Several past threads got me to thinking why we bother inspecting a licensed trade persons work in the field. After all, isn’t that license supposed to signify that you are good enough, and trustworthy enough to do good work, and smart enough to make judgement calls?
Anyhow’s….let’s see where this goes.
WJS
Replies
I think "Trust, but verify" applies here. Or, "trust the dealer, but always cut the deck".
"Trust, but verify" applies here."
Danno,
My point being that if a governing authority is going to require someone to be licensed, the standards for that license should be high enough that their work should not need to be inspected ALL THE TIME, EVERY TIME.
Outside of the building trades, inspections of a pro's work on a job by job regular basis are pretty uncommon, in the trades it's the norm. Why is that?
WJS
I'm kinda with the others - I don't think it would work.
Pretty much ANYBODY could fake their way through getting a license. They may have to learn enough stuff to pass a test or two.
But that's no guarantee that they'll actually do anything right out in the field. Once they have that license they can do anything they want.Bumpersticker: Freelance gynecologist.
"Pretty much ANYBODY could fake their way through getting a license. They may have to learn enough stuff to pass a test or two.
But that's no guarantee that they'll actually do anything right out in the field. Once they have that license they can do anything they want."
Boss,
Then why not random and intense "audits" of ones work to maintain the license vs. the "if you make a mistake and get caught, fix it" with no penalty way we do it now?
WSJ
If you go to "random and intense audits", it seems to em you've gone full circle - You're right back to requiring inspections.I watch the harvest... learning from the earth of what it is to give and give again, and only in that giving to grow whole.
If you go to "random and intense audits", it seems to em you've gone full circle - You're right back to requiring inspections.
Boss,
I'm talking abstractly here, so bear with me.
All things being equal, what is more accurate AND cheaper in the field (we're talking real world statistics here) a) census (everything is checked and counted) or b) an accurate random sample survey?
Answer: b) for a variety of reasons even though it is cheaper to conduct. One of the reasons an unsuccessful attempt was made to allow statistics based estimates of our National Census to be used for determining voting blocks.
My point being, well done, rare and random audits of a pro's work would probably be more indicative of the quality of a licensed pro's work than the quickie walk through at the end of every job and a once passed certification.
Basing licensing on that would give that license more credibility vs. as some have alluded to, ....it doesn't mean much.
WSJ
RE faking it to get a license.
i've seen a number of places where all you needed was a boind and a few dollar bills to get that piece of paper they call a license.
but here in Maine, to do electrical work, you need to have a journey man's license and work for a master electrician for so many years and then pass a test before you get you masters.
Electrical work done by a master or under his direction is not subject to inspection.
I understand that it is a bit easier to get a plumber's license here but all pluimbuing is subject to strict inspections, as is waste water installation.
When I compare this to the licensing of other professionalls, it seems that the harder, longer, and more arduous the "apprentice" term ios, the less likely that the work of the professional will be subject to inspection.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Outside of the building trades, inspections of a pro's work on a job by job regular basis are pretty uncommon, in the trades it's the norm. Why is that?
Personally, I would prefer that more work in other professions is inspected. If houses were built like software, can you imagine what kind of disasters and loss of life there would be?
I think the reason why your trade gets inspected is that people could lose their lives if a shoddy job is done, licensed tradesman or not. If an accountant screws up your books, you're still alive and do have legal recourse. If a contractor makes a mistake and it causes a deck to fail, someone can potentially lose their life. There's no recourse that could fix that.
Society would definitely benefit more if more professions required licenses and regular re-exams. Unfortunately, it's hard to "license" some professions.
"If houses were built like software, can you imagine what kind of disasters and loss of life there would be?"
Thang,
I believe Bill Gate's would beg to differ, LOL
"I think the reason why your trade gets inspected is that people could lose their lives if a shoddy job is done, licensed tradesman or not. ...........If a contractor makes a mistake .......someone can potentially lose their life....."
As opposed to an MD or commercial pilot, or the host of other professions that place the lives of others in ones hands?
....Unfortunately, it's hard to "license" some professions."
As you point out, experience (and IMO) a proven track record should play a role in the process.
WJS
>> if a governing authority is going to require someone to be licensed, the standards for that license should be high enough that their work should not need to be inspected ALL THE TIME, EVERY TIME
Just because someone is capable of doing good work doesn't mean that they will do good work, or that they won't make a mistake.
Pete
I think the others had good points: some people think they can do "shortcuts" because they really don't understand the reasons behind some of the rules and some make honest mistakes. The point about a mistake in the building trades being life threatening is a good one. As far as airline pilots, if they make a bad mistake, you know it right away (the plane crashes), but if an electrician or framer makes a bad mistake, it might not be noticed until years later when a fire or collapse claims some lives.
Actually, pilots make mistakes all the time, just like most everyone here does when driving. It's just that relatively few of those actually result in accidents.
