Tragic Indifference 19

[TChronos]

I just read this book, on the Ford/Firestone rollover issue:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060090588/104-0610785-9739901?v=glance

Rather than discuss specifics (especially since some of the engineers involved may be on this board), here's a hypothetical. Management asks engineering to do the impossible (what else is new). But in this case, it's really impossible. Releasing the product would result in inordinate risk for consumers involved. The engineers are industry exempt.

If the engineer passes on the design, knowing that it's defective, what non-judicial sanctions should apply? In such a case, should some sort of decertification or peer review apply to the ENGINEERS involved? How much power does a big three engineer have to stop a really dangerous design?

 

[MetalMan14]

Being a former employee of Firestone I can say this, but am only comfortable stating general details.

As far as engineers having the power to effect change in larger scale companies, the answer is sadly not much without stepping on a lot of toes. The key is to make your objections known and documented to cover your end professionally. In the case of Firestone/Ford, the design was not the issue, it was in the materials. The adhesives used were actually within spec., however at the lower end. And yes, the vehicles failed tests without lowering the tire pressures to below the recommended PSI. But, Ford did not lower the tire pressures until Firestone and Ford engineers came to an agreement.

And just to add a statement- This product failure was greatly magnified by the media, in other words, the amount of tires effected by this were much less than 1/2% produced.

 

[melone]

If you need a piece of paper (PE licence) to get the respect of your management / peers....

 

[RDK]

Two ascertains seam to be taken as fact if the regarding the industrial exemption.

The first is that the elimination of it would lead to vastly increased lead times for product development and vastly increased costs of production.

I do not believe this. The short term impact would result in increased salary costs until there were enough PE’s to fill industry demands but in the long term those who are now exempt would acquire PE status and then the supply demand ratio would be about the same as it is now and that the development costs would be about the same as they are now.

In Canada we have mandatory and universal P.Eng registration in order to practice engineering. Currently our economy is stronger than the US economy with the US$ at a ten year low rate of exchange compared to our dollar and the US$ is still dropping. Is it due to universal registration of all engineers, I doubt it, but it does demonstrate that universal registration is not the end of the economy as we know it.

The second assertion is that there are now fully qualified ethical engineers who are simply lacking in a piece of paper to be qualified. While this might be the case and these engineers could be grandfathered into the profession, what about those who are unqualified and unethical in their practice of engineering?

Right now there is nothing to stop them from practicing unsafe engineering and allowing them to release unsafe products to the public except their ability to get a job. Even the big manufacturers like Ford appear to have been guilty of releasing unsafe products.

What about the little one or two man manufacturing operations? What is now stopping them from producing products with no engineering? Who is protecting the public?

I have never stated that universal PE’s would be the be all and end all to solve all the unsafe products on the market. What I have said is that the elimination of the industrial exemption would reduce the unsafe products on the market and any incremental increase in safety would be beneficial.

I also have never said that the current PE process would be the way to go. I have stated in numerous posts that I believe that the current system of two exams is not a good indicator of professional competence and is too slow to adapt to the shifting demands of the marketplace. The process of obtaining a PE should be revamped to correspond to the elimination of the industrial exemption.

Control of the profession should belong to the profession in the form of being self-governing. Lawyers, doctors and in Canada engineers have control of their own professions and in the US control is a state board appointed by politicians.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, that is a reasonable summary. Now, how do we resolve the case when a design is rendered unsafe by the poor behaviour of the users?

The overloaded deck mentioned above is a nice simple example, since the analysis is capable of being undertaken and understood by one person. Is that PE responsible for his design failing due to user abuse? Is a placard saying "No more than 20 persons (2 tons) on this deck at one time" sufficient to extinguish his liability? What if the placard is covered by snow?

Also there seems to be a hands-raised-in-horror attitude when someone does a cost benefit analysis on safety. Sorry, this happens all the time. eg Otherwise you would not have a passenger aeroplane that could fly.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[IRstuff]

We make these cost-benefit trades every time we buy a car and choose a small, light car for fuel economy; knowing in the back of our minds that it would get crushed in any serious encounter with a Suburban.

40,000+ people die yearly from alcohol related "accidents," yet we do not demand that all cars be equipped with breathalyzers.

For that matter, a sizable portion of the population refused to wear or install seatbelts until they became legally mandatory.

One of the big issues is also the design margin used by the engineer. I'm not sure that every engineer uses the exact same design margin, but same mentality that let NASA convince itself to continue using unacceptable flight conditions per initial design is the same mentality that will overload a deck and not see it immediately collapse and decide that it's OK to continue overloading the same deck.

