Purpose is what we're striving for.
We must have purpose.
We mustn't be purposeless.
We mustn't exhibit purposnessless.
We must be purposelessnessless.
I'm not sure the question is an improvement nor that the answer is as simple as you'd like.
In a world of black and white and where engineers have autonomous decision taking authority then the answer may be different to world filled with greys.
For example, competence might have to include being able (having the necessary judgement) to only do as much as is necessary or required to deliver the required result.
This goes to the old saw:
"Rules are for the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men."
Incompetence then becomes a failure either to follow the rules or make the correct judgement as to what needs and does not need to be done.
In the other thread, following a procedure documented by others reveals a possible vulnerability which is the question of the verification of the original procedure as being sufficient or flawed either when it was written or as subsequently affected by changed circumstances/knowledge.
The real world problems are the bean counters, the people who look over our shoulders and who use documented procedures as the metric by which they judge our performance.
Doing less than the procedure calls for may cost less and may not attract attention from the bean counters.
But doing more than the procedure calls for will create and extra cost to be assigned which certainly will attract attention.
If there is a real issue with the procedure then the procedure needs changing.
That is never as easy as it seems.
This means that there is another dimension to the problem.
The low profile approach to such problems is to accept the procedure and do no more than is required unless there are compelling reasons to instigate a change to the procedure.
If the procedure doesn't have any significant "risks" attached then the judgement may be that in most cases the procedure is adequate. The "risk" being a non catastrophic failure at some point which will result in a high cost outcome. Then the procedure may be revisited so that the risk of the high cost outcome can be avoided.
In the modern world of engineering, companies try to subsist on fewer engineers. Engineers who would like to choose solution "a" which costs more are often well advised to accept "b" which costs less (capital cost) but which may well cost more over time (cost of ownership) whatever their natural inclination.
These days of "single source" suppliers give evidence that it is the bean counters and buyers who get to choose, and far less the engineer.
Or to take another example.
A company provides turnkey solutions, complete processing plants. Bidding costs money. SO they can either bid each new job starting with a blank sheet of paper or they can simply take the previous bid, include factors for currency fluctuations etc. and make allowances for variances.
In one particular example the engineers knew that one instrument specified in the bid never worked and would be replaced during commissioning with a more suitable instrument. But they were not allowed to change the original specification to delete the wrong instrument and insert the correct one because it altered the base cost. With enough such changes it would affect the validity of the bidding mechanism. It was enough that the variances (changing instruments after the event etc) were accounted for in the bid evaluation procedure.
Not everything is as logical as we'd like and not everything we object to is necessarily wrong, it is just we don't necessarily understand the external logic (i.e the other factors besides engineering).
So the question of competence is complicated by other factors, not least, the question of survival.
Competence is then a case of recognising the true extent of the objectives (which includes an understanding of the implications of costs/risks etc.)and acting accordingly.
So subjective of a question, and the rules seem to change based on the company and who the supervisor is this month. I simply pray to start each day and do the best for my employer that God allows me to do on that day. Impressing men is a fleeting thing, but having the grace of Jesus upon one's life is priceless.
"In the eyes of a regulatory body what makes a competent person? And how does that person demonstrate to the regulatory body that they are competent?"
You pass the test; you're done. There is nothing else.
As with most young engineers, you're asking a nebulous question with a nebulous answer. Worse yet, competence is in the eye of the beholder; someone can be totally competent in one setting and incompetent a different one.
In the end, you have to define it for yourself; I define it as doing the best you can with what you can. You cannot do much else, so that should be the answer.
I think what IRStuff might want to declare is that each engineer is as competent as he can be consistent with his conscience - and still have a job.
The point he makes about the eye of the beholder is key. In the main, it is management who are the beholders and who pay the salary and think this allows them to call the tune. For some nice illustrations of the real world see Cass's threads on A bad manager and Report a client for fraud.
Life is never easy.
Some people do their jobs to the very best of their ability and succeed beyond any reasonable expectations and still get the bullet from management who take a different view. Engineers may find that in the end they have to accommodate some degree of compromise between doing the job professionally and competently and what management want and expect if they want to keep on having a job.
Somewhere you have to draw your own lines.
There is another thread worth reading somewhere (and they all seem to challenge the old engineer) about resisting new methods.
There is even another over at linkedin where a young engineer wants to know why the product he is selling isn't being greeted by the engineers with enthusiasm. AGain, it is the real world Vs some ideal world.
Dan...if you're thinking like me, you should be very afraid!
Bluecat46..."Competent Person" with respect to some of the government agencies is usually defined within the regulations of that particular group. For example, in the US, OSHA defines a "competent person" in the context of the regulations for construction and for general industry. For evaluation and abatement applications such as for asbestos and mold, the regulatory agencies define the requirements for a "competent person".
I think 'ninja claw' is a relevant search term here. You can be the judge of where the competence does or does not lie in the thread.
From free dictionary.com
1.
a. The state or quality of being adequately or well qualified; ability. See Synonyms at ability.
b. A specific range of skill, knowledge, or ability.
Seems reasonable. Your abilities include, or can change to include the scope of the task at hand. I would ad the ability to recognize where delegating portions or asking for help or a review is appropriate. 'soft skills' like getting along with the shop and your boss, playing well with others can help a great deal, and are under-emphasized in school.
A narrow definition of competence in engineering is being possessed of theoretical and practical knowledge, preferably from an ABET accredited or local equivalent engineering school.
It's not unheard of to be paid for being able to hang your diploma on the wall for customers to see. I fancy, correctly or not that I am paid for on time, under budget, effective, affordable and labor-saving designs. Toward that end I use tools: engineering and design theory, CAD tools, show up, and daily aspire to common sense.
to be competent one must have the education,"knowledge", & experience, as not to blunder, or pick the incorrect decisions. Thus the level of incompetent, is beyond one capability, one must have or attain the level of IQ, & experience. to be competent in their TASK.
The fact that management does not agree with the route attain would be monetary reasons, over budget, or design or process defective hardware or software.
In the eyes of regulators that regulate the profession of engineering, having passed a test with documented expierence to obtain a license. A license means you can legally practice engineering because you are minimally compotent. This does not mean anything other than what I have stated.
Not necessarily licenced, some codes specify it but others seem to be deliberately vague. Usually, as far as the code definitions of 'a competent person', it means relevant experience performing this type of work with a minimum of x years practice. There may not be any formal training / testing requirements.
Some codes, regulations or standard work practices may require other qualifications or even a licence but you should check the relevant documentation. The competent person may need to provide evidence of their credentials.
The OP is far to general for a specific answer. It can imply competence in any level at anything. There are many things for which there is no test, ie is someone competent to change a flat tyre on their car, or even is someone competent to fill their petrol tank or at the other end, to calculate the fuel load needed to launch a rocket into orbit and how much extra fuel is required for a certain increase in payload and how much influence the weather or the position of the moon or sun may have on that.
Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
bluecat, bah humbug. You'll get a different answer every time you frame the question differently.
So to answer the recent one, what makes some competent in the eyes of a regulatory body.... Someone that doesn't get sued.
What makes an engineer competent period? The ability to put up with every other groups crap, and still do a good job that doesn't get anyone killed. - I like pat's explanation.
![[lol]](/data/assets/smilies/lol.gif "[lol] [lol]")
