Software companies surprised they have to obey the law 5

^Link

Apparently software companies in Canada are sad they have have accurate job titles and obey licensure laws. I agree with them that this a big problem in the US but the solution isn't for Canada to lower it's standards.
Didn't Microsoft already give up on the silly MSCE tittle there?

Canada would be wise to regulate the act of engineering rather than the title as the US does. The act is what endangers the public, not the title. Titles are important for clarity and ultimately income's sake. Good engineers aren't going to accept a technologist/technician/other title lest future employers wonder about their engineering KSAs and pay them less accordingly. End of the day legislation like this just fuels the "brain drain" south that Canada is famous for and continues to erode the talent pool, which IMHO poses its own dangers.

I think APEGA has been trying to litigate on this issue for some time and has failed previously.

There are two separate issues in my mind:

One is, should P.Eng engineers have exclusive right to use the word 'engineer' in their job title? Personally I think the restricted title should be something more restricted like 'Professional Engineer' rather than 'Engineer'. The title doesn't mean anything anymore. To be blunt, most engineers licensed by APEGA are not actually engineers, they are glorified project managers / paper pushers who have either never done any technical work or only did so early in their career and haven't for decades. I'd hazard a guess that if you asked an outsider to read what the EGP act says and what the requirements for becoming an engineer are, and compare those to a designation like PMP, they would probably tell you that ~90% or more of 'Engineers' in Alberta should lose their license and become PMPs. I know people with 5 years experience working in a municipal or provincial government role who have never done a single calculation, opened AutoCAD, or written a technical report in their career and have essentially only ever managed consultants and contractors.

Two is, are there people writing computer programs who should be regulated and have a duty of care to the public? Absolutely. But most of them don't, and the industry needs to find a way to differentiate. People coding video games and websites don't need to be governed in this way. People writing software that goes into planes, air traffic control systems, autonomous automobiles, etc do, in my opinion, need to be regulated even if it's a self-regulating professional association. Personally, I'm not concerned whether that association is APEGA or whether the government creates a separate one for computer programmers so they can feel special. And I say this as someone who is a member of APEGA.

On point two, it has previously been suggested to me by Canadian lawyers that the common law standard of care expected of engineers in Canada or people representing themselves as engineers is higher than that implied by the EGP act or similar legislation, and that software engineers writing safety critical software are probably already subject to the same standard although it has yet to be tested in court.

You mean "Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert"?

Times have changed, and not for the better. When I first started as a P.Eng, I did numerous structures without liability insurance and without an architect. It wasn't a requirement, back then. I simply had to send the owner a letter stipulating that I had no insurance. I've done 20 storey buildings that way and 100,000 sq.ft. warehouses and they are still standing. I cannot do that now, in addition to my seal, I require a certificate of authorisation to offer engineering services to the public.

There are a couple of issues in the city... one, a large P/C downtown office building that I think has been razed because of a building envelope failure. This function was replaced by renovation of another building with all sorts of corruption. One of the associations themes is to look after the public interest. The above fiascos cost the taxpayers millions of dollars... nary a peep from the association.

several years back, the association took Microsoft to task for using the term "engineer"... go figgure?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

APEGA sounds like a legalized protection racket.

I don't usually have nice things to say about APEGA but this is a case where I can support what they're doing, though I think it's only of marginal benefit to anyone. There are many many things more worthwhile for APEGA to fix than this. Such as their own organization (but I digress).

Expanding on Geotechguy1's comments, I'd say that most software "engineers" are actually technologists, not engineers. They manipulate technical equipment with specific goals in mind, but public safety and legal liability are rarely factors. I don't give a hot damn that they spent time at a university or not, they do technician stuff and there's no need to be snobbish about it. The distinction between engineers who went to university and technicians who didn't is artificial and a distortion.

Unfortunately, it was the former premier of Alberta who was clued-in to these issues, not the new one. It is unlikely that the new premier will know what to do with APEGA's complaint. Former premier Kenney actually took APEGA to task for being unfair to many qualified engineers but the situation was not fixed and I have witnessed a long dragged-out process for yet another of my colleagues trying to register with APEGA (again I digress...)

geotechguy1 said:

On point two, it has previously been suggested to me by Canadian lawyers that the common law standard of care expected of engineers in Canada or people representing themselves as engineers is higher than that implied by the EGP act or similar legislation, and that software engineers writing safety critical software are probably already subject to the same standard although it has yet to be tested in court.

Click to expand...

Can you expand on that, or point me to something detailing what that would mean?

I don't agree that there should be no distinction between technicians and engineers - more that most people who are licensed as engineers would better be titled project manager or technician and the bar should be massively raised. But I think that's part of the reason technicians have a moderately compelling case for licensure, because the average state of practice among engineers is actually not particularly good or deserving of special treatment.

I doubt many practitioners will agree with me though - but I think the standard should be an M.Eng or equivalent in the area of practice, the introduction of F.E. and P.E. style exams, and having to retake those exams every 5-7 years or drop the license.

But now I've gone totally off topic; personally, I'm not fussed at all about 'Software Engineers'. But the ones doing public safety critical work should be regulated somehow (don't care if it's APEGA - maybe it would be better if they weren't regulated by dinosaurs ), insured, and held to a high standard.

I sometimes think that organisations become too organised and the long term effects are really not good. It should be a requirement that all professional org employees have at least 20 years of practical engineering experience.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

CWB1…

"Canada would be wise to regulate the act of engineering rather than the title as the US does."

In California, at least, the "act of engineering" is protected/regulated for three disciplines: civil, mechanical, and electrical. These three disciplines are called "practice" act disciplines, and both the practice of these types of engineering and the titles are protected/regulated. For other engineering disciplines (e.g. chemical, corrosion, etc.) only the title is protected. I don't know what other states do, but I suspect at least some of them protect/regulate at least some of the disciplines.

