Not an engineer and don't want to be

I have an education in science, mathematics and technology. I can plan, design, analyse, evaluate, and manage both established technologies and new technologies.  But I am not an engineer, nor am I an engineering technologist, an engineering associate or engineering technician. I don't have an occupational title, I don't need one, and I don't want one. People who get sought by occupation rather than by name, are expendable and replaceable.

I have always considered the new age things called "engineers" to be less than competent, that their knowledge lacked breadth, and that rather than solving problems they implemented technical solutions. Unfortunately the technical solutions were not the proper solutions to the real problem, and thus they are responsible for creating problems in our world: not solving them.

Equally well, Engineers Australia and WFEO can take their concepts of engineering technologist and engineering technician and keep them to themselves. They can choose what to call themselves, but they have no right to assign occupational titles to others. These organisations are hampering the progress of technology and societies ability to solve the world's problems.

We need people with ingenuity, people who can plan, design, and manage, we do not need members of professional cults, nor people whose desire is to align themselves with such cults.

Engineering takes place at the frontiers of science and technology. Engineering is not about adapting established technologies to be suitable for a specific purpose: such activity is simply rational scientific based design, or technical design. Where technical is typically replaced by reference to the technology being designed such as: structural design, bridge design, mechanical design.

At the very minimum engineering requires developing new technology at the same time as developing a rational scientific methodology for its design and developing the method of assessment of the design. Since there is no prior art, prototypes have to be built and tested in a controlled environment to verify and validate, the science and the design models. There is a high risk of failure.

In some situations the technology exists but there is no rational scientific method to allow adapting the technology for some specific purpose. Developing this design method in the process of adapting  the technology can be considered engineering. (Using FEA/FEM software is not engineering.)

Developing new technology based on the established technical sciences is not engineering. Carrying out routine technical tests is not engineering. For example, a beam is a generic technology, it can be employed in a multitude of larger technologies not yet invented, inventing those technologies is not engineering. We do not expect failure, we expect the technologies to perform as required. We can design and evaluate the technologies entirely on paper, in the abstract. Though we may need to collect data from some routine testing, to complete our assessment. We may build prototypes and test them, but not to validate the science, but rather to verify we didn't miss anything. Also to check if the whole is different than the sum of the parts, and calibrate the mathematical models if needed.

At the simplest if a technology is described in published literature along with appropriate technical science, then its design is not engineering: the engineering is complete, the engineering is over, the engineering has been done already.

1. EWB Australia | Redefining Engineering - YouTube
2. The Most Successful People Explain Why a College Degree is USELESS - YouTube
3. Inspiring the next generation of female engineers | Debbie Sterling | TEDxPSU - YouTube
4. Are engineers human? | Patricia Galloway | TEDxManhattanBeach - YouTube
5. How Much Math do Engineers Use? (College Vs Career) - YouTube
6. What is Engineering?: Crash Course Engineering #1 - YouTube
7. Civil Engineering: Crash Course Engineering #2 - YouTube
8. Mechanical Engineering: Crash Course Engineering #3 - YouTube
9. Ending poverty - what engineers can do: James Trevelyan at TEDxPerth - YouTube
10. Re-Engineering Engineering Education: Stephan Athan at TEDxUF - YouTube
11. TEDxUIUC - David E. Goldberg - 7 Missing Basics of Engineering - YouTube
12. Why We Need Engineers Now More Than Ever | Elanor Huntington | TEDxSydney - YouTube
13. We can end poverty, but this is why we haven't | Teva Sienicki | TEDxMileHighWomen - YouTube
14. How do the poor see life? Uneducated, not stupid | Rajen Makhijani | TEDxNTU
15. The interesting story of our educational system | Adhitya Iyer | TEDxCRCE - YouTube

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[24/02/2019] : Original
[26/02/2019] : Expanded content
[25/03/2019] : rephrased
[10/04/2019] : Minor Edits
[17/05/2019] : Added more description

Engineers Australia : on wrong track.

Light bulb moment! That's why I don't like Engineers Australia's activities. The institution of engineers Australia (IEAust), basically became a full commercial trading company: Engineers Australia. It is basically in the business of selling post nominal detritus.

The IEAust is not a learned society. A learned society is curator, guardian and disseminator of learning.

The IEAust rightly recognised that the B.Eng was not adequate indicator of competence, it also recognised that MIEAust had lost its reliability as an indicator of competence.: further more few people were interested in acquiring. The problem was that many people previously held graduate status for most of their careers, especially those who worked on construction sites. The contention was that those who worked in a design office could easily get site experience, whilst those who worked on site had problems gaining design office experience. Further the contention was that the site experience that those in design office acquired was worthless compared to that acquired by those who worked on site. The problem: a failure to recognise major areas of practice and the specialised knowledge required for these areas. Therefore no one has any real certainty as to whether any individual as the necessary skills for a given job. Jobs are not really civil engineering or mechanical engineering, or any other major engineering discipline.

Rather than tackle the problem, Engineers Australia dreamed up a long string of post nominal detritus: MIEAust CPEng NPER : all totally worthless and meaningless and fails to resolve the original problem. Additionally they absorbed the institute of engineering associates, and introduced the concept of engineering technologist. The technical engineering team of knowledge workers thus expanded from 2 occupational classes to 3. Engineers Australia primarily promotes the occupation of professional engineer and gives scant regard to the rest of the team.

