www.sefindia.org

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING FORUM OF INDIA [SEFI]

 Forum SubscriptionsSubscriptions DigestDigest Preferences   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister FAQSecurity Tips FAQDonate
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to websiteLog in to forum 
Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools  before opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners
here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.

[Quality of Services] of Structural Engineers and the conflicted Architect -Structural Engineer relationship
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topicReply to topic Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> Econference on State of Structural Engineering Practice and Education
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mpradyumna
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 31 Dec 2014
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 5:32 am    Post subject: [Quality of Services] of Structural Engineers and the conflicted Architect -Structural Engineer relationship Reply with quote

I have a few observations to make on this aspect of fees.

Structural engineering profession has become commoditised. It has become like buying vegetables in the market. Consultancy fees is being quoted per sft of built-up area. Probably part of the blame lies with architects who charge per sft and apportion a part of their fee to structural consultants.

Consultancy fee should be based on an assessment of the efforts required and time involved. A lump sum fee is probably the correct way forward, with clauses built in for extra work. The extra work can be on man hour basis or an estimate when the extra work is required.

Again, architects should not pay the fees but they should bring the structural consultant to the client and the fees should be decided together. The fees should be paid directly by the client.

Thanks and regards,

M. Pradyumna

On 17-Feb-2016, at 10:25 AM, JVCSNL <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:
Mr. Thiyagarajan indicated that the fees for structural engineering services is "not standardized".  I am curious to know, can professional services have a standard fee structure? As mentioned in other topics on this conference, the fees will be based on the quality and quantum of services provided. It shall have no relation to % of cost. I know that some of the services are based on % of total cost, for example, a simple furniture making services. The carpenter asked for 35 to 45% of material cost. I told him, I may buy SS316 material or SS304 material for fixtures and his effort to fix them do not change.  In engineering of plant structures, we don't charge them based on % of plant cost. Our services are based on the expertise and our efforts consumed and we charge based on the same.  I guess, neither doctors or charted accountants charge uniform fee structure. I have a strong opinion, the experience by number of experience is unjustified for demanding higher fees. It is possible that an engineer with relatively lesser experience can provide much better services than an engineer having double the experience.  I think, we need to come out of this seniority mentality and start working professionally. A professional can charge more for better services as demanded by client.  I think, we need to understand the client mentality also. They will be ready to pay only if they see some quality of services and that too not at a hyper cost. It is your presentation to client that will make him give you job even at a higher price. This happens in all professions and we are no different.  The professional fee is a function of services demanded by client and nothing else. A value engineering proposition if provided to client will help you demand more money provided you add value. The value is Function / Cost to reach the function. Client look for more functions at a standard cost or expected function at recued cost. Are we ready for this?Regards,Jignesh V Chokshi
--

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mallesh_ng
SEFI Regulars
SEFI Regulars


Joined: 27 Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Location: BENGALURU

PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:00 pm    Post subject: [Quality of Services] of Structural Engineers and the conflicted Architect -Structural Engineer relationship Reply with quote

Hi
Major issues we have is
Owner will be in direct contact with architects and the money part will be decided based on architect and owner requirements , structural engineer will be just background player he never involve in such aspects , architect guys controlling structural engineers  
Major role and work effort involved will be by structural engineers .we need to have certain rules and regulations which gives us major role and involvement.

Regards
Mallesh  On 17-Feb-2016 11:09 am, "mpradyumna" <forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org)> wrote:[quote]            I have a few observations to make on this aspect of fees.

Structural engineering profession has become commoditised. It has become like buying vegetables in the market. Consultancy fees is being quoted per sft of built-up area. Probably part of the blame lies with architects who charge per sft and apportion a part of their fee to structural consultants.

Consultancy fee should be based on an assessment of the efforts required and time involved. A lump sum fee is probably the correct way forward, with clauses built in for extra work. The extra work can be on man hour basis or an estimate when the extra work is required.

Again, architects should not pay the fees but they should bring the structural consultant to the client and the fees should be decided together. The fees should be paid directly by the client.

