mega projects can afford a design team, with people dealing with project enquiries other preparing tenders for new projects, others visting sites and still others doing design and documentation. For small scale projects and small businesses, cannot afford such teams. Employing someone, to start with, does not increase productivity but decreases it, as spend more time supervising and training the new recruit. Put bluntly programming a computer is a more productive exercise: and shows gains a lot more immediately.

The problem with employing people on low end work is that the work does not have high value, but there is a lot of it and it needs to be done quickly. Priorities for the work can change by the minute: the unfortunate few may not get their job for 12 months, even though only a few hours work involved. So the problem is managing the waiting line.  So have a problem: proving that have developed the technology to supply faster and to be able to do so consistently, and therefore charge a higher price. Technology is required because it increases the value whilst additional personnel simply increases the cost beyond the recoverable value. Its a matter of emergent behaviour, or synergy. The value is less than the sum of the costs, therefore sale price cannot recover the cost. Price is not cost plus profit: price is what the market is willing to pay. Get your product wrong then you make a loss.

So can work project fees out on the basis of time taken and hourly labour rate, but for small projects chances are the fee is going to be seen as extortionate by the market: more over beyond their capacity to pay. If the fee is beyond the capacity of the market to pay then do not have a business. A given market will support a given lifestyle with a given approach to that market. Change the approach and can change the lifestyle it can support. So if there is a market for the MacDonalds of engineering or Amazon.com then someone, somewhere will eventually provide it. That someone is unlikely to have traditional engineering skills: could be a drafter, a computer scientist, or steel fabricator: who saw a need and filled it. As I have said before business is a real world experiment: you try something and then respond accordingly to feedback.

So identified a market: know what they want, what price willing to pay, and how fast they want it. The big question is can you design a business and product that meets that need, and then supply it?

Whilst consulting engineers may know a great deal about bridges and buildings that they assist to design and build: they don't necessarily know enough about the product they actually supply: their engineering services. Most who have implemented quality assurance systems have no real idea about quality, simply converted document control systems for contract management into ISO9000 quality accredited system: but they have no real quality system with respect to the product they supply. They have missed the point. Every revised drawing represents defect in design and documentation: defeciency which should not exist, defeciency which should be removed. Some consultants have revision number systems which confuse real revisions with document issues. Either way more effort is required in the design of the design and documentation process. That engineer didn't have adequate knowledge of aluminium design at the start of the project, and still doesn't at the end of the project. Are more projects in aluminium coming this way? That engineer really doesn't have adequate knowledge of storage tank design. That engineer lacks knowledge of bridge design. Does the consultancy tender for projects, or does the work just flow in? Does the consultancy supervise construction or just produce design documents? What is it that the client wants rather than what the consultant wants to supply? The owner of a building may want the architect and engineer to supervise construction and the contract. But the builder client doesn't need or want such supervision: they just want the design documents, they have others to ensure compliance with their specifications.

Supermarket chains for example impose discounts on engineers just like they do on spud farmers: they treat all suppliers the same. Government and large corporate clients get small projects that big city engineers not interested in, or otherwise charge too high a fee for. So they seek out small business, no tendering, they ask for submission of a a fee. But then they start getting into requirements for this and that: like ISO9000 accredited QA systems, evidence of insurance, copies of this document and that document., fill in this form and that form, and comply with this contract. Up shot, hey we are not interested in your work, we do engineering, if you want to keep your administrative staff employed go else where. All of this other stuff is superfluous to the task: fees only cover the actual task not this irrelevant stuff. If really want all this other stuff then go to some consultant that also has administrative staff to keep employed. These businesses don't want what they get for the lower price: they want gift wrapping and a fancy bow to tie it up. They want something more than the generic product. Once again important to know where your market is: not just as supplier but also as buyer. As a buyer you don't go into a used car yard and start demanding features only available on new cars. You go to the right place in the first instance. With service providers its more difficult to select the right supplier because cannot see what you are going to get.

A few years back I criticised Engineers Australia engineering excellence awards: because there was no real evidence of excellence in engineering. For all I know the building contractors could have fixed a multitude of errors in the engineering constribution, and the engineers could have been bumbling about in the dark until they fell over a solution, and produced documentation in constant need of revision. In short the engineering contribution to an otherwise excellent project was rubbish. It is thus difficult to tell as an outsider whether a project turned out well despite the presence of a useless consultant on the project, or because of an excellent consultant.

Its getting beyond the numbers and finding out what the real contribution is. Many consultants talk about supplying more: but don't really walk the talk.

I'm thinking sleep would good: Sat 2012-Mar-10  03:36

REVISIONS:

1. Original

Education Blogs: #purposed

Figure out what you want. Figure out how to get it. Get it. #purposed

http://www.oliverquinlan.com/blog/2011/02/24/purposed/

I missed something there in my comment. When teachers present history, it is generally without reference to trends and cycles, without interpretation, or value judgement: its relatively dull. Britain "did" that, and Britain"was". There is no:  Britain "is", or Britain will be.

It is left to the individual to make a value judgement. That judgement tends to be Britain is a decaying, living, breathing museum: it is history. Rather than to be British is to be an innovative pioneer of industrial technology and modern society: bring on the next problem.

This doesn't happen because in the main teachers see society as a perfect machine, meeting the needs of the people: there is no future, we are there already, just make more cogs for the machine. Collect enough tokens off the back of Kellogg's and exchange for a job. The degree is just a ticket to employment, the learning is irrelevant. Further more many teachers, simply go from school, to teachers college, back to school: they haven't seen the real world of making a living: they have stayed within a protected system.

Heritage is the foundation on which we build everything. Our ancestors instead of building a house generation after generation, retained a house from generation to generation, they therefore had time to spend on improving agriculture: which in turn provided more time.

