Consider australian model

As I approach my dotage I still maintain a reasonable grasp of the English language and I am totally confused as to the use of the word “sustainable”. Any dictionary I refer to, with sustainability being an adjective associated with the verb sustain, makes references similar to “keep from sinking or falling especially by bearing up from below” and “to keep in existence; maintain or prolong”. Nothing that suggests excellence or indeed the promoting of new ideas and systems or energy conservation.

How does sustainability therefore fit in with energy and with buildings? It seems to me it is just another hackneyed word which is being misused in association with energy and buildings. Linking building services engineering and saving the planet is stretching reality.

A recent internal analysis by one of the largest power distributors in Australia has shown that many of the new highly star-rated and supposedly low-energy-using “sustainable buildings” are using 50% more electrical energy than those designed 15 to 20 years ago.

It seems to me that Dr Strong is looking for some kind of marketing advantage for his practice by tying in these “buzz” words to try to appeal to a certain market sector. I accept that any company or practice has the right to portray its capabilities to their best advantage, in a manner that will have appeal in the market sector it is targeting. The first responsibility of a company is to make a profit!

I agree the term “building services engineers” can be confusing to potential clients having had, over the years, numerous requests to carry out structural and architectural work. Is Dr Strong proposing that we are capable and should now take on such tasks?

As for more sex appeal and asking “people we wish to recruit into our profession” to offer comment on the present name, well that’s just nonsense. We are not “go-go” dancers, we are a grouping of professional people.

How does this proposal affect the many other members of the institution, who are not working or trying to work in the same sector as Dr Strong? Many present members operate in market segments which fully comprehend both the term building services engineer and the works skills they can bring to it. Many work in the lower size and scale end of industry, not on major new complexes and projects.

Perhaps the path taken by the Institution of Engineers Australia to cater for the dissection and specialisation of the industry over recent years is a way to proceed. It has maintained a core body with covers the broad engineering spectrum and has separately created chapters/ societies, under the umbrella of the main body, which cater for the specific needs and activities of individual members. To some extent our institution has already successfully done this. Perhaps what Dr Strong is looking for could be further accommodated in this manner?

CIBSE’s membership continues to grow all around the world and the institution is recognised as a leader in the field of building services. Its publications and manuals are well respected and often quoted. One of the problems of providing tertiary and trade courses is the uncertainty of continued long-term enrolments which often deters the educational body from expenditure on such courses. It is also the reason why CIBSE is unknown to many graduate engineering students, and only becomes known when they begin work alongside CIBSE members.

As the world changes, expectations and opportunities change both for individuals and for companies and for institutions!

Perhaps CIBSE Council should create a dedicated marketing arm to research, identify and assess options and then respond to the widespread needs of the market, and to the individual members. What we don’t need is changes for the sake of change.

However, thank you for your column and comments Dr Strong. You did succeed in getting an inactive member to wake up – even if he doesn’t agree with you.

John Tyerman C ENG FCIBSE, past chairman, Australian Region