Asking the right Question - Building Futures [RIBA]

The last time I wrote on a RIBA Building for the Future debate, it became my most visited blog post [click here]. Almost 1000 visits, take a look ;)

I find it essential as an engineer, and someone who is continually wanting to expand my knowledge of the construction and design industry -  that from time to time, I drop in on the meetings of our design cousins - the Architects. Especially as they appear to feed off lively debates, and are not afraid of going public with their thoughts.

I have always felt that us engineers were missing a trick by not following suit. Yes, we have available to us written magazine forums such as Verlulam, and of course my favourite whipping boy of the moment, LinkedIn groups. Unfortunately though, these forums can be heavily censored, and can serve to allow our engineering brethren to sling mud pies at one another from a safe distance, whilst ducking behind a crowd of disinterested bystanders.

Or we get access to a single persons view point; on blog posts like this; from engineers like me :) 

I think we should be looking to do more to encourage the passionate exchange of opinion. Like during the age of the Enlightenment, we should be inviting our most knowledgable and inspiring thought leaders to converse, debate, and chew the fat a little.

After this? Open up a public face to face debate so that the rest of us engineers [and interested non-engineers] can listen, contribute, and enjoy the witty exchange of ideas.

So back to the main event.

"This house believes that our cities are not prepared for an aging population."

Proposing the motion were Alan Hatton-Yeo, Chief Executive of The Beth Johnson Foundation and Dr Ros Altmann, Director General from Saga.

Opposing the motion were Indy Johar, Architect from 00:/ and Victoria Thornton, Founding Director of Open-City. 

Starting the evenings proceedings was Alan, he stood up at the podium and presented his case. Personally I was not overly engaged with the facts and figures which underpinned Alan's presentation, but one cool statistic caught my attention. 

"Every 24hrs the average life expectancy of UK residents increases by another 5hrs".

I did not feel a strong empathy for his cause, and this is strange since I am quite sensitive to the plights of the aging population. I guess what I was hoping for a more of an emotional plea. What I did take from Alan's presentation was that anything less than a major overhaul of the way we design our buildings and streetscapes would be a kin to a non-systemic patch. Which apparently is the limit of what politicians are capable of delivering to us.

An interesting presentation followed. Indy stood up and questioned the reasoning behind why the debate was being framed in such a narrow minded way.  He argued that we should be asking a different question all together. This as you can imagine initially caused some confusion. Indy bit back at why we felt the need to continuosly setup a confrontation between the old and the young. "I am opposed the question", "aging people are in denial, therefore should we really be trying to cater for a particular group?". Indy argued "surely we should be designing spaces that allow the aging generation and the rest of us to come together?". 

It would appear that Indy was being more sympathetic to the motion proposed.

Next up, or to be completely accurate; next to sit down [press-conference style] and present their argument was Dr Ros Altmann. This was a bit disconcerting for most of us who were not in the front few rows or adjacent to the central access row. From where I sat, I could not see Ross's face at all. This was a shame, because appealing to the audience involves finding ways to connect with them.

Ros proposed the motion once again, and cited a real need for inclusive design. She spoke of the loneliness of growing old in our cities, and attempted to create an emotional tether. This did not work for me. Ross did add an interesting point though. Good coherent design which allows the old and the young to work together already exists. Certain BMW factories have already managed to help workers from all age groups to coexist. The result is a better, more productive work space for everyone! Including the younger workers.

Finally Victoria [who also sat down] presented her argument as the opposition. Victoria believed that choice was key. Systematically moving the older generation further away from the cities in which we live is not only a process of ghettoisation of the old, but also tantamount to bullying. So we should continue to provide the very best in public transport and services for all. Then the old can continue to successfully share cities with the younger generation well into the future.

The opposition finished with an anecdote which originated from a lady living in our capital who belonged to the older generation.

"Why should I move out of London? Everything I need is here!"

The proceedings were more subdued than what I was usually accustomed to. The opposition had a very difficult job this time around, that was obvious. They may have spoken well, but this time it would appear that Indy was correct, the question was not framed very well. All the guest speakers were kind of agreeing with the same points and each other:

• Give more choice to the elderly. Less choice is no choice.
• The baby boomer generation need to begin to take responsibility. They are in the driving seat and if they do not lead by example right now... then the next generation will surely feel the same views of separation. 
• Forget forcing inter-wealth transfer of the billions in property equity owned by the older generation. No quick patches here please!
• How do we live together coherently [example of good design in Germany, BMW factories.]