TTFN

 

[haggis]

Since these discussions are mainly revolving around the Auto industry, I think it is making it a very complex argument for proponents of licensed or non licensed engineering.

Also, since vehicles are approved for sale in every State, Province and Territory in North America, not to mention the same vehicles being approved by importing countries, and, if the Engineers were licensed and not industry exempt, isn't there still going to be arguments that the Engineers were licensed only in Michigan.

 

[EddyC]

Folks, lets try to remember a couple of things regarding the "Industry Exempt" Engineers:

a) They are not in responsible charge of the designs that they do, the company is.

b) They are employees of companies, not independent professionals.

If an engineer employee is aware of an unsafe design and reports it to his superiors, he has done his job. It is now the responsibility of the company to take appropriate action.

I have worked both in industrial and in consulting environments. The agenda is the same in both (ie making money). If I had to report my observations of improper designs to the government, I would have had to rat out every single employer that I have had in my 20 years in engineering.

 

[IRstuff]

EddyC,

Your last point raises another interesting issue. Given the difficulty of "proving" bad design after the fact, consider how difficult it would be to show that a design is marginal if no incidents have occurred?

Most of the famous cases discussed above were clearly egregious design flaws where, in the case of the Pinto and the Explorer, there were obvious issues from the get-go.

If there were no obvious incidents, one would be hard pressed to defend a 2x or 4x or any other level of design margin.

TTFN

 

[haggis]

Economic effect in mandatory lincesing:

Most of us enjoy what we do and are happy with the capacity in which we do it. However, not only do the companies want to make as much money as possible, so do we.

I would think it would be detremental to the independant licensed consultant to have everyone mandated into licensure.

I am a non-engineer, a senior designer whos designs when warranted, (usualy when structural in nature) go to an independant consultant for review and stamping although the company has on staff, licensed engineers who function purely in a project administrative capacity.

The reason for this is the company is passing the buck on liability.

Now, lets say as a senior designer, I get paid $45 per hour. If I was mandated into getting a licenese, I am not going to design and stamp for the same money. If I was mandated, I too would become an independant who could charge say $90 per hour for their professional services, as would most like me, because my company sure isn't going to pay me that kind of money.

So everybody hangs out their shingle as licensed engineering consultants and it becomes a dog eat dog world in engineering services and as a result, we all find that we are working for less than we were in the first place.

Something for the licensed independants to think about. Keep the market cornered while the going is good.

 

[buzzp]

Given the current status of the product design world as far as safety goes, there is no problems with the way things are done now. The fractional percent of bad designs is certainly comparable to the flawed designs of licensed consultants. Hence, there are no improvements to be made by requiring a license. If its not broke, dont fix it.

By eliminating the industry exempt positions you are essentially eliminating company engineers and replacing them with independant consultants. Its obvious to me that costs will skyrocket (products and wages). The main question is how are you going to police this? Who is responsible?

The whole idea simply makes no sense at all.

 

[EddyC]

Why don't we all admit the real reason that certain engineers want to eliminate the industrial exemption:

a) 1/3 to improve product design & safety

b) 2/3 to increase their own marketability

 

[CanEngJohn]

To respond to EddyC

The reason to eliminate industrial exemption is to 100% insure that qualified individuals are in positions that are significant to the public welfare and have legal responsibilities that lie outside of their employer to help ensure that we the consumer as well as the company is protected as much as possible.

AS posted
Folks, lets try to remember a couple of things regarding the "Industry Exempt" Engineers:

a) They are not in responsible charge of the designs that they do, the company is.

b) They are employees of companies, not independent professionals.

I believe this is the CRITICAL issue with industry exempt engineers. They have no legal responsibility to the society they are designing or building these products for. They tell the company whose foremost responsibility is the money going to the owner or investors. The company then costs the issue. There isn't a single level of responsibility to society found in this structure except when the lawsuit shows up.

As a licensed professional engineer (in the automotive industry) I am required to go outside my company to create a means to intervene if I feel the design flaw or manufacturing problem requires the effort. I am bound to accept the responsibility for my actions. I have a licensing body who will go to bat or me if there are repercussions from my action. And I am not a consultant. I am an "industry exempt (in the US)" Engineer who does not get paid that much more for having my license who also has a duty to ensure that the company I work for provides a product that is safe during its intended use. In essence while I am not responsible for the design the company makes per se I am responsible to assist in making sure the design is "safe" and that responsibility lies outside my employment.