Thanks and regards,

M. Pradyumna

On 17-Feb-2016, at 10:25 AM, JVCSNL forum@sefindia.org (forum@sefindia.org))> wrote:
Mr. Thiyagarajan indicated that the fees for structural engineering services is "not standardized". I am curious to know, can professional services have a standard fee structure? As mentioned in other topics on this conference, the fees will be based on the quality and quantum of services provided. It shall have no relation to % of cost. I know that some of the services are based on % of total cost, for example, a simple furniture making services. The carpenter asked for 35 to 45% of material cost. I told him, I may buy SS316 material or SS304 material for fixtures and his effort to fix them do not change. In engineering of plant structures, we don't charge them based on % of plant cost. Our services are based on the expertise and our efforts consumed and we charge based on the same. I guess, neither doctors or charted accountants charge uniform fee structure. I have a strong opinion, the experience by number of experience is unjustified for demanding higher fees. It is possible that an engineer with relatively lesser experience can provide much better services than an engineer having double the experience. I think, we need to come out of this seniority mentality and start working professionally. A professional can charge more for better services as demanded by client. I think, we need to understand the client mentality also. They will be ready to pay only if they see some quality of services and that too not at a hyper cost. It is your presentation to client that will make him give you job even at a higher price. This happens in all professions and we are no different. The professional fee is a function of services demanded by client and nothing else. A value engineering proposition if provided to client will help you demand more money provided you add value. The value is Function / Cost to reach the function. Client look for more functions at a standard cost or expected function at recued cost. Are we ready for this?Regards,Jignesh V Chokshi

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JVCSNL
...
...


Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Posts: 159

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess, with respect to the structural engineering consultancy fees the discussion is going on by comparing what architects are getting.  In one of the previous posts, it was informed that we don't have access to the developer/builder, which architect has and hence, architect is able to charge fees from the developer, which structural engineer can't.  

I have a different question, do architect know how much a builder charge to the buyers?  Are builders account open to an architect?  The way , builder is subletting job of building planning to architect, architect is further getting this job done from structural engineers.  Why are we bogged down to know what architect is getting and we don't get?  We shall charge based on our services and nothing else.  

In large size EPC projects, the EPC player gives the engineering part to engineering consultancy.  The engineering consultancy has no business knowing what is EPC charging to their client.  

I think, with respect to fee structure and other related discussion, we shall exclusively discuss what way the fees can be decided for our services, not by comparing with someone.  If we only discuss issue of fees only by comparing with someone, we are discussing something else.  

Regards,

Jignesh V Chokshi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bijoyav
...
...


Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 110

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my opinion, "quality" clients (those who want quality, especially builders) search for quality architects and quality structural engineers.

If I classify clients as:
1. Primary - Experienced  (Who are in construction industry & experienced)
2. Secondary - Experienced (Like one who have constructed many factory buildings for themselves)
3. Primary - Inexperienced (Like teachers - novice engineers)
4. Secondary - Inexperienced

the forth category always suffer. They get trapped, if falls into one who is not fit to service.

In this regard, let me bring into notice that there were two recommendations in the UK to help clients by Sir Lathem and Eagen. Their reports were published and gave wide publicity.

I do recommend to publish such a one in India too with a vision to improve quality, reduce construction time and reduce cost over run. It is only because of awareness we can achieve quality, by "a demand from client's side"

Bijoy AV
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bijoyav
...
...


Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 110

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me comment more on the introductory remarks of Ms. Sheth ..

"
I understand the contempt we seem to have for the architecture profession but I think as engineers we need to have a more calibrated and nuanced understanding of how Architects are trained to think and behave."
If we looked back, it can be find that professionals like architects came into picture long after civil engineering curriculum started. The need is defensively a different breed of professionals who have to "be more creative", as Mr Zacharia said. Their right side of the brain, where creativity happens, have to be dominant. They have to be more creative.

When I say they are more creative, many lack analytical ability, quantification ( find weight coming on a structure, arriving at dimensions etc.

At this juncture, a structural engineer should be creative, by understanding the geometry the Architect visualized, suggest appropriate material and suggest suitable form.

Ms Sheth righly said, we should be "more calibrated and nuanced"

Let me cite an example. About 20 years back, when I started my career, A 22m span came across while one of my associated Architect did designing of an apartment building, to have good entry-exit without hindrance because of particularity of site shape and design concept of the building. I suggested to provide a pre-stressed  structure. Since I had not much experience, I suggested to consult a better engineer than me in this regard and it was done beautifully. Later I learned that the Architect had consulted an experienced structural engineer and he said "not possible to have 22m span". He might have thought of RCC.  

In short, we should be able find solutions, have adequate knowledge about technologies, have the "guts" to refer to better person, if I feel, I am not adequate, keep good relations, etc...