All in all, not the best debate which I have been fortunate enough to find time for. I'm not knocking the content though - it was still very good food for thought. 

My main interest lays in how the audience interacted with the speakers. It is important to create a feeling of involvement without letting the proceedings become overrun by personal outbursts which do little to resolve the problem at hand. It is important for us as engineers to understand this too. 

Again, I believe Indy was correct. Perhaps the title or the question which was being tackled in this particular debate was not the best of choices. It did little to further my knowledge of what the industry was thinking. I'd still give the evening an 8 out of 10 though.

I enjoyed the evening though, and urge all engineers out there to pick out a meeting or an evening debate outside of your usual professional circles, and get along to witness the interaction.

I also urge all engineers to consider organising debating events like what Building Futures and the RIBA are doing right now. But remember... begin by asking the right question.

Engine[er]

Killer one liners and cheeky put downs

Good evening. I was just trying to decide which platform to send out this blog post on. Normally I would Google+ it, or perhaps summarise it in a tweet or two. But not today though.

I decided that I'll update you via my blog site. Cool.

But before I go any further; to all my engineering brethren out there, I do go to SOME IStructE meetings... but the Architects ones are so much cooler, eh.

Don't you think?

Yeah ok we get to chat about celebrity status structures, and their impact on future design standards. I love that too.. but sometimes I just want to see some passion and nurturing going on.

Not that we don't do it in our own peculiar way... but Architects seem to feed off of each others differences and egos. You bring together a design of Architects and you have creative collision combined a healthy dollop of respect for one another - no matter what your educational back ground or flavour may be. It's fantastic and I love to see that.

Sometimes I think that we need that too.

Our industry is so knowledge and technology driven that we forget to have fun with our debates and ideas sometimes.

I want fun too. That's why I supplement my CPD with some good old fashioned diversity.

So tonight the Building for the Future team have laid on another thought provoking debate: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT OUR CITIES ARE NOT PREPARED FOR AN AGING POPULATION.

As always, I anticipate some killer one liners and cheeky put downs.

I'll let you know more about it later this week...



Engine[er]

Tools of the Trade Part Two [iPad]

Yes you heard right. iPads are now business tools, and not just tablets to play the gorgeous Angry Birds on.

For 3 weeks now I have been practising with Sketchbook Pro, and it has saved me a filing cabinet full of paper. Let me show you how...

[additional link here]

If you know of any other iPad apps which may also help me justify this expensive but gorgeous tool, then please comment below, and let me know all them. Many thanks.

Engine[er]

Interview with Donald Robson [Petitioning for 'engineer' to become protected title]

"Ideally, I'd like to see the return of the respect that engineers of old enjoyed" Donald Robson, Design Engineer.

I have slated LinkedIn group discussions in an earlier blog post. I remain steadfast in my opinion of them. Even though they may advance our knowledge and learning of the topics which are being discussed, they do not achieve much else unfortunately.

I mean, if you are looking to get something done. Look elsewhere.

The following two links will direct you to two discussions which are prime examples of us engineers crowding together to share our thoughts and opinions on some hot topics, and not getting a lot done.

1. Why do we covet C.Eng status so much? Is I.Eng losing it's appeal? [54 comments in 7days]

2, Make 'Engineer' a protected title [132 comments in 127days]

After spending a large portion of my evenings this week, joining in and watching on as engineers repeatedly attacked each others opinions on the aforementioned topics, it was obvious that divides were growing [not closing]. We really are a crazy bunch of people.

There is an underlying current of one upmanship in engineering. Essentially we trade in a currency of knowledge, and our wealth is determined by our length of service, our technical experience, our problem solving ability, and our engineering prowess.

Imagine a raw talent, transcending engineering and encompassing many other industries. Politics, history, art, design, marketing, technology, leadership, architecture - the list goes on. In my experience, there are not many engineers out there who successfully embody all those characteristics. You may have known one or two perhaps, even three of these rare beasts. They of course were the engineers who amazed you with their imagination, and their grasp of technical issues both inside and outside of our industry.

WARNING Contentious Issue ALERT! You will possibly know of engineers who 'think' that they are the embodiment of those characteristics mentioned earlier, but that's another story. It is important to realise that we are technologists with our own unique combination of attributes and skills. When they come together, they form an 'organic engineering prowess', which keeps us all in great jobs - communicating what we love. We work hard to stay knowledgeable in our chosen field, and this differentiates us from the general public.

