The Biggest Problem of The Engineering Profession (that NO ONE talks about)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2023
- In this video, we delve into the biggest problem within the engineering profession - Branding Issues. Engineering is undoubtedly a field of innovation, problem-solving, and technical expertise, but over the years, the engineering profession has developed a branding issue - we are underpaid, overworked to meet unrealistic deadlines, and not getting the respect we deserve. By understanding and addressing this challenge head-on, we can work towards creating a more supportive and sustainable environment for engineers to thrive in. If you are a structural engineer, civil engineer or mechanical engineer, we all have the same issue. We all need to work on raising the profile of engineers so that we can make the engineering career path back to the noble profession it is.
@matteocharles
Be part of Radius and PEN: shorturl.at/enrv1
What to watch next
Honest Career Advice for Engineers • Honest Career Advice f...
Something you did know about Structures • Structural Design: The...
200 years of engineering knowledge • Unlock 200+ Years of S...
My Passion for Structural Engineering • Why I am Passionate an...
👉Join the engineering community and support the channel: / brendanhasty
👉Be my member to join the private Engineer FB group: ua-cam.com/users/BrendanHasty...
🎧 Try Audible Premium Plus for free amzn.to/36B4pm0 up to 2 free books
🖱️ Engineering Software/Kit/Course:
💽 SkyCiv geni.us/SkyCiv
💽 Mola Engineering Kit: molamodel.com/?ref=brendanhasty. Use code:brendanhasty to get 10% off on checkout
💽 PE exam prep course: www.schoolofpe.com/?ref=mmuznwe
📚Recommended Engineering Books:
📗Concrete Structures Warner geni.us/ConStruct
📗Steel Designers' Handbook geni.us/SteelHand
🎥 Shooting Gear & Home Office Setup: kit.co/Brendan_hasty
🎥SEO tool
Tubebuddy www.tubebuddy.com/BHEngineering
🔴Disclaimer: Some of the links below are affiliate links as an Amazon Associate and other affiliate programs; I'll earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost.
If you enjoyed this video, you certainly would love to watch the interview that is packed with 200 years of engineering experiences ▶ ua-cam.com/video/qOBHZMaCOBI/v-deo.html
Brendan, great video! I work primarily with engineers (and STEM folk) on this exact challenge. There is a wide gap between what I call the "Rock Stars" in the industry and the regular practitioners. The rock stars have become commercially competent whilst the other 97% are like mushrooms and lack the ability to negotiate or navigate commercially.
Building a personal brand is a great start, but I would say it is a by-product of becoming commercially competent/confident. Engineers will build their personal brand, but without the change in competence or identity, they will face the same challenges. Building their brand can kick start the journey for them, so all in all, this is a positive message. The competence and identity side is the core that will drive the change long-term.
Great message mate, and I am glad your video made it to my feed. I will be subbing.
@@bradbarker8286 Hi Brad, thanks for the comment and the New Sub. Agree that there is a big gap, and most engineers, even technically good engineers, are not good at showing there value. and branding is really just showing up and showing your value with every project you work on. glad that you enjoyed the message. Hope to provide value in all new content in the future.
I have a degree in aerospace but have worked for 30+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. I did over a decade in manufacturing before switching to mining and resources.
I got my degree from one of America's top engineering schools (U. of Illinois) where I was lucky enough to go to on a sports scholarship. I also picked up a number of postgraduate qualifications in training & assessment, electrical equipment for hazardous areas and functional safety.
The 2 biggest issues I see in engineering are:
*1) How other professions value or qualifications and experience.*
This is most obvious is the recruiting industry where people with ZERO knowledge of engineering decide who can and who can't have a job and how much they will get paid. That's combined with the consulting industry which are nothing but teams of accountants masquerading as experts in everything.
If you consider how badly managed and executed projects are across -
- The private sector where projects like Gorgon went $15 Billion over budget and was late, Wheatstone was several billion over budget and late, BHP Ravensthorpe was over budget and late, Rio Tinto Alcan at Gove was billions over budget and late; and
- The Government sector where projects like the NBN is now over $32 Billion over budget with no end in sight. Then there's the Snowy 2.0 which jumped from $4 to $5 Billion before the first shovel of dirt was dug and has since blwon to over $12 Billion because the initial estimates did not include connecting the power station to the national grid; and
- The Military where we pay American consultants $25,000 or more a week and we have disasters like the Submarine project. Then there's the frigate project were we are paying over $5 Billion a boat while the British Navy pays $1.6 Billion for the same boat from the same company. Then there's the Arafura class offshore patrol vessels which are more than 10 times the cost ($300M) of the Armidale class ($28M) boats they are replacing.
If the consulting industry is properly advising people then why do we see all these things happening across all these sectors and industries?
If the recruitment industry keeps claiming they put the right people in the right places for the right reasons then why do we see all these things happening across all these sectors and industries?
2) How pathetically inept the engineering organisations are at furthering the interests of engineers. Among my most notable interactions with these Organisations:
- I went to the Australian Space Office circa 2000 to get Australian's into NASA including the Astronaut program because at that point all 3 Australian's to have flown in space WERE NOT actually Australian citizens at the time they were American citizens. NASA now has a program that when they pick their 20 people for the next astronaut class their foreign partners also have people that join that class. There are 8 non-Americans in that program right now but Australia isn't one of them.
- After finding that my hard won qualifications in Electrical Equipment for hazardous Areas and Functional safety had no backing from any professional organisations I went to the Institute of Engineers to get support to change that. Considering we now have several hundred billion dollars of hardware on the ground in Australia's LNG industry those qualifications should have been gold and instead are SHlT.
- I took similar concerns to other professional engineering organisations like APEA and they also didn't care.
All these organisations ever care about is taking fees from members while telling themselves how special they are.
