Phil, I can't be that choosy. I also find that any attempt to talk up the fee is met with skepticism, but that's possibly because I lack 'people skills'. As for "Cowboy Engineers" who would also earn themselves a similar reputation, I don't think that they do. That's because clients can't judge whether they got a good design or not. Builders have a bit more of an idea as to whether or not a beam is over-sized, but I think that's about as far as it goes. The other thing is that the engineers who do quick designs get a good reputation for getting jobs turned out quickly & cheaply. I also don't know how clients can compare like for like quotes, because there's no saying how much thought different engineers put in to the job, or whether or not the detail drawings are really necessary or just someone padding their proposal, & so on. Clients, in practical terms, can't give us a meaningful specification for us to quote against.

Well there's your answer. We can't be choosey so we take the job and end up with a reduced fee and extra work we didn't bargain for - then we moan about it. Not sure we can have it both ways. I agree that clients don't have the ability to give us a meaningful spec. They rely on us for that...but surely that's where a "professional" engineer is going to be able to make the difference by demonstrating a well thought out approach over someone who is going to just give it lip service. A professional approach does not necessarily mean a job can't be turned around quickly - so the only thing left to argue is the fee. If the client doesn't like it then it's tough....unless of course you can't be choosey like you say in which case you're agreeing to take on the job knowing what you're letting yourself in for. Clearly clients are coming to you for advice when jobs go wrong - so whilst they may not initially be able to appreciate a good design - I'd hope they'd be a bit more aware next time about using a cowboy - and so hopefully become self educated and pass on the experience to friends and neighbours who might also be thinking about having designs done....as they would with a rogue trader.

Phil, I do despair. This is a subject that seems to invite eisegesis. Where was I moaning? I have merely stated observations, and my interpretations of them. The present method of procurement at the domestic project level, (& so it has been reported, higher up the food chain too), is in conflict with the I Struct E code of practice. I believe the following: it is against the long term development of the profession; it is against the interests of clients; it is against conservation of energy & materials. I presume that I’m not alone in recognizing this, & yet we do nothing about it. I’ve just returned from a visit to Canada, (where I’m registered in Ontario as a Professional Engineer). My copy of the Globe & Mail, (Canada’s national newspaper), on May 26 carried a six-page supplement provided by Engineers Canada. (Engineers Canada is the national organization of the 12 provincial and territorial associations that regulate the profession of engineering in Canada and license the country's more than 234,000 members of the engineering profession.) The publication of a similar supplement is an annual event. You can access it online at http://www.engineerscanada.ca/files/w_engineering2011.pdf This supplement promotes professionalism in engineering. I’m not aware of anything similar from the Engineering Council. I decided to look up ‘engineer’ on a popular search engine, and found a Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer I quote, “The contemporary British public perceive engineers as skilled or semi skilled maintenance workers…” (I promise that I’ve had nothing to do with this Wiki article.) This doesn’t help us. In Canada, use of the term ‘engineer’ is protected. Microsoft was recently banned from using the term ‘Microsoft Engineer’, (unless the person had the PEng designation). Only a Professional Engineer is licensed to practise engineering in Canada, consequently, all engineering drawings for fabrication and construction have to be stamped by a Professional Engineer who takes responsibility for the design. Furthermore, Provincial Associations are allowed to publish a Fee Guideline for Professional Engineering Services, available from this link: http://www.careercentre.ospe.on.ca/document.cfm?task=viewdocument&documentid=504 In Canada, the engineering profession is managed. In the UK, there is no effective management. The I Struct E is principally a learned society. The Engineering Council is a regulatory body. There is nothing that I’m aware of that effectively represents the interests of engineers in the UK, or that promotes the proper practice of engineering. The ACE represents consulting practices, but it doesn’t seem to be at all effective at remedying the problems that I’ve indicated. I will moan now. I’m very saddened that a profession that I was once proud of is being allowed to fall into a form of crass commercialism, & that no one appears to mind this, or be concerned that there is a conflict of ethics versus commercialism.