Computers, mobile phones, the Internet and social networks, which teachers currently appear to be in awe off, is just so much junk. It is current, it is now, it is not the future. The future is something we have yet to create, and that requires unleashing the imaginations of the students. Not teaching what you know, but allowing them to learn what they need to know. They have a minimum of 10 years of compulsory education, in which they have a choice of scraping by with 50% of what was presented or learning some 2 to 5 times more. When dumped into the real world, are they going to slot into that imperfect machine, or are they going to be fighting for their place under the sun. The principal place for all those cogs, is sat in a warehouse collecting dust, waiting to be put to use. That's the problem of training employees. But business will be up in arms, if trained superior competitors, funded by taxes.

Before can answer the question: what is the purpose of education? Need to question the purpose of society and nations. Remember are origins are tribal, we have legs and are mobile. Nations are geographically constrained, businesses are becoming the most powerful political entities on earth, they have no geographical constraints. Which tribe are you going to join? The one anchored to earth, or the one which will survive beyond the life of the planet and move into deep space and cross the universe?

We have decline in people taking up farming: who is going to produce our food? We supposedly have a shortage of engineers: but engineers to do what?

There is a conflict between meeting necessity and meeting desires. Actors, sport stars, and video games, may all be considered to be a waste. But only 10% of population has access to the land on which to produce our food. So what is the rest of the population to do, what activity has value of exchange to get the food they need? With no dreams, no unfulfilled desires, there is no activity. The dreams, the desires are the product of tomorrow, and the businesses supplying. People have to be pursuing such dreams, and allowed to do so. Where is the freedom, when we have so much regulation that we are hindered from doing anything. We could have done what was needed to survive but we weren't allowed to.

The Americans and there declaration of independence are amusing. What is so important about that scrap of paper? When the war for independence was fought, did not have the right to bare arms, but did so any way, so why was it important to write such down on paper? If the cultural attitude that gave life to that document is lost, then it is worthless scrap paper.

The West has become akin to the ruling aristocracy of ancient times: and there is a good chance we are going to be sent to the guillotine. Its time to wake up. Forget this rubbish about rights, we have no rights, just a choice: fight for a place under the sun or not. It is a war. And last year just about every president and prime minister declared war on the world. Not one mentioned education for the benefit of humanity, all made reference to their nation beating the rest of the world.


How do you teach a child who knows more than you do?

http://www.oliverquinlan.com/blog/2012/02/14/how-do-you-teach-a-child-who-knows-more-than-you/

Teachers Reflecting on Reverse Mentoring

http://teachpaperless.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/teachers-reflecting-on-reverse.html

... Context is King

http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.au/#!http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2012/03/context-is-king.html

Application for Generation of Height Span Charts for Gable Frames

Taken from the ExcelCalcs.com website.

---

Related Posts:

Cold-Formed Steel Shed Industry: part:#1

Cold-Formed Steel Shed Industry: part:#2

Cold-Formed Steel Shed Industry: part:#3

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

Height Versus Span Design charts for Steel Sheds

The Section Weights ...

Weight of Steel does Matter?

Kleinlogel Rigid Frame Formulas

Manufactured Structural Products And Simplified Wind Classification

Other Blogs:

Shed Design: pt#1 (Basic Procedure

Kleinlogel Rigid Frame Formulas

Extracts Kleinlogel Rigid Frame Formulas

---

Now made available a simple 2D plane frame analysis command line program see:
Plane Frame Analysis

Alternatively have MS Excel worksheets for some of the common frames see:
Kleinlogel Formula at ExcelCalcs

On Science : pt#1

During the week I watched most of the documentary : Science Under Attack.on SBS, I wasn't overly impressed with what appeared to be an attempt to equate science to peer reviewed publications, as does the website Skeptical Science. He says, she says therefore must be right, is why scientists are not trusted. One week something causes cancer, the next it's declared to be good for you. Or a few years back the CSIRO declared after 20 years of testing a drug was ready to release to the market, just as the USA and UK were withdrawing the drug from the market due to adverse affects in actual use. Remind's me of one of Millers Tales in Engineers Australia magazine, it ends with: Calm weather? Has the admiralty tried looking out the window, there is a major storm approaching. Any case I will write more about science at a later date. I just happened to receive a funny email, that illustrates one of the points in the documentary.

ITALIAN PASTA DIET -- IT REALLY WORKS !! 

1.. You walk pasta da bakery.
2... You walka pasta da candy store.
3.. You walka pasta da Ice Cream shop.
4.. You walka pasta da table and fridge.
You will lose weight!

AND....

For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the final word on nutrition and health. 

1. The Japanese eat very little fat
And suffer fewer heart attacks than
The English.

2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat
And suffer fewer heart attacks than the English.

3. The Chinese drink very little red wine
And suffer fewer heart attacks than the English.

4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine
And suffer fewer heart attacks than the English.

5.. The Germans drink a lot of beers and eat lots of sausages and fats
And suffer fewer heart attacks than the English.

CONCLUSION 
Eat and drink what you like.
Speaking English is apparently what kills you.

This is an example of what Sir Paul Nurse was trying to illustrate with some ropes and posts.

Managing files, and Google Chrome Bookmarks

Last year I moved over to using Google Chrome. Various mathematics and graphics sites I was directed to on twitter, required IE9, Chrome, or Firefox. Since IE9 requires an update of the operating system, that left the choice between Chrome and Firefox. Since I use various Google tools and they seemed faster in Chrome, I opted for Chrome. I also was experimenting with exporting my Personal brain file for a web site, and it also only displayed correctly in Chrome and Firefox: all the link lines between thoughts are missing in IE8. Firefox, may have been the option, since encountered a problem with Chrome when visiting ExcelCalcs, with site menus disappearing behind video images displayed on opening page: but this appears to have been fixed.