Before you ask about the Australia Space Agency. They are the single worst space agency in the world. They are not even close to being called useless. Its little more than a self aggrandising Star Trek club for public servants of the worst kind. They have in fact done more damage to the future of Australian space involvement than any other group has ever done and we have had a long list of stupid people making stupid decisions.
I agree with all the comments here. I would also add that there is not much sales training in engineering. Architects and real estate agents sell people's dreams. If you stop 10 random people on the street and ask them what a structural engineer does, I can guarantee you that at least 6 won't know. The branding idea is great Brendan.
Actually, every time I meet some new people and introduce myself, they always ask, 'What is a structural engineer? Is it an architect?'. This is quite depressing when people do not see and appreciate your work. Unfortunately, the same attitude comes from builders at a construction site. For them we just 'draw drawings' which they 'could do better'. And most of them dont understand that a lot of analysis and design work preceded those drawings.
Sorry, this will never work. I’m a recently retired engineer with multiple degrees and licenses. Supply and demand will always drive this discussion. The engineering committees of professional organizations still control the language in building, plumbing, etc. codes. Instead of going out of our way to make the language easily accessible to everybody, engineers need to leave in the complexity. Get rid of the tables and charts. Replace them with the original differential equations. Fixed. Fees increased by 50%. You’re welcome.
Yes, but if deliberately adding complexity or opacity to the subject results in engineers doing a worse job, or compromising the project, it's going to reflect poorly on all of us. If one wants to introduce artificial barriers into entering or working in a profession, you can do it the old school way, which is have guilds and apprenticeships and the like. This is basically like the modern practice of medicine with its very limited admission to medical schools and residencies, and their ability to control the number of doctors codified into the law. The reaction to this has been trying to create alternative practicing credentials, such as Nurse Practitioner. If engineering schools deliberately reduce the number of engineers, supply and demand will figure out a way to produce more people who can do engineering work, good enough or not.
37 years in mechanical engineering here - 2 degrees, chartered etc….
The biggest problems are
The profession is suffering from an unceasing growth of paperwork, none of which is talked about at university - or it wasn’t…... I get that some areas of the profession need some of it, but its now at the stage where hardly anything is actually getting done.
The universities create far more engineers than industry needs and has done for years, it helps keep the wages down, but many either don’t start in the profession at all or leave quickly.
Many students are taught what the lecturers want to lecture about, not what they need to know. Anyone used set theory or Maclaurin's Series since uni days? Me neither, but I didn’t happen to learn anything about electric motors either.
10000 studentplaces, 5000 graduate and only 3000 engineers will find decent job. It has been like this over a decade already. Its not common to see engineers in food delivery, warehouse worker, uber driver or in other cheap labor job. (Finland)
The bit about imposter syndrome really resonates with me. I only graduated about a year ago, but I've been working in the role for a few years now. I recently switched employers and have had a chance to better showcase my "expertise" (limited) with people who understand things practically, but not technically. Explaining the calculable effect of changes, my new employer is able to now specifically quantify the effect and have confidence in the outcomes. With my new "branding", my confidence is increasing.
Hi talent, glad you are working on brand building it is a statement on who you are. Hope my videos help you on this journey.
A very well thought out video. The industry requires a shift in attitude to make sure that customer understands our efforts and responsibility. Also I am proud that you met Angus Young on the street, cheers.
I chose to take a break from structural engineering consulting in Melbourne to try my hand at project management for government.
I'm so glad I did, but not for the reasons that I expected.
There's a huge lesson to be learned from removing yourself from the silo of structural design, and seeing yourself as an engineer within the ecosystem of the lifecycle of a project from more than just a design performance perspective.
I would have agreed with you before about engineering having a branding problem, but I now see from the other side where so many engineering consultants go wrong - poorly considered, or rushed fee proposals which do not identify the needs of the client.
Do not forget, you are selling a product. You have to prove in writing that your services and methodology align with whatever fee that you're seeking. Do not kid yourself into thinking the lowest quote always wins, prove the value in your fee and you'll win the job.
Unless you're a guru subject matter expert offering ultra niche services, sell your product, not yourself. You cannot divorce engineering from business.
Fantastic video! Really appreciate this. Looking forward to the next one! 👌
Hi Ivan glad that you enjoyed it.
Preach! Up to us to take control of ourselves and how we help others!
Mate this is an awesome video mate! 100% agree, we need to sell ourselves as structural engineers as an investment rather than just a cost. Love the initiative Brendan! definitely need more of this in our industry!
I've often heard the term that "Everyone is a Structural engineer" because everyone sees all sorts of builings, build their own backyard foundations and believe thaat it is easy to do structural analysis. I feel like that is another reason why our discipline is so undermined and we seem like the discipline that always gets scrutenized with hours and budgets. We need to start talking like electrical and process engineers, often no one has any idea what they are talking about so they always get the budgets they need to do their tasks 🤣
Also, by raising our profession, we will get to raise fees. Engineers love to invent things we should get paided for the value we bring.
Thanks for spending the time to create and share this content awareness
Invest in engineering! It’s not a race to the bottom on fees. I couldn’t have said it better. As always, great ideas, thanks for making these videos not on for other structural engineers but fir others in the industry
Hello Brendan, I completely agree with you, I am a student from Ukraine, I study in Poland, I am finishing my 3rd year of university.
8 months ago I started working part-time as an engineer’s assistant, I learned Autocad much better, I saw how design processes look like and I got the opportunity to participate in them, this gave me the opportunity to see a lot besides what is taught at the university, but I also saw a problem related to salaries, it is not just unpleasant, it scares and demotivates, and it is a big problem today. I believe that we should respect our profession much more and treat it fairly.
I don't know how it was before, but now it seems to me that an incredibly small percentage of young people are ready to seriously approach the study of this profession, because it is not easy, very responsible and the study lasts at least 5 years. I think in the near future there may be a shortage of professionals in this field.
