|
|
A monthly publication from the Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers
September 5, 2007 Edition
WSPE's President's Corner |
|
As the year continues to fly by, I greet you with some good news. Michael (Mike) Lefebvre, P.E., has offered to serve as WSPE President Elect for the remainder of the term! The Executive Committee considered his appointment at this month’s meeting and moved to submit Mike’s name to the full State Board for approval at the September meeting. Mike is the Vice President and Office Manager of the Green Bay office of Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer & Associates, Inc. He has been a member of WSPE for many years and has been very active at the Chapter level, including serving as President of the Fox River Valley Chapter. He is also an active member and Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers and has served in various roles, including President of the Fox Valley Branch and President of the Wisconsin Section. Because President Elect is normally an elected position, Mike would also appear on the ballot for next year’s officers to ensure he is duly elected to the President position by the WSPE membership. We are excited to have someone of Mike’s experience step into this important position and we look forward to working with him soon! We continue to gear up for upcoming events and, as always, we have many opportunities for our members to get involved. We are currently seeking volunteers to staff the exam sites in Platteville, Madison, and Milwaukee for the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) and Professional Engineering (PE) examinations. The dates are October 26 and 27. The main purpose is to provide NSPE/WSPE information and membership applications as well as snacks. Our presence at these exams means a lot to the candidates and is an easy way for us to introduce many engineers to our organization. If you can spare some time on either of these dates, please contact Nancy Short at n.short@wspe.org or 414-908-4950 x135. We are also looking for people who are interested in getting involved at their local schools to talk to kids about engineering. This is an ongoing endeavor, so it is very flexible. We have some materials, including PowerPoint® presentations, to get people started and we welcome any resources you might like to share. This is a fun way to reach out to future generations and show them the wonders and joys of engineering. We are also looking for ideas for Engineers Week next February. As the premier engineering organization in the state, we want to be at the forefront of Engineers Week activities, but we need your help. Please contact Chad O’Donnell, P.E., at 414-278-3347 or codonnell@hga.com when you are ready to help or to share your ideas. Membership is another ongoing initiative. Please remember to ask your colleagues if they belong to NSPE/WSPE and, if not, encourage them to join. Invite them to a Chapter meeting or other society activity to help them get involved. The more members we have, the more we can accomplish. The Southwest Chapter has begun planning for next year’s Discovery Conference. If you have any ideas or thoughts you would like to share regarding venue, format, speakers, activities, or anything else you think might make it a valuable event for you, please contact the conference chairperson, Dave McDermid, P.E., at 608-242-6652 or dmcdermid@msa-ps.com. The Discovery Conference is for the benefit of our members and we want to make it valuable for as many members as possible, so your input is extremely important. WSPE can be as much as you want it to be, so please start thinking about what activities you would like to get involved in and contact Nancy Short or one of the state officers. With your help, we can make this one of the best years in the history of WSPE. Thanks! James Buggs, P.E. |
|
SPONSOR Choose from more than 400 continuing education courses in engineering, design, operations, production, maintenance, management and planning.
Start planning your professional development today! To enroll or receive more information visit us online http://epd.engr.wisc.edu or call toll-free 1-800-462-0876 |
Congratulations to Mike Davy, Winner of the PEPP Award |
|
| PEPP (Professional Engineers in Private Practice) presents several awards to engineering professionals each year. This year PEPP recognized the 2007 award winners on July 26 during the PEPP 50th Anniversary Gala in Denver. The purpose of the PEPP Award is to honor an individual who has made an outstanding contribution to the role of private practice serving in the public interest.
