Mechanical Design Business 1

[MattP]

Suppose a mechanical engineer (by degree and skills, not by license) wanted to do mechanical design and CAD work as an independent contractor for local industries. Could he or she do this legally as long as there were no engineering required such as engineering calculations? If this "designer" ran into a project that did require engineering, that he or she is capable of, could this be done and then have a licensed PE check over and approve?

(I had a similar question posted in another forum but it got nixed before I got any useful info. I don't know if it was because of the topic or because of the replies that I didn't get to see. I'm just looking for clarification.)

 

[GregLocock]

Where?

In Australia or the UK Joe Blow can set up a company and sell mechanical engineering services direct to the public if he so desires.

I'm a bit puzzled how you can do engineering without calculations.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[RDK]

In Canada, you need to be licensed to practice engineering. Most jurisdictions also have a separate license to allow you to sell engineering services.

The corporate license can be as easy as in Alberta where all it takes is for a P.Eng to sign saying that he will be responsible for the ethical practice of the firm, In Manitoba it requires professional errors and omissions insurance. In Saskatchewan it requires an extensive application listing all projects and involvement as well as several references.

So to answer your question, no you could not set up a company to sell engineering services if you are not licensed. You could not even practice engineering as an employee without a license. You cannot even call yourself an engineer without a license.

That does not mean that you cannot offer support services to engineers. There are many companies offering support to engineers. CAD services, concrete testing or field survey services for example.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[MattP]

Greg: I'm in the States.

RDK: What I am talking about is basically "support to engineers". My question involves the fine line found in mechanical design between "CAD support" and "engineering". When that line is crossed and there comes about a need for a significant amount of engineering work (yes, with calculations) to complete a design project, can a PE be hired to look over the "engineering" part of it even though the work was done by the nonlicensed but otherwise qualified designer? Please keep in mind that this designer would be an independent contractor.

I hope this clears up my question a little. If not, I'll try again later.

 

[buzzp]

Yes you can do it. If it is for the public (not a product) the final design must be approved by a PE. You can target any engineering, design, manufacturing company you want. As soon as you start blanket advertising to whomever, then you might get in trouble.
I can see where your services would be useful but to be safe be careful who receives your advertising (non-public).

 

[MattP]

Thanks for your input buzzp. So you are saying that the PE requirement only applies to designs that the general public would be exposed to? Could I legitimately design a machine (in accordance with all applicable standards and OSHA regulations of course) for a manufacturing company as long as they were the end user of the machine and not the public?

 

[gouveia]

MattP,

As for you first question, it depends upon what US state you are located in. Many states require a firm to have a professional engineer in residence who is in responsible charge of the engineering work conducted in the office or place of business of the firm. This means a engineer must actually be located in your office to adequately supervise you. So you can not just do engineering work in your office and then send it to a different office for a PE to stamp and review. But again it depends upon which state you are in, check with your local Board of Engineers for their statues. In the states that do not require an engineer to physically be located in your office, I guess you could go all the way and just have an engineer review it. Not that I agree with allowing that personally.

If I understand correctly, your fundamental question is how much work can you do on your own with out call it "engineering". I have copied the legal terminology at the end of this message for your own interpretation. I have always felt the important part was "safeguarding life, health, or property".

I guess my quick personal opinion is that if all you are doing is red-lines that is not engineering. I have heard of firms sending their redlines and marked up drawings to the Philippines and India to have the cad work done.


"Practice of Engineering" means:
(i) any service or creative work the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to the services or creative work as consultations, investigation, evaluation, planning and design of engineering works and systems, planning the use of water, engineering surveys, and the inspection of construction of for the purpose of ensuring compliance with drawings and specifications;
(ii) any of the function described that embrace the services or work; either public or private, in connection with any utilities, structures, building, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, project, and industrial or consumer products ... insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health, or property.