It seems they are expecting the Big Bang or something to give spontaneous existence to engineering technologists, and achieve critical mass or something and form their own group and direct their own occupation. Its a totally stupid idea.

The specification for the engineering team states that there is overlap between the knowledge base of the three occupations. There is not equality, there is not hierarchy. From the specification Engineers do not know anything that engineering associates know, there is no overlap with their knowledge base. Which seems a stupid definition: but that's what those all knowledgeable MIEAust/FIEAust's dreamed up. Having dreamed this up however, they continue to exercise an arrogance that they know more than anybody else, that they are the best, and seemingly the only people society needs. Further more the industrial relations system is set up such that get higher wages based on education and potential of that education, not based on actual contribution to an organisation. The result: get a B.Eng become an Engineer, get higher wages. More nonsense.

Yes there is a shortage of engineers in terms of the traditional meaning of someone pushing forward the frontiers of technology. Yes there is a shortage of competent managers and technical designers. This does not however mean we should set a propaganda machine in motion and churn out people with degrees.

Graduates are not engineers, nor graduate engineers or graduate anything else, they are simply graduates with an education which may or may not have been any value. They are at best technicians part conversant in the use of a variety of mathematical tools and techniques: but not otherwise highly proficient in the use of these tools, nor highly conversant in any given technology to which these tools need to be applied. Industry cannot be relied on to provide the necessary training: more over such on the job training can be an unwarranted hindrance and expense to getting on with the job at hand.

However, it is not the task of an engineer to assess the suitability of a beam, a building or a bridge, or any other established technology. The role of engineer is at the frontiers of science and technology: technologies for which we do not yet have any established body of technical science.

Where we do have a body of established knowledge we can train Associate Technologists (my preferred name for the engineering associates).

No need to bring in any silly post nominal's, no need to split one group of people with a B.Eng from others with a B.Eng. Just a need to pay attention to the design and specification of the engineering team and role of each player. Also a need for many of the professional engineers to stop being derogatory about the competence of engineering associates: because to put it bluntly a large number of MIEAust's are not actually smart enough to know their own limitations and neither competent enough to do the research to expand their knowledge. Why would they? They think they know it all, already.

I attended an introductory chartered workshop a few years back, it put me off the whole idea, just reinforced the view that its all nonsense. It was a mixed group, one of the engineering associates asked if they needed to be able to design a concrete column. The response was an uncertain maybe.

There is no uncertainty about it. The academic studies of an engineering associate covers the design of reinforced concrete beams, columns and slabs. If they work in the structural area then they are expected to design reinforced concrete. Engineering associates are not drafters nor trade technicians. Those engineering associates are spending their own time programming AutoCAD because their jobs are boring them to death, their education is not being used.

The task of Engineers Australia wasn't to cause division and confusion, but to clearly separate education from industry. Just because a person has a B.Eng does not mean that they will ever achieve the on the job training and experience to ever become an MIEAust. But a B.Eng OMIEAust clearly has more potential than a Assoc.Dip OMIEAust. Thus OMIEAust is a first stage stepping stone, not something to be sniffed at with disdain. Further more such stepping stones through OMIEAust to TMIEAust should be the only way to get to MIEAust. If we are to consider there is an hierarchy, then the MIEAust's should have a knowledge base which fully over laps with the lower grades. We want the people pushing the frontiers to be fully conversant with the established technologies and the accepted procedures for proof of concept and evidence of suitability, before they start re-inventing the wheel and place society and the whole planet at risk.

In 2 years we can train engineering associates, and for them 3 years of experience after graduation is probably appropriate for them to become OMIEAust and then CEngO: if really need such post nominal detritus. Similarly in 3 years those with a B.Eng also become OMIEAust. Are they going to choose to do this. No they are not, they will only do this if it is the mandatory stepping stone towards MIEAust. Further they will only consider doing so, if the legislation requires registration on the national engineering associates register( NEAR) in a specific area of practice for submission of engineering work to regulatory authorities.

No legislation should restrict practice or restrict the supply of services. The legislation should merely identify that regulatory authorities do not have time to waste with incomplete submissions and therefore will only accept submissions which have been at least reviewed and endorsed by someone on a national register: depending on the complexity it could reference NEAR, NETR, NPER. But the requirement should be that no higher registration than NEAR is required for 80% of the work. If there is any apparent reduction in this percentage, then the requirements for registration on NEAR should increase, and cascade through to all the other registers. However I contend that very little requires more than 2 years of tertiary education, and that anything that pushes up to requiring NETR in fact requires additional areas of practice to be defined on NEAR and appropriate two year qualifications developed to produce specialisation in this area.

I reiterate, no engineering associate should be educated in the broad area of an engineering discipline, they are to be educated in a specific area of practice: such as storm water drainage, or structural design. However would not expect them to design massive dams, railway bridges or multi-storey buildings greater than 6 storeys high. (3m per storey x 6 storeys = 18m potential supply of steel, without a splice if you're lucky, 12m is more common.)

