Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: ENR Article - Marketing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The problem is that there is no realistic way to correct the weakest links
in the equation - these are, essentially, constants. As we are all of
different opinion, there is no way to break the "fear" of loss of work or
force competition to compete fairly.
If we take a "brute-force" position of refusing work that is does not meet
our rigid requirements, we end up with the clients that we want, but in the
process, we indirectly promote those who produce work of less quality and
inferior construction.
It's nice to be on top and be able to weed out only the prime clients, but
the sad fact is that the majority of work out there falls somewhere in the
gray area down to the bottom of the barrel.

I think the only way to change the quality of the submitted package is by
educating the public as to the complexity of the work and necessity of
additional time to meet new code constraints. This still does not solve the
issue of the developer and Architect who are anxious to build instant
structures overnight and retrieve their profits as fast as possible. One way
of dealing with this is to require a more stringent plan review process -
which as I noted in my last post, may be a weak point at this time.

The productivity model is complex. Simply taking a stand only protects you,
not the welfare of the public. The professional community (all members of
the building industry) need to come to terms with these issues and until
they do, I hate being a pessimist, but I don't see any measurable
improvement in the quality of submittal packages or in improvement in
construction quality.

Dennis S. Wish, PE

-----Original Message-----
From: Polhemus, Bill [mailto:wlpolhemus(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 5:56 AM
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: ENR Article

What we've been guilty of is "wimpiness".

We'd rather undercut each other on price--pure free market--than stand up
and say "We cannot do a competent job under these conditions. The latter is
a reflection of our professional ethics.

The unscrupulous among us would rather have the job at a modest fee, than
lose it to someone else, even if it means abrogating our professional
obligations. That's "wimpiness" that translates to evil intent.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Higgins [mailto:JillHiggins(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 11:06 PM
To: INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: ENR Article

I agree with ENR. Most drawings are a mess. We've been ducking our
responsibilities for too long. (CASE, you should be ashamed).