Moving forward with Associate Technologists #pt1

The idea of renaming engineering associate/officers to Associate Technologists is starting to grow on me. It fits with my previously stated objective of removing the words engineer and engineering from my vocabulary. I've not checked but not aware of it being used elsewhere. Though I have always had objections to the use of the term engineering technologist. To me technologist is someone who studies the relationship between technology and humanity: both geographically and historically. Such discipline emerged because engineers, whether fabricators or designers have and continue to play scant regard to the impact of technology on our world. Engineers have low status primarily because they do not serve a higher ethic, rather they serve their capitalist and/or war mongering masters. They generate pollution and weapons of mass destruction. Our cities don't so much as provide freedom, but a a prison make. Drones in a hive. So using the word "technologist" to refer to these crunchers of numbers, drafters of pictures, and writers of reports seems diminishing to the discipline even if qualified by tacking engineering on the front. However I want to drop the prefix engineering, and never refer to engineer or engineering.

Most things on the internet relate technology to computers and the internet and related hardware and software. It is technology that people have genrally been concerned with. The Luddites arose because of technology: machines and automation. It is technology that people seek to solve a variety of problems, it is technology that modern society is built on. Engineering is a process and technology is the result. Since I spend my time dealing with products for which there was no techno-scientific input, my interest is getting people to seek the appropriate people for assistance in the first place. It is typically easier to design something to be compliant than to prove some existing thing is compliant. The problem with things that are merely built, is that they are built for a limited purpose, and that purpose they typically fullfill. However societies mandated performance requirements extend beyond the limited purpose. Often societies wants are unwarranted and it is necessary for persons to take the gatekeepers to task and get them to justify their position.

REGULATORY CONTROL
Take building control, or more generally development approval as we call it here in South Australia. Most buildings are designed by:

1) Owner-Builders
2) Builders
3) Building Designers
4) Plan Drafters

Or to be more strictly correct the buildings are ultimately designed by:

1) Building Surveyors
2) Building Survey Technicians
3) Other building officials employed by councils.

This latter situation is not the intent of the development act, but it is what most happens in practice. The first group of people don't really design anything, they simply attempt to describe what they want and propose to do, or often what they have already done. The people in the first group do not defend their proposals, they do not declare they have deliberately attempted to comply with codes of practice and good design practice. Rather they bounce their proposals back and forth to council, basically asking: "tell me what you want, what do I have to do to get approval?". Since the building officials are not in the role of designer, and strictly speaking they loose status as an independent approving authority if they give design advice. The result is that the building officials don't consider all issues when supplying advice and guidance. If the building official hasn't assessed everything then after changes are made other faults will arise with the proposal. The result the proposal will get bounced back and forth until everyone gets tired and the thing reaches near full compliance. That is to say if the proposal was passed onto someone else and they assess it with a fresh mind they are likely to find other faults. It is also the case that the documentation produced by those in the first group is also relatively poor, it has thus been pointed out that often the primary reason that the councils ask for engineers reports is that there is a good chance that they get some decent drawings. Doesn't always work though, and the engineers just produce calcs-for-council. It is also the case that cannot send the people away to get architects drawings, or drawings produced by a decent drafter. So it becomes a matter of individual choice as to whether decent drawings and written specifications are really needed.

Some builders produce excellent drawings, and they do so, because it is helpful to go through the process of construction on paper before tackling the job for real. So getting someone else to draw it up, defeats the purpose. Unfortunately the majority of the industry sees drawings as unnecessary paperwork.
Builders have turned up at the office, and they have said they just want calcs-for-council, its just a matter of the span, 90% of the time they get approval with out problems. I ask if their carpenters often have to stop part way through construction and buy additional materials. The response is usually yes. Thats when I start drawing extra structural members on their plans, and section lines and start asking about details. Connection details for which they cannot provide any answers. Responses tend to be industry standard practice. My response is everyone one I ask, does things differently. They say something like to the code, I say the code has about 100 different details, which one do they use. Rule one: never ask what they do by offering options. What ever you say that will be what they do. It's necessary to get them to commit to and say what they do.