I personally continue to believe that I will be able to find the key, find myself in this field and I do not want to give up.
I am very interested in BIM, I like the idea that all professionals can work in one program on one file, for example Revit. And I would like to move in this direction and deepen my knowledge and skills as a construction engineer in general.
Brendan, what would you advise as a "must have" in order to be a cool specialist in our field like you, both from the side of design skills and from the side of computer programs in order to facilitate, speed up the design processes and stay up to date with software? (It can be both books, courses, and any other resources.)
Thank you very much, you have cool and interesting content, I will be glad to see you in your next videos😊
Thanks Brendan, We should focus on value. Value comes through sharing knowledge. Lets break down the silos that we have built. Let people into your domain, and others will let you into theirs. That is the start of collaboration. From there we start to reveal value.
Great video Brendan, there is a race to the bottom that I choose not to take part in. It does mean I loose projects but I’m ok with that. I don’t think we will ever get entirely away from time basis of our fees. Currently there isn’t enough time in a fee to do all of the design and documentation that is necessary for a successful project build, and to ensure defect free longevity. If engineers, especially Structural engineers, actually considered how much time is needed to do a really good job, instead of trimming hours to meet a 0.5% fee, we may start to take steps in the right direction. I run a small team of 7 and charge higher than our competitors and we do not do overtime, but our competitors do and they use these free hours to make it look like they can bring a profit. If we stop working overtime for free, there would be a sharp correction in engineering fees. This is a change every individual engineer can make and I encourage all of us to step up.
Hi LG total agree, project often on see profits through free overtime which isn't sustainable. It also can lead to people cutting corners. We need to get paid for a value we bring. It is good to see you are fighting the good fight keep ot up.
Unions, it's time for Unions. There were white collar unions in the US aerospace industry in the 60s and 70s which produced some of the best designs like the original Boeing 737 and the F-15.
Unions can help keep management from meddling too much in technical details. Unions can protect against wrongful termination if an employee takes a bit longer than anticipated in order to do something the right way.
Unions can help stop the race to the bottom. Unions can help stop unreasonable unpaid overtime. Most of which ends up being marginally productive anyway because with long hours week after week people make bad decisions which waste as much time or more as what people try to make up in overtime.
Love your work Brendan. Such an inspiration 🫶🏽
Hi Brian glad that I can inspire you.
as a contractor, i've worked w/ engineers closely and have learned some of the real sources of the many obvious problems which engineers do indeed face (produce). first is a lack of understanding of individual psychology and communication. as introverted tinkerers, engineers tend to lack social skills, in addition to subsequent biases that are generally rooted in having been isolated, eg, the false assumption that one is always the smartest person in the room. the problems these limitations tend to produce have to do with 'relatability' in terms of the transmission of ideas. essentially, it is one thing to render a two-dimensional plan in a climate-controlled, ergonomically purposed enclosure. it is quite another to be the dumb-ass with a tool belt on working sixteen hour days in Dante's Inferno. engineers should be required to do substantial (full-time, multi-week, industry standard pay) hands-on construction work as part of their C.E., and not just a summer job on a framing crew between semesters which they'll brag/bitch about well into their retirement. then we'll see who's underpaid! conversely, the problem of not being the top dog in the hierarchy is the same for both tinkerer/picture-drawer and laborer; we're all lackies of the money-changers! the real reason engineers are famous for creating two problems for every one they 'solve' is that their honest efforts are thwarted by budgets/plain old greed. genius of any kind takes time and time is money and the same 'kings handed down from heaven' control every decision we all think we're responsible for making, mostly by bleeding every last cent from the 'workers'. they've used every form of propaganda from religion to television to YT to convince you that you are an autonomous being demonstrating free will in the free marketplace by rendering your 'independent' services and ideas for the greater good. yet it always ends up that the same tiny few own everything and the wage-slaves are left to complain about being under-appreciated and under-compensated. story never changes, just the diatribes, narratives and particulars/sources of, as Nietzsche puts it, our 'slave morals'.
In most countries, architects are at the top of the construction listing in this profession. Here in my country, people seems to gravitate to engineers when problems arise by bad builders and this is the assumption people view engineers as problem solvers. Channels like this advocates the awareness of engineering and that our profession is not about calulations of building materials and occupancies.
Thanks for watching and the ongoing support Malik. Typically aswel engineering get the blame when things goes wronge. We are problem solvers what is our primary work and it is much more then just calculations.
Supply and demand for example in Finland every year: 10000 studentplaces, 5000 graduate and only 3000 engineers will find decent job. It has been like this over a decade already. Its not common to see engineers in food delivery, warehouse worker or in other cheap labor job.
Part of the issue for me is job titles that include the term engineer without the need for an engineering degree (Data engineer etc.) The other issue I have is software "engineers". If it's not mission critical and certified code and you don't have an engineering degree, you are not an engineer. It doesn't make you dumb, just not an engineer, find another title that demands its own type of respect. All these titles cheapen the meaning of an engineer with real skin in the game. If I screw up, someone can die. If a software "engineer" screws up, he fixes his code before updating his new dog tracker app. Another one on my list is academia, at the very least add a qualifier, academic engineer or whatever. Finally, companies need to respect the meaning of Professional or chartered. Where I am, you get no extra respect or pay for becoming a Pr.Eng.
Great perspective, I agree. Could you do a video on Pre-setting steel rafters or beams, how it works and how this differs from camber? There is not a lot about it available on pre-sets in Australia
Hi Stormbash precambering and presetting is almost the same thing. Typically I use the word preset when talking about cantilevers. As it only sets a hight as a posed to precambering which is a curve.
I live in a condominium community that had to sue the builder for a number of major defects in the construction. In suing the builder, we found out that there is an entire industry of lawyers who only work these types of lawsuits, and another entire industry of builders who use the funds from successful lawsuits to repair the defects of the original builders.
