|
||
|
 |
          |
 |
 |
|
|
Newsletter Issue 40 - March 2001 Serious skill shortages likely to increase Serious skill shortages likely to increase From almost nothing twelve months ago, awareness of skill shortages appear to have built to the point where almost every serious newspaper and every meeting carries some reference to them. In the construction industry concern ranges from a shortage of skilled labour and craftsmen to a drop in the number of students enrolling in engineering courses. Entrants to civil engineering degree courses continue to drop year on year, despite falling entrance requirements. The situation is so severe, that a graph showing applications to first degree courses since 1994 shows a linear fall that will cross zero in 2007. To make matters even worse (assuming this is possible) - of final year civil engineering students at one major university this year, only one is intending to stay in the industry; the remainder are heading for more lucrative jobs in the city and elsewhere. The situation in Geotechnics is no better. Major consultancies report a severe shortage of geotechnical specialists with ten to fifteen years of post degree experience (exactly the age group that found no openings in the industry during the recession hit early 1990's). Furthermore, reports from elsewhere suggest that this is could be a worldwide problem. To make matters worse, Soil Mechanics and Engineering Geology MSc courses are under threat. Although student numbers have remained steady, the number of students coming from abroad has grown while UK students have declined. This is attributed to the high level of student debt, employers unwillingness or inability to support students on MSc programmes, and the relatively poor financial rewards from MSc degrees. As if this in itself isn't bad enough, those with their ear to the ground will be aware that both EPSRC and NERC have undertaken funding reviews in the past few years with the result that MSc funding is being withdrawn from all but a few institutions, and even there will be severely reduced (eg NERC funding is expected to be cut by 50%). The seriousness of the situation cannot be overestimated. Both the AGS and the Ground Forum view it with the utmost concern and are looking for opportunities to lobby to ensure the problem is being addressed. A recent Government led workshop 'Making Connections' involving the CITB and both the DETR and DFEE highlighted the industry-wide problem and Government concern. The Ground Forum are taking steps to draw attention to the importance of the specialist sectors which it is felt may not be properly appreciated, and in particular to Geotechnics and its relevance to wider public concerns such as climate change, flooding, contaminated land, and infrastructure. What can AGS Members to do assist? Spread the word! Ensure that potential geotechnical engineers consider the profession. Enhance the image of the industry! Take your enthusiasms into schools and colleges at all levels. Ensure your company is meeting the aspirations of young people with alternatives in the city, marketing, accountancy, law and other high profile, high paying sectors. Support post graduates! Ensure that postgraduate and potential postgraduate students on your staff are given encouragement and support - both financial and practical. Contribute to bursary schemes such as that being set up by Imperial College. Create opportunities for 'A' level students and 'Gap Year' students to get work experience in a civil engineering environment. Lobby your MP and anyone else who will listen on the need for
MSc courses; the need for Government assistance to supplement the support which
industry already gives in kind; and make sure they understand the consequences
of failing to provide it.! The Role of the Geotechnical Adviser Feedback from AGS members on the role of the Geotechnical Adviser is that it appears to be not that well understood by Clients, such comments as "if they are only advisers what is the value of their input? It's not the same as making recommendations" or "advice usually comes free". Other comments received by members from smaller consulting engineers (who are usually not members of AGS) say that the term adviser infers a lack of responsibility as it is "only advising". It has not gone unnoticed that one or two geotechnical specialist contractors are using the term Geotechnical Adviser when the job that is being carried out is the role envisaged for a Geotechnical Specialist thus adding to the confusion. When several senior individuals of AGS member firms were asked, "what do you understand are the requirements to attain Geotechnical Adviser status?" the response was, "5 years experience since achieving chartered status". This is in fact the criteria set to achieve Geotechnical Specialist status. It is evident that it is not only Clients who are confused, this misconception even from within our own ranks need addressing. In the executive summary of a recently published article entitled "On Sound Ground - a Guide to Geotechnical Risk Management" the first recommendation for change is the appointment of a Geotechnical "Specialist". There is no mention of the Geotechnical Adviser although the role envisaged is that of one. This could be "brushed off" possibly as mere semantics but it does help to confuse. The above certainly indicates that there appears to be a lack of understanding of what the word "adviser" means in the geotechnical context and the "role" within the project team. Other sectors of the civil engineering profession seem to be able to do without the need to have the formal title of "specialist" or "adviser". There are no similar titles for tunnelling, bridges, structures, concrete etc. Why should geotechnics be any different? Some civil engineers see themselves as the "poor relations" in today's professional business world and tend to ignore the attainment of these formal geotechnical titles as not being worthwhile, a bit of apathy perhaps. Several geotechnical engineers from a civil engineering background have commented that these formal geotechnical titles are "guises" that allow geologists to be perceived as trained engineers and thus the use of such titles lowers there own status as engineers. The above comments and confusions are probably the reasons why the formal title and hence the status of the Geotechnical Adviser has been "forgotten or ignored" and not used and therefore deemed not necessary. Perhaps the above is a fundamental reason why the role of the Geotechnical Adviser is not being developed within the industry. Obviously the Institution of Civil Engineers thought differently when they published a series of four documents titled Site Investigation in Construction (SISG) in 1993. In order to understand the relevance and role of the Geotechnical Adviser it is worthwhile going over the following pertinent publications. Firstly we should remind ourselves who we are talking about.