These businesses would save themselves and everyone else a great deal of hassle if they employed people with a formal techno-scientific education on their staffs. They don't want engineers, and they don't really need engineers, engineers are likely to get bored to death. Its the same with the technical, and engineering software companies.Most businesses which may benefit from the software have the software, and the software they currently have works just fine they have no desire to upgrade. Most other businesses which may benefit from the technology in the software, don't want the current offerings. For example there are still people producing architectural and engineering drawings by hand. Freehand workshop details tend to be more readable than scale drawings. The objective is not to produce a virtual reality but communicate an idea to be transformed into reality. Scale drawings can be a good check on the dimensional fit, but tradition more based on arithmetic, bringing together dimensions from large scale drawings with details from small scale drawings. CADD can do this arithmetic and drawing at the same time, but can otherwise be a hindrance to good communication. Additionally CADD can take longer than producing a simple freehand sketch. So there are people who are not using drawing boards and drawing instruments, so moving over to CADD not a high priority.

But are timber estimators fully covering all the requirements needed for a structurally adequate timber framed house? Can the house dreamed up actually be built? Who is checking such things? Its not the building officials. Development approval is not about whether it can be built or not. If development approval wasn't there people would just go ahead and build. Being able to build the thing is the building proponents problem. Development approval is concerned about whether it should be permitted to exist in the built environment and will it present a hazard or inconvenience to the public. Put simply approval can be granted for the impossible as well as the impractical. So that have the situation that builders contract to build the impossible, and carpenters subcontract to build the impossible. Halfway through construction it will become apparent to the carpenter whilst stuck up a roof that the building cannot be built. That is the wrong time to conclude such things. The whole point of techno-scientific training is to avoid such problems by planning and design.

When the 1993 development act came into being, most councils stopped their official building inspections. A few years later a recommendation of 20% of development applications approved should be inspected, and irrespective of reached the 20% or not significant developments should be inspected. Last year the recommendation was changed to 66% for those involving a licensed builder, and 90% for those not involving a licensed builder. It thus basically confirming the inspectors view at the time of the new act that problems would arise if checks weren't made.

I disagree. Its the QC versus QA issue. Quality Control (QC) is permitting defects and then filtering them out and resolving issues associated with. Basically QC is closing the gate after the horse has bolted. Quality Assurance (QA) on the other hand is about attempting to avoid the problem in the first place, it is built around designing quality in. When the 1993 development act was introduced there were attempts to introduce QA ideas, but it was resisted and didn't really happen. The ideas however were flawed and based on ISO:9000. The ideas were based on too much paper shuffling and collection of signatures. Signatures collected to allocate blame. There was a mismatch between responsiblility and authority. Such is not acceptable in a true QA system.

AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
For example I have no authority to go on site and ensure my design is complied with, further more contractual relationships are typically a screw up. Builder typically requests the work, but invoice is typically to a person never seen, the future owner. Gets more complicated with manufacturers. Then there are supermarkets who want to impose discounts, and have consultants sign same suppliers contract as spud farmers and the like. There are those who think they have something worthy of a patent and want consultants to sign intellectual property agreements before they discuss anything: basically tell them to clear off.

The basic issue however is that the owners typically don't want to pay for what regulations have mandated. For example if build a carport typically require a rain water tank (I cannot remember whether its retention or detention). Anycase the documentation is approved on basis of it going in. But the carport builders don't supply or install. It is left to the owners to install the rainwater tank, and most don't. If downpipe draining to garden probably not an issue, if draining to street then an issue. The whole purpose is to slow stormwater to the street mains, because it isn't large enough for the current style of housing. When the stormwater mains were installed large gardens were the trend, now much larger houses with paved outdoor living areas is the trend. So the water has to be retained on site until after the storm is over and then slowly released to the stormwater mains: and so reducing local flooding.

Similar situation is the required strengthening of the existing house structure prior to attaching a carport. The carport builders sell a carport, submit building approval plans, get a request for further information, obtains engineering for strengthening the house. Then as far as I know they go ahead as usual, because the cost of strengthening the house was not involved in the original contract fee, further they've never had to do so in the past. But then they were building smaller carports and it was being ignored. Basically the owner is constantly placed in the position of owner-builder, and left responsible for the complete construction. Strengthening the house is cumbersome and consequently labour expensive. It can add a significant delay before the carport/verandah can be built, and a huge additional fee. People just want the carport/verandah, thats all they want to pay for, all they do pay for, and all they get.

The newly imposed inspections are largely because of roof truss failures. Roof trusses are a problem when it comes to original design, and installation as well as future modifications. However it is not really check lists and inspections which are required to bring about improvements. It was not the loss of the official building inspectors and their inspections that was and is the problem. I contend the problem is poor demarcation of authority and responsibility. There is too much division of labour and coordination is poor.

ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES
What we need is proper planning, design and management of this established technology. I contend that this does not require pushing to the higher levels of the Australian qualification framework (AQF), but multiskilling at the level of AQF-6 [Advanced Diploma or Associate Degree]. I contend that AQF-6 down meets the fundamental needs of industry and society, that AQF-7 upwards meets higher personal needs and are not necessary to society. Most occupational awards contain breadth of knowledge, rising in levels of the AQF should increase depth of knowledge, and that should be clear within a given body of knowledge. Depth of knowledge is currently poorly defined. But breath of knowledge is relatively clear and apparent to everyone.

So for example I contend that if a B.Eng in civil engineering and a B.Eng in mechanical engineering both produce engineers, then the common title can only come from a common core and that common core is a 1 year diploma in engineering science or a 2 year Associate Degree in engineering science. If we look at the NCEES FE/PE exams, it becomes apparent that most engineering disciplines are defined by 5 major areas of practice. At present at most, B.Eng programmes only have a single common year. That leaves 3 years out of 4, to cover 5 major areas of practice, and discipline specific depth of the fundamentals of engineering. That is a total of 6 streams in 3 years, or one half a year per stream.

Therefore a 2 year Associate Degree programme can be defined by 1 year of Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) and 1/2 year FE discipline specific depth, and 1/2 year for single area of practice. It should be noted that most graduates once employed tend to concentrate on a single area of practice, and otherwise have difficulty moving over to another area of practice.  A fundamental principle of the AQF is mobility and articulation from one occupation to another as the needs of the economy require. So whilst the B.Eng may provide some mobility at start of career, it otherwise is no help in the future. More appropriate organisation of the body of knowledge will achieve better mobility throughout a persons career. So go for the B.Eng if interested in profession, but don't go giving me a hard time telling me rubbish about who is best qualified for the job. The B.Eng doesn't have anything to do with the job, it is too general, and a great deal of additional knowledge is required to actually perform the job properly. This additional knowledge can be presented in shorter academic programmes, simply by changing the scheduling of subjects. Persons with a B.Eng in civil engineering do not spend 4 years studying structures. Further more they have limited to no architectural and building knowledge, hindering their communications with others in the industry. Put simply they are not trained for the industry but for their profession. But the professional bodies are increasingly failing to provide the additional training required to meet the needs of their associated industries. The same applies to B.Eng mechanical, and electrical who also enter the building industry. More so if consider that many mechanical are petrol heads, car freaks, but end up working in HVAC, putting huge holes in building structures. Why? One because they forgot all about mechanics, and secondly because they would rather be somewhere else and are not paying attention.

The problem with occupational degrees is that educating people, and then they cannot get a job putting that knowledge to work: either the job lacks breadth or it lacks depth. Or the job simply lacks the resources to get motivated and make things happen: everything becomes a series of political and economical obstacles and no real power to resolve. So I say scrap the occupational degrees, have the higher degrees but don't relate them to occupations, and have higher standards for passing. Don't repeat the habit of the past and say the degree is required to do the job. It isn't, degrees have never been necessary to do the job: that is lazy human resource management. Minimum knowledge is required to do the job along with ability to apply such knowledge. The mistake of the past is assuming that university graduates can all make significant improvements where they are employed: then distorting those academic programmes to a standardised knowledgebase to fit the industry. That is taking a bad idea, ensuring the next generation is fully conversant with it and advocate for, and then flooding the industry with it. Then wondering what went wrong. The traditional graduates with their degrees brought improvements precisely because they weren't trained for the industry but were conversant with the industry. They introduced fresh ideas, rather than sustaining and spreading stagnant ideas.

Tradition was starting in industry and moving into education, night school was important. The original associate diploma programmes for engineering associates were 4 year part time programmes (2 year fulltime equivalent), with most studies scheduled in the evenings, with may be the odd subject requiring day release from work. People were working and developing proficiency, competency and confidence, and the studies of increasing relevance as they found use for them at work, and took on more challenging projects.

But economic down turns, and high levels of unemployment resulted in people staying at school longer and moving onto higher education, getting a degree has basically become an expected norm. But its not good because the scheduling of the academic programmes is all out of whack with the needs of society and industry. We need to get competent people into industry fast, and fast tracking B.Eng to 3 years through summer programmes is the wrong way to do it. Trades people who later get a B.Eng are generally better practical engineers than those who went straight from school. By practical engineers, I mean that what they design can be built, and built safely. They have a better understanding of workers on the factory floor and the construction site, because they have been there. The school leaver engineers tend to focus more on the analysis and mathematics, not the real engineering, unless their education had a bias on manufacturing and construction, and the problems of "over-the-wall-design".