Files and Folders
Anycase, I don't like either Chrome or Firefox bookmark files. Shortcut files waste hard disk space: small file using up addressable block larger than file needs. However shortcut files can be arranged anywhere on the hard disk, to create task specific folders, or associated with project folders, totally independent of the browser. When I do internet research, I tend to accumulate hundreds of files and shortcuts. At the time of acquiring I may or may not sort the files and shortcuts into some rational collection of topics. So barring time consuming task of sorting into topics, I have VBScripts (.vbs) which are used to sort files into folders based on: year, month and file extension. Some scripts create folders locally, others move files from one folder structure into another. Once sorted into similar chronological folder structures it then becomes easy to use Beyond Compare, to eliminate duplicates. I've tried duplicate file finders they just duplicate the mess: take far too long, and then require a considerable amount of time to manually adjust: which are the originals and which are the duplicates. More over I don't actually want to delete duplicates, I do want a chronological archive, showing historical development of the various things I work on. So custom scripts became the way to go: though the scripts at the moment just creating an alternative mess: there are some situations where need to keep different file types together. So to this end been experimenting with FlexTek/Diskboss and xyplorer: with these applications I can search, exclude folders, and otherwise move files and auto-increment filenames if duplicates involved.

Archiving internet shortcuts in MS Access.
So I just got into regularly sorting files and shortcuts into : year and month, when moved over to Chrome: no shortcuts: no direct means of programmatically sorting my bookmarks: a step backwards. A big step backwards, because also have Excel/VBA and MS Access/VBA macros to read internet shortcuts, extract the information and then archive in an MS Access table. The table contains keyword fields, and other fields for grouping. Using query in MS Access I can delete duplicate shortcuts, and otherwise search and find stuff that I need. Admittedly not altogether helpful, since websites disappear or get modified, and the weblinks become invalid. However even Google returns invalid links, so it saves sometime by searching my database get the name of the webpage and then search google.

That I archive all my internet shortcuts in MS Access tables, and delete the shortcuts from my hard disk, did suggest that the Firefox bookmark manager was a possible alternative. But after a few days of messing with Firefox bookmark manager concluded it was too slow and unstable. Also experimented with Personal Brain, imported all my bookmarks: but I have no means of programmatically sorting, tagging and linking. Also cannot get used to using personal brain as a starting point and launcher. Consequently MS Access remains the centre of everything: I can build tables cataloging files, archive internet shortcuts, and otherwise link together with project data, and display data in whatever format I want using VBA.

So either way bookmarks have to be extracted from either the Chrome or Firefox bookmark.html files. At first I didn't think this was a problem: I had previously written several years back, a simple Excel/vba macro to rip url references from html files. The purpose was to extract weblinks from saved webpages, containing little more than hyperlinks. Put the hyperlinks into Access table, then delete the saved webpage and associated files. At one stage I saved webpages, but discovered couldn't back up to a CD, since CD's didn't support the long file names: nor my deep folder structures. So got rid of all the saved web pages, after extracted useful urls, and otherwise printed to pdf. Now instead of saving webpages, I just print web research to pdfactory.

Messing with the Google Chrome Bookmark file
So my existing vba routine seemingly little use. I tried opening the bookmark file in Excel directly: it turned out not to be a properly formatted html file. I also tried opening in XML Notepad and UltraEdit, but also turned out not to be a properly formatted xml file. So I started writing a limit state machine parser¹, similar to techniques for parsing AutoCAD DXF files, that was early last year, and I otherwise got side tracked from. But its a new year and time to clean up last years accumulation of junk. I'm a womble I tend not to throw anything away: near gaurantee that within a few days of doing so, will end up needing.

Early last year I did do a google search, and find code for parsing html, and xml, but as indicated the bookmark file is not fully compliant with, I aslo did find various projects for parsing the bookmark file, but all were based on programming languages which support searching using regular expressions, and otherwise exporting the data to xml format. So I did another search this year and discovered that the file format is json, for which there are a variety of parsers in a multitude of programming languages: once again mostly using regular expressions and converting to xml.

Down loading code for a json parser, and then customising specifically for extracting the data from the bookmark.html file all seemed too complicated. I orginally considered writing a parser because, no guarantee on the location of data in the file, therefore better to find it by properly parsing the structured file format. However, it appears that each bookmark is written to a single line in the file, therefore I only need to chop up an individual string: I don't have to scan across multiple lines and find opening and closing tags. Therefore last night, discarded limit state parser idea, and went back to original brute force method. Read a line, if string contains an url, then chop it up and extract the various pieces of information, and store in Excel worksheet. From Excel I can then transfer to MS Access. I typically program in Excel/vba since that is where all my additional functions and macros are for string handling, and file handling: also programming in MS Access is a bit more cumbersome as is working with tables {especially creating and emptying  tables}.

Being a brute force method, the macro is likely to come unstuck at some point in the future, but at this point in time it meets my needs. Well with one exception: Google Chrome bookmarks file contains ADD_DATE, and LAST_MODIFIED fields, but does not show this information in the bookmark manager. The LAST_MODIFIED relates to folders, and I am currently ignoring the folders I have in Google, but ADD_DATE relates to the bookmark: it is an integer type date value, but is not the same as date values in Excel/vba. So current task is to find out how to convert the value into a Excel/vba compatible date value.

Google Chrome API
I did find the google chrome api, and it appears can access the bookmarks object directly, and otherwise build own bookmark manager to work in chrome. However being built around a browser, I am unsure whether it is permitted to write the data to a local file. JScript run locally, through windows scripting host can read and write files on local hard disk: this is thus something to look into at a future date.

On High Level Programming Languages and Application Languages
The first programming language I learnt was Fortran 77 at uni. At school we had filled various cards in and sent them off, the langauges used being BASIC and APL: basically these were random one lesson exercises, and of little real value. Well had one benefit I guess, if want to solve some matrix problems, then using a computers going to take a week or more to get results back. Can actually solve the problems in less time than takes to fill in the stupid cards. At uni moved away from cards, but otherwise had to fill in programming sheets, and hand into data processing. Once typed up, could then edit and modify the program as necessary to get it running. For which purpose, the VMS operating system was described in a completly mysterious and unhelpful manner, then fighting to get access to a computer. Not much fun, and little learning.

