<p>the title is pretty much my question. I'm writing a paper for my English class and it's supposed to be about issues that are faced by engineers in their profession. I can't really think of any issues that an engineer would face and I was hoping maybe people in this forum could help me out. A lot of the topics that come to my mind deals with ethics in engineering but they're mainly one-sided issues.</p>
<p>How about the career path question of should I take the manager position with the competing company or would that be unethical? What about starting up my own company and taking some of my employer’s clients with me? Business people do this all the time btw and never think a thing about it. Engineers have a tendancy to hesitate.</p>
<p>How about what do you do when you have a decision on the safety of a project and you’re getting a lot of pressure from management to go the other way? A pretty famous example of this is the engineer from Morton Thiokol that was pressured into giving the OK for the Challenger mission.</p>
<p>How about the liability issues we face? Structural engineers in particular have to pay many thousands of dollars every year for professional liability insurance.</p>
<p>Also, the issue of being paid for our worth. Structural engineers have not been able to raise their rates nearly as much as other professionals the past decade. For example, our accountant started his business in the late 90s, the same time that my husband and I created our own firm. He charged exactly what we did per hour. Now, though, he charges about 55% more than we do! If we tried to charge that much, we would be laughed at. We also have the problem of clients asking for quotes from several different engineers. The client doesn’t understand that our services aren’t a commodity - the low price is not necessarily the best. It’s discouraging to lose a job because another engineer is willing to low-ball it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This happens in a slow growth economy. Practically speaking, I’m not sure what can be done about this. I don’t see this as a problem that is somehow unique to engineering. Many people in many fields have seen stagnant wages over the last decade. Some have been forced to take pay cuts just to stay employed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does it matter? From the client’s perspective, it’s economics. They’re paying for a service – a solution to their problem. Why shouldn’t clients be able to shop around for the lowest price? Why shouldn’t anyone be allowed to offer a product or service at a reduced price if that is in fact their competitive advantage?</p>
<p>obviously the main difficulties converge at some point.
main ones
pushing for an innovation (for financial or emotional reasons) vs. safety of the product
envisioning something that is practically impossible to do in this day and age
limited resources [weak but can be expanded]
having to tweak something a lot as problem keep on coming up as the final product nears</p>
<p>yagottabelieve, the problem is that when clients shop for the lowest price, they’re going to get a lower-quality product, but they get upset when they realize that. It takes more engineering time to design a building efficiently. If they would spend a little more upfront, the construction cost would be lower. As it is, the bid comes in high and they go through the roof. Our liability insurance company “strongly encourages” us to provide construction observation services, but if we include a fair price for that in our bid, we’ll get turned down. The most frustrating part is that the client gets a lot of bids that are apples and oranges. They look at the bottom line, choose another engineer, and don’t give us a chance to modify our scope.</p>
<p>Here is what the ASCE says: “The use of competitive bidding is detrimental to the quality of engineering services, and invariably results in an adversarial client relationship. Guidelines are provided for those instances where competitive bidding is the only method proposed for selection of the engineer. The engineer is cautioned that his relationship to the client will be adversarial and appropriate contact provisions are required.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This does not follow. You can’t assume that a lower price implies an inferior product. Note that in my original response to you, I wrote “if that is in fact their competitive advantage”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if the engineers are able to charge less even though the amount and quality of the work is the same? It doesn’t seem fair that they should be prevented from doing so. Perhaps they just don’t mind putting in more hours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the quality of the work of the other engineering firms is significantly bad, I imagine they would either have to improve their quality to stay in business, or they would go out of business (unless they had a monopoly). OTOH, you can’t expect that someone who is getting what they consider to be a fair price for a job to continue to shop for an even “fairer” price – what if they have customers of their own waiting for the completion of the project? It’s like going to several supermarkets and choosing the one with lowest price for groceries, with the others complaining that you didn’t come back to them allowing them to make a better deal. You are buying the food because you need to eat.</p>
<p>I will corroborate some of Longhorns statements. I ran a construction business for the last 10 years and worked in construction my entire life. The quality of work from engineers, at least the civil engineers that I worked with, has gotten pretty bad in the time I have worked. This is a direct effect of the bidding process, and I can say it goes for all service providers when times get tough. This is one of the primary reasons I left the construction industry, I was tired of half designed projects that I had to assume liablility for as part of taking the contract. Everyone involved is in the same position, as things get tight prices trend down, and some providers get desperate for work and bid at no or minimal profit. That puts everyone else in the position of if you want to work you have to work at the prices, and consequently only work to the standards, of your cheapest competition. It got so that everyone is trying to pass the buck, so to speak, on to someone else. There was always conflict between the parties