Commoditization of Civil Engineering Services: Why All the Surprised Looks
Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 7, Issue 4
Commoditization of Civil Engineering Services: Why All the Surprised Looks
Civil engineers have been raising their voices proclaiming their indignation at the “lowest price” mentality of their clients. On the other hand, ASCE’s Manual 45 is entitled: How to Work Effectively with Consulting Engineers: Getting the Best Project at the Right Price [emphasis added]. The promo goes on to state: “[Manual 45] addresses the procurement of engineering services for a quality project” [emphasis added]. The words “best,” “right,” and “quality” are quite familiar when buying a car, refrigerator, or washing machine, but inappropriate to describe engineering services.
Commoditization
Some examples of commoditization that are acceptable professionally include public bidding for engineering services based on scopes common to all. There is an acceptable protocol to assure that clients get the best price for the work scoped, which is not to be compared to the practice of some clients “shopping around” for another price resulting in “bidding wars.” Competition based on innovation, creativity, and production efficiencies certainly enter into the fee estimates. Clients have been known to state: “All engineers have degrees, licenses, and references, so one is as good as the other. I simply want the lowest price.”
Communication
Just for a few moments, be and think like a potential or existing client of your practice. You just received a complimentary copy of Manual 45 to help you “better understand what we’ve been trying to tell you over the years; see, it’s not just us, it’s all of us.” So, wanting to be open to learning more about how the consulting engineers your organization respects and enjoys working with, you—the pretend client—proceed to read Manual 45. What follows is my opinion on what a client might think about what they read.
The first assertions made (page references are to ASCE’s Manual 45, revised edition, 2003), as the client might interpret them, are:
1.
Be sure to insist that the engineers agree they are to provide a quality project (p. 1) by meeting my expectations, most of which, for some reason, almost never get written into the contract.
2.
The engineers are responsible to see that they provide me with clear (p. 2) communication to confirm they understand my needs and to decide how best to meet my expectations.
3.
Apparently, engineers believe they are my employees (p. 2) tasked with the responsibility to deliver the desired product (that’s an interesting word) to me.
4.
The engineers hold continued professional responsibility for their work on my project, even the ultimate operation and maintenance (p. 2) cost. The only limiting factor seems to be the engineers’ ability to deliver what they promised.
5.
Looks like even if we choose not to specifically authorize work the engineers know to be in the best interest (p. 2, 3) of the public, the engineers are willing to accept that.
6.
It is interesting that engineers think my staff will not understand their work, meaning they expect us to accept their work at face value (p. 3). Really? Engineers think they know what I want, but don’t listen well to what I am trying to tell them.
7.
Aha, here it is: the budget (p. 4). Engineers boil it all down to what we agree on as to the price.
8.
Well, while a great relationship may be enjoyable, why do engineers think that’s a major goal for me? As they apparently understand, just satisfy my needs (p. 7) and do it without asking for more time or money.
Challenges
Culture develops over time, and socioculturally acceptable behaviors follow. This is a key explanation of why habit—absent fear—remains more powerful than reason. The following remarks were taken from a confidential set of notes to me from a colleague in 2006.
It’s interesting that you have linked, as many of us do, the commoditization of services to a degradation of professional conduct and ethics. I read through ASCE’s Manual of Professional Conduct or Code of Ethics again and I cannot find anywhere that treating . . . [or providing] . . . CE services as…a commodity is a violation or is even discouraged. Canon 6 comes the closest. “Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession.” I guess one could make the case that participating in commoditization doesn’t uphold the honor or dignity of the profession. While I personally do not endorse it, I know of a number of firms that have built profitable, and, they would argue, successful consulting practices based on price-based competition for their services. They have satisfied clients, repeat business, their projects are constructed apparently without significant issues, and their projects seem to perform well (at least their clients think so). Do their designs advance the state-of-the-art of engineering? . . . No. Are they cost efficient construction? . . . Maybe not. Do they meet design codes and standards? . . . Sure. Rather than rallying around the professional conduct and ethics flag, commoditization would be better addressed as a business practice issue.
Bringing this type of dialogue into the light of day is a major goal of mine. I raise the following questions from the preceding personal communication notes:
1.
When did engineers begin to see a separation of our Code of Ethics from our business practices?
2.
When did “meets code” become a measure of engineered completeness?
3.
Where does the Code of Ethics address profits before public service?
4.
When did engineers decide that if the language in the Code of Ethics does not explicitly forbid an action, we can safely take the action?
Observations
I have worked with stellar clients in the public and private sector. Such clients do all they can to provide their consulting engineers with what they need to successfully deliver the services. I believe the chief aim of Manual 45, once revised, to be useful on three levels:
1.
Providing credible educational piece for clients to provide their management team, including its application during negotiations and project performance;
2.
Usefulness as a resource to educate the public on our profession’s approach to consulting engineering work; and
3.
Providing business practice guidelines for consulting engineers that include clarity of what business practices are questionable as well as “not ok.”
Given this professional manual is only one part of a system of professional consulting engineering work, I support ASCE’s Manual 45 update committee’s objective to provide “straight-talk” for the benefit of each of the three groups just noted in relation to ethics and the standards of professional conduct. For example, the fact that an owner can find a credentialed professional engineer to do the same work within a substantially lowered fee structure is not a reflection on that owner. It is a reflection on the principals of each consulting engineering firm that employs such a strategy. Life-cycle costing (LCC) for each engineer’s proposal approach will go a long way toward rebuilding public trust. This means, for example, if a project will meet codes by requiring repair and replacement earlier, the public has to be informed.
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
—Pogo, by Walt Kelly
Clients do not treat us as a commodity for any other reason than because that was the behavior they experienced. This lack of ethical behavior coupled with our lack of governance using the Code of Ethics is not due to a recent “outbreak.” The insidious malaise that ails us has already shown its mark: witness the widely proclaimed lament within consulting engineering groups of the reduction of trust and respect in the eyes of the public we are educated and licensed to serve. It is interesting how we “dance around the fire” by asserting the “immediate need” for more education on ethics within the university and the business world. That approach is, as we learned in calculus, necessary but not sufficient.
Medical doctors have learned that they can no longer just do a few tests, prescribe medications, and operate. Doctors now take a history first to understand the patient and his or her environment so they can see beyond the patient’s complaint. If doctors can, why can’t we?
You want this “I don’t get no respect” Rodney Dangerfield attitude changed? Stop participating in group whining. Stop supporting others who see the solution as promulgating more revisions to the Code of Ethics. Stop blaming clients. Start today by supporting proactive governance using the Code of Ethics, improving long-term relationships with state boards of licensure, and leading the way with LCC of your proposals. Set the mark with the clarity only an engineer can bring. That’s my opinion, I welcome yours.
—William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, Senior Member ASQ
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 7 • Issue 4 • October 2007
Pages: 107 - 108
Copyright
© 2007 ASCE.
History
Published online: Oct 1, 2007
Published in print: Oct 2007
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.