www.www.bussiapp.com

[JVCSNL]

Hello,

I am reproducing the proposed licensing system, which was posted in earlier e conference (I think it is more relevant in the current e conference).

However, I would like to add couple of points. There seems to be a little disagreement on the structure of licensing body and necessity of experience for practice. I fully agree on the issue, that the veteran and experienced professional could be more sensible to the structural behavior and professional issues than the younger ones. However, the current state of the art techniques and tools are little better known by the young professionals. So, the licensing body could be a mixture of both, may be in the proportion of 75% rich experienced + 25% young ones.

On the requirement of experience part, I believe that the criteria should be the quality of experience and its richness compared to the quantum of experience. There may be many cases where a professional with 3 years of experience would have much more engineering and professional skills compared to a professional having 15 years of experience of monotonous tasks. Hence, the spectrum of experience and the portfolio of design varieties could be the criteria for eligibility and justification in providing a practicing license.

Considering a huge domain of the structural engineering field, a criterion for minimum number of experience (after graduation or post graduation) can not be kept mandatory and instead, the quality of experience shall be measured, considered and accounted while deciding the licensing issues.

Following portion is reproduced
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Proposed Licensing System
-------------------------------------------

Since, we structural engineers have variety of projects/assignments to perform, it is extremely difficult task to formulate a licensing system suitable for all existing and future professionals. The problem would be extremely severe when we ask veteran practicing engineers to get license at the end of their professional career for 2 or 3 decades.

We want an easy, workable, durable, expert and powerful licensing authority to which we respect and obey. The licensing practice shall not be a formality procedure. We need to be very sincere now in this regard to avoid second occurrence of disasters seen after 26th Jan. 2001 earthquake.

I would suggest categorizing the licensing system. Several major subgroups can be formed for practicing engineers. The license shall be issued for one or multiple categories. The selection of category for the license shall be done by individual professional only. For each sub group there shall be minimum criteria to practice. The criteria could be education, experience, an examination etc. The license shall be valid for a stipulated period and must be renewed to justify competency to practice.

I would like to categorize few subgroups for which licenses may be issued:

+ Non Plant Structures * Residential buildings, administration offices, canteen buildings, etc, upto 2 storey

+ Residential and commercial complexes : Structures with more than 4 stories comprising of elevators, HVAC systems, central water and drainage management, security, safety requirements

+ Industrial sheds * This category would cover structural steel storage sheds (with trusses or portals), small crane and monorails, cold storage etc.

+ Industrial structures * Plant Engineering - This category would allow to design most industrial structures like boilers, power houses, cooling towers, pipe racks and many similar structures subjected to normal, wind and seismic loading

+ Equipment/Machine Foundations * This category would comprise of critical analysis of important equipment foundation needing static and/or dynamic analysis. Even structures which need detailed and extensive seismic analysis should be listed here.

+ Transportation structures * Bridges, fly-overs, tunnels etc.

+ Hydraulic structures * canals, aqueduct, canal siphons, canal head works,

+ Structures of high importance * Dams, weirs etc.

The coverage of structures in each subgroup needs thorough survey by experts in our profession. I understand these categories may be increased or reduced in number by team of experts forming licensing body. These categories could be numbered to identify the type of license.

每个人都会同意,一个桥梁设计工程师would not be interested to get the license to design a residential bungalow and vice-versa. Thus, I think the categorization would definitely ease the problem for a professional and the licensing authority. On one hand, the residential structural professional would not be asked to show his/her competence in designing industrial or bridge structures.

If any one feels, he has two or three expertise to perform he may be issued a license with one or more sub groups and the professional has to justify his/her competence to perform those tasks by means of minimum criteria defined.

I think, the licensing authority must be a team comprising of professionals from government, non-government, private and academic institutions. They must of known strengths and the selection shall be unbiased.

Thanks and Regards,

Jignesh Chokshi
L&T Sargent & Lundy Limited, Vadodara

Disclaimer: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of addressee(s) only and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any view or opinion presented in the said e-mail is solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of L&T - Sargent & Lundy Limited. If you are not the addressee, then this message is not intended for you and be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify to the sender and delete the e-mail and any attachments with it from your system immediately. Receipt of this e-mail by you shall not give raise to any liability on the part of L&T - Sargent & Lundy Limited.

