PE Community

Useful Risk Management Blog

Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:50:00 GMT

If you’re looking for another source of information on risk management topics for professional engineers, check out Schinnerer’s RM Blog. Victor O. Schinnerer & Company is the managing underwriter for the NSPE-commended professional liability insurance program (CNA Insurance Company). Part of the commendation criteria that CNA must meet is to provide a robust risk management education program. One element of the program is the RM Blog, which furnishes excellent and timely information about engineering topics, with links to in-depth risk management materials.

The CNA Insurance Company created its insurance program in 1957, at the request of NSPE’s Professional Engineers in Private Practice and the American Institute of Architects, as there was no professional liability insurance available in the U.S. at that time. CNA/VOSCO has been the commended carrier ever since.

PE Warned of Space Shuttle Disaster

NSPE — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:55:00 GMT

Roger Boisjoly, the engineer who warned of a possible O-ring failure that could lead to the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger, died on January 6 in Utah, according to the New York Times.

Nearly a decade after the disaster, Boisjoly shared his story with NSPE. Below is the complete article from the August 1995 issue of Engineering Times.

PE Perseveres, 10 Years After Challenger Explosion

By Molly Galvin
Associate Editor

As filmgoers pack Apollo 13 and marvel at the story about a disaster that almost was, Roger Boisjoly tells the story of the disaster that NASA failed to avoid. For 10 years, the professional engineer has been living with the aftermath of the Challenger space shuttle explosion and the events that ended his aerospace career. He has managed not only to find the lessons in that loss but also to carve new opportunities from it.

As a lead engineer for Morton Thiokol, a NASA contractor that helped develop the Challenger’s solid rocket booster, Boisjoly in effect predicted the disaster before it occurred. He correctly noted that the critical O-ring seals in the booster could fail in the low temperatures expected on Challenger’s launch day. But company management repeatedly ignored Boisjoly’s and other engineers’ warnings.

His story of managers putting profit over safety and, ultimately, human life, is as chilling today as it was 10 years ago. The day before the launch, a teleconference was held with NASA officials and Morton Thiokol management. After NASA officials expressed disappointment with Thiokol engineers’ recommendation to cancel the launch, the company’s senior managers overruled that decision. “Take off your engineer’s hat and put on your manager’s hat,” a Thiokol senior manager told the vice president of engineering.

The next day, the world watched the disastrous consequences. “I had made up my mind not to watch the launch,” says Boisjoly, but ended up watching at a colleague’s urging. At first, it looked like the launch might make it. “I whispered to him that we had just dodged a bullet,” he says. “Sixty seconds into the flight [my colleague] whispered back that he had completed a prayer of thanks. Thirteen seconds later, we all saw the horror of destruction as the vehicle exploded.”

Boisjoly’s life would never be the same. A few days later, he was assigned to a failure investigation team with several other engineers. “What I saw there made me sick all over again, because NASA was definitely engaged in a massive cover-up attempt.” Officials were trying to hide the fact that the 31 degree F temperature at launch had any effect on the explosion, he says. And he learned some other disturbing news. “NASA’s initial quick [statement] that [the astronauts] died instantly was simply not true,” Boisjoly says. “The astronauts...were alive when they hit the water in excess of 200 miles an hour.”

For Boisjoly, the nightmare only grew worse as a presidential commission investigated the circumstances surrounding the explosion. “I submitted quite a few documents that clearly showed this was a preventable event. It was a disaster waiting to happen, caused by people who simply wouldn’t listen.” The investigation went from strictly an examination of technical aspects to a grilling of managerial decisions. “[Thiokol managers] were extremely angry when I turned in my documentation and that anger increased as I continued to testify,” says Boisjoly. During testimony at a committee hearing, he publicly refuted a manager’s assertion that Thiokol engineers weren’t unanimous in recommending that the launch be canceled. “When I finished they were so damn mad that I think if they had guns they would have shot me on the spot,” he says.

While his career at Morton Thiokol seemed to be over, he stuck it out for about six months. “I was in a world of hurt. I was blaming myself for not having done more,” he says. Meanwhile, managers isolated him in his position and “made life a living hell on a day-to-day basis.” Eventually he took sick leave because he was experiencing double vision, mood swings, and lots of anger—all of the signs leading up to a stroke or heart attack.

He told Thiokol he wasn’t returning. Boisjoly had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and learned that he qualified for two years of long-term disability. “I filed several lawsuits against Thiokol, which turned out to be an exercise in total futility,” he says. “I think [the court system was] afraid of what they’d find.” The suits never even made it to the discovery process, he says. Boisjoly decided not to pursue the lawsuits further. “I tried to get on with my life,” he says.

He threw himself into studying for his engineering licensure exam. The long hours he spent studying were a catharsis for healing, he says. In the meantime, he was asked to speak about his experience some 60 times, which he said also helped the healing process. His goal was to do consulting work. “I took the licensure exams because I was absolutely sure that an industry blackball would be instituted against me, especially because of my public brand as a whistle-blower. I was right.”

After he earned his PE license, he started getting more speaking engagements and landed a couple of consulting jobs. “I still didn’t have a great deal of jobs, but I got enough to give me a taste of forensic engineering work.” He was invited to join the NSPE-affiliated National Academy of Forensic Engineers. “I liked to do [forensic work] because the adversarial setting in the courtroom is really not that much different from what I experienced in the 27 years I spent in the aerospace industry.”

Although Boisjoly sometimes misses the excitement of work in the aerospace industry, he says he loves his new career, a combination of forensic engineering work, consulting, and speaking about engineering ethics. He makes his home in Utah, where he was named the 1994 Engineer of the Year by the Utah Society of Professional Engineers and the Utah Engineers Council.

Speaking publicly about the disaster was difficult at first, but he finds it fulfilling now. “It’s changed a lot of lives. It’s a wonderful high to know that you’re making a difference.” Despite the tragedy, Boisjoly has learned to value the lessons Challenger taught. “We [engineers] did all the right things. We informed our customers. The only thing that went wrong is that we had a customer that was hell-bent on launching regardless of the facts,” he says.

He makes it a point to urge all engineers to get licensed, if only for their own protection. Even industry engineers must protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, he points out. “In industry, the public are the customers. Now picture the scenario of me having a PE license when this happened, and me taking the code of ethics and shoving it up their noses and saying `Look! This is what the code says, this is what I’m obligated to do.’ That’s a powerful threat, especially if my colleagues also have PE licenses.”

Sometimes, after they hear all the hardships he endured on the way, students in Boisjoly’s audiences will ask why he went public with what he knew. “Because I like to sleep peacefully at night,” he answers. “My conscience would have eaten me alive if I had not stepped up and fought for stopping that launch.” He urges all engineers to act responsibly no matter what the consequences. “I believe in the philosophy that you need to tell people what they need to know, not what they want to hear. [Engineers] have got to stand up and fight for what they know is right.”