In document 2 "Planning, procurement, and quality management" (SISG),
the definition of geotechnical personnel to be engaged on site investigation
projects is given. The most senior position being the: - Followed by the: - Geotechnical Specialist - Chartered Engineer or Chartered Geologist with 5 years post charter experience (or with MSc plus 3 years post charter practice or a non-graduate with 20 years practice in geotechnics 5 years of which must be post charter). Thus we have accurate definitions of the two senior geotechnical positions. The AGS Code of Conduct for Site Investigation subsequently published in 1998 required that all Practitioners encourage Clients to appoint a Geotechnical Adviser as part of the requirements under CDM and BS 5930, as well as to advise them of the general benefits of specialist support and overview at all stages of planning, investigation, design and construction. The AGS Guidelines for Good Practice in Site Investigation published in1998 also advises members that they should encourage and assist their Clients to jointly implement guidelines to reduce risk and add value. The guidelines advise, "On all projects appoint a nominated lead professional of Geotechnical Adviser status who is either part of or can be consulted by the Client or Project Team at all stages of the project through the pre-planning, design and construction". The document continues to state "Ensure that all ground investigation works are adequately supervised as recommended by the Geotechnical Adviser" and "Ensure that all reports are then signed by a Chartered professional as appropriate to the nature of the investigation works and are approved by the Geotechnical Adviser ". The section given as the AGS Responsibility Check List for Site Investigations at Stage 1 Proposal puts the role of the Geotechnical Adviser at the forefront of things at the pre feasibility stage of a project. This suggests that the Geotechnical Adviser role is of key importance at the project conception stage. The role of the Geotechnical Adviser is well described in detail in Site Investigation in Construction document 2 (SISG 1993) and also concisely mentioned in the Executive summary of the same document. However it is unlikely that Clients will have read any of these documents in detail if at all. The concise executive summary perhaps should be used to elucidate to Clients the rationale and the ensuing merits of this advisory role. Clearly the Geotechnical Adviser should come in to play at the initial engineering assessment stage of a project as member of the principal technical team. The Principal Technical Adviser (SISG 1993) should ensure that his Client fully understands the need for a geotechnical member of the project team. The Geotechnical Adviser may be appointed by the Client direct or the Client's Principal Technical Advisor. The Client's overall project or design team may involve Architects, Quantity Surveyors, Civil and Structural Engineering and Health and Safety advisers. Project teams can be led by architects or structural engineers who deal directly with Clients and unfortunately can appear somewhat oblivious to the "unseen" geotechnical requirements of a project that will enable their structure to "stand up". The geotechnical requirements of a project are often ignored at the early stage more thought and energy is devoted to the "structure" itself. It is not unusual for the geotechnical issues to be dealt with as an afterthought, which results in "panic" or even "inappropriate" work being instructed. Civil engineering projects teams, which are generally civil engineer, led, usually have more substantial geotechnical input and are less likely to have the concerns discussed above. In summary, the essence of the role of the Geotechnical Adviser is to establish appropriate geotechnical requirements for the project going beyond the site investigation stage and taking into account temporary and permanent works requirements and to provide or procure the services needed. This may be only a small input, to ensure that such work that as may be necessary is properly carried out. Or it may be that the Adviser will undertake all the geotechnical work in the individual stages of planning, design and execution. Thus the role of the Geotechnical Adviser is to develop the whole geotechnical strategy for a project and ensure the objectives are achieved. It is worth while ensuring that Project Team Leaders are fully aware that at the early stage of a project that the Geotechnical Adviser can offer substantial value engineering input which can be financially beneficial to the project and can also offer sound prudent advice on geotechnical problems. The value and risk issues that are associated with dealing with the ground must be explained to Clients. The people to do this are those in direct contact with the Client and thus include the Project Team Leaders. By Jim Cook
I read the "Site investigation in the UK" article with
interest Mouchel Reply from John Chick, author of the FPS article:- Andrew is quite right, I did not phrase points 12 and 13 very
well and was
