"Project Engineer" Title 10

[knelli]

Hi,

I am a licensed professional engineer (structural) that works for a Design Build firm. Our company managers have a habit of calling new project managers "Project Engineers". I have a problem with this, because the people they are titling as "Project Engineers" are new out of school with, at most, a 4 yr construction management degree (not engineering based). They then move up to being a "Project Manager" after gaining some experience.

My first job before I was licensed was at an A/E firm and we were not allowed to be called Engineers until we recieved our license. Is anyone aware of legal issues with calling a project manager and Engineer without an engineering background?

We do a lot of work with the government, and I could see a big issue with a new PM giving advice on a project, and others taking their advice because they assume they have engineering credentials (such as recommendations on shoring, removing forms, and other means and methods issues that would usually be asked to an engineer).

I was told that "Project Engineer" is an industry accepted term for a green or new "Project Manager" What are your thoughts?

 

[frv]

HgTX-

I was actually of the opinion that I could not use the term "engineer".. They actually beat that into you in school..

The reason I posted what I did was that a colleague pointed out the provision in the Texas Board rules and I read it myself.. it was pretty unambiguous.

 

[frv]

Just to follow up..

http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/downloads/law_rules092009.pdf

The above link takes you to the Texas Engineering Practice Act.

On p. 22, under "Graduate Engineers" (Section 1001.406), part (b), it states that I may use the term "Engineer". In my previous post I stated that I could use the term "Project Engineer". If I had to guess, I'd say that if you are allowed to use the term "Engineer", it would be perfectly OK to use the term "Project Engineer", but I'd be curious if others would interpret this differently.

 

[spongebob007]

"If cars, airplanes, and nuclear power plants are designed by unlicensed engineers, why should the software that runs them be any different? "

I can't speak for automotive, but airplanes, power plants, and military hardaware, and the software that controls this stuff are highly regulated. I am going out on a limb here, but my opinion is that the whole idea of having a licensed engineer is to ensure the safety of the general public. So in this vein, I see no need for licensure in the presence of a regualting body. It is indirectly through this regulating body that the general public is protected, not directly through the licensure of an individual engineer. Products (software or hardware) for these industries goes through extensive reviews and approvals and ultimately must pass rigorous qualification tests before this stuff is deployed in the field.

 

[IRstuff]

That section specifically states that a graduate engineer may use the term "engineer," by itself, ONLY if they are working under the direct supervision of a licensed professional engineer.

Note, specifically, the definitions at the start of the document:

"(2) “Engineer” means a person licensed to engage in the practice of engineering in this state."

And,

"A person who is an employee or subordinate of an engineer is exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter if the person’s practice does not include responsible charge of design or supervision."

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[frv]

I read that part of the document but, as I pointed out, and you saw, there is an exception to it for graduate engineers.

Short of calling the board myself and asking them, I'd venture to say what they really care about is not using the term "Professional" or "Licensed" in any way unless you are actually licensed.

I know the general public won't know the difference but pretty much anybody engaged in engineering would know that if your title is "Project Engineer", you're probably not licensed.. at least in the structural world, that's the case..

In any case, that's why I brought this up, to see whether other people would think that "Project Engineer" is, in the spirit of the law, what the board intended or whether they think it is a violation of the spirit of the law...

My opinion is that we're getting caught up in semantics and kind of missing the big picture.

 

[IRstuff]

Well, agree to disagree.

I think the definition they included speaks for itself. They allow the exception for "graduate engineer" and an "engineer" working directly under the supervision of a PE. I don't see that they allow any other exceptions, except for exempted industries and companies.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[frv]

Wonders of the modern world..

I called the compliance division of the state board and asked them directly. They said I can use the term engineer AND any variation thereof, provided I do not represent myself as, or call myself a Professional or Licensed engineer.

Forest for the trees, gentlemen.

 

[Ron]

frv...you seriously misread the law. Section 1001.406 states that you may use the term "Graduate Engineer" if you are a graduate of an ABET accredited engineering program. The preceeding paragraphs (1001.405) specifically prohibit the use of the term "engineer","professional engineer", etc. unless you are a licensed professional engineer. This comes under the "Business Entity" section which includes by its definition, sole proprietors or individual engineers.

The term "Graduate Engineer" is definitive. It means that you have graduated with a degree in engineering, but distinguishable from "Licensed Professional Engineer".