The Importance of Obtaining Your Professional Engineering License

Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:04:00 GMT

By Bernie Berson, P.E., F.NSPE

You can be sure that a BLOG sponsored by NSPE will strongly urge you to strive to obtain a license to practice engineering (the PE license) in at least one state. The path to licensure is time-consuming; it will cost you some money. In the long run the career enhancements of licensure far outweigh the costs of time and money. What value does it hold for you?

Licensure is evidence that one has spent time and money to gain access to a class of engineers that influences the safety, health, and welfare of the public, one which is charged to comport with a code of ethical conduct and a lofty set of standards;
Licensure elevates you above other graduate engineers who don’t have the professional resolve to prove it in a well-recognized way;
Licensure permits you to be legally in responsible charge of engineering work;
Licensure will enhance your personal worth and value in the engineering marketplace;
Licensure will provide you with a broader set of occupational options, should you wish (or be forced) to seek alternate employment;
As a licensed professional engineer, you will be part of a group that is highly respected by the public; and
Your salary level will almost certainly exceed that of an unlicensed engineering graduate in the same firm. Furthermore, your highest salary level will definitely be higher in most organizations.

Licensure has been called “the highest calling” of engineering. Those of us who have attained licensure in one or more states have found the added values to include prestige, respect, and personal pride in our achievement. We have also realized greater lifetime earnings than might have been reached without licensure. If you have any reservations, seek out and speak with a licensed professional engineer.

For more on the subject of licensure, including salary guidance, see http://career-advice.monster.com/career-development/education-training/professional-engineer-license-pe/article.aspx.

Sources of an Engineer’s Duty

Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:18:00 GMT

Have you ever been on the defendant’s side of a lawsuit as an engineer? I hope not, but if you have, you probably learned about the four proofs plaintiffs must make to win. Many of you have not been unfortunate enough to have been educated through the school of hard knocks, so I will try to give you a basic education in this blog posting.

Four Essential Proofs
In order for a plaintiff to prevail in a malpractice (negligence) suit against an engineer, there are four essential proofs:

Engineer had a duty to the plaintiff;
Engineer breached the duty;
Plaintiff suffered damages; and
Breach of duty was the proximate cause of the damages.

Sources of an Engineer’s Duty
How does duty arise? Obviously, we can start with the contract. You will have established the scope of services, fees, and understandings of the parties in this document. Additionally, duties arise from three other sources:

Laws, ordinances, regulations, and codes (whether known to you or not);
Ethical and professional responsibilities; and
Common law.

These four basic sources of duty establish your duties, not only to the parties to the contract, but also to the public at large, at least to the extent that they may be injured by your work product. Common causes of liability arising out of breach of duty include:

Code violations;
Violations or failure to comply with laws, regulations, and permitting processes;
Unlicensed practice;
Errors and omissions;
Actions of subconsultants;
Failure to meet appropriate standard of care;
Breach of contract; and
Breach of warranty or guarantee.

A key document for establishing duty is the professional services contract. This is why written contracts are so vitally important. Not only will they set forth the scope of services for which the client has contracted, but properly worded, they will handle vital peripheral interests. For instance, a good contract will not offer any guaranties or warrantees other than, perhaps, the duty to perform services in accordance with the locally recognized standard of care (here and here).

The possibility of violating laws, regulations, and permitting processes, as well as codes is an ever-present pitfall. To the extent possible, engineers need to keep abreast of the areas of those topics that are most relevant to the professional services being performed because they are not static and are subject to revisions and updates. The case for continuing professional competency training could not be more relevant than in this area.

Develop These Traits

Christian Knutson, P.E., PMP — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:33:00 GMT

Engineers are known for having certain traits. They are often viewed as:

Curious;
Logical;
Able to concentrate;
Respectful of intelligence;
Demanding high ethical standards;
Reserved and having poor social skills;
Desiring structure and order;
Somewhat dogmatic in their beliefs;
Perfectionists;
Dislike change and ambiguity; and
Having a good sense of humor.

In comparing these traits with those typically associated with successful managers, leaders, and business people, you’ll find several similarities…and two key differences. The similarities are:

Integrity;
Assertive;
Being creative; and
Having a sense of humor.

The two key variances are those traits which we should all focus on growing. These are:

Being open (both to other opinions and beliefs); and
Good people skills.

Both involve interaction with other people and communications. For some these are difficult traits to embrace, because as engineers we are not comfortable with the ambiguity and differences in logic that can come from working with other people. It’s never fun to have your ideas questioned or your work critiqued. Yet this exact interchange is what makes life a learning experience and what ultimately yields the best end result.

Attitude is Everything

Christian Knutson, P.E., PMP — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:19:00 GMT

There are a lot of variables that go into determining whether we’ll successfully bring our goals and aspirations into existence. However, I only count one of them as the quintessential element that must be present to ensure success: a good attitude. Definitely having sound technical skills, knowing how to plan, and maintaining a life full of learning are key to creating a fulfilling life and career. Without a good attitude, however, you’ll find it hard to build the successful career you envision.

What is attitude? It’s our programmed way of responding to our environment and it’s derived from the generalizations we make about other people and the system in which we live. It evolves over time and is the result of two specific belief structures:

Outcome-to-Expectation Belief: The beliefs built over time from the differences between what we achieve and what our expectations were at the beginning.

Efficacy Belief. Our belief about our capabilities to organize and execute courses that produce the results we want.

If we predominantly see outcomes matching expectations and/or have a high-order of confidence that we can deliver the goods and produce what we want, our attitude is generally positive.

Why is a Good Attitude Important?
There are a multitude of reasons. In general, our attitude is who we are. Try as we might to hide it, our attitude shows up in every conversation we have, the quality of our work and relationships, and strongly affects whether we’ll take certain courses in life. In leaders, a good attitude is essential for building teams, influencing others, and achieving objectives. Good attitude is also important because:

It’s contagious;
It’s something that everyone around us can see or perceive;
It affects our health;
It affects our relationships;
It determines how far we’ll advance in any endeavor; and
It’s your trademark…it’s who you are to others.

Maintaining a good attitude allows you to stay aligned with your goals and bring about success in every project you undertake. Understanding that you have the responsibility and capability to change your attitude can give you the reassurance necessary to embark on any task, regardless of how daunting it might be.

“Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it.” –Lou Holtz

FE Exam Results Should Be Public Information

Craig Musselman, P.E., F.NSPE — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:23:00 GMT

Performance statistics for the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination issued by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) are forwarded each year to universities and to state PE licensing boards that request them. These reports are an outstanding tool for programs to use in determining curriculum strengths and weaknesses, and formulating plans for improvement. More and more, university engineering programs are using FE exam reports as an outcomes assessment tool, which is one of the critical components of ABET accreditation processes.

