Who Owns The Phrase "Engineer"? 9

[mainepepmp]

One of my pet peeves, as an MS-degreed PE working in the IT field, is the growing tendency to name any technical function "engineering", when in most cases (especially in the IT area), it couldn't be any further from what engineering really is, nor do any of the people doing the work have BS degrees, or even a logical, judicious thought process in some cases!

Thus, now that you clearly know where I stand, please answer, who, in your opinion, owns the right to describe either their professional practice or background as being that of an engineer?

 

[Haf]

This comment/question was partially addressed in the thread "Who is the Microsoft System Engineer?" posted by ismet in the "Professional Ethics in Engineering" Forum. Give that a read. It includes a lengthy legal description concering the legal use of the term engineer in Canada. As for the US, I'm not aware of legal ramifications, but I suspect our love of trumped-up titles and euphamisms is thoroughly entrenched in our culture. As a result, I don't see the blatant mis-use of this slightly-less-than sacred term going away any time soon.

Haf

 

[GregLocock]

It is even worse in the UK. I was disgusted when the I Mech E decided to let computer science guys in as chartered engineers.

If even our trade union doesn't care, then why should anybody else?



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PM]

As long as there are people who take shortcuts to build their credibility, there will be those who trade off the reputation of others. In any number of national opinion surveys, the term 'engineer' has been recognized by the Public as representing one of the most prestigious, reliable and most honourable professions.

Marketers, being what they are, will always try to associate any new product with anything perceived as positive.

Is it not surprisig then, that everything from once new wave management processes like "re-engineering", to (MCSE ) Microsoft Certified Systems "Engineers" have claimed a piece of the mantle, or Public good will associated with the term. (Edit. Interestingly, in Canada it appears that CCPE (Canadian Council of Professional Engineers

http://www.ccpe.ca/ccpe.cfm)

have decided to take on Microsoft over the use of the term engineer in their certifications.)

It should be remembered that it was the collective work, reputation and ethics of thousands of PE's and P.Eng.'s that have gone before us, that built the excellent reputation that is now claimed as a moral right of association by so many.

Doubtless, this drive to borrow the reputation of others will not go away in future. Commonly used indivdual words in our lexicon cannot be trademarked, so licensing bodies have moved to trademark phrases such as "Professional Engineer". The professional engineering statutes in each jurisdiction will also continue to to be enforced through prosecution of individuals passing themselves off as PE / P.Eng.'s.

The only viable long term solution may be to work toward widespread public recognition of the terms PE / P.Eng.'s as representing the professional engineers.

Regards,

 

[mainepepmp]

Thanks for the two tips above; please keep the comments coming!

I hadn't spotted the "Professional Ethics..." thread yet, but will check it out right after posting this.

Interesting to hear of CCPE's plan viz MS; it will also be interesting to see what, if anything, the US NSPE does in coincidence. They've not been particularly responsive wrt this yet, IMHO, but maybe it was more a matter of waiting for someone else to "test the waters".

WRT US statutory approaches to regulating rights to use the word "engineer", these laws lie at the state level, as that's where the engineering profession is regulated. Needless to say, with 50 states and one district, there are any number of different permutations.

A general rule, though, is that one must hold a PE to legally represent themselves as engaged in practice of "professional engineering". (Some states take it as far as making it illegal to use the word "Engineering" in the name of a company unless a PE is one of the principals. That sounds pretty strong, but it's not very well known, and can only be addressed after someone files a complaint about it with that state's Board of Registration for Professional Engineers.)

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, but that's only in the USA and Canadia. Most other places you can buy yourself a set of spanners and an oily rag and call yourself an engineer. Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[butelja]

This has long been a personal pet peeve of mine, especially with Bill Gates at Micro$oft churning out "engineers" under the guise of MCSE certification. However, I think we collectively left the barn door open years ago. The horses are already out. About the only thing you can do at this point is to get your PE and distinguish yourself as a Professional Engineer, rather than just engineer. At least the state licensing boards do protect the title of PE.

 

[mainepepmp]

I wholeheartedly agree with the "open barn door" analogy. This is one of the prime drivers behind why I posted the topic.

