Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Fwd: Re: Another Thought from Texas[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: wai(--nospam--at)euken.com
- Subject: Fwd: Re: Another Thought from Texas
- From: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org (Richard Lewis)
- Date: 04 Aug 1997 15:45:36 GMT
OK, I will respond to the "call to action" and stop my lurking here. I work in a large corporate environment as a project manager. As an SE and GE, I am looked to as the in-house staff expert on all things structural and/or geotechnical. I administer contracts with a number of medium-to-large engineering firms on a routine basis. I work among and advise industrial engineers, finance officers, MBA's, scientists, and diverse other (non civil engineering) folks. That said, I assure you all that QUALITY is not their primary concern in contracting for SE services. Primary concerns are TIME and MONEY. Many among them feel that all engineering services should be competitively bid based on lowest cost (primary) and ability to deliver on time (secondary). It is, of course a position of ignorance (not stupidity). To many, all engineers with the SE/CE/GE "tickets" are seen as identically qualified. (Ironically, none would agree to select their personal physician or attorney blindly out of the phone book.) It is this ignorance that we all must fight. It is an ongoing crusade to educate and inform and to bring quality issues into their "decision matrix". If this situation weren't difficult enough, the current rage among corporations is design-build project delivery. Now we have the principle player - the contractor - selecting architects, engineers, testing labs, etc. My experience is that the typical contractor is even MORE predisposed to selecting SE/CE/GE based on cost alone. The only defense a corporation/owner may have against this "evil force" is staff "experts" like myself, or (rarely) a qualified consultant "third party". TO THE CONTRACTOR, ALL SE's APPEAR EQUIVALENT, DISTINGUISHABLE ONLY BY COST. They know, of course, that the SE can be readily blamed for all problems in design, construction, and performance, and at the same time, the SE must be responsive to the contractor as the client. Fast, cheep, and not one nickel's worth beyond the Building Codes is the order of the day. Any sign of "gold plating" and the SE will never get another project ( and might even be relieved of the project at hand). SE's who are seeking contracts from such a corporate owner should understand the nature of this customer. To sell quality, you must find a way to help the client understand that quality is not equal among all engineering firms. Further, you will have to show that you understand their business well enough to convince them of the VALUE of quality engineering. You will have to convey and convince the finance officers, insurance administrators, MBA's, scientists, industrial engineers and other of the value of your quality. AND you must convince them of your capability to deliver that quality on schedule. My employer has the luxury of an in-house staff engineer to help sort out these issues. Most corporations and building owners do not, and you will have to fill this void for them. Sorry for the long post. ( Maybe I should speak up more often). M. Russell Nester, SE, GE rnester(--nospam--at)juno.com ____________________________________________________________ On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:55:49 PST "Deneff Chris" <cid(--nospam--at)EQE.COM> writes: >He'll let the courts and your insurance take care of his (real or >perceived) problems with "A" >Chris Deneff > >> Stan, >> >> I sent a copy of this to the annoying client of ours. >> Guess what his choice was? Items "B" and "C". |;> >> >> Sasha Itsekson >> ____________________ >> At 10:53 AM 3/13/97 -0600, you wrote: >> >> >In the mid-1980s, I visited the office of a structural engineer >> >practicing in a small town in East Texas. Carefully lettered at >eye >> >level on the entrance door was the following message to all >prospective >> >clients and other visitors: >> >>______________________________________________________________________ >> > >> >We offer services that are: >> > >> >A) High Quality >> >B) Fast >> >C) Inexpensive --- Internet Message Header Follows --- Received: from server1.seaoc.org (bqe.com [220.127.116.11]) by host1.texramp.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA15712 for <rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 01:03:29 -0600 (CST) Received: from x4.boston.juno.com by server1.seaoc.org (NTList 3.02.10) id ia009238; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:59:02 -0800 Received: (from rnester(--nospam--at)juno.com) by x4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id BKN12442; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 01:55:24 EST To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:46:24 PST Subject: Re: Another Thought from Texas Message-ID: <19970313.225145.8167.0.rnester(--nospam--at)juno.com> References: <250FC0828E4@eqe_irv_01.eqe.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.00 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,17-18,32-33,45-79 From: rnester(--nospam--at)juno.com Reply-To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Error-To: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Loop: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Info: [SEAOC] Owner: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-POP3-Rcpt: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org X-Sender: seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Precedence: list X-ListMember: rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org [seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org] __________________________________________________ Richard Lewis, P.E. Missionary TECH Team rlewis(--nospam--at)techteam.org The service mission like-minded Christian organizations may turn to for technical assistance and know-how.
- Prev by Subject: Fwd: Re: Another Thought from Texas
- Next by Subject: Fwd: Re: Another Thought from Texas
- Previous by thread: Fwd: Re: Another Thought from Texas
- Next by thread: Fwd: Re: Another Thought from Texas