 

[buzzp]

In regards to your latest question for me, my opinion is yes you can design AND build that equipment. Your company is designing and building a product for another company. There are standards to follow of course. This is done everyday by many companies without having a PE signature. It is not a legal requirement. However, some machines require certification by a third party (sort of like a PE signature) that says it has been tested and is safe to use by current regulations(reduces your companies liability as well since you showed good faith in making a safe product). For European work, this is a requirement (whether you certify the equipment or the third party, depends on the equipment). For the US, this is generally not required but will be hard to market.
Now if your just talking about designing the machine and not actually making it yourself then this is a gray area to me. I would think you would need a PE since you are only providing a service and not a product. It could be ok too but I know for sure if you build it too, NO PE is required in any state in the US.

 

[MikeMech]

If you design AND build widgets, no PE is required (whether or not this is a good thing is a subject for another thread). If you do CAD work of a non-creative nature, such as part detailing, conversion of old drawings, etc., you need no PE. If you supply design suggestions/solutions for a widget to a customer for money, you are providing an engineering service and by law are required to have a PE.

Having a PE review your work would require full documentation and assurance that the PE understands the problem and your design solution fully. Expensive, and would not help you in a court of law since your company would still be unable to legally offer engineering services, even if you subcontract all of ASME.

Possibility: aquire a PE partner, even if he has minimal involvement, as long as he has FULL oversight on your design work. You could arrange him as a minority partner and pay him in stock dividends based on the time he spent overseeing design work. If you end up doing mostly CAD work, he wouldn't make much, but if he instead ended up devoting a lot of time overseeing your numerous design jobs, he'd get more. I don't know that you'd be able to find someone willing to agree with this situation, though, because of the wide flucuation in time requirements and compensation potential that would be possible in any given period.

 

[ProEDesigner00]

I too am doing this design consultaion business be it reverse engineering, 2-d drawing conversions to 3-d model information or to sell myself as an onsite temporary Pro/ENGINEER software specialist. I am including a news article from the Waterloo Courier. I knew personnally this fellows brother so I know first hand how this worked out. In the end this fellow had to change his name of doing business so he was not advertising he was doing "engineering" work. He did end up paying some fines and it hurt badly but now is back on top of what he was doing for a lively hood.


Section: a Page: 1
Publication Date: 01/24/99
By: Tony Monterastelli
Headline: State targeting tool designer despite 30 years'...

Body:
PIC: (Greg Brown) Waterloo tool designer Larry Dettmer holds blueprints for one of his designs. The state Engineering & Land Surveying Examining Board has ruled that Dettmer practices engineering illegally. Dettmer, who has appealed the ruling, says the board's action could means the end of his business, PanDa Engineering.


WATERLOO -- Larry Dettmer exudes engineering competence.
A plastic pocket protector cradles a rainbow of pens protruding from his shirt pocket as he hunches over his latest blueprints. He can expound on how to build anything from motorcycles to Pringles cans.

But the state Engineering and Land Surveying Examining Board says Dettmer is a threat to public safety.
For more than 30 years Dettmer has designed tools, though not the hand-held kind. They are fixtures that hold together parts for welding and other manufacturing processes. Dettmer's one-man firm, PanDa Engineering, does such work for a handful of small machine shops in Iowa.

On July 16, 1998, the board found that Dettmer's designs pose a "risk to the public" because no licensed professional engineer supervises his work.

Dettmer now faces a possible fine and a board effort to shut his business down unless he hires a licensed engineer.
Hiring an engineer is not an option, Dettmer said.
"I couldn't afford it," he said. “I'm scraping by as it is." Dettmer has appealed the ruling to Black Hawk County District Court. A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday.

The board's action against Dettmer has other tool designers concerned that they, too, might be operating illegally.
"You will not find one licensed engineer in any tool shop in the state of Iowa," said one Northeast Iowa toolmaker who asked not to be named.