At home we went and got a Microbee computer in a book, running CPM/80 with a single 3.5" floppy drive, which we eventualy extended to 2 drives: one for data, and one for applications. I messed with the basic programming langauge included for a short time, and then we got Turbo Pascal 3 {unfortunately on 5 1/4" floppy}. When moved over to MS DOS, eventually moved up to Turbo Pascal 5, but also started programming with Turbo C. I also messed with the Lotus 123 macro langauge (and aseasy as), DBASE/Foxbase application language, WordStar indexing and formatting codes, and paradox application language, and AutoLISP, and submit and batch file programming.

I like object Pascal, but prefer the syntax of C, and especially prefer C for processing strings and crunching numbers. But I get lost in C when it comes to pointers, and find data structures unreadable and extremely cumbersome syntax. When moved over to windows I got Delphi and C++ Builder, along with Quatro Pro for windows and Paradox for Windows. When it came to objects I preferred Delphi over C++. However I ended up building more applications in QPro than Delphi. I reached a stage where I wanted to extend the functions in QPro rather than having to ensure macros would run. I accidently found a book in Office programming, whilst wandering around book store in lunch time: bought it learnt about the vba language, then went and bought office 97 system developers kit. I then started writing more Excel/vba code. At one stage the various Australian standards changed, and that meant that a program I was developing in Delphi became obsolete, along with my Excel function libraries. Since use Excel as primary calculating tool it was more important to update my Excel/vba function library than the Delphi library. The result was I then translated the Delphi program to vba . Another reason for so doing was, that I had attempted to import the Excel type library into Delphi, so that I could use COM automation from Delphi, but the type library had too many conflicting keywords. Don't need the type library, but Pascal uses different brackets for functions and arrays whilst vba doesn't. So problematic programming Excel from Delphi, since do not know whether an object is referencing an array or function.

So ended up spending as much time in the Excel vba editor (vbe), as I do using the Excel worksheets. I have visual studio 2003 and 2005, the idea was to program in VB, to save time in converting vba to Delphi for stand alone programs. But VB is a different language again, and so the vba code still requires translating and debugging.

So this has tended to put me in a quandry. Most windows scripting host (WSH) scripts I write using VBscript, though occassionally I use JScript. For websites development I originally used JavaScript, but moved over to VBScript. The prime reason being the existing libraries I have already in vba.

However the other year I got a netbook, for which I basically have no software, other than any freeware and opensource stuff that I can find. It came installed with demo of Office 2007, I didn't like the new interface, so didn't buy, and uninstalled. I have openoffice installed instead. The problem with openoffice is that is uses a different dialect of basic again, and also doesn't appear to directly support COM automation. I use Excel/vba to control other applications through COM automation: intelliCAD, designCAD, turboCAD, MultiFrame, MS Access. {By the way I discovered designCAD because the, COM object is still accessible in instant shed designer, which I was taking a look at, to see if any use. Which raises a question: how can they sell something for less than the application it is built on? Milo Mindbinder.}

So which direction to move. The software companies seem to think turning a perfectly good screwdriver into a hammer is an upgrade. I recently built a spreadsheet for a client, using Excel 2003, they saved it in, 2007/2010 I'm not sure which, but I cannot open it with the file converters. Given I have around 200, possible 1000 unique spreadsheets, I don't want to mess around converting file formats: been there done that with QPro to Excel: I still have QPro installed to check the original files occassionally. {Excel 97 could convert QPro files Excel 2003 cannot: not to mention windows classifies the files as a hazard}.

I don't see how changing the interface, can be considered as being the same product: it becomes a completely different tool. In Lotus 123, "aseasy as" and QPro for DOS, my fingers flew across the keyboard. Then QPro for windows introduced the property inspector, and the mouse became important. Little by little loosing keyboard skills and becoming dependent on a mouse. I keep trying to get them back, but using the mouse is habit forming, and difficult to break when trying to get a job done.

Anycase I spend a lot of time programming, because I expect the computer to do the work not me. Which was first backward step for windows removed the batch processing capabilities. Now there is windows scripting house (WSH), and windows can be programmed using batch (.bat), VBScript (.vbs), and JScript (.js). There are macro recorders around, but they are all generally context sensitive, and screen based: not command.

I don't really like windows, but most software I use is windows dependent. I always wanted a Unix machine, but wow, System V required a massive 20 Mbytes for a full install: the largest hard disk on a PC was only that big, so no space for data. Now there are people struggling to create small Linux installs of 40 to 100 Mbytes, though most of these include a graphical windows interface. The original core of the internet is built on Unix, and unix is built around C programming langauge (its scripting language is C like), whilst most web browsers use JavaScript which is a C like language. I'm not sure but I think openoffice supports JavaScript.

So contemplating moving over to using Ubuntu, Java and JavaScript. As it is I have Ubuntu installed on a stick for fixing Windows when it crashes. Problem with Ubuntu is compatibility with clients, but how compatible do I need to be? Most clients barely able to use a computer, but do have windows, and make use of Excel. But recent projects have identified that Excel based applications not really appropriate for their needs. I mean 20 Mbyte, Excel files are not really efficient, when could write Turbo Pascal program of around 250Kbytes or so. Plenty of people who can build Excel applications, and mostly can be built on top of current manual processes, thus retaining some transparency. But such applications can become cumbersome, and demand more computer resources than necessary, and not altogether user friendly. Not the least of which is many of them would be better built around MS Access, which is far better for storing and sorting data. Don't necessarily need MS Access, can connect to mdf files using DAO or ADO objects from with in Excel/vba or other vba programming environment. That I guess is the deciding factor COM automation and/or the .NET framework. There have been remours that vba will be removed from Office, it has already been removed from AutoCAD. That is not a problem, I already program designCAD and Multiframe external to the applications, using Excel/vba, because there is no vba editor, and no programming environment built in. The applications are just COM automation servers. Some people not happy AutoCAD lost vbe, but AutoCAD was always programmed in AutoLISP using an external text editor, so not really a major issue. As such I avoid AutoLISP and use other programming langauges to generate script files (.scr) or otherwise parse DXF files. If I loose Excel/vba, then vba no longer important, and I can move over to other langauge like C# for example. Its a matter of finding the right language to deal with objects, and avoiding problems with pointer arithmetic. Also mention that I do not like vba approach to classes, and its creation and referencing of objects can be more of an hassle than working with pointers. In a nutshell I swap programming languages to suit my needs at a given time.

