[log in to unmask] wrote:

>     It is a quaintly quasi *Not quasi. Totally. *legal term which
>     often equates w/ "Ain't my job."
>
I will rephrase my offhand comment. Means & method is a legal term that
is used and abused so often that in effect it creates a confusion in
determining a line between design and execution (too many electrons
flowing), most often to be brought up between architect and contractor,
but also sometimes between engineer and contractor. For the insurance
companies and lawyers it means something when a project has gone into
the legal system and everyone not related to the building process is
trying to figure out who is to blame for an f-up. In day-to-day practice
it is more like this:

Architect: "Don't you think a larger grinder would work better?"
(Interpretation: Crimminee... I'm going to have to stand here all day
waiting on this dimbo.)
Contractor: "Don't get into my means and methods." (Interpretation: --
from the non-English language of your choice -- I don't have enough
money in this job to go buy new tools. Kiss off!)

Contractor: "Do you think I should put another brace here?"
(Interpretation: I don't know what in F I'm doing.)
Architect: "Means and methods is yours." (Interpretation: This guy knows
jack about shoring and I'd better back off before he drops the wall.)

In practice, in my experience, design professionals are always meddling
in means & methods and contractors are always meddling in design. When
it works I think this is a good thing, everyone keeping in mind their
comfort zone regarding legal and professional liability. Where
cooperative teamwork becomes an issue, as I say, is when there is an
f-up and the project goes towards the legal system for resolution.

As an aside, I'm thinking how in some industries there is a fairly clear
line between legit and black market whereas in construction, despite all
of the legal constructs and concepts that exist there is not a very
clear line to demarcate Haliburton or Bechtel from a guy in a PU truck
other than the scale of their operation. I heard a comment made to the
effect that one reason the reconstruction of the Iraqi infrastructure is
slowed down is that US funds have to go to US firms, which is like
saying that all the work has to be done at prevailing rate... rather
than conforming to the economic and social situation on the ground which
is that the Iraqi's would pay their own people, the people that built a
good bit of their infrastructure to begin with, a hell of a lot less
than prevailing rate. And they might be happier and less apt to shoot
people if they had any sort of job. Give them jobs and mortgages and
tell them it is freedom. If we are going to outsource then I think it
would make sense to outsource to the Iraqis themselves... the govt. and
the public here in the US already outsources their construction needs to
non-conforming foreigners right here at home, and takes a blind eye to
the practice. Why should we do different in Iraq?

][<

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>