This is not to say they are not capable, they are most certainly capable of contributing to a significant extent. The issue is that persons with far greater breadth of knowledge should be supervising the design function for more complex technologies. These people with greater breadth of knowledge should also have greater breadth of experience.

I have heard some professional engineers talk about throwing graduates in the deep end. This is all very good as long as it does not cause unwarranted expense to the client or hazard to factory and construction workers, nor create hazard to the community. The deep end is not that of a professional engineer: the deep end for a graduate is that for an engineering associate.

An engineering associate can take project from concept to implementation, the issue is that these projects have little uncertainty and little risk. All the technologies and procedures are established, including those for assessing suitability of purpose and proof of concept. There is little unexpected to turn up.

The unexpected always turns up: and that's because no individual can know everything and few are ever given all the time really required to review all that is needed. So there is always some issue to be resolved working fast on your feet in real time. Further there is hopefully someone who can assist to get out off the trouble because they have been there before and/or know the solution. The alternative is that there is the ideal and there is reality, and no need to get pedantic about process if it doesn't really make much difference: hopefully get it right on the next one. Because until get it right on the simple projects, the individual is not going to be moved to more complex projects, more to the point the business is likely to avoid complex projects, if the simple and predictable keep turning into nightmares.

There are a multitude of small businesses which need to be employing engineering associates on staff so that engineers can get on with the more complex stuff.

In the larger organisations, engineering associates can be taken off drawing boards and allowed to put their education to work typically doing what engineers are currently doing. The engineers can then be freed to put their actual education to work. {Ah! But they want the status without actually using their degree.}

Drafters can be more readily trained. Also people have not necessarily chosen Associate Degrees due to lack of ability, its more likely lack of funds: the need to expend the minimum amount of time to get a ticket to employment, and start earning income. So if got engineering associates on staff, push them, give them opportunity to prove themselves, and assist the best to get higher education., and move up through technologist to engineer. Of course a company has to be doing more than the routine to unleash the potential of graduate engineers.

Also to put it bluntly, in the main industry is better served by people with multiple associate degrees than persons having a single bachelor degree, masters degrees are also of limited value. Its not depth that is sought, it is breadth, and adaptability. Also 2 people with associate degrees can accomplish far more than one person with a bachelor degree in a given time frame on the routine tasks that are typically carried out.


{NB: The problem is that at present too many academic programmes are biased towards the breadth of the engineering disciplines, rather specialist areas of practice. The result is no one is job ready. Engineering Associates should be job ready, only need a few days of supervision to get started, and be up to speed after 12 months on the job. Not interested in what happens. This requirement is the specification, if its not happening then the education needs changing.}

More Irritation with Engineers Australia and APESMA

I thought I had shut down all input from social networks associated with these groups, so that I wouldn't be distracted by their nonsense, but seems I was wrong: some leaked through.

It seems APESMA, the association of professional engineers scientists and managers Australia has created new internal groupings or something, and so Professional Engineers Australia has emerged.

I guess they didn't like resurrecting the original name which was something like: APES. A name which some probably think is an apt description of engineers. It certainly reflects my understanding of the letter 'P'  in CP.Eng. Nearly 5 years they took to dream this post nominal detritus up to improve status: not sure how capitalist profiteer, or cretinous primate, improves status. See once something is released to the market it takes on a whole new live of its own: and since engineers are seen as ignorant of the environment and the consequences of the technologies they release, it is clear that any post nominal dreamed up needs to be such that it does not provide an easy hook into reinforcing the communities negative views. It should be noted I only listed the relatively polite possibilities for CP, I'm sure people can find more interesting expletives to use.

However,  back to the issue, I do not see any value in creating these separatist elitist clique's.

Further the issue of importance is that Engineers Australia sought to redesign the industrial environment, and poorly executed its implementation. It introduced the concept of engineering technologists, without creating an industrial award for such. It ignored the technical officers awards and renamed engineering associates to engineering officers. It further ignored the technical officers awards which placed engineering technicians subordinate to engineering associates and equated engineering associates to WFEO engineering technicians. With the federal system, most of the state awards have been scrapped, and currently there appears to be only one federal award and that is for technical professionals: which doesn't cover the full technical team.

Further in the design of this new industrial environment, it is inappropriate to hold the new members of the engineering team as responsible for creating their own little groups and promoting their occupation. It is meant to be an engineering team, and each member of the team has an identifiable skill set not held by other members. Engineering Associates form the solid foundation on which the pinnacle stands firm, they are essential. The professional engineers and engineering technologists are not essential.

The engineering associates deal with the firmly established technologies, for which the technical science is well established and the risk and uncertainty is extremely low: and they are supposed to be educated in specific areas of practice not broad engineering disciplines. Engineering associates are responsible for the technologies we have and are dependent upon, their body of knowledge defines the frontier of science and technology. Just because a technology was originally designed by an engineer, does not mean that an engineer is needed to redesign apply and adapt that technology.

By promoting occupational cliques and professional elitism, we are eroding the foundation. Further more the resulting professionals are something far less than the learned elite they contend to be.

It also causes industrial relations problems. If work is well within the capabilities of an engineering associate but an engineer typically does the work, then to pass the work over to the engineering associate raises the contention that the engineering associate is doing the work of an engineer and therefore should be paid as such.

