We've talked on this thread about the term 'engineer' being to broad. Could we disassociate ourselves with this term and become 'Structural Consultants?'

Phil, personally speaking, I don't like that. I guess being Canadian, & knowing that the term is protected there, is a factor. It's too bad that engineers in the UK have allowed the situation, where the guys who clean out the drains are referred to as Professional Engineers, to come about. And I don't like giving in. I'm an engineer, dammit.

I wonder if the term 'Civil Engineer' then, is more recognisable in the public domain and maybe I.StructE should return to its roots and embrace itself as a subdivision of the founder Institution? A quick Wikipedia of the two terms is as follows: “Civil engineering is a professional engineering discipline that deals with the design, construction, and maintenance of the physical and naturally built environment, including works like bridges, roads, canals, dams, and buildings. Civil engineering takes place on all levels: in the public sector from municipal through to national governments, and in the private sector from individual homeowners through to international companies." “Structural engineering is a field of engineering dealing with the analysis and design of structures that support or resist loads. Structural engineering is usually considered a specialty within civil engineering, but it can also be studied in its own right.” Clearly any member of the public doing a similar Wikipedia would see a Civil Engineer as the authority on most, if not all, matters Engineering. I think the public do recognise a Civil Engineer as something to do with infrastructure, which then associates thoughts of roads, bridges and networks that connect public services. That itself subconsciously relates to "public service" which is what we are talking about. Indeed, if you simply examine the definition of the word "Civil" it means...."Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties." Automatically a Civil Engineer could then, in the public eye, be seen as someone who would be looking after their interests, rather than a Structural Engineer who is just a subcontractor of an architect. I'm thinking aloud here and personally I'm too proud of my C.Eng.,I.Struct.E status to want that to happen.....but in the interests of furthering the profession.......?? I think Mr McSwineys post needs acknowledging, and I hope there would be more people who agree with some of the posts - but 4 people would seem to be enough to warrant a meet up over a pint or two (or more realistically to exchange emails off this forum) to bounce around some ideas. We may arrive at a mutual agreement as whether this had enough legs to gather momentum?

Phil, I'm not sure that Civil Engineer is any better. A few days after after arriving here in 1985 I read in the local paper, "Nineteen-year-old civil engineer XXXX XXXXXX was charged with assault after an affray outside the XXXX public house". Seeing that misuse of the term Civil Engineer really jarred on me then, & it still does all these years later.

Phil, I think the suggestion of the IStructE acting as a subdivision is demoralising and degrading to members of this Institution. The question of fees is a problem caused by Engineers under cutting each other to win work. Structural Engineering is a business and people should act business minded. We cannot act as a cartel fixing prices, we must find how we can add value to our services. The IStructE can only promote the Institution, but business owners can also help themselves by promoting their own business.

Anthony, as you say, Structural Engineering is a business and people should act business minded. But that’s only part of the story, because design is not like most other businesses. Other businesses, the provision of goods or services, are usually an end in themselves. Our service is not. Our service is one of providing advice, which is a means to an end. Suppose you wanted to buy, say, £100 000 of artwork for your home. You need to employ an art consultant, because you aren't an expert. You want the collection to be aesthetically pleasing, functional, serviceable, & a secure investment. Would you just get a price from several art consultants, & then choose the cheapest price? I’ll assume a ‘no’ to that. You would provide some sort of specification – whether you wanted solely originals, or some signed prints, the size range of paintings, inclusion of sculptures, & so on, & the prospect of the investment increasing in value. And then you would meet with the consultants & establish a relationship. This would necessarily entail a relationship of trust with the one that you choose to mastermind your investment. Exactly the same as you would, when spending the same amount of money on an extension to your house, with your architect & engineer, eh? Why not, I ask. It’s exactly the same situation. On a loft conversion, I quote for everything I can think of, for example, including ways around replacing lintels over external openings to save on redecoration costs. Another engineer might not worry about that, & so quote a cheaper price than me because he has less work to do. How many clients consider the benefits of my scheme, or just go with the cheapest quote? What about trying to make timber beams work, to save labour costs on site, by refining the load assessments? Clients aren’t even aware of that sort of thing. It is for the above reasons, & my perception that clients often are not getting good quality design, that I’ve suggested that action is needed from the government. This issue is affecting quality in construction, conservation of energy & resources. It is also not doing our profession, or the architectural profession, any favours, either. Somehow, trust has to be brought back into our relationship with clients. And as I indicated above, the OFT would consider fee schedules.