And this is in a state and country that has relatively strict building codes and inspection regimens.
The issue has been festering for years. The problem is engineers - too many willing to sell their souls for a fee and use less experienced designers who are clueless, with the result of problems. Most of the problems cited in this video could have been easily and cheaply addressed, at the right time by the right people. We are the problem. Until egos move aside and a bit more humility and “asking more senior people” attitude re-emerges we are doomed.
A good structural engineer is worthy more than the purest gold. I wish client understand the value an engineer can bring to a project when he is probably paid.
I am currently struggling with imposter syndrome to the point I am constantly questioning myself. It is really hard when you been given a task you have never worked on before and in this profession it is almost guaranteed that will be the case. I like learning but sometimes it can be overwhelming. Can anyone else relate?
I can relate 100% been in this profession now 3 years in timber engineering. There's so much I still have to learn and everytime I design something my boss tells me why my design is not that good and has a better solution. It's so hard sometimes
@@Skateboardfreakist unless the boss is an asshole, this kinda sounds like a dream come true to me personally... cant wait to become an engineer!
Hell yeah brother. It's been my experience that you get no training, but a boss that will say everything they're supposed to "ask me questions" etc. But when you do, you don't get really get an answer, at best, your boss will just forward you some random internet link that kind of answers your question, or a bunch of books are dumped in your cubicle. No training. But hey, the owners and MBAs get their money,
Engineering should be a top pick at universities. What the curriculum teaches is how to pass exams and “get through the degree” thinking that’s what counts in the end.
What is the problem I think is poorly trained engineers in practice ( on site) “senior “ engineers with 3/4 years experience. Appreciate the dedication and study that’s goes into a becoming a professional engineer There is no substitute for real world experience. And that the gap practically wise between trades and degree isn’t worth what it once was.
A lot of design issues get covered up or fixed by site commissioning team.
Great comment. I wrote letter to my own university a few years ago, when I decided to transfer to another institution, which went to exactly this. It's not the case in every uni, but there are definiteley some that follow this model. No response was received...
kudos to you for caring.
I just don't think people will care until it affects them directly. Frankly the fact that people build in high risk areas and the fees are not higher tells you everything you need to know.
Speed of construction makes some relatively easy geographies lucrative while say building in a high seismic or high hurricane zone the fees are simply not in line with the risks and required work to meet all the code clauses and peer review demands.
If someone isn't willing to pay and others are willing to undercut what course do we really have?
Been in engineering for 20 years. Multiple licenses and specialized in both mechanical and electrical.
The issue with engineering is that it’s all cost based now. Cheap cheap cheap. Canada’s solution to the situation is more regulation. More forms, documents, and records for the litigations. Inexperienced engineers or business accounts now manage engineering telling engineers how to design. But remember, the liability is still on the engineer.
There are no investments in training young design engineers. And the newer generation want to move into manager asap too. Who wants the liability for pay in peanuts?
Unfortunately, more projects will fail and lives be lost before the engineering world wakes up.
Thanks Brendan
Thanks for watching and support.
Way back in the day there were guilds. They got outlawed most of the time.
In the US, a major factor is the number of engineers employed by the federal gov't, especially the Dept of Def. The vast majority (90+%) do anything but engineering, and the pay scale drags down non gov engineers.
As an engineer who used to live in Australia, this is mostly an Australia problem. Engineers in the US and some parts of Europe are generally significantly better paid compared to others in society.
Hmm architure as a profession has much better branding than enginnering and we seem to have all the same problems. i would put a lot of it down to weak professional organisations/no unions, deregulation and the fact that it tends to attact passionate people who will usually settle for less pay in exchange for a challenging job.
Hi Agree, I feel architects have the same issues. We have as a industry raced to the bottom letting developers bring in all the profits.
Architects could solve alot of their own problems vy working the trades for about 5yrs min. The number of problems i see before the walls are even rocked is wild.
I saw a few people wearing branding at my local bowls club, just before Christmas. It was a staff party. I asked one guy "You must work for an Engineering Company". He asked "How did you know"? "You have young pretty girls working for you, and no old men". At another site 2 older engineers were complaining that their juniors were bad at CAD work. I told them to hire boilermakers who know CAD.
Problem is engineering education is so difficult. Therefor there must be some big reward after your degree. I am underemployed as an engineer, making me question if there really is a lack of engineers in my country. Its ok not to get jobs, but then I would not have studied engineering to begin with.
Unions would be a more meaningful solution than Branding
When I saw the title I was hoping and expecting this analysis. Compared to doctors and lawyers engineers are way underpaid. Perhaps it is related to supply and demand?
Hi Bruce, I think it is more than that. We are too often cut our fees, and doctors' prices based on the service provided not the hours it takes to get done. And no one wants to lose lawyers who are good at showing their value and fighting for it. Engineers, however, are always looking to be more generous, and often do not charge for every hour.
@@BrendanHasty Totally get what you mean! When I saw the title, I was pumped for an epic analysis. I mean, compared to doctors and lawyers, engineers do seem to be underpaid, right? It's like we're always getting the short end of the beam!
I agree there's more to it than just supply and demand. Whilst engineers often literally bend over backwards for our clients, as you say, doctors charge based on the service they provide, not just the hours it takes. And lawyers? Well, they're pros at proving their worth and fighting for it!
Perhaps these shortfalls in wallet width can be offset by the pride of building a structure for all to see, or not having to cut up people and sustain them with pharmaceuticals, or having to deal daily with the bad people of this world and engaging in the gory details of evil?
Imagine if clients could come to an engineer, and in just 30 minutes, we whip up a blueprint that shows the full value of our solutions. Talk about a dream scenario, right? It's all about packaging our expertise in a way that's easy for everyone to see.
