So where does my Irritation with Engineers Stem From?

My irritation with, "what is and is not engineering", stems from the viewpoints held by organisations like Engineers Australia, and the World Federation of Engineering Organisations (WFEO), and legislation such as they have in the USA, and legislation in Australia currently limited to the states of Queensland and Victoria.

Engineers Australia (EA) is the full trading company, of the institution of engineers Australia (IEAust). I never really considered the IEAust to be much of a learned society, it is not guardian of a body of knowledge and it doesn't actively share and disseminate  knowledge, to raise understanding or spread awareness. Most especially it does not provide any forum in which deficiencies in practice can be highlighted and fixed. Published information is important as a common point of reference.

Anycase in the late eighties and early nineties I mistakenly believed it was moving in the right direction and Australia's technical workforce would be strengthened. First it absorbed the institution of engineering associates. I believed this was a good thing and that knowledge would be better shared and it would reduce repetition of public information programmes.

However I later read an article which indicated that the reason the institute of engineering associate's was absorbed, was to deliberately dismantle an occupation. It has to do with Australia's industrial relations system, the ACTU and TLC's, and industrial awards. One of the primary awards prior to the modern award system, was the metal industry award. This started with unskilled labour, moved up through trades people, technicians, engineering associates, scientists and engineers. The award defines wages and working conditions. So irrespective of the business and its needs, an engineer gets paid more than a tradesperson, and more than an engineering associate.

An engineer has a 4 year bachelor degree (B.Eng), whilst an engineering associate had a 2 year Associate Diploma. Associate Diploma's were typically associated with educational institutions which did not have the required charter to issue bachelor degrees and therefore issued 3 year Diploma's. The associate diploma's were thus shorter than the diploma's. When the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) was brought in, the meaning of diploma was messed up: as a diploma is now around 1 year duration and an advanced diploma 2 to 2.5 years duration.

An engineering associate could do a lot of technical work based on first principles, no need for fancy software: more importantly such software didn't exist in any case. However duration doesn't define capability, content does. There were many associate diploma's some in engineering and some in drafting. The ones in engineering define an engineering associate those in drafting should not. However, to some extent it benefited EA to deliberately confuse the two qualifications, as its only concern was the 4 year B.Eng. Thus members of EA complained that engineering associates shouldn't be amongst their ranks, that drafters shouldn't be amongst their ranks: that it was an institution of engineers and no other occupation. Its membership also confusing the function of the IEAust with that of the labour union APESMA (or whatever name it had at the time and has now).

The result was that the academic programmes of engineering associates were watered down, and design-drafters added to the ranks of engineering associates, compounding the MIEAust/FIEAust view that drafters shouldn't be amongst the EA membership. Then EA signed the WFEO Dublin accord equating the engineering associates to technicians. As indicated above the industrial awards placed engineering associates above technicians: so the Dublin accord is disrespectful and insulting.

Now the MIEAust/FIEAust seem to spend a considerable amount of time complaining that train drivers and plumbers are not engineers. But thus far they have only been able to define that an engineer has a 4 year B.Eng and basically anything they do is considered engineering. Such is both a poor and unacceptable definition.

Also unions have tended to hold the view that potential is more important than actual contribution. So if job can be done by an engineering associate but occuptant has the B.Eng, then should be called engineer and paid at level of an engineer: even if the occupant is a dullard who is never going to contribute anything of higher value. Education is based more on ticket to high paid employment not actual interest. Therefore if can push the engineering associates out, it then becomes possible to raise the pay for the job, by redefining as the work of an engineer.

The governments clever country programme mostly based on increasing number of people with bachelor degrees, not increasing number of clever people. So give rise to professional cults built around bachelor degrees.

However, the AQF is about increasing occupational mobility, both sideways and upwards. Moving from one level to the next should represent an increase in depth of knowledge, increase in independent thought, and increase in personal responsibility. Whilst different awards increase breadth of knowledge. Clearly there are many different jobs which are dependent on knowledge in science and mathematics, so where is the common base qualification in such subjects?