On the other hand if the work is with in the capabilities of an engineering associate then the engineer doing the work should be paid as an engineering associate not an engineer, ignoring the potential the B.Eng provides and pay according to their actual contribution not according to their education. This industrial relations system also hampers developing new technologies and then handing over to engineering associates once the technology has been established.

Once a technology is released to the market it will be put to uses far beyond the intents of the designers, and likely have impacts beyond their imaginations. Engineers Australia has basically demonstrated poor planning, design and management skills with respect to the industrial products it is trying market. These human cogs it has defined don't really fit anywhere. Industry is basically being forced to buy what is being supplied rather than what it really needs. But then again it could design and make what it needs: or is there something preventing them from doing so? I'd contend the professions are an obstructive obstacle.

I contend that Engineers Australia is attempting to float a pinnacle in fresh air, rather than stand it on a firm foundation. The contention has been held that some of the big mining and infrastructure projects have failed to launch due to a shortage of engineers.

My contention is they failed to launch due to having eroded the foundation of the engineering team: namely the trades people, the drafters and the engineering associates. These people form the army which makes things happen, engineers have the vision to give them direction and put them to work.

I contend we are creating a society which is top heavy. We should stop promoting professional engineer to school leavers, and instead promote engineering, and get them in at the ground floor. With plenty of opportunity for the best to step up the ranks towards professional engineer.

At present the professional engineers, the CP.Eng's are less than the learned people they contend to be.

That has a two fold effect. One is that industry has no faith in CP.Eng as a reliable indicator of technical competence, and therefore will not select employees on the basis of such accreditation over and above any other qualifications. Secondly persons not having CP.Eng credentials, don't see those with CP.Eng as being competent, and therefore see no reason to join such class of individuals.

In fact it can work the other way round. Clients themselves having got some rubbish from a CP.Eng go looking for a real engineer: that usually means older engineers and/or engineers with overseas qualifications. People who actually gained experience working on serious projects, under the supervision of a properly qualified individual, and who then went through some relevant qualification process for their discipline. The CP.Eng credential is based on some generic rubbish, and is an unreliable test of technical competence: it is based on far too great an assumption that the competence comes from the B.Eng: the required technical competence never has come from such degree. Some CP.Eng's are competent, the issue is that its an unreliable indicator: as we do not know what they are competent in, nor what they are deficient in.

For example a lot of the civil/structural engineers operating in the area of manufactured structural products are a public menace. Besides lacking adequate knowledge of structures, they also lack knowledge of industrial product design. The result is poor service to the manufacturer/suppliers of the structural products and poor service to the greater community. Those carrying out certification work for the regulating authorities are no better.

A lot of the work which passes through the office is well within the capabilities of engineering associates, it is dull for engineering technologists, the work is flowing in because people think they need an engineer. This work should be flowing to engineering associates in the first place.

The regulators should stop refer to the need for engineering and the need for engineers reports. The requirements of the system are adequate evidence-of-suitability, and often the engineers are not capable of supplying adequate evidence: as they lack adequate knowledge of the technology they are supposed to be assessing and otherwise fail to properly research such established technology, or otherwise don't have the time.

Established technology is the realm of engineering associates, or as I prefer Associate Technologists. Forget about recent years in which engineers have been relegated to being the tools of regulators. The proper role of an engineer is pushing forward the frontiers of science and technology. Their education is for such purpose and they lack adequate knowledge of the established technologies, and industry is unreliable as a trainer.

The Associate Technologist is meant to be educated in the specific area of practice not a broad engineering discipline. Their task is to maintain the technological base of our industrial society. Buildings shouldn't fall down, bridges shouldn't collapse, machines shouldn't blow up. All of this is established technology.

After an engineer as originated something, the ingenious leap of logic is no longer necessary. A new generation of technologists and Associate Technologists can be trained to apply and implement such new technology.

We are pushing the elitism of the professional engineer and failing to train the people we really need. Lets make sure we build and sustain an army of competent Associate Technologists before we push the elitism of professional engineer.

Do you Really need an Engineer?

Do you need an Engineer?

Killing the Engineering Team

There is a vocal segment of the IEAust membership (MIEAust's and FIEAust's) who are of the opinion that engineering associates (OMIEAust) and engineering technologists (TMIEAust) should not be permitted to any membership grades. Their view is that it is the institution of engineers, and therefore others do not belong, and the presence of other members of the engineering team diminishes the status of engineers. My view is this is nonsense. The status of MIEAust was lost as a reliable indicator of technical competence some time during the 1980's. At this point in time engineering associates were in their own institution, and engineering technologists did not exist in Australia, though there were scientists and applied scientists. It is this loss of status that chartered status (CP.Eng) was introduced along with the national professional engineers register (NPER). The lack of status is purely due to the so called professional engineers themselves, they have more or less killed off engineering associates in the form they once had, and numbers of engineering technologists growing slowly. So the professional engineers dominate.

Now it may be that over this time, the status of MIEAust's has grown internationally, however multinational corporations play in a different ball park compared to local businesses. Engineers working for these multinationals are likely to have opportunity to work on demanding projects requiring the full knowledge of the B.Eng, and working under the supervision of persons with significant experience. In foreign countries also likely submitting work to local government authorities who also have significant experience and who are demanding in the quality of submissions. But locally such experience unlikely, and therefore the competence of engineers playing in the local pond is of concern.

