Revamping the PE liscensing Process? 9

[PSE]

Several posts, primarily within the Professional Ethics Forum, deal with either trying to define who an Engineer is, or liscensing. Is the only "true Engineer" a liscensed one? Given the relative diversity of potential engineering occupations (if not titles), should liscensing bodies (worldwide) expand, or re-define the scope of liscensure? In the US it seems (from my exposure) that the majority of Engineers do their jobs under the "Industrial Exemption" rule rather than persue liscensure. Some may not know how their work "fits" in with the current liscensing categories or simply find it more convienient. Should international "reciprocity" rules be established for liscensed individuals?

Regards,

PSE

 

[dporte17]

To lead the conversation back to the topic of "Where is Engineering going?", I would have to say that one of the fundamental challenges in the coming years to Engineering is going to be the concept of the "Industrial Exemption". There has been talk here about getting industrial exempt engineers to get on board and licence. I think we all know that we are fooling ourselves if we think that all the exempt engineers out there will suddenly decide to licence for the altruistic motive of advancing the profession.

Getting this turned around is going to have to be the role of the individual Engineering organizations. The role of each individual professional Engineer is going to be to push their organization to set this as a priority.

There is currently an incredible amount of engineering being done by exempt engineers that directly affects public safety which truly defeats the whole principle behind licensing of engineers! From an automotive manufacturing perspective, I think there are many more "Firestones" out there waiting to happen for just this reason. It is up to us to get this change in motion.

 

[GregLocock]

And I am sure that there will be any number of PEs willing to stamp each vehicle design, knowing that they are personally liable for the crash performance of that vehicle model throughout its production life. I really think you guys are underestimating the complexity of the process. The fundamental reason (I think) the company takes responsibility is because it cannot be managed at a personal level. At best you can sign off that as far as you know all the correct tests and analyses have been done in a conscientious and accurate fashion.

So far as requiring universal registration I don't really disagree with your basic position, but can't help wondering if industrial exemption has some virtues in its own right. Let's postulate a car industry in which every experiment and analysis that is safety related is repeated by an independent team. In other words, the cost of development would increase by 50%. This would undoubtedly lead to a slightly safer vehicle. My guess is that it is more efficient (in societal terms) to have complex products with a slightly less rigorous standard of safety, at say 90% of the cost, than eliminating occasional mistakes that are not caught by other means. We aren't stupid, everything does get checked one way or another, but we do not go so far as to double test everything.

Perhaps the PEs who operate in industry exempt industries should start to press for change? I can't see that non-PEs like me are going to ask for it. In particular in the example I've given, how would a PE sign off a vehicle for crash? In what way would it differ from the current process? (if it didn't differ then I'm afraid I can see no value in it).

I have worked in three industries. In none of them was membership of a professional institution required, and the presence or absence of PE equivalent has made no difference to which jobs I get. Perhaps it will, in years to come, but frankly I can't see it happening.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[BobPE]

Greg:

The process is complex, the design of a car can impacts hundreds or perhaps thousands of people, take for instance a water treatment plant I do engineering for. It treats over 600 million gallons per day of water and can impact 10's of millions of people. Engineers reduce risk, we are not the end all of risk. Professional status would greatly impact the private sector process, I would much rather own a car signed off by PE's than what I have now. Look at the american space shuttle, the first disaster was caused by O-rings, failure cought by "industry exempt" engineers, but not relayed properly through the top industry exempt management becuase other "industry expempt" engineers felt no personal need to reduce risk. The result was obvious. The second shuttle disaster was supposedly insulation failure cought by "industry exempt" engineers and again failure in communication within the top industry exempt engineering management caused tradegdy. I personally think PE's in this process would have prevented these tragedys, 100 percent.

I think if all indusrt exempt engineers were to get registered, the effect would be radical. We would control the process of public safety, now controlled in large part by accountants in industry. Liability would be no different than it is now. Both myself personally, and my company can get sued for my designs. My company keeps 10 million in liability insurance on the engineers. I could potentially lose everything I have if I am wrong. This is a big risk, and is not worth what I am paid to do the work. I am paid so little because there are other non-engineers and industry exempt engineers out there lowering the pay scale. It is not the exempt engineers fault but rather the industry machine that they are tools for that keep them down. If all engineers were PE's I think we could get just compensation, drastically impact public health and safety in a positive way, and retake control of the professional boards as tools for us ratehr than the political hacks they are now.