Pilots also get "inspected" by FAA inspectors.
My neighbor is an FAA pilot inspector. He gets on any plane and watches, evaluates and questions the pilots on rules/regs/ procedures. Everything from international flights to local taxie type services.
I haven't talked with about much more than the basics of what he does, but do gather, that there are just not enough of them. He has been doing it for 25 years.
Dave
Right, but there isn't an inspector on every flight.
So right.
If there were, there would be fewer crashes, or more dead inspectors :)
Dave
Uh, there are so few crashes (of commercial aircraft) already that it's hard to develop statistics on them. Though there's always room for improvement, there isn't much room in the aircraft biz. Putting an inspector on every flight would be apt to make things worse, not better.
Unless the inspectors were armed, then they could shoot the hijackers that break into the cabin.
Yeah, I can see it now. The pilot and inspector get in a row about some violation and both pull out their guns . . .
Why do we inspect licensed trades, this one is easy!
As a licensed Structural Engineer and currently employed as a Building Inspector for the City, I think I can shed some light on this issue.
First, having a license indicates that a person has the ablilty to pass the test. It is by no means an indicator that a person can or will do a good job.
The world revolves around money...without someone watching over a contractor or licensed trade person, that person will do whatever it takes to maximize his/her proffit. Sooner or later, the quality of work will be the minimum to get passed by the owner (who may know nothing about what they are looking at) and the trades person will walk away with more money in their pocked.
The reasons that having inspections is important are readily obvious in our area. Within our jurisdiction (within the city limits) homes are constructed to Code and thouroughly inspected throughout construction. Take one step across that city limit line (where there are no inspections) and you'll find crap that will make you scratch your head wondering how it can possibly be standing. Many of the local trades people work both in and out of the city limits and the fact that there are inspections are obvious in their work
"First, having a license indicates that a person has the ablilty to pass the test. It is by no means an indicator that a person can or will do a good job......"
Lurch,
As working for the inspector as you claim, Why not? Apprentice, Journeyman, Master........(BS, MS, PhD LOL) all are earned, just like a licence should be, and if one holds such status, should mean working to a certain standard.
WJS
Edited 8/20/2004 4:19 pm ET by WorkshopJon
I am totally in favor of licensing...I hope my post didn't sound otherwise.
Some licenses require practical experience which is a good thing.
Inspections are an important element to just about anything and should be welcomed...not resisted. Engineers send plans and calcs to other offices for a peer review to make sure things are correct. Manufacturing plants pull a certain percentage of items off the line for testing and inspection. Those well meaning people with nothing to hide appreciate and welcome inspections. The problem is when people think that building to Code really cuts into the profit margin. Why pay $50 for a code approved item when this $5 Home Depot thingy will work just as well. The trade industry is driven by money (rightfully so) and if left unchecked with no accountabillity, the money will drive the quality down. Next time you're in Fairbanks take a look around...it's as plain as day
"Why pay $50 for a code approved item when this $5 Home Depot thingy will work just as well."
I just have to interject a little humour here.
"Thingy" is Theodora's word.
Did she license you to use it?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Oh, oh, now we'll need posting inspectors!
na, na, na, na, no.
We are already licensed to post, via the agreement upon registering here.
;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Well, that's fortunate, after some of the stuff I've posted tonight! Better sign off anyway. Wife tells me it must be hard work solving all the world's problems. :-)
Some licenses require practical experience which is a good thing......"
Lurch,
IMO, it should be a major thing. Few trades or professions are book learned, They are mastered and honed in the field.
"If an inspector catches only 50% of the mistakes, the job would be 50% better than if there were no inspections at all."
To the contrary, lot's of studies have shown that the quality of work often goes down when one relies on someone else to "inspect" their work.
WJS
Edited 8/21/2004 9:17 am ET by WorkshopJon
To the contrary, lot's of studies have shown that the quality of work often goes down when one relies on someone else to "inspect" their work.
Jon, I can see that reliance on inspection could be a problem...this is not what I meant. It is plain to see up here that the fact that there are inspections within the city limits forces some builders to perform a higher level of work as opposed to the same builder working outside the city where there are no inspections. Sure, there are some bank inspections after the place is already done but it's impossible to see that 2x4 header spanning 16'-0" carrying a 50 psf snow load. Don't get me wrong, there are builders who maintain a high level of quality regardless of where they build.
It seems to me that while this is an interesting thread, its a matter of preaching to the converted.
Most, if not all, of the people who post here ( IMO ) already build better than code requires. This is a passionate group here that , I think, is here to improve their skills. Those who are hack builders probably wouldn't bother coming here, and, if they did, probably wouldn't stay long.
Unfortunately, I do see a need for regular inspections. I have made mistakes that have been caught by inspectors even tho I try to give my customers a good job. Sometimes its a matter of not being up on recent code changes, sometimes its just some stupidity on my own part.