The primary programming task is bashing files, translating one data format to another, simply extracting information, or automating file generation or program execution. Most number crunching I do directly in the Excel worksheet. At one time used QEdit, and then UltraEdit for manipulating files, but now more often than not I use string fomula in Excel worksheet, either to generate data input files, or otherwise modify. Even if I ultimately write a vba macro, I typically test searching strings and cut them up, using Excel cell functions: then rewrite using equivalent vba functions.

However I do use vba functions a lot, and also use vba to generate tables of data. I don't like complex cell formulae, they are difficult to read, and I don't agree with MathCAD about text book like formula, and MathCAD diverges away from mathematical notation in anycase. Spreadsheets have the advantage that it is not necessary to name variables, already working within an indexed matrix. So no problem differentiating sigma used for stress, from sigma used for standard deviation: a problem if doing statistics on stresses. Australian standards are dependent on many test conditions to select one formula from another: I find such conditional checks read better when written in vba rather than in a cell formula. Secondly whilst Excel can generate tables of data, its not very efficient for the formula is repeated in every cell. By using a vba loop, its is more likely that every cell is calculated based on the same formula and conditional checks. The problem with that is that changing a parameter doesn't automatically update the calculations. Circular references also a problem in Excel. Whilst circular references can be used to deliberately force iteration and finding a solution to a calculation sequence, Excel flags circular references as an Error: I therefore don't like that approach. Further it starts getting complicated, if want to generate a table of values: or want automatic calculation based on other values. Like recently for balustrades I wanted to calculated maximum span of the top rail based on a range of conditions. For one set of conditions I could simply rearrange the equations and calculate directly, for another I ended up with a quadratic, which I could solve in the worksheet cells and get a direct answer, but for other conditions: no simple solution. So ended up repeating all that was calculated in Excel worksheet in vba: so that I could iteratively find a solution and return a simple value to the main body of the Excel formatted report. Part of the problem was that the limiting deflection for the span is dependent on the span, larger spans permitted larger deflections. In first instance simple expression, simply substitute simple span ratio for span, into expression for deflection and rearrange, and get answer directly. However I had simplified the expression for the deflection limit, when replaced with actual, it got complicated: hence write iterative function. Before doing this however I simpply used Excels goalseek capability to find the answers: that however did not fit in with what I wanted to calculate and where I wanted it to fit in with rest of calculations.

In-House Software Development
Such situations is why adopted a policy of writing own engineering software, rather than buying commercial. I'm not going to write own version of Multiframe or AutoCAD: not yet any way. I say not yet, because we have an in-house 2D frame analysis package, written in Turbo Pascal, and currently being transferred over to Excel/vba. Also it is apparent, in writing my own programs to generate drawings that I have all the data structures necessary to write  a CAD package: just don't have the graphics, printing or an editor. In translating the 2D frame analysis to Excel/vba, have used the low cost CAD package designCAD 3D to draw the frame and moment diagrams. But it is becoming apparent that could use the shapes layer in Excel to draw. This would be good. I think I mentioned before that MuliFrame and AutoCAD are far too expensive to use as analysis and graphics engines for point-of-sale design software. Given that most suppliers with software, have software built around clumsy spreadsheets, it seems there is opportunity to build a more appropriate application around the full capabilities of Excel/vba. But would it be better to build around openoffice, noting that openoffice is available for both Windows and Linux?  It would be beneficial if openoffice doesn't keep getting automatically updated, and thus applications built around remain static. I don't want to be constantly fixing bugs caused by office updates. This what pushes in favour of higher level programming languages and building stand alone applications. The problem with stand alone applications is a lot of work is required on the user interface: traditional practice places at some 80% of the effort. By building on an existing application, development of user interface reduced: no file formats, no reading/writing file problems, no editor development, no screen display issues, and no printing issues. The developer of the primary application has resolved all those issues. Additionally even if write a stand alone program, its likely dependent on a multitude of windows resources provided by the API, so if windows updates then the program may become unstable. So whilst windows has resolved many of the hardware compatibility issues: it has largely replaced them with software problems.

The other issue is should such applications be internet aware and function over the internet, and also if they can function over the internet should they also operate on mobile phones? This pushes towards using Java and JavaScript as programming language. On the otherhand the .net framework, is supposed to be about it not mattering which language program in: source code in many different languages can be used in the one application. It is something of an alternative to the Java virtual machine. Which is another issue programs compiled using Visual Studio are not exactly stand alone programs, and still relatively large compared to other compilers, despite all the external resources dependent on. Picking the best programming language not so easy, so don't choose, just use all, as the needs determine.

As mentioned have a policy of writing in-house software, by doing so keep upto date with changes in Australian standards, don't have to wait for commercial software writers to update and release new versions. More importantly however is the freedom to format own reports, to carry out calculations in sequence desired and use the results for other purposes. Everything written becomes a building block towards working with larger and larger systems in less and less time.

On one hand engineering is about numbers rather than mathematics, on the other it is more about theory than calculations. For example engineering is not about substiting numbers in an expresssion like M=wL^2/8, it is more about the infromation such expression gives me about the physical world and the choices I can make. With commercial software plug numbers in, then get size of a beam returned. In general software typically checks compliance with codes of practice, alternatively may either return a single option or a list of several possible options in terms of selecting a suitable component part. As a result the software typically requires the use of trial and error for anything else. For example pick a component, say structural section, check if it complies, if it doesn't then pick another and check again. But how to select the first choice, and it having been rejected, which direction to go for the next choice? Its the theory which gives the direction. With the theory it may be possible to calculate directly for the problem at hand, whilst the available commercial software may only be able to get there through trial and error.