Fifty five Members (around 50%) completed the questionnaire circulated in 2000 and their responses gave considerable encouragement to Members of the Committee and Working Groups. Our thanks to all those who took the time to respond. In so far as the AGS were concerned, Members were revealed to be concerned with industry concerns rather than their immediate commercial benefit. The AGS focus on the quality of site investigation was strongly endorsed by respondents who indicated that this was the most valued benefit from the AGS, closely followed by the opportunities which the AGS represents to lobby government, the EA, and other organisations to improve the industry in general. A significant number also appreciated the opportunities which Membership gives to network and the added promotion available through the website and Directory. 42 of our 55 respondents had been to an AGS seminar in the previous year. London and the Midlands emerged as the most favoured locations for seminars - and although Manchester, Scotland, Bristol and Cardiff won some support, the numbers suggest that, at best, these would be very intimate meetings. All but 8 respondents felt that the design and style of the Newsletter was acceptable - and almost everyone agreed that the content was useful. Over 60% claimed that they circulated the Newsletter within their company - but 50% (perhaps more honestly) agreed that their dissemination of the information they receive from the AGS could be improved. Perhaps predictably, comments and advice about the Newsletter were difficult to interpret: 'Good style and format'; 'Its 'look' needs to be improved'; 'Keep it brief'; 'Include more articles per volume' .... For everyone who liked the distinctive colour scheme, there was one who found it difficult to read or too bold. One point that did emerge was that although 55% of the Members who replied owned a copy of the AGS 'Electronic Format' publication (which is perhaps not the same as saying that 55% of Members regularly use data in AGS format) - only 35% own a copy of the AGS Guide to the Selection of Laboratory Tests for Geotechnical Data. Is your library up to date? And do you have enough copies for your young geotechnical engineers to use as an everyday reference? Fuller details of the survey will be provided at the AGS Members
Day (21 March 2001) and the results are already providing valuable guidance to
the Committee and Working Groups. Towards the end of 2000, AGS Chairman, Jan Hellings, attended a
meeting of the AGS' 'sister' organisation in the States - ASFE. (We assume this
originally stood for American Society for Foundation Engineering - but its remit
has grown and it is therefore now known only by its former acronym). It has around 300 Member firms. These are mostly moderately
sized specialist companies, (large multidisciplinary practices do not normally
have specialist geotechnical departments). Two meetings/conferences are held
each year as well as very popular 'Back Yard Seminars' which take place at
various locations throughout the USA and cover technical topics as well as more
general ones, such as writing skills. Membership Offer AGS Members can take out e-ASFE (electronic only) Membership
for $250 instead of $500. This will provide all electronic materials, including
the Newsletter. Hard copy version of some documents and CD Roms would be
available for a small fee. John P. Bachner, 8811 Colesville Road, Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 2010 Tel: +1 301 565 2733; Fax: +1 301 589 2017
The formation is announced of Keynetix Ltd, a company jointly set up by data management software developers Key Systems Geotechnical Ltd and network-GIS specialists KeyGIS Ltd. In its role to develop, market and distribute web-based GIS to the civil engineering, land, and environmental management industries. The company will also market and distribute Autodesk Map Guide and digital map products by Ordnance Survey. The Company is a licensed partner of Ordnance Survey and an Autodesk Systems Centre Keynetix Ltd, Moons Park, Redditch B98 9PA e-mail: geonetrix@key-systems.com (PS: Have you visited the public access GIS service www.boreholes.com? This enables site investigators to view the investigation
history of a particular geographical area, showing where the actual boreholes
are located, how deep they are, and who to approach for further information.
Major contributors of public boreholes are the BGS with all 850,000 UK borehole
locations on the site. REVISION OF DD175 - published at last!
The standard recognises the importance of the conceptual site model and give examples of what models should include after a desk study and walkover survey and at the end of an intrusive investigation. Although it contains a number of compromises, those Members who have been closest to it consider it a vast improvement on DD175 and it is therefore strongly recommended to Members. It is available from the BSI (Tel: 020 8996 9001) Price £56 (BSI Members) /£112 (Others)
Desk Study: - Ordnance Survey Map A next day service to supply photocopied extracts of large-scale
Ordnance Survey maps for a given site from the late 19th century to
the present day is available from Karl Reinders. |
