2015 Issue

58 I BELIEVEMOST OF us are frequently trying to enter the psyche of our clients in an effort to ascertain which approaches will be most effective to land the next job. We might often wonder whether our client is after the best design, the cheapest solu- tion, the fastest delivery method or perhaps the lowest design fee. Maybe all qualify within the realmof reasonable expectations and hopefully, our clients’ expectations for our fees are commensurate with the degree of service we provide. Though this article is not a lament over the never-ending battle for better fees, settling for low fees is a symptom of what may be a larger issue; our own failure to appreciate the value of the service we provide. Different opportunities with work have directed me to other parts of the country and even some foreign areas to provide engineer- ing services. As I have interacted with architects, developers and contractors in these areas, I have perceived a difference in the prevailing attitude toward engineers. In the foreign area, I was consistently and respectfully referred to as “Engineer Johnson” or simply “Engineer”. In California I received no complaint from a project architect and developer with respect to my restrictions and limitations regarding penetrations in a concrete shear wall. In fact, these individuals seemed to hang on my every word when it came to seismic issues in general, giving the seismic force resisting system top priority, even over the architectural systems. There seemed to be an unspoken respect for the seismic system and for me as its engineer. In other parts of the country, clients seem to never even call into question the magnitude of the engineering design fees. These experiences are humbling and flattering and it may lead one to wonder about the perceived value of the engineering professions in the Utah. So, what is the value of sound engineering? Even more, how can we convince the community at large, or maybe even those within our own ranks, that this value exists? I’ve heard some structural engineers say that we need a good earthquake in Utah, and then structural engineers will garner the respect they deserve. While this may be effective at convincing others of the importance of structural engineering, wouldn’t it be better to learn from the nega- tive experiences of others rather than go through the hard knocks ourselves? I can’t help but think of the devastation of the Haiti 2010 Earthquake and consider, in retrospect, what kind of value (if any) did that community place toward engineering? Do they even know what engineering is? Does our public at large know what en- gineering is? What will attitudes in Haiti be in the future regarding engineering? Granted, the construction standards and protocol for building in Haiti are probably far different from our own, but, is there something we can learn from their experience? Is there something we can teach others or some message we can convey about that experience, especially as we talk with others about the earthquake we are expecting?...and this is only the seismic issue. I feel that I need not even elaborate on the consequences of poor engineering. That a value is inherent within our work goes without saying. Were it not so, there would be no serious consequences for failure of engineered systems. How canwe characterize the value of our engineering professions or the value of any profession for that matter? Perhaps we can charac- terize and appreciate the true value of a profession as we consider the consequences of its malpractice. Malpractice is destructive to any profession but for some professions the risks associated with malpractice are readily apparent and easily identifiable. Themedi- cal establishment comes tomind. Few of us argue over the salaries made by physicians and risks associated with malpractice in their field. Furthermore, we seldom shop for a doctor on the basis of fee. Professional athletes also come tomind. I’ve often bemoaned the outrageous salaries paid to some athletes. Their performance on the field or court does not generally hold in the balance the safety or welfare of the public. However, ‘malpractice’ by athletes or coaches canmean ruin for those with a financial stake in a team’s performance. Furthermore, such financial consequences, good or bad, can trickle through an entire community. Maybe I have an over-inflated sense of importance I apply to engineering, but don’t the risks of malpractice in engineering include threats to the safety and welfare of the public and threats to the financial investments of owners? In this sense, it seems the value of sound engineering is difficult to overstate. The primary purpose of UEC, as outlined on the organization’s website is: “…to advance the art and science of engineering and to provide a forum for communication between the varying engineering societies.” As this statement implies, participation in UEC grants a uniting voice for engineers from many disciplines and backgrounds. We may at times be at-odds with other engi- neering disciplines, competing over our how much of the ‘fixed’ consultants’ fees we’re entitled to. We may even compete fiercely at times with those in our same engineering discipline. However, participation in UEC offers the opportunity to stand together to improve our professions in ways that benefit the entire engineering community and the public at large. Competing fiercely with those in our same discipline is good. Battling good naturedly with other engineering disciplines to the overall benefit of a project is good. Such interactions fuel our motivation to improve, but should never be embraced if they demean, diminish, or devalue our respective professions. When they do, the quality of our work suffers. The risks grow with respect to the welfare and safety of building occupants. The risks grow with respect to the building owner’s investment and we find ourselves wondering why some of our clients fail to respect engineers and continually try to diminish the value of the work we provide. Our ability to elevate engineering as a profession and promote its value is tied to our cohesion as a community of design profession- als. UEC and the 16 engineering societies it represents offer the opportunity to promote a cohesion among engineers and a vehicle for advancing our engineering professions in a unified manner. By Jerod G. Johnson, PhD, SE, SEAU President The Value of Professional Engineering