Unqualified 'project managers' directing technical detail on projects 5

[123MB]

So, first up I want to try and make it clear that I have nothing against tradesmen... I am a qualified engineer, I have worked shoulder to shoulder with tradesmen for almost 10 years and the ones I have worked with are competent, good operators, and technically capable.

I have an issue with where they should fit into the organizational hierarchy of an industrial automation design and construction company.

In my company, electricians (who have their trade certification, but nothing else) are put into positions as 'project managers' and in that position they are responsible to our employer for the technical and non technical execution of the project.

Now, speaking from my point of view, the company 'policy' is that myself, as a qualified engineer, am supposed to defer to the 'project managers' judgment with regards to technical and project execution issues. I am supposed to take my orders from them, basically. Jobs are normally executed with the 'project manager' producing the design and the 'engineers' doing the system programming and commissioning.

Now I am concerned with regards to professional liability as to who would be found at fault if something went wrong on a job 'designed' by the 'project manager' and commissioned by someone like me. I have seen oversights made often, some of them relating to to electrical safety (i.e. fault loop impedance, discrimination, fault level analysis, etc.) as well as personal operator safety (machine guarding, machine safety systems to EN954).

Are electricians deemed 'competent' persons to design such portions of the installation... and, regardless, if an incident occured, would the finger be pointed at me (as the qualified engineer) when the organisational hierachy in my company means I am not involved in the production of alot of these designs.

What is the organisational hierachy like in your organisation? what competencies are electricians deemed to have in your neck of the woods, has anyone heard of any litigation where the 'competent' or 'responsible person' has been deemed to be the qualified engineer in lieu of the electrician (for the purposes of design, anyway)?

Thanks

 

[ScottyUK]

Sounds like a mess. If you commissioned something knowing that it was unsafe or didn't meet code then you would likely be held liable, and rightly so. I doubt you would be held liable for the design if you didn't either produce it or authorise it.

I have a feeling that you are UK-based judging from the wording of your post. If something were to go wrong and a serious incident resulted from that, the HSE seem to be savvy enough to look for systemic failures in the management structure which created the conditions for the incident to occur, and to follow the chain of command upward. I don't know if that is a formal policy, but it is my impression.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[desertfox]

If I was in the situation you find yourself in, I would keep a record and a paper trail of anything I found unsafe particularly if I have pointed it out and feel nobody is listening.
For instance I would email the Project Manager with my concerns and if over ruled and I felt strongly about it, I would email back and say okay I'll do as instructed but I still have these concerns or doubts.
That way I've covered myself and so if the next time I am asked about it by a man wearing a grey wig I can say "yes I pointed out my concerns that this would happen"

desertfox

 

[Ron]

Be prepared for the evolution of the decline of the importance of engineering in your company. I've seen this firsthand and it is not a pretty sight.

In a company in which I spent almost 18 years, there was a clear technical hierarchy and essentially all management were licensed professional engineers. As the company diversified, they were pressured to provide a career path for "project managers". Those managers were not required to be licensed professionals and bore the responsibility for financial success of their projects. They carried the same status as Principal Engineers.

The result was as you have seen. Technical decisions were overridden by financial decisions. I could no longer tolerate it so I left. They are still in business but have been through two different ownerships.

 

[SNORGY]

Ron is a smart guy.

I am going through the same nonsense - appalling nonsense - where I am at now.

The approach I have taken is:

"If I designed and drew it, I'll stamp it. If *you* designed and drew it, *you* stamp it. By the way, if *you* can't stamp it, you can't design and draw it."

Nothing leaves the office or gets built without being stamped. People around me know that if they want engineering, they can come to me. If they want a "stamp", I simply give them directions to the nearest post office.

Too many "project managers" believe that they are authorized to make final decisions and overrule me on matters of design. Sure, they are; all they need then is a stamp. Won't be mine, but...

 

[lacajun]

I've not seen your situation or heard of it. I've seen engineers that shouldn't have been in their positions of responsibility but that's not your dilemma. However, it has the same result as Ron's experience.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[Comcokid]

Oh? Sounds like some engineers who work in the 'Professional Engineering' side are not familiar with doing engineering projects under the direction of non-degreed project managers. Engineers like me working in the so-called 'Industry Exempt' area have been doing it for most of our careers.

Like developing a state-of-art fuel level sensor using a multi-patented technology-transfer IP in a 5 person R&D group where the company assigned as group manager a person who's background was 15 years of sales and marketing in automotive parts who only had a 2-year night-school certificate in business. It's discourging to try to answer questions like: "What's the difference between frequency and a volt?". This was not a fly-by-night organization but at a small division of a Fortune 250 company.