Now I have never considered modern engineers to be anything more than technicians, low level industrial mathematicians. It is relatively clear from the built environment and the technology which surrounds us, that the knowledge and skills of engineers is inadequate. Engineers Australia and other organisations argue about such inadequacy of the education, but are unwilling to add extra content and increase the duration, or expand content and maintain duration of the programme by reducing coverage of each topic.

In Australia the typical bachelor degree is 3 years duration, and an honours degree typically adds an extra year. In the past an honours degree was minimum requirement to start a masters degree. The B.Eng is 4 years duration and therefore it has been equated to an honours degree (AQF-8), but it isn't anywhere near the equivalent to an honours degree. Occupational degrees are inflated with industrial experience, and project work: content which is not academic and has no real place in a degree.

Sure for years there were complaints and there still are complaints that education is inadequately linked to needs of industry, however industrial experience doesn't fix this issue.

The issue is STEM. Forget about STEAM and arguing about adding the "A", we need to drop the "E". Science and Mathematics are the tools used to plan, design, analyse, evaluate and manage technology. It is the technology which people need to be conversant with. A B.Eng doesn't provide adequate knowledge about the technology.

We create legislation to protect the public. The intention of the legislation is to ensure new implementations of established technologies achieve expected levels of performance. People who are not adequately conversant with the technology cannot possibly achieve such objective. Thus legislation based on the B.Eng grants the wrong people a monopoly.

But this does not matter to Engineers Australia and the over all politics of the situation.

Following the clever country programme, go produce more people with bachelor degrees, fast track these people to some higher status indicating they have appropriate work experience doing something which is being called engineering. This higher status is indicated by MIEAust CP.Eng NER. Having gained high numbers of these people, can argue that creating legislation won't create a shortage. However, a shortage is exactly what they want. They believe their wages are not high enough, that their importance is undervalued by society. They want to charge higher fees, and a monopoly will grant them the potential to hold the population to ransom.

An engineering associate who represents a substitute product is a threat, whilst an engineering associate who represents a complementary product to the engineer is not altogether required.

So taking that a B.Eng is an inadequate qualification, that B.Eng MIEAust is slightly better, and that B.Eng CP.Eng is still better, but all are incompetent to some extent, does it matter? The answer is no, it works in EA's favour. Clearly if a B.Eng CP.Eng cannot get it right, then need to further expand their education, and training, and make the selection criteria more rigorous. So had the numbers to get the legislation passed. Once the legislation is in place, and clearly the people on the register are not competent enough, then start to increase the rigour of the assessment, people are dropped from the register, and fewer people get on the register in the first place. A shortage arises, and fees start to increase: objective achieved.

But we already have experienced the situation of failure of several proclaimed potential mining and construction booms due to a proclaimed shortage of engineers. This has then resulted in exploitation of foreign workers and visa requirements. It takes time to become conversant with our industrial relations system, and realise that membership of EA is voluntary. Basically the visas expire, the workers are expelled, and another batch are brought in: when they should be granted permanent residency and continue with the job. Given that construction comprises of short term intermittent contracts it is difficult to monitor.

But a lot of this work doesn't require the 4 year B.Eng, and it didn't in the past. This is workplace politics not efficient design of jobs and workplaces.

The Associate Technologist

This is where my concept of the associate technologist comes into play. Accepting that engineering is that work done by persons with 4 year B.Eng, then modern industrial society has little need for engineering and little need for these engineer things {a manufactured product thrown of an educational assembly line}.

Nor does society have much need for the 3 year B.Tech. Most of the work can be done by persons with a 2 year Associate Degree (not the advanced diploma).

It is not the 4 years which is important, it is the subject matter which is important, and the perspective taken on the subject matter. A learned society needs people with a common educational base, so that communications, and publications can be written assuming such foundational knowledge and understanding.

So most 4 year B.Eng programmes now have a common first year. To reinforce the AQF, the occupational groups of: Associate technologists, technologists and engineer should all have the same common first year. The common first year will be an AQF-5 (diploma) in technical science and mathematics. Whilst WFEO technicians will have a 2 year Advanced Diploma (AQF-6), and pursue a different perspective: their first year will not be common with the other occupational groups.

