Things to Stop Doing – A Professional Outlier’s Perspective

Posted on by johnlwheaton1

I’ve mostly had the experience in my life of being a bit of an outlier. I didn’t understand it when I was younger, but I do now. It’s not something I contrive or try to make happen, it’s just part of who I am, how I think, and how I interact with the world. At this stage of my life, I am comfortable with it.

So, here’s my view on something we need to STOP Doing.

State boards of professional engineering and architecture need to stop mandating continuing education- professional development hours (PDH) for registered design professionals (PE’s, RA’s and similar.)

Am I against education? No, quite the contrary. The very nature of a “professional” and our work, the statutory compliance requirements, ethics, protection of health and public welfare, certification of documents, education, fundamentally require the constant growth and learning with or without PDH’s.

Being a “professional” implies that we are in a category of self-governance, self-learning, training, and needing to stay “sharp” regardless of mandates. The state rules already provide enough accountability to encourage technical competency.

And if a registrant isn’t committed to it, or the very nature of their work as PE, RA, or other type of licensure is just a title at this stage in their career, then that’s okay. We all still must practice only in our areas of specialty. And if we waver from that, we face the consequence of a potential reprimand, civil and even criminal penalties.

Mandatory Professional Development hours might look good on the surface, but it doesn’t define the value of a design professional and their capability. It doesn’t ensure more quality work.

Most of it in my view is just an extra burden. Find the courses, get the hours, check the boxes.

While I do it and seek to make it work to my advantage, to learn, and to find courses as closely aligned to my field and interest as possible, I wouldn’t do it if it was not required. I don’t need it. I get plenty of real and applicable PDH’s every week, month, year, through the nature of the work, literally.

Plus, apart from Industry-Specific seminars from various companies in the building enclosure and components space, try to find PDH’s on that relevant subject matter through the major online players. You won’t find much.

More compliance is just more burden, less value, less trust in allowing professionals to be who they have chosen to be.

This won’t make it stop, but I had to say it. I’ll bet others in this space may feel the same.

Add a comment…

Curtain Wall Engineering

Posted on by johnlwheaton1

Curtain Wall engineering, a subset of the delegated design and engineering field, is a worthy craft and endeavor. Here’s some principles I practice and promote, personally and organizationally, to bring successful outcomes and value to clients.

Collaboration: Good engineering is collaborative engineering. It engages the client. This includes their project manager, designer, fabrication manager, field installer, and other vested constituents.

Construct-able: Solutions must be practical, able to be constructed with available materials, sequenced properly.

Client Centered: Collaboration starts with the client. It’s about mutual solutions, not the engineer’s solution alone. Start with the end goal and work backwards. This is simple on some projects, more complex on others. And most tradespeople are not used to engineering professionals talking to them, respecting their opinion, valuing their input. Win over the installers and project managers, and win the client long-term (and learn something in the process.)

Code Compliant: Our solutions must be compliant with the building code, which is the minimum standard for buildings and structures. Mastery over the code and applications of AISC, AA, AAMA, ACI, ASTM and other reference standards is critical. We’ve got to have “the right tools in the tool chest.”

Communicative: Communicate regularly. The number one predictor of successful outcomes, client retention, good solutions, and lowering of risk, is communication; no question. And just because a direction was established at the start of the project doesn’t mean it’s going to bear itself out at the end. Keep the client engaged in communication and be consistent.

Correct: We’ve got to be technically solid, technically correct, make proper judgements and support it with the math and physics. The “numbers” have to be right to protect the client, the project, the public and the PE in charge.

Creative: All projects are not created equal. All installers do not practice the same techniques. All architects want their project to bear the unique “signature” of their firm. Owners want a product that is attractive to tenants. Every problem has a solution. Be creative, both in engineering approach and in the elegance of the solution. Say “yes” as often as possible. Find a way. Back it up with the numbers, or develop a blended solution.

There’s much more, but let’s stop here for today. Of course, we need to make use of the most effective use of the tools of the trade; software, hardware, templates, allowable stress rules, product information, vendor support, 3-D analysis programs, and more. Those are support elements, not the value propositions. It’s what we “do with the tool” that provides the difference in the outcomes.

Master your craft, and deliver value in increasing measure.

Work Backwards

Posted on by johnlwheaton1

Clients engage design professionals for the RA or PE stamp, the expertise, the capability, or the capacity. But the value does not reside in the statutory compliance and capability. I’ve met plenty of practitioners that couldn’t engineer client-centered solutions. The reason? Well, there’s a lot of them, but I say it’s mainly from not thinking like the client; not “working backwards” from the necessary or desired solutions. The engineering supports the solution for the client, not the reverse. The engineering has to be satisfied but we have to “think backwards” from the envisioned end result to the start of the design and engineering process.

Think like clients. Think like a builder or a constructor who happens to be an engineer or architect. Get inside the mind of the builder, the glazier, the installer, the fabricator. Get into the “voice of the customer.” Listen. Respect their role. Work to solutions that are simple, sequenced, practical.

We exist for the client; their problem is our opportunity. Their complexity is our unique selling proposition. Every client and every project is unique.

Work backwards to help achieve value.