Mike has served NSPE and PEPP since 1972, including 20 years as a member and chair of the Professional Liability Committee. He has been a state PEPP governor, a regional vice chair, as well as member and chair of the former PEPP Education Committee and Employment Practices Committee. He has also served the profession through the Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers as everything from chapter president to state president. Mike has served as the president of Davy Engineering Co. for more than 20 years. He also wears the hat of project engineer for many of his firm’s business endeavors. Davy Engineering Co. makes a conscious effort to provide direct project involvement by the principals. This has resulted in the company’s decision to avoid branch offices and to limit the geographic area where services are offered. The company also limits services to those areas where the principals are most adept. |
|
Michael
F. Davy, P.E., F.NSPELegislative News: Engineer Continuing Education Proposed to State Legislature |
|
| Assembly Bill 181 (regarding continuing education requirements), if passed at the state assembly, would grant the state’s Joint Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers, and Land Surveyors (A-E Joint Board) the statutory authority to implement rule making to create continuing education requirements for the professions regulated by the board. Simply put, the bill would give our A-E Board the authority to require that professional engineers in Wisconsin obtain and document activities in compliance of the requirements, presumably some number of hours of continuing education applicable to their engineering practice each year. The A-E Joint Board is in strong support of the proposed legislation and has put much effort into getting the proposed legislation introduced. Overall, the WSPE State Board is in support of AB-181 and believes the pros outweigh the cons. This article is intended to spur discussion on the matter and ultimately spur the expression of thoughts on the matter by PEs to their state representatives. The A-E Joint Board hopes that this bill will come up for vote at the assembly this fall. Brief list of Pros/Cons: Pros:
Cons:
Other Information:
|
|
Summary of NSPE House of Delegates’ Annual Meeting: Taking Actions to Help WSPE members |
|
| The 2007 NSPE House of Delegates’ Annual Meeting was held with a backdrop of milestones for NSPE. NSPE celebrated the 100th anniversary of engineering licensure, which is the primary focus of NSPE in serving its members. The NSPE Professional Engineers in Private Practice celebrated their 50th anniversary as an essential part of NSPE in providing services and issue forums. The Future Directions activity for redefining NSPE’s relationship with its state societies and its members has completed the transition to the Action Plan activity. And NSPE announced that the Association Management System, the new member information and billing software which gave real headaches to so many of our state societies, chapters, and members has stabilized except for a follow-up process to simplify the thousands of billing combinations of dues for national, states and chapters. Before discussing the highlights of actions taken by the House of Delegates (HoD), a review of the responsibilities of the HoD may be helpful. The HoD adopts the Vision, Mission and Goals for NSPE, establishes the Strategic Plan, Code of Ethics and Professional Policies, elects the NSPE Officers and the Board of Directors, and serves as the authority to amend the Bylaws. The HoD elected Bradley F. Aldrich, P.E., F.NSPE as 2009-10 NSPE President and Russell C. Devick, P.E., F.NSPE as 2007-09 NSPE Treasurer. A number of Professional Policies were approved to implement the action plan for our future directions effort. These set policy for support of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and computer science. Also, a policy was approved regarding international competitiveness. The HoD tabled or sent back to committee a proposal for dual accreditation for undergraduate and masters programs by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). There was a lot of discussion on the policy which supports the plan of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) to require thirty hours of education beyond an ABET engineering degree in their model engineering licensure law. In general, it was felt more communication was needed with members before NSPE continues to endorse this plan. I, as your delegate, indicated that WSPE supports this long-term goal in concept but that I feel this plan is the cart before the horse. One of the arguments supporting NCEES’ plan is that the four-year ABET degree has deteriorated from a 140-credit requirement to a 125-credit requirement, in general. Seems to me that ABET and our engineering universities need to restore the “4-year” degree to a sufficient level to ensure appropriate qualifications of its graduates. While they’re at it, they could require the fundamentals exam as a requirement for graduation from an ABET engineering program as other countries do. The HoD approved a “State Affiliate” category for those individuals or entities who are not eligible for NSPE membership. This provision accommodates such classifications as sustaining or supporting members. It does not allow “State only” membership for individuals who would qualify as NSPE members. The “State Only” issue has been discussed many times, including for two hours at this meeting. WSPE’s and NSPE’s position has been that this approach would disrupt the grassroots basis for NSPE’s national activities, would interfere with the development and delivery of services and support from NSPE to its members, weaken the member/chapter/state/national link to address issues which affect members across the nation or in more than one state, and create a more obvious group of free-loaders of NSPE’s programs and activities. The “State only” situation will continue to be tested so the HoD can be firm in any future action on this matter. Also, the HoD approved changes to the Code of Ethics which address engineers’ participation in civic affairs, career guidance for youths, work for the advancement of the safety, health, and well-being of their community, increased knowledge and appreciation of engineering by the public, and adherence to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment. One last note: recognition was given to our outgoing president,