As I have mentioned before the 4 year B.Eng contains breadth, it does not contain any dependent subject strands 4 years in length: it is basically an optimised bundle of AQF-6 qualifications. The breadth tends to comprise at most 5 areas of practice. So that is 3 years to cover five subjects, or 3/5ths of a year for each subject. Even if the breadth is reduced, it rarely is a single subject, so consider at least 2 subjects, so 3/2 or 1.5 years per subject. So a full programme in a given area of practice is 1 and 3/5ths of a year to 2.5 years. In either case more subject matter in the given area of practice can be included, to more thoroughly cover that which would otherwise be learnt on the job. (I am not impressed by M.Eng qualifications in structural engineering, which merely cover national codes of practice. Such are rubbish and unworthy of masters description. Such nonsense should be stopped)

Given programmes ranging from 2 to 3 years for specific areas of practice, would expect that the graduate associate technologists and technologists have greater knowledge than graduate engineers, and are far better suited for the task at hand than the graduate engineers.

I would then expect that, the dud invention, which is the 4 year B.Eng will expire and cease to be. Whilst the 3 year degree becomes the entry requirement for a 2 years masters degree through study: bringing total duration to 5 years. However, I don't believe there is adequate subject matter for depth to extend to 5 years through study. Whilst research degrees tend to be little different than, getting on with the everyday job of design and analysis. Put another way, why pay to get a masters degree when doing little different than would be paid for in the workplace. So the validity of masters degrees needs to be investigated.

Further to this is the government should provide greatest support for AQF levels 6 and down, whilst reducing support for levels 7 and above. I suggest that first priorty should be to create an army of people qualified at AQF-6, and then take the top 20% and encourage them to pursue AQF-7 and higher.

To which end I also suggest that it should not be possible to go from school to university, or at least not start on a qualification above AQF-5. Any programme longer than 1 year duration should be broken down into shorter qualifications. So further contributing to the demise of the 4 year B.Eng (AQF-8): the first year becomes a Diploma (AQF-5), the second year an Associate Degree (AQF-6), the third year a B.Tech or B.Sc (AQF-7), and the 4th year a graduate diploma (AQF-8), and the fifth year a masters (M.Tech, M.Eng, MEngSc).

And no one does engineering, and if we need to legislate we legislate planning, design, analysis, evaluation and management and do so with clearly defined areas of practice. We do not and should not allow the emergence of professional cults, and should not allow such cults to pursue objectives directed at holding us to ransom. We have enough problems with health care, we don't want to create other areas where more efficient systems cannot be implemented because a professional cults interests take priority over actual needs of society.

-o0o-

If the advanced diploma's will take a different path than the associate degree, there will be no common first year, though there will be common subjects. Basically subject matter which is irrelevant to the area of practice is eliminated from the advanced diploma program. Therefore less mathematics and less general science in the first year. The programmes will contain more qualitative coverage of subject matter and more practice work. Whilst two years in duration there will also be less depth covered. In short they will have the knowledge necessary to cover the majority of projects (eg. 80%).

They will be granted status to complete the AQF-5 in technical science and mathematics, and also the associate degree (AQF-6). Such study programme should require no more than 1 year to complete.

The advanced diploma will meet the requirements for WFEO (Dublin Accord) Technician. The Associate Degree will meet the requirements for Associate Technologist, more closely related to Australia's traditional engineering associates but better.

The Associate Technologists would achieve the educational requirements of the WFEO (Washington Accord), by completing associate degrees in 5 areas of practice, which given the common first year AQF-5 in technical science and mathematics, means 1 additional year of study for each area of practice: bringing the total study time to 6 years and surpassing the WFEO 4 year requirement: as will now contain far more content in each area of practice.

There will be few masters to specialise, as such specialisation will be covered by completing AQF-7 award (B.Sc, B.Tech) in the single area of practice, such as structures.

Occupational inflation of qualifications shall be halted. All academic programmes will be reviewed for division of breadth, and compression of depth into the minimum number of years. Breadth is permitted only to the extent, where two or more subjects branch into a higher level subject. For example mathematics and physics branch into engineering mechanics, which then flows onto mechanics of materials. But most of physics is irrelevant to engineering mechanics, therefore the dependent physics can be kept to a minimum. Furthermore both engineering mechanics and mechanics of materials could be covered in 1 year, instead of being spread over 2 years: but to do so would require eliminating breadth of subject matter from the year.