But I have also seen jobs where I don't know how the inspector could have approved the work, so I really don't know what the answer is.
Who inspects the inspectors?
That's part of the problem that I don't have any answers for.
I am right with you on that! I know most builders try to do what's right and if it's not right, it was probably an honest mistake.
I too have seen the results of private home inspectors. It seems that there are many around here that will say whatever it takes to keep the cash rolling in. I think the vast majority of local private home inspectors are "in bed" with the realtors (oh, for goodness sake, don't get me started on realtors!). The realtors will only recommend those inspectors who can use their words to turn a 100 year old horse stable into the Taj Mahal. The good honest and accurate home inspectors don't seem to last very long. This subject would actually make a good thread
You spelled realtors right! I sold real estate for a couple summers. You are right about "don't get me started about realtors..." Most people don't pronounce it right either. Like "masonry." Always gotta add that extra vowel.
I was at a planning conference and a guy from the Federal Transportation Admin. was giving a presentation with slides and we're all half asleep and a few people start chuckling, so I look at the screen and the slide has one of the FTA officials listed as "Reality Specialist" (instead of "Realty Specialist"). Someone calls out, "Well, it's about time!" Somehow the presenter didn't see the humor.
Just like there are good and bad home inspectors there are good and bad realtors (or even, dare I say it, lawyers!).
Our realtor recommended someone to inspect the "as-is" home we were buying and the guy did an outstanding job - even resulted in a few $K decrease in the cost to fix some blatant safety issues (e.g. undersized AL wire for the in-wall AC). The guy has been doing this for 20+ years 'cause it's what he loves, and his work shows it. I was greatful to have the "insurance policy" of his inspection.
>>I too have seen the results of private home inspectors. It seems that there are many around here that will say whatever it takes to keep the cash rolling in. I think the vast majority of local private home inspectors are "in bed" with the realtors (oh, for goodness sake, don't get me started on realtors!). The realtors will only recommend those inspectors who can use their words to turn a 100 year old horse stable into the Taj Mahal. The good honest and accurate home inspectors don't seem to last very long. This subject would actually make a good thread
I don't know about your area, but in mine I don't think that is the case.
Yeah, there are a couple of #### kissers in my area, and every year a few cycle through (ad appears in yellow pages, they try to make a big splash with "discount" coupons, etc) but it only takes a year or two for them to be out of the business.
There are also a couple of "deal killers" who end up doing multiple inspections for the same clients because they make mountains out of molehills.
The core group of inspectors in my area (there are maybe 20 -25 of us here year in and out) are generally pretty careful to give objective information and educate our clients so they can make decisions that are right for their situations.
I'm not doing my clients a favor by either downplaying or aggerating the problems I find.
I personally don't market through agents, but I know some very good home inspectors who do.
It's easy to consider the possibility of HI's trying to win the agents' favor by overlooking or downplaying stuff; the reality is that you get your butt handed to you pretty quickly if you do.
The biggest problem I see in the industry is it's too easy to get into it in most states, so there are too many poor, unqualified inspectors out there.
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
"Outside of the building trades, inspections of a pro's work on a job by job regular basis are pretty uncommon, in the trades it's the norm. Why is that?"
Inspection of a pro's work on a job by job basis is very common outside of the building trades. What experience, as a professional outside of the building trades, do have that is contrary to that?
My personal experience with those you call 'professionals', in the buiding trade especially, is that the inspections that are conducted are extremely necessary. Too lax, in most cases.
Many of the 'licensees', have little more than the ability to pump blood through vessels and the ability to inhale and exhale without instruction. That, and in most cases, a union card.
An engineer's work is almost constantly scrutinized. By, Checked and Approved are sign-offs that exist on almost every document of any consequence. A pilot's every move is checked and checked again. The list of real professionals that have their worked checked, reviewed, inspected, etc., is long.
BTW, every true professional doesn't question the need for such review, but rather welcomes it.
I couldn't agree more. I'm an engineer and my work is scrutinized several times before it goes out the door, and often afterwords. There was a saying in the Navy, 'What isn't inspected is often neglected'. It really comes down to your belief in anyone being perfect. I have always felt two people are less likely to overlook something than one. This is near and dear to my heart because my licensed plumber passed his rough inspection without installing my upstairs bathtub (just put it in place and covered it with packaging material), got two cold water supplies mixed up with hot water, and ran out to collect his draw which was contingent upon the inspection. I ended up fixing the stuff myself. I can see overlooking the mixed up plumbing, the tub should've been caught though. I digress. I also agree that the best sub contractors understand the inspection process.
Between this thread and the current DIY thread, it got me to thinking again about this: Suppose there were an "enhanced code" standard that a contractor could build to. It would be a standard that was better than the "standard standard" in various ways. Eg, it might call for subfloor to be glued down, even if the standard code doesn't. And if someone wanted to build to this enhanced standard and advertise it (since it would denote improved quality) they would have to pay for extra inspections. If structured right it could be a cash cow for the inspection department.