Bijoy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sunil sodhai
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 30 Oct 2011
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 11:00 am    Post subject: [Quality of Services] of Structural Engineers and the conflicted Architect -Structural Engineer relationship Reply with quote

main problem civil engineering field is full of nontechnical and some
little amount of technical people who are in power ,they become
egocentric they do not want to respect other civil engineering,you see
all civil engineer are equal but everybody has to play his role and he
should be respected for his role,so it is question of teamwork,respect
for each other everybody should enjoy his role everybody should be
paid properly.if we dont do that survival of structural engineer or
civil engineer is quite difficult becuase this field is full of
nontechnical peoples and they are good marketer they have good
relations in market.something should be done on our part or with help
of govt,

On 2/18/16, bijoyav <forum@sefindia.org> wrote:
Quote:
Let me comment more on the introductory remarks of Ms. Sheth ..

"
I understand the contempt we seem to have for the architecture profession
but I think as engineers we need to have a more calibrated and nuanced
understanding of how Architects are trained to think and behave."
If we looked back, it can be find that professionals like architects came
into picture long after civil engineering curriculum started. The need is
defensively a different breed of professionals who have to "be more
creative", as Mr Zacharia said. Their right side of the brain, where
creativity happens, have to be dominant. They have to be more creative.

When I say they are more creative, many lack analytical ability,
quantification ( find weight coming on a structure, arriving at dimensions
etc.

At this juncture, a structural engineer should be creative, by understanding
the geometry the Architect visualized, suggest appropriate material and
suggest suitable form.

Ms Sheth righly said, we should be "more calibrated and nuanced"

Let me cite an example. About 20 years back, when I started my career, A 22m
span came across while one of my associated Architect did designing of an
apartment building, to have good entry-exit without hindrance because of
particularity of site shape and design concept of the building. I suggested
to provide a pre-stressed  structure. Since I had not much experience, I
suggested to consult a better engineer than me in this regard and it was
done beautifully. Later I learned that the Architect had consulted an
experienced structural engineer and he said "not possible to have 22m span".
He might have thought of RCC.

In short, we should be able find solutions, have adequate knowledge about
technologies, have the "guts" to refer to better person, if I feel, I am not
adequate, keep good relations, etc...

Bijoy








Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
narasimhulu
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 01 Feb 2016
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:00 pm    Post subject: [Quality of Services] of Structural Engineers and the conflicted Architect -Structural Engineer relationship Reply with quote

At present condition the condition rule is to be reverse we have to
appreciate failed (failed person get frustrated he never think of
anything his idea which helps or destroy)
people immediately other wise with in sort period he is your boss.
Believe the people success and failed people equally appreciated.
(Global peace to be maintained by ideal people )Success people think
of growth of society and failed people think protection of society and
ideal people.
a.      A person without education feared continuously is a become
baba /sami and create fear to society.
b.      A person with little education and more communication will
become Politician /Business man and control the society / state /
Country. These people are fear great rarely and accurate property at
once they got opportunity.

c.      A person with education and can not cannot accept competition
will become Security /Administration/ Human resources etc. all are
with us and continuously monitoring our performance closely and
waiting to over come Engineers.
d.      A person with highly educated is Engineers  ( All ways
successful people) and engineers create new innovative new to society
and continuously monitoring status and growth of society.

With Regards,
Tekuri Narasimhulu.


On 2/18/16, bijoyav <forum@sefindia.org> wrote:
Quote:
In my opinion, "quality" clients (those who want quality, especially
builders) search for quality architects and quality structural engineers.

If I classify clients as:
1. Primary - Experienced  (Who are in construction industry & experienced)
2. Secondary - Experienced (Like one who have constructed many factory
buildings for themselves)
3. Primary - Inexperienced (Like teachers - novice engineers)
4. Secondary - Inexperienced

the forth category always suffer. They get trapped, if falls into one who is
not fit to service.

In this regard, let me bring into notice that there were two recommendations
in the UK to help clients by Sir Lathem and Eagen. Their reports were
published and gave wide publicity.

I do recommend to publish such a one in India too with a vision to improve
quality, reduce construction time and reduce cost over run. It is only
because of awareness we can achieve quality, by "a demand from client's
side"

Bijoy AV









Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bijoyav
...
...


Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 110

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latham_Report

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egan_Report

These are the recommendations made in the UK by Lathem & Eigan for improving quality of construction. I had mentioned these earlier. Let me know any suggestions made here.