Commerce Department Director Roger Halvorson, who oversees the professional licensing, said the board targeted Dettmer only after a member of the public complained that he might be practicing engineering without a license.

No other such cases are pending, he added.
"The board doesn't initiate cases. It only responds to complaints," he said. "That's their number one role: protection of the public."

Irv Sorge, president of the Cedar Valley Manufacturers Association, said several members of his organization have designed tools for years without supervision from licensed engineers.

"Can it be dangerous? Yes, and so can driving your car," he said. "If they're going to pursue this, then we might as well close down Hawkeye Community College because none of the graduates will be able to get jobs because they are not licensed engineers."

Sorge said he is confused by Iowa's law on professional engineering practice. He questions why a small firm like PanDa Engineering should have to hire a licensed engineer to supervise while larger companies, such as Deere & Co., are exempt from the requirement.

Dettmer worked as a tool designer at Deere from 1977 to 1987, where he did the same work, legally, that the board now calls illegal.

At Deere an in-house "tool supervisor" had to approve each design before it went to production, Dettmer said.
"I don't think that any of them were licensed professional engineers. They had worked their way up by experience," he added.

Dettmer, an East High School graduate, apprenticed at Schoitz Engineering in Waterloo before attending a small college in Texas for three years. Although he studied engineering, Dettmer never graduated from college.

Yet Dettmer's training and experience have qualified him for design jobs with several Northeast Iowa manufacturing and design companies throughout the past 35 years. In 1996 he established PanDa Engineering.

Despite the hassles of board hearings, $6,000 in legal fees and the possible loss of his business, Dettmer said he doesn't feel angry or bitter at the board -- just confused.

"I'm not opposed to regulations if they serve some function or purpose," Dettmer said. "I just don't see an advantage to what they are trying to do."

Dettmer said he rarely does complicated design jobs because his business is a one-man operation.
"I get the crumbs," he said. “I don't have the resources to do the high-tech stuff."
As a result, Dettmer "over-designs" many of his tools to make sure they are strong enough for the job.
"I have never gotten into a project in which I had any concern for the safety of anyone using my design," he added.
Dettmer said he can't believe he is the only tool designer to run afoul of Iowa's perplexing law on engineering practice.

"If that's the law, then not just Larry Dettmer is illegal. We have a whole industry that is not in compliance with the law," Dettmer said.

 

[RDK]

I see this as a good example of why licensing should be mandatory for everyone, including those currently covered by the industrial exemption.

It would level the playing field.

Protection of the public does not only include protecting their physical safety due to preventing designs from failing, it also involves protection of the public financially by avoiding over designs that cost more than they should.

Dettmer admits that he over designs. Therefore he is admitting that he is costing his clients money where a proper design would be both sufficient and safe but economical as well.

He should not be able to simply change the name of his firm and continue to cost the public excessive amounts of money by over designing. He should be put out of business and be forced to follow the law and stop selling engineering services that he is not legally qualified to do so.

His argument that he should be exempt from the law because he cannot afford to follow the law is analogous to a trucker saying that he should not be forced to install brakes on his truck because he cannot afford to do so.

Licensed engineers doing design work and brakes on trucks are necessary and essential for public safety. They are required and the laws regarding them should be enforced.

Having a pocket protector full of pens and pencils does not make one an engineer. (I’m not an engineer but I look like one.) One is an engineer only by virtue of being a member of a professional engineering association and having the necessary qualifications and experience.

The state licensing board should be more proactive in shutting down all illegal engineering shops. It looks as if they have failed in their duty to protect the public as well.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[MattP]

ProEDesigner00,

Could you send me an email? I'd like to ask a couple questions.

pd@rev.net

 

[TheTick]

Dettmer could qualify for a PE in Wisconsin, but he would have to pass the test. If he is so darned qualified, he could pass the test with the help of a prep course designed for people like him (I know one person who teaches such a course).