But hey, let's not forget, we're in this together! If we want to tackle the issue of underpayment, we gotta unite as a strong industry. We need to be more responsive to market demands and consistently charge fair fees. Together, we can build a foundation for better compensation and recognition for all us hardworking engineers!
So, let's put our hard hats on and show the world the true value we bring. It's time to reinforce our industry, stand tall like sturdy columns, and make sure we're getting the credit we deserve. Are you with me?
Imagine our industry as a finely-tuned structure, where each professional has a vital role to play. It's like a well-designed framework where the designer sets the parameters, the engineer performs intricate calculations, and the architect selects the optimal materials.
Just as a doctor analyzes a problem and prescribes a specific treatment, in our industry, the designer carefully examines the project requirements and establishes the foundational concepts. They envision the shape, size, and overall vision of the structure, providing the initial framework.
Then, the engineer steps in like the structural backbone, performing complex calculations to ensure the integrity and stability of the design. They analyze forces, stresses, and load distributions, creating the robust skeleton that can withstand any challenge.
Finally, the architect comes in, like the master of materials, selecting the perfect elements to bring the design to life. They consider aesthetics, functionality, and durability, adding the finishing touches to the overall structure.
When this collaborative process is complete, it's like a perfectly engineered masterpiece, ready for approval and construction. It's the seamless integration of design, engineering, and materials that allows our industry to thrive.
So, let's continue working as the strong pillars of this industry, combining our expertise to create exceptional structures. Together, we build the foundations of progress and shape the world around us, one structural marvel at a time!
Lawyers and doctors restrict the amount of people that can join the profession via rigorous selection processes and limited training spots - creating a supply > cost. Or in other words - those guys figured out how to create a monopoly for their professions.
If you want to have what they have you "just" have to create a monopoly of your own.. it's really that simple (and sinister). Good luck?
It is strictly supply and demand. There are too many engineers for the amount of work available, and too many engineering companies. If one company pushes back on the low fees then another company is willing to step in and take the lower fee. Architects control the fees and as long as they can hire engineers to do the work without regard to quality of the engineering they will do that. A company that I worked for lost a client to someone who would do the work for lower fees, the very next large project that they did ended up on the television news and the project had to be closed for over a year for expensive repairs. They had hired other engineers based on fee and not based on qualifications.
@@billj5645 here supply and demand (on competitive markets) would also help.. that engineering company and those engineers (if this knowledge about their failing) can be communicated freely and kept alive will not get another job ever.
If you naturally got a lobby group behind you and that is able to keep this kind of information out of the public view via various means.. well..
I'm an engineer and with my last two jobs I spoke with companies NOT hiring and explained to THEM why they should hire me. Both of them CREATED positions for me. Needless to say, with my skills the companies had a 1,000% (10X) annual return on my salary. [e.g.: $100K USD annual salary, +$1M profit.]
This not an Engineering problem. This a management problem
There appears to be a number of issues that are overlooked in this video, if anyone has an idea how to address them then that would be appreciated.
-How do Structural Engineers in the construction sector both claim Engineers as a whole to be reliable/competent, whilst being able to compete other than on price? There are different scales of construction, and for typical residential work you wouldn't expect different engineers to provide vastly different designs (working off same standard AS1684), therefore if all are considered competent why would you choose one engineer over another except on price? I could see on large scale construction (multi-storey high-rise) the amount/detail of engineering can result in cost savings.
-Does designing for longer term benefits provide value for those paying your bills? A lot of the time the final owner isn't the Engineer's client, and therefore they want the least costly options to satisfy their contract rather than an option that would benefit the final owner. Some examples would be that I live in a house without insulation pre-installed because at the time of construction it wasn't mandated, also the engineering of products to generally see off their warranty period and not much more.
Lack of effort by engineering organizations has led to this poor pay as compared to other professional organizations
Partly their fault some ours, istructE is providing some good work to improve our skills.
Engineering organizations are focused on increasing membership. If they work to reduce the amount of engineers then that reduces their membership. We see this in our area- engineering organizations strongly oppose increasing the requirements for engineering licenses.
Very prevalent from a UK fire engineering perspective.
agree but with only one side of the coin. there will always be someone willing to read codified standard and liaise that info to other team members and copy and pasta chunks of text into a fire strategy for less than you. however, where you can justify a fire engineered solution based on 'advanced calculations' or CFD that offers value to the client then you'll likely have the edge when procuring work and you should be able to charge more while saving the client money when it comes to the overall cost of fire protection systems and requirements. there is certainly no shortage of jobs or work for young fire engineering graduates capable for carrying out crazy maths in the form of thermodynamic / fire dynamic calcs and CFD and we are certainly in a better place financially than most young structural, geotech, water, building services, etc engineers.
Yea I think it is a worldwide issue with alot of engineering, we have really undersold our value. Hope to raise up all engineers.
It's not exactly true that engineers don't advocate for themselves. It's just that some engineers work, trying to let their work speak for them, and others spend their time promoting themselves and their work. It is much easier to take credit for other people's work than it is to spend the long hours and full attention that detailed engineering work requires. As a result, engineers that spend their time and effort actually doing what they were trained to do, which is plan, design, and build, don't get credit or recognized for what they do, and because their value to an organization is not understood, they are often seen as incidental or replaceable in an organization. Those who write the checks typically can cover themselves and so don't worry about the consequences of losing talent that performs work that they don't understand or don't value. There are only so many hours in a day, and spending one's time planning how one is going to promote one's own career is great for oneself, but terrible for an organization, but organizations do not reward work that is out of sight and therefore out-of-mind. This is unfortunately why nowadays many engineers can only find advancement by job-hopping to organizations that currently lack engineering staff and acutely require it, as there typically are few other ways that excellence in engineering roles is otherwise recognized.