Or a friend who did software for Flight Simulators (and I'm not talking about games), who when the company hired a new accountant, the accountant had in his agreement that the company would find employment for his wife, so they hired her and made her Engineering Manager. I believe her background was managing a gift shop.

Or another friend, an Electrical Technician who worked at a company that designed elevator components (for people). The company downsized, and moved around a VP and made him VP of engineering (his background was not remotely in engineering) over a department of 8 people. The company had a hydraulic elevator with capacity X, and he started a project with capacity 2-1/2 X. He screamed out orders that there would be no development or testing, that the engineers would just take all of X design and scale everything by 2-1/2, and all compliance testing would be based on the X design. They installed several of these new elevators, but fortunately they didn't kill anybody. But the company did have to go back and retrofit installations at a high cost because the hydraulic seals leaked badly.

Come to think of it - all of these companies or divisions are out of business now.

 

[jmw]

Let's be sure we identify the problem clearly.
In theory there is nothing wrong with project leadership and management being performed by non-engineers.
It is where the lines are drawn over who has what responsibility and liability.
You don't, as the saying goes, keep a dog and bark yourself.
If the manager is good and knows the industry he should be in a position to rely on and accept engineering decisions made by engineers and support those decisions to higher management.

There was an article recently which looked at on aspect of this:
Bloodless Bean-counters rule over us which is an interesting article about "Managerialists".

Managerialists, he says, are “a group who consider themselves separate from the organisations they join”. They are not interested in the content of the work their organisation performs.

In another thread the question was asked about leadership roles and some debate about the differences between leadership and management.
The answer is not necessarily that these people should not manage projects nor that engineers necessarily make better managers but how well the system works whatever it is.
Hence the issue here seems not to be that a non-engineer is a project manager but that engineering decisions are taken by non-engineers. That has nothing directly to do with whether or not non-engineers should manage projects but everything to do with how they manage them.

Of course, it doesn't look good when we can all come up with examples of bad management and "managerialists". But equally I'm pretty sure I am not alone in being able to point to some disasters where engineers ruled the world (including at one company where they dispensed with the usual "Sales and Marketing" Department and had an "Engineering and Marketing" department headed by an engineer. It was a disaster on a company wide scale and they are back with a Sales and Marketing department and a separate Engineering department. Or they were. They too have been subsumed by a global company and rationalised to a few remaining products with no investment in them or the people.




JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Ron]

No problem with non-engineers being managers or supervisors over engineers in an exempt industry, it's just when the licensed engineer is directed to do something contrary to his practice act for the sake of profitability or expedience that a problem ensues. When licensed, an engineer is personally responsible and liable for his acts and of those for whom he is in responsible charge. Both the company and the engineer can be held jointly and severally liable.

The non-engineer "project manager" has no license to protect, no ethical or legal obligation to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, and carries no statutory liability for any decision made. While he might be held civilly liable for his actions on behalf of a company, the licensed engineer can be held criminally liable for the same actions.

 

[jmw]

Seems like there is a legal obligation on the engineer and no equivalent legal obligation on the company. This is where regulation has a positive role.
How to motivate the regulators is the question.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

You may want to contact the regulator of engineering in your jurisdiction and find out a few things, such as:
1) Is there an industrial exception which applies to your company? In some jurisdictions, non-engineers can practice engineering in industries that are exempt. However, in many cases only a professional engineer or someone supervised by a professional engineer can practice engineering.
2) Are the 'project managers' practicing engineering or giving an engineering opinion? How is engineering defined in your jurisdiction? Many jurisdictions have a legal definition for engineering, which involves the application of engineering principles in a design where public safety is a concern, for example the design of a bridge or the development of safety critical software.
3) Who is liable? In many jurisdictions the concept of "vicarious liability" applies, which means the company is liable since you are an employee and do not have your own practice (i.e. you work for the company and they brought you to this situation). However, in several jurisdictions professional engineers are professionally responsible for their work and can lose their license if they are found guilty in a discipline case.
good luck,

 

[JackTrades]

As a variation on this theme, I left my last position due to PM's (who were all registered professional engineers) chronically battling us (the EOR's) regarding the time we deemed necessary to cover design requirements, while withholding design funds and truncating design schedule timelines in order to "shine" for management. They had either never been in the design arena or had long ago forgotten any standards other than those related to budget and schedule. We were still responsible for the final designs regardless of their registered status.

But I'm sure that this is a common complaint.

Now I'm a regulator at a Federal agency.

Oh well...

 

[beej67]

In my experience in civil-site, the design and the project management are both often performed by non-PEs, and nobody bats an eyelash about it. But the guy stamping it has final say over everything about that design, and nobody questions the PE if he has a qualm about something. Your ultimate job as a PE isn't to do everything, nor to manage everything, but to make sure everything is done right.