Such experience unlikely because of a small population. Most infrastructure projects came to an end, and government departments downsized to maintenance type work. Manufacturers bought by American and British companies and design work moved off shore, leaving only manufacturing locally. Since Australian lifestyle is expensive to support, no real economic benefit to leave manufacturing local, so that also shutdown and moved to regions with lower labour costs. So that leaves primary industry: mining and agriculture. Sure during the 1990's some of the multinational manufacturers decided on autonomous regions, and so design moved back into Australia. But still talking long established companies with sustained expertise elsewhere on the planet, and being able to bring this expertise in as needed.

Joining IEAust is not mandatory, nor is chartered status, nor national registration: individuals can choose to do so if they wish, or choose not. Apparently 50% choose not. The industrial awards which control working conditions and minimum wages, identify all graduates with a B.Eng as professional engineers. These engineers think their 4th year of their degree is important so starting salary for those with 4 year degree slightly higher than for those with 3 year degree. There is no reference to masters or doctrates, since such activity basically considered as becoming experienced where such qualifications are relevant. After graduation and become experienced, whether ordinary degree or doctrate is irrelevant, salary is entirely dependent on opportunities provided by employer, taking advantage of those opportunities and  the employees ability.

Engineers Australia is a relatively poorly managed entity and close to being the worlds most useless learned society. My parchment states I am an affiliate member and graduate of the society of engineering technolgists (SET), it became worthless within 12 months. As status changed to graduate technlogist. Engineering associates, were renamed engineering officers, though I think this year they may be back to being associates again. One minute MIEAust demands the same stage 2 competency requirements as CP.Eng, the next minute it is entire different and something less. Then they want numbers for the NPER, so they fast track the MIEAust't to CP.Eng. This is because they want legislation which restricts practice to CP.Eng. However no legislation will pass if it results in shortages, and we are already claiming shortages. Further no legislation will be passed if it makes membership of IEAust mandatory. So CP.Eng is on again and off again with respect to being tied to MIEAust. The stage 2 competencies are also largely irrelevant to the technical side of engineering design. So in the main MIEAust and CP.Eng is irrelevant to employees and to employers. And as I said the industrial award makes those with a B.Eng professional engineers in the first instance.

Another issue are the activities of the IEAust. For example producing the infrastructure report card. This is basically a regular submission to government on the decay of state and federal infrastructure and a call for government to invest in upgrading it. The report primarily completed by the company GHD, and this same company gets a great deal of the work resulting from governments then investment in infrastructure. This kind of activity puts another nail in the coffin of membership.

With a vocal membership against engineering associates, a failure to accredit new study programmes at that level over the years, and the signing of the Dublin accord which downgrades the engineering associate to engineering technician, and otherwise a failure of the IEAust the promote anything other than the B.Eng, has reduced the numbers of engineering associates.

The WFEO and Engineers Australia, 3 level engineering team is a dream not a reality. The more traditional team comprised of technical officers (the engineering associates) and engineers. Now many offices have relatively unskilled CAD jockeys and graduate engineers. Whilst engineering associates otherwise pressured by the nature of the resulting uncertain environment to upgrade their academic qualifications to B.Tech or B.Eng, but to no real effect. But if they get a B.Eng they can call themselves a professional engineer, irrespective of what work they do. Further there is no need to have their competency and experience assessed by meeting criteria for MIEAust or CP.Eng. And if they do attempt and are rejected because work isn't seen as demanding enough: who cares: for they can still call themselves engineers. For example those working in sweat shops churning out resdential footing construction reports are unlikley to meet the stage 2 competences for CP.Eng, but they have the B.Eng so they are professional engineers. Local government authorities typically ask for engineers calculations or report by engineer. Seldom a reference to engineering calculations. These professional engineers who are neither CP.Eng or NPER will do the work requested. Much of this work is relatively low level and within the educational capabilities of the original engineering associates. I say original because for all intents and purposes they have simply stretched the programmes to 3 years and thrown a bit extra in, to create B.Tech and otherwise ripped content from the advanced diploma's. The advanced diploma programmes seem to be little more than a collection of 40 hour technical design and drafting projects: and thus within the scope of on the job training. Still, there is a lot which the so called professional engineers are doing that is well within the educational capabilities of those passing the advanced diploma.

But hey, get the B.Eng, get the status of professional engineer, and the starting salary of professional engineer, but only work at the level of engineering associate: how good is that?

Well its not good. For those engineering associates who get to work within the full capabilities of their education are dragged down by those working subordinate to professional engineers (B.Eng only) along side CAD jockeys. The B.Eng MIEAust CP.Eng are also dragged down by these B.Eng only professional engineers when they get fast tracked to their ranks without any real experience. Whilst the engineering associates have no reliable indicator that the B.Eng. MIEAust CP.Eng actually have superior skills and can be turned to for assistance. Yes thats right! Work is generated from the bottom up, not from the top down. Some 95% of all businesses are small business with less than 20 employees in non-manufacturing and less than 100 employees in manufacturing. Most consultancies, some 80%, are very small business with less than 5 employees. Projects are generated by private individuals or small business, seeking further assistance. Projects are not broken down and delegated to subordinates by profesional engineers. Projects first go to builders, to be built or drafters to be drawn up, from here the work flows upwards to higher educated persons  until reaches someone who can assist to complete all that needs to be done. It is a real headache, when the only thing getting them to seek further assistance is regulatory authorities, and the project has already gone too far in the wrong direction.