invovled, owner, engineer, contractor, subcontractor, etc. No one involved has enough margin to spend any time or do any work outside the minimal scope of work. Finally had enough when I knew that I couldnt be profitable and still maintain the standard of work that I expected from our company. I can honestly say that price is king in the market these days, have seen it over and over where owners will choose the absolute cheapest price, even knowing they hiring a substandard company or service with the hope they can A. stick them with the full scope of the project through contractual language or B. just dont do their homework on the company they are hiring becuase they cannot see past the numbers. Or even as common use the low numbers as leverage against a better provider, trying to get price match on apples to oranges work. Bottom line, to do a quality job on any product or service takes time, no matter how efficient or hard you work, there arent any real shortcuts besides substandard work. </p>
<p>As an example I used to get prints for a job that were 10-12 pages with everything specified and detailed out, all bid items itemized and spelled out in a detailed scope of work. Now for the same project you might get 2 pages of prints with a few drawings and a lump sum bid item that says, provide all service and materials to build this, you make it work and are liable for all work and any unforseen issues. Not in that direct of language but that is what it boils down to.</p>
<p>It even got to the point where after a so called “bid” that owners and general contracters where shopping around numbers after the bids were in, trying to play bidders and their “firm bid prices” off against each other. Or even as bad, writing contracts to someone who obviously missed items of work, being 30-40% cheaper that the second bidder when its common knowledge that margins in the business are 5-15% max.</p>
<p>
lower price does not equal lower quality. </p>
<p>Real case:
- On a major water transmission line LADWP project (60" diameter steel pipe, about 5000 feet-valued at about 20MM, combination of open trench and tunneling) that I’m currently managing, AECOM charges about $150 per hour for their design “consultants”. That’s about 3 times more than my hourly rate. Their signed plans is absolute crap with about 20% change order to date! That is after I taught their sr engineer with 10 year experience how to design with civil 3D.
Did i mention that the construction project is complete disaster. The contractor is trying to break the contract and have the bond/insurance company take over the construction. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>On my old project, MTA gold line extension, DMJM Harris at that time charged about $150 years for their “design consultants”. At that time my hourly rate was still around $30/hr and most of the time I had to tell them how to design sewer and streets and I was a fresh graduate. I HAD TO teach them how to use the land desktop. My sister who happened to be the CM for this project (was working for URS) at the time complained about DMJM Harris’ design so much. </p></li>
<li><p>For one of my smaller projects, we had to pay Parsons 100k for something that was not even constructable and took more than a year to design b/c their surveyors didn’t even know how to do survey for street design. We started from scratch and we completed the design drawings and specs within 3 months. The project location is in skirball ctr drive, nearby the Getty Museum.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Regarding pricing and competitive bidding for civil engineering projects… given that they are often one-offs ordered by customers who may not have engineering knowledge, wouldn’t the customers be in no position to tell if a given proposal is fairly priced, overpriced, or corner-cut to get a cheap price?</p>
<p>If so, wouldn’t that decrease the efficiency of that market, particularly by causing an overemphasis on low price (which is quantifiable) compared to quality (which is hard to quantify, or quantified in rare events, such as whether the structure withstands a large earthquake whose probability is low and uncertain)?</p>
<p>I know in ECE/CompE/EE, compensation has been pummelled and job opportunities for new grads scarce because of all the guest workers (H-1B’s) that are admitted. The problems begin in undergrad, where employers use OPT visas to hire, for internships and summer jobs, the foreign students in preference to the Americans. </p>
<p>A domestic grad in ECE/CompE basically had it made in the 1990s, when there were few foreigners coming to the US to chase jobs in the growing technology industry. Today, even top grads find it really hard to get interviews, especially if they’re not returning to their previous internship employer, or, heaven forbid, didn’t do an internship. </p>
<p>Even the top grads have a lot of time finding employment in ECE these days because of the industry propoganda out there, from the likes of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc., who claim they’re hiring so many engineers, but actually only interview an extremely small chunk of the applicant pool. Non-top-tier employers often ask the unemployed top ECE’s – “why don’t you apply at Google, I hear they’re hiring”. It becomes a vicious circle, and since certain skills are perceived to have a shelf life, a lot of lives are ruined this way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That has nothing to do with it - the number of H1B’s handed out today is basically the same as it was during the late 90’s, after adjusting for overall population growth. About 110k H1B visas are granted today, compared to about 100k during the late 1990’s*, which is entirely inline with the overall growth of the US population during that time frame. </p>
<p>[Nonimmigrant</a> Visa Statistics](<a href=“404 - Page Not Found”>404 - Page Not Found)</p>
<p>Furthermore, let’s not forget that the burgeoning growth of Asia has surely bolstered the domestic labor market for American CS/EE graduates by encouraging plenty of Asian-Americans to return home. At the risk of being politically incorrect, let’s face it, a highly disproportionate percentage of American EE/CS graduates are Asian-Americans, and indeed, at some schools, it is a clear majority. {One old joke is that MIT stands for “Made in Taiwan”.} During the last decade, many of those EE/CS graduates have left the US for Asia to pursue the, frankly, better business opportunities there, as they already have the language and cultural skills. I also further suspect that plenty of other Asian-American college students decided not to even major in engineering in the first place, but instead chose to major in business or finance as they plan to immediately head to Asia upon graduation to pursue business opportunities. So if anything, the total competition against all Asians (both H1B Asians and Asian-Americans) is probably less intense than it was during the late 90’s. </p>
