When do you require licensure in your firm to move up 1

[strguy11]

We are reorganizing our Structural engineering company and we are debating on when you should require a person to become licensed when "moving up the ladder ". I tend to think it's when you start having to train other engineers. This is called a senior PM at my firm. Our structure is ownership - engineering manager - senior PM - PM.

Regardless of what you call it, what do other firms do? People in my firm are arguing for anyone can be any of these, regardless of license status. I argue that our one purpose for being in business is to seal drawings and that if we never require anyone to actually become licensed, we never incentivize anyone to become licensed and we cease to exist. Beside the argument that some states require %of ownership or managers to be engineers, what are other reasons to require people to be licensed to move up???

 

[LOTE]

You should definitely be licensed before becoming an engineering manager, but I think "senior PM" as you call it can be someone unlicensed.
I quickly jumped the ladder at a young age and was managing staff and projects prior to getting my license. However, it was clear to my employer that I would become licensed as soon as I had the opportunity to, and that is also why I climbed the ranks as quickly as I did. They were investing in me by throwing me into the deep end (while I still had the oversight of the PE overseeing my work). This way, when I did get my PE, the training wheels were already off as far as leading projects and managing people.

 

[strguy11]

You should definitely be licensed before becoming an engineering manager, but I think "senior PM" as you call it can be someone unlicensed.
I quickly jumped the ladder at a young age and was managing staff and projects prior to getting my license. However, it was clear to my employer that I would become licensed as soon as I had the opportunity to, and that is also why I climbed the ranks as quickly as I did. They were investing in me by throwing me into the deep end (while I still had the oversight of the PE overseeing my work). This way, when I did get my PE, the training wheels were already off as far as leading projects and managing people.

Does not being licensed effect how states look at the 4 yrs of experience that engineers need to have before taking PE? It seems like this needs to happen under a pe, much like the whole responsible charge clause idea of sealing a project...

 

[GregLocock]

In my career , never. Being unlicensed/chartered has made no difference, and since in the last 17 years I've never had a boss who could do my job at anything more than a ELI5 level, (Explain like I'm 5) I don't really see how seniority and licenses have much connection.

 

[LOTE]

Does not being licensed effect how states look at the 4 yrs of experience that engineers need to have before taking PE? It seems like this needs to happen under a pe, much like the whole responsible charge clause idea of sealing a project...

Not sure what you mean?
I still reported to an engineering manager (or VP), who was also the one reviewing and sealing my work.
That is why I say the engineering manager needs to be a PE, but not necessarily to begin managing projects and staff (1-2 years out of school engineers, CAD techs, interns, etc.). The green engineers still need to fall under the umbrella of a PE, but they can still learn from an advanced EI under that same PE umbrella. That would still follow the responsible charge requirement.

 

[strguy11]

Not sure what you mean?
I still reported to an engineering manager (or VP), who was also the one reviewing and sealing my work.
That is why I say the engineering manager needs to be a PE, but not necessarily to begin managing projects and staff (1-2 years out of school engineers, CAD techs, interns, etc.). The green engineers still need to fall under the umbrella of a PE, but they can still learn from an advanced EI under that same PE umbrella. That would still follow the responsible charge requirement.

I appreciate your thoughts... I totally agree the new engineers need to fall under the umbrella of a PE. Since a senior PE is charged with thier training in my company, it seems logical that this is where the requirement of licensure should be. I can see how it may be different in other industries, but civil/structural has always been one of those that puts more emphasis on the need for the license. I agree that one can be a good manager without it, but the role of training is to me what is important and how that suggests the need for licensure, in my opinion. Not trying to disagree at all, just trying to share my opinion and what I can't get past in my mind and I welcome others to help me justify it if we don't require a license. (For the record i am the only in our company ownership that feels that way so I'm good if I can justify another way of thinking but I haven't been able to yet and I'm looking for help... lol)

 

[human909]

The broad answer is that license/registration is independent of seniority. But I think it this question depends significantly on your area of engineering, your role and the nature of your firm. The CEO of General Electric isn't even an engineer.

If you are in a true training or mentoring role in engineering it is somewhat difficult to have credibility if you have never had the responsibility of signing/sealing designs.

That said the most experienced and knowledgeable 'mechanical engineer' in the company I work for is the CEO/General Manager. He hasn't even got an engineering degree let alone license/registration!

While, I'm the only registered engineer in my company, I generally report to the PMs. Though in terms of seniority it is a bit ambiguous, as while I report to them and they take responsibility for the projects, I take responsibility for most of the engineering.

 

[Gr8blu]

Throughout my career, it hasn't been about seniority as much as about responsibility. In large companies, there are typically "certified" engineers and "licensed" engineers. The certified group can perform all the engineering tasks EXCEPT sign/seal a document for a public project. The licensed group can actually sign and seal documents for public works in their respective licensed jurisdiction(s).

In the OP's case - if the engineers are not required to sign/seal documents, no licensure (IMO). This is independent of the need to mentor/oversee others.

Other factors (such as a desire for a percentage of owner/operator to be licensed for specific project bids) may come into play in terms of when/how a license may be required.

For the record - I've been everything from the wet-behind-the-ears neophyte to a company's chief engineer overseeing all the other engineering staff (engineers in multiple disciplines, technicians, drafters, mechanics, and electricians) - with project responsibility ranging from a few hundred dollars up to several billion. I'm now almost 5 decades into my "professional" career and I still don't have a professional engineer's license. Most of my "bosses" over the years have had ZERO technical - let alone full-blown engineering - backgrounds: their expertise was in the softer skills associated with business.

 

[EngrPaper]

I've worked at a couple EPCs (where licensure would matter) and getting your license was a semi-barrier in going from a 2 to a 3. I say semi-barrier because there are exceptions, especially for outside hires.

At one firm, it went something like Associate Technical Professional -> Technical Professional -> Senior Technical Professional -> Principal Technical Professional, etc. I bet no one can guess where that was. The boundary between technical and senior technical was a preference for licensure.

Where I am now, it's just something like Mechanical Engineer I -> II -> III -> IV, etc. The job descriptions change between II and III from "EI preferred" to "PE preferred" across that transition.

That transition is also somewhat discipline specific because the chemical process groups rarely emphasize getting your license, but the other disciplines (Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, etc.) do.

 

[phamENG]

For smaller structural design and consulting firms, it's very rare to have somebody in an engineering role move up beyond low level tasks without a license or at least a clear demonstration that they are on that path and will follow through. Some will find a niche in construction admin spots or move into drafting, but they are unlikely to be client facing. It does happen, certainly, but in smaller firms where every payroll dollar counts double you need to make sure your people are as capable as possible. And in our line of work (building structural engineering, everyone), the ability to get a license and professional capability and competence are at least correlated with each other (rightly or wrongly, as the case may be - I realize licensing is imperfect and is a contentious topic on this board).

Do you need a license? As long as it's not required by regulation for your industry and in your state, no. Plenty of very smart and capable people are out there that can do a lot of our jobs. It's really a question of determining the tangible and intangible benefits and determining their value vs the cost of not having someone with a license. What do your clients expect? How will they respond to a non-licensed engineer managing their projects? Some won't care, some will be offended and leave. You just have to feel it out.