The point is we need people with B.Sc Applied Mechanics as much as we need people with B.Sc in Mechanical Engineering. The former has depth of knowledge whilst the latter has breadth. Mechanics should be taught by someone with the degree in applied mechanics not mechanical engineering. In terms of current qualifications therefore expect someone with B.Eng to get a B.Sc in a specialist subject area before permitted to teach that subject at bachelor degree level: they will also require qualifications in teaching. Though they can use B.Eng (AQF-8) to teach at AQF level 6.

When everyone matriculates then its value diminishes, but still everyone who is able should matriculate. A nation's priority should be to educate the people it needs to sustain its society and it should not kowtow to the wants and whims of professional cults. If a job cannot be performed by someone educated at AQF-6 then that job needs looking into in detail. Chances are it may require more than one AQF-6 qualification, but more likely it requires one AQF-6 qualification and additional AQF-5 qualifications.

Current Education

If think this does not apply to your profession, think again: it shall be applied across the board no exceptions. So includes medical doctors and lawyers amongst others. Traditional degree for doctor in some countries is: Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery. Or there is the University of Sydney double degree: Bachelor of Science and Doctor of Medicine.

Also note how concurrent double degrees currently can be studied in less time than the time normally required for both degrees. For example double degrees in law at Adelaide University: example given is Bachelor of Arts (three years) and Bachelor of Laws (four years) can be completed in five years if studied concurrently. whilst the duration of the law degree itself varies as follows: if you are a graduate, the duration of the program is three years full-time (or equivalent) as opposed to four years for non-graduates. Similarly get double degree: Bachelor of Engineering (Honours)(Mechanical) with Bachelor of Science, and complete in 5 years compared to (4+3)= 7 years. Or Bachelor of Engineering (Honours)(Mining) with Bachelor of Science, once again in 5 years. Such programs have the potential to increase both breadth and depth.

If can do this at the bachelor degree level (AQF-7), then can equally well do this at the level of AQF-6. For certain in terms of status people want the bachelor degrees. However in terms of creating a flexible and mobile workforce AQF-6 and lower are more useful.

For example mechatronics can be defined in terms of AQF-6 qualifications in mechanical and electronic technologies. Since such technologies likely employed in a manufacturing environment then additional qualifications in planning and management would be useful. Given work also typically done under contract, qualifications in contract and commercial law also useful.

If consider a 40 to 50 year career and need for continuing professional development, and consider that part time course typically takes double time of full time. Then a 2 year programme will take 4 years part time. A person can study part time and work full time, so that is 10 to 12.5 study programmes over a career. Basically enrol in an educational institution and remain for life.

So basically everyone has potential to complete AQF-5 or AQF-6 in:

1. Science & Mathematics
2. Design & Technology
3. Graphic Arts & Fine Arts
4. Arts & Humanities
5. Business & Management
6. Political Science & Law
7. Health & Medicine
8. Teaching & Education

They can also complete many qualifications in trade and crafts at AQF-4 and below.

Consider everyone attending an educational institution and becoming a part of a great repository of all human knowledge. Contrast with our ancient past and everyone attending their local village church. The capacity of the population to judge will be considerably enhanced. Public spending will require more rigorous assessment, as will infrastructure and mining projects.

Now whilst the focus is AQF-6 it doesn't mean that AQF-7 will disappear, rather it will mean that AQF-7 qualifications will have the depth they are meant to have, and people will have increased potential to pursue the most appropriate AQF-7 qualification. The multiple AQF-6 qualifications will give them breadth, and provide foundation for deciding higher level of study. Furthermore we can mandate that requirement for AQF-7 is at least two independent AQF-6 awards (eg. arts and science).

So no token generalist subjects thrown into the degrees, rather demand greater breadth in the first place. Not sure if still holds, but at one point the universities threw mandatory second language into the generalist subjects in engineering degrees. Not altogether necessary as typical student would have previously spent 2 years at school studying a second language, and really needed to build on that to attain a level of conversational fluency. However such is of secondary importance to the primary area of study. Therefore it is better to leave out and place in additional award.