Further more these decisions typically need to be made by persons who are just aiming to get on with building things, it becomes a major delay and frustration for these people, when they have to wait on others to crunch some numbers and make design decisions {some days words look weird and foreign}. Manufacturing is moving towards making design more accessible to the population at large, so that manufacturers can make product better suited to the needs of the end-user. Manufacturing wants to get much like construction industry and have zero inventory, making to order. However, 5 years of research, design and development (RD&D) to get a product to market, doesn't fit well with this objective, nor does a need to build and test prototypes. The building industry can unleash bridges, and massive buildings onto the world as real world experiments, placing many lifes at risk based mere compliance with codes of practice, which are themselves based on inexact and incomplete scientific research. Despite civil and structural engineers, the building and construction industry is based on some relatively inexact science: passed of all to easily as they know what they are doing. For main stream buildings not altogether an issue, plenty of historical repetition, for the novel and innovative, then getting a lot closer to the limits of where the theories have been tested. The codes of practice are some what lacking in appropriate constraints, and demanding prototype testing.

Commercial Software for Non-Engineers (Structural)
Anycase in the past people just made stuff for themselves and accepted the risks of doing so. In the modern world there is a system of exchange, and an inference of supply be specialists, and consequently extremely high demands on expected performance as opposed to specified performance. Its not good enough to simply state what a product is fit for, many disclaimers have to be given with respect to what it is not fit for. Then there is also the issue of how fit is fit enough, and is it adequate? Everytime some person has an accident, the performance criteria are raised across the board. Whilst I think it is necessary to design, better and safer products, I also think individuals should take greater responsibility for their choice and manner of use of such products, not always seeking compensation. Their irresponsible behaviour places inconveniences on everybody else: eg. smoke alarms, RCD's, bicycle helmets, guards on exercise bikes to name a few. Whilst these things provide protection in the event of a problem: the problem is not rampant, and these safety devices some what magnify the real cause of the problem. For example why was a baby crawling around all over the floor sticking its fingers in everything, whilst the mother riding an exercise bike: and how did the child get so close to the exercise bike, to have fingers amputated. Do need an exercise bike just chase the kid around and keep it out of danger, teaching it about the dangers. But then the parents would have to know the dangers. Similarly houses don't just burn down, there has to be a cause, a source of fire: often someone smoking in bed, or electrical devices left on. Not everyone cuts through power cables with a power saw. As for falling off bicycles, most common injury is broken collar bone: people fall sideways: hitting head against floor not all that common. Sure it is recommended to get these things and use them. The objection is making these things mandatory, and forcing unecessary upgrades in short time frames or inappropriate times.

So allowing end-users to make parametric changes to a product, via the use of software is more involved than simply crunching numbers. The software already in the market is appalling, the number crunching may be valid but the reports output are near useless, and the software has inadequate built in restraints and error checking, plus may not be relevant what so ever to the product desired.

The main culprit so far is software used by the nail plated timber truss compaines. The software is proprietory, and only agents supplying trusses have access to the software. The reports traditionally provided inadequate information regarding input parameters and decisions made regarding the selections specified. For example no evidence that is it feasible to form a given nail plated connection. South Australia now has a ministers specification, identifying requirements for such structural software, not otherwise used by structural engineers. Part of the requirement is training in the use of the software, and appointment of person responsible.

This should also apply to retained standard calculations, for much of my work results from variations from standard calculations. Some days it seems that manufacturers of structural products, they have all forms of structure available, simply pick up which calculations are at hand and submit to council for approval. If I am to believe the manufacturers then 10% of the time there are issues. From their rejected applications, and the standards calc's I may get to see, I hazard that 10% only represents those issues caught by the council, and that much is getting approved when it should be raising questions. There is also a great much that gets built without approval.

So have software in market in need of improvement, standard calculations to be replaced by software, and owner builder stuff to be checked using DIY software. But the software really needs to be thought about and properly designed, not just launched into and written as currently appears to be the case. This launching into is the case because mostly considered to be simply Excel spreadsheets. Though also aware of some extremely expensive stand alone software which was not upto its specified task: operating at point-of-sale. Its not just a matter of structural engineering and computer programming knowledge: there are other issues to consider. In particular there can be no required training for its use, the typical person in the street should be able to use the software without any special training. It should produce reports useable to the end-user and also reports suitable for council approval. The data files should also be suitable for use in other software of greater use to certifiers. A certifier may want to check bending moments and stresses, whilst the DIY is not so interested in. Thus have alternative versions of the software.Which was the problem with truss software, the only way to check was with general purpose frame analysis software, and that takes the certifying engineer considerably longer to build a model, than it takes the timber estimator using specialist software. There are two basi requirements: 1) Specification-of-intent 2) Evidence-of-suitability. Currently available software used by non-engineers, only meets the specification requirements, the evidence-of-suitability is inadequate and reliant on an assumption or questionable certification that the software makes a valid assessment. The new ministers specification attempts to make the certification more reliant and resolve other issues.

Software is written to speed things up. Can just send code direct to CNC machine tools and produce finished product. But is such auto-produced part fit-for-function, is there any evidence of its suitability of purpose?

But its not just software used by non-engineers that should be of concern. Software used by engineers is also questionable, in its fitness-for-function, and most such software contains many long disclaimers. The computer reports generated are very close to being a mass of scrap paper: which typically no one has ever looked at. So if the designer didn't use it, what use does the designer think the certifier will get from it? More thought needs to go into the whole design and assessment, approval process to make it more quality robust. It is likley that information technology and knowledge engineering will play a great part in this process.

{well thats my divergent waffle over for today: Sat 2012-Jan-28  23:04}

References:

1. Dennis N Jump, 1989, AutoCAD Programming, TAB Books

REVISIONS:

1. Original

PS: I have now set up another blog over on wordpress. The current blog here will continue with the chaotic free writing. As I get time to more formally structure, and rewrite as a more polished article I will post the modified article over on wordpress. I still won't think it is finished, but hopefully will have a more focused flow, and start new ideas in new sections, instead of a divergence from current flow.