The technical side of engineering is so wide and complex that engineers seldom develop beyond those limits. What lies beyond engineering is the commercial / business discipline. Usually a non-engineer picks up the engineer's work and pockets the money. Another area of the engineer's training that could receive more attention, is System Engineering Management (SEM), because engineers often have too narrow a focus. In my opinion it is criminal to bestow an engineering qualification on someone without sensitizing the person to SEM.
Another limiting factor for engineers is that the projects are so expensive, that the engineer inevitable ends up as a small cog in a large organization, and thereby losing much of his self determination. The subject of this video has been discussed for many, many decades, with the engineers hoping that someone will provide a helping hand. Forget that. Life does not work that way. Engineers will have to role up their sleeves and address the problem themselves. Would a trade union be of value ?
For any profession, any trade or skill or any type of work that requires some talent and dedication to learn how to do, trying to make things complicated, confusing or difficult to learn and then creating a “special club” that are supposed to be the authorities that can judge, punish and reward people that are interesting in learning and doing the work may not be the best and most cost effective or fair way to create prosperity.
The amazing advances in information technologies such as computers, the internet, social media, UA-cam and the up and coming AI technology will be able to challenge these “special clubs” that think they should be an authority on knowledge and innovation on how to alter the environment to develop infrastructure, housing, products and produce food for humans on this planet to live fairly, peacefully and sustainably without harming themselves or the environment.
Our leaders need to stop the magical thinking and use reason, rationality and critical thinking and learn that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the bases for morality. The way this can begin and improve peace and fairness at the same time is when our business, government, military and academic leaders along with our wealthiest and brightest and smartest among us can learn to be much more truthful, honest and the levels of trust and respect among humans can rise to a point where all nations can reach a point where they will no longer feel the need to spy on each other and commit resources to manufacture weapons that can wipe out most of the life on this planet and from there start working towards reducing and eventually stopping the manufacturing of any weapons of war.
All religions and their leaders need to admit that their books are fiction and need to stop lying about magical authorities that live in the sky. Having said this, the stories in these books are fascinating and lots can be learned by good literature. Literature has always been a source of entertainment, culture, learning and inspiration. Some of the more famous include the works of Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, George Orwell, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain and many others.
Yeah branding might have something to do with it. But honestly companies just want to pay less for everything. You can put all the presentations and extroverts up you want, at the end of the day companies need a reason to pay more and treat workers better.
I don't think the answer is adding another skill set to engineers and giving them access to Microsoft PowerPoint.
Oh yes. A branding issue. Certainly true in the UK. Paid in washers. I spent many of my early years in engineering working for a large household name automotive company with gold standard design procedures and intellectual property procedures. Since then, most other employers have barely even understood the benefits of such procedures and even if they do they are certainly not prepared to pay for them. They say, to which I reply, "You only get to be a big firm IF you do it!" And so it has come to pass because most of those companies are no longer with us.
Thanks
Your support is greatly appreciated! Let's bring up our noble profession!
Greed kills the smart. In any industry or profession.
true
❤❤😊😊
Thanks for having me at the Radius Event Will 👊
I am a licensed professional engineer since 1973. My practice was in the role of consulting engineer.
Random beliefs/thoughts:
1. Consulting Engineers do not decide what gets built.
2. Consulting Engineers are paid in proportion to their ability to write (and speak) clearly.
50+ years ago structural engineers had better status, during a depression of the economy about 50 years ago things changed. There were too many engineers for the need so supply and demand allowed fees and salaries to drop and status of engineers to drop. Architects head up the design team and thus they control the fees that are paid to engineers. During that depression Architects transferred more work to engineers and gave them less of the fee. The supply and demand side has stayed the same to current times and that has allowed the fee structure to stay. The one thing that has changed is that architects are designing more complex buildings which increases the engineering workload but for the same fee. Engineering in the 21st century has become a sweatshop profession with a lot of work and not much pay. What you said at the beginning of the video- I feel like engineers are underpaid. I have a tremendous amount of experience and qualifications- my wife makes more money than I do and my daughter makes more money than I do. It's not a branding issue, the public that would react to rebranding doesn't control the salaries of engineers, that comes from architects. The only thing that would help the status would be a reduction in the number of engineers. Right now it is too easy to become an engineer. Colleges have reduced the course load, a person can get an engineering degree and avoid most of the real engineering courses offered. Colleges seem to be focused on how many engineers they can graduate, not how good those engineers are. Then they can get a job that they aren't qualified for and with the right study courses they can get licensed to do work that they aren't qualified for. If the college requirements were back where they should be, and the licensing requirements were where they should be to adequately protect the public safety, there would be fewer engineers and salaries could increase. This is what the medical profession did 50 years ago to limit the numbers of people getting medical licenses and it made a big change to their profession.
Hi Bill agree we need to raise the level of engineers and make qualification specially chartered status need to be harder to obtain. The issue on the supply vs demand alot of projects only make money from free overtime most companines do this making sweatshops. So there is alot of work everyone needs to stop the overtime and change what it actually takes. Not to say there should be no overtime but it just should not be the norm.
It's interesting to see this perspective as someone from an european country. Here, it's basically the opposite.
In general, where I live, I'd say civil is pretty well paid. Maybe even the best paid after software eng. if you count that as engineering, but off course the pay depends on a lot of different things.
The field is highly regulated regarding education. I think the requirements for getting licensed as an engineer are quite high. Civil engineering university program is probably the hardest of all other engineering fields and very hard to pass (very few people do actually).
The demand for engineers is also extremely high. Not only because of the current investments in infrastructure but also because of the general lack of (graduated) engineers
@@BrendanHastyEducation isn't enough to ensure good work on every project, especially as a person ages they may become complacent or succumb to workload pressure to just put something on paper and move on to the next thing. Unions can help.
This branding issue sounds like a structural problem (pun intended!).
Sorry, but I have to ask you about the "Frog in the pot" example.