There's probably a dozen reasons why this would never fly, of course ...
Jon,
You've really tickled me interest here with this Q.
I generally come down as more in favor of inspections than of licensing since most trades licensing I have seen is about the money more than the skill, and because if you have to have one or the other, the inspections will more likely keep the dangerous DIY HO honest also.
But you have hit a relaly interesting note with this comparison, "Outside of the building trades, inspections of a pro's work on a job by job regular basis are pretty uncommon, in the trades it's the norm. Why is that?"
I would assume you mean say in comparison to architects, doctors, and lawyers. Archy's do sometimes need to have their work inspected, ie. the plans have to pass approval at the planning dept before a building permit is issued. But I have yet to heart of a doctor needing a state inspector present at time of diagnosis, or ion the OR when you arre being slit open, tho I suppose you could campare a lawyer's work being inspected or aproved by a judge in the adversarial setting of court.
I'll keep reading to see what I think....
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>tho I suppose you could campare a lawyer's work being inspected or aproved by a judge in the adversarial setting of court.
And on the business side, by other counsel.
Legal work product is possibly the most rigorously "inspected" product out there.
Seems to me that ISO certification for products (de rigor in international trade) requires a degree of inspection, as well.
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
Bob,
You could probably lend more histo5rical context to another thought I was having about all this.
That most licensing in this country has come about as a result of professional organization and lobbying for laws that control certain activities those organizations want licensed.
Certainly that was the source in medeviel Europe with trade unions.
There was a time in England when licensing was more a corrupt power/money scheme to benefit the coffers of the King.
but if I remember rightly, doctors were not originally licensed until the AMA lobbied for such.
and in some locales now, it is the trades organizations who are behind the "need" for licensing.
comment?
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I don't know a lot about the history of licensing, although I have a dim memory from school that in those [ancient] days, PA had the greatest number of licensed professions.
I have been working in favor of HI licensing in Ohio for several years now.
I support the idea for a couple of reasons:
Consumer protection and industry protection.
Anyone in OH can call him or herself an HI. In my area there is a core group of about 20 of us who are here year in and year out and most do a pretty good job.
Every year about 10-15 new guys (mainly) show up in the yellow pages, and about 10-15 disappear.
That constant flow has some consequences: First: a number of people get home inspections done by "amateurs" who usually are not knowledgeable enough to do the job right (and the knowledge is not only the technical stuff, but the "people skills" stuff - I believe that scaring clients by exaggerating problems (or even not "classifying" them) does not serve the client's interest - my job is education)
Second, the constant entry of new folks drags prices down. The only thing they have to compete on is price, and most people don't know enough about home inspections to know what other criteria to use.
99%+/- of the calls I get ask about price first. I tell them, and try to educate them as to other questions they should ask.
The HI biz is a high risk, high liability biz, and the overhead is a lot higher than it would first appear.
This is, of course, a familiar issue to all of the trades.
I got involved in the licensing movement "preemptively:" Several states have had their HI licensing bills drafted by the real estate organizations. Usually to the disadvantage of the HI types.
There are a number of HI's opposed to licensing who argue "the market place will weed out the bad inspectors."
My answer is two fold: because people buy so few houses in their life time, market evaluation of product is tenuous, at best. And a number of people are going to get burned while the market is slowly weeding out the incompetents.
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
Actually, this isn't correct - virtually all output of industrial processes goes through a vigorous quality inspection step. That doesn't mean 100%, it means a statisitically sound view of the output. Likewise, virtually all computer code is inspected/tested; most patient procedures in hospitals go through a peer review (at least, where I live they do); almost all professional sports participants go through the films of ALL of their performances in minute detail; permance artists, of course, are constantly reviewed and critiqued; all major firms have procedural audits and cycles of self-review; .... you get the idea..
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
"But you have hit a relaly interesting note with this comparison, "Outside of the building trades, inspections of a pro's work on a job by job regular basis are pretty uncommon, in the trades it's the norm. Why is that?" ......
......But I have yet to heart of a doctor needing a state inspector present at time of diagnosis, or ion the OR when you arre being slit open,...."
Piffin,
Despite what others here have said, most work IMO isn't. I know I "self inspect" my work before it goes out the door, and we are an ISO 9002 certified company. My little brother (the one who Andy C. knows) is a radiologist and views hundreds if not thousands of images (life and death decisions sometimes) a day or week. Nobody checks his every diagnosis. Matter of fact, hardly ever is his opinion questioned.
As I stated earlier, Journeyman or Master of (or a license) ... IMO should connotate that you do such good work, it doesn't need to be inspected other than periodically.