PPS: Wasn't aware that there were actual limits on free writing, such as time limits or otherwise page limits or word limits. Such aspect of free writing is based on an assumption of difficulty finding something to write, rather than a mass of divergent ideas interfering with clear thought. I don't have a time limit, the constraint is interruption for meals, or simply the number of convergent ideas gets way beyond that which I can write about, and I just stop writing and keep on thinking: possibly talking to myself. To that end it is only partially successful at clearing my mind.

Education or Experience?

There is an argument taking place on linked in Construction Management group:

Experience or Education. Choose One ? (and I know you want to say both, or depends on situation. Just choose one)

It is about as meaningful as:

 Which is bluer : blue or blue?

The contract says supply blue, you contracted to supply blue, so supply blue. We did supply blue! No you didn't? Yes we did? No you didn't? If its not blue, then what colour is it? I don't know but its not blue, supply blue!

And on and on its goes.

Obviously there must be a difference between education and experience, else the question is stupid, and our language otherwise plagued with surplus words. The difference between the two words is subtle and the refined meanings of which have not been clarified within the context of the question. Not clarifying is like relying on something as meaningless and inconsistent as "industry standard practice".

As I mentioned earlier there is a global debate on the purpose of education taking place as government after government cuts back on funding. Most of the educators generally of the view that education is not about schools, teachers, examinations or parchments. Education is about learning, and with increasing access to the internet, self learning is going to increase.

There is a saying that:

 wisdom comes with observation not age.

I think their focus on the importance of the internet and access to information is relatively narrow. Any child who has access to books, workshops and an appropriate and interesting environment to observe, has the potential to learn faster than the slow pace of the national curriculum. A child with access to history books, can be way ahead of the child restricted to the slow pace of information presented by a teacher on a blackboard. A child surrounded by stone arch bridges built by ancient Romans, may learn little about history, and little about construction, unless they have enquiring minds, and take an interest in going beyond what they can actually see.

It is not necessary to go to a university to learn, such is only necessary to obtain a parchment of evidence of such learning. There appears confusion in the community that people have to be taught, like the teacher does everything and the pupil doesn't do anything. If the pupil fails its the teachers fault. Teachers do not and cannot impart knowledge or competence.

The teachers role, is to assist the pupils and students to learn: the pupils and students do the learning. To me the difference between pupils and students is that pupils are asked questions and students ask the questions. Students have enquiring minds, pupils do not. So teachers first task is to turn pupil into a student. When I was at school, if I asked a teacher a question, the usual response was, you will learn that next year. My response was to go to the library and learn it straight away: I wanted to learn not follow a schedule. The teacher cannot answer the question, because the pupil is not considered to have adequate prior learning to understand the answer. But that is not a problem for the self learning student, it simply raises more questions to seek answers for: it drives further learning.

Words in a dictionary are defined with more words. Thus the meaning of a word is not clarified until the meanings of all words used to define one word are also equally defined within the context of the learners experience. A dictionary cannot really define hot or cold water, nor can it describe blue. Thus a first dictionary tends to be a picture dictionary. But the illustrations in the dictionary are still symbolic like the words, and thus symbols still have to be given some real world context: and not all words are dependent on the sense of vision. Ultimately the words start representing entirely abstract ideas, like democracy, and the dictionary cannot clarify meanings, entire libraries of books on the concept cannot clarify the meaning. Every individual has a subtle variation in their understanding: permitting greater or lesser freedoms than another. Similarly the words education and experience have subtly different meanings to each individual, and such perceptions and meanings also change with the passage of time. The word "experience", in particular is highly emotive.

The argument between education and experience could be equated to the ancient Greek argument between the theoretical and the empirical. Those in favour of theory contended the senses could be tricked and therefore not relied upon (education). Those in favour of the empirical contended that theory could be highly fanciful and bare no relationship to reality (experience). But not altogether. Increased education typically infers increased learning, and acquiring more competencies. Increased experience does not infer more competencies, nor more learning. Increased experience more typically infers more time on the job, more repetitions of the task, and increased proficiency at the task. Rarely does more experience relate to greater diversity of experiences. More experience is more likely to indicate stuck with an habitual way of doing things, and otherwise resistant to change.

Arguing education versus experience is unhelpful. The Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) is built around the concept of competencies and evidence of attainment. Whilst the most common way to obtain certification of competencies is to attend an educational institution or registered training organisation (RTO), it is possible to obtain certification by presenting evidence in recognition of prior learning (RPL). The learning is focused on the attainment of competencies: competencies that need to be certified to assist industry/society in appointing the right people to the job.

Education or Experience is a silly debate! Left or Right arm,  Left or Right leg: you can only keep one: make a choice. Which is actually the kind of attitude held by many at the contracting end of the construction industry. The characteristics required are typically hard nosed, uncompromising bully, to have won many rounds in the boxing ring. As the character Shark put it in the TV series of same name:

Find me a truth that works.

Contracting is highly adversarial, the truth doesn't altogether matter, its a question of who is going to pay for a variation: the buyer or the contractor. Each side trying to make the other responsible. Largely a matter of wearing the opposition down. The traditional bully tactics however are on the way out, have been so for many years now. Technical competence is of increasing importance, for increasingly we are dealing with established technologies: hence diminishing acceptable excuses for running over budget and over schedule. Not only can the project be planned, but the plan has been executed many times before. Consequently the bulk of the potential variations should be understood at the start: that is understood that is not a direct copy of previous. Such knowledge can be obtained by education, training and/or experience. It is largely a matter of observing and learning.

Some 100 years ago, engineering design was largely dependent on the scientific method, to investigate and develop predictive models for the behaviour of technologies. Today the predictive models have largely been developed, and the technologies established. Today's so called engineer, is largely dealing with minor parametric variations of established technologies, and why as a community we have high expectations of the performance of such systems. New technologies we expect to have been thoroughly tested before release to the environment. Though when it comes to the very large, each and everyone becomes a real world experiment, placing the community at risk.

Whilst mistakes are an important part of learning, there are some mistakes that we do not want to be made on the job. Hence as I indicated earlier in the debate, Engineers Australia classes the formal academic awards as evidence of attaining stage one competencies: the enabling competencies. It is not necessary to have such formal awards, but that is the preferred and easiest pathway. Providing evidence of attaining stage one competencies without formal studies and included examination is more difficult, and not fully catered for.