A principle of QA is that the journey is more important than the destination. I want the journey to engineer to be long, and of high quality. So my preference is stepping through AQF levels 1 to 6, and spending significant time there before moving upto levels 7 and 8.

Articulation requires definable common cores preferably in terms of other AQF awards, therefore the first common year of the B.Eng programme would be a 1 year AQF-5 Diploma in Engineering Science, and this itself should be broken down into lower level AQF awards. Also the 2 year programme described above contained all the engineering science, but only a single area of practice. A single area of practice does not require the entire breadth of engineering science. So an alternative 2 year programme can be defined adding more engineering practice and deleting unnecessary engineering science. Thus end up with multiple pathways, a plethora of qualifications some have suggested. The latter is not intended nor desirable, however one qualification contending to be covering everything is also not desirable.

Where we have established technologies it is necessary to develop and sustain an established body of knowledge. The B.Eng lacks adequate coverage of engineering practice, and Masters of Engineering Practice only add to diminishing the value of masters degrees. A 2 year programme can stick to the subject matter and contain more engineering practice material. So a 2 year Associate Degree in Structural Design can focus on the most common structural forms likely to be encountered: and cover architectural and building as necessary. Such qualifications can be quickly adapted to meet the needs of specific industry sectors.

First collapse to 1 year AQF diploma of structural design, from there it can be extended to an AQF advanced diploma to meet a single or multiple industry needs. For example there is the balustrade industry, industrial racking industry, precast concrete industry. Few of these industries require full time structural engineers, and often they rely on external consultants. The businesses would be far better of if they employed techno-scientific personnel on staff in the form of Associate Technologists, that way when they do call upon external consultants they get higher quality services. Basically many of these businesses hold standard calculations, reports and certificates in a form which is basically chaos.

Associate Technologists would help to bring order to the chaos, reduce delays when interacting with regulating authorities, and more importantly actually defend the product. As I stated above much of what is imposed by regulatory authorities is unwarranted, many simply impose the rules with no knowledge of origin and intent of the rules. Sometimes this is good, other times it is the cause of hazard and inconvenience. Plan drafters simply complying results in bad design. The Associate Technologists can defend their design.

The current argument of the engineers is about being smarter and more intelligent or something. But that is not the real issue. The issue is having the right knowledge about the established technologies. It is about following established procedures for assessing expected performance of those established technologies and achieving it in practice.

Achieving the necessary competence, requires supervision under the right people, if the right people have never been established in the work place, then it is necessary to provide greater level of formal academic training to achieve the desired outcome. Given the basic AQF awards describe foundational knowledge and enabling competence, an additional AQF certificate of practice is therefore required to cover recognition of having acquired a few hundred hours of practice in a given area. For example an entire year spent working on realistic project work, only instead of it being sent to regulatory officials for approval, it is instead sent to academic supervisors who carry out more rigorous assessment than real officials. The purpose of the academic system should be to improve what is in the world outside and foster higher discipline in action taken.

Degrees were equated to higher pay, and everyone was basically pushed to get a degree to get a better job, government couldn't afford such education and so education was largely commercialised. But it was nonsense, higher pay comes from good fortune in the market place: being in the right place at the right time with the right product in thr right condition, at the right price. Chances are your occupational degree is a product that doesn't meet any of these requirements: and as a graduate you are left with nothing to sell. It was never the degree it was always what the individual could and can do with knowledge learnt. So until learnt something that you can do something unique with, you haven't learnt the right thing.

So my interest is bashing the tree of knowledge or better described as the web of knowledge around, to create alternative programmes and schedules. For both are a matter of subjective opinion. Educated here and there, I know that teachers tend to talk rubbish about what you can learn and when: their views are biased by local schedules not human capability.

Now the articulation requirements of the AQF is important to the concepts of vocation, occupation, profession or career. Whilst we need timber designers, and steel designers and industrial racking designers and such, we don't want to create such things or be such things. That takes us back to similar situation to having the welder, the slag chipper, and the slag chippers mate or whatever crazy divisions of labour existed in the metal industry before it was rationalised. The problem was relatively unskilled jobs which could be taught fairly quickly, but having restrictions on who could and could not do the work: the purpose being to protect employment. The result extremely inefficient workplace, in which new technologies cannot be adopted.

