www.www.buonovino.com

[nilesh_shah]

Dear SEFIANS,

It was nice to be with you over last fifteen days while reading discussions/debate on various subsections of this E-Conference. I thank the organizers for giving me an opportunity to moderate a sub section on“How do we regulate the Structural Engineering Profession?”

There are standards/codes available to “test” various building materials prior to its use for constructing a structure, but it is pity that no standards are available to “test” structural engineers who specify such tests for building materials and that no legislation is available to regulate/monitor the structural engineering profession. In my opening remarks for this subsection I have raised four issues pertaining to “regulating the structural engineering profession”. They are:
< ![if !supportLists]>1. Creating a professional identity that is legally recognized
< ![if !supportLists]>2. Need for a single apex body exclusive to the profession of structural engineering which sets standards for professional practice, provide guidelines for registration and licensing of structural engineers along with further categories based on academic qualification and experience, sets norms for CPD (Continuous professional development) and conducts qualifying exam to practice structural engineering.
< ![if !supportLists]>3. Understanding structural engineers “(Limited) Liability” and “Defect Liability Period” for structural design.
< ![if !supportLists]>4. Need for Professional Indemnity Insurance for security of structural engineers.

The first two of the issues listed above have been discussed at length. Almost everyone who posted for this subsection felt the need for professional identity and a regulating body backed by legislation. Even, discussion in other subsection also revealed the need for a regulating body. ErAlok Bhowmickinformed that currently, three institutions are appealing for registration of PE and there is confusion, whether to register PE with IE(I), ECI or CEAI. At the end of the E-Conference, still the confusion prevails. Even though it is discussed at length, questions raised below remain unanswered:
< ![if !supportLists]>a) If PE currently being offered by IE(I), ECI and CEAI carry any value?
< !(如果! supportLists) > b) < ![endif] >哪些organisations (or any other organisation) should look after regulating the structural engineering profession? Or should it continue to be laissez faire as being practised currently.
< ![if !supportLists]>c) As we know, IE(I) has a Royal Charter since 1935. Does this mean that we don’t need Engineers Bill enacted by the Parliament? Through its royal charter, is there a clear understanding of IE(I)’s role in regulating engineering profession in India?
As mentioned byEr B V Harsoda, The Gujarat Professional Civil Engineers Bill was passed by the state legislative assembly in March 2006 – post 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Under this bill, Gujarat Council of Professional Engineers was formed which comprised of 12 members. The council was to perform several functions including preparation of register of professional civil engineers, hold examinations, prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette, prescribe code of ethics for professional engineers, grant or refuse certificate of practice, etc. But as of now, there is no significant progress to implement this bill. Again, it is legislation specific to Gujarat and not mandatory across the country.

While the first two issues (professional identity and regulating body backed by legislation) mentioned in my opening remarks were discussed in detail, rarely someone posted about the last two issues concerning “(Limited) Liability” of a structural engineer, “Defect liability period” for structural design and “Professional Indemnity Insurance”. I feel these issues are important and need appropriate mention while standardising our profession. These would ensure safety to a structural engineer and would help him defend his case in court of law, if need arises.

形势是严峻的。经过几十年的持续efforts, we do not have a legal body to regulate our profession. After discussions/debate over 15 days, we have clarity on issues related to regulation of our profession but, not resolution for the issues. This collaborates well with anguish of fellow structural engineers who expressed their frustration saying that such discussions and debate would go on for decades without any positive outcome.

It is important that any one from the IE(I), ECI and CEAI is recognized for registration of PE with consensus of others. It is high time that all individuals unite on this platform. May be one of the organisation (or SEFI?) can lead from the front and play role of a facilitating and coordinating agency amongst IE(I), ECI and CEAI for registration of PE and regulation of profession. There is a model agreement available with other organizations, which can be reviewed and amended as necessary. The standards of practice, fees, roles and responsibilities, performance criteria, frame work for continuous education and exams may be drafted. It would be apt to convince the licensure that only PE from recognized institute shall be considered for issuing license to practise as structural engineer. Any unethical behaviour, duly investigated by such an institute and reported to local licensure would result in forfeiting the license to practise structural engineering. If sought by the structural engineer, such an institute will conduct unbiased technical investigation and give technical opinion on his role, responsibility and faithful performance of duties.

I do appreciateJames Cohen’s提到industry-internal意味着所有egations of unethical behaviour can be investigated, judged and published, even without legal backing to enforce penalties. It is indeed a good idea to have such a mechanism till we identify the organization that regulates the profession and have clarity on legislation. While, such a mechanism can investigate, judge and publish unethical behaviour; enforcement of penalty would be realistic only with legal backing. Well, something is always better than nothing.

I hope that united efforts from all of us would soon mobilize a system to create our legal identity and regulation of profession.

