THE THREE APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING PROBLEMS

By Richard G. Weingardt, PE., Eng-i
________________________

As we limp into year four of the 21st century, how do we stack up? What’s our state of affairs, societally and professionally?

On the bigger scene, we’re still at war with global terrorism, fearful about additional vile 9-11 acts; the Middle East remains a tinderbox and our troops are still in harm’s way in dangerous places like Iraq and Afghanistan; our nation’s economy continues to struggle. It’s not a rosy picture.

A recent no-holds-barred political fight for control of the governor’s house in California has given us a peek at what the 2004 national and state elections could be like. It isn’t pretty, either.

Professionally, much of the engineering industry continues to be plagued by sluggish growth, crucial dilemmas and disturbing trends – dilemmas and trends that will alter the practice of U.S. engineering and the ability of Americans to pursue their dreams. These trends will affect the advancement of the profession, along with America’s engineering reputation internationally. Critical among them are:

· Proliferating computer software “allowing” non-structural engineers to analyze and “design” structures.
· Outsourcing U.S. high-tech and engineering work to overseas operations.
· Using H-1B and/or L-1 visa non-U.S. engineers and technicians on U.S. projects and ventures.
· Treating structural engineering work as a commodity rather than a professional service.
· Selecting structural engineers and engineering firms based on price rather quality of service or QBS.
· A continuing public perception that engineers are technicians, not professionals on par with doctors or scientists.
· Abandoning engineering as a career choice by the youth of America in increasing numbers.
We’re in a global market and may not be able to stop the trends but we can sure do something about their direction. Flagrant abuses of the U.S.’s temporary visa programs by both foreign and domestic companies must stop and a level playing field established. Otherwise, more and more skilled American workers will be left out in the cold, even on U.S. projects and corporate ventures supported by U.S. taxpayer dollars. We’re not talking about setting up trade barriers; we’re talking about fairness.

Said Chuck Rendall, of DMJM + Harris in Los Angeles, “U.S. engineering – all disciplines – has gotten to be a commodity; foreigners are vigorously competing with American firms on American soil.” U.S. engineering expertise helped bring the country to where it is; now’s not the time to abandon it. “It’s shortsighted for corporate America and the government not to think about the U.S. first,” stated Rendall. “The country needs to put long-term strategies in place today to ensure a powerful U.S. engineering infrastructure tomorrow. To do that, engineers need to take on leadership roles that will allow them to influence public policy.”

Structural engineers are well known and respected for their ability to solve technical structural problems. There’s no type of wacky building an architect can dream up that a structural engineer can’t find structural answers for. Over the years, structural engineers have made some of the world’s wildest architectural schemes come to life, standing up to the test of time.

Having the wherewithal to solve technical problems is rarely an issue for structurals. When it comes to addressing non-technical issues facing the profession, however, that’s another story. Structural engineers often tend to put them on the “back burner,” then stay in the background, frequently invisible, waiting to see what others will do.
The three approaches for solving dilemmas that the structural community typically takes are:

#1. Ignore them and hope they go away – or pray that someone else, benevolent to the profession, will intercede and make things right.

#2. Find others in a similar plight, then join them as subordinates to come up with solutions.

#3. Be industry leaders addressing issues that have major structural engineering implications. (Certain problems are bigger than any one group can handle. In these cases, structural engineers have formed – and convinced others to join – coalitions to successfully resolve concerns.)

If history is an indicator, resorting to Approach #1 produces little if any real advancement for the structural engineering profession. Using Approach #2 isn’t much better. In tomorrow’s world, such tactics will reap even fewer results. Preparing for tomorrow as leaders rather than followers by altering trends that impact the future livelihood of American engineers requires the tactics of Approach #3.

If today’s structural engineers do nothing to reverse or alter the course of these trends, future generations of American structural engineers will have a tough row to hoe. At the least, they’ll be robbed of the opportunity to work as respected and properly reimbursed professionals, even on U.S. projects. They’ll face a world in which they’re treated as low-paid technicians and/or technical engineering specialists. And they’ll be fighting a price war against lower-salaried, non-Americans from around the globe for every scrap of work.

That’s not the legacy I’d be proud to leave to the young structural engineers who follow me. How about you?
To control the destiny of the U.S. engineering industry, we – and our engineering associations – must step forward and be heard, resolving our dilemmas by embracing Approach #3, not #1 and #2. The challenge presented by Rendall and others for engineers to get involved in setting public direction needs to be heeded posthaste.