These exam results would also be of value to students and to the public, but pass-rate data is not availble to the public. Since many universities and all state PE boards are public entities, the information may be available by public information request under the laws of each state, but the information is generally, perhaps uniformly, not publicized.

The engineering profession should consider the benefits of requiring that a two- or three-year running average of FE exam pass rates be made publicly available, perhaps on the institution’s engineering program Web site, by university and by program. A two- or three-year running average might be considered because results can vary significantly from class to class, but a longer-term running average takes out that variable. And it might be made available by program because the data may be far more valid for programs such as civil or environmental engineering, where 90% of graduates will need to be licensed in order to practice engineering, as opposed to electrical engineering, where perhaps only 10% of the graduates take the PE exam and become professional engineers.

The benefits of doing this are several. Students and parents who are selecting engineering programs should have access to information on the performance of the program’s graduates. It is an indicator of the quality of the program and the academic talent of the engineering students. It is of particular importance to parents and students who are entering a field of study that requires licensure to practice professionally to know the past history of the program’s graduates in passing the FE exam. There are some EAC-ABET accredited programs that consistently have very low pass rates on the FE exam (at least that’s what I’ve heard for years; I’ve never seen the data). In that case, parents and students have a right to know that. It may not be an inalienable right, but it is a reasonable right. The publication of the data also would create a significant incentive for programs with poor performance to improve. That could encourage “teaching to the test,” but in this specific case, perhaps that is a necessary and good thing.

What is the downside? There will be initial push-back from institutions that will not want to publicize these results. Representatives of some disciplines will argue that the FE exam isn’t fully relevant to their curricula and publishing skewed results will be an unreliable indicator of their program’s quality. Some programs require all students to at least attempt the FE exam in order to graduate, and in these cases some students who don’t anticipate needing to be licensed don’t make a good faith effort. This can skew results. And some institutions will probably contend that publishing these results doesn’t reflect on the problems they face in educating incoming students with poor academic preparedness; East Podunk State just isn’t Stanford, and can’t be expected to be. Perhaps in the case of a program that has consistently extremely poor performance on the FE exam, the program might consider curriculum and program changes, including changing to a technology program rather than an engineering program. There is, however, some concern that programs with consistently poor performance might not encourage students to take the FE exam in the future if the data is published and ranked. Another downside is that curricula vary from school to school. The goal of the FE exam for outcomes assessment is not to shape the curriculum to teach to the exam. It is to allow schools to assess how they are doing in the areas that they do teach. A school where civil engineers don’t take, say, thermodynamics, may do better in the areas their curriculum covers, but a school that requires thermo may have a better pass rate. Overall, I contend that all of these downsides are outweighed by the benefits.

U.S. architectural programs are required by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (the architects’ equivalent to ABET) to publish the performance of their graduates on the NCARB examinations, given after gaining experience (the equivalent of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Exam). Here is the NAAB requirement:

“Annually, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards publishes pass rates for each section of the Architect Registration Examination by institution. This information is considered to be useful to parents and prospective students as part of their planning for higher/post-secondary education. Therefore, programs are required to make this information available to current and prospective students and their parents either by publishing the annual results or by linking their website to the results.”

NCEES should consider the possibility of similarly publishing the pass rates for the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam by university and by program. This would likely require gathering additional data beyond what is gathered currently. Perhaps starting with making the FE exam pass rates public could be followed in future years with the PE exam results.

The FE exam results currently are nearly secret. If I were an incoming student in an engineering field that requires exam passage in order to practice at a professional level, or a parent paying $100,000 or so for such a college education, I would want to know if the institution’s graduates only pass 30% of the time, or 60% of the time, or whatever. They have a reasonable right to know that. And programs with graduates experiencing a very low pass rate have a need to know that, and to be accountable for improvement.

It’s time to come clean, and let the chips fall where they may.

Comments can be submitted below. A rationale for continuing not to divulge the performance by institution and program might be particularly interesting.

This item has been reviewed and edited by L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE, and Bernard R. Berson, P.E., P.L.S., F.NSPE.

The author is a Fellow of NSPE and ACEC, a Distinguished Member of ASCE, a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, the Chair of the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee, and a member of the ABET Board of Directors. The opinions expressed herein are his own and do not reflect the views of any of these organizations.

California Engineering Statute Needs Fixing

Craig Musselman, P.E., F.NSPE — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:46:00 GMT

California has a convoluted engineering statute that needs fixing. For many years, reasonable legislative initiatives proposed by the PE board, legislators, and other interests have failed due, in large part, to testimony and political influence from factions within the engineering profession in California with interests in maintaining the status quo.

California has a unique engineering licensure system. There are three “practice act” disciplines: civil, mechanical, and electrical. These disciplines are authorized to practice engineering, and their practice is regulated by the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists. Civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers can be held accountable for their professional misconduct, and their authority to practice can be suspended or revoked. There are also nine “title act” disciplines: agricultural, chemical, control systems, fire protection, industrial, metallurgical, nuclear, petroleum, and traffic engineering. In these disciplines, the state regulates the use of the title, but not the practice. In the case of misconduct, the board can revoke continued use of the title but cannot preclude continued practice. Title act engineers who commit professional misconduct can continue practicing as long as they do not continue using the title. The engineers from these disciplines often cannot stamp documents, although many local agencies require them to do so. Many fire protection and nuclear engineers, for example, are also licensed as mechanical engineers, but many of the title act engineers are not also licensed in either civil, mechanical, or electrical engineering. To make matters even more complicated, there are two “title authority acts,” for structural and geotechnical engineers, indicating proficiency in those specialties at a higher level than is required for civil engineering licensure.

The plot has thickened. A recent ruling has indicated that any “fixed work” constructed in California—essentially anything not on wheels or that doesn’t fly or float—must be designed by a licensed civil engineer. In the past, the regulated work of any of the title act engineers has needed to be under the responsible charge of a licensed civil, mechanical, or electrical engineer. That is now clarified, and required to be under the responsible charge of a civil engineer. Despite the fact that the California statute requires that licensed civil engineers practice only within their areas of competence, some civil engineers in California have testified to the effect that these provisions require them to practice outside of their areas of competence, and to stamp the work of engineers of other disciplines, which would constitute professional misconduct. Convoluted. And very confusing. This system may have made some manner of political sense when it was adopted many years ago, but it doesn’t make practical sense now. No other states have licensure systems like this.

A bill currently before the California legislature (SB 692) would convert the title acts to practice acts, requiring all professional engineers to practice within their area of competence and allowing the inherent overlap among disciplines that is common in all other states, and that is now allowed in California only for civil engineers. Fixing this is in the public interest and will enhance the protection of the public health and safety. And it is consistent with the manner in which engineering is regulated in every other U.S. jurisdiction. The benefits are as follows:

California will be able to regulate the professional practice of all the engineering disciplines. It cannot currently. That doesn’t make any sense, and it is not in the public interest.
Civil engineers will not feel that they are required by law to assume responsible charge and stamp documents for engineering disciplines outside their area of practice and/or competence.
Engineers with education and experience in the title act disciplines will be able to practice, and to take responsibility for work within their area of expertise.