In my mind, its a win win no matter how you lok at it. I can understand your point though, people like me challange the industry exempt engineer and they feel threatned because they feel we are attacking their skills. Nothing can be further from the truth. We recognize your skills and your contribution to society, but being on the outside looking in, we can see that you are treated poorly compared to your registered counterparts outside industry. I am an advocate to get professional societies to make a plan to allow industry exempt engineers to make the step up to registration. Beleieve me, they don't want you, partly because they are political hacks, affected by industry influence not to require you to be registered. I don't think that they are acting on your best interests, just coprorate greed because they look at registration as a union.

I really think industry misses the point. And it is up to us to fix the problem without industries help.

BopPE

 

[dporte17]

GregLocock -
I would not want to debate the complexity of the automotive design process or the fact that one person can or cannot effectively manage it. Neither would I debate the cost effectiveness of extensive testing on each design and product to achieve marginal increases in safety. I would debate your assertion that universal registration would result in increased development cost.

Your conclusion states that registration would mean more testing and development cost, which I have to disagree with. Being registered does not mean that you have to be able to foresee every eventuality, but rather be able to apply a "reasonable and prudent standard of care" as judged by a panel of their peers (wording may vary depending on jurisdiction). That leads to my answer to why it would be different from the current process.

Essentially the goal would be to not have a significant change from the current process or else you would end up increasing the cost of the product development as you talked about (or as exists in the aerospace industry). To see the real advantage you have to look back at the basics of why the practice of Engineering was regulated in the first place.

If we are to place our trust in the organizations of the world to apply due diligence in designing and marketing products then we are essentially stating that organizations are sufficiently deterred from designing and marketing a sub-standard product by the ramifications of bringing such a product to market. That idea may work well in theory, but unfortunately history has proven this to fall apart in practice. Let me keep with the automotive design example to illustrate this point.

Say during the design cycle an engineer finds himself or herself in a situation where the safety of the public is being marginalized due to slight advantages in cost. Not wanting to get into technical details but keep the example general, the end debate comes to a management decision and a non-engineer who feels that the decision is not worth the cost overrules the judgment of the engineer. At that juncture, what options does this engineer have if they feel strongly that this is the wrong decision? You can get into several hypothetical situations involving going to the press and such, but essentially they have little support unless they are PE fulfilling a position that is required to be filled by a PE. In that case they can comfortably make a stand for their position knowing that they have the law and a strong professional association to uphold their position, and support them in the case that they suffer professionally for holding their position. In the case of a non-licensed, industrially exempt engineer, they are without that support. It could be argued that one could fulfill one's entire career and never see that situation arise, but if it did, I for one would be grateful to have that support.

It is my feeling that this concept of industrially exempt engineers is one of the root causes of much of the erosion of the pillars of the engineering profession in recent years. It will only serve to augment us all if we can form a strong collective voice to further engineering.

BobPE - I cannot agree more. You wouldn't happen to practice in Ontario would you?

 

[GregLocock]

"I would debate your assertion that universal registration would result in increased development cost."

Find where I wrote that and I'll send you a dollar.







Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

Several threads have been started discussing the PE & Industrial Exemption within the US.

thread731-62888 couple of things come to mind after reading through some of the postings.

For the purpose of attaining the PE, (and if you had to choose) what is considered to be of higher value, the written exams or the references and work experience?

I pose this because it seems like a lot of non-PE's really don't care to go take a series of examinations that the perceive to be of little or no value especially if they have been working for a long time. There was also a posting comparing engineers with doctors and lawyers. It struck me that both of these disciplines use different paths to licensure. A doctor udergoes an internship for each speciality that they intend to practice in. A lawyer takes the bar exam in order to practice. I haven't checked but there may be reciprocity laws for practicing in other states or a lawyer may have to retake an exam for each state. Which "method" might prove better in respect to engineering?

This is getting a bit long-winded. I was disconcerted with a posting that indicated that the PE designation is independent of discipline. While the code of ethics "prevents" practice outside of ones discipline, there does not seem to be any requirement to let the public know what discipline the PE is able to practice in. Perhaps some respondents will shed more light on this.