So we don't educate steel designer or timber designer, but structural designer, or Associate Technologist Structures. But we need to know they have their AQF certificate of practice in timber and/or steel, or industrial racking or what ever the specific material or technology may be. Getting a bachelor degree instead of the associate degree won;t resolve the issue, because it doesn't cover the engineering practice required for the given technology: it only covers the science which may be applicable. If the graduate is not supervised by the right people then there is no guarantee that they will apply the applicable science correctly to the technology.

The purpose here is to cut the irrelevant science, and get more of the technology specific engineering practice into the academic education programmes, and further academic training programmes to develop proficiency to create habitual instinct. That is able to respond to common questions with a known solutions rather than I need to go do some calculations. New training is required. Well actually probably old training, training similar to that of the original military engineers: lots of bullshine: as my Warlord annual described it. Take the canon apart, polish it, put it back together, and do it again and again. Then go into battle and get stuck in the mud, but the response is automatic and habitual: not an obstacle but a mere inconvenience.

The structural steel designer knows the answer in steel, the structural engineer often doesn't. When the structural engineer has become a structural analyst, an applied mathematician and the steel designer has been lost or never emerged, then have a dangerous industrial environment. Such designers did exist and were an important part of the design team, they have been largely lost, or replaced by computer software. Not engineers replaced by computer software, but steel designers and structural analysts. Don't need to know about steel or timber design, because the software can check it: but it cannot design nor does it know the solutions. I dislike most software because it only looks at a point on a complex design curve. If look at a curve can more readily see if made a mistake and some perspective of tolerance. If calculated a single point value, have no real clue as to where you are: don't know if actually kept on design curve and no concept of tolerance. Experience generates a collection of design points in your head, but a random collection is still not a continuous curve.

So I would like to get techno-scientific personnel into the small businesses which are 95% of all businesses. They may not have need for structures, but they have need for technology of some form or other and need for industrial mathematics and industrial science of some description. Which is part of the reason for dropping engineering and just refer to Associate Technologist and Technologist. For example I don't think food technologists would gain membership of IEAust: even though applied science, and not just measuring stuff, but also creating new products. Similarly industrial designers and architects would be excluded, along with computer scientists, and computer programmers. In short many occupations concerned with technology and its design and development are excluded from joining Engineers Australia. Engineering is something specific, and upto date apparently not. There are chemical engineers and computer systems engineers: but really has the common body of knowledge really brought about a transformation to engineer.

So far I've focused on AQF-6 Associate Degree. But really need to get down to AQF-1 certificate I and work upto Certificate IV. Typically Certificate I is an entry level work qualification. Whilst Certificate III is the typical trade level qualification. By the way the AQF exists for the purpose of assisting employers find the right people. My general view is to scrap grade 11 and grade 12. A typical degree is 3 years, but if include matriculation studies then it takes 5 years after the 10 years of compulsory education. Associate degrees in foundational studies are becoming common as alternative pathways, especially for mature entry studies, these can cut time off bachelor degree programmes. So a 4 year B.Eng is actually 6 years beyond school. So TAFE qualifications not dependent on grade 11 or grade 12, can cut duration to 2 years total to get a useful qualification: not the B.Eng, but into techno-scientific occupation of some description with the potential to progress.

So basically saying that the 2 years of matriculation, now the senior secondary certificate of education (SSCE) should be replaced by a more formal AQF-6 award, the Associate Degree in say liberal studies. But further that grade 11 becomes AQF-5 Diploma in liberal studies. That this iself is broken down into certificates.

Now taking a certificate I, as 1/5th of a year. Note meanings of qualifications can change dependent on area of practice and/or body of knowledge. A certificate I in applied mathematics is not equal to certificate I in say hairdressing: they have completely different bodies of knowledge and the break down of that knowledge and division of labour completely different. Mathematics is also foundation of many other things. So take about 6 subjects in grade 11 and 5 in grade 12. So mathematics 1 study unit in grade 11, but 2 in grade 12. Therefore total of 3/5ths of a year in mathematics: therefore equivalent certificate III in mathematics. Other subjects only amount to 2/5ths so only equate to certificate II,  with one subject no more than certificate I. So basically get 5 certificates, for example:

Certificate I English
Certificate II Geography
Certificate II Chemistry
Certificate II Physics
Certificate III Mathematics

Another issue is that grade 10 itself is without real recognition and award. That is 10 years of education which is basically useless. Suggest that this also be properly integrated in the AQF. This closely approximates the old O-levels and A-levels, which I think has now been abandoned in the UK for NVQ's, but still available in some commonwealth countries.