As an added benefit, fixing this legislation would result in far less confusion, among engineers and the public. It must be very difficult for all concerned in California to understand who can and cannot do what. In other states, it is far simpler. Professional engineers practice within their areas of competence.

Like civil engineers, California title act engineers generally are educated in engineering programs accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET. Like civil engineers, California title act engineers are rigorously examined through the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam and the Principles and Practice of Engineering Exam, issued by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. In all other states, duly qualified engineers of the disciplines that are California title act disciplines are qualified to practice as professional engineers and are regulated as such.

Legislation to fix this dysfunctional licensure system has been opposed for years by the California Professional Engineers in Government (a public employees’ union of Cal Trans and other public agency employees) and the American Council of Engineering Companies, California, and in recent testimony by a lobbyist representing California members of the American Society of Civil Engineers. They made an attempt to explain their opposition at a recent state senate hearing, which can be viewed on YouTube here.

Some of the opposition testimony is disturbingly misleading and directly contradicted by correct testimony from a group of engineering deans. Much of the opposition, for years, has stemmed from the one time grandfathering of a small number of title act engineers without a PE exam requirement in the 1970s when some of these title act disciplines were initially established. Those small numbers of engineers are now predominantly in their 70s and 80s, and many are not practicing. At this point in time, this issue appears to be a ruse.

It is time for professional engineers in California, and those who retain the services of professional engineers, to speak out and encourage that the licensure system be fixed. Doing so is clearly in the interest of protecting public health and safety in California.

This item has been reviewed and edited by L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE; Bernard R. Berson, P.E., P.L.S., F.NSPE; and Ken Discenza, P.E., president, California Society of Professional Engineers.

The author is a Fellow of NSPE and ACEC, a Distinguished Member of ASCE, a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, the Chair of the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee, and a member of the ABET Board of Directors. The opinions expressed herein are his own and do not reflect the views of any of these organizations.

Is Climate Change Real?

Brad Aldrich, P.E., F.NSPE — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:54:00 GMT

Is climate change real? There are a number of sound arguments for and against the concept of climate change resulting from global warming. I, for one, have been a bit of a skeptic, but if you’ve read any of my earlier blog postings, you’ve heard me say, “Regardless, we know we can do better.”

That said, I recently reflected on the year that just passed in my home state of Vermont. In May, my hometown of Montpelier suffered some of the worst flooding that we’ve seen in years. The flooding rivaled the worst flooding we would see in the early spring when the ice melt would cause ice jams restricting flow and causing flooding. What happened in May? Early in the evening one night, a thunderstorm came through. Not unusual except for the fact that it kept going for 6-8 hours. The rain was steady and hard, accompanied by loud claps of thunder and lightning for a full 6-8 hours. While we do get steady rains, it is very unusual to have a thunderstorm last for more than 20-30 minutes.

If you’ve followed Hurricane Irene, you’re aware that much of Vermont was devastated as the tropical storm dropped 6”-12” of rain sporadically throughout the state. The flooding wreaked havoc on many communities, and several people lost their lives. This was the worst state-wide flooding since the 1927.

Now in the middle of January, we’ve finally got a cold snap and some snow. Ski resorts have had some success making snow to keep open, but temperatures have hovered above freezing through most of December, and what little snow that fell was followed with rain, washing all the snow away. Last year was the snowiest on record. We had substantial snow cover all winter long. 2011 was also the wettest on record. Now as we turn the corner to 2012, I wonder where all the snow went. Is there something to this global warming and climate change? I don’t know for sure, but I’m really beginning to wonder.

The Engineer's Standard of Care: Part 2

Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:43:00 GMT

Last week’s blog posting was a brief introduction to the standard of care. It noted that the standard of care doctrine applies to engineers, unless voluntarily relinquished by agreeing to provide a client with an express warranty or guarantee of something exceeding “services rendered with the degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by a reputable equivalent professional practicing under similar circumstances, at the given time and in a similar location.”

An express warranty or guarantee specifies an outcome. Say an engineer was presented with an owner's contract that says the plans and specifications will be "suitable for the use intended by the Owner"—an admirable, but often unattainable goal. Signing the contract would mean the engineer agreed to perform better than a reputable equivalent professional practicing under similar circumstances; and the engineer would have essentially guaranteed the project’s outcome. What if there are unforeseen conditions, or a labor strike, or if a regulation is enacted that adversely affects the project? Can the owner say that you breached the contract? Probably. Can the engineer lose such a suit? Maybe. Will the engineer’s professional liability carrier make an indemnity payment? Probably not. Will you survive as a firm? I hope so.

To those unfamiliar with risk avoidance, there are some words—words used in everyday life—that design professionals should be wary of, even if they don't sound too harsh. If any of these words appear in the owner's contract, object. And don't ever put them in your proposals or contracts. I wouldn't even use them in letters or promotional material, unless they are very explicit as to the scope of meaning. What are some of the words on the alert list?

all
every
insure
ensure
represent
warrant
guarantee
declare
certify
highest
complete
fit for the intended purpose
accurate...
and others.

What would be an example of an engineering-type express warranty? How about "Engineer will perform all work necessary to obtain a major subdivision Planning Board Approval." If an engineer signed a contract with this language, the engineer would be making an express warranty, even though he or she knows that approval cannot be guaranteed. The engineer really should have agreed only to "perform services generally required for application to the Planning Board for subdivision."

Although most engineers strive to furnish adequate services with successful outcomes for their clients, engineers must recognize and understand the concept of standard of care. It is a powerful common-law defense. It is foolish to relinquish a universally accepted concept because you just didn't know how to avoid express warranties or guarantees in the contract language.

NSPE position statement 1750 covers guarantee/warranty provisions and other contractual provisions that attempt to shift risk to the engineer from the parties in the best position to assume those risks.

The Engineer’s Standard of Care: Part 1

Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:37:00 GMT

The common-law standard of care doctrine is an essential concept that must be grasped and applied as the cornerstone of risk management for engineers. It holds that an engineer has a duty to perform professional services to a degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by a reputable equivalent professional practicing under similar circumstances, at the given time and in a similar location.

Courts do not expect perfection. In order to prove an engineer is negligent, a plaintiff must prove that he or she did not perform services with the degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by a reputable equivalent professional practicing under similar circumstances, at the given time and in a similar location. That is a time-honored principle of common law.

