Do U agree 11

[rjh03]

Hi,
I once read : "An engineer is one who can do for one dollar what any fool can do for two". To say the truth I am very much impressed with this statement and most of the times it seems valid to me. Do U agree with it, or do U think that it somehow contradicts the engineering ethics???

 

[swertel]

That is a very interesting statement, one that I find myself over-analyzing as I write this response.

First of all, no fool can do what an engineer can do, but a person with common sense and some experience can. Then again, I am the biggest fool I know and I'm an engineer.

Second, it seems that the title of engineer is given to anybody that a corporation feels fit to assign. So, what exactly is an engineer these days?

Finally, an engineer is always looking for ways to cut costs of a product while increasing value. So, I don't think that the phrase is against engineering ethics in that manner. Consider that the way we usually cut costs is by developing machines, processes, or other devices that take away jobs from people with families to support, that may be an ethical issue to some.

In summary, the phrase has some truth to it and I don't think it contradicts engineering ethics. I am a little insulted that I can only cut the costs in half of any fool, though.

--Scott

 

[RDK]

In Canada the title engineer is protected. You can only call yourself an engineer if you are in fact a professional engineer. (Train operators can call themselves locomotive engineers and boiler operators can call themselves power engineers, otherwise the title is protected by law in Canada.

This caused some problems for Microsoft Certified System Engineers and others. A comprimise was reached where they also had to use the title fully and not simply call thenselves engineers.

The term engineering in company titles is also protected. To register my company ,which uses the title engineering in it) I had to get permission from the local association and agree to some restraints (The company has to be managed or owned by P.Eng's, as we are called in Canada.)

The proatice of engineering is also regulated differently. For example, I believe that in the USA there is an industrial exemption where if a product is designed and manufactured by a company, the design does not have to be sealed by an engineer. In Canada if you design it you seal it. No exceptions. Hence we have a larger percentage of our graduating engineers as professionals.

The various professional associations all have a defination of engineering and they protect the public by only allowing their members to practice. They vet all applications and only allow those ualified to practice. They take legal action against illegal practices, both by menbers and non members alike.

 

[Hush]

Begging to differ, the word engineer isn't protected in Canada its just a word. What is protected is the concept/term of professional engineer. I.E. anyone can call themselves an engineer, as you pointed out locomotive engineers; sanitary engineers and domestic engineers to name a couple more. What Microsoft got into trouble with was using the word certified in conjunction with the word engineer. Even then they probably could have beat it in a court but probably backed off for the sake of public relations.

 

[RDK]

Sorry Hush but I disagree.

I said that the title ‘engineer’ is protected in Canada not the word. I also pointed out 2 of the 3 only exemptions that exist under Manitoba law. The third is military engineers. Otherwise the title engineer is protected. Sanitary engineers would design sewage treatment plants. They are not garbage collectors as the term is sometimes used. Domestic engineers would design the residence and associated functions. They are not housewives as the term is sometimes used.

The reason that Microsoft got away from keeping engineer in their title was that the provincial associations wimped out and refused to fight for the protection of the title. IMHO the associations were wrong. The precedent is now set and any one can now use the title without fear of any action by the provincial associations. The full Microsoft title must be used similar to what the power and railway engineers do. There is also a rumor that Microsoft will be changing the title as not to use the word engineer sometime in the near future.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[Hush]

Perhaps the law is different in Manitoba, but in Alberta and BC the title 'engineer' is not protected. The titles 'Professional Engineer', 'P. Eng.', or any other abbreviation of 'Professional Engineer' is protected. As is the word 'engineer' in combination with another word, abbreviation, or letter that implies the title 'Professional Engineer'. Thus it is perfectly legal for anyone in Canada (with the possible exception of Manitoba) to call themselves an engineer. As stated before Microsoft ran afoul when they used the word certified in conjunction with the word engineer, not the word engineer in and of itself.

Hugh Mason, P. Eng.

 

[RDK]

Once again I must respectively disagree.