During the lengthy online discussions regarding why being Chartered was so heavily preferred over an Incorporated qualification, and why we should all be fighting tooth and nail for the title of 'engineer' to be legally protected in the UK, as it is in Germany, France and Canada. I began to wonder about the man behind the latest petition. The engineer who had gotten the ball rolling. An engineer named Donald Robson.

Who was he, and why did HE feel the need to start this? The deadline for the petition is not quite yet looming and so far it has had a fantastic response with over 23,000 signatures.

So we hunted down Donald, and contacted him. 

[The questions we posed to Donald were via email messages]

Engine[er]: When you started the latest petition, was it off your own back [if so why]. Or did it come about because of conversations with other Engineers? [who were they?]

Donald: It was both of these really. I've worked with a number of engineers, and many of them share my own view that the term 'engineer' is being cheapened by its attribution to unskilled labourers. When I decided to try to go some small way to change things, I put the idea to a very good friend (an aerospace engineer) and I think we've been ranting regularly about the subject ever since.

Engine[er]: Were you aware of the previous attempts to get the title of 'engineer' protected?

Donald: I did in fact sign the first online petition during the labour government while I was at university. It was a shame that the overwhelming response that time around was met with almost complete apathy by the government. I think it became clear that Downing Street had very little regard for any of the patents except the pay-per-mile road tax petition, which was pretty much dismissed too. Interestingly, I wasn't the first person to submit a petition under the Conservative government's scheme; a number were rejected before I submitted mine. The achievement was wording it in such a way that what I was calling for was within the power of government, i.e. to pass a law.

Engine[er]: Did you know that the past CEO of the Engineering Council, Andrew Ramsay was pivotal in achieving statutory recognition for the qualifications of Chartered Engineer [CEng], Incorporated Engineer [IEng] and Engineering Technician [EngTech] 2008 [link]? He did not think that protecting the title of 'engineer' possible or worth while. What do you think to this?

Donald: I must admit to not being aware of this. I had assumed that the Chartered Engineer title was always protected, by a royal charter. To hear it was as recent as 2008 is surprising, as this was after the original petition. I hadn't really thought about the Incorporated Engineer title. To go off on a slight tangent, I think the Engineering Council needs to promote the incorporated qualification more effectively. The IMechE insists that the two qualifications are equal, but I rarely hear about people aspiring to become Incorporated.

Engine[er]: If we get 100k signatures, and the application does not make it past the 1st stage, then will you try again? And again?

Donald: I'm not sure. I have fairly limited ability to get the message out to people. For example, my attempt to get visibility in various engineering magazines was fruitless. Professional Engineer magazine -- the IMechE publication, did pick it up twice. This was instrumental in the current number of signatories, as it had stagnated at about 7000 before they published. If the IET would ralley their more than 200,000 members, we would have more than enough. My own online presence is fairly small, so without the ability the press has to gather signatures the rumour mill works very slowly. Maybe someone more influential could pick it up next time?

Engine[er]: If the title is granted, how do you see this directly affecting the status and pay of engineers for the future?

Donald: Ideally, I'd like to see the return of the respect that engineers of old enjoyed. Some engineers in history have an almost celebrity-like status even today; notably Brunel and Leonardo. With engineers better respected we can expect an increase in students, and graduates who want to join engineering companies rather than their local council, Delloitte, accountancy firm et cetera. When we're producing only a fraction of the engineers of our economic rivals like China, every new able mind counts.
While the discrepancy between the pay of Engineers and other professionals – who are often less skilled, is a sore point for me as much as any other engineer, financial gain was not a significant factor in doing this. I stay in engineering because I enjoy the work, though a few pay increases wouldn't go amiss...

Engine[er]: Is there anything else that you have done in the past that you can tell me about, to raise the profile of engineers in the UK?

Donald: I'm afraid not, though having been out of university for less than five years I still have plenty of time...


This was a great interview and many thanks to Donald for agreeing to do it. The rest of you; be sure to write and tell us what you think.


Engine[er]

AMI better than you?

Question:
Why are we engineers, graduates and students of engineering so sold on the idea of becoming Chartered?  Did you know that there are other qualifications which may be better suited to your talents? For example Incorporated Engineer and Engineering Technician, have you given them enough thought I wonder...