Posted via Email

[eondes at sify.com]

Dear Jignesh,

Thanks for starting day 2 on very solid note. I have few points to add, you
all may please react:

There should be clear cut distinction as follow:

1. The licensing authority:
2. The licensing Board

The Licensing authority should be vested with ECI after the Government of
India passes the bill. The Configuration of ECI need not be totally
technical but can be judicious mix of competent persons drawn from various
fields (Law, Administartion, Engineering) where Engineering should form a
major part of intake.

The licensing Board should be certainly all out technical group of competent
persons, nominated or drawn from various organizations with proven
competancy, for the first batch of Licensing Board for a limited tenure of 6
months to 1 year. The main bojective of this nominated board will be creat
first batch of PEs so that some of them will take over the Licensing Board
after their special term expires.

Once you have PEs in place then they can be elected / nominated to board
through proper procedure.

With warm regards.

Arvind

----------------------------------------------------------
Arvind Jaiswal
Chief Consulting Engineer,
EON DESIGNERS,
Architects, Consulting Engineers & Interior Designers,
35-B, Vasavi Colony, Behind Vikrampuri,
Secunderabad-500 015
Ph. 040-27847847, 27722618 Mobitel 040-56640202

Posted via Email

[eondes at sify.com]

Dear Sri Rajamane,

Thanks for endorsing my views.

I have further to add a few more points as follows:


I am sure that the need of hour is to have a licensing mechanism in place at
earliest, due to time ticking on behalf of GATT agreements.

Hence as a first step we all have to come to a conclusion that a licensing
mechanism is must in our country. (I want your comments please)

Second step is to agree that the licensing mechanism should be activated as
尽可能的早,制定工程师比尔和giving legitimacy to ECI
which is already functioning but as a mere society (at present).
(The Government of India is already committed to have Engineers Bill whether
we agree or not! Our confirmation or disagreement should help pave the way
further in positive direction)

Third step is to have a consensus on broad issues which should form part of
the Licensing Mechanism.

Last step is to come to agreement on the way Licensing Procedure will work.


With warm regards.

Arvind

----------------------------------------------------------
Arvind Jaiswal
Chief Consulting Engineer,
EON DESIGNERS,
Architects, Consulting Engineers & Interior Designers,
35-B, Vasavi Colony, Behind Vikrampuri,
Secunderabad-500 015
Ph. 040-27847847, 27722618 Mobitel 040-56640202

Posted via Email

[alok_banerjee]

Dear All,

Srinivasan wrote about conducting a written test for the engineer after 6
years work experience. We already have a syatem in the country (generally,
and not limited to engineering and construction) that is too examination
based. This system has produced engineers who know too much facts whereas
the need is for an Engineer- who leads and delivers. With no offence meant
to our beaurocrats, the IAS, the IPS, the municipality, the Engineering
Services, let me point out that these guys crammed a lot of facts to enter
these services but weren't able to establish an efficient administration,
ensure safety and security of the people, and the municipality cannot even
rid the city of the garbage and stink. They have all passed a tough written
examination. Let us do away with any technical written examination for any
graduate engineer with some years work experience. (By the way, I have
undertaken lot of programmes after my graduation and obtained good grades,
often topped. And yet I am saying what I said)

WE MUST EVOLVE A WAY TO HAVE ENGINEERS WHO DELIVER AND NOT THOSE WHO MERELY
EXCEL ON THE TEST PAPER.
Proper interviewing techniques could be one way of getting there.

Alok

[alok_banerjee]

Dear All,

Srinivasan wrote about conducting a written test for the engineer after 6
years work experience. We already have a syatem in the country (generally,
and not limited to engineering and construction) that is too examination
based. This system has produced engineers who know too much facts whereas
the need is for an Engineer- who leads and delivers. With no offence meant
to our beaurocrats, the IAS, the IPS, the municipality, the Engineering
Services, let me point out that these guys crammed a lot of facts to enter
these services but weren't able to establish an efficient administration,
ensure safety and security of the people, and the municipality cannot even
rid the city of the garbage and stink. They have all passed a tough written
examination. Let us do away with any technical written examination for any
graduate engineer with some years work experience. (By the way, I have
undertaken lot of programmes after my graduation and obtained good grades,
often topped. And yet I am saying what I said)

WE MUST EVOLVE A WAY TO HAVE ENGINEERS WHO DELIVER AND NOT THOSE WHO MERELY
EXCEL ON THE TEST PAPER.
Proper interviewing techniques could be one way of getting there.