From the simple list above can now start to ask questions, like what does the B.Eng advance? Do they get to a Certificate IV in mathematics or Diploma? To me Mathematics is a real knowledge stream, where as engineering is not. Also physics and chemistry are heaviliy biased towards mathematics and therefore could be classed as applied mathematics. And applied mathematics probably best scheduled before pure mathematics. So potentially drop the physics and chemistry back to Certificate I and push the mathematics up to diploma. So that get:

Certificate I English
Certificate II Geography
Certificate I Chemistry
Certificate I Physics
Diploma Applied Mathematics

Where the certificates in physics and chemistry focus on the qualitative aspects and laboratory work, and the quantitative aspects are shifted to applied mathematics. It then becomes apparent that it is possible to schedule all the mathematics in grade 12, and all the other subjects in grade 11.

When we look more closely at a B.Eng program we see therefore an increase in the depth of the applied mathematics qualification, and minor coverage of qualitative issues in science and technology. So is the B.Eng just a substandard degree in industrial mathematics by another name? What is there in the study of mechanics that is not mathematics? What in the study of thermofluid dynamics that is not mathematics? The design of a structure is not mathematics. The design of fluid power control system is not mathematics? Factory automation and programming PLC's is not mathematics. But the final assessment of the designs may involve mathematics, and mathematical relationships may guide design decisions whilst sketching ideas out. So applied mathematics is helpful and often important, but not always necessary. So there is an issue of when and where to slot it into a study programme.

I say isolate study streams and explicitly identify equivalences on built up awards. So the collection above is replaced by Associate Degree in Technical Science. If collection of subjects biased towards the humanities it would become Associate Degree in Humanities. When consider that grade 11 and grade 12 have a lot of repetition, can also consider compressing the subject matter and including more practical technical topics if going to refer to technical science. For example starting point for applied mathematics being technical drawing, moving onto to geometry and trigonometry. So now shifted to needed content of certificate I in Technical Science. Grade 11 and 12 does not deal with industrial or technical science, it is really aimed at the traditional degrees: BSc and BA. Once again these were and are about profession and personal status, not the needs of industry or society. The knowledge has to be put to use to be useful, and that generally requires oppportunity. So need to get people into industry, asking questions and then seeking knowledge. Rather than acquiring knowledge, entering industry and doing nothing with the knowledge, and otherwise thinking know the answers. Got to ask questions first, and people not taught the standard process, typically ask questions about why its done that way. So people need to be given the opportunity to unleash their potential, and that mostly requires getting them into the workforce at some entry level position whilst still studying.

Sun 2012-Aug-12  03:21AM

Views on Engineers Australia

My views on Engineers Australia were formed at an early age, as a consequence, I'm not overly certain why I joined. I was born in England and as such from an early age I viewed if not read New Civil Engineer by the institution of civil engineers (ICE), The Structural Engineer by The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE). I mostly liked the D9 bulldozers, tunnel borers and the worlds largest walking machine. The Structural Engineer had very small print and lots of long curly S's, by the time I understood what such things were there presence had significantly diminished. I attended first construction sites around the age of 8, first a foot bridge joining two factory buildings across a canel, and then a highway bridge being constructed in Bawtry. Sometime after arriving in Australia the ICE replaced New Civil Engineer with Construction Today for its overseas membership. We moved around England, then to Zambia and then Australia, for my dad's career as he was attempting to get site experience to become an MICE, he was already a MIStructE, for family reasons he gave up on MICE. In Australia added Engineers Australia magazine by the Institution of Engineers Australia (IEAust). I was no longer just looking at pictures of big machines, now reading. Engineers Australia (EA) magazine was devoid of technical content, more of an advertsing and political platform, not even practical technical background to projects. Technical content came from elsewhere such as transactions or other entities such as the Australian Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), now the Australian Steel Institute (ASI). This is largely because the IEAust covered all engineering disciplines: actually it didn't it has been absorbing other institutions over the years (eg. electrical, radio, chemical). Industrial engineering is still largely independent but the institute of industrial engineers (IIE) also operates as the industrial engineering society (IES) with in the IEAust. Nobody really knows what the purpose of the IEAust is, there is constant confusion with the functions of APESMA (employees) and ACEA (consultants). Also a few years back the benefits of IEAust representing all engineering disciplines was diminished a few years back when Engineers Australia magazine was split into two different versions civil and general. For the most part they are mostly the same.