As I also pointed out, the institutions of engineers were also the original qualifying and examining bodies in the UK and Australia. But when industry starts requiring MICE, MIMechE, MIStructE or MIEAust before they will provide a job, then problems arise. For the only way to gain such membership was to have been employed in the practice of engineering. Hence there was, and is a need for some acknowledgement and evidence of enabling competencies, just to get started.

The problem is that now many see the degree as the only requirement, that is the institutions are of diminishing importance: universities are of more importance for fulfilling learned society functions. Part of that is because the stage 2 competencies are highly irrelevant to the needs of industry, society and the individual. The stage 2 competencies concern joining a profession. Also in terms of Engineers Australia the stage 2 competencies are so generic, they could apply to any one doing any job: train driver, plumber, shop assistant. Generic competencies may be beneficial if the reference to engineering discipline was removed, and additional competencies were required for such, and still further competencies for specific areas of practice. Put simply I wouldn't give a B.Eng MIEAust CPEng. NPER(struct) the job designing the structure of a singular dog kennel, let alone a multi-storey building or highway bridge. This is because I do not believe the work practice report is a reliable indicator of having achieved necessary competencies for a specific area of practice. It is far to dependent on whether the supervisor has adequate competence, or exercises adequate duty of care.

From South Australian practice where we require independent technical check, I am aware that, that one state with registration of engineers: Queensland, has far too many RPEQ's who self certify rubbish. If going to have a registration system and restrict who can and cannot practice engineering, then better have a system in place which properly assesses necessary competences. I say necessary, because the required competences are already in place and not adequate.

Neither education nor experience is developing necessary competencies. There is an additional system of training and assessment required: something far better than the engineers graduate development programme, and superior than masters degree in engineering practice. Something more akin, to military training and the way fire fighters train. Not just developing competence, but proficiency and appropriate habitual response.

There is learning simply because the world is an interesting place. Then there is learning to fulfil necessary functions within society, to provide cogs for the machinery of industrial society. The characteristics of these cogs need to be more clearly defined, and the quality of the cogs supplied significantly higher than we are currently getting. But people don't like being treated as cogs, so this has to be reconciled against peoples desire for quality of supply and desire for freedom.

We have a problem in that people do not want to pay the monetary cost of the training required to sustain the technological systems which meet their daily needs. Hence technological systems are designed to remove the need for advanced skills, and then production moved to areas of low labour costs.

A corporation is a collective, so is a city, a town and a village. A new participatory democracy is required at the local level. Education, experience and appropriate competencies for all is important to the function of democracy. Education of the ruling minority fine for a republic.

It being Australia day, no doubt there are those who will raise the republic issue, and ousting the monarchy. I have little issue with freedom from rule of a monarchy, I just oppose a republic. Rightly or wrongly, to me a republic has a ruling elite, and is not a democracy: USSR, Republic of China, etc... It also appears to me that it is the Australia government that has the more parental attitude, making this and that compulsory for all: which in many instances is just to create a market: RCD's, smoke alarms, bicycle helmets.

Population needs to get more involved: water security, food security, competition watchdog, supermarkets pushing local family business out, pressures on farmers, environmental pollution, manufacturing moving over seas, cost of formal education increasing, health care systems, aging population, housing supply, carbon tax, and energy security. No fuel to generate electricity, then pumps don't work and have no water.

Education may not provide all competencies. But it is not experience that is important it is learning. Both education and experience without learning and the development of competencies are worthless. People have to be viewing a bigger picture than simply their job, and move beyond apparent perception that employers have a responsibility to employ. They are not employers they are businesses, they do not need to employ anyone. It is people who have to convince business owners that people are better able to meet the needs of people, that people are an essential and integral part of technological systems.

I diverge. Well I diverged several paragraphs back. But hey the world is complex. To get focus I'd probably need to get a lobotomy to stop me from questioning and connecting everything.

REVISIONS:

1. Original

PS: I know I don't have comments switched on, as explained in "About", this blog is largely about catharsis. If I wanted to continue the debate I would have posted yet another comment on the construction management forum. But there is no real debate going on, it is simply a war of attrition. Those with experience only, are not happy, since unable to get a job in current economy because they don't have a degree. Those with a degree, but not the experience, otherwise want to know how they can get experience, if they cannot get a job. Neither of the two groups have the required competencies or appropriate evidence of attained competences. Persons who do not have the competences to design work processes, or properly define jobs, are to a large extent simply insulting each other, trying to shout each other down. 


Such bickering is a distraction to my current priorities, such as required performance of aluminium balustrade. If not distracted I would have wrote about that instead. The regulations are not clear, and have lots of people running around saying this illegal and that is illegal, without really understanding the issues. One issue is clearly identifying the difference between, a wall, a partition, a barrier, guard railing, a balustrade and a hand rail: not clearly defined in the codes.


Also have one project, concerning a full height glass panel, adjacent glass balustrade. It has been certified as compliant with the glazing code by the glaziers  . Problem is the current glazing code is a design code, no longer just prescriptive, and dependent on the loading code: the design load is not mentioned on the certificate. First impression is that the glazing should be designed for crowd loading, in which case it is not compliant with the building code of Australia (BCA). But if replaced with a timber framed wall covered in plaster board, no one would probably be concerned: and yet a crowd probably more likely to knock a hole through the plaster board wall and fall to floor below.


Names of objects is important. Most South Australian pergola companies for instance do not know what  a pergola is: pergola's typically do not require development approval. The result is a significant amount of time spent assessing construction of all kinds, classified as illegal until development approval has been sought and granted. All caused largely because of misunderstanding of what the construction is, which name should be assigned?


Even so. I don't believe we should have more legislation restricting who can or cannot be in business, rather it  is necessary to further develop competencies, and learning of both suppliers and buyers. If the buyers are better informed, then they are more likely to buy from a more competent supplier: unless they want to play silly games in hopes of getting a lower price.