Differing from professional negligence is strict liability, applied largely to manufacturers, or commercial transactions. Common law expects purchasers and users of products and goods to be able to rely on them to function reliably and safely. This standard is relatively unforgiving of flaws or defects that cause injury or damages.

The standard of care doctrine applies to engineers, unless voluntarily relinquished by agreeing to provide a client with an express warranty or guarantee of something exceeding “services rendered with the degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by a reputable equivalent professional practicing under similar circumstances, at the given time and in a similar location.”

Owner prepared documents, especially purchase orders, frequently are designed to give the owner ultimate protection, i.e., a guaranteed outcome. Purchase orders are most threatening because they are often issued for small projects with insufficient remuneration to justify attorney review. Furthermore, they generally apply to the purchase of products, which are expected to be furnished in accordance with common-law principles of strict liability.

If a design professional enters into such a contract, the standard of care doctrine may have been waived, with consequences detrimental to any future litigation. Furthermore, it may void professional liability insurance coverage, if litigation is based upon breach of warranty or guarantee. Professional liability insurance policies conventionally exclude coverage for breach of express warranty or guarantee. PLI carriers expect insureds to practice within the standard of care.

If you are sued for negligence, your attorney and expert will spend a good deal of time examining your performance against the standard of care. The standard of care won’t provide protection, however, if you have provided a guarantee or warrantee upon which the matter is based.

Stay tuned for Part 2 next week.

Read “Upholding the Standard of Care” in the January/February 2011 issue of PE magazine.

Appearance Does Count

Christian Knutson, P.E., PMP — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:54:00 GMT

Regardless of how you want to slice it, your appearance plays a part in how you are received by those looking at you. I realize this may be a taboo topic, but I’ll venture into it nonetheless. In your business, the business of life or career, how you present yourself will directly impact what you achieve.

As engineers, those with whom we interact expect a certain, as my wife puts it, “engineer-like appearance.” I know what she means. Conservative, organized, put-together. Perhaps not a pocket-protector, but definitely clean-cut and, as the British say, “smart.” Why is this? Because people expect an engineer to be conservative, trustworthy, and managers of risk. We wouldn’t feel right committing our life savings to a bank where everyone wears cut-offs and T-shirts or working with a gym trainer who smokes heavily. The reason why is that we expect specific types of people, bankers or physical trainers, to look and act a certain way. This is neither right nor wrong, it just is.

I won’t suggest you begin wearing tailored suits, high-gloss shoes, and a conservative haircut from today onwards. I will suggest, however, that you take a look at who you work with, who your clients are, who you serve, and what’s expected of you and attire yourself appropriately. If you work for an avant-garde firm, then spiking your hair and wearing primary colors might work. But for the rest of us, adjusting our appearance to fit what is expected is not only smart, it’s good business. In a similar fashion, if you are a subcontractor or consultant, perhaps you should take your cue from those you are working with. On the other hand, if you have a style that is not acceptable to the client or customer, you need to be willing to lose that work, because sometimes appearance does count.

What Engineers Can Learn From Steve Jobs

Austin Lin — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:30:00 GMT

Of the many things Steve Jobs will be remembered for, his view on how design aesthetics, creativity, and technology should be closely interwoven has particular resonance for engineers.

In expounding upon how the arts and humanities were closely bound to the technical engineering demands at Apple, Jobs emphasized the foundational attainment of innovation through the balance of technological mastery with design mastery. In Walter Isaacson’s biography of the Apple co-founder, Jobs shared this insight:

“Edwin Land of Polaroid talked about the intersection of the humanities and science. I like that intersection. There’s something magical about that place…I think great artists and great engineers are similar, in that they both have a desire to express themselves. In fact some of the best people working on the original Mac were poets and musician on the side…. Great artists like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo were also great at science. Michelangelo knew a lot about how to quarry stone, not just how to be a sculptor.”

Engineers may be the stonecutters of the modern era, but also knowledgeable in the molecular makeup of stone, the patterns of the stone, the resulting effects when some structures are made from particular types of stone. But it will take crossing comfortably and copiously over the boundaries between science and the arts to realize this: There is no boundary.

Mathematicians speak of elegant solutions versus a snarled mash of force-fitted derivations. Computer engineers and programmers speak of elegance in how a particular algorithm is composed and articulated versus the jagged methods of brute force coding. In seeking the humane, engineers also seek out elegance in how problems of society can be improved or altogether reinvented by the engineering aesthetic. There is beauty in the harmony resulting from the integrated equations, structures, and functionalities in a work of engineering.

Struggles with maintaining the equal converging flowrates of the humanities and the sciences continue to exist to this day. Engineering is present at the design phase, but also in the unknown, unseen execution phase. Take an Apple iPod or MacBook as examples of such a convergence of the engineering and design aesthetic.

The end user may notice the physical, minimalistic beauty in an iPod’s form and color or the intuitive fashion in which menus and playlists are navigated. To bring that industrial design icon to life also requires the software design underlying its inner workings, the CNC machines used to shape its metallic shell, the programming constructed just right in the CAD software. Consider also the assembly line upon which the components of that iPod were built, incubated. Consider that same assembly line’s deliberate orchestration of programmable logic controllers, quality engineering, and mechanical engineering. Consider even beyond that, the graphic design, the novels, the plays, the business plans composed upon a MacBook’s keyboard when such an aesthetic is itself used recursively as a tool propagating further creation. It is on account of all these forces and more—design, engineering, art and beyond working collaboratively—that the cumulative elegance of the device is ferried from its inception as a Platonic ideal into a domain of tangible reality.

Anecdotes of Jobs taking long walks with individuals to discuss ideas are part of Silicon Valley legend. Such a means of peripatetic thinking out loud, debating, discussing, creating, was Jobs’s preferred mode of expounding his creative vision on the world around him and with the creators he partnered with.

Perhaps it is on these well worn foot-trails in the Palo Alto hills where we may also be able to walk—engineering, science, art, and design, all in step.

Perhaps we will discover someplace new.

PEs Not Mentioned in Deepwater Report

NSPE — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:52:00 GMT

The National Academy of Engineering’s final report on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster from April 2010 does not specifically list oversight from professional engineers as a potential safeguard for future rig operations.

It does, however, call for independent oversight from qualified parties on many aspects of rig safety, equipment, and operations. The offshore drilling industry should also establish an effective safety culture to prevent future potential disasters.

Paul Bommer, P.E., a member of the Academy’s panel, said that, because each state licenses engineers and the qualifications and privileges for PEs vary from state to state, it would be difficult to endorse PE oversight generally for what is a federally regulated endeavor.

Donald Winter, chairman of the committee and former Secretary of the Navy, said the panel endorsed oversight similar to that in the United Kingdom, where independent well examiners oversee certain aspects of offshore drilling. Those overseers are sometimes chartered engineers, though the title is not required. The panel favored endorsing independent oversight rather than limiting oversight to a specific group.