Regards,
Nilesh Shah
E-Conf Moderator
How do we regulate the structural engineering profession?
Partner
SHAH ASSOCIATES
Designers, Engineers and Consultants
201-206, Jaldarshan
Nanpura
Surat 395 001
Gujarat, India
Mobile: +91-987-900-6906
email:nilesh@shahassociates.com(nilesh@shahassociates.com)

Posted via Email

[nilesh_shah]

Dear SEFIANS,

It was nice to be with you over last fifteen days while reading discussions/debate on various subsections of this E-Conference. I thank the organizers for giving me an opportunity to moderate a sub section on "How do we regulate the Structural Engineering Profession?"

There are standards/codes available to "test" various building materials prior to its use for constructing a structure, but it is pity that no standards are available to "test" structural engineers who specify such tests for building materials and that no legislation is available to regulate/monitor the structural engineering profession. In my opening remarks for this subsection I have raised four issues pertaining to "regulating the structural engineering profession". They are:
1. Creating a professional identity that is legally recognized
2. Need for a single apex body exclusive to the profession of structural engineering which sets standards for professional practice, provide guidelines for registration and licensing of structural engineers along with further categories based on academic qualification and experience, sets norms for CPD (Continuous professional development) and conducts qualifying exam to practice structural engineering.
3. Understanding structural engineers "(Limited) Liability" and "Defect Liability Period" for structural design.
4. Need for Professional Indemnity Insurance for security of structural engineers.

The first two of the issues listed above have been discussed at length. Almost everyone who posted for this subsection felt the need for professional identity and a regulating body backed by legislation. Even, discussion in other subsection also revealed the need for a regulating body. ErAlok Bhowmickinformed that currently, three institutions are appealing for registration of PE and there is confusion, whether to register PE with IE(I), ECI or CEAI. At the end of the E-Conference, still the confusion prevails. Even though it is discussed at length, questions raised below remain unanswered:



a) If PE currently being offered by IE(I), ECI and CEAI carry any value?
b) Which of these organisations (or any other organisation) should look after regulating the structural engineering profession? Or should it continue to be laissez faire as being practised currently.
c) As we know, IE(I) has a Royal Charter since 1935. Does this mean that we don’t need Engineers Bill enacted by the Parliament? Through its royal charter, is there a clear understanding of IE(I)’s role in regulating engineering profession in India?



As mentioned byEr B V Harsoda, The Gujarat Professional Civil Engineers Bill was passed by the state legislative assembly in March 2006 � post 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Under this bill, Gujarat Council of Professional Engineers was formed which comprised of 12 members. The council was to perform several functions including preparation of register of professional civil engineers, hold examinations, prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette, prescribe code of ethics for professional engineers, grant or refuse certificate of practice, etc. But as of now, there is no significant progress to implement this bill. Again, it is legislation specific to Gujarat and not mandatory across the country.

While the first two issues (professional identity and regulating body backed by legislation) mentioned in my opening remarks were discussed in detail, rarely someone posted about the last two issues concerning "(Limited) Liability" of a structural engineer, "Defect liability period" for structural design and "Professional Indemnity Insurance". I feel these issues are important and need appropriate mention while standardising our profession. These would ensure safety to a structural engineer and would help him defend his case in court of law, if need arises.

形势是严峻的。经过几十年的持续efforts, we do not have a legal body to regulate our profession. After discussions/debate over 15 days, we have clarity on issues related to regulation of our profession but, not resolution for the issues. This collaborates well with anguish of fellow structural engineers who expressed their frustration saying that such discussions and debate would go on for decades without any positive outcome.

It is important that any one from the IE(I), ECI and CEAI is recognized for registration of PE with consensus of others. It is high time that all individuals unite on this platform. May be one of the organisation (or SEFI?) can lead from the front and play role of a facilitating and coordinating agency amongst IE(I), ECI and CEAI for registration of PE and regulation of profession. There is a model agreement available with other organizations, which can be reviewed and amended as necessary. The standards of practice, fees, roles and responsibilities, performance criteria, frame work for continuous education and exams may be drafted. It would be apt to convince the licensure that only PE from recognized institute shall be considered for issuing license to practise as structural engineer. Any unethical behaviour, duly investigated by such an institute and reported to local licensure would result in forfeiting the license to practise structural engineering. If sought by the structural engineer, such an institute will conduct unbiased technical investigation and give technical opinion on his role, responsibility and faithful performance of duties.

I do appreciateJames Cohen’s提到industry-internal意味着所有egations of unethical behaviour can be investigated, judged and published, even without legal backing to enforce penalties. It is indeed a good idea to have such a mechanism till we identify the organization that regulates the profession and have clarity on legislation. While, such a mechanism can investigate, judge and publish unethical behaviour; enforcement of penalty would be realistic only with legal backing. Well, something is always better than nothing.

I hope that united efforts from all of us would soon mobilize a system to create our legal identity and regulation of profession.

Regards,
Nilesh Shah
E-Conf Moderator
How do we regulate the structural engineering profession?
Partner
SHAH ASSOCIATES
Designers, Engineers and Consultants
201-206, Jaldarshan
Nanpura
Surat 395 001
Gujarat, India
Mobile: +91-987-900-6906
email:nilesh@shahassociates.com

Posted via Email