Hasn't that been debunked? When the water gets too hot: the frog gets out of the pot.
I believe the better example is putting a frog into warm water and slowly cooling it.
The frog will stay in the water and die from lack of heat. (death being the desired outcome to convey the message)
I appreciate your intent and production value. Great job mate. While marketing has its place, I think the core issues are:
1. Poor access to law. Having no funded access to law means labour and compliance law doesn't exist in practice. Have a brief think about a game theoretic take on engineering and the economics of it. While unions seem to run counter to individual variance, they did help a lot with this problem.
2. The stonewalling of the economics profession re: network analysis, game theory (and stochastic anything) and behavioral psychology. I am not an expert in any of this but whenever I've dug into the explanations of the economic politics we are apparently required to accept, it reads like a comedy routine. Google "ceteris parabus". Inclusion of modern analysis (from the 1950s) would improve economic politics a great deal. There are many realities that are forcing this change on us now but it will also be branded as expensive because the change has been left too late. Such is the life of an engineer.
3. Cheap money. Trickle down economics does what it says on the tin - there's an up, a down; the down is a trickle compared to the up. In the workplace, this empowers seniority while requiring no competence since there is little cost to the money being wasted - they can just get more debt. The lack of consequence and indirect monetary privilege facilitates ever more surreal and incompetent governance. It also makes mergers and acquisitions far more achievable and less risky which results in deeper corporate hierarchies and greater concentration of power and thus, corruption.
4. Authoritarianism. Nobody is allowed to be critical because some demographics find it very stressful. While I understand and empathise, these demographics need to experience the historic consequences of their refusal to take a concrete pill. Engineering is fundamentally critical and so we are some of the most oppressed by this phenomenon.
The demographics involved are slowly realising their mistake, albeit overly focused on sexuality in their analysis. The rest of us need to wait and keep our shit together because we don't have a choice, and they won't have the skills and experience when they do decide to change.
I think engineers need to educate themselves about finance and learn to think without self-respect. Not because we actually want to live like that but because those are the fundamentals of the systems that are holding us back. We need to understand the problems in order to figure out how they fail and fix them/competitively exploit them.
That being said, the system currently feeds off the engineering and social policy of years in the distant past. I think it has run out of food and we're about to see a boom by necessity. You may not need to worry about this stuff in the coming decades because the fundamentals have bottomed out.
I got your solution.. found an engineering advocacy group that limits the amount of engineers that are allowed to be trained and operate - to keep quality and safety up naturally!
After 10-20 years of lobbying and getting rules in place that achieve this the amount of engineers that are able to be contracted will be low enough for each and every single one of you to command the respect and revenue you deserve for your high quality workmanship!
PS: yes, this creates a monopoly, but it's in the name of quality and respect! Everybody will understand that
PPS: yes, this is sarcasm
PPPS: if you want to really solve this problem (not just for engineers) you have to understand how monopolies work and that our societies create them and with this knowledge ENGINEER society in away that prevents monopolies. I'm on that task for the last 10 years.. anyone care to join me? And no, the people in the social sciences, esp economists seem to be failing at this task so far.. they've been trying(?) for 200+ years at this point and it's not gotten any better.
Hi agree it needs stronger organisations, also need alot of sales to show the true Value and why we should pay not just go with the cheapest value. Thanks for the comments.
That engineers don't have enough children
Think beyond yourself. Shortsighted competitors are already the problem, so don't repeat it. The key to raising wages is to form a global union with the single minded goal of demanding a spectacular salary for all childcare workers. Arguably, that should be the highest paid profession, but it should definately be in the top 5 or 10%. I like to think of it as a presidential income. Childcare workers are vital to the wellbeing of children and they are effectively unable to strike because if they do so the children they care for will be neglected. As a society, we are all complicit in childhood neglect and abuse because we often leave children in the care of the least qualified and the lowest paid people. This is a goal that all people should support and the downstream impact of that single policy will benefit all people. If childcare costs are greatly elevated then everyone who aspires to raise a family will refuse to accept a wage which is insufficient to pay for childcare. Children will enjoy better opportunities and workers of all stripes will enjoy higher wages. Men and women will also reconsider there family roles. Many men and women will decide to care for their own children either as a cost saving measure or because it will have become a highly lucrative profession. Whatever the motive, the result will be the same, workers will expect to earn enough to support a family with a single income. If both parent prefer to work in other fields they will be paying a high fee for childcare but they will be able to afford it. If only one parent works then there is no concern, and this is important because in reality there are many single parent families. This arrangement will allow both parents to have a real choice between working outside the home or not. That isn't always the case when childcare is inappropriately cheap and living expenses are beyond the reach of a single income. In addition to higher wages for everyone and higher quality childcare arrangements another benefit is that single, childless, people will earn ample incomes which enable them to set up their lives for success. Without undertaking huge debts, those people will be able to buy homes and invest in businesses. It will even be conceivable for entry level and low skilled workers to pay for educational opportunities if they wish to move into positions with less competition or greater challenges. Higher wages for all people does not mean that prices inflate and everything becomes more expensive. When too much money is available and prices do inflate the global union will be able to demand an increase in childcare provider wages and thus the problem of excessive money printing is easily combated. The reality is that everyone can earn a comfortable income and when they do there will be more consumers, more demand for products and services, more jobs, and more opportunities for everyone. People who provide great value by creating jobs or by performing highly technical services will still command higher wages than everyone else and they will enjoy a higher degree of luxury and as well as access to exclusive opportunities just as the rich do today. The big change is that the majority of people will not be cutting corners and contemplating prositution because it will be possible for all people to enjoy a fulfilling life regardless of their occupation. This is how it should be because if we cannot justify paying a worker a living wage then the job itself ought not to exist. A final great benefit is that when the overwhelming majority of people are living comfortable lives then they will become less fearful, more honest, and even more responsible. When people can afford to make ecological decisions they will be much more likely to do so. It may seem counter intuitive, but when we create enough for everyone we will use more resources but we will also become better stewards of the earth. Fortunately, the earth is huge and the universe is even larger. We can help ourselves best by helping the least of us first.