You can access the report and other documents related to the investigation on the NAE’s Web site.

Fracking, Coal Tar Sands, and Wind

Brad Aldrich, P.E., F.NSPE — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:22:00 GMT

The debate concerning the environmental impacts of “fracking,” the process of injecting water under pressure to release natural gas buried underground is making all the headlines lately. There are significant questions concerning environmental impacts of this practice that should be taken into account on a case-by-case basis, as the issues and risks at one site may be quite different than another. (Read the Anthony Ingraffea, P.E., article in PE magazine.)

The proposed Keystone pipeline from Canada to Texas to transfer coal tar sands for refining has also been front page news, the cause for protests outside the White House and partisan debate in Congress.

In both cases the concerns raised by the environmental community are legitimate, but what is lacking is any effort to weigh risks against rewards. In both arguments it seems like an “either or” argument.

In Vermont, the same could be said for citing wind turbines on our ridgelines. Everyone supports renewable energy, but many argue that the environmental damage created to construct roadways and power lines to these remote locations isn’t worth the energy generated.

What’s missing in each of these deliberations is a logical and impartial risk assessment weighed against the benefits. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The engineering community, with the knowledge, training, and innate ability to weigh risks against benefits, needs to get involved in each of these debates to be the “voice of reason.”

Name an energy efficiency initiative that doesn’t have an environmental impact. As long as we allow the debate to be dumbed down, where no environmental impact is acceptable, we won’t advance real solutions to improve the quality of our lives including the environment we live in.

How a Mentoring Relationship Can Fail

Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:59:00 GMT

By Bernie Berson, P.E., F.NSPE

While mentoring is widely recognized as a valuable career asset for mentees and mentors alike, there are several potentially negative factors that can diminish or actually destroy the relationship. Normally, the problematic issues will arise early in the relationship. Both parties should be aware of potential problems. Should anything be perceived by either party, it should be addressed and rectified, if possible, or the relationship should be quietly and respectfully terminated.

Here are just a few potential difficulties that can arise:

Unattained expectations: Mentees may have entered into a relationship anticipating more from a mentor than is realistic. A mentor cannot be a “King Solomon” to the mentee, nor should he/she be expected to champion the mentee’s ascent within the firm. The mentee needs to realize that the manner in which he/she implements the guidance from the mentor is the mentee’s sole responsibility. On the other hand, the mentor must maintain objectivity, and remember that the guidance furnished is not mandatory for the mentee to implement. The mentor cannot assume “ownership” of the mentee’s career development, nor should a mentor expect vicarious satisfaction through a mentee’s behavior.
Confidentiality violations: It has been noted in other blog entries that confidentiality is a paramount duty in a Mentoring relationship. If ever either party “leaks” information about guidance given by the Mentor, or sought by the Mentee, the severity of that breach is sufficient to terminate the relationship.
Personality issues: Although it is important at the outset of a mentoring relationship to explore personality similarities and differences between the parties, it may not be immediately apparent that irreconcilable character or value differences could provide rough going for the relationship. If the mentee and mentor are not comfortable with each other because of such characteristics, it would be wise to recognize that and terminate the relationship.

The message here is that while we have urged the formation of mentoring relationships as part of the toolkit for overall personal and professional development, the formation of long-term mentoring relationships requires a good bit of sensitivity to the potential for fallout in the future. Even wise selections may go awry. Continuing a malfunctioning mentoring relationship can be extremely harmful. Both parties need to rise to the occasion if bad vibes arise because of the areas mentioned, or any other area. Faith and trust are essential ingredients for the relationship to be as fully beneficial as hoped, and the parties should not be reluctant to broach discussion to clear the air.

Bernie Berson, P.E., F.NSPE, is a member of NSPE's Mentoring Task Force.

New Resources on Professional Liability Insurance

Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:06:00 GMT

Every fall, NSPE's Professional Liability Committee conducts interviews of professional liability insurance (“PLI”) carriers at its meeting in Chicago. The interviews, conducted with AIA and ACEC, are guided by a questionnaire that provides consistency to the information gathering process. The results are collated, and survey highlights are published in the December issue of PE magazine. You can also access the complete survey results on the NSPE Web site.

The results and the directory will give NSPE members an opportunity to compare the products and services of 16 competing PLI carriers. If you are a member who is involved with PLI decision-making at your firm, this will be very helpful. If you are not, it is a perfect opportunity for you to help your firm's management by pointing out the information in this blog post.

Engineers at Risk: New Blog

Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:07:00 GMT

Welcome to the NSPE’s Professional Liability and Risk Management Blog. As a service to NSPE members and others interested in these issues, this blog will present an ongoing look at PL/RM, with input from the Society’s Professional Liability Committee.

Although not every employed engineer is required to make decisions about risk management practices, theories of professional negligence, or malpractice, these are major issues for all engineering organizations. The litigious nature of business in the U.S. continues to hover over the operations of all such organizations.

Through education and experience (often through trial and error, sometimes through participation in defending serious claims), engineers can expand their knowledge in these matters. It is the intent of this blog to offer useful information that will help in the education process.

Readers are welcome to post responses for all entries. It must be noted that the blog postings are informational, and are, by nature of the briefness of such postings, not to be considered exhaustive or authoritative. They are intended to acquaint readers with important issues and promote further investigation.

The information posted on this blog is solely for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute the practice of law or legal advice. For legal advice, consult competent legal counsel as necessary.

A Gift for the Engineering Profession

NSPE — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:19:00 GMT

The holidays are a time of reflection and thoughts of how we all can help our fellow human beings.

The most important professions include not only those who excel at the technical aspects of their craft, but who also measure their impact on society. We were reminded of that when we spoke with the heads of four engineering societies in November. When asked what gift they would give to engineering this holiday season, their wishes may as well have been identical: Share your engineering expertise outside the lab or construction site to make our world a better, safer place.

Listen to Carl Mack, executive director of the National Society of Black Engineers; Victoria Rockwell, president, American Society of Mechanical Engineers; Ron Jarnagin, president, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers; and Chris Stone, P.E., F.NSPE, president of NSPE tell you their holiday wishes in their own words with this PE Podcast. You can also read their responses in “Variables” on p. 40 of the December 2011 issue of PE.

Happy Holidays!

Supporting Your Boss

Christian Knutson, P.E., PMP — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:06:00 GMT

Unless you’re self-employed, you have a boss. Perhaps no other relationship is more important to get right than the one you hold with your boss. This is the person who will give you tasks, give you direction, and in the end give you performance ratings. This is also the person who can give you opportunities to grow, challenging assignments, and a wide latitude to perform with limited control. However, you’ll only receive these gifts through the establishment of trust, a record of performance, and communication.