So the engineering institutions/organisations are considering increasing qualification requirement to masters degree (M.Eng), but cannot get agreement from membership. Engineers are criticised for not having appropriate breadth of knowledge regarding technology, history, culture and society. Engineers also criticised for not designing systems which have adequate fitness-for-function.

Continuing education and AQF-6 qualifications assist to resolve these issues. The AQF-6 qualification makes them more competent in the specifics of an area of practice and associated technologies. The AQF-6 qualifications also give them greater breadth of knowledge to better understand the impact of technology.

We can then identify MIEAust as a qualification, rather than post nominal detritus. It becomes a qualification because neither B.Eng nor M.Eng will be good enough to get such qualification: such qualifications lack both required depth and breadth. Depth is lacking with respect to a given technological system, and breadth is lacking regarding that which is beyond technology.

Thus with new era will require something along the lines of:

1. AQF-7 Science & Mathematics
2. AQF-6 Design & Technology
3. AQF-5 Arts & Humanities (geography, history)
4. AQF-5 Business & Management (supervision, planning)
5. AQF-5 Political Science & Law
6. AQF-5 Teaching & Education (training, mentoring)

So that's a total of (3+2+1+1+1+1)=9 years full time. Assuming first 5 years are before start work, that leaves 4 years full time, or 8 years part time. So no one will become qualified until have at least 8 years of experience. Or assuming they start work after get AQF-6, then have 7 years of full time study to complete, taking 14 years part-time. Therefore set minimum experience at 14 years, they start out as GradAIEAust (irrespective of education), then become AMIEAust, and progress through TMIEAust, then ultimately MIEAust. (NB: The problem we currently have is jumping to MIEAust CP.Eng far too quickly)

The objective should be to get people into the workplace as quickly as possible doing  the work which needs doing: but not giving them undue status and prestige beyond their capabilities and contribution.

Female Participation

As for increasing female participation. Well a 1 year AQF-5 in technical science and mathematics provides potential and opportunity to pursue multitude of related occupations. also more people are required to draw, plan, and make than are required to crunch numbers (and a brainless unimaginative block of silicon can crunch numbers, so not a particularly desirable skill.). Easier to displace drafters and line supervisors than the trades. A design office should have more drafters in it than engineers. Drafters can be employed on contract on an as needs basis. Getting some 50% of drafters to be female, could probably be done in 2 years: train them this year, employ them next year. However, these drafters are not there to stay as drafters, they are studying part time to become "engineers". They have their foot in the door and are gaining experience, and each day they put a little bit more of their continuing education to use.

Also to be noted, is that as drafters retire or drop out of the workforce for other reasons, they basically get replaced by anyone near suitably qualified. For example studied mechanical get employed in structural or doing civil drawings. Studied civil get to do mechanical. As a drafter your task is to communicate information, not to design or solve problems, therefore working under the supervision of the engineer/designer. If you demonstrate the skills to jump ahead and act as design-drafter, then management will want to keep you around. If need constant supervision and drafting presentation needs constant correcting then your presence not important. In short drafters get replaced by design-drafters, and in turn by engineering associates. For small projects however it is inefficient to employ drafter and engineer, and both can be replaced by one engineering associate. Employee engineers are typically too expensive to have them producing own drawings, engineering associates are not.

Point is that can build an army where there is scope to build an army. For example this article: Female GPs outnumber male GPs for the first time in Australia, the specialities are just that, specialisations requiring very few people, but GP's are near enough everywhere. If there isn't one around then probably scope to introduce one: especially in remote rural and mining towns.

Little point complaining there are not enough female scientists or engineers, when also few female drafters and lab technicians. The bachelor degree in nursing for example along with potential for higher degrees, has probably increased the potential for female nurses to pursue further study and become doctors. Simply because they have their foot in the door of the universities, and more than likely attending some subjects which overlap with the studies of the doctors. How many females starting nursing switch to medicine?

Proper breakdown of study programmes, progressing from AQF-1 to AQF-7 is likely to attract more people to study to higher levels. When I was at school few people wanted to waste more time in education, they wanted to get to work earning money (or mostly claiming unemployment benefit). And that was approaching end of grade 10. The thoughts of another 2 years of schooling followed by 3 to 4 years of university wasn't desirable. But if one year of study, gets you into the workforce, contributing and earning money, whilst pursuing continuing education, well that becomes more tolerable. The bachelor of nursing degree for example should be equally broken down into smaller programmes, so that it is mandatory that start as enrolled nurse and progress to registered nurse, and likewise start as nursing assistant and progress to enrolled nurse.