WSJ
Edited 8/21/2004 9:33 am ET by WorkshopJon
"...Likewise, virtually all computer code is inspected/tested;..."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
That is one of the biggest misconceptions about the software industry. Most inspected software is inspected by the programmers...a bad practice to begin with because programmers make bad QA testers. Code reviews are worth a dime if there is a knowledgeable, detail oriented, skilled lead programmer to inspect it. A bunch of junior level programmers inspecting each other's code is worthless. Most software is rushed thru development...it's called RAD (rapid application development).
I would be willing to bet my entire year's salary that more than 50% of software is 1) not inspected, 2) goes thru an inspection by either unqualified "inspectors" or 3) goes thru an inspection process that isn't thorough enough to find even the simplest mistakes.
There is a reason why software companies release hot fixes, service packs, and upgrades at the breakneck speed that they do.
Your 50% may be true as there's so much code written by small-time outfits that it would bend the stats; however, in a large corporation, inspection and test (by "professional" testers using automated test and analysis tools too) is the norm.
PS, I spent a couple of my 30 years at IBM as a QA manager in a software lab - I'm not taking a SWAG at this..
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
Industry practices have changed a bit, even inside outfits like IBM. Nowadays the need to produce volumes of code is so high that inspections are far from universal, and far too many are cursory in nature.
But then again, most building trade inspections are likewise cursory. Lots of variability by locality, I'm sure, but I doubt that many inspectors check even 10% of the job in most cases. I've heard some tradespeople say that it's a good idea to leave one or two easy "mistakes" for the inspector to find, so that he'll feel like he has his "quota" and quit looking for more.
It's all cost driven: the cost of a fix to mission-critical code (e.g. DB2) is astounding compared to the cost of 100% code-path testing. I.E. it's cheaper to write bug-free code..
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
Yeah, but it's still very expensive to write bug-free code, and there's as much false economy in the software industry as anywhere else.
The secret to "bug-free" code isn't to eliminate bugs per se but to produce ROBUST code that can tolerate a few bugs without going bonkers. This is a little bit like an engineer designing a girder to take 2x the max load, vs cutting it real close, but it's even more like an engineer designing the building so it won't collapse even if one girder fails.
But writing robust code is an art that only one programmer in five (if you're lucky) is any good at, and it's a greatly underappreciated art as well.
With the advent of outsourcing and offshoring, the emphasis is on the bottom dollar and not quality. Those of us who have to support or deal with customers value quality. Those who are at the top don't know what quality is. On top of that, there is always the tug of war between getting quality and what is acceptable to sell and collect revenue on now.
Quality cost money, lots of it. Finance and sales guys don't always understand why it costs so much because they don't understand the nuances of what it takes to make sure quality is there from the beginning. I.T. managers like myself are being forced to accept the lowest bids (even if our gut feelings say otherwise) and constantly find new ways to reduce costs...in the end it's always quality that suffers.
I have to imagine it's the same thing in the construction business. How many times does quality suffer because a job is done to a "good enough" point vs done to a point of quality? Anytime you get into a situation where you have aggressive bidding, quality is always going to suffer. The only solution is that all participants agree that specific tasks won't go below a certain cost. But then again, that's called collusion and we have wonderful laws against it.
Yeah.
The biggest difference between software and the building trades is that in software we make constant changes (and not just for bug fixes). It's would be like in the building trades having half the workforce on a project working change orders.
What happens is that things get out of sync. Kind of like the tray ceiling discussion recently -- if that requirement came through late there'd be pressure to just cut out the ceiling joists and install the raised ceiling. The developers would throw a fit about cutting out the joists over the kitchen (for obvious reasons) but wouldn't be able to explain (sufficiently for management/marketing, or even less aware developers) why it's not a good idea to cut out the joists in the shed area. It would hold together through initial testing, but would be certain to produce a field failure down the line.
Or, to take that analogy a step further, someone does an engineering analysis that shows that taking out the shed joists will not compromise the integrity of the structure, but later someone comes along and installs a skylight or some such that blows the assumptions for that analysis out of the water.
Tell me about the appreciation - I was very good at writing solid code; however, there was definitly a paycheque ceiling: consultant analysts don't write code..
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
But writing robust code is an art that only one programmer in five (if you're lucky) is any good at, and it's a greatly underappreciated art as well.
The other thing that pisses me off these days is that non-software engineers have a really difficult time seeing the benefit of properly engineered code. The business side wants things as fast as they can get it for as cheap as they can get it.
No one today seems to understand that something properly architected and implemented may cost more up front but may save 10x as much in the long run. The problem I have is trying to quantify that savings because no one knows what plans they have for the software further than 6 months out.
The misunderstood, but yet proliferated, idea that all code is "throw away code" in 6 months is something that just drives me nuts. I spent years as an object-oriented C++ programmer writing resuable code libraries to just have them all thrown away because no one takes the time to understand the existing code anymore. Quite depressing.