Regards

 

[leanne]

My biggest problem with applying for my PE is finding enough PEs to vouch for my engineering work since I have not worked for a PE except for a 3 year period out of the years since graduation. My manager was an ME & I'm a EE, so how much did he really know about what I was doing?

I have a number of relatives who are RPEs, but they are not familiar with my work since we never worked together & I do not feel it is right to ask them for a recommendation based soley on shared ancestors.

Please see my new thread about PE with test(s) waived. BTW, with a waiver, 9 PE references are required versus the normal 5 PE references.

 

[PSE]

leanne,

You have noted what I have also found to be a problem. In my career, I have yet to cross paths (outside of these forums) with PE's. They don't seem to be recognizeable within the profession as a whole even with the weight of state law on their side. I received my degree in '86 and I only found out about PE's after finding this site!

One of the conundrums appears that (Exams aside), in order to obtain a PE, you have to find PE's for references (varies by state). However, if there are few PE's working within the industries of your state, your chances of garnering the requisite references are slim to none.

A "challenge" for PE's

1) Make yourselves known to your colleagues working in industry . If we can't find you, we can't become licensed.

2) Get active in the schools. Try to get the EIT exam at least mentioned within the curriculums. You might be shocked at the number of graduates that haven't taken it or even heard about it.

As can be seen in other threads, the PE does not seem to be an easy sell to engineers working under the US industrial exemption as it is not perceived to provide much if any benefit. My impressions so far is that it is difficult to obtain, is an ongoing expense (though minimal), is not considered necessary for the majority of positions (after all they are provided by industry), is less portable and recognizeable (you can take a degree anywhere).

Regards

 

[miner00]

This is one of the better discussions on this subject and I am curious to see what everyone thinks on this topic.

While there are quite a few Gung Ho PE's in the forum, you guys are dramatically under-represented in the real world and if you want everyone to become licensed, why don't you get the NSPE to pressure the states to: 1. nationalize the process as much as is possible and 2. Drop the PE reference requirement. I have heard several of you say to get references from PE's who haven't seen your work...which really makes the requirement meaningless anyway. Very few of the non-pe's are complaining about the test being too hard or the experience, it is always about trying to find a PE to sign off your paper like a child on a scavenger hunt!


BobPE - regarding your statement: "I personally think PE's in this process would have prevented these tragedys, 100 percent."

I understand that you are backing your position and I agree that a PE could have had more power in the same situation, but claiming anything to be 100% is dangerous and foolish.

The insulation problem on Columbia occurred at takeoff. By the time that the "industry exempt" engineers found the problem, there was nothing they could do. The shuttle didn't have enough supplies to stay in space and there is not way to do a rescue missions without jeapordizing another crew. What would a PE have done to help? even if a PE cought the insulation problem before takeoff and tried to stop the launch, would NASA have done it? How do you prove that insulation falling off is more dangerous than hitting a bird in flight, a falling meteor or a piece of space debris traveling at 10,000 mph--with enough confidence to stop a multi-billion dollar project? The industry exempt engineers ran the numbers and found that the likelyhood of insulation hitting the suttle was slim. Possible, but highly unlikely. Give us non-PE's a little credit for a conscience. I would bet that falling insulation is not even in the top 10 most likely catastrophic errors on the problem list. There are no guarantees when you strap thousands of pounds of explosive to a modified airplane and shoot it into the most dangerous environemnt known to man. Even with a PE in charge, you would be taking a large risk every time the shuttle went up.

I agree that having more PE's might have helped, but it is not possible to be 100% safe in a lot of industries. Even in wastewater treatment, you take risks and guesses right? What wt. percentage of cyanide is allowable in a drinking water supply? How about radioactive material? I know that these numbers are low, but they are not zero either. Does anyone really know personally that everything is safe?

Just my opinion,

miner

 

[BobPE]

miner00:

You are right, this has turned into a good thread....

I think the PE reference thing is a roadblosk to many non-PE's in industry. I don't think its useless however, mentoring is never useless and that is what that requirement tries to accomplish. Not every PE will sign off on someone, and if they do, they have to justify it and its the licensing boards final say.

