Requirements for an electrical design & the EIC

Been reading this thread with intrest and how things have been looked at with regards signatures and in particular that of the "designer".

Of course over the many years I have worked in the industry and particularly using NICEIC (There are other industry schemes and providers of BS7671 model Certificates and reports!) that sometimes just takes a wee bit of organisation to get the Designers signature, ofetn I have driven round to their office to get a signature, or when we could trust the postal service send it with a self return envelope and get the EIC back for going to the client.

Now, I was told long time ago, an electrician that adds in a new circuit for say a simple lighting circuit or power radial, that job will never go to a "Designer" the electrician knows the cable size and type of cable installed, their choice of cable route, containment and protective device so they are the "Designer" and that made sense to me.

Also an company or individual that just does or says they are only the installer or indeed only the verifier, how can they carry out those tasks without "Somebody" doing the design first?? The installer must have bene given drawings, schedules of cable routes and cable types/sizes so any deviation from that then the installer is seeking advice from that designer to change or they are now an additional designer.

Im really struggling a bit here to understand why a EIC cant get signed by the designer or indeed designers as we have now on numerous jobs.

If I was the end client or their representitive, I would be struggling to accept any project where the electrical deisgner hasnt given written assurance on their contribution to the electrical installation.

Cheers GTB  

, I would be struggling to accept any project where the electrical deisgner hasnt given written assurance

Quite so - now at the shallow end the  "design" may be as simple as looking up a cable size in the OSG and looking at voltage drop over length - and that may be done by the same person who also acts as the installer and inspector,  but it is a "design decision" none the less - and selecting the wrong cable, but installing it perfectly, would be a design fault, rather than an installation one...

Mike.

I think the nature of the way the certificates are designed may pose problems. For a EIC for example, you cannot say you are the designer exclusively for the part of the installation you either worked on via some kind of repairs or circuit reroutes/removals, or you simply added say, a new ring final.

The Design box if signed, infers that you have designed the whole installation rather than just the one part which you have carried out work upon. Yes there is a 'Limitations' box, but how many actually bother to enter anything into it other than for a Inspection report? Maybe there should be a clause added such as 'this certificate exclusively applies only to the works described and not the complete installation unless stated otherwise'.

i agree the current forms cannot cover all cases well. But there is no prohibition on making a more complex record than the current signature sheet on  'prpo-forma' forms available from the IET and from  the providers some competent person schemes.

As Graham points out the areas of responsibilitiy may well be decided at contract allocation, though I suspect the actual who installs what is later decided based on staff  availability on the day.

There could be, and maybe should be, if we are honest  a consolidated record somewhere that reads more like the credits that roll up at the end of a long film, as on a large program with multiple teams, there is  a mix of local design decisions and then some over-arching authority deciding the  big stuff.

Light fittings installed by team one

Fire alarm by team 1A but components selected by specialist contractors X 

final circuit Cables selected and erected by .. 

Plant room supplies and sub main selected  by team three installed by team 7

special FX by ....

Director of program ..

tea made by... 

you get the idea.

To reduce it to 'Fred Bloggs is responsible for all of it ' may not be appropriate.
Mike.

whjohnson said:

The Design box if signed, infers that you have designed the whole installation rather than just the one part which you have carried out work upon.

I see no problem in somebody signing for a company (which is a legal person) even when different bits have been done by different personnel.

If different parts of the installation have been put in by different companies, then multiple EICs are required: each company just signs for the work they completed.

If you add a new circuit, you do not accept responsibility for what was already there save that the section between the origin and the new circuit needs to be capable of supplying the new circuit safely.

mapj1 said:

tea made by... 

An important question. I often ask that as a PRA for CEng/IEng applicants. If they add "and I made the tea" to their competence examples, how does the example now read? [cf the whole assertion of the thread; someone else did that 'design' work..]

Scope and context!

mapj1 said:

tea made by... 

An important question. I often ask that as a PRA for CEng/IEng applicants. If they add "and I made the tea" to their competence examples, how does the example now read? [cf the whole assertion of the thread; someone else did that 'design' work..]

Scope and context!

haha!!

- " I only made the tea, and did nothing more complex when  I worked upon project XX "

is not the same as 

"I was the design authority for the self-test and fault reporting unit on project XX but I also made some tea on those days when the traffic was good & I was first one in the lab."

We have probably both worked with both characters over the years,
Mike

The bit that most miss (as registration applicants) is that they fail to say what they DID, rather than what they were `Responsible` for. That is, how they avoided being as useful as a chocolate fireguard, as they say (e.g. did they ever say 'No', or initiate extra actions/work/reviews.. - all the authority, but "Without initiative, leaders are simply workers in leadership positions" ). 

Mind you, you can't beat a good cup of tea [HHGTTG]

In the context of the EICR, those that test and record their figures for the installation have the easier time about signing for those results, but, as discussed, there's a bit of a bind about what compromises the design intent that is beyond the tick box compliance. Any system that is 'functional' (does extra stuff) starts to get confused between 'interface' specification compliance and the functional requirement, it's specification, and the verification of compliance