Most certainly, one of the key personal action items should be registration/licensure. There's no question that ours is every bit as much a profession as doctors, lawyers, etc. Given that society has chosen to regulate its practice somewhat less stringently than these others is no excuse for those practicing it to not demonstrate the same rigors of licensure, of their own volition.

With the key individual deliverable/action item for each of us now flagged, what should/could be done collectively as a profession, US/NSPE-specific or otherwise?

Sounds like CCPE may be on the right track; how could that or something like it be replicated in the US? What other "work packages" can people think of?

Agreed, state boards do a pretty good job, but their primary mission is to protect public safety and health. It's up to our profession to promote itself as distinct and superior to the "wanna-be's", if we want society to cast us in that light.

 

[PM]

Anyone interested in the MCSE / CCPE negotiations, . . .now dispute, might be interested in the IT's industry's take on this. The following two URL's present a couple of articles from Computing Canada's on-line newsletter. The first article was puiblished on Wednesday and the second only last night. Looks like thing are heating up.

http://www.itbusiness.ca/userredirect.asp?linkid=17843&userid=5

http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?theaction=61&sid=49481

Regards,

 

[Hush]

A couple of related tidbits:

The initial agreement with Microsoft was only for a year. Presumably CCPE despite their press releases were aware that Microsoft was likely to reverse their position if a long-term agreement couldn’t be reached.

APEGGA recently lost a case to try to prevent an individual from using the term “Systems Engineer”.

As I recall, CCPE’s prime legal objection was to the word Certified in conjunction with the word Engineer. Microsoft’s argument is likely to be that since the title is "Microsoft Certified" Systems Engineer there is no implication that the titleholder is a professional.

In 1999 CCPE sued Memorial University in Newfoundland for trademark infringement for setting up a "Department of Software Engineering" outside of the control of Memorial's Engineering Faculty. CCPE also threatened to remove accreditation from Memorial's entire engineering program. If I recall correctly they actually suspended accreditation for a short period of time. An agreement was reached before it went to court.

CCPE recently accredited three software engineering programs. A first since the general consensus prior to this was that software engineering wasn’t an applied science. Personally, I think the only reason they’ve done this is to bolster their case against Microsoft.

 

[StressGuy]

Well, I will say this much. My wife has her degree in Computer Science from Texas A&M. The departement is part of the College of Engineering at A&M and I think it shows. Her education has made her a much stronger designer than kids playing around in high school or graduates from business schools who've been trained by the big consulting firms to be "programmers".

While I don't think MSCE should be able to call themselves engineers, I do think that programmers who do design work like my wife does should be able to be recognized as a professional engineer.

Part of that is my own assessment that she is very good at what she does. However, there is also the quite legitimate truth that computer software affects all aspects of our lives and, in many cases, can affects the lives and safety of the public. Software runs the 911 system, controls the functions of your vehicle, and tells trains and airplanes where to go. It makes sense that those responsible for these efforts should be subject to the oversight of codes of ethics, professional conduct, and technical compentency as those of us in mechanical, civil, and electrical branches of engineering. I'd take a PE over an MSCE anyday. Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[GregLocock]

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I was NOT saying that a programmer cannot be an engineer, I was saying that in my opinion few programming degree courses, or programmer's careers, fulfil the requirements that an engineer's degree and early training do.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[nbucska]

As an Eastern European refugee I worked in an Austrian
factory as laborer. Everyone called me "Herr Ingenieur "
-- Mr. Engineer -- as you would call a physician "Doctor",
as something due to an earned title.

We don't have union for engineers, so anyone may call
himself engineer. Engineers -- like laborers -- are just
disposable "human resources ". Try to call yourself MD !!!

<nbucska@pcperipherals.com>

 

[Rich2001]

The of rational for the Professional Engineer Licensing Laws is to protect the public. One of the reason the the boards have taken action against IT personal calling themself engineers has to do with people not being qualified and passing themself off as qualified i.e. engineeers. The boards took action because of calls from the public starting in the early 1990's.

Some of the Certifications such as MSCE, Cisco's A+ are good, but there are many of poor quality. The companies that run these are nothing more than a degree mill. The rash of these poor qualitity certification have tainted the perceived value of the other good qualty certifications.