Your boss has a lot of demands. Between fulfilling the expectations of their numerous bosses (their immediate boss, clients, shareholders, and so on), accomplishing their work, meetings, phone calls, and e-mail, their time is limited. When they interact with you on the tasks they’ve given you, they expect to see well-reasoned responses and solutions, not half-baked ideas and more problems. To gain the latitude you desire in your position, along with the challenging opportunities and good performance ratings, you need to fulfill their expectations. You need to deliver logical solutions, apply well-reasoned processes, and offer answers to problems. When you do this, you provide material from which your boss can make decisions and provide direction. And you don’t waste their time.

When starting out in a new position, you don’t have all of the answers. You do, however, have logical thought-processes learned in college or from previous positions. Apply these, then listen to the questions your boss asks and the suggestions they provide. From this, adjust your processes for providing information and solutions to your boss. Each person is different in how they consume information, approach problems, and make decisions. Pay attention early in your new position to observe how your boss makes decisions, then adjust accordingly.

In the end, it’s a part of your job to get along with your boss. The best way to accomplish this, while simultaneously gaining the latitude to operate freely, opportunities for advancement, and strong performance ratings, is to fulfill their expectations and make their job of decision-making on the material you present easy. Do this, and you’ll support your boss marvelously.

Licensure of Engineering R&D Principal Investigators

Craig Musselman, P.E., F.NSPE — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:47:00 GMT

Many in the engineering licensure community have for decades bemoaned the fact that the percentage of engineering faculty licensed as professional engineers has been declining. This continuing trend is due to a variety of factors, outlined in a previous article. A new, and brilliant, idea is coming to the fore, which may serve to reverse this trend in the long term.

The NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee recently adopted a proposed NSPE position statement advocating that funding agencies and state licensing boards require principal investigators of R&D projects that constitute engineering, in whole or in part, and potentially impact public health, safety, and welfare, either in and of itself as an R&D project or in its subsequent application, be licensed professional engineers.

This position statement does not apply to R&D grants and contracts that involve only science, rather than engineering. Basic (or fundamental) research needs to be under the responsible charge of the best scientists. The position statement provides a broad definition of basic research, as well as engineering research and development. This is a fine line that needs to be interpreted by grant agencies on a case-by-case basis.

Research agencies look more and more positively on the formation of interdisciplinary research teams, consisting of researchers, or co-principal investigators, with backgrounds in various fields pertinent to the research topics. The proposed NSPE position is that research teams should include principal investigators who are licensed professional engineers in the engineering disciplines involved. As an example, a team researching a specific computer engineering application potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare might include PEs in the fields of computer engineering, software engineering, and/or electrical engineering, in addition to scientists and/or computer scientists, as appropriate. This is the way many research teams are currently constituted. The proposed position statement simply advocates that those principal investigators addressing matters of engineering include a licensed professional engineer as a team member and as a principal investigator.

For state licensing boards, this may be an interesting prospect. It may not require a statute change, and it may not require a rules change. The practice of engineering is defined in each state statute or in the rules, typically in broad terms as the application of science and mathematics in a manner that impacts public health, safety, and welfare. There are two tests there. First, is an activity engineering, rather than science? Note the exclusion of basic or fundamental research in NSPE’s position statement. Second, does it potentially impact public health, safety, and welfare? If the answer to both questions is yes, then the state licensure requirements apply, and a license as a professional engineer is required by law to practice engineering in that fashion. This can be interpreted to apply to engineering research and development projects, depending on the specific language in each state statute and rules. A phase-in or transition of this requirement would be reasonable, but it may be that the current statute and rules allow this interpretation.

The engineering licensure requirements are not intended to apply necessarily to all members of a research team—just to an engineer as a principal investigator in each discipline involved. There is no intent to preclude from research teams scientists, mathematicians, or post-doctoral researchers who are not yet licensed; the intent is to include PEs in the disciplines involved on the research team.

This is, in my view, a brilliant idea. It is doable. It makes sense. It is in the public interest. A rationale can be made to research funding agencies that this is consistent with state requirements and in the public interest. And it could serve in the long run as a significant incentive for researchers and faculty to become licensed as professional engineers.

Editorial input has been provided by Bernard R. Berson, P.E., F.NSPE; L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE; and Kirankumar V. Topudurti, Ph.D., P.E., F.NSPE.

The author is a Fellow of NSPE and ACEC, a Distinguished Member of ASCE, a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, the Chair of the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee, and a member of the ABET Board of Directors. The opinions expressed herein are his own and do not reflect the views of any of these organizations.

E-mail Etiquette

Christian Knutson, P.E., PMP — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:52:00 GMT

An effective skill in any undertaking, well-honed e-mail etiquette is vitally important to the engineer. By the nature of our work, we communicate with many people every day. It’s a necessity for proceeding forward on a design, securing approval for a phase of work from a boss or client, winning the hearts and minds of a community on a new development, or asking for advice. The manner and format in which we convey, or request, information has a direct correlation to the manner, and format, in which we receive responses.

One way to gain experience on the best e-mail etiquette is to make mistakes. This will undoubtedly happen in your career. However, I offer the following tips to limit the number of those mistakes you’ll make:

Be clear. Nothing gets an idea across better than being very clear on why the e-mail was sent. Right up front, state what’s needed. For many people using e-mail readers, they may have one or two lines revealed, so by stating your “bottom line up front” at the start, they’ll see your request immediately.

The 2-4-2 rule. A very simple formula to keep e-mails concise and to the point is to apply the “2-4-2” rule: 2 sentences in the first paragraph, 4 in the second, 2 in the closing paragraph. I first learned this from a general I worked for a number of years ago and have used it ever since. It’s effective in eliminating verbosity and conveying the meat of an issue. By the way...it works great for letters as well.

Don’t write anything you wouldn’t say openly. E-mail is a great way to communicate to many people. It’s also a great way to have your message transmitted to others whom you may never have intended to communicate with. Unless you’re certain that the people with whom you’re communicating will not pass along sensitive information, do not put it in an e-mail. Use the phone.

Validate the audience. We’ve all been copied on messages with which we have no involvement. Someone along the way decided you might care, so they added you to the “CC:” line. Know that you don’t like it when it happens to you, don’t do it to others. Always skim the “To:” and “CC:” lines to ensure those on the e-mail need to be.

Fear the send button. Franklin Roosevelt told the world that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” I agree, but only with the addition of fearing the send button. Before you hit send, ensure you’ve proofread your e-mail for grammar and spelling; checked the “To:” and “CC:” lines to ensure the right audience is included; added attachments (if any); and verified the format and content conveys thoughts coherently. Once you hit send, your message has been conveyed. Ensure always that the message you want sent is sent.

Signature blocks. Keep these concise and professional. It’s my opinion, but quotes, sports logos, or any nonprofessional/relevant imagery is a distraction. As well as inappropriate in business e-mail.