The thing that frosts me is that robust code is actually cheaper to write, by the time you get past unit test. But that's only true if everyone on the team is marching to the same drummer.
This is one reason why some teams can be much more productive than others. But the teams that get the big credit are the ones that work 80-hour weeks, not the teams that go home early because they're done.
(Fairly exhaustive testing is still the norm, though.)
I spent my last eight years in the nuclear power business validating programs for plant computer systems. To say it was just tested would be a gross understatement. We ran it on simulators and tried everything we could think of to make it crash. Every ambiguity and inconsistency led to a line by line review of the code to get the bugs out.
Yup, quality has a direct tie to jeopardy. For a while I wrote programs for the IBM Manufacturing plant in Toronto. Some programs were absolutely critical; and, if one went down during the night, the line wouldn't run (or not run for long) in the morning. So, if your program went down at 3:00AM, you could expect a phone call by 3:05 to get your butt into work and fix it. And if looked like it wasn't going to be up promptly, you could be invited to phone the plant manager and tell him personally that you were waking him to talk about the good job you were doing..
Phill Giles
The Unionville Woodwright
Unionville, Ontario
It's a variation on the old saying......."Trust everyone, but cut the cards, anyway" - lol
Yeah, what you said is what I was trying to say: "Trust everyone, but cut the cards anyway." My brain isn't working too well today.
Except around here I think sometimes it's "Trust the cards and cut everyone."
Unfortunatly all the "licensed" trade people are not as trustworthy as others. As a HO who hires them regularly, I have had some very ugly experiences with licensed trades people and their opinion of quality work. I am grateful for the city inspectors who have stepped in to keep a few of them honest. In one session of checking bids and references I found 2 "Licensed & bonded" trade people who were neither licensed or bonded! I think the inspections just keep everybody legit.
I work in the I.T. field. I graduated from college with bachelor of science degree in computer science. I can tell you that only about 10% of what I learned was actually used in the reall business world. The rest of what I needed, I learned on the job. The degree is like a license. It proved that I had a foundation but not neccesarily all the skills to complete a job.
Another way to look at it is, do you have to get all the questions correct on your license exam? Do you really want to hire the tradesman that barely passed or the tradesman that passed with flying colors?
And then of course, even the best of us make honest mistakes that we ourselves don't always catch.
Great answer, both human and practical!
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
QA/QC
Provides a level of protection to the tradesman ie standards to work to and to the client. We have had a number of discussions here on what constitutes 'cutting corners' or 'aceptable standard practices'.
There probably is room for just "periodic" inspections in some cases, vs inspecting every job.
But in practice this almost happens (and actually happens in some areas): Once the inspector has become familiar with a particular tradesman he'll know how closely his work needs inspection. And in some areas, where things are fairly informal, the inspector will just let an inspection slide if he has confidence in the tradesman. (Of course, in other areas he'll let an inspection slide if there's a hundred-dollar bill lubricating the way.)
It is kind of curious that engineering work (core samples, perc tests in some areas, etc) doesn't have to be directly inspected, since the engineer is deemed trustworthy, while regular trade work must be.
1. People make mistakes, including inspectors.
As a home inspector, I have seen work done _and_ bearing a city inspection sticker which was done wrong. It's rare, but it happens. (And you should hear people shout when I call out something like that. the one that comes to mind was an electrical upgrade where the electrician mixed the wiring for a 30 amp and a 50 amp circuit, with #10 CU on the 50 amp breaker and #6 cu on the 30.)
2. There are some licensed "professionals" who seem to have license #007.
Did an inspection yesterday where a licensed heating contractor installed a fan assisted cat 1 furnace and vented it through the side wall close to the LR window. Total rise, about 4', (minimum is 10 and a cat 1 has to be vented above the roof) and a total run of about 8'.
IMG_2953sga shows the whole thing (the arrow shows where it goes through the side wall.)
Take a look at the B-vent corrosion in IMG_2952sg and think about what the heat exchanger might look like!
And the guy (whose work generally sucks) had his sticker on the casing!
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
Bob, I agree.
People make mistakes...even inspectors. I try my best not to make any mistakes but it has happened and usually things get sorted out in the end. If an inspector catches only 50% of the mistakes, the job would be 50% better than if there were no inspections at all.
Your example of shoddy work from that licensed contractor is a prime example of what I said in a previous post. The guy was smart enought to pass the test but that is no indication of if he can or will do quality work. There are some licensesd trades people here in town where we almost have to take their tools out of there hands and do it ourself if we want it done right...we don't do that of course.
I have to disagree. If an inspector catches 50% of mistakes that means nothing. From working in the computer software industry (which,I'll bet you, has a factor of ten fewer errors per thousand "activities" than your average electrician, at least in our shop), I know that you can't "inspect in" quality. Inspections can (and should) be used to ASSURE that quality is there, but if you're using inspections only to remove errors you're in big trouble.