As for my statement on the Columbia tradegdy, I still stand by my use of 100 percent. It was the exempt engineers taht discovered the problem shortly after take-off. I have no problem with them or their discovery since they were perfect engineers. It was their bosses, the nonPE managers that manage the engineers that overrode their decision based on their lack of understanding of the engineering behind the problem, and maybe partly driven by as you say, a billion dollar project cannot be stopped. Well, if a PE was in any of those management positions, the project would have been stopped (100 percent). Maybe there was nothing they could have done but told the crew to pray and say their peace with their families, maybe the engineers could have figured a way out. We will never know, butr the sad fact is that we engineers knew. That message was discounted along the way, and that was the true failure of industry and government exempt engineers, their decisions can be overrode by laypeople without any recourse.

After the fact, it was attempted to blame the engineers by the same managers that overrode their decisions, but as good engineers, they documented the entire circus of events...its funny, those managers never made it to the news to tell us why they didnt believe the engineers, why the felt they had the authority to everride the engineers decisions, and just what and the hell they were thinking to allow this to happen.....there was no accountability, and I truely think the PE would have made this better....

Just my thoughts, and I appreciate yours on this subject as well....

BobPE

 

[miner00]

Bob-
I agree that the references are a good idea and I am constantly on the lookout for a good mentor. The question is though, does your mentor have to be a PE to be a good engineer? As I said before, it is not easy to find a PE and I think a nonPE mentor that you work directly with has a much greater impact on your work than a PE who has no relation to your work. I would say that requiring references from experienced (10 to 15+ years)engineers -with whom you have worked - would achieve the same goal.

as for our other little disagreement...
Licensed Doctors signed their names to Ephedrine based diet pills for years. There are doctors in this country and others working on human cloning right now. Lawyers and CPA's break rules and defend clients that they know to be guilty all the time (see Enron and OJ). Licensure doesn't make people do the right thing. Conscience and ethics do.

Even a licensed engineer will make mistakes and might have believed that there would not have been a problem. Does that fact that the engineer is personally responsible help to bring the astronauts back? I will agree that more PE's in the process MIGHT have helped, but not 100%.

miner

 

[TheTick]

What makes you so sure there were no PE's involved in the shuttle crash?

I worked for a company where the worst engineering failure on a product that went to market was managed by that company's only PE! We're talking enough warranty $$$ to make the difference between profit and loss.

Good and evil: wrap them up and disguise it as people.

 

[leanne]

NASA has at least one RPE on staff...

NASA Chief Engineer
Theron M. Bradley, Jr.

....Theron M. Bradley, Jr., is the Chief Engineer for NASA. He has held this position since July 2002....Mr. Bradley is a registered Professional Engineer in Nuclear Engineering and Mechanical Engineering in Idaho and Virginia.....

Source:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codea/codeae/bradley.html

 

[BobPE]

TheTick:

There are lots of PE's in NASA and probably involved in the disaster (trying to stop it that is). The problem is the failure of the system to put ALL PE's in the engineering positions that lead up to the individual that leanne is referring to. There is no requirement to do so, so nonPE's interprete the data and decisions headed towards the top management and there in lies the problem. The problem being EXEMPT again.....no accountability, no responsibility...

Kinda the same as the reference you stated at your company...

It has to make you think.....in my mind, the system killed these people....



BobPE

 

[miner00]

So a PE signed off on something without having all of the data and did not do anything to make sure that he had the right data. There was a staff of PE's whose concerns were not being addressed and not one of them took the initiative to make themselves heard by the decision makers.

hmmmm...

So a PE only has to be ethical and responsible when he is surrounded by other PE's??? Shouldn't ensuring that your data is correct and coming from a reliable source be part of a PE's responsibility? If you thought that a mistake was going to be made costing 7 human lives and billions of dollars, wouldn't you do more than send a couple of emails to your immediate boss. I am not a PE and I would be in my CEO's office in a heartbeat.

Sorry Bob, I don't follow your logic.

 

[BobPE]

miner00: sorry for the confusing logic...I am a PE and take the PE process for granted a lot of time...In government and industry, just because you have a PE in the CURRENT system does not mean that you have the necessary system to be a PE.

The NASA problem is that no decisions or calculations needed to be signed by a PE. This is what enacts the full status and control that PE's have. There is no system in industry or government to accomodate the signing and sealing of anything really. Therefor, no liability insurance for the engineer signing, no laws, rules, or regulations requiring the PE to sign and seal; no laws, rules or regulations requiring the manager to have anything signed and sealed by a PE....no accountability, no liability.....