Robert Miller, for his great leadership this past year. Bob left
this parting statement for us all to remember as the engineering
profession faces new challenges: Our thanks and appreciation goes to Robert Miller. Professionally yours, |
|
| SPONSOR |
“Betterment” and the Law
of Damages |
|
When design professionals make a mistake that they then correct, often at their own expense, the concept of betterment enters into the relationship between design professional and owner. The concept of betterment simply means that when a design professional recognizes an error or omission in the design work and corrects it, either voluntarily or because the owner insists upon it, the cost of the required additional or corrected work must be borne by the design professional. However, in computing that cost, the owner is expected to pay for any added value to the structure. The theory upon which betterment rests is that rules of equity in the law compel the owner to pay for improvements which the owner would have had to pay for absent the error or omission by the design professional. For example, where a design professional fails to design a building or building system to required governmental code, applicable damage law both in contract and in tort (for negligence) will subject the design professional to damages measured basically by the cost of redesigning (and if necessary reconstructing) the project to conform with code. However, if the code requirement not met by the design professional in the original design requires the installation of different or additional components which have added value to the owner, the owner has received a betterment and should pay for it. Owners, on the other hand, will look to either contract wording or decisional law which requires the design professional to design to the minimum requirements of governmental codes. The owner will argue that in order to receive what the owner contracted for, the professional designer must deliver a design which when constructed will conform to the minimum of governmental code. While the law of damages in contract law differs somewhat from the damage law in negligence, the concept of betterment should not differ. Whether the owner is pursuing contract damages or tort damages against the design professional, the legal concepts of unjust enrichment or causation should apply to the determination of damages. Under unjust enrichment, the owner should not be awarded damages which gives the owner a windfall. Therefore, the damages should be calculated so that the owner pays for the betterment while recovering the damages associated with the erroneous or deficient design. Similarly, if the claim brought by the owner against the design professional is for negligence, the design professional should be heard when arguing that the cause of the owner’s damages relates only to the expenses incurred in connection with the deficient or erroneous design and not with the cost of the correct or improved design. Although the concept of betterment is alive and well, there is a surprising lack of decisions applying the concept to the determination of damages arising out of defective work by design professionals. We can expect that when design professionals and their insurers litigate issues involving betterment, helpful decisions will become available. Attorney Robert J. Kay is the senior partner in the law firm of Kay & Andersen, S.C. and devotes his time to representing professional engineers, architects, contractors, material suppliers and owners of construction projects. Please feel free to contact him at (608) 833-0077 or at rjkay@kayandandersen.com. |
|
Framing the Market
Opportunity into a Company Opportunity |
|
| The Better Mousetrap Tie the Idea to the Business Operations The team needs to visualize the business operations as the product is being outlined, ie order entry, configuration, etc. This visualization will assist in defining supporting product features and configuration. For example, the demographic data may indicate a number of versions of a product; however, the business operations—manufacturing, procurement, and inventory control—require a finite, practical number of versions that are more manageable. Critically Look at the “Business” of the Product
(i.e., Pathways for Who, What, Where, Why, and How) Solve the Customer’s Problem in the Product Customers Purchase Perceived Value of the Solution to
a Problem What is a critical buying decision for one customer is not necessarily
all that important for another. The market must be broken down to
effectively create the product’s architecture so that the
lion’s share of the available market can be addressed with
a basic platform design. This platform design allows a wide variety
of features and a feature gradient to be incorporated in a basic
unit, with options to scale up performance or repackaging of values
for the customer. Under What Conditions Does the Customer Commit?
Understand and know the conditions and the customer alternatives when they make that buying decision. Failure to understand and plan for it properly may position your company with product inventory, and wondering why customers aren’t buying. Creating a System for Objective Idea Evaluation within
the Framework of the Business Setting Up The Criteria Testing Each Idea
Consistency Measure of Ongoing Effectiveness Consider the process below where ideas are evaluated and framed within the entire company deployment plan. In this way many of the key elements of planning are contributing to the process.
Figure 1: Evaluation Criteria Maintenance All in all the establishment of the product opportunity within the framework of the business is critical to long-term product success. Portions excerpted from Marc A. Annacchino’s book The Pursuit of New Product Development ISBN-10: 0-7506-7993-X. Marc Annacchino, P.E., is owner of Marconi Product Development Institute, Inc., a company providing consulting services, contract development, seminars, and other services. He can be reached at Marconi@execpc.com. |
|
| SPONSOR |
Welcome New WSPE Members! |
|
| The WSPE board of directors would like to extend a heartfelt welcome to the following new WSPE members:
New members contribute to the growth, strength and leadership of the WSPE in enhancing its recognition as a leading voice for Professional Engineers throughout Wisconsin and promoting excellence in engineering. |
|