I put it a different way; You don't get what you expect, you get what you inspect.
Most jobs are done on a budget or bid. You want to pay T&M, then you probably get more, but have a blank check ready.
Curt Fortenberry
>>Some states don't even require a license for some construction trades!
Up until very recently, OH hasn't required a license to build, but it does to remodel!
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
LOL...That's funny! Do you folks have a lot of those antiquated laws on the books still? Like you can't eat ice cream in public? ;-)
almost everyone has a drivers license it does not mean they know how to drive
"almost everyone has a drivers license it does not mean they know how to drive,"
It pretty much does in Germany (where they have roads with no speed limits, and lower per mile accident rates than the US.) , a country also known for it's rigorous training and certification of its trades people.
Jon
your post is not reaching germany . i learned from a german cabinet maker along time ago he was a craftsman !!! And most germans are
your post is not reaching germany ."
??? WWW. is global last I checked LOL?
"i learned from a german cabinet maker along time ago he was a craftsman !!! And most germans are "
I've been working for Germans (and Austrians, same difference) almost exclusively for over 30 years. Actually one myself, one generation removed. Pride over profit always.
WSJ
I think the license is there as a career step. It signifies that the person is ready to be serious about their profession....used to be a confused kid with a hammer but now I want to be a real career tradesman and I certainly don't want to go to school anymore.
And I think that last part is the real answer to the problem.
If it took 4-6 years of college education to be a carpenter then inspection would be a thing reserved for hacks and homeowners. How many other carpenters here would take that next step?
It used to be that the term "master carpenter" meant something.
gk
I think the license is there as a career step. It signifies that the person is ready to be serious about their profession...."
Gabe,
Interesting perspective, seriously. Along that line of thought though "is ready to be serious" ... should it not signify how good you really are?
"If it took 4-6 years of college education to be a carpenter then inspection would be a thing reserved for hacks and homeowners."
Lot's of homeowners have a vested stake in their homes, want to do a good job, just don't know how,...HACK speaks for itself.
WSJ
JON,
"should it not signify how good you really are?"
considering how easy it is to become a licensed builder, I think makes it all the more imortant to watch out for anyone unlicensed. however being licensed doesn't mean good...it simply means you are not some loose cannon fly-by-nighter or moonlight working hammer slinger. It means you put in that little bit of effort to proove to the state that you are serious about having a career in building.
And again, my belief is that carpentry should be a degree oriented field of work. Think of the possibilities. Hiring, business knowledge, client interaction, etc.
Also I wonder why it is deemed as acceptable that it is not a degreed trade. what other jobs are you sent into the field without one bit of education. Especially considering the amount of risk and livlihood involved in building. Think if the medical profession was like that. "send the green horn to operate on the old lady...she's gonna die anyway" (I couldn't think of a better analogy but you get my drift)
gk
"I think makes it all the more important to watch out for anyone unlicensed. however being licensed doesn't mean good...it simply means you are not some loose cannon fly-by-nighter or moonlight working hammer slinger."
Geez Gabe,
I'm in trouble now, as I have no professional certifications what so everfor what I do, other than a couple of unrelated to what I do bachelor degrees.
I hear where you're coming from though, and as this thread evolves, I'm beginning to think a lot of licensing is just a shakedown.
WSJ
jon,
I don't know if id call it a "shakedown". I really do see the intention behind licensing a builder. And I can assume that the idea of builders being licensed was agreed upon by everybody but builders. Homeowners probably feel all warm and fuzzy inside when they hire a builder with a license.
It seems that whoever came up with the idea just didn't quite know how to make it tough enough to obtain a license. (probably the same guy who came up with the driving test procedures)
I guess the next time I get elected president, I will just have to take it upon myself to make it more difficult to get a builders license. (i'll work on that drivers license thing too!)
gk
considering how easy it is to become a licensed builder, I think makes it all the more imortant to watch out for anyone unlicensed. however being licensed doesn't mean good...
..and make sure someone's insured and to determine to what degree they are insured.
I haven't read all the posts here .. so this mighta been covered ...
but other professions are "inspected" ....
I'm working for an ER Doc right now ...
he just told me that the very start of his shift is to read thru the notes of the Dr he's releaving ... reads each paitent ... their symptoms ... the dr's tests ... results ... then the med's prescribed ... on his shift .. he has to record everything .. then the Dr that comes in after him .... checks his work.
If there's any confusion ... they confer .. if they don't agree ... another Dr is called in.
Jeff
Buck Construction, llc Pittsburgh,PA
Artistry in Carpentry
That's "peer review", a different concept, and one that would be difficut to apply to the building trades, I'm afraid.
Also, peer reviews rely on the fact that all the peers know their field. Peer reviews are only worth something if there is a "peer" that is more skilled and knowlegeable than the people that did the work.