You’ll still make mistakes in e-mail. However, by following these hints you can limit the number of times you frantically seek the recall option in your e-mail program.

P.E. = Political Engineer?

Brad Aldrich, P.E., F.NSPE — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:21:00 GMT

The engineers in my office often joke that the designation “PE” also stands for political engineer, as most of our clients are municipalities and we frequently need to navigate the sometimes unpredictable whims of elected and appointed officials. I bet that every PE can relate to this sentiment in some fashion in his/her own work experience, regardless of who the client is. Those of us who’ve been in the business for some time have become rather adroit at navigating these sometimes rough waters. This begs the question, “Why don’t more engineers seek public office?”

Watching what appears to be the failure of Congress’ “Super Committee” to answer the charge of finding significant deficit reductions prior to a Thanksgiving Day deadline, I can’t help believing that a few engineers on the committee would have delivered a compromise solution to meet the stated goal, instead of enabling automatic cuts to programs, because Congress is unwilling (or unable) to make the tough choices.

Theodore Roosevelt said, “The best thing you can do is the right thing. The second best thing you can do is the wrong thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing.” As America is faced with a struggling economy, high unemployment, and a serious dissatisfaction with Washington politics, now is the time for us to raise our voices and demand common sense approaches to bring our country back from the brink. PEs are problem solvers by nature and training. We tend to be dispassionate and apolitical in our decision-making as well, which is probably just what is needed today to deal with the serious issues we face. I hope you join me by contacting your congressional delegation, and demanding common sense and action. This is no time for party politics. We face serious issues that require thoughtful deliberation and debate that leads to action. To do nothing is not an acceptable response.

NSPE Working for You: Withholding Tax Repeal

NSPE — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:19:00 GMT

The House last night passed the Senate-amended version of H.R. 674 by a vote of 422 to 0, ending a protracted battle to repeal an onerous tax-withholding mandate that would place significant financial and administrative burdens on engineering firms that contract with the government. The bill now heads to the president's desk, where he is expected to sign it into law. (Note: H.R. 674 was later signed into law by President Obama on 11/21/11.)

H.R. 674 would repeal Section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (PL 109-222), which requires federal, state, and certain local governments to withhold as tax 3% of all payments made to government contractors. The withholding mandate was intended to prevent tax cheating by government contractors but would have punished honest, tax-paying citizens as well as those delinquent in their taxes. If not repealed, the mandate would have taken effect on January 1, 2013.

The requirement would have been especially hard on engineering firms, whose profit margin on government contracts is often less than 3%. Firms would eventually have been able to recoup their expenses, but not until the end of the tax year, causing cash flow problems and costing professional engineers the vital funds they need to conduct business.

Since the tax law’s passage in 2006, NSPE has been working with the Government Withholding Relief Coalition and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to repeal the withholding mandate. The GWRC and NSPE sent five letters to Congress over the month alone urging H.R. 674’s passage. NSPE also sent a letter to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI-4) in support of the repeal.

In addition to NSPE’s advocacy of H.R. 674, NSPE members responded to an NSPE Legislative Action Center alert asking them to contact their senators in support of the bill. Your grassroots efforts helped build a critical mass of opinion that ensured the bill passed the Senate, ultimately enabling its success.

NSPE is grateful to Reps. Wally Herger (R-CA-2) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3) and Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA) and David Vitter (R-LA) for spearheading the legislative effort; Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI-4) and Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI-12) for their leadership in the Ways and Means Committee; Speaker John Boehner (R-OH-8), Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA-7), and Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-22) for putting the withholding repeal on the House’s agenda; and Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for advocating repeal in the Senate.

This legislative victory demonstrates that together, professional engineers can make a difference.

Introducing the Career Engineering Roadmap

Austin Lin — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:44:00 GMT

Around me was a backdrop of pirate ships, crystal-clad dancers, and LED arrays lighting the glass facades of steel towers sparkling with the reflections of taxis, storefront signs, and digital camera flashes. One couldn’t have hoped for a more visually energetic scene, hued in reds, blues, purples, and incandescent yellows, to talk the depth and breadth of the influence of the engineering profession and the multifarious career paths within it that made such sensory spectacles possible. The reach of engineers was further emphasized by the ubiquitous proliferation of every day experiences touched by technological innovation. Even in an electric oasis like Las Vegas, a place typically centered more on probability than on deterministic resolve, engineering is here, everywhere.

This past July at the NSPE Annual Meeting in Las Vegas, thanks to a lot of hard work by the Professional Engineers in Private Practice Young Engineers Advisory Council (PEPP-YEAC) Chair Carlos Gittens and his team, I had the opportunity to present a new career development initiative at the NSPE Young Engineers Forum. With the support of the PEPP YE team and the University of Nevada–Las Vegas NSPE Student Chapter, I shared a preview of the Career Engineering Roadmap (CER), a program aimed at career strategies for emerging engineering professionals.

Conceived first as an idea within the walls of my home NSPE section, the Connecticut Society of Professional Engineers, the foundational ideas of the CER were further developed through phone calls to NSPE offices in Alexandria, Virginia, while I was traveling throughout China and Korea on business, and then reimagined and redesigned during my tenure as chair of the Professional Engineers in Industry’s Young Engineers Advisory Council. Now over two years later, and after much input from the PEI executive board, I couldn’t be more excited to formally launch the first phase of the Career Engineering Roadmap later this month in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins University.

The Career Engineering Roadmap aims to promote the vast possibilities of career development opportunities for those with an engineering background. Designed as a 90-minute seminar targeted at junior and senior engineering undergraduates and emerging young engineering professionals, the program aims to map out the career choices of emerging engineers using three key principles:

CER Principle 1 - Engineering is more than a degree. Engineering is a way of thinking.
CER Principle 2 – Engineering is a foundational skill-set, providing multifaceted career choices, including those outside the realm of traditional engineering disciplines.
CER Principle 3 – Engineering is a career path that can be planned and strategized. Individuals with engineering skills are empowered with the capability and the agility to adapt to the changing needs of the contemporary global economy.

In a recent news conference, U.S. Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu declared, “We need engineers. We need scientists. This is going to be at the heart of how the United States is going to remain competitive.”

This will be true not just for the engineering students entering engineering careers, but also for any individuals progressing through their early to mid-stage careers using technical and scientific thought processes as engines of innovation, locally and internationally. The objective of the Career Engineering Roadmap is to provide emerging engineers with a strategic framework within which such mechanisms can be honed.

The strategic importance of a country’s competitiveness—economic, technological or otherwise—begins with the aggregate competitiveness of its individuals. The ubiquity of the profession’s reach has already established the destinations to be ventured toward; the Career Engineering Roadmap strives to be the compass rose for that direction setting therein, from Alexandria to Seoul, from to Shanghai to Las Vegas and beyond.

Stay tuned for an NSPE Web seminar on this subject in the spring.