There are a lot of customer complaints and the cost of handling complaints and requests for help is skyrocketing. Over the past seven years, the ratio of support to total employees in hardware and software companies has grown from 1 in 12 to 1 in 6.

Last year their were an estimated, 240 million calls for technical support. At an average of about $23 per call, the industry spent about $5.5 billion on these calls.

The industry left these callers on hold for about 3.6 billion minutes.

The software industry has been one of the worst for leaving callers on hold. A small study by Service Management International indicated that software companies leave callers on hold longer than any other industry studied, worse than government agencies, computer hardware companies, airlines, banks, utility companies, and others.
Software publishers ship products with known bugs (defects), often LOTS of known bugs. The odds are pretty good that when you run into a serious bug, the publisher knew about it at the time that you bought the product.

The security failures, stability issues and compatabilities problems of software products do not help your agruments.

If you feel that you are qualified and want to put an end to this arguement take the Professional Engineering Exam in Computer Engineering, given in April and October every year.

The following is a description of the exam

Breadth Module (AM) Approximate Percentage of Examination

1. Basic Electrical Engineering 45%
A. Professionalism and Engineering Economics
1. Engineering Economics
2. Ethics
3. Professional Practice 6%
B. Safety and Reliability
1. Reliability
2. Electric Shock and Burns
3. General Public Safety 6%
C. Electric Circuits
1. Ohm's Law
2. Coulomb's Law
3. Faraday's Law
4. Kirchhoff's Laws
5. Thevenin's Theorem
6. Norton's Theorem
7. Superposition
8. Source Transformation
9. Sinusoidal Steady State Analysis
10. Power and Energy Calculations
11. Transient Analysis
12. Fourier Analysis
13. Transfer Functions
14. Complex Impedance
15. Laplace Transforms
16. Mutual Inductance 24%
D. Electric and Magnetic Field Theory and Applications
1. Electrostatic Effects
2. Magnetostatic Fields 3%
E. Digital Logic
1. Digital Logic 6%
2. Electronics, Electronic Circuits and Components 20%
A. Components
1. Solid State Device Characteristics and Ratings
2. Operational Amplifiers
3. Transistors
4. Signal Grounding
5. Transducers/Sensors 14%
B. Electrical and Electronic Materials
1. Conductivity/Resistivity
2. Thermal Characteristics
3. Semiconductors 6%
3. Controls and Communications Systems 15%
A. Controls and Communications Systems
1. System Stability
2. Frequency Response
3. Analog Modulation
4. Frequency Selective Filters
4. Power 20%
A. Transmission and Distribution
1. Voltage Regulation
2. Power Factor Correction
3. Grounding 12%
B. Rotating Machines and Electromagnetic Devices
1. AC and DC Machines
2. Transformers 8%
Total: 100%

NOTES:
1. The knowledge areas specified under A, B, C, ... etc., are
examples of kinds of knowledge, but they are not exclusive or exhaustive
categories.
2. The breadth (AM) exam contains 40 multiple-choice questions.
Examinee works all questions.