This status and prestige culture needs to be curtailed, unfortunately just about everything that Engineers Australia has done, has sabotaged their owns efforts at raising the competence of engineers. Under no circumstances what so ever should educational awards equate directly to occupational status. So I have the educational qualification for engineering technologist, so what, I know full well that all the structural engineering is within the capabilities of engineering associates. It should not be graded any higher. Yes, I have the potential to operate at higher level, but I consider that the increasing complexity of projects encountered all to be within the learning capabilities of engineering associates on the job, and not in any way demanding any higher level of formal education. We have too much of a Jackanory culture.

The government as announced new funding programme for education., and it seems to follow one of those usual poltical pathways. Check the statistics of other countries and declare we have to few doctors per head of population compared to others, too few scientists, too few engineers, too few teachers with masters and doctrates. Some how graduating more people at higher levels of education are suppoed to make the "clever country". It doesn't. Its not the education that is important but what the graduate can do with the education. They need opportunities, and those with B.Eng have not been getting experience and opportunity compatible with their level of learning, and nor have those with lower level education.

Once again we can get back to Engineers Australia shooting itself in the foot. During engineering week, and the schools programmes throughout the year, school kids are introduced to activities which are in the main the work of industrial product designers and engineering technicians. That is designing things without any major mathematical modelling and quantitative assessment of fitness-for-function, and otherwise taking things apart and putting them back together. The kids are told this is engineering, and they need a B.Eng to pursue. Not surprising that only 25% of those who start a B.Eng eventually graduate. Also not surprising that some 60% are in jobs which are primarily of a management nature: they should have pursued business degrees or industrial engineering, but they didn't. Of the other 40%, they are not all operating at the level of engineer.

It would be far better if the articulation requirements of the Australian Qualification Framework were more rigourously implemented. Then whilst sticking with that 50% minimum pass mark, make the move to the next level dependent on a minimum pass of 80%. Thus if get less than 80% can only move from Certificate I programme to another Certificate I programme. until find the right programme which fullfills the individuals interests and motivations, and they have the apptitude to complete. Also introduce AQF certificates of practice, so that the main AQF awards can concentrate on the body of knowledge and enabling competencies. Then require minimum time in industry between each AQF level. Or if not practical between each, then accumulated to a minimum to be obtained before can move beyond Associate Degree. That is once get Associate Degree, the graduate is expected to go into industry, and industry is expected to provide the required development.

The objective should not be to increase the proportion of the population with bachelor degrees and higher, but to ensure 100% of the population has an AQF award, and that all have the opportunity to put their learning to use. A population that wants to be more than retail assistants standing around talking about the weekend ignoring customers. Going into retailing is diminishing as an option has bricks and mortar stores loose business to online stores. Online stores where goods can be obtained for 1/2 the price obtained in stores.

If we are to promote engineering then we have to promote the right engineering disciplines, the IEAust generally dominated by civil engineers promotes the wrong discipline. If we should concentrate on primary industry (mining and agriculture), then we should be promoting mining engineering, agricultural engineering and industrial engineering, and materials engineering.

We can then build our manufacturing around added value to our primary produce. For example more directly turning iron ore into steel from the ground, so have no iron ore to export just steel. Sorry! Cannot supply iron ore, its the way we mine it, it comes out off the ground as steel. Not sure how we can do that, but doesn't seem too extreme. We do have continuous casting, tunnel borers, and also paving machines which can rip up a concrete pavement and lay a new concrete pavement at same time, recycling what it rips up.

Similarly we could spin cotton directly on the farm, or transform other agricultural fibres. Just further extend and expand combine harvesters into mobile factories. Its a matter of integrating more chunks of the industrial food chain into a single entity. Instead of a sheep dog, have a robot that chases the sheep around and shears them, and spins the wool.

We need to get people having a different attitude at work, and also giving them opportunities. If we give people the opportunity to go to night school or take day release and teach them design and science, and get them to apply to their job for their own benefit. Then we have the potential to stimulate innovation and the development of new products for export. We have few people and an abundance of materials. Most have what they need, but few seem to be pursing stuff just for the challenge: other than education without end, and sport.

Education however isn't producing people with the required competence to bring things to practical reality with expected levels of performance. We therefore need to better differentiate between the enlightenment that education provides, and the real competence to perform a task correctly. With enligtenment, a routine task shifts from blind ritual to one of understanding, with understanding the task can be transformed.

Now educating people with Associate Degrees in engineering doesn't make them engineering associates, it simply provides them with tools to transform their job or even their industry. It is upto the individual as to whether they do or not. Its a matter of perspective. Occupational qualifications and industrial awards based on those awards, push people into getting the awards and expecting to find an employer of such occupation. Displaced from occupation, humanity has a body of knowledge that can be applied to a multitude of activities within our society. The population should stop thinking about profession and occupation and starting thinking about humanity.