This is the sad, but truthful state of affairs, and collectively we've allowed it to occur. http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6029213 can we turn it round? possibly, but it needs impetus from the Institution. sole practitioners (and some smaller firms) need help in actually assessing and breaking down the costs involved with jobs so they can peg a realistic fee to them. earlier in the year i put a proposal together for a loft conversion based on architects details. as always i accompanied it with a sketch to show how many beams etc were needed and i quoted a days design time. feedback i got - your proposal was most comprehensive, but we've gone with someone £100 cheaper. the worst part was that that fee was from a regional firm with a couple of offices and bigger overheads who i can only concluded hadn't bothered to fully look at what was needed.

Andrew, I agree that it needs help from the IStructE. I've recently written to Verulam, saying, "... I don’t expect anything to be done about this until someone is killed as a result of the present regime, unless the institutions representing architectural and engineering designers can convince the OFT that naked fee competition is wrong for the provision of a service that is essentially that of giving advice. "Thatcherism may possibly have removed all but the last vestiges of a sense of vocation in design professionals. Nevertheless, there may be some merit in the idea of the institutions representing designers, from architects to engineers, with government support, producing a statement that design must be properly funded, and carried out by properly qualified people, so that the client ends up with what they want, economically constructed. Members of the architectural and engineering design institutions should be required to be trustworthy in protecting their clients’ interests. Naked fee competition is not appropriate to achieving that end... Trust is the missing ingredient..." The idea about government support is actually suggested in a report for the OFT, with reference to fee schedules. Incredibly, so far as I know, no one in the IStructE, RIBA, etc, has acted on this! As for the loft conversion you mentioned, perhaps they do minimal design, with over-sized members, & no connection details? Any potential problems would have to be sorted out on site. As you say, "...collectively we've allowed it to occur." I guess the IStructE bigwigs don't deal with the general public, but rather with the top architects, where there's proper funding for design, so they don't see the problem. Some years ago, after much agitation, engineers in Ontario, (belonging to the provincial registration body), got together & formed a society to further the interests of the profession. Are there enough people reading this forum to exert some influence?

Richard I don't actually believe we need do anything more than start to insist on the enforcement of traditional values that are key to our learned profession. They already exist, and surely these were the principles of what the Institutions were origially built on. (forgive the pun.) But....this could not simply be at domestic scale - it would have to global, and be a step towards bringing the construction industry back under control of the professionals. I'm tired of the political games played in the interests of profit and this kind of talk is long over due in my view. But it is the kind of talk that would go against the likes of the Egan reforms etc, and meet severe resistance. If you are seriously interested in making such a grand guesture then I would be the first to stand alongside. If not, then I'm not sure anything less is worth pursuing, and hence my suggestion that there's little point moaning about it unless there is significant call to arms. My moaning comment was not directed at you personally by the way. It was more an observation that this is all we seem to do.

