Alberta Tech leaders seek easing of rules around ‘software engineer’ designation

[Faust]

Tech leaders seek easing of rules around ‘software engineer’ designation:

https://edmonton.taproot.news/news/2...er-designation


APEGA: Engineering is a regulated profession for a reason:

https://financialpost.com/globe-news...n-for-a-reason

[Ozy_Flame]

Wait until people figure out Solution Architects don't need to be members of the AAA.

Personally I'd love to see UCP spin doctors have to be members of the CPSA.

[Faust]

Nic Beique @NicolasBeique

For those of you that have seen the recent news about Alberta Tech companies pushing back on APEGA regarding the usage of the word “Engineer” - here is some better context (or at least my perspective). �� 1/12 @patsearle @CADInnovators

https://twitter.com/nicolasbeique/st...567888896?s=21

[_Q_]

But a UX developer isn't an Engineer. The term UX Engineer isn't as common as the Twitter thread makes it out to be.

Plus most job seekers are out searching specific keywords like "React", "front end", "Angular" etc.

[Fuzz]

If only we had spent the last 2 days discussing this elsewhere...

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...=144167&page=5

[timun]

The reason why industries have created titles like "Software Engineer" and "Solution Architect" is precisely because they want to piggyback off the regulated professions. It's blatantly transparent. And quite rightly the professional associations have to fight back against this, just in the way that a company has to vigorously defend trademarks: if you let other people use it they'll dilute it. It's very much the same way naturopaths and chiropractors were desperate to call themselves "doctor".

[Northendzone]

i think if you regularly use sumifs in excel that you should be a software engineer

[GGG]

I think the more interesting question is should North America move to require licensing of a more broad scope of activities in the software space.

A lot of the current regulations have their roots in steam boilers exploding and killing people. Are we on the verge of that point now?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think the more interesting question is should North America move to require licensing of a more broad scope of activities in the software space.

A lot of the current regulations have their roots in steam boilers exploding and killing people. Are we on the verge of that point now?

Kind of. A poorly programmed SCADA device could cause a boiler to explode.

[Muta]

Ozy is right - can Solution Architects use the term 'architect' if they aren't educated with an actual architectural degree or registered with and architectural association? Seems to be pretty common place usage of the term too, perhaps we should expand the subject matter here.

I know some people who may or may not have actual contention with this too.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If only we had spent the last 2 days discussing this elsewhere...

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...=144167&page=5

Maybe mods can move recent discussion into here if it’s better.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Muta

Ozy is right - can Solution Architects use the term 'architect' if they aren't educated with an actual architectural degree or registered with and architectural association? Seems to be pretty common place usage of the term too, perhaps we should expand the subject matter here.

I would argue they shouldn't be allowed to use the term 'architect', but moreover I'd be embarrassed to have a title that comes across as the some of the most blatant buzzword-speak bull#### I've ever seen. I haven't a clue what the hell a "solution architect" is, but I can picture the kind of twat who came up with the title.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Muta

Ozy is right - can Solution Architects use the term 'architect' if they aren't educated with an actual architectural degree or registered with and architectural association? Seems to be pretty common place usage of the term too, perhaps we should expand the subject matter here.

I know some people who may or may not have actual contention with this too.

That’s because the AAA specifically recognizes the use of the term architect when used in reference to software not to be misleading.

https://www.aaa.ab.ca/getattachment/...Right-to-Title

Essentially it’s clear that a software architect is not designing building. It is not inherently clear that a software Engineer is not practicing engineering.

The definition from engineers Canada which is more or less included in each provinces Act

“ The "practice of engineering" means any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising, or managing any of the foregoing, that requires the application of engineering principles and that concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment.”

[Lanny_McDonald]

Such a weird thing to be concerned about.

According to the American Engineers' Council for Professional Development engineering is defined as, "The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."

You'll note is says nothing about education, or professional association, or any other such ######baggery, it is a practice of applying specific principles and practices in the development of machines or systems. With that in mind, there are many positions in other fields that fit this description. Like every municipality has an individual (designated City or Town Engineer) who leads their Public Works divisions, and many of these individuals are not professional engineers, nor do any engineering of any kind. They are administrators who oversee those who manage industrial systems (utilities, roads, traffic, etc.). So where's the outrage here?

I have no idea why "professional association" engineers get so hung up on having to share this designation? The original engineers ran locomotives. The first "professional engineer" designation was not bestowed until 1907, long after other engineers had been piloting the steel horse across the plains. Maybe guys who drive trains should be pissed and prevent the steely waiving set from using the term?

[Wormius]

Good god, shots whenever anyone brings up trains.

[kermitology]

I’ve been working as a Solution Architect for almost a decade now. I didn’t realize that it was specifically excluded by AAA, but that makes sense. There are some certification bodies involved in solution architecture, like TOGAF. I personally think of it as an IT equivalent of a project engineer.

I side with APEGA on this. I have an engineering degree, I held my P.Eng until I moved to BC. And since then I no longer refer to myself as an Engineer, just that my experience is in engineering. It’s a title that should mean something in Canada. While it’s kind of dorky, the ritual of the calling of the engineer sticks with you. When I design software I should have a duty of care to protect the information of the people who have given my organization their data.

Someone tell me the difference between these roles as Senior software developer vs Software Engineer. Especially if that title infers respect.

[Bill Bumface]

I have a B.Sc. in Software Engineering and had my P. Eng. until I realized it's all a scam perpetuated by P. Eng. holders trying to hire/promote people who remind them of themselves.

APEGA can go pound sand. Software Engineering is definitely a form of engineering, and most of the best and brightest don't have engineering degrees, rather Computer Science, Math, Physics, and many others.

I'd argue most APEGA members are subject to almost zero scrutiny in their professions, and the amount that are stamping anything meaningful are a small minority.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by kermitology

While it’s kind of dorky, the ritual of the calling of the engineer sticks with you.

Yes, sticks with you as being creepy, arrogant and cult-like.

Originally Posted by kermitology

When I design software I should have a duty of care to protect the information of the people who have given my organization their data.

You just described the type of expectations faced by ... every profession ever. APEGA does absolutely zero to ensure you are protecting people's information or to support you in that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I have a B.Sc. in Software Engineering and had my P. Eng. until I realized it's all a scam perpetuated by P. Eng. holders trying to hire/promote people who remind them of themselves.

APEGA can go pound sand. Software Engineering is definitely a form of engineering, and most of the best and brightest don't have engineering degrees, rather Computer Science, Math, Physics, and many others.

I'd argue most APEGA members are subject to almost zero scrutiny in their professions, and the amount that are stamping anything meaningful are a small minority.

I agree that in a world of software the Engineering regulators need to expand what constitutes a suitable degree and experience to be an engineer. The US PE exam might be a reasonable way to prove competency rather than just a degree based process.

I agree with your last statement that those doing meaningful stamping are a minority. This would suggest tighter regulation to limit title to people performing engineering and expansion of the types of engineering under scrutiny.

The other issue is that people same to blame APEGA for this when really it’s the provincial government that determines this through the EG act. APEGA performs its duties as required by the act.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Yes, sticks with you as being creepy, arrogant and cult-like.



You just described the type of expectations faced by ... every profession ever. APEGA does absolutely zero to ensure you are protecting people's information or to support you in that.

They provide the public recourse to take action against a company or individual. They have the ability to remove licensing

Regulated (self or government) professions are subjected to increased scrutiny.

Should the guy who implemented the Flames Vax passport thing that failed to protect data have regulatory consequences? Ignore the APEGA part of this. The broader question of should their be more scrutiny and recourse for the public?