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

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

the amount that are stamping anything meaningful are a small minority.

Stamping drawings is only one part of practice though. I'm a P.Eng and have literally never stamped anything, not once. I'm non-practicing now, but definitely practiced engineering by the definition previously (eg I have a patent). One example is I worked on the Fire and Explosion Hazard Management process for the completions group at an O&G company I worked for - writing the training manual, delivered training, and in charge of the hazard management process. A previous failure of that process (before my time but still) at that company had resulted in the death of a worker on a service rig. That pre-work checklist didn't have my stamp on it but it was absolutely important that it was done to a professional standard of work.

Imo software can have similar consequences. My (pretty regular) vehicle has a number of self-driving software features. One of them failing has similar consequences. Software for medical devices and airplanes are pretty high stakes as well. Even the software that runs the smart lock on my front door is hopefully well designed given the safety of my family depends on it.

I think its reasonable that professional oversight exist for software engineers. Whether APEGA is doing a good job is, imo, a separate discussion. If they aren't qualified or are doing it poorly then the answer isn't "engineering titles for everyone" it's "APEGA needs these changes".

A proper discussion around what is and is not software engineering seems like a good idea, and anyone who isn't doing that can have the title "software developer" or similar.

[Mass_nerder]

Originally Posted by 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.

Nothing annoys me more than looking through job postings and having to wade through "solutions/UX/etc... Architect"

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 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?

You’ll also note that the EPCD now ABET’s role is specifically to accredit educational institutions for the purposes of licensure in the various engineering and applied natural science disciplines.

So EPCD embraces and facilitates what you refer to as ######baggery.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GGG

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?

I don't know. I'd need to see what that regulatory oversight looks like in practice. My assumption is likely we get something that hampers the local industry and makes us a less competitive jurisdiction, and I'd prefer the courts continue to take care of negligence causing damage.

APEGA provides no meaningful oversight of any P. Eng. besides the threat of taking their title away. It's completely reactive anyway. For software engineering, they aren't even that, as they don't have the expertise or facilities to take any action at all.

So we can:

1) Add regulation to software engineers, and kill off any startup investment in AB

2) Not allow the title of engineer for these jobs, and hope remote employers casting wide nets bother to deal with overhead to deal with the pedantry of our relatively insignificant jurisdiction to continue to provide high paying opportunities for Albertans

3) Be like the rest of the global workforce and allow the software engineer title to be used

[Matata]

Canada tech companies just need to step up their game and invent new authority-invoking job titles, they could be Software Wizards or Software Grand Marshalls. They'll all be saying "Sorry Mr Musk, you can take you software engineering job and shove it, I'm going to Canada to become a Software Dreadlord".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I don't know. I'd need to see what that regulatory oversight looks like in practice. My assumption is likely we get something that hampers the local industry and makes us a less competitive jurisdiction, and I'd prefer the courts continue to take care of negligence causing damage.

APEGA provides no meaningful oversight of any P. Eng. besides the threat of taking their title away. It's completely reactive anyway. For software engineering, they aren't even that, as they don't have the expertise or facilities to take any action at all.

So we can:

1) Add regulation to software engineers, and kill off any startup investment in AB

2) Not allow the title of engineer for these jobs, and hope remote employers casting wide nets bother to deal with overhead to deal with the pedantry of our relatively insignificant jurisdiction to continue to provide high paying opportunities for Albertans

3) Be like the rest of the global workforce and allow the software engineer title to be used

The US regulated the use of Software Engineer in some states but slowly has been diminishing. The organization doing the FE exam testing software eng quit offering it in 2019 due to lack of demand. Many jurisdictions including California regulate Controls Engineering which in theory should cover the interface between devices and responses like cars.

From an approach standpoint I’d like to see EC lobby the US based groups to develop clear definitions of when it’s engineering. Then regulate appropriately, then ban and enforce title. I do agree for Alberta to demand regulation on its own would destroy demand. As for title as long as a clear line is drawn in where software eng becomes computer eng or controls eng is created and enforced I’m not to worried. They can be the chiropractors of engineers.

I disagree that APEGA does no enforcement before hand. The Professional Practice Management Plans which are required for all companies which perform engineering creates minimum standard for a wide variety of topics.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GGG

I disagree that APEGA does no enforcement before hand. The Professional Practice Management Plans which are required for all companies which perform engineering creates minimum standard for a wide variety of topics.

They don't do this for software companies whatsoever, and they aren't equipped to.


I agree that control systems engineers need oversight, but they largely already have it via far more specialized an appropriate channels.

I don't want some giant generic engineering regulatory body trying to oversee elevator control software at the same time as autopilot systems for commercial jets. The current regulatory bodies that specialize in those specific complex systems as well as the software, hardware and human components that affect them seems far more effective. Let a bunch of elevator nerds make sure we don't die in elevators.