Alok

[eondes at sify.com]

Dear All,

I endorse the views of Sri P Srinivasan to a large extent.

It is a fact that lot of engineers detest the testing of their knowledge by
一个委员会和一定会尽量避免a choice. I think it is
must to conduct test but with many available means like written test,
interview, Group Discussions, Presentations etc..!

Hence it can be a mix of tests but not one of them only!

I also agree that it should not be Government who should issue Licenses
directly.

But if it is Government issuing licenses on recommendation of Committee
Comprising of Professional Engineers of repute elected legitimately it
should be acceptable.

We all agree that there should be no room for corruption here!

I am also in agreement that AICTE should keep out of this registration
issue.

But it should be kept in mind that the task of registration and licensing is
huge one, any single professional body cannot do this stupendous task, and
we certainly need more Professional Bodies to be involved in this task.

I feel ECI is the right choice for the same and as it is in place already,
it should be given a fair chance to prove itself.

There is certain feeling that it should be done minus the Administrative
Cadre with more involvement of Engineers.

The involvement of IAS batch should be only till the time Engineers Bill is
pushed in Parliament and it gets heard and passed.

This is required because Engineers will certainly not have access to
Parliament as IAS batch will have. There after it should be purely
Technical, with involvement of only one senior IAS Officer, one retired
Judge, One Social Worker of Repute and many Professional Engineers in the
committee.

Present structure proposed by ECI is reverse and it should be revised with
above changes.


With warm regards.

Arvind

----------------------------------------------------------
Arvind Jaiswal
Chief Consulting Engineer,
EON DESIGNERS,
Architects, Consulting Engineers & Interior Designers,
35-B, Vasavi Colony, Behind Vikrampuri,
Secunderabad-500 015
Ph. 040-27847847, 27722618 Mobitel 040-56640202

Posted via Email

[p_kadam]

dear all,let us make it voluntary to test ourselves.let us have peer review.but by no means additional licenses.we condemn license raaj in other fields.i dont know what is wrong with our fraternity.
regards,
p kadam

eondes@sify.com
wrote
******************************************
e-Conference on ``Licensing Issues in Structural Engineering profession in the Indian context`` organised by Structural Engineers Forum of India (//www.bussiapp.com) under the aegis of Babtie Technical Assistance Team as a part of the ADB Technical Assistance Project for Capacity Building for Earthquake Rehabilitation and Reconstruction and Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority
******************************************
Dear All,

I endorse the views of Sri P Srinivasan to a large extent.

It is a fact that lot of engineers detest the testing of their knowledge by
一个委员会和一定会尽量避免a choice. I think it is
must to conduct test but with many available means like written test,
interview, Group Discussions, Presentations etc..!

Hence it can be a mix of tests but not one of them only!

I also agree that it should not be Government who should issue Licenses
directly.

But if it is Government issuing licenses on recommendation of Committee
Comprising of Professional Engineers of repute elected legitimately it
should be acceptable.

We all agree that there should be no room for corruption here!

I am also in agreement that AICTE should keep out of this registration
issue.

But it should be kept in mind that the task of registration and licensing is
huge one, any single professional body cannot do this stupendous task, and
we certainly need more Professional Bodies to be involved in this task.

I feel ECI is the right choice for the same and as it is in place already,
it should be given a fair chance to prove itself.

There is certain feeling that it should be done minus the Administrative
Cadre with more involvement of Engineers.

The involvement of IAS batch should be only till the time Engineers Bill is
pushed in Parliament and it gets heard and passed.

This is required because Engineers will certainly not have access to
Parliament as IAS batch will have. There after it should be purely
Technical, with involvement of only one senior IAS Officer, one retired
Judge, One Social Worker of Repute and many Professional Engineers in the
committee.

Present structure proposed by ECI is reverse and it should be revised with
above changes.


With warm regards.

