Project Tools, Professional Liability, and Common Sense
A little different point of view
©Wojciech Remisz, M. Sc., P. Eng., MCSCE
This article touches on issues of using advance tools to do simple tasks, which many times, can be done more expedient without these tools, and with much less stress.
It is just bothering me that too many of us are blindly accepting the fact that we must constantly keep upgrading our hardware and software. We are spending our time on staff retraining, bug fixing, virus scanning, spam cleaning and similar tasks. All of this distract us, take us away from the prime purpose of our engineering activities, for which we are being paid. Computer software is getting fancier looking on the screen and printouts, but the engineering data itself is the same.
In my field of structural engineering, there is a plethora of programs to calculate a beam, a frame, to do an advanced analysis of an Olympic stadium; but there are few projects of this size anywhere within a few hundreds kilometers from my office! So, what the heck, if I can calculate a steel beam using a newer Windows version in a split second faster than I could have using a proven DOS version?
When I was studying more than 30 years ago, I did my Masters thesis using a slide rule to perform advanced structural calculations. Decimal places did not play a too significant role, given the number of assumptions that are being made, material variability, design criteria, and the actual use of the structure. I practiced structural design and drafting of complex steel bridge components and produced A1 size drawings every five or six days. A pocket electronic calculator came handy but the results were subject to the scrutiny of senior structural engineers who took care of some of these meaningless digits displayed past a decimal point, and who rounded them to the practical physical dimensions. Concrete elements were rounded up or down to 10mm, while steel elements to 1mm.
It is wise to remember that in our engineering practice, the accuracy of the solution (R) is the product of two items: the accuracy of the input data (D) and the accuracy of calculations (C), like D% x C% = R%. So, if we are sure about our loads within say 2%, even if the display shows sixteen decimal places our result is still within the range of 98% to 102% accurate. Unfortunately, some practitioners forgot these rules and the physical meaning of their calculations.
On a few of my recently inspected large bridge projects I had to deal with all too a common problem: mathematical results did not make any physical sense on site, yet the designers were not able to recognize the true problem. Fascination with decimal places lead to false self-assurance that everything was OK. They did not believe that Mother Nature has a different opinion and does not care about their decimal places, that there are construction tolerances, physical dimensions and limitations, safety issues, practical issues, and common sense. Project completion was delayed, exchange of correspondence became nasty, and other parties got involved while they were arguing their point. Their numbers did not make any sense, were artificial, manipulative.
Today we have several word processors available to type, edit, and spell-check. But the final product is the same: typed pages of specifications for a project estimator and manager. The moment they have these documents in their hands, ready to implement, they don’t care by what means they were produced. The hardware and software tools are transparent to them. Sure, the text is more legible in fancy font, but what is more important what does it SAY. Does it make sense? Has the writer's message been conveyed properly, without ambiguity of interpretation? At this very moment it is irrelevant whether it was typed using rudimentary text editor as an ASCII, RichText file, or top of the line, loaded with seldom used graphical / internet / what-have-you features editor?
I know of the cases where very important sentences have been misinterpreted because of the missing comma, and, or. Someone became over-confident with the spell-checker and allowed it to introduce dangerous conjunctions, which completely changed the meaning of technical definition. Litigation started, project cost escalated because there were grounds for 'extras'.
Maybe I am not alone stating that over the past several months the dominant operating system’s hick-ups caused me ulcers, constipation and sever aggravation.
Some time ago a salesman called me up enticing to upgrade a drafting package because the other version that we were using was not Y2K compliant. Sarcastically I asked him: did the circle change its shape recently with the new version of his CAD program?
Tell me, please, what a drawing showing holes in a steel beam or a concrete precast girder has to do with Y2K? We are cheating ourselves and scaring each other for nothing. Sure, I do not expect every designer to chisel out his drawings on a stone slab, but give me break! The designer has to spend his intelligent time on conceptual work, that is what he is being paid for. Not on fooling around with dimension lines, arrows, size and alignment of text, beautifying the drawing, which has nothing to do with the end product itself. I had numerous examples of drawings produced rush-rush, using cut-and-paste technique showing conflicting information, out of the blue dimension lines and notes clearly taken from a different project that had nothing to do with the current one. The drafter, or CAD designer how he like to be called today, takes courses on how to use a mouse and pull down menus. But he missed on basic technical training on how the drawing is to be laid out at all, what kind of information it should convey, and what scales are to be used.
The point is - we control our lives, we are ultimately responsible for the project, and therefore we should control our machines. Do not turn the roles and laws of nature, where machines are controlling us, and where we become obsessed with their performance, but not with ours! The speed of math co-processor will never fill the gap in logical thinking and reactions of a designer, there is no substitute for his/her vision, ambitions, concepts, human reactions to the environment. It does not matter on what type of computer equipment you are working: you have to hit a key, compose, think what you want to convey. Professionally it is YOU who are ultimately responsible for the outcome. In case of a disaster, you cannot put blame on a machine, which was under your control: calculator, word-processor, drafting package; it will not come to your help at the court of law. Check what you are doing and delivering to the client. Does it make sense? And do not compromise your professional integrity, because you will expose yourself to professional liability. Read a preamble, disclaimer to any engineering software, and remember: ‘if it is to be, it is up to ME!’