Richard, if businesses are not accounting for design developement work then they are either going to run at a loss and go bust or end up with an unhappy client and a tarnished repuatation. If a client is unwilling to pay the extra costs you charge for a better service, and you have explained why you charge more than Joe Bloggs, then they will end up with a poor quality design. But that is there choosing. Asking the OFT to consider fee schedules is not the solution, proving to our worth to client is.

Anthony, I’m not at all sure what you mean by, “if businesses are not accounting for design development work then they are either going to run at a loss and go bust or end up with an unhappy client and a tarnished reputation”. I don’t see how it’s either one or the other of the outcomes that you’ve posited. You also say, “If a client is unwilling to pay the extra costs you charge for a better service, and you have explained why you charge more than Joe Bloggs, then they will end up with a poor quality design. But that is there choosing.” This supposes that the client is able to way up the differences. I don’t see other engineer’s proposals, so I guess I may not be doing it right. I suspect that any attempt that I make to add value to a design is often seen as just trying to talk up my fee, because clients often don’t understand the issues. This is why I suggested that a survey of clients’ beliefs & understanding be undertaken. It would need to be carried out carefully, because when people stop to think about something, they may adopt a different attitude. I would refer you to a Viewpoint article from The Structural Engineer, vol 87, # 15 by Ernest Pennells, “RFP: a requiem for principles?” http://www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/getfile.asp?ID=8149&Lockstring=44c8ef215b4d43defb9980f51be27b80 Under the heading Integrity, he refers to the loss of trust that has occurred. He is concerned with projects at the more prestigious end of the spectrum. There is another Viewpoint article, from volume 89, #13 by Vincent O’Sullivan, “Have you destroyed any good projects lately?” http://www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/getfile.asp?ID=8693&Lockstring=0d79421741cf0c259718193c5188e8c3 This author also is concerned with the loss of trust. You also say, “Asking the OFT to consider fee schedules is not the solution, proving to our worth to client is.” I don’t think that very many clients are knowledgeable enough to make that determination. There is no practical .amount of education that would enable them to do so. However, efforts to improve trust are achievable. Perhaps you think that all is well in the field of structural consulting? You are, of course, entitled to that opinion, if you feel that there is evidence to support it. However, having carried out Building Reg’s checking for a number of years, & seeing a regular trickle of other engineers’ designs that could have been carried out more to the client’s benefit, I do see a problem. Others, including contributors to this thread, the authors of the above Viewpoint articles, & Satish Desai, formerly head of the Structural Section of the Building Regulations Division, also see a problem. As I have previously pointed out in Verulam, Francis Fukuyama, in his book, “Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity”, has detailed the role of trust within different societies, and makes a convincing case for how a relative lack of trust between individuals in some societies has resulted in adverse economic consequences for them. What enables human societies to flourish is not suspicion, deconstruction, and self-interest, but just the opposite: it is trust, a social virtue, formed in certain kinds of relationships. This leads to the formation of ‘social capital’. I believe that we should be encouraging that, for the benefit of all.

Anthony, i take it you're not working at the fore front of small scale residential work or the pricing jobs? If you are and you are able to add a few hours to your prices on small jobs to allow for "thinking time" and "design development" then you have achieved the holy grail for which we are all searching. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to how you convince your clients to pay for something which i suspect 99% consider is an extra? On small jobs, loft conversions/extensions etc a few extra hours of design development would mean we'd never win a thing. Even on bigger schemes, feasability work is generally undertaken on a no-win no-fee basis. Why? because if we don't do it on that basis the next engineer will do and we'd get about 1/3 of the work we currently do.

Issues surrounding fee competition are not restricted to small scale domestic projects, as the following quotes from relatively recent papers suggest. Mann, A. P.: ‘Construction safety and agenda for the profession’, The Structural Engineer, 84/15, 1 August 2006 ---- "Finally, we should not overlook commercial pressures. Back in 1968, fees were relatively higher than now. An economist will use that evidence as progress in efficiency. An engineer may raise alarm bells that some current fees or contract prices are just too low for projects to be completed properly or worse still safely, having regard to the uncertainties inevitable in civil work. There are grounds for real concern in a totally free market of bidding without adequate protection for public safety." Mann, A. P.: ‘Passing on Knowledge’ 2011 Gold Medal Address, The Structural Engineer, 89/10, 17 May 2011 ---- "In routine design nothing ever seems to go exactly right and money is always a problem. But at least it’s only money. There is far more at stake when we consider the threats of litigation consequent on injury." The above papers are chiefly devoted to other topics, and the quotes relate to structural safety rather than to general design quality, buildability, structural aesthetics etc. Nevertheless they suggest that contemporary fee scales and the related risks to PII and reputation etc, are a relevant consideration for consulting engineering firms of all sizes.