Back to Competency again...

I'm jumping back onto my competency document this morning and trying to update it with all the HRB requirements, and it struck me... is anyone actually checking these things?

Its all good and well producing them, but is anyone actually requesting them, and then also checking them?

I'm working my way through Section AA right now and there's a few things...

- How to demonstrate competency between new build and existing buildings? You'd be expected to know current codes and regulations, but what about all the historic info?

- What grade / level are you applying for competency? We're sticking to the same levels required in Chartership, i.e. being able to demonstrate a Knowledge, Ability or Experience in a subject field. And then the question stipulated within each section...

- 'To the extent that it is relevant to their role, the applicant shall demonstrate that they: ...' And they list a whole reel of items to do with Fire, Structure and Building Services.

Am I as an SE expected to be competent in 'Fire Detection and Alarm Systems'? Probably not in new build as its incorporated within legislation as standard. But they definitely impact my role when undertaking risk assessments on existing structures, so I need a certain degree of awareness and understanding of them to ensure I'm able to conduct my job competently. So...

- Who determines whether that is a relevant criteria for my job role as part of the HRB competency assessment.

- How is the Principal Designer then expected to determine if I'm competent when being appointed on a job? What level of evidence is sufficient? Knowledge, Ability or Experience. Which leads me to think...

- Is anyone actually checking these? I saw something on another social media platform about someone who dropped out of uni and just said they had a 2:1 Engineering degree, no one has ever checked their qualifications but they have a career in the industry right now.

We had dinner this week with a Main Contractor - lovely guy, good team, absolutely dreadful at the admin, paperwork side of things though. Our chat with him got me thinking about all the old boy engineers out there again, those who aren't chartered but could still run rings around you. Are they even bothered about demonstrating competency and whose going to challenge those guys if they aren't associated with any Institution? If you're not an engineer, would you know how to push back on them?

That got me thinking about Court. And in the event that anything happens, you've got to be comfortable with your work to the point that you're prepared to stand-up in front of a court of law to defend yourself. I'm not sure about Building Service Engineers, but I'm pretty sure Fire are the same as us in that they can be tried in both a Civil and Criminal court should something go wrong.

Then I was thinking that that's a lot of responsibility on us again (which isn't lost on me, and probably why I keep thinking through everything out loud on LinkedIn), and finally I got back to the 10 and 4 argument, the perfectionist and enough argument.

If you miss one or two things from the calculations then structures have a way of redistributing the stress and safety is reduced ever so slightly. Chances are you might not notice anything. Miss ten, twelve things or more though and the building is less robust, its working harder and it begins to show through cracks and movement - that's the point at which questions might start to be asked about the competency of someone designing the thing.

We got described as behaving like a Tier 1 Structural Engineer the other day. Made me laugh because its not a thing and but also made me cry because the guy who said it should know the difference - we asked for competency documents for anyone working on Contractor Design Portions and issued an RFI, nothing special.

But that got me thinking too. I wouldn't have a clue about how to approach some of the larger more complex projects some firms undertake - even some of the really bespoke smaller exhibition stuff as well. I could follow their thought process if they described it to me but I wouldn't know where the pinch points were, what dictates design and where to focus my energy and time if I were to undertake them myself - they have that experience, I don't. The technicality might be different compared to the work I undertake, but our responsibilities are no different.

So how does a Principal Designer ensure I'm competent to do my job?

With all the legislation changes in the last couple of years, the amount of work needed now just to prove competency is enormous (I'm circa 50 pages on my competency document, and the same again for evidence). At this point in time I think its fair to say no one is checking for our competency, which leads me into my last question.

Should we be publishing competency publicly? i.e. on LinkedIn or via our websites.

We've been discussing this internally. Its a question I've asked, but I haven't made a decision as to which way I'm falling on this yet. Kat's answer to this is 'No, it's our info, people would be able to copy our format, let them do their own work'. Which is grand, can't argue and it actually leans into the example earlier of the guy who said he has a 2:1 and no one checked.

It might sound daft, but my response to all this was to up our fees over the weekend.

The intent of the Building Safety Act is promote competency and increase levels across the industry. When I look around LinkedIn or the news and see the PAP being charged now in relation to Fire Safety or Remedial Works on various properties my first thought is straight to the Defective Premise Act and the extended limit of liability now - along with all the other sweeping changes the Act has made within other regulations. Its been hard to pin-point exactly what the Building Safety Act will mean in the form of changes to the Structural Engineering profession and in short (for me at least) its this...