Computers Depth Module (PM) Approximate Percentage of Examination

1. General Computer Systems 10%
A. Interpretation of Codes and Standards
1. IEEE Standards
2. ISO Standards 4%
B. Microprocessor Systems
1. Number Systems and Codes
2. Microprocessor Systems
a. Components
b. Control Applications
c. Math Applications
d. Programmable Logic Controllers
e. Real-time Operations 6%
2. Hardware 45%
A. Digital Electronics
1. Memory Devices
2. Medium Scale Integration Devices
3. Programmable Logic Devices and Gate Arrays
4. Tristate Logic
5. Digital Electronic Devices
6. Logic Components
a. Properties
b. Fan-In, Fan-Out
c. Propagation Delay
7. Large Scale Integration
8. Analog to Digital and Digital to Analog Conversion 16%
B. Design and Analysis
1. Clock Generation/Distribution
2. Memory Interface
3. Processor Interfacing
4. Asynchronous Communication
5. Metastability
6. Races and Hazards
7. State Transition Tables
8. State Transition Diagrams
9. Algorithmic State Machine Charts
10. Timing Diagrams
11. Synchronous State Machines
12. Asynchronous State Machines
13. Pipelining and Parallel Processing
14. Fault Tolerance
15. Sampling Theory 19%
C. Systems
1. Digital Signal Processor Architecture
2. Design for Testability
3. Computer Architecture
4. Mass Storage Devices
5. Input/Output Devices
6. Central Processing Unit Architecture 10%
3. Software 35%
A. System Software
1. Computer Security
2. Real-Time Operating Systems
3. Error Detection and Control
4. Drivers
5. Time Critical Scheduling 12%
B. Development/Applications
1. Computer Control and Monitoring
2. Software Lifecycle
a. Requirements Definition
b. Specification
c. Design
d. Implementation and Debugging
e. Testing
f. Maintenance and Upgrade
3. Fault Tolerance
4. Modeling and Simulation
5. Software Pipelining
6. Human Interface Requirements
7. Software Design Methods and Documentation
a. Structured Programming
b. Top Down or Bottom Up Programming
c. Successive Refinement
d. Programming Specifications
e. Program Testing
f. Structure Diagrams
g. Recursion
8. Object Oriented Design
9. Data Structures
a. Internal
b. External 23%
4. Networks 10%
A. Networks
1. Protocols
a. TCP/IP
b. Ethernet
2. Computer Networks
a. OSI Model
b. Network Topology
c. Network Technology
d. Network Security
Total: 100%
NOTES:
1. The knowledge areas specified under A, B, C, ... etc.,
are examples of kinds of knowledge, but they are not exclusive or
exhaustive categories.
2. Each depth (PM) exam contains 40 multiple-choice questions.
Examinee chooses one depth exam and works all questions in the depth exam chosen.


And if we are taking lessons in semantics, &quot;engineer&quot; is not a phrase, it's a word.Legally, in all 55 juridistions in the United States &quot;Engineer&quot; is a Title, where the use is regulated by law.

 

[Haf]

Look, no one in this thread means any disrespect to the IT industry, or to programmers. I respect IT professionals and programmers. I also respect doctors, lawyers, and janitors (ok, maybe not lawyers). This thread is not about respect or disrespect to any certain profession.

Having said that, let me break some things down. Just because an engineer comes to you for help when his computer or network goes down does not mean that you should call yourself an engineer. I’m a mechanical engineer by training. When I have serious car trouble, I take my car to a mechanic. He fixes my car, but he does not call himself an engineer. Also, he does not tell me to cram my 60k per year engineering job after he has fixed my car (which I am perfectly willing to admit that I could not have done myself).

As for the comment on the “might” of the IT industry: are you serious? The engineering field is much bigger than the IT industry. Without engineering, there would be no computers and there would be no networks. Speaking more broadly, there wouldn’t be much of anything. Look around your office. I’d wager that everything you see has been touched by an engineer at some point: your phone, desk, computer, printer, palm pilot, coffee mug, and the machine that was used to make your coffee. Oh yeah, and don’t forget the office building itself!

So, on to the semantics: when talking about “engineering,” what do we mean? I think of an engineer as someone who uses mathematics and the laws of science (primarily physics and chemistry) to solve (practical?) problems. Normally, the solution to the practical problem involves the design and/or construction of something tangible. By that I mean that something is built (such as a car, MEMS device, coffee cup, machine, building, bridge, computer chip, electronic circuit, etc.).

Let’s talk about what my (yes, this is my personal definition and I am open to discussion on others’ points of view) definition means. An engineer is not simply someone who “builds something,” whether that something is a car, building, or a computer network. Similarly, it is not someone who only studies the laws of science or mathematics (they are called scientists and mathematicians). Under this definition, computer engineers would be considered engineers. Computer scientists (note the use of the word “scientist” in this title), programmers, and, yes, IT professionals would not. That is not to say that the work of these professionals does not affect the engineering industry in some ways. Obviously, the work of many professionals affects the engineering industry in many ways. But that does not mean that those professionals are all engineers!