Tue 2012-Sep-04  23:24

Views on Engineers Australia

My views on Engineers Australia were formed at an early age, as a consequence, I'm not overly certain why I joined. I was born in England and as such from an early age I viewed if not read New Civil Engineer by the institution of civil engineers (ICE), The Structural Engineer by The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE). I mostly liked the D9 bulldozers, tunnel borers and the worlds largest walking machine. The Structural Engineer had very small print and lots of long curly S's, by the time I understood what such things were there presence had significantly diminished. I attended first construction sites around the age of 8, first a foot bridge joining two factory buildings across a canel, and then a highway bridge being constructed in Bawtry. Sometime after arriving in Australia the ICE replaced New Civil Engineer with Construction Today for its overseas membership. We moved around England, then to Zambia and then Australia, for my dad's career as he was attempting to get site experience to become an MICE, he was already a MIStructE, for family reasons he gave up on MICE. In Australia added Engineers Australia magazine by the Institution of Engineers Australia (IEAust). I was no longer just looking at pictures of big machines, now reading. Engineers Australia (EA) magazine was devoid of technical content, more of an advertsing and political platform, not even practical technical background to projects. Technical content came from elsewhere such as transactions or other entities such as the Australian Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), now the Australian Steel Institute (ASI). This is largely because the IEAust covered all engineering disciplines: actually it didn't it has been absorbing other institutions over the years (eg. electrical, radio, chemical). Industrial engineering is still largely independent but the institute of industrial engineers (IIE) also operates as the industrial engineering society (IES) with in the IEAust. Nobody really knows what the purpose of the IEAust is, there is constant confusion with the functions of APESMA (employees) and ACEA (consultants). Also a few years back the benefits of IEAust representing all engineering disciplines was diminished a few years back when Engineers Australia magazine was split into two different versions civil and general. For the most part they are mostly the same.

The IEAust membership have always had problems. First there were those who never progressed beyond graduate status, working in construction they complained it was easier for those in a design office to get minimal site experience compared to those on site getting minimal design office experience. There is thus an issue as to what is required to become an engineer. The IEAust hasn't really defined this in terms of engineering practice, they have defined it, if at all, mostly in terms of education: which is ridiculous. The rules are:

1) Bachelor of Engineering (4 year) = Professional Engineer
2) Bachelor of Technology (3 year)= Engineering Technologist
3) Associate Diploma/Advanced Diploma/Associate Degree (2 year) = Engineering Associate/Officer

Part of the reason is our industrial relations system and industrial awards. Professional Engineer is apparently used to differentiate train driver from the other thing: so all graduates with a B.Eng are professional engineers. Subject to the industrial relations system they have the potential to function as engineers and therefore should be paid as such, even if they don't actually function at the level of an engineer. Another ridiculous situation.

Now I have the educational awards for engineering associate and engineering technologist, I also started out attempting to get that for engineer. Now when my father graduated from Salford University, back in the 60's when Salford Unversity came into being, he sat about 1 hours worth of examinations in mathematics. At the South Australian Institute of Technology (SAIT), now the University of South Australia (UniSA), I sat 2 hour to 3 hour examinations in each and every topic of mathematics: it was the school of mathematics causing people to drop out of engineering, not engineering subjects. With one exception civil engineers at SAIT apparently didn't go through the school of mathematics, they tackled advanced engineering mathematics topics on an as needs basis: and no examination in. That is they did not have to learn mathematical theories, nor the derivation of theorems and corollaries. Engineers are not all equal and as far as I know the IEAust is typically dominated by civil engineers, occassionally by mechanical. My view of civil engineers is hardnosed, loud mouthed contract managers, not particularly highly conversant in the engineering sciences. The IEAust and APESMA has been pushing MBA's for the past 20 to 30 years, and its newest qualification is chartered executive engineer. It is not really doing anything to foster technical competence.

When I was studying the first year of the B.Eng in 1980's, we were explicitly told that in all likelyhood we would be the only person with an engineering background employed in an enterprise. Such does not represent an industrial environment with an highly established competent technical workforce. So to my view it was and is irresponsible of the IEAust to introduce chartered status based on work practice reports describing in hyperbole the individuals role on the job.

When it comes to major infrastructure projects one set of design loads is highly likely to be experienced on the job leading to failures during construction. For the vast majority of engineering projects the primary loading has a low probability of occurrence, and the system may not experience such loading for many years: at a point in time that it is too late to find out about a fault. Such defects are latent defects. For small systems, prototypes are designed and built, then tested to failure, with the design theory calibrated against. Errors in design thinking quickly show up. For large systems physical prototypes are far too expensive to test. It is therefore important that the design theory properly matches the proposed system. Peoples lives are at risk.

My view about mathematics at uni, was that it was abstract and esoteric and peoples lives are risk, it needs validating by science. Navier made the error of relying on the mathematics before scientific validation: his first bridges collasped during construction.

Engineers Australia seems dominated by persons concerned more with status and prestige than technical competence. So whilst CPEng is presented as some kind of quality check on competence, it isn't. Its a lot more about working for the right company and having time to waste writing silly work practice reports identifiying attained competencies, collecting enough brownie points. Most of the required competencies are irrelevant to the actual practice of engineering: they mostly fail to cover the real issues of technical competence. Far too much reliance is placed on the value of the B.Eng, but the B.Eng does not and never has covered established technology and engineering practice. The B.Eng is about the established engineering science. As I have said many times before traditional engineers pushed the frontiers of science and technology.