Or there maybe other problems: Gender Equity in Medical Specialties, considering the army of female nurses: Nursing and midwifery workforce 2015 and registered nurses out number enrolled nurses (which seems like a major problem: top heavy organisation, not enough workers). And this is further description of potential problems: Red Cross to use nursing assistants on blood donors. Actually the army of female nurses probably just represents large number of females with bachelor degree who now have potential to pursue further study or research not necessarily related to medicine but more focused on social studies and health care. They don't become doctors because the proclaimed shortage of doctors is political, and the political barriers need to be overcome to improve health care rather than support the profession of doctor. Hence further education more in social studies.

And education is no exception Private school principals say culture must change. Here the issue is: do we need private schools, and the culture which supports them? That is what is the fault considered with the state schools? If a child is not interested in learning, then a private school isn't going to make much difference. If the child is interested in learning then a private school contributes zero of value: the child does the learning not the teacher. In the main the child needs access to study materials not teachers. As I mentioned in earlier posts, we should scrap grade 11 and grade 12, and start directly on AQF awards. Which thus means moving to TAFE or moving TAFE programmes into schools. The status of private schools should then diminish: and government funding be reduced not increased.{Parents typically seek to get their kids into private school for at least grade 11 or 12, if they cannot get them in from the beginning or otherwise cannot afford full schooling in private school. Personally I think its a waste of money.}

However that approach requires modifying the AQF, as I proposed in earlier post where I increased the number of levels to 15, one more than the original 14 levels, 5 more than the current 10. Where I also introduced Certificate I to V, Diploma I to V and Masters I to V.

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[09/03/2019] : Original
[10/03/2019] : Minor Edits, and added more after the end.
[25/03/2019] : Minor Edits

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?

Registration of Engineers: Paper shuffling Bureaucratic Nonsense.

Flood engineer John Ruffini facing criminal charge for not being registered during 2011 floods

So employed in job position which operations manual indicated should be filled by registered engineer (RPEQ), manual since revised to remove need for registered engineer. The person has since obtained registration. Can all  feel better now!

So are humans like computers with transient memory? So when wasn't registered, was the persons memory blank, empty, null and void. Now that they are registered, their memory has been rebooted, and all necessary software loaded into memory so that person fully operational as flood engineer?

The registration is total nonsense, it doesn't have anything to do with technical competence nor with the welfare of the community.

No one cares if the person was competent last week when they were given registration, all the population at large is concerned about is several years from now when a critical event occurs, that the systems function properly and all persons involved with perform their required tasks properly.

That requires on going training and testing, like members of the fire brigade and the members of the defence forces. And in this particular case it also requires never ending design and assessment along with community consultation. It is not possible to avoid a flood: only viable to minimise the effects of a flood. To what extent the effects can be minimised depends on the practicality and economic viability, as well as acceptable aesthetics of potential solutions. There is also the issue of what is economical and practical to do now, before the next flood. The community will be affected by the measures taken and therefore needs to be involved with the decisions taken. But the community also needs educating.

During the floods, on twitter there were plenty of comments about the need for more dams: apparently there was some prior proposal not accepted by government: partly a farming issue. There appears to be confusion over what a dam is. It seems dam has become synonymous with the body of water behind the dam wall. So now have to refer to the dam wall. When the wall is actually the dam. The body of water is a reservoir, an artificial lake,  a water storage, or a catchment. A dam can otherwise be considered a  barrier or blockage in a drainage channel. Dams cause flooding upstream. Shortly afterward the flooding, Engineers Australia released publication on farm dams: potentially adding more confusion. These things have never seen a dam: they are ponds, lagoons, billabong's, basins, or catchments. Generally natural valleys, impressions, indentations in the landscape: they typically capture surface run-off to provide water supplies to remote rural properties. Some may have built-up levy banks, but that would require relying on rain falling directly in the catchment of the storage basin.