"Great ideas need landing gear as well as wings."--C. D. Jackson

 

[TheTick]

Also, I don't like the idea of engineering qualifications being validated by public opinion. One quick read of any mainstream newspaper or magazine should clue one in on just how desperately unqualified the press and the public are to make this determination.

 

[buzzp]

RDK,
How do you explain the other company being exempt?
I do not see anything wrong with what this guy is doing. He is doing work for another company. There is no public involved. As far as overdesigning, this is fairly common and is called a safety factor. If a PE is not building in safety factors then they are posing a serious risk to the public. Its his customers choice to change companies if they feel he is costing them too much money by overdesigning (above and beyond normal margins).

(sorry I have to add this last paragraph since you stick by the PE so much) I believe you are in Canada. So the PE, the way I understand it, basically only means you have graduated from an accredited university and retained enough information to pass the test right out of college and you have worked under another PE for some time period. The only important item there is you have graduated from an accredited university. The rest, in my opinion, means nothing. Just because you worked under a PE doesn't prove a thing. Who is to say the PE you worked under has a clue?
The states at least require a test after your experience (in addition to the one before your experience). To me, the PE means more in the states than Canada.
The case above illustrates a prime example of the problems with PE requirements. They vary so much from state to state and country to country. Logically, this adds way more cost to the customer. Your multidisciplinary companies practice engineering all over the world. Imagine the cost related to staffing engineers who can work all over the world. Your a civil person so I like the idea of having a PE in that field since the customer usually has very little knowledge about engineering. So they can not really check up on your design. In the electrical world, you are not selling to the public and you are not working for the public. You almost always work for a company that has enough knowledge to call your errors and if you dont, you have safety agencies/inspectors to call your errors.
Anyway, the case, to me illustrates a lot of issues with the present system. It does not even come close to illustrating why we need a PE system.

 

[RDK]

Buzzp

I cannot explain why the other company does not have licensed engineers on staff. It may be because of the US industrial exemption in that they are making a product not selling engineering services directly. I have stated numerous times that I feel that this is wrong and a large part of why engineering in the US has a lower status than other professions.

You are right I’m Canadian and we have a different system here. Here in Canada if you want to call yourself an engineer and practice engineering, you require licensure. No if ands buts or maybes. The industrial exemption does not exist here; it is a totally foreign concept. As far as your misunderstandings of our system, I will not even attempt to point out all the errors that you made in your description of the Canadian system.

I will point out that the Canadian system is totally run by the profession and not the politicians. In this area the Canadian profession is a true self governing and regulating profession, not as I understand the us system where the profession is regulated by the state and in some cases the same agencies that license tradesmen.

Just because his client is another company, he is still selling engineering services. The fact that these services are going to a company or to an individual is not material to the fact that he is selling engineering services. It is my understanding that in the US selling engineering services requires a PE. He violated this requirement and appears to still be violating this requirement.

In Canada that is called consulting and a separate license is required in most jurisdictions. This consulting license is only available to professional engineers.

If in the case of electrical design, you have noted that there are numerous checks in the process. I have two questions on this. Who certifies that the checkers are responsible and competent? How does having several people of who have no certificate of competence, look at a design guarantee that bad designs will not be implemented?

One can only assume that the interconnections on the east coast power grid were looked at by numerous people and look what happened there last summer.

I’m not saying that licensure will automatically correct these problems, I do feel that if you have to put your livelihood on the line every time you apply your seal that the result will be better designs and improved public safety.

If the client company knows that he is over designing then they would have some engineering expertise in house and then presumably not need the outside services as much. Yes I am aware of safety factors. One should only use those safety factors for the purpose that they are intended. They are intended to compensate for factors outside the control of the designer like variations in material properties, accidental overloads etc. They should not be used, as is the case here to compensate for the incompetence of the designer.

Like I said, just because he has a pocket protector full of different coloured pens, he is not an engineer.





Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[GregLocock]

I loved this quote

""The board doesn't initiate cases. It only responds to complaints," he said. "That's their number one role: protection of the public.""