"Goals. There's no telling what you can do when you get inspired by them. There's no telling what you can do when you believe in them. There's no telling what will happen when you act upon them." Jim Rohn [entrepreneur]

The way I see the world, is that goal setting or planning the stepping stones to fulfil your dreams are the best ways to actively chase them down, and ultimately achieve them. My life has been a maelstrom of these types of encounters. In stops and starts. Yet, my ambition plateaued around 5 years ago.

I became professionally qualified as an AIE [Average Incorporated Engineer - don't worry, it's a term i use for almost everyone]. After that I felt that I could puff my chest out with pride, and then joined a long list of ex mentors and ex bosses who inspired me to achieve this career milestone. As a result I was offered more work opportunities. No surprise there.

The plateau I spoke of came about when I found myself in a lessened state of hunger for the next obvious goal. You see my plan had always been to become Chartered. This had AND has not changed. What HAD changed in me was the my attitude towards why I was striving for this level of achievement.

For the first time in my career, I was experiencing professional prejudice. Strangely though, before I had been given my qualification, I was still just another experienced graduate, doing the job of an engineer.

What happened was, I had set out my stall as an AIE, and suddenly my very presence was being scrutinised by other engineers [mainly of a Chartered status...]. This feeling was not palatable at all.

As it turns out, the most influential mentors in my professional life were all AMIStructE qualified. They were technically marvellous, but none of them regretted not [or even half heartedly] shooting for the C.Eng status. Yet they wished it for my future. Why? Were they not confident in there own abilities? Yes of course they were. They were great.

Did they see themselves as any less of an engineer? No. They managed the day to day activities of busy engineering offices, continuously adding to their knowledge, whilst finding the time to pass on their technical mastery to the newly qualified AND experienced engineers alike.

Again, why would they feel a need to push those who they were responsible for towards becoming Chartered? I mean, If it didn't prevent them from doing their job... why is it that they wished something different from their prodigies?

I think that I know the answer. Or to put it more accurately; my experience and research has led me to a conclusion.

C.Eng, it offers more opportunities. The qualification of C.Eng is well marketed across the globe, and represents a higher level of professional qualification than of Eng.Tech or I.Eng. So why would you not want to go for it? If the option was available to you of course.

You have to realise that in a world where an engineer only understands what an engineer does, a certain 'level', an order or ranking helps non-engineers appreciate our hard work and gives us a 'status'. C.Eng is a vehicle to market engineers to the world.

It is important to note at this stage that no one should disregard the other obvious benefits from this qualification, which are; a heightened sense of achievement, higher paid and enjoys more employment opportunities. These are all very important considerations for graduates as well as experienced engineers.

It is a thing of beauty, the C.Eng status. In a world full of competent workers, our customers are crying out for the tagline that says 'fully charged, elite, and responsible expertise here' - the Chartership status is a marketers wet dream. A complete and unadulterated success. Interestingly, so successful is the marketing, that it appears to have brain washed some of its own members into believing the hype too...

The C.Eng status is essential for engineering. Look how it has captured the imagination of the public, marvel at how students and graduates are physically, mentally, and emotionally charged with becoming a Chartered Engineer. Nothing less will do!

The truth is that the core requirements of my institution [IStructE] are marginally greater for Chartership status than Incorporated. However, it does not qualify that a practicing Associate Member of the IStructE or ICE is any less experienced or capable in their job than say a Chartered Engineer. It just means that they have not gotten a qualification to show this. That realisation is important.

A qualification exemplar is essential to our profession, as it highlights great competency, responsibility and excellence. These terms are not incompatible with other qualifications such as Eng.Tech and I.Eng. though. Sure, we do not expect clients, recruiters and the public at large to understand that we are all essentially the same, measured only by time served and the quality of our portfolios.... but we do expect other engineers to.

We expect our own kind, at the very least give us our dues, earned.

Now this works both ways. For example, I do not think that every Chartered Engineer is going to be a walking ego, with little else to add to a project apart from overly inflated hourly rates. They are useful. Technically and politically proficient. That is all.

I essentially take engineers as I see them.

I do however believe that there is a huge barrier to the success of an ACE [an Average Chartered Engineer], and I would like to share this with you.

Whilst you are are still working your way to C.Eng status, you are hungry for the accolade. When you finally become qualified, you are hungry to prove yourself amongst your peers.

This feeling will inevitably diminish as you age, and you will find either your niche or finally reach the extents of your particular limiting beliefs. You are only as good as your training, experience, and ambition allows you to be.

Unless of course that you are a Level 5 Leader [save that for another time].