We need reservoirs, or water storages to protect against drought, but need improved drainage systems to protect against the flooding when the rains eventually arrive.

The other issue is that the traditional Queenslander house was built on stilts providing protection from flooding, but it was apparent from the news that many of the houses had been converted turning the space between the stilts into additional living space. That is a significant change to the built environment: for one it blocks surface run-off.

Due to the drought many people also got rid of lawns and put paving down. Increased in-door, out-door living spaces, also resulted in more verandahs being constructed. Once again a significant change to the built environment: this time, increasing surface run-off and putting more water into the street drainage system: potentially over loading the system.

Put simply the population themselves are partly responsible for the flooding they experienced. Engineers Australia should be educating the population: rather than pursuing that traditional arrogant approach: we know, you don't, so do as we say. Or the trust me, we'll sort it out approach. 

Few problems are purely technical: they are political, economical, and otherwise highly subjective and personal. Educating the population so that they have some understanding of the technical side is important. As Louis Napoleon put it:

New discoveries have to remain undiscovered until the common intellect raises to comprehend them.

Builders licensing is another example, of registration not working. Builders licensing is primarily concerned with residential construction, its purpose to protect house buyers who are considered un-informed buyers. For other construction, licensing is not considered important, because the buyers are typically informed and otherwise knowledgeable about what they buy. Even with licensing to protect the public there are still persons who provide building services without being licensed, and those who are licensed who provide low quality services.

Registration, and licensing are all quality control (QC) approaches: allow the defects to be made and then do something about it afterwards. What the community really expects is quality assurance (QA): don't allow the defects in the first place. Registration and licensing fails to provide such requirement: and it fails because the systems implemented are poorly designed, the systems are not dynamically adaptive, and there is no continuous improvement, nor continuous monitoring. Put simply no regulation at all. The time between checks is too great, and the checks inadequate.

With respect to our water resources, we really need to know that concerned personnel, are training with models and simulators, and checking worst case scenarios, and developing habitual skills to respond correctly in the critical event. We also need to know that they are training the next generation, to take over at all levels in the system. Also doing real world tests, on an appropriate scale, so that know learned response on simulations is suited to real world system. No special awards, certificates, registration or licensing required. Determine what is required to do the job properly, train people to do the job that way, then ensure they do it that way when employed.

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

More Engineers Australia on LinkedIN group ...

Stupidly went and checked out Engineers Australia linkedin group. They are still arguing about chartered status. Someone stated wouldn't want an engineering associate designing the West Gate Bridge . Given that it collapsed during construction, not sure I'd want engineers designing bridges.

Engineer, technologist, technician, applied scientist, industrial mathematician, I don't care less what silly name you have, as long as you are competent to do the task performing. Research the available industry manuals and research papers, think about potential modes of failure, and design taking into consideration both end performance of the finished product, performance during fabrication and construction, and during future maintenance operations.

And as an aside :

1. What is the text book used on cable-nets and tension membranes as part of a B.Eng in civil engineering, and how many real hours do they spend studying such things?
2. What is the text book used for plates and shells, and diaphragms used as part of a B.Eng in civil engineering and once again how many real hours do they spend studying such things?

Actually rhetorical. As far as I know such are not covered by undergraduate degrees to any significant extent. Unfortunately we now have too large a segment of population who would be of view that they need to return to university to get a masters before pursing the design of such things. I would argue if they have the 4 year B.Eng, and they need to return to university to get a masters before designing real world systems, then their learning as part of the B.Eng was dismally poor, and their degree is worthless scrap paper, and maybe they should consider quitting their day job.

Did the people who wrote the papers on the design of reinforced concrete tanks have 3 years B.Sc's or 4 year B.Eng's? How many hours did those with 3 year B.Sc's spend reading and working through such papers to put the theory to use to design and have constructed real concrete tanks?

We have established technologies and much of it was established by persons with 3 year B.Sc's those with the 4 year B.Eng doing routine design are really disrespectful and insulting to their predecessors. Their predecessors didn't get taught the solutions, they had no industry manuals, they brought the solutions to the light of day. And that requires the right attitude, interest, motivation and duty of care, and has stuff all to do with prior formal education.

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.