@chris-bouffard Chris,
im happy for your professional situation. You asked for the statute. I answered with the sections pertaining to it.
im not attacking your interpretation of it. I’m just simply responding to your question.
Hello Chris,
My interpretation of Divine Bovine’s comment is simply what he stated, “less likely to do this”. Meaning that he, himself is less likely to do this. I don’t find that statement critical of others, but just expressing his own preference. I’m not attempting to speak for anyone else, but that is how I perceive the comment you are questioning.
This thread is a Great discussion by the way, I am enjoying it a lot. This is what ‘Surveyor Connect’ is all about!
A lot of those statutes read like they are intended to give ammunition for slapping down "out-of-town" surveyors back before the digital age.
Many of our offices are either in rural areas, or in very large cities, and many of our projects are located far enough away from our offices to make it inefficient to drive in every single day - inefficient enough that if we did so it would gobble up a large chunk of revenue, and probably most of our earnings.
In the more populated areas, I'd say about half of staff live an hour or more away from our physical offices due to cost of living. We have our crews periodically get back to the office for face-to-face meetings, and whenever we have equipment coming in to get picked up I'll get into the office and talk with the crews if at all possible.
I sometimes have weeks-long stints where I am going full-tilt on a few projects, or preparing for training, and don't make it into the office. Or the crews are out and about at projects that are in the opposite direction from the office relative to their homes, and there will be no one at the office if I do go in. I'd be curious at what point that becomes "failure to properly supervise", considering how constantly in contact we all are.
A lot of those statutes read like they are intended to give ammunition for slapping down "out-of-town" surveyors back before the digital age.
I believe that Oregon's statute is intended to prevent a single surveyor from operating multiple offices - particularly multiple offices with unlicensed staff preparing materials unsupervised.
CV Nevada did a nice job of explaining in my absence.
In a standard office environment, asking and answering questions from fellow workers is very simple. Face to face, in-person coummunication. Rounding up a couple of others at the same time for input amounts to nothing more than saying "Hey, Bob, join us for a minute." Synergy occurs.
Yes, you may be able to assemble in similar fachion via technology, but, it is not nearly the same. The dynamics change. I've been in a few hundred Zoom meetings where some people never speak up, even when addressed directly, while others seem to always participate actively. I don't fully understand why this happens, but, it happens. Young and old, inexperienced to very experienced, the lack of full participation simply results in a poorer result. YMMV.
Work culture adapts over time. Bureaucracy adapts much more slowly. Statutes are written by bureaucrats.
@holy-cow These statutes are not written how we would write them today, but as has been pointed out, they don't necessarily prohibit remote work, even as written.
A lot of those statutes read like they are intended to give ammunition for slapping down "out-of-town" surveyors back before the digital age.
I believe that Oregon's statute is intended to prevent a single surveyor from operating multiple offices - particularly multiple offices with unlicensed staff preparing materials unsupervised.
Last time I looked for this (I think it was in the OARs), I couldn't find it. Is this still on the books?
Your comments are good about participation...but if people aren't involved/participating, that is a different problem than the remote working in my opinion.
The fact is, if people will engage using today's technology, remote working can work just as well as in office working. There will be exceptions to this - ie. old codgers who don't like the interwebs thingy - so work arounds may be necessary.
My issue is this: If I can make it work, why shouldn't I take advantage of the technology? I started with theodolite and chain, then on to EDM, total station, GPS, LIDAR... I could easily make the argument that not using technology is the wrong way to go. So, if I do remote office set-up, do I run afoul of the code and my state board? Is it really wrong to challenge a bad (antiquated to say the least) law? Do I get to pick and choose which sections of the code I follow?
I know that this part of the code is meant to prevent plan stamping. Also, to protect the public and advance the professional standing of our profession. Good things indeed. But what if it this code stymies the profession by not allowing for this technological advancement?
Personally, I would like this part of our state's code to be re-written to address this modern technology (you know, the interwebs thingy).
Thanks everyone for the excellent discussion! Definitely some really good things to consider here.
@scott-bordenet your question of "Is remote work allowed by your state?" is a really good point! I looked up the codes in my own state (Arkansas). They don't specifically mention anything about office location; however, they do stress that the professional surveyor must be in "responsible charge", defined as "direct control of, supervision of, and legal responsibility for the surveying work performed".
As others have mentioned, this is up to interpretation. I would argue that a professional surveyor working remotely can be in direct control of and in direct supervision of the surveying work performed by field crews. Of course, there is no guarantee that the State Board or others would agree.
To be able to effectively support and defend my position, I would definitely want to put certain processes and procedures in place. For example, I would have the field crews reporting directly to me rather than to some intermediary person or middleman. I would make a log of all phone calls, video calls, emails, and text message conversations between myself and the field crews. I would have easy access to the field crews' data, including their raw data files, and field books; and I would review these daily, or as often as possible. I would also put some additional QA/QC processes and procedures in place.
Last time I looked for this (I think it was in the OARs), I couldn't find it. Is this still on the books?
It looks like OAR 820-010-0720 has been repealed and I can't find a replacement. Hmmm..
Last time I looked for this (I think it was in the OARs), I couldn't find it. Is this still on the books?
It looks like OAR 820-010-0720 has been repealed and I can't find a replacement. Hmmm..
Very good thoughts. Some employees adapt well to any change, others do not. It is just part of human nature. How to get the best productivity from each employee is the challenge.
Good luck.
BTW, what is this interwebs thingy of which you speak?
"...a registered land surveyor in charge of the operation...must...have full responsible control of the survey operations...and maintain regular hours at that office...convenient for client contact and...adequate for employee supervision"
that's a phrase of words for a board or a lawyer to try to hide behind if the personnel you've hired do crappy work, then you should be punished... it's your fault they suck...
I tell people everyday that I'm not mad at them, mostly just their crap supervisor or owner for not training them better, and give them my apathy for their boss and empathy for them and say you deserve better training and a better boss...
... working remotely doesn't effect affect or Infect the responsibility issue. that's on you when you hired a person and didnt mentor and truly train them and vet th prior.
THRAC over.
Last time I looked for this (I think it was in the OARs), I couldn't find it. Is this still on the books?
My search indicates that OAR 820-010-0720 was repealed c.2017. I'm finding no replacement. Hmmmm.