As an I.Eng, you appear to be in is constant state of flux. Never quite passing the finish line. You feel like you are on a journey and that the ending this journey will not be a good thing. Knowledge is essential to a good career, but learning how to pass on this knowledge is essential to a GREAT career.

C.Eng, will for the foreseeable future be the highest level of engineering qualification available [at least in the UK], and the most desirable. The less obtainable that it is, the more desirable it remains. The more coveted and rare the title, the more marketable it becomes. The public has been sold.

If you are Chartered, please, do not make the mistake of thinking that you have passed the finishing line quite yet. You are still average like the rest of us. Infact, you could very well be of less use than an AIE [Average Incorporated Engineer] who really loves what they do! Possibly.

Our abilities are directly proportional to our experience gained and application of skills learned.

The hype is created so that we can market our talents to our clients, our employers. Not you.


Engine[er]

When Collaboration Fails

First off, thank you to everyone who had contributed [comments/pledges] to our attempt to raise enough investment, in order to print a famous engineers Top Trumps© style deck of cards.

Hopefully by now, you will all have seen your pledges returned via pay-pal.

Once the time had elapsed, and the project closed, we decided set aside some time to take a close look at why we may have failed, this time round. Learn from the experience.

Firstly, the definition of a collaborative failure is;

• Project did not reach intended goal. In this case - there were not enough pledges or the target was set too high.
• It did not get the recognition it needed. This is possible, but the amount of views on our blog alone would have secured us victory. So not convinced that recognition was a real reason for failure.
• Inadequate credibility. Very possible. We had seen enough interest from our engineering community - but perhaps there was not enough official weighting to the proceedings to call enough of us into action. Not one retweet by the IStructE, or ICE or ASCE, ACE... or indeed any engineering institution, community or group. This would not look good.
• The message was lost. More likely to be the real cause. You simply did not know what was going on. Why we were doing this, and how it would help...WHY?!

The lack of a common vision was apparent from some of the comments coming in. Unfortunately - by the time we began to recognise the lack of direction, it was too late to change the project details.

It occurred to us that this was not a collaborative effort at all, and this was why it ultimately failed.

The project suffered because crowd funding is still quite a new thing to all of us. Again it had became obvious by chatting to a few of those who asked questions, that the idea of crowd funding was alien to them. Understanding it was just another thing to learn. 

Another small detail which proved to be a barrier to success was pay-pal. What a joke. More and more people are signing up for pay-pal accounts to pay for online merchandise, but if you are anything like me, I hate the thought of having to pay 80p to pay-pal for what was effectively supposed to be a fun project. 

The list above is heavily staked in favour of failure, and the straw which broke the camels back, was that the investment target was set far too high. 

In reality, only a very small target was required to get this project off the ground. We genuinely believed that we wouldn't be able to provide everyone with a deck of cards - so we raised the target amount to support a heavier response and pledge rate. You live and learn.

What next?

Well we know that some of you still want this project to happen. We want it to happen too.

So we will make it happen from this end and let you know when we have printed them of ready for distribution. It's a great idea and deserves to see the light of day.

Many thanks, and please give us your comments.

Engine[er]

6 Golden Rules for Structural Engineering Start-Ups

We are rare beasts. Why aren't structural engineers as common as architects?

Firstly, the law of supply and demand suggests that since engineers spend less time on construction projects than architects, and that we need several architects to keep us busy, then logically there will be less of us out there to fulfil what the market needs.

It makes perfect sense to me. How about you?

Therefore if we follow this line of thought, perhaps we can draw some further conclusions.

Firstly. To win enough work to keep ourselves and/or our employees busy earning money for the business, we must try to be on as many architects, contractors and developers short lists as possible. This will give us more project opportunities.

Great. How's this done? Lucky for us, some golden rules do apply.

When I left my last employer and set out on my own, I was not intending to move to a different area, I wanted to live and work in Hertfordshire. The difficulties began when I took the decision to remain outside of my previous employers client base. This was tough, but i am still managing to do it. In fact I recently refused some work, passing it on to a fellow engineer because I felt it to be unethical to accept it. It is especially tough for us first time business owners who have not yet nurtured a network of business colleagues in our geographical areas.

Very tough indeed.

I've been self sufficient [8 months], built my client base up from zero, and I have enough work to keep myself busy, and 2 part-time subcontractors.

How did I do all this?

The very short answer is - lots of hard work raising my profile. The longer answer follows on from here.

Even though I am still very busy building an exciting new client base, I am also managing subcontractors, gazing into my crystal ball, predicting where the next few weeks of work will come from, and somewhere in between - I personally complete enough work to keep my business running healthily.