 

[frv]

Ron..

did you just skip over part (b) of 1001.406?

did you just ignore my previous post?

I CALLED the board. The compliance division, no less. I specifically asked them if I was misinterpreting the Law and was told I was not. And yes- I specifically asked about the term "Project Engineer".

 

[IRstuff]

I doubt that any public agency is much better than 60%-80% accuracy rate when it comes to answering questions, particularly verbal ones over the phone; q.v. IRS hotlines.

It may very well be that they'll only enforce blatant violations, i.e., posing as PEs, as opposed to calling yourself "Structural Engineer," which technically violates the code.

If you ask them to put it in writing, you'll probably either get a different answer or no answer or a regurgitation of the PE act.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[GregLocock]

Maybe, in which case they should say that over the phone. If I phone the relevant authority up and they give me an answer, I think that a reasonable person would say that I have checked and received advice.



Cheers

Greg Locock

I rarely exceed 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight

 

[TenPenny]

Only if you note the date, time, and name of the person you spoke to. Otherwise, it won't stand up.

 

[frv]

Good Lord!!!

Are you serious??


Is it so important for you to "win" this idiotic pissing contest that you actually have to question the qualifications of the COMPLIANCE DIVISION of the state board?

This is ALL they do!!! They receive complaints and investigate whether the complaints are violations of the code.. who would be better suited to inform me whether a provision is in violation of the code?

 

[IRstuff]

I have nothing whatsoever to gain in this discussion, since I work in an exempt industry; those that take the verbal advice of an unseen, unknown person without documentation take a non-zero risk.

I simply point out that the written law is at odds with the information you received, and at odds with the PE law in my own state. You can accept this person's advice and take your chances or not; it makes no difference to me.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[frv]

IRstuff-

I have nothing to gain from this either.. I don't use ANY title. That is my choice.

If you would have bothered to go back and read my original post, I stated that the use of the term is something that varies greatly by state- that is where this whole thing started. For example, my boss started practicing in Maryland and he told me that back when he was there, pretty much anyone could call him or herself an engineer, regardless of education or licensure.

In TEXAS and only in Texas is what I posted valid.

And unless you studied Law before going into engineering, I don't think you are qualified to state categorically that "the written law is at odds with the information you received". I am quite capable of reading the law myself; I did and I came away with a different interpretation than you. That's fine; intelligent people are free to discuss what they will and have differing opinions. But when I ask the people who are responsible for determining whether something is a violation or not, that should pretty much settle it.

 

[TenPenny]

frv

My point was simply that, as a respected 'professional' (dare I use that word here?), if you are basing any action on the verbal answers given over the phone, it would behoove you to note the date, time, and the name of the person who gave you the advice, lest it blow up in your face. You may have been speaking to the daughter of the brother-in-law of the guy who sits in the cubicle of the guy next to the one where the phone rang when you called. Without verifying your source, you have no more idea who you got the answer from than from a semi-anonymous poster on an internet forum. And without anything noted down, you will never be able to defend yourself if push comes to shove.

I called and spoke to a guy.
Who did you talk to?
The guy who answered the phone.
What was his name?
I have no idea.

In this particular case, there is no particular importance to that issue, this is basically just idle conversation. However, if you ever used the same strategy on anything important, and it came to a court case, you'd have a bit of an issue maintaining credibility.

 

[IRstuff]

Apparently, none of us studied law, otherwise we would know that a verbal communication from persons unknown is not a legal decision.

Just as we have a difference of opinion, so do people in the legal profession; that's how they make their living, by arguing points not that different from this one.

When I read:
"(2) "Engineer" means a person licensed to engage in the practice of engineering in this state."

and someone tells me that I don't need a license to print and use the term "engineer", that's a huge discrepancy, and I have to fall back on what's in the PE act.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[Compositepro]

A lawyers advice is not law either. There are lawyers on both sides of every case. Judges get overturned but "professional courtesy" makes that less likely. The only ones who do not lose are the lawyers and judges that get paid either way. For the rest of us it is a crap-shoot that is very strongly influenced by who has the most money. So the answer is there is no right answer.

 

[IceNine]

Seems pretty clear that frv is correct. "A graduate engineer, working under the direct supervision of a licensed professional engineer may use the term engineer."

Crystal clear...in Texas that is.

 

[IRstuff]

The point of contention was not about "graduate engineer" per se, it was about what "project engineer" might mean under the code.

TTFN

FAQ731-376