I think one of the reasons that there is such a good record of what happened with columbia is because of the engineers. They did blow the whistle, management stopped the message short of the top...Without a system for the engineer to be liable for their decisions, no one need listen to what they were saying....anf no one did listen..

Now consider this....The final decision on Columbia came down to putting a PE seal on the report saying that all the work to understand the problem indicated that immediate failure was going to occur should the Shuttle reenter. The manager the report was going to was not an engineer, but could not use the report unless it was signed by a PE. The manager wanted to change the report to say everything was just fine.....The PE said hell no, and wouldnt sigh....The process would have stopped there and the engineer would have ruled over the manager when the managers bosses came looking for the report to get the shuttle home and the engineer told their side of the story........The report still needs a PE seal....The managers call in other PE's to consult with the original PE....They determine the problem is real and they need to figure out another plan...Manager overriden by the need for a PE seal....

This could only be done with PE's and only in a system where the PE has this power, not industry or government expempt....

I hope that logic was a bit clearer...I is kinda my idea of how if should have worked....The PE process is very powerful, and yes, the PE assumes a large amount of responsibility, but we are engineers, it we dont accept this responsibility, then who will???? Accountants? LAwyers? Managers?.....Its our job!!! I willingly accept the responsibility for my PE...I know you would too if you had it...

BobPE

 

[leanne]

You can't honestly believe that having all engineers be PEs would have stopped the disastrous Challenger launch? True, it would have reduced the risk, but it would not have eliminated it. I don't and the reason why, is that even though PEs are supposed to follow the NSPE & liscensing state's code of ethics, there will always be a PE who has a different perception of what is a real problem or doesn't have the same set of ethics as the person in the cube next to them.

There are numerous cases of registered PEs having made bad ethical decisions that resulting in tragedy. There are even more cases of management making bad ethical decisions and some of those bad ethical decisions are pressuring engineers to sign something they otherwise would not.

This is beginning to belong in the ethics arena...

 

[BobPE]

yes i do leanne, you can create all kinds of scenarios against it, but for Challanger, the engineers even stated the temp at which the o rings would fail. a non engineer manager signed off on the launch, and failure occured even as engineers were trying to stop the launch....a report with a PE seal on it would have stopped the launch had a report of this nature been required prior to authorizing launch
Engineers need to be responsible....the PE is the best available vehicle to accomplish this...

I think this is a good thread for this, for this is where engineering is going in the next 5 years and more....

BobPE

 

[leanne]

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you here, Bob. you are fooling yourself to think that a PE stamp would have changed history. I used to team-teach (with corporate attorneys & ethics office staff) ethics classes & law classes to engineers, purchasing agents, material teams, and managers. I did a lot of research finding examples of wrong doing for both legal & ethics violations. I can do some digging if you're interested, but most of my examples are old & there are many cases of both that have been news headliners recently.

Someone who is going to go around the system will go around the system regardless of a PE stamp on a report.

Reports are ignored all the time - even reports by PEs. Reports by attorneys & CPAs are also ignored. A report with a PE seal will not stop a non-engineer (or even an RPE engineer) manager hell-bent on meeting a schedule or project milestone regardless of consequences.

A PE stamped report would have absolved the engineer(s) of the distaster's blame, but it would not have stopped the managers from over-riding the decision.

It happens all the time. Just because you have this strong sense does not mean that everyone else in the world does also & no PE stamp will change that. It should be that easy. Life would be so much better.

 

[BobPE]

I think you are fooling yourself leanne, anything, except for the broken exempt system that is in place would have had the potential to help. If the PE were in place we wouldnt be talking about this. The PE is that powerful. ITs not that people wont go around the system, its that people will he held accountable for their actions. That is whats missing in the exempt world....Every engineer involved with challanger said dont send it up. All that knowledge was overriden by a manager giving their lay opinion on engineering matters to their bosses. You cant tell me that if their bosses needed a stamped report in stead of a management answer, that that shuttle would have gone up....

I agree, it is a simple concept, thats the beauty of it...everyone trys to make it harder than it is...for what reasons I have no clue....I'll keep advancing the cause though...and hopefully people that know nothing of engineering will never have to be told what a PE is...

BobPE