It is possible to push the frontiers of science with out developing new technologies. It is possible to push the frontiers of technology without new science. But neither of these is engineering. Last years engineer will always be this years technician. Some 80 plus years ago steel reinforced concrete was a new fangled technology, we needed a means of reliably putting it to use. We now have that means, reinforced concrete is an established technology. As a community we will be displeased if concrete structures fail unexpectedly. It is a technology with an established body of knowledge and it takes time to learn. But it does not require a 4 year B.Eng in civil engineering.


The communities primary concern is sustaining the expected performance of established technologies. Bachelor degrees however are about profession and status not the needs of the community.

I attended a chartered status seminar a few years back. One of the engineering associates there asked if they needed to be able to design a reinforced concrete column. My thoughts were yes, if employed in the structural section, it is part of the formal academic education of civil engineering associates. But the engineers response was mostly no. Engineers Australia has been diminishing the status of engineering associates since it absorbed the institute of engineering associates. Engineering Associates are not drafters, nor are they engineering technicians.

Engineering technicians typically have advanced trade certificates, whilst they may be able to design a new system, they lack the scientific knowledge to demonstrate its fitness for function on paper. They can test what they have built, but the test may place them and others at risk of injury. The engineering associate does have the scientific knowledge to demonstrate fitness for function without testing, and otherwise to conduct controlled testing to minimise injury. Drafters on the otherhand typically have no formal education and learn on the job, though they may have a diploma or associate diploma in drafting.

Engineers Australia is attempting to float a pinnacle in fresh air, when it should be building a solid foundation in the form of an army of engineering associates. Take the top 20% of them and make them engineering technologists. Take the top 20% of the engineering technologists and make them engineers. Dump this idea of school leaver engineers.

Further clarification, I work as a technical consultant for various manufacturers of structural products, they hold standard structural calculations for their products. Those calculations are typically deficient and below the standard I expect from engineering associates. I've been pushing out more detailed calculations. As consultants cycle round the manufacturers, it has become apparent, that the others have been following suite and increasing the detail of their work. By pushing more detail into the councils, the councils start asking more questions of others. That results in others experiencing delays where they thought they had everything wrapped up. Ultimately manufacturers are imposed upon to provide greater evidence-of-suitability for their products: for many calculation indicates their product is defective as does physical testing. Approval has been granted for years: that poses a problem for all parties concerned. But there has been no conspicuous history of failures: the structures are thus suitable for purpose they just don't have the desired and imposed over capacity. Since no change to the codes: getting the manufacturers to change is a problem: the council approved last week,why not this week? The basic change would be more stringent enforcement of documentary evidence-of-suitability, without retroactive imposition. The existing have to be found lower performance but acceptable structures: they have been approved they have to be acceptable. Such lower performance structures identified as a new class of structures/building subject to newly created conditions. Given the building code of Australia (BCA) is revised each and every year, such additional classification is required in anycase for few existing buildings will comply with the current years code.

The regulatory system is just seen as an unnecessary paperchase, keeping bludging public servants in cushy jobs. Everyone makes their stuff as strong as houses and twice as strong as it needs to be: not sure how they know such things, buts its what they regularly tell me. I should also note that many clients complain about some engineer they previously did business with, and builders I meet on site also complain about engineers. So quite frankly I glad I'm not an engineer, I don't want to be numbered amongst those which the expletives are thrown at. People need real technical guidance, not perons just feeding the paperchase.

I think it would be better to create an institution of technologists and rename the engineering associates/officers to Associate Technologists. Drop all this engineer, and engineering rubbish, and deal with technical science and technical design. To set our own ideals of what an engineer is, and nominate and elect persons to such honary title. Standards so high that we look down on the IEAust and its membership, who we otherwise equate to accountants, managers and other bean counters: and light years from being considered real engineers. I don't see why technolgists cannot define engineer and dictate the terms as it is supposed engineers currently dictating terms of who are engineering associates/officers and engineering technologists.

The supposed engineers have low standards, well the majority anyhow, not those who are really concerned about raising the technical standards. But that is the problem: the idiots aswell as the competent are both called engineers: and the argument deteriorates to arguing about train drivers not being engineers. The problem is that the incompetent B.Eng, MIEAusts and/or CPEng have a significant impact on public perception: they are more manager than advanced level technical professionals. So lets ignore them and forget about them.

As a community we need competent Associate Technologists in specific areas of practice such as machine design, fluid power system design, mechanical handling design, storm water drainage design, building structure design, road design. Most of the time these areas of practice can be considered in isolation from other areas of practice, occassionally some cross over assistance is acceptable, on other occassions persons conversant across multiple areas of practice becomes important. The latter situation is where the technologists come in. When hit the limits of the established science and adapting the established technologies, that is where the interface between technologist and engineer occurs. When push the frontiers of both science and technology that is when the engineer is born: engineers are born not made: and they are born in industry to the mother of neccessity and invention.

I totally object to calling persons engineers on the basis of accumulated parchments. I consider it an insult to our ancestors and an insult to our cultural heritage.