Risk and Responsibility.

The risk and responsibility we carry within our work as normal should scare the hell out of anyone anyway. To do it half-arsed (lets say at a level 4 out of 10) and you're taking a massive risk that your structure is going to be ok and nothing bad is going to happen. Building Control aren't going to be there now to sort out the generic notes on drawings such as 'foundations to BC approval' or similar. You're very much on your own now.

I've discussed why we're not undertaking any high level reviews anymore, a few other engineers we used to help were a bit affronted by this, their reaction being like they'd just been rocked in a boxing match. Sorry guys. We can't do it. I know they'll be ok, they'll have to grow into their responsibility a bit more, but its what Building Control are expecting now. 'prove to us you're compliant with Building Regulations'.

Two more things... sorry I didn't know I had this much in me this morning when I opened the laptop.

Design Supervision Level 2 (DSL2). I bemoan the fact that it doesn't happen and I'd hazard a guess a lot of building stock would be better for it. In a comment on one of my other posts an experienced engineer said:

'Sean Hanlon we, as individuals, control only one person’s actions in this life. Our own. Lead by example, as you are doing'.

And they were lovely words, i still find it weird when people see me at industry events or out and about and tell me they like reading my posts - that's usually the guys who don't interact on my posts too. But I did think this comment over a lot.

I mentioned to someone the other day that we've gotten into an argument on the last 4 projects pretty much and they said 'isn't that something you should look at internally'. And we have. We do review everything on the regular. Here's the thing, we weren't wrong on any one of those arguments (and that's not us being big headed, stick with me here).

It harks back to that guy calling us a Tier 1 designer. We sent comments back on one of his sub-contractor designs and they kicked off straight away saying they needed more money if they were going to have to work to that level of detail - we asked for what was in the code.

I was doing specialist timber connection design and the principal engineer (working in house for the architect) wouldn't give me the loads, so it was me against both him and the Architect to client, with them telling me it wasn't industry practice etc. Pointing out the National Timber Specification wasn't sufficient apparently.

And its stupid sh*t like this on every job right now. We've spoke internally about this and asked ourselves if we're asking for too much, and whenever something like this does kick off, we always give ourselves the night to review and then come back with something. We could adopt the 'it's not my problem, its their responsibility approach' which is very much in-line with the current standards within the industry, or, I inevitably wake up with a 'f*ck you' attitude and 'we're doing it right' response - because if everyone was doing the right thing, we wouldn't need the Building Safety Act, just because you don't want to do the job right, doesn't mean that has to be my approach and also, attitude matters, rather than their response being 'oh great, I didn't know that' - it's an immediate 'you're wrong, I'm not doing that'.

So, in answer to the kind comment on leading by example (thank you). I've never considered myself a leader, always something more to learn and grow into. But I thought about when I was a grad and who I looked up to at other firms and wondered what they did or if they shared any info, and I don't think they did, not really. Nothing that could practically help, so...

I've spent the last week incorporating all the principle rules within our specialist sub-designer checking as part of our review process. If their not going to check their work, we will - nothing to a CAT 3 check, but we'll make sure they've got all the info in the calcs that they should have. If they're competent (like an old boy engineer) and fancy a call to talk it all through, no problem.

The other thing we've done is create a record of all Contractor Design Portions that we've checked and signed off (or haven't). We'll pass that info across to Building Control at the end of it then and they can take it up with the original design engineer whether they're happy with the work or want more info.

At the end of the day, we're responsible for the overall safety of the building. This method covers us from a paper trial point of view - we've got to review everything at stage 4.5 anyway, and it also gives the checking engineer at building control a heads-up of where any info is lacking in the project.

I'm also going to finish my competency document today and fill it in with various codes, CPDs and info to prove my competency on the off chance that someone does actually pick it up and challenge me on it, I'll also probably end up chatting about it on some Youtube video / CPD thing because I'm super cool like that.

Its not much, but its what I can do and I know that should anything go wrong and I'm called up in a court of law I can at least say I did everything I could - here's the proof, and I'm able to sleep at night then.

Phew. Done.