The draft revised act for the APEGBC prohibits the use of “any word, name, title or designation mentioned in the definition of “practice of professional engineering” or “practice of professional geoscience’ including the words engineer or geologist or any combination or abbreviation of them” by anyone else besides a professional engineer or geoscientist.

See

http://www.apeg.bc.ca/downloads/draft-act/Draft Act - November 28 2001.pdf

for the full text.


In Alberta (where I have had past registration) the act states

“Exclusive use of name engineer
3(1) No individual, corporation, partnership or other entity, except a professional engineer, licensee or permit holder entitled to engage in the practice of engineering, shall
(a) use
(i) the title "professional engineer", the abbreviation "P.Eng." or any other abbreviation of that title, or
(ii) the word "engineer" in combination with any other name, title, description, letter, symbol or abbreviation that represents expressly or by implication that he is a professional engineer, licensee or permit holder
See

http://www.apegga.com/aboutapegga/theact.html

for the full text.

I think that if you look at the acts for every province in Canada you will find similar requirements. Most of the provincial associations post them on their web sites.

This clearly prohibits the use of the term engineer by anyone who is not an engineer, was not the use of certified that caused Microsoft the problem but the use of the word engineer. If they used the term “System Engineer” or “Microsoft Engineer” then they still would have been in violation of the act.

That the associations allowed Microsoft to continue to use engineer as long as they use the full MCSE term was IMHO allowing the act that they are charged with enforcing be violated at the expense and to the detriment of everyone who is an engineer.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[Hush]

Sorry, but I think you've just proved my point. Your two excerpts above clearly do not prohibit the use of the term/title engineer by non-professional engineers. It is only prohibited when used in conjunction with wording that implies professional practice. If you can't see that then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[brad]

Rick,
I wish (for the betterment of PE's such as us) that I could agree with you, but based on what you state, it appears that Hush may be correct. Please note that this is based on an objective interpretation of that which is posted here; subjectively I would definitely desire the prohibition to exist.

The key thing that sways me to interpret it along Hush's interpretation is 3(1)(a)(ii):
" . . .that represents expressly or by implication that he is a professional engineer,
licensee or permit holder"

That leaves a lot of room for legal loopholes. If somebody is granted the diploma of "Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering", there is no implication that he is a licensee or permit holder. Similarly, if somebody has on their company business card the title "Senior Project Engineer", there is still no implication that he is a licensee or permit holder.

If that somebody opens his own business called "Joe Smith Engineering Services" and his business card reads "Engineer", that likely crosses the line, as it may be implied that Joe Smith is certified. Along those lines, the Microsoft title could've been implied to mean a licensure/permit situation.

It appears that Hush may be right, but at this point we're starting to sound more like lawyers and less like engineers.



Brad

 

[kxyoung]

Any one can call himself or herself as an engineer. Hell! I've even seen janitors with uniform chest patch, that says 'FACILITY ENGINEER' in the US.

I do want to note that in US, titles such as Professional Engineer, Civil Engineer, Structural Engineer, etc. are protected under the Department of Consumer Affairs of each state and legal actions can be taken for misuse of such titles. Of course, people just use the term such as Structural Designer, or Consultant Engineer instead, as long as the title isn't meant to mislead or to use in the capacity of a licensed professional engineer.

In my example, my California PE license in civil allows me to do business using the title of Civil Engineer, Professional Engineer, or Licensed Engineer. However, if I want to do business in a different state, I'll have to be licensed in that state as well.



However, those who validated the above Business Code, the usual penalty is just a tiny slap on the wrist in the form of a tiny fine and maybe public humiliation via ones name being published on the Consumer Affairs Newsletter.

Back to the “An engineer is one who can do for one dollar what any fool can do for two" statement and I would like to play devil’s advocate. %-( My view is, that most engineers do not have the business mind and the fool is the one who charges the client $2, hires the engineer for $1, does nothing, and still keep the other $1.

Why would an engineer want to charge a service for $1 when he or she can get $2 for it? Engineers compete against each other for business by lowering the cost of the service, resulted in poor salary and lack of recognition for all engineers.

