solutions for not enough time, fee, training, etc

huangyhg

solutions for: not enough time, fee, training, etc.
how do we solve these problems which we all seem to face?
in this competetive world, sometimes we are our own worst enemies. there is always someone who will do the job cheaper or faster. the architect often doesn't realize or doesn't care that there may be a difference in quality he will receive.
instead of just complaining about it, let's do some brainstorming to see what solution we can come up with.
check out our whitepaper library.
as long as there are people out there who will some a crap job for nothing there's not a lot we can do other than make the client or potential client aware that you get what you pay for.  
i've found that keeping myself very organized helps me cut down on time spent on a job so that i am able to meet dead lines and so on.  if you are an employer, get your engineers some decent software for god's sake!  i can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and i can't do a job by hand as fast as i can with good software.  if it saves me, say, 4 hours per job how long does it take to pay for itself at $85-$120 an hour?  after that it's gravy.
when things change, that affect the amount of time or fee or your ability to get the job out the door, you need to speak up, loud, clear and without ambiguity! don't be afraid; standup for what you need to do your job. if you need more time, say it. if you need more fee, say it. if you need specialized software, say it.
and don't wait for 2 weeks before you say anything. your silence will be taken as your agreement.
this will also train those who think that they what your job is all about. little do they know......
you may create some waves the first time around but they will quickly learn the second time.
we have to put in an effort in letting the clients (mostly architects i presume) be aware of "cheap, fast, good:  pick two".
also encourage architects to "educate" their clients the same.
in my experience, it was self-defeating when you try to compete with the other local engineering firms on price.  it is always better to set your rate and stick with it.  "cheaper clients" will solicit other cheaper engineering firms and perhaps learn the value of good engineering the hard way.
it's tough out there...  good luck to you all.
we've walked away from traditional clients that want a competetive bid process wrt. engineering fees.  simple as that.  its always better to look for new clients or concentrate on the work in hand than work for nothing.  it seems to never fail that when your working for nothing some opportunity presents itself that one can't take advantage of.
from my experience, i have seen the engineers that work for less and do sloppy work come and go. they will not last. sooner or later something will go wrong for them. i agree with
whyun. set your price and do good quality work and you will always have and find work.
there will be firms and people that will do a job cheaper (not less expensive - cheaper) but we cannot give up all standards to compete. the biggest i see is trying to compete with overseas competitors.
here is what i try to do when i can:
1. the new guy. new employees may be well qualified and may not be. i try to get a feel for them but try not to intimidate them. sometimes they may be afraid to admit they do not know something fearing looking stupid amongst their peers. i try to explain things simply (but not as if they are a kid) so they can understand the "why". sometimes you think "they should know this" but keep it to myself. i don't feel threatened to teach people in my business what i know. i may also have them tag along with experienced personnel and send them to machines to get knowledge from experienced people that deal with our work outputs. they offer many suggestions and opinions (sometimes too many that are not feasible) that are beneficial, and if nothing else they can get an understanding in where we are coming from. re  
jike,
it鈥檚 the reality. clients鈥?knowledge, criteria and experience play a big role in the competitive world.
being with different companies, from commercial field to industrial field, i experienced these things and noticed some differences. for industrial projects, 鈥淐heaper鈥?doesn't seem to be a super powerful bidding weapon. bidder鈥檚 qualification, record and previous experience is a big deal. the clients are usually the owners of the end product. 鈥淐heaper鈥?design may not cheap in other aspects. and, most importantly, any problem in the product quality will cost their fortune directly.
this is a big oversimplification but my philosophy is to get one oppurtunity to show a client what we can do and wow them with service and quality of product. clients seem to be longing for someone who is very fast on responding, meets every deadline, and does a ggod job, easy to work with, etc. once you show them this they will pay more to avoid having problems. the hard part is showing them this. its ethically questionable but doing a job for less than you usually would and telling the client that this is less(so they dont expect that in the future) is a way to get a chance to show them what you can do. now you have to really wow them and they wont mind paying your normal fees in the future to avoid the hassles of getting the service that comes with the lowballer. im ok with this approach as long as im completely honest up front. owners are businessmen first and engineers second.
jjeng2 - i agree with showing a client what a good job you can do, unfortunately, after the first job, the client always says "well, you did job x for $a thousand.  job y is almost exactly the same, and you want to charge us $a + b thousand?  no way.".
its a catch-22.
agree with connect2.  it's the competative bid process that had caused this situation.  here's a radical solution.  what if all structurals engineers refused to give an engineering estimate.