Ah, so they respond to complaints, but do not actively look for problems. Not quite my definition of protecting the public.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[GregLocock]

Oh, separate thing to the above:

It can be cost effective to overbuild a jig or tool. You can spend more of your customer's money analysing the forces to the nth degree than just overbuilding it. I don't think you can generalise and say that it is not a valid approach, particularly for one-off designs. One other advantage of an overbuilt system is that it is usually easy to modify it later.

I worked on a weight critical system where we measured the loads and designed to a safety factor of 0 for some of the subsystems - the cost of measuring those loads and testing the prototypes was enormous, but so was the pay-off.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[RDK]

I have to agree with you Greg, it sounds as if the board is simply too lazy to do their job and they just sit back and wait for someone to file a complaint.

It’s like a traffic cop sitting in the station waiting for someone to complain about speeders. The cop should be out there with a radar trap if he wants to catch a speeder. (and protect the public from speeders!)

Perhaps that is why a lot of companies are breaking the law and practicing without proper licenses, they know that they can cruise along and as long as they don’t get turned in they will get away with it.

Doesn’t sound like proper regulation of the profession to me. It appears that all they would have to do is look in the phonebook to catch a lot of illegal practitioners.

I also agree that sometimes over building can be cost effective. It can simply sometimes be too expensive to do a full analysis for every small part. That is not the sense that I am getting from the story above.

“ Dettmer said he rarely does complicated design jobs because his business is a one-man operation.
"I get the crumbs," he said. “I don't have the resources to do the high-tech stuff."
As a result, Dettmer "over-designs" many of his tools to make sure they are strong enough for the job.”

Sounds like he over designs because he cannot properly design. Proper design techniques are not that expensive. It’s just 30 years ago that men were going to the moon based on slide rule calculations.





Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[buzzp]

I can tell you that the electrical world does not simply consist of those working on power generation, transmission, and distribution. THIS IS A HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING AMONGST THOSE NOT IN THE ELECTRICAL AREA or those that have been consultants their whole career. That is the problem. As I said before, how many PEs are designing the products that other PEs are specifying? Almost none. The people that evaluate these products are safety agencies such as UL, NEMKO, TUV, etc. All are reputable companies and EXPERTS in their field.
"I have two questions on this. Who certifies that the checkers are responsible and competent? How does having several people of who have no certificate of competence, look at a design guarantee that bad designs will not be implemented?"
The checkers, as you state, are highly sought after experts in their field. The fact that some may lack a PE is irrelevant since the PE is not reserved for experts. I would argue that the PE is more of a general license. So yes they know their stuff. If you choose to ignore them because they have no PE then thats your choice and simply shows your lack of understanding of the electrical world.

In the states, I can design and build whatever I want if I am selling to the public with NO PE. The company takes on the liability and depending on the makeup of your company, you may still be liable. There is NO PE requirements. This is the way it should be. Imagine the cost increases by requiring these ENGINEERS to get a PE license? Maybe thats one reason why things in Canada are so expensive. It is also my belief (working in the product design world and consulting world) that the product designers are way ahead of the game when it comes to knowledge. Maybe this opinion will change as I gain more experience with consulting type work.
I would appreciate your input on my vision of licensing requirements in Canada. Is it wrong? I am only repeating what another Canadian has stated. Here it is again "you have graduated from an accredited university and retained enough information to pass the test right out of college and you have worked under another PE for some time period." What is erroneous about that? Is that the requirements for a PE in Canada? In the US it goes like this; you graduate from an accredited University, take the EIT (FE) exam, work under a PE for a while, then take ANOTHER test to get your PE. The differences as I understand them between Canada and the US is the US requires another test above and beyond the EIT test where Canada does not. Where are the many errors you eluded too in this phrase; "As far as your misunderstandings of our system, I will not even attempt to point out all the errors that you made in your description of the Canadian system."