Bijoy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dgbhagwat
SEFI Member
SEFI Member


Joined: 04 Jan 2010
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:00 pm    Post subject: [Quality of Services] of Structural Engineers andthe conflicted Architect -Structural Engineer relationship Reply with quote

Dear all,


I was struck by the point made by Mr Reji Zacharia - that we must take control in our own hands.
Too long, most of us have been talking of how things should be, what government should do, how education should improve, how engineers should have better motivation or knowledge. All of this expected from others, without thinking what we ourselves can & should do.
This is also aggravated by most practitioners, juniors to seniors, unwilling to be giving instead of taking; unwilling to share knowledge & experience, enthusiastic only about sharing opinions.
I think we should look at other countries, ranging from USA to UK to EU, observe what private effort (and in many cases donated without monetary expectations), and draw inspiration.
CIRIA, API & umpteen other private organizations have produced documents, veracity and reliability of their content not doubted by anyone. These have become de facto standards.
Why do we need to depend totally on laws & BIS/IRC?
Why can we not have a detailed report on rates charged by structural engineers or manhour rates charged in firms of various sizes, produced entirely by private efforts.
UK produces such a report.
If such documents are actually produced by Indian engineers, will they not be referred and eventually followed?
Why should we always tend to conclude that we are helpless and things won't change?

I think we are going nowhere jealously guarding our knowledge and being reluctant about giving of ourselves.
The entire Wikipedia was developed by people who gave their knowledge anonymously in their own private time, without expecting credit.

Unless we care about our profession and be more giving, we can't passively expect others to change our world for us.
"Dharmo rakshati rakshitah" - our profession will protect us only if we take efforts to protect it.

In any case, I have high hopes from this extended confabulation.
I recall the pre-SEFI days, when a similar online conference was held and I with others had requested that an open forum for (structural) engineers be formed.
I like to believe that SEFI was a result of this conference.
Let's hope this conference also similarly proves to be a game changer.

Regards
Dileep G. Bhagwat

From: bijoyav (forum@sefindia.org)
Sent: ‎18/‎02/‎2016 16:03
To: econf@sefindia.org (econf@sefindia.org)
Subject: {E-CONF2016} Re: [Quality of Services] of Structural Engineers andthe conflicted Architect -Structural Engineer relationship


     In my opinion, "quality" clients (those who want quality, especially builders) search for quality architects and quality structural engineers.

If I classify clients as:
1. Primary - Experienced (Who are in construction industry & experienced)
2. Secondary - Experienced (Like one who have constructed many factory buildings for themselves)
3. Primary - Inexperienced (Like teachers - novice engineers)
4. Secondary - Inexperienced

the forth category always suffer. They get trapped, if falls into one who is not fit to service.

In this regard, let me bring into notice that there were two recommendations in the UK to help clients by Sir Lathem and Eagen. Their reports were published and gave wide publicity.

I do recommend to publish such a one in India too with a vision to improve quality, reduce construction time and reduce cost over run. It is only because of awareness we can achieve quality, by "a demand from client's side"

Bijoy AV

Posted via Email
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
suraj
General Sponsor
General Sponsor


Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 2266
Location: NCR Faridabad, E mail suraj_engineer@yahoo.co.uk

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:52 am    Post subject: We should not blame Architect Reply with quote


We should not blame Architect
We should blame ourselves & not colleaguearchitects
Since architects intend to stay at lead edge,due to conventional practice, Engineers cannot help
It is better to tell architect for genuine sum orbetter do no accept assignment
Architect community draws advantage fromArchitects Act & COA regulations, which all sections of government follow
Engineer is understood as a professional to carryout job on front
All architects contend that Engineers report tothem & not to client
Architects are professional owners for project,while engineer is a structural assistant
Problem shall not resolve automatically, but byconcentrated efforts by all
Forget parliament Act
Better file petition in court
Do not beg for fee
Work demands respectable sum for services
We should realize that service tax is itself goingto be around 18 % now & currently it is 14.5% on service fee sum, noton profit
Engineer should be paid at least 2 to 3% ofstructure cost
Even property dealers charge 1%
I sent some draft to IEI last year but no responseyet
Shall someone initiate court proceedings?
I have attached copy of draft







Warning: Make sure you scan the downloaded attachment with updated antivirus tools  before opening them. They may contain viruses.
Use online scanners
here and here to upload downloaded attachment to check for safety.
SC-DraftPetition-IEI.docx
 Description:
SC Draft

Download
 Filename:  SC-DraftPetition-IEI.docx
 Filesize:  61.72 KB
 Downloaded:  756 Time(s)

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topicReply to topic Thank Post    www.sefindia.org Forum Index -> Econference on State of Structural Engineering Practice and Education All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


© 2003, 2008 SEFINDIA, Indian Domain Registration
Publishing or acceptance of an advertisement is neither a guarantee nor endorsement of the advertiser's product or service. advertisement policy