There is no question in my mind that the term “engineer”, in the context we are discussing here, is misused. I will concede, however, that this misuse is likely to continue. But I still haven't heard a well-reasoned argument as to why IT professionals should feel entitled to use the title of engineer.

One last point: I have a BS and MS in mechanical engineering. I use engineering principles and mathematics to solve problems everyday. BUT, I am not a PE, and the word engineer does not appear in my title or anywhere on my business card.

Haf

 

[mainepepmp]

I concur with Rich2001. He is on target wrt historical references, and observations regarding relative parity of some of the IT technical certs. Other postings above are on target wrt relative parity of some of the core IT disciplines. (It's also why US NSPE makes the &quot;Computer Engineering&quot; module available.)

Please avail yourselves of the opportunity to participate in the engineering licensing exam process. As a PE practicing in IT, I've had the opportunity to avail myself of a number of the IT certs you cite, and I hope you will find the PE exam as straightforward as I have found these.

Addendum to Rich2001 post immediately above, though--
Please don't forget to also pass the &quot;Fundamentals of Engineering&quot; exam, which tests for mastery of the engineering techniques common to all practice specialties (Chemical, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, etc.), before you register for the PE exam (it's a requirement to be able to sit for the PE exam).

 

[nbucska]

I think I should mention the case when a company promotes
a technician to engineer so they don't have to pay overtime
to him.
<nbucska@pcperipherals.com>

 

[Haf]

That IS the entry from dictionary.com (I mistakenly attributed the web-site to Microsoft due to an MS ad). Look up &quot;engineering&quot; not &quot;engineer&quot;. And by the way, the definition from dictionary.msn.com is

1. engineering: application of science to designing things: the application of science in the design, planning, construction, and maintenance of buildings, machines, and other manufactured things

which also supports my &quot;personal&quot; definition. Furthermore, according to both these definitions, using just math is not enough. It's the application of math and science (or just science, according to dictionary.msn.com).

You're right, though. I don't make the call on where to draw the line. That call is made by the law, and by groups that decide when they want to follow up on those laws. In Canada, the ISPE forced MS to stop using the title MCSE. Many states could do the same here in the US, but they probably will not. As I've said above, I think this will slide by here in the US. Bottom line, though: I don't think you realize how many laws exist in the US that govern the use of the title &quot;engineer.&quot; You are almost certainly in violation of many of those laws, at least in some states, whether you like it or not.

Do I think you and others like you are a danger to the public? No. Do I think you're misusing the title engineer? Yes. But don't worry, I won't press charges.

Haf

 

[Haf]

A snip from IEEE's website on use of the term engineer:

IEEE-USA recognizes that the title, Engineer, has a multiplicity of meanings within the context of laws of various U.S. jurisdictions. All jurisdictions protect the titles Professional Engineer, Licensed Engineer, Registered Engineer, or some variation thereof, to refer to individuals licensed in those jurisdictions to practice engineering. In addition, some jurisdictions protect the title, Engineer, with no qualifying words added. The purpose of protecting these titles is to ensure that the public can easily identify those individuals who possess the requisite skill, knowledge and competence to protect public safety, health and welfare in the practice of engineering. Generally, the public interprets the term, Engineer, to mean a person who is qualified to practice engineering by reason of special knowledge and use of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, and the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design, acquired by engineering education and engineering experience.

Haf

 

[mainepepmp]

Here's the Washington state stuff--

http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW 18 TITLE/RCW 18 . 43 CHAPTER/RCW 18 . 43 .010.htm

http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW 18 TITLE/RCW 18 . 43 CHAPTER/RCW 18 . 43 .020.htm

http://search.leg.wa.gov/wslrcw/RCW 18 TITLE/RCW 18 . 43 CHAPTER/RCW 18 . 43 .040.htm

Here's stuff for the State of Maine--

http://professionals.maineusa.com/engineers/RULE962.html

http://professionals.maineusa.com/engineers/STATUTES.html

Check these out, and you will have effectively &quot;crossed the country&quot; (no pun intended). Note that both sets of information available from these two states is very similar. Rest assured, as noted in previous posts, that everything in the states in between looks more or less the same, too.