 

[RDK]

I think that the expression to do for $1 what anyone can do for $2, refers to the value of the work designed.

Anyone can put up enough structural steel to hold up a building (i.e. $2 worth). What the engineer does is designs the steel so that no more than that required, but that required amount, the $1 worth is used.

At least that is how I look at it.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[PM]

It's difficult to adduce all the relevant implications of your posted message however, I believe
some reasonable inferences may be taken as follows:

1. Your term “engineer” refers to professional engineers rather than the proliferation of trades and quasi-professions currently claiming some connection to engineering.

2. You imply that "P.Eng's" and "fools" are equally effective (ie. “fools” can produce the same
effect as “P.Eng’s”, all-be-it at twice the cost).

3. "P.Eng's" are thrifty, economical and innovative, at least to the extent of being twice as
efficient as "fools" . This is reminiscent of that seventies sitcom, The Beverly Hillbillies, and
Jethro Beaudeen's concept of higher math (ie. naught times naught is naught, . . .naught times
two is naught, naught times . . . ). I think Jethro only wanted to become a street car conductor or
a brain surgeon, so I doubt he could be representative of the “engineer” in your question. In any case, the point is that two times a fool's productive effort ain't much to crow about.

4. “P.Eng’s” and “fools” are mutually exclusive (ie. “P.Eng’s” cannot be “fools” and “fools” can’t
be “P.Eng’s”.) This, unfortunately is not the case in my experience. “P.Eng’s” are not immune
from foolishness, especially when they step outside their area of competency.

5. “P.Eng’s” who are NOT twice as efficient as a “fool” are somehow unethical. I note that my own ethical code requires me to express opinions on engineering matters 'only on the basis of adequate knowledge, competence and honest conviction'. If being a “fool” means incompetence, then it is accurate to say “P.Eng’s” are unethical if they are “fools”.

On the other hand, your question as to the ethical status of an engineer who is twice as efficient as a fool seems less clear. If it is true that twice a fool is still a fool (qv. #3 above), then the answer to your question would have to be yes !

 

[Aton]

I often have difficulty with the nuances of the "law", and find the discussion about what constitutes an "engineer" fascinating and very, very timely. There is no question that many have used the title "engineer" when they in fact never graduated from an engineering school, or have never passed a professional engineers qualifying exam... Microsoft "engineers" are a prime example. I practice engineering in Canada also (Nova Scotia), and serve on my provincial Engineering Act Enforcement Committee, which deals with these issues on a regular basis. The way we try to interpret our Act is with emphasis on the public good: is public safety being served by someone not qualified setting him/herself up as an engineer? Is the public being misled to believe that someone is an engineer, or is practicing engineering?

While the definition of "engineering" in our provincial Act is broad (' "engineering means the science and art of designing, investigating, supervising the construction, maintenance or operation of, making specifications, inventories or appraisals of, and consultations or inventories or appraisals or, and consultations or reports on machinery, structures, works, plants, mines, mineral deposits, processes, transportation systems, transmission systems, and communication systems or any other part thereof;" '), our definition of illegal practice are is fairly specific: "...uses verbally or otherwise the title of professional engineer or any abbreviation of such title, or any name, title, description or designation that may LEAD ANY PERSON TO BELIEVE that such person is a professional engineer..." [caps mine]

In fact, I just noticed in the Summer edition of our Engineering Mag. that a man in Ontario has been fined $56,250 for misrepresenting himself as a professional engineer.

On the other hand, it probably all boils down to the availability of money to fight the constant incursions into our professional name. A few cautionary tales (like the guy in Ontario), and some well-directed legal letters are what we have in our arsenals. Although our provincial Association is strong with over 4,300 registered, our pockets are not bottomless. Sustainable, Solar, Environmental, and Structural Engineering: Appropriate technologies for a planet in stress.

 

[BobPE]

Back to the original statement, I think it should be: an engineer can do for 2 dollars what any fool and do for a dollar......

In other words, you get what you pay for. It seems to me more and more often that people have no clue what it means to have an engineering degree, and in this day and age of garbage in garbage out computer programs to do the engineering for lay people, they look at us as an unessary evil.