With that in mind, I am happy to share with you 6 Golden Rules to help you get started becoming a self sufficient structural engineering entrepreneur. Please bear with me here, as I am assuming that you are ethical, and do not intend to directly OR indirectly subvert work from a previous employer.

So here goes.

1. The amount of work out there is FINITE. No matter which way you look at it, if you are not doing work for a particular architect/contractor/developer, then someone else is. THEREFORE, if you are winning that work, then your competitors are not. You have to be absolutely clear on that fact. I hope you are now beginning to understand who you need to compete with to remain in business. DO YOUR HOMEWORK ON THEM! You know who they are.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Try not to undercut your competition. Out perform them, make yourself available and provide a great service.

2. Market research. Yes, horrendous isn't it? We spend 10-15 years at university and in consultancies, building up the necessary knowledge and confidence to strike out on our own... and just as we do, we then have to assume the identity of a flouncy creative marketing type, just to pull in some work. How embarrassing.

NOTE: you could employ a marketer here, if you have the savings available. But trust me, only you will understand your business aspirations and technical strengths. The marketing strategy you employ should be centred around YOU, and not just what you are capable of delivering.

Ask yourself searching questions about what kinds of work you will be comfortable with. Do it now before it's too late, and for Gods sake - write down your conclusions. Sorry to disillusion you at such an early stage, but we are a technical resource. We are not special in anyway... but you as a person... well let's just say there's only one of you.

TOP TIP: Cold call potential clients. Prepare for the conversation with 10 questions, and grow a thick skin. Write everything down. I said that already didn't I?

3. Your third realisation must be that by simply setting up a stall called 'structural engineer for sale' will not get you any meaningful work by itself. An effective strategy would be to get a notepad, and fill it full of your access passwords to freely available online classified websites, social networks, and professional profiles. It is seriously important in this age to get your net presence as pervasive as possible. MAKE EACH AND EVERY PROFILE ENTRY CONSISTENT. This will help the search engines identify you.

Be a tart, be you. Find me at @AvatarEngineers. I'm a tart.

4. Architects are well know for being fussy and only referring to their clients responsible professionals. Quite right too. This means that you must be a fully paid up member of the institution WITH insurance. If you cannot afford to buy yourself professional indemnity insurance then forget engineering [full-stop]. We may personally enjoy taking on a risk or two in our line of work [educated risk obviously], but if you were to fall foul to a heavy claim, and subsequently found to be negligent, then you could be saying good bye to your car, or your house as a result [or both!]. Not to mention your career and possibly your freedom. PII will not save you against the latter 2 unpalatable but rare outcomes.

5. Be natural and consistent. This has been touched upon previously. What this does for you is any potential business referrers will see you as predictable, reliable and a safe bet as a result. Being natural is just about being you, enjoying your work and not stressing too much. You should also be striving for this 'feel' with your marketing voice. The up and coming generation are a social networking generation. If you fancy working for and with them on cool projects in the foreseeable future, then get an online mojo and flaunt it.

One of the best compliments I have ever had was from an architect friend of mine. We met up just after I had started up my company. She had read my blog and commented that my whole online persona was identical to my real life persona. She congratulated me on a job well done. We all should strive to deliver our personal message as best as we can.

6. Network. Yes yes and yes! Tart yourself about a bit. Learn from other business people, ask questions. BE INQUISITIVE. Early on I managed to find a great networking group local to me who are doing fantastic business with one another. It is a great way to raise your profile, and be known as a team player. Life's a team sport, sign up and stake your claim.

In this post I have avoided talking about the lists of essential engineering skills which you will need to master in order to survive as an engineer in the real world, but you will already own these - because you are thinking about setting up on your own, aren't you.

We all have a responsibility as engineers to raise our profiles, even if we do not yet have the fantastic honour of working for ourselves. Our engineering community is a small one, and the faster we get noticed as creative, industrious, and reliable professionals - the easier it will be for us, and all of our fledgling engineering entrepreneurs.

I am constantly telling everyone how great we are. More often than not though, I have been informed that I do not fit the 'template' for a typical structural engineer.

This is disappointing. But the way I see it is, the more people who I meet that have those preconceptions about us structural engineers - the better. You see I can help change that particular mindset, one client at a time. With everyone's help that is.

Could you do the same? If so, contact me.


Engine[er]

Location:The Peahen, St Albans, Hertfordshire