The IEAust membership have always had problems. First there were those who never progressed beyond graduate status, working in construction they complained it was easier for those in a design office to get minimal site experience compared to those on site getting minimal design office experience. There is thus an issue as to what is required to become an engineer. The IEAust hasn't really defined this in terms of engineering practice, they have defined it, if at all, mostly in terms of education: which is ridiculous. The rules are:

1) Bachelor of Engineering (4 year) = Professional Engineer
2) Bachelor of Technology (3 year)= Engineering Technologist
3) Associate Diploma/Advanced Diploma/Associate Degree (2 year) = Engineering Associate/Officer

Part of the reason is our industrial relations system and industrial awards. Professional Engineer is apparently used to differentiate train driver from the other thing: so all graduates with a B.Eng are professional engineers. Subject to the industrial relations system they have the potential to function as engineers and therefore should be paid as such, even if they don't actually function at the level of an engineer. Another ridiculous situation.

Now I have the educational awards for engineering associate and engineering technologist, I also started out attempting to get that for engineer. Now when my father graduated from Salford University, back in the 60's when Salford Unversity came into being, he sat about 1 hours worth of examinations in mathematics. At the South Australian Institute of Technology (SAIT), now the University of South Australia (UniSA), I sat 2 hour to 3 hour examinations in each and every topic of mathematics: it was the school of mathematics causing people to drop out of engineering, not engineering subjects. With one exception civil engineers at SAIT apparently didn't go through the school of mathematics, they tackled advanced engineering mathematics topics on an as needs basis: and no examination in. That is they did not have to learn mathematical theories, nor the derivation of theorems and corollaries. Engineers are not all equal and as far as I know the IEAust is typically dominated by civil engineers, occassionally by mechanical. My view of civil engineers is hardnosed, loud mouthed contract managers, not particularly highly conversant in the engineering sciences. The IEAust and APESMA has been pushing MBA's for the past 20 to 30 years, and its newest qualification is chartered executive engineer. It is not really doing anything to foster technical competence.

When I was studying the first year of the B.Eng in 1980's, we were explicitly told that in all likelyhood we would be the only person with an engineering background employed in an enterprise. Such does not represent an industrial environment with an highly established competent technical workforce. So to my view it was and is irresponsible of the IEAust to introduce chartered status based on work practice reports describing in hyperbole the individuals role on the job.

When it comes to major infrastructure projects one set of design loads is highly likely to be experienced on the job leading to failures during construction. For the vast majority of engineering projects the primary loading has a low probability of occurrence, and the system may not experience such loading for many years: at a point in time that it is too late to find out about a fault. Such defects are latent defects. For small systems, prototypes are designed and built, then tested to failure, with the design theory calibrated against. Errors in design thinking quickly show up. For large systems physical prototypes are far too expensive to test. It is therefore important that the design theory properly matches the proposed system. Peoples lives are at risk.

My view about mathematics at uni, was that it was abstract and esoteric and peoples lives are risk, it needs validating by science. Navier made the error of relying on the mathematics before scientific validation: his first bridges collasped during construction.

Engineers Australia seems dominated by persons concerned more with status and prestige than technical competence. So whilst CPEng is presented as some kind of quality check on competence, it isn't. Its a lot more about working for the right company and having time to waste writing silly work practice reports identifiying attained competencies, collecting enough brownie points. Most of the required competencies are irrelevant to the actual practice of engineering: they mostly fail to cover the real issues of technical competence. Far too much reliance is placed on the value of the B.Eng, but the B.Eng does not and never has covered established technology and engineering practice. The B.Eng is about the established engineering science. As I have said many times before traditional engineers pushed the frontiers of science and technology.

It is possible to push the frontiers of science with out developing new technologies. It is possible to push the frontiers of technology without new science. But neither of these is engineering. Last years engineer will always be this years technician. Some 80 plus years ago steel reinforced concrete was a new fangled technology, we needed a means of reliably putting it to use. We now have that means, reinforced concrete is an established technology. As a community we will be displeased if concrete structures fail unexpectedly. It is a technology with an established body of knowledge and it takes time to learn. But it does not require a 4 year B.Eng in civil engineering.


The communities primary concern is sustaining the expected performance of established technologies. Bachelor degrees however are about profession and status not the needs of the community.

I attended a chartered status seminar a few years back. One of the engineering associates there asked if they needed to be able to design a reinforced concrete column. My thoughts were yes, if employed in the structural section, it is part of the formal academic education of civil engineering associates. But the engineers response was mostly no. Engineers Australia has been diminishing the status of engineering associates since it absorbed the institute of engineering associates. Engineering Associates are not drafters, nor are they engineering technicians.

