The following editorial reflects the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of Progressive Engineer.
We look forward to your comments on our Message Board, which may be accessed at the bottom of the editorial.

Strictly Business is Risky Business

By Robert Stephens

We’ve recently seen comments, largely philosophical, based on a view of engineering as strictly business. Nearly everywhere we look, the word "profession" is diluted, and civil engineering as a profession is transformed into a commodity. In has been stated that a consulting engineer’s role in a project is small but important, because their fee is small relative to the cost of the project. This notion is like saying that Shakespeare, without his plays, would be just another guy – understated and yet so obvious that it demeans. The engineer's fee may be a small part of a project's initial cost, but the quality of the engineering services can, and often does, dramatically impact construction and long-term costs. Providing engineering services strictly as business has hurt our profession, our clients, project owners, and the public.

Too many project owners proceed from the misguided, and perhaps subconscious, belief that all engineers provide the same service. Doctors, attorneys, and even architects have avoided this misperception to a greater extent than engineers. The rub is, as project owners procure engineering services based on this misperception, the misperception becomes a reality, as too many firms reduce engineering effort and quality of worker environment, both of which affect quality of service, to compete based on price. The winner is the one with a tent, telephone and the most conservative design.

The commodification of engineering has transformed our profession to such a degree that these facts go largely unconsidered by businesspeople such as project owners and engineering firm owners, to the benefit of no one. Consulting engineering should be more than just a business. It should be a profession, providing livelihood and personal fulfillment; to be nurtured, cared for, and protected. As evidence of this, note the traditional definition of "profession" versus "job." I say "traditional" because the words "profession" and "professional" have changed over time to include virtually any job used as livelihood – a change that true professionals should not have tolerated, worse yet adapted to.

We are the stewards of our profession, though, and the changes have resulted from poor stewardship. Some say that Darwin and Machiavelli are taught at today’s business schools, that today’s engineering environment is changing, and that companies should do what they have to in order to survive, that is evolve. Business schools are driving much of business and therefore much of the change. It is not necessarily the case, however, that change is progress, nor that progress is good. Considering the alleged improprieties and associated coverups involving Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Polaroid, various politicians, and the Catholic Church as well as steroid use in professional sports, if business schools are teaching Darwin and Machiavelli, we have seen enough of these lines of teaching.

Simply adapting for survival’s sake is not the wisest nor the most financially rewarding course. The philosophy of doing whatever is necessary, or "adapting," for survival is risky because, among many reasons, we often confuse whatever is easiest with whatever is necessary. Too many businesses are killing themselves and their industry adapting for survival.

Businesses, like human beings, are capable not only of adapting to but altering their environment. If this were not true and well understood, Madison Avenue would not exist. Rather than adapting to all changes, we should strive to alter some of them and change the environment.

Robert Stephens is a civil engineer at Stephens Associates Consulting Engineers in Wilmington, Massachusetts. This first ran in the November 2003 BSCES News, the newsletter of the Boston Society of Civil Engineers Section/ASCE.