Arvind

----------------------------------------------------------
Arvind Jaiswal
Chief Consulting Engineer,
EON DESIGNERS,
Architects, Consulting Engineers & Interior Designers,
35-B, Vasavi Colony, Behind Vikrampuri,
Secunderabad-500 015
Ph. 040-27847847, 27722618 Mobitel 040-56640202





*******************************************
The views, opinions, analyses and assessments contained herein do not
necessarily reflect the views of SEFI and the Asian Development Bank, or its Board of Directors or the governments they represent.

SEFI and the Asian Development Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in the proceedings of this e-conference and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of their use.
*******************************************
To make a posting to the e-conference, please send email toeconf@www.bussiapp.com
*******************************************
To unsubscribe, please send an email tounsubscribe-econf@www.bussiapp.com
*******************************************

========powered by Reach1to1 Office Everywhere (http://www.reach1to1.com)======

Posted via Email

[ratsiit]

Quoting eondes@sify.com:

[aswinpe]

Hello

It has been very interesting to note the several viewpoints brought out by
the members on this conference. I am engineer who has a masters in the US
and have earned my P.E license through experience and examination. I was
also selected by the board to help in the exam material preparation. If you
are interested in knowing more about the licensure in the United States I
could send a detailed article with both the pros and cons of the system
here.

的一个主要因素在这conferen说ce is on examination. In
my opinion it is not the exam which is going to control but it has to
evolved from within the engineers mind. Exams just remove the people who
are incompetent.

It would be impossible to interview thousands of people to issue a license.

I would still vote for a examination which should be based on the years of
experience and references from your peers. In this way architects and ME's
cannot obtain a license unless they have the required education, experience
etc.

But the main critical aspect which control the engineers is the fear of loss
of licensure and liability. Liability is the worst fear of any engineer in
the U.S. This is the fear of getting sued by a owner by a good attorney.
But I am uncertain if this would work very in the Indian system. But next
important aspect is the loss of licensure. This prevents an engineer who
has had 10 years of experience in industrial buildings from designing a
50story building. If such a design is done then he/she would loose the
license if there is a failure.

In the state of California there are stringent requirements for engineers
designing schools and hospital. The engineers should be licensed as S.E
(structural engineer) which is the next step after P.E. The bottom line
here is that engineers designing critical structures should have stringent
licensing. I feel this should be implemented for the design of high rises,
hospitals, schools and nuclear power plants.

In conclusion I would say:
1. Licensing is a must to protect the public and the engineering community
2. Licensing should be based on examination, reference and experience.
(examination will filter out the incompetent people).
3. Continuing education should be required to retain the license
4. A fear of loss of licensure should be within the engineers
5. Special licensing requirements for critical structures.

If you need a write-up on the licensing issues in the united states, please
let me know.

Aswin Rangaswamy, P.E.
Senior Engineers, Structural
SHA Coffman Engineers

Posted via Email

[abhijit at bom3.vsnl.n...]

\0\0Dear all,
I'veseen the views expressed so far.
I agree that there is a need to have more accountability .
That can come from professional liability and changes in work culture alone.
The Degree examinations and Post graduate degree exams are enough.
Do we want to protect the prfession in the name of licensing ?
or do we want to create licensing and Inspector Raj ? as we've been having
for long in other walks of life?
What is needed is to have experience.How does one get it ?How long one can
continue learning without earning ?and are we paying the assistants well
enough ?and are we training them or treating them as future rivals ?


In the earlier e-conference, on earthquake designs, there emerged a very
sad picture of how the professional work gets done across the country .

The basic qualifications of Degrees and Post Graduate Degrees are
足够了。有很多professio使用n software etc ,available
to even the new engineer and what we need is commotment from all
concerned.Professional Insurance cover for the practice should be made
mandatory and stoppage/cancellation of whatever licensing that exists today
would be enough, in case of failure.
For innovative/important structures, "Proof Checking " preferably through
institutions like IIT/VJTI/Peers /should be adopted.
The" CIDCO-Bhavan" @CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai was designed by VJTI, in the
80's.This when we had full scale design office ourselves in Cidco. and
theStructural designs of NRI complex at Nerul had been got proof checked
through institutional support from IIT. The industry/institutional
interaction should increase . For innovative/ first time designs, model
studies could be undertaken.
The Engneer's Bill should take care of the civil engg practice. in all
fields..concept to completetion.

Thanks for your time.

N.N.Javekar
Retd CE & G.M[Tech} CIDCO,
Navi Mumbai.

Posted via Email