Profession Diversity 4

[PSE]

I thought that I would pose the following for general comment.

What limits should a practicing engineer place on performing technical duties falling outside their area of discipline? Should the individual's body of practice be based upon practical experience, education, or both?

This is an attempt to explore ethical questions regarding career evolution. I am familiar with many people who were given technical responsibility for projects outside of their educational discipline. A basic example might be a EE doing Mechanical Design work (say an enclosure) or to reverse the example, a ME doing a electrical panel.

PSE

 

[BML]

I think there are probably two main aspects of this question. First, assuming that we are discussing licensed PEs, I would think that most jurisdictions place a restriction on the type of work that can be performed. I have a relative who is an architect, and he is allowed to design any structure up to 5,000 SF without consulting a structural engineer. Similarly, a structural engineer can design up to 5,000 SF without an architect. After that limit, both have to work together on the project.

Second, I think it is a question of personal ethics. As an ind/mfg engineer by education and experience, I certainly wouldn't attempt to be the senior engineer at a nuclear plant unless I had the appropriate industry experience and probably some additional training. I would also hope that my employer would realize this as well. This side of the topic is probably of more concern to those of us working in industry without a PE license (yet).

 

[PSE]

BML,

The intent was to leave the discussion open in terms of licensed or unlicensed engineering professionals. This was to perhaps help an individual to determine where they may need to draw the line on stretching their current competence level. You hit my key point with your statement " I certainly wouldn't attempt to be the senior engineer at a nuclear plant unless I had the appropriate industry experience and probably some additional training." What "rules of thumb" could be used to decide when it would be appropriate to either get formal training or professional assitance?

Regards,

PSE

 

[TD2K]

I suppose the only rule of thumb I could suggest is 'are you willing to stand up and justify what you did and how you arrived at that conclusion to your peers' or to a court of law.

As a P.Eng in Alberta I could technically do any type of engineering. However, let's say I designed a foundation and had a complaint subsequently lodged with the Association. The standard that would be applied would be that of a competent civil engineer, not a chemical engineer out of his depth .

 

[PM]

Snipped from PSE: "Should the individual's body of practice be based upon practical experience, education, or both?"

The short answer is both!

Snipped from BML: " . . .most jurisdictions place a restriction on the type of work that can be performed."

I think you'll find, when you survey the various licensing bodies in North America and western Europe, that the doctrine of "self governance" prevails and the licensing body does not actually regulate the practice of engineering, in the sense you suggest.

Snipped from PSE: 'What "rules of thumb" could be used to decide when it would be appropriate to either get formal training or professional assitance?"

[ol][li]Assumming you have[ul][li] the requisite training, and[/li] [li]you never took total responsibility for a particular engineering task (ie. a specific type of design, certain testing protocol, etc.)[/li][/ul]then you should consult an engineer who has. (preferably an expert in that field) As a PE / P.Eng. you will then be responsible for the task process and its outcome, and therefore will be competent to act on your own the next time that type of assignment comes up.[/li][li]If you lack the required training, then hand off the assignemt to someone competent to handle on their own.[/li][li]If you're interested in the field you could educate yourself as to the theory and take training courses or tutorials on the practical aspects to get up to speed.[/li][/ol]TD2K is accurate, that in Alberta, as in all Canadian Provinces plus the three territories, all licensed P. Eng.'s are qualified to perform any egineering prescribed in their Provincial egineering statute. This is also the case in many, if not most US States, but not all, (California being the most notable I believe).

This raises the issue of what difference there is between qualification, competence and expertise.

Codes of ethics require PE's and P.Eng.'s to restrict their practice of engineering to that which they are competent to perform by virtue of training and experience. This is perhaps the most daunting responsibility licensed engineers face, namely self regulation of their practice, and is the primary reason professional engineers are required to live up to a higher ethical standard than most people. Obviously, some engineers have amassed so much experience on a given narrow subject(ie. somewhere in the range of 10,000 hours, which usually takes somewhere between 7 and 11 employment years to accumulate) that they are considered expert.

It's interesting to note that even Mozart, while playing the piano @ age 3, composing @ age 5, and giving command royal performances @ age 6, he wasn't considered an expert untill he was well into his late teens, almost twenty. His early compositions were considered trash, even by the standards of his day, but man did he ever blossom after he sat at the key board for a dozen years. It would seem there are no short cuts to expertise, even for child prodigies.
Regards,

 

[PSE]

Thank you all for your responses. The intent was to explore and perhaps raise the awareness level on the practice of "self governance". Every now and then, it may be helpful to remind oneself to get some help before the water line goes over the head.

Regards,

PSE