Its a tough world out there, and I think we need to show the merits of our degrees every chance we get.

BobPE

 

[StressGuy]

Well that's certainly true. In my specialty - pipe stress engineering, there are all kinds of people who claim to be stress engineers becuase they can input something into Caesar, the dominant analysis program in our business.

Truth be told, I could train a high school kid to do input into Caesar, that's not what the engineering is. The engineering is being able to see the results of a run and, first, judge whether or not the results even make sense, and second, determine what are the proper adjustments to produce a system that satisfies all the requirements, from equipment loads, code requirements, and accessibility/operability.

And again, you can make random changes to the model and eventually come up with something that "works". Being and engineer means knowing what kinds of changes "work" in the model vs. what can be achieved in reality, and making changes that are as simple as possible, vs. generating a Rube Goldberg machine. Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[chubPE]

I agree with an engineer doing it for two dollars. Looking at the responses to this post proves the point.

A fool will answer "Yes" or "no" or "I don't know".

An engineer answers with something convoluted, such as

1. Your term “engineer” refers to professional engineers rather than the proliferation of trades and quasi-professions currently claiming some connection to engineering.

2. You imply that "P.Eng's" and "fools" are equally effective (ie. “fools” can produce the same
effect as “P.Eng’s”, all-be-it at twice the cost).

3. "P.Eng's" are thrifty, economical and innovative, at least to the extent of being twice as
efficient as "fools" . This is reminiscent of that seventies sitcom, The Beverly Hillbillies, and
Jethro Beaudeen's concept of higher math (ie. naught times naught is naught, . . .naught times
two is naught, naught times . . . ). I think Jethro only wanted to become a street car conductor or
a brain surgeon, so I doubt he could be representative of the “engineer” in your question. In any case, the point is that two times a fool's productive effort ain't much to crow about.

4. “P.Eng’s” and “fools” are mutually exclusive (ie. “P.Eng’s” cannot be “fools” and “fools” can’t
be “P.Eng’s”.) This, unfortunately is not the case in my experience. “P.Eng’s” are not immune
from foolishness, especially when they step outside their area of competency.

5. “P.Eng’s” who are NOT twice as efficient as a “fool” are somehow unethical. I note that my own ethical code requires me to express opinions on engineering matters 'only on the basis of adequate knowledge, competence and honest conviction'. If being a “fool” means incompetence, then it is accurate to say “P.Eng’s” are unethical if they are “fools”.

get the point? , I won't "snipet" the others.

 

[PM]

Interesting if not a controversial point!

If I grasp chubPE's point, it appears that anyone answering "yes", "no", or "I don't know" to rjh03's query, might be a fool. This implies that the only remaining response (ie. to say nothing) should be the domain of engineers.

Francis Bacon might have disagreed when he penned "Silence is the virtue of fools."

Mark Twain however, seems to agree . . ."It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Winston Churchill gives hope to all us foolish (and presumably garrulous PE's, P.Eng's CE's etc.) when he cast the deciding vote: "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes."

On a less tongue-in-cheek notion, what's wrong with convoluted answers?

There is an inference here that everything is simple, and straight forward or otherwise black & white.

It may be normal for the average person to reduce complex issues to simple explanations, but I've found most engineers like to look under the hood, turn a thing upside down, have a good look at something before performing analysis and formulating conclusions. Surely nothing in engineering can be more complex than ethics.

Regards,

 

[stressriser]

How exactly might any of this apply to anything? Are we now a forum for entertainment?

So I guess I don't agree?

 

[PM]

Fair question.

I suppose the point is that ethics is confusing to most. The only proven way to stay ahead of ethical problems is to constantly question and examine things from a lot of different points of view. Presumably, that's why we are all on this forum. Also, it doesn't hurt to maintain a certain wit or sense of humor either when you're ruminating on a problem.

Regards,

 

[chubPE]

It looks to me like a humor forum should be called for. What do I know though, I work for two dollars... heh