============
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

Interestingly, and slightly off topic, the chemical engineering department of at least one prestigious USA university has decided to drop ABET.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

It seems pretty clear to me that the purported reasoning for having PE laws was for public safety, and to that end, anything that can overtly affect public safety should have same level of rigor that existing PEs are subject to.

For example, the collision avoidance systems on autonomous vehicles should be subject to the rigorous safety review that the mechanical design of a crane might have. FMECAs can obviously be performed to adjudicate whether something might have an impact on public safety or not. This would need to be balanced against the normal "industrial exemption" that would be applied to the engineers of consumer products, since product liability laws govern them, rather than the personal liability imposed on PEs.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

fel3, state laws in CA and numerous others do protect use of a very few specific titles like "Professional Engineer" but none encompass all uses of the word "engineer" in titles. Moreover, the protection of those few titles is on rather shaky legal ground so enforcement is generally limited to those also charged with illegally performing regulated acts.

I'd say that most software "engineers" are actually technologists, not engineers. They manipulate technical equipment with specific goals in mind...

Click to expand...

The same assertion could be made about most PEs.

I doubt many practitioners will agree with me though - but I think the standard should be...

Click to expand...

IMHO a good prerequisite would be 20 years experience, five patents, an original analysis tool, and 3+ years supervisory experience in the design and test of both the smallest component and largest assembly without outsourcing. I could never support requiring a MS bc most forgo them as a waste of time, even when funded by employers.

This what the EGP act defines the practice of engineering in Alberta as, for reference:

"(q) “practice of engineering” means

(i) reporting on, advising on, evaluating, designing,
preparing plans and specifications for or directing the
construction, technical inspection, maintenance or
operation of any structure, work or process

(A) that is aimed at the discovery, development or
utilization of matter, materials or energy or in any
other way designed for the use and convenience of
humans, and

(B) that requires in that reporting, advising, evaluating,
designing, preparation or direction the professional
application of the principles of mathematics,
chemistry, physics or any related applied subject, or

(ii) teaching engineering at a university; "

IRstuff- I sort of agree but on the other hand other safety systems are designed , and programmed, by non PEs. I don't remember much whingeing about ABS for example, and even ESC. But these are tested, and at least in principle testable in a reasonably relevant set of circumstances governing the majority of use cases. The only way I can think of testing FSD would be virtually, with millions (?) of use cases. Perhaps that is the way forward.

The other way is to write robust code.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

I don't remember much whingeing about ABS for example, and even ESC.

Click to expand...

Right, but those are likewise presumably covered under product liability laws. Even in the case where the alleged poor firmware in the Toyota sudden acceleration case left the programmers anonymous and never questioned in public.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

>On point two, it has previously been suggested to me by Canadian lawyers that the common law standard of care expected of engineers in Canada or people representing themselves as engineers is higher than that implied by the EGP act or similar legislation, and that software engineers writing safety critical software are probably already subject to the same standard although it has yet to be tested in court.

>Can you expand on that, or point me to something detailing what that would mean?

Sparweb, what I mean is, if an engineer held accountable by APEGA via the powers delegated to them in the EGP act the process is an internal disciplinary process and the penalties are relatively speaking a slap on the wrist (mandatory training, name and shame (although APEGA has even mostly backed off on name and shame and many cases are now published with the names removed), nominal financial fines, temporary license suspension - worst case you lose your license but that's only if you kill someone or are 3 weeks late on paying their invoice for annual dues).

The real liability for engineers is common law precedents in the courts which generally don't have much of anything to do with the EGP act. That's where you might lose your house and any other assets they can get their hands on.

It seems pretty clear to me that the purported reasoning for having PE laws was for public safety, and to that end, anything that can overtly affect public safety should have same level of rigor that existing PEs are subject to...This would need to be balanced against the normal "industrial exemption" that would be applied to the engineers of consumer products, since product liability laws govern them, rather than the personal liability imposed on PEs.

Click to expand...

There's no umbrella coverage to the industrial exemption stateside, engineers working under it can be held personally liable the same as those working under license. The correct variable in the liability vs risk equation isn't PE/non, its the size of the company as ultimately your employer's assets tend to distract lawyers from yours.

As to the "rigor" of engineering, this is also an area where I hate to generalize PE vs not bc IME its more a large vs small company issue. Large companies tend to be process-driven and risk-averse so forgoing project risk-analysis, peer reviews, testing, qualified hiring/supervision, or even annual ethics/legal/other training isn't an option. OTOH I know many one-man companies that were started with little-no experience that do none of those and justify their choice to forgo ethics and embrace greed as necessary for survival. "But others in my industry"....nonsense.

Licensing may have begun with good intentions but is counterproductive to both public safety and the profession.

>The correct variable in the liability vs risk equation isn't PE/non, its the size of the company as ultimately your employer's assets tend to distract lawyers from yours.

I'm interested to see how this plays out over time and in different countries. I work for a large company however the business is extremely aggressive at minimizing liability; mainly around corporate structuring and generally avoiding contracts where liability isn't limited to 5-10x the fees. If I was a lawyer or if I was litigating someone for a million dollar failure on a job with 10k in fees, and I had to choose between going after Megacorp #1 and their lawyers (and to be frank in NZ the megacorp might be able to afford better lawyers than the central government since the global business unit is bigger than basically any company in NZ) for say 50k, and going after a 70 year old retired engineer with a million in retirement savings, a million dollar house in auckland and a 500k vacation home, I'd completely ignore the megacorp and go after the individual engineer.