<p>*Granted, the number of H1B visas granted during the early-to-mid 90s was indeed substantially lower, but that wasn’t exactly a golden time for EE/CS graduates. Far from it in fact: IBM, in the throes of its epic restructuring, eliminated nearly 200,000 jobs and the defense industry (historically one of the most prolific employers of EE/CS grads) laid off hundreds of thousands more - a body blow from which some pundits argue that the formerly formidable Southern California EE/CS industry has still yet to recover. Only during the late 90’s did EE/CS become a career path of choice, and that golden era resulted from a dotcom bubble that was surely a once-in-a-lifetime event. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also don’t see what this has to do with anything. Sure, the top grads in EECS may have a harder time finding work in this economy than they would in a healthier one, but let’s face it, the top grads in all fields have a harder time finding work in this economy. </p>
<p>Besides, instead of arguing over words, let’s look at some data. Surely you would agree that the EECS grads from MIT tend to be ‘top’ grads. Yet according to the data, EECS grads in 2010 made a whopping $93k of average starting salary - which is surely even more impressive when you consider that many of them joined or perhaps even founded startups, and startups don’t tend to pay high salaries (but instead pay largely in equity which may become worthless). </p>
<p><a href=“http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/files/graduation10.pdf[/url]”>http://gecd.mit.edu/sites/default/files/graduation10.pdf</a> </p>
<p>An anomaly, you might say? Ok, then consider the 2010/2011 salaries of the EECS graduates of Berkeley and Stanford. Surely we can agree that those schools also produce plenty of ‘top’ EECS grads. While not as high as the MIT figures, they nevertheless range between a highly respectable $73-83k. </p>
<p>[Career</a> Development Center - Stanford Salary Statistics | Student Affairs](<a href=“http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/cdc/jobs/salary-grads]Career”>http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/cdc/jobs/salary-grads)</p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/CompSci.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/CompSci.stm</a></p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/Major/EECS.stm</a></p>
<p>It’s also not clear how your logic stream would work anyway, and I am actually highly sympathetic to the notion that employers often times behave irrationally. It’s not clear to me why whether Google is or isn’t hiring should have anything to do with whether a non-top-tier employer would choose to hire you. Even if a non-top-tier employer did ask you why you don’t apply to Google, you can always answer that you actually are applying (after all, anybody can apply to Google), but then you state some reasons why you think the non-top-tier employer is a better fit. This is ‘Basic Interviewing Skills 101’ - you should always be able to come up with some reasons why you want to work for any particular employer.</p>
<p>Sakky : There are too many H1-B Visas given out and that should stop. Brings in
the cheapest labor and poor work quality as many of these aliens are not familiar with
the design methods and specifications of this country. Hi-Bers will do anything to step
into this country - they will work for peanuts if they have to. They take away jobs
from US grads. This is a give away for them as their country cannot reciprocate with
job offers from US. Again : Lower/Eliminate the H1-B programs - they are a disaster.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, frankly, that’s an oxymoron. If it is true that H1B visa holders truly provide poor work quality, then American engineers, who are presumably of higher quality and are familiar with the methods and specifications of this country, have nothing to fear from them, right? After all, I doubt that Morton’s ‘fears’ competition from McDonald’s. On the other hand, if it is true that those H-1B holders actually do provide comparable quality to American engineers, then it’s not clear why they should not be able to compete for American jobs just because they’re not American. Just because you’re an American doesn’t automatically entitle you to a job. </p>
<p>And besides, I would again harken back to the fact that the US is a nation of immigrants. Unless you’re a 100% pure-blooded Native American or descendent of slaves, then either you or at least one of your ancestors came to these lands seeking opportunities that were presumably unavailable in their native lands. I find it morally awkward to deny those same opportunities to foreigners today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, they do. I can think of plenty of Americans who work as expats in foreign nations, and are paid extremely well in doing so, usually with full living costs and private boarding school education for their children paid for by their firms. All of them are on various types of ‘visas’ that allow them to legally work abroad. </p>
<p>If foreigners should not be allowed to immigrate to the US to work, fine, then Americans should not be allowed to work in foreign countries. After all, you could say that those expat Americans are ‘stealing’ jobs from foreigners, right? </p>
<p>Where we might find an area of agreement is that I actually think that the H1B visa program should be drastically expanded…to encompass more managers. Why should an American manager or CEO be paid so highly, if we could perhaps find an equally competent foreign manager to work for less? American CEO’s are paid far more than are the managers in most other developed nations, with little evidence that American firms are actually better managed. The same would hold true for American financiers and consultants - why exactly are they paid so highly? Why not import some competent foreigners to compete for those jobs?</p>