Warning - This is a long post! Some interesting points there gents. I can’t see the powers-that-be, either ours, RIBA or any other lobbying the OFT for a return to fee scales. I like the idea of a society to further the interests of the profession, but I did think that was what our Institution was for. Also, I can see this quickly being jumped on as forming a Cartel for price fixing. I also think we’re fighting a losing battle in trying to promote integrity, professionalism and morality. These are all key fundamentals of the Institution, and I’d like to think it is how the majority of us aim to conduct our daily transactions. (hopefully I don’t sound too much like Gordon Brown and his Moral Compass; let’s not add politics to the mix!) The problem here is we are often competing against people who aren’t members of the institution, who have a bit of training and some software and make contact with a few plan drawers offering cheap services; these characters aren’t governed by the Codes we are. To raise the bar we need to either; Educate the public and fellow professionals on what we add to a scheme (I like the Canadian idea of a media campaign in newspapers and the journals of other professionals), Or; We need to address the lower end of the market, either by assisting them to lift their game (controversial), or by changing the legislation such that any submissions to Building Control are only made by MIStructE / AIStructE / ICE qualified persons accompanied with copies of PII provision (equally controversial) both options, I think need us to be a bit more assertive then we are at present, more on this later. Every other profession prevents non-qualified, unregistered people from practicing in their own field, so why are we any different? Architects, solicitors, dentists, doctors, nurses wouldn’t stand for it, so why do we? Previous comment suggests it is not the role of the IStructE to get involved, so maybe we should all defect IStructE and start our own equivalent of the ARB, consigning the IStructE to the history books and getting our CEng badge by other means? Perhaps the IStructE should adapt it’s terms of reference ; that does seem to be what many members want from reading these pages and Verulam. We also have newly formed companies / sole practitioners; Competent engineers who’ve been made redundant and choose to go it alone in the face of a flat-lining job market, but who have perhaps never costed a job (even a small one) and need to eat, and a fee smaller than would normally be expected by the rest of us goes a long way to pay bills etc; but causes no end of problems in the long run. As an example of the worst extreme, I can think of one web-site in the West Yorkshire area that offers structural design services. It is run by a graduate who in my opinion, having seen some of his work, is of dubious technical ability and as I know his former employers (they number many, see note on technical ability) he will have had no training in putting fee proposals together. In the age of the internet there are I’m sure dozens of other such firms across the UK; don’t get me wrong, not all are going to bad, but I think we need to collectively start to help each other to raise the bar on fees and professional standing and provide guidance to those that have taken the plunge and don’t quite know what position they’ve landed themselves in! I’ve read, either on here or in Verulam that CPD returns including “silly” things like assertiveness and certain management courses won’t be considered as valid training development, but these are essential strings to our bows. So I think we need to find a way to address a few issues and would advocate a working group(s) being set up by the Institution. 1 We need a proper guidance document, or documents for the lay-client / residential client dealing smaller jobs, available on the main website, Findanengineer and as pdfs from any members websites and also sent round to as many architects and fellow professionals as possible. If we can make their job easier in telling clients why they need an engineer then I personally think they’d be grateful. For starters I’d propose; Loft conversions. Chimney breast removals. Wall removals Extensions Surveys and reports Foundation problems Essentially these should help the client separate the wheat from the chaff when ringing round the yellow pages for some fee quotes and should give some simple questions to ask, and answers to be wary of, ie; Will you need to visit site? Do you carry Insurance? Are you AMIstructE / MIStructE? Do you include for......? Are site visits needed during construction? (a good question, NHBC say yes, but how many clients and architects tell us not to bother?) Do you include for critical things like steel connections or Reinforcment drawings and schedules (ACE say not to; personally think the omission of rebar details and schedules from the main scope of works is a travesty) These leaflets should be no more than a double sided sheet of A4, maybe even with a picture of what happens when it goes wrong. They certainly need to be more user friendly than the current 23 page document only available within the Members Section of the website!! 2 The second group needs to look at updating the IStructE publication “Good Management Practice for engineering design offices” 1991 and maybe look at actually incorporating it into CPD approved traing. I think there should be guidance on costing various jobs; not just “loft conversions, allow £350-£600” But giving advice on accounting for actual wage costs and overheads and detailing how all that needs to be combined. I also think assertiveness is something that is relevant; if we don’t value ourselves, we’re going to struggle to convince others of what value we can bring, and as a profession we have systematically devalued and allowed ourselves to be devalued over the years. If we don’t equip our members (and possibly non-members) with the ability to articulate what their services are, why they are required and why the fee is commensurate with the associated risk and amount of work to be done we don’t stand a chance. I’m advocating we have this training as open-access, maybe with a nominal to non members, because if don’t lift the bottom end of the market, the rest of us will always have to compete with the lowest denominator. We are told the IStructE is a learned body and shouldn't get involved with things like fees and running a business. But fee's are intrinsically linked to being able to do our job properly, and as such cannot be divorced from the IStructE's Vision Statement for Professionalism with regards to Standards, Safety and Technical Excellence. When you read the 2007 Vision Statements, I think IStructE is failing abysmally in “enabling greater understanding of the role of the structural engineer as a shaper of the environment” and even more so in “influencing governments”. Furthermore they don’t actually seem to set out any commitments to the vey members that fund it; maybe four years on it is time to set out a new set of Visions, written by Council in conjunction with actual members rather than PR consultants? I think it’s time to stop collectively burying our heads in the sand, saying its someone else’s responsibility and grasp this issue collectively as a profession; if we do not do it ourselves, no-one else will. A lot of food for thought, and I would like some response from the Institution on this as I’m sure we have several recent Presidents who have all said they aim to address a lot of these issues, but as yet I can’t see we are any further ahead....... I might sound as though I’m on my soap box here, but I would be keen to get involved taking these things forward. Mine is a small company, time away from the office is difficult, but if the IStructE want to provide the train fare from Leeds, I’m happy to give some of my time later in the year to see if we can’t get something moving in the interests of the profession as a whole.