By no means is this a foolproof solution but it would change the way we approach issues such as the Ford Explorer and Pinto (since these are examples already mentioned).

And as a side note (We meaning we as a North American society)
- We put warnings in toaster documentation that it should not go near water.
- We mandate speed limits and amount of allowable alcohol while operating a vehicle.
- We have considered putting breathalyzers in vehicles of people convicted of DUIs.
- We put WHMIS labels on everything.
- We guard against Darwinism.
- Licensing does not ensure ethics but it does give a means to weed out unethical Engineers.
- As a Licensed Engineer I do NOT make double the other non-licensed Techs that work in the same department.

 

[melone]

So the whole crux of the argument is personal liability?

Increase the risk of personal financial devastation and get paid marginally (if at all) more???? People aren't jumping on this bandwagon???

 

[IRstuff]

And think of the benefits of paying for liability insurance yourself!!

TTFN

 

[CanEngJohn]

Not necessarily personal libaility but personal responsibility. (I do not have nor do I currently need liability Insurance)

I am not liable for the design from a company standpoint (I cannot be sued directly). However, through my licensing, I have an ethical responsibility within the Engineering community. Even if I cannot get sued through the protection of my company the Professional Assosciation recognizes that I still have a duty to report unethical Engineering practices (such as pushing a faulty design with protential to cause personal injury). If I do not my professional organization will penalize me for ignoring my foremost responsibility to protect society first.

I am required to be responsible to society and that is enforced through my professional organization - a source outside my employment. This allows increased responsibility to exist without increasing legal liability.

 

[EddyC]

Currently, the PEs who stamp drawings and accept personal risk are generally owners, partners and associates of consulting firms. They are the upper tier in the companies that they work for and are compensated accordingly.

In industry, engineers are generally in the lower tier of company workers. To eliminate the industrial exemption and to force these engineer employees to accept personal risk is not appropriate. Why should any lower level of employee be personally responsible for the work of their employer? Since when do these particular engineer employees have any significant level of autonomy? If anyone should be responsible for the work of these engineer employees, it should be the upper level of management, not the lower. It is the employer who is in responsible charge, not the employee.

 

[profengmen]

I'm impressed.

Apparently, only PEs are "required" to follow the law. In addition, they seem to be the only ones that we can count on to do so.

Unethical behaviour is illegal or subject to liability for everyone, not just the PEs.

 

[melone]

So if you didn't learn the secret PE handshake, you wouldn't have any responsibility for your own designs???

 

[haggis]

I am at a loss for words as to the two recent posts from CanEngJohn.who is an industry exempt engineer himself.

He writes:

I am required to be responsible to society and that is enforced through my professional organization .

I too am required to be responsible but I don't need any big stick to enforce that and niether do the exempt engineers I have had the pleasure of working with for the past 25 years in the Auto industry.

He also writes:

I am an "industry exempt (in the US)" Engineer who does not get paid that much more for having my license.

Why should they pay you any more if you're not using it. They occasionaly pay independant consultants for that because they save money and pass on the burden of liability.

Furhermore, If you have ever had to go to outside your company with your concerns about irresponsible or unsafe practices, while commending you for doing so, it beats me why you could continue to work for such a comany fo the good of the profession.

 

[CanEngJohn]

In an attempt to clarify my stance...

While most engineers (both Professional and Industry exempt) will rarely be put into a situation where this will be an issue we started this thread talking about issues where it has been demonstrated that prior knowledge was available to indicate a problematic design.
In order for an Industry Exempt Engineer to show due diligence in this situation (s)he must report it to his superiors.
In order for a PE to show due diligence in this situation (s)he must not only due the above but also report their concerns to his licensing body when the above action does not result in any increased diligence.

Since we seem to be implementing third party auditors and increasing the number of medical review boards because we do not have faith in corporate structure to look at decisions outside of a monetary bias I have to question the image that Industry Exemption presents to society. Being licensed means you are accountable to a third party outside the corporate structure. This seems to coincide with the current demands of society in order to prevent "corrupt" practices. We have lost faith in relying on individual conscience and demand third party surveillance. I have to wonder if having an additional responsibility to a licensing body would have made any of the Industry Exempt Engineers take a different path in the Ford/Firestone situation. For those that have read the book I would love to know if you think this would have changed the outcome of the situation.

The good news in this thread is quite evident in the comment by haggis
"I too am required to be responsible but I don't need any big stick to enforce that and neither do the exempt engineers I have had the pleasure of working with for the past 25 years in the Auto industry."

Most of us will thankfully be in the same situation. The problem is how do we deal with the exception.