Using doctors as an example, they could probably catch the simple diagnosis errors or thoroughly debate a decision before recommending it. However, if there is a condition that neither is familiar with and both mistakenly diagnosis, then the review is worthless. It's like having a bunch of apprentice tradesmen inspect each other's work.
Inspections aren't the cure all for bad work. It too relies on having an inspector that thoroughly knows the trade. We all know that that isn't always the case. However, have an inspector sign off on things at least provides the consumer some sort of legally binding statement that all was correct. Therefore, if something fails in the future, the consumer at least has some legal course of action they can pursue, whether it against the town or contractor.
With respect to homeowners, it's in their best interest to get all work inspected. For example, any wiring work I do in my house has to be inspected and certified by an inspector. That's a requirement of my town AND homeowner's policy. While I can blow off the town requirement, I'm not about to void my HO policy.
>>>Peer reviews are only worth something if there is a "peer" that is more skilled and knowlegeable than the people that did the work.
I disagree. Often mistakes have been pointed out to me by those who have no trade knowledge. Sometimes fresh eyes is all it takes.
Jon Blakemore
Often mistakes have been pointed out to me by those who have no trade knowledge.
As a homeowner, I would be really pissed if my contractor had his work inspected/reviewed and/or certified by someone with no trade knowledge whatsoever.
I agree that a fresh set of eyes is good sometimes but when I want something certified, I'll settle for the well-aged and experienced eyes.
I will grant you that I would hope for the most experienced inspector I could get, but to summarily dismiss peer review because you're not traveling up the skill ladder is harmful.
Jon Blakemore
I agree with Jon in disageeing with thang. We do a lot of peer reviews in my day job, and often the reviewer with the least experience in the area asks the most "interesting" and useful questions. Many times, in the process of explaining something to a novice reviewer, I've seen a reviewee (occasionally myself) recognize a mistake.
Let me clarify my position on peer reviews. They are good for the informal inspections. I, myself, have caught many mistakes during peer reviews. However, I don't think it is sufficient for formal inspections and qualifications.
When time allows, we conduct peer reviews on our software code. However, we use "official" QA resources (that are not answerable to the same managers) to officially qualify and certify our software.
We never substitute peer reviews for official test cycles.
In my experience the formal QA stuff is near worthless, if a shop is halfway decent to begin with. Stuff like ISO9000 or CMM will force a shop without a process to adopt one, at least briefly, but won't substantially change practices in a good shop (which is a good thing). It's mostly just a nusiance and a waste of time.
I'll agree and disagree with your last response.
A formal QA process doesn't have as great of a return in shop where things are done right from the start. As part of our software QA process, we peform load and stability tests. These tests let us know what our concurrent user limits are and how good/bad our software performs. In the latest version of our software, it also affirmed that the architectural changes we made didn't affect the performance of the software.
So while we have a very formalized project development process, formal QA does provide us a return on investment. I will say that as the dollar becomes the almight decision pt., formal development process become harder and harder to adhere to...which is just further justification for a formal inspection.
I think as more and more builders struggle to obtain contracts in the current economy, you'll find that more and more "efficiency" is made use of. Without formal inspections by trade knowledgeable inspectors, it's going to be tough to assure the consumer that they have paid for a quality product.
>>Without formal inspections by trade knowledgeable inspectors, it's going to be tough to assure the consumer that they have paid for a quality product.
I don't know of anyone who does a "quality" inspection in the building trades.
"Built to code" is a different beast.
And "quality" is a very subjective area and difficult to "inspect."
"It is as hard for the good to suspect evil, as it is for the bad to suspect good."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, statesman, orator, writer (106-43 BCE)
Building inspectors dont inspect quality. You are correct .
Only codes.
Tim Mooney
I guess I don't regard load and stability tests as "formal QA". That's just normal pre-release testing.
We have load and stability tests performed by our dev team. We then also have them done by our independant QA team. Our QA team runs thru formal test process and assesses our quality as well as confirms our statements about the software. Nothing is taken as gospel unless our QA team says it is so.
The same could be said about the building the trade. Whether a house is built to code or not, it is not "up to code" until a formal inspector certifies it so.
Whether that inspector is qualified to say so or not is a different topic altogether.
"Several past threads got me to thinking why we bother inspecting a licensed trade persons work in the field. After all, isn't that license supposed to signify that you are good enough, and trustworthy enough to do good work, and smart enough to make judgement calls?"
hahahaha , NO.
But , a lisensed person may to be more knowledgeable to codes.
Its amazing that most construction pros dont own an up to date copy of the code book they are working from or an old copy. There are countless aids to the codes sold as well , but few know the codes.
Lisenseing still doesnt address the honesty of the individual. While a code smart person may be more knowledgeable , they still need watching .
Tim Mooney