Engineering technicians typically have advanced trade certificates, whilst they may be able to design a new system, they lack the scientific knowledge to demonstrate its fitness for function on paper. They can test what they have built, but the test may place them and others at risk of injury. The engineering associate does have the scientific knowledge to demonstrate fitness for function without testing, and otherwise to conduct controlled testing to minimise injury. Drafters on the otherhand typically have no formal education and learn on the job, though they may have a diploma or associate diploma in drafting.

Engineers Australia is attempting to float a pinnacle in fresh air, when it should be building a solid foundation in the form of an army of engineering associates. Take the top 20% of them and make them engineering technologists. Take the top 20% of the engineering technologists and make them engineers. Dump this idea of school leaver engineers.

Further clarification, I work as a technical consultant for various manufacturers of structural products, they hold standard structural calculations for their products. Those calculations are typically deficient and below the standard I expect from engineering associates. I've been pushing out more detailed calculations. As consultants cycle round the manufacturers, it has become apparent, that the others have been following suite and increasing the detail of their work. By pushing more detail into the councils, the councils start asking more questions of others. That results in others experiencing delays where they thought they had everything wrapped up. Ultimately manufacturers are imposed upon to provide greater evidence-of-suitability for their products: for many calculation indicates their product is defective as does physical testing. Approval has been granted for years: that poses a problem for all parties concerned. But there has been no conspicuous history of failures: the structures are thus suitable for purpose they just don't have the desired and imposed over capacity. Since no change to the codes: getting the manufacturers to change is a problem: the council approved last week,why not this week? The basic change would be more stringent enforcement of documentary evidence-of-suitability, without retroactive imposition. The existing have to be found lower performance but acceptable structures: they have been approved they have to be acceptable. Such lower performance structures identified as a new class of structures/building subject to newly created conditions. Given the building code of Australia (BCA) is revised each and every year, such additional classification is required in anycase for few existing buildings will comply with the current years code.

The regulatory system is just seen as an unnecessary paperchase, keeping bludging public servants in cushy jobs. Everyone makes their stuff as strong as houses and twice as strong as it needs to be: not sure how they know such things, buts its what they regularly tell me. I should also note that many clients complain about some engineer they previously did business with, and builders I meet on site also complain about engineers. So quite frankly I glad I'm not an engineer, I don't want to be numbered amongst those which the expletives are thrown at. People need real technical guidance, not perons just feeding the paperchase.

I think it would be better to create an institution of technologists and rename the engineering associates/officers to Associate Technologists. Drop all this engineer, and engineering rubbish, and deal with technical science and technical design. To set our own ideals of what an engineer is, and nominate and elect persons to such honary title. Standards so high that we look down on the IEAust and its membership, who we otherwise equate to accountants, managers and other bean counters: and light years from being considered real engineers. I don't see why technolgists cannot define engineer and dictate the terms as it is supposed engineers currently dictating terms of who are engineering associates/officers and engineering technologists.

The supposed engineers have low standards, well the majority anyhow, not those who are really concerned about raising the technical standards. But that is the problem: the idiots aswell as the competent are both called engineers: and the argument deteriorates to arguing about train drivers not being engineers. The problem is that the incompetent B.Eng, MIEAusts and/or CPEng have a significant impact on public perception: they are more manager than advanced level technical professionals. So lets ignore them and forget about them.

As a community we need competent Associate Technologists in specific areas of practice such as machine design, fluid power system design, mechanical handling design, storm water drainage design, building structure design, road design. Most of the time these areas of practice can be considered in isolation from other areas of practice, occassionally some cross over assistance is acceptable, on other occassions persons conversant across multiple areas of practice becomes important. The latter situation is where the technologists come in. When hit the limits of the established science and adapting the established technologies, that is where the interface between technologist and engineer occurs. When push the frontiers of both science and technology that is when the engineer is born: engineers are born not made: and they are born in industry to the mother of neccessity and invention.

I totally object to calling persons engineers on the basis of accumulated parchments. I consider it an insult to our ancestors and an insult to our cultural heritage.

Lives of the Engineers

Lives of the Engineers by Samuel Smiles now available on Gutenberg project: http://bit.ly/OD3io0

Also check out:

Industrial Biography : Iron workers and toolmakers.
Character
Self-Help
Thrift

Its seems very little changed since the times of Smiles.

Personal Brain

Brain leak: Pricing, Labour Costs and Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


-- Interrupt for tea --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sun 2012-Jul-01  01:03AM