To get to the top poster's question, I don't see any problem with an electrician managing engineers on an engineering project. I see a big problem with an electrician telling an engineer to change the design in a way the PE thinks is wrong, particularly if the PE is being told to stamp the design.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[lacajun]

JackTrades, common sense and courtesy seem to be forgotten aspects of working with people and projects today. I've had managers who complained about that stuff to me to shine to management. Neither of them had done anything close to what I was doing and had no way of understanding the scope of work. To complicate matters, the plant couldn't articulate a functional spec so we had to back up and do that for them, too. I had to read minds so often I felt like a failed clairvoyant.

The pressure was unreal. I looked like a lazy malcontent and my boss looked like a knight in shining armor. My only goal was to get it running not to gold plate it. Their opinion differed. But, when you don't know all the details to make automation happen, you should keep your mouth closed unless you have a legitimate question.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

 

[123MB]

Thanks all for taking the time to reply to this post it's great to hear everyone's point of view

 

[jmw]

123MB,
You have explained the situation and that you are unhappy with it but what you haven't done is explained what you have done about it.

The consensus seems to be that there is nothing really wrong with just about anyone being made project manager, so long as things are done right. It may be that non-engineers don't really appreciate the legal implications of non-qualified people making engineering decisions.

It occurs to me to ask if the project manager has made these decisions and had no reasoned objections from you or a constructive view on how to better proceed?

Have you simply had your work revised by him (who may not know any better) and you've had heated words? or no words? Have you just fumed silently to yourself and gone away for some quality time alone with Dilbert?
Some people like to say little at the concept stage, go away and then at the last moment present their solution like a magician revealing the rabbit and await the applause. It is far better to keep people involved all the way through by being open and inclusive.

You do say:

...company 'policy' is that myself, as a qualified engineer, am supposed to defer to the 'project managers' judgement with regards to technical and project execution issues

But is this simply received wisdom? Is it enshrined in your job description? Is it a properly formulated expression or simply some badly worded or understood interpretation?
Have management simply made the assumption that this is OK and no one challenged it? Not everyone who is not an engineer realises the legal aspects.

Have you represented your self by saying something like:
"Look chief, as I understood the project, what I put forward was what I think is appropriate. Now if you aren't happy with it and need it changed, you put me in a tight spot legally if you make the changes and possibly the company too, to say nothing of what sort of legal liability you end up with. So if you need something changed for some reason, why don't we discuss it and I'll see if we can find another way to do it."

Be constructive and willing to do your bit but also scare them in a subtle way. Simply saying "You can't do that." won't cut it.
What you are trying to say is "You tell me what you want and if there is a way to do it, I'll find it. If you are not happy with what I put forward then we can discuss and I'll look for another way."

It may be that the project manager is simply making decisions on things because he thinks that as project manager that is what he can and should do. Make decisions.

Now some people have a problem being a manager and deferring to other people. But unless someone objects or makes a reasoned argument for why things can't be done that way, they'll just go ahead and do it.

The way to handle people making decisions is not to propose a single solution to which they say yes or no but offer a choice of paths and let them choose. Then, all you do is make the path you want the most attractive. He still gets to make decisions but has bought into the solution at the proposal stage. He then wont be so inclined to change it at completion. Or you involve him at each step from initial consideration to final solution so he gets to make lots of minor decisions all well handled by yourself.

So what we don't know here is how the situation arose, the circumstances behind it nor what you have done about it.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Maui]

I think that what jmw is saying is that if you want management to adopt the solution that you feel is best option, then you need to get them to buy in to the idea. I agree.

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[PHovnanian]

In my company, electricians (who have their trade certification, but nothing else) are put into positions as 'project managers' and in that position they are responsible to our employer for the technical and non technical execution of the project.

I don't have a problem with this. I would expect that the trade certification these project managers have received on their way up from construction or maintenance qualifies them to make decisions regarding how a design is to be implemented.

Jobs are normally executed with the 'project manager' producing the design and the 'engineers' doing the system programming and commissioning.

This is not possible, in my opinion, for two reasons: First, I find it is difficult to separate hardware and software design into two separate functions. In some cases, its possible. But all too often, fixing bad hardware design in software leads to non-optimal and frequently unacceptable systems. Second, commissioning a system is a poor place to demonstrate the proper integration of the hardware and software designs. Things get expensive once they are built and then found not to meet requirements. In some cases, it is possible to demonstrate the inadequacy of the h/w design at this point. But that could be a career limiting move if the PMs aren't happy about being shown up. And there are certain aspects of a system's overall design that cannot easily be tested in the field. Commissioning is generally limited to demonstrating the proper execution of design. Not to reveal all normal as well as abnormal operating modes.