I've just discovered the following discussion in the General forum entitled..... ...wait for it.... "Excellent spreadsheet program, for deriving section properties for a plate girder" Apparently there is an excellent, and free spreadsheet program, on the following website :- www.EngineeringSpreadsheets.co.uk For deriving the section properties of a plate girder, or beam. It would seem that once you are in, you just simply press the steel button on the left, and you can download from there. According to the forum discussion it really is very good and the IStructE member promoting this website is asking if anyone knows where one can get a good steel column design spreadsheet, for effective lengths e.t.c. ? I give up ! Mr webmaster? Do you have any comments on the promotion of such websites that undermine the principles of this profession? Or can you recommend a website where one can get a good steel column design spreadsheet, for effective lengths e.t.c. ? Apologies in advance

Andrew & Phil, I would like to refer you to “Restrictions on Competition in the Provision of Professional Services.” A Report for the Office of Fair Trading by LECG Ltd. December 2000, which states; "Stages 1 and 2: market failure and non-regulatory corrective mechanisms. 98. The primary cause of market failure in the provision of professional services is asymmetric information, that is to say an imbalance of information between supplier and buyer. In particular, there is a danger that service providers will reduce quality of service, knowing that consumers may not be able to detect or measure it. A second source of market failure is externalities - impacts on third parties from decisions made by the professional and the client. But, as we discussed at some length in Chapter II there are a variety of mechanisms that may help compensate for market failure in the absence of regulation. Examples include litigation (and the threat of litigation), repeat purchases and the value of reputation. An initial assessment of the severity of any market failure and the degree to which this is or can be corrected by non-regulatory mechanisms should form the basis of any reform programme." My comment here is that a reduced quality of service, (probably not detected by the client, who has nothing for comparison), goes hand-in-hand with a speedy service, which is appreciated. So, there is little incentive, (other than a feeling of vocation), for providing quality in design. "Annex B Summary of MMC (Monopolies and Mergers Commission) reports into professional restrictions. (8) MMC report into restrictions on fees charged by architects, 1977 Architects' Services: A Report on the Supply of Architects' Services with Reference to Scale Fees (1977). 31. The ARCUK (now the ARB) Code of Professional Conduct required that an architect should be remunerated for his professional services solely by fees payable by his client on a scale published by one or other of its constituent professional associations. The MMC concluded that through this mechanism the architects conducted their affairs so as to restrict competition and that this operated against the public interest. The MMC called for the abolition of mandatory scales but decided that scales offered on a recommended basis would not operate against the public interest, provided that they were determined by an independent, government-appointed committee." My comment here is that the OFT would be prepared to countenance a fee schedule. But, fee guidelines, in and of themselves, are no panacea for consulting engineers. Nevertheless, fee guidelines published by a government-appointed committee, pointing out that naked fee competition without consideration of quality is not appropriate for design services, might help. There is no mechanism in the UK to address the principle of adequate compensation for engineering work. Consulting engineers’ services are not like products or services that can be specified for quality and then chosen on the basis of cheapest cost. The only specification that I ever get from clients is a tacit understanding to obtain Building Regulations approval. Clients are unable to judge, beyond a mere suspicion, whether or not they have obtained a service of sufficient quality. The edition before last of The Structural Engineer carried a Viewpoint article on the subject of trust. I think that there may be some merit in the idea of the institutions representing designers, from architects to engineers, with government support, producing a statement that design must be properly funded, and carried out by properly qualified people, so that the client ends up with what they want, economically constructed. It should state that members of the architectural and engineering design institutions should be required to be trustworthy in protecting their clients’ interests. Naked fee competition is not appropriate to achieving that end. As Francis Bacon, (philosopher, scientist, statesman, lawyer, etc., 1561 – 1626), said, "the greatest trust between man and man is the trust of giving counsel" Trust, now, is the missing ingredient. It will take more than the three of us to influence the IStructE to initiate action on this. We engineers are notoriously apathetic over these issues. Are there others out there who will join with us?

Richard, I certainly would be prepared to get involved in order to drive this matter forward. I have not commented already on this thread as I felt some of the very thorough posts above addressed the points I had in mind. There may be others in a similar position to me who identified with what has been posted but have not yet recorded their stance on the matter. Would it be helpful for some feedback from other forummers highlighting whether they are for or against the points above?