Slow down
30 years ago I used to make the following joke: Professional status (and pay) is proportional to the rate of failure inherent to each profession. Medicine has a 100% failure rate, because everyone dies, so doctors make the most money. Every court case has a winner and a loser, so lawyers have a 50% failure, which is why they earn less than doctors, but more than engineers. The failure rate for engineers is close to 0%, and that is why they are paid so much less than doctors or lawyers. The solution to the low status and pay for engineers, is therefore to increase their failure rate. They must make sure that more structures collapse suddenly and unexpectedly.
Then one day a highway overpass collapsed in Montreal. A car was driving under it. A mother and father sitting in the front seat were crushed to death. Their 9-year old son sitting in the back seat survived, but was sadly orphaned that day. I stopped making that joke.
Ba-dum ching
Don’t put structural in the category of others. As a structural engineer you don’t get direct feed back of what you have designed. You can’t prove something doesn’t work end of the story. That’s why there are too many cow boys in the field to make the consulting price down.
its true after designing a strcture, I never get any feedback about it, it is quite unsatisfying
Engineering is vital in modern society. Unfortunately engineers around the globe are poorly paid and valued ( perhaps Germany is the exception ) . A good cook has a higher earnings potential 😂
A.i is going to solve this hang tight
You could say the same about software engineers. It's the sales bozo in the suit that gets all the money. Atlas has been shrugged again!
We're suckers.
I don't think anyone gives a cluck.
Whether it is an engineer, an architect, a professor, a politician and yes even a doctor and lawyer or any other profession or other work that talented people do including countless numbers of designers, artists, technicians, nurses, accountants and many others they all have to compete for their work and they all compete for attention and recognition for the work they do.
In Canada, after graduating from a university accredited to teach engineering, the next big challenge for candidates that want to be engineers is to train, and be mentored by assisting and working for seasoned and competent professional engineers that are willing to hire you. After about 4 years of this you can apply for your engineering license. You will probably need another 4 to 6 years of engineering related work experience to build up a reputation so that developers, corporations, governments or academics that rely on engineers for their projects or research will have trust in you. If you get to this level you will be able to compete for the top engineering salaries but it is a long road and not all engineering candidates may be willing to travel.
As with any other profession, when you are trying to get your foot in the door and break into the “club” in matters what your family background is and who you know! Obviously, if you come from a family background where members of your family or relatives work in academia, or are employed in the engineering professions or other professions you will have an advantage over someone who does not come from this type of background.
Engineers as with many other professions and jobs now have to compete on an international level. So whining and complaining about how unfair the system is doesn’t help and will not get you far. If you are not up to the challenge of being an engineer, move on to something else.
Better Branding. LoL. That's just completely naïve. I have saved the company millions multiple times and the company knows it. All I got was a $100 amazon gift card. And the higher ups, including general manager and CEO was once an engineer. It's not a matter of communication, perspective, or branding. It's all about power. I have over 10 years of experience and take on the responsibilities of a senior engineer yet they won't ever promote me beyond Engineer I, because that would mean paying me more. I know engineers that have worked their way to the top and all they do is oppress those below them and deliberately hinder the growth of other engineers. This is just the way of the world. When a man becomes king does he then work on changing things so that everyone can be king? No he doesn't. All careers are pyramid schemes. Person at the top makes the most money and benefits from the hard work of those below them. When people manage to move up in the pyramid they just benefit from the pyramid system and don't make any effort to change that system. All business are pyramid schemes. We really haven't changed much from a class system. The only difference is now we allow some lucky people to change classes so that the people wont revolt. The reality is that the story of Elon Musk, a man working his way up through hard work is very rare and has a lot to do with luck. That's not how it works for majority of people. The norm is the rich just get richer. They have the money to buy the assets such as building, equipment, tools, ect. Then using those assets they can make money off the hard work of others to become even more rich. saying better branding will fix the issue is like saying the native Americans just need better branding and then they will get their land back. It's about power not branding.
Engineers humble? lmaoooo
Sorry but, Branding is making the problem worse, but its not the problem.
The problem is that people only care about their stuff failing, when it fails. They dont care when they're writing the check.
The result is that you either work for a company that wins business with low bids amd is dominated by midwit management, who worries about everything but the product. or your watching your business slowly erode.
This wont change at the global level until stuff really starts falling apart; until people start fearing the products they buy, and the buildings they live in.
You think the engineering profession is bad? Architecture is 10X worse.
I think all consultants associate with the construction sector. Architecture could be so much worse.
Let's face it, Businesses are ran by businessmen, and they don't care about the people OFTEN, when the numbers are numbers for productivity. Engineers are tools for the business only. NOW to make it worse there are all the ambitious engineer DOLTs, that become supervisors or leaders, that don't know anything but can say "yes sir you are right" to the superiors and businessman and then makes alot of bad decisions. He may even say oh "look at that (spectrum analyzer) i used to use one of those" like he doesn't have to because he has moved up and you are still just a glorified technician. Engineering is a terrible profession. I love what I have learned from it, how to tackle problems and use logic, but that is not the case. Then you have someone like Elon who understands it but still due to the ambition works his people to death is the rumor at SpaceX. Nevertheless just go into law or medicine if you are smart, or Finance. Heck an HVAC contractor has more income potential than an engineer.
Don't worry it will all be over soon when the engineering version of Chat GPT hits the market.
I doubt it mate, it takes a lot of thinking to make designs come to reality. I think the thinking part is non existent in chat gtp.
Dude, you should clearly state that you are talking about civil engineers in particular and not it look like you are talking about all engineering field. Very deceptive video, click bait.