THE FUTURE OF
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING:CONTINUED PROTECTION OF THE
of the Future
PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ofA Report
Professional
Task Force
WELFARE THROUGH PROFESSIONAL toEngineering
the National Society
Professional
ENGINEERING LICENSURE ofEngineers
Board ofDirectors
This report was developed by a team of volunteers appointed to the Future ofProfessional Engineering Task Force of the National Society of Professional
Engineers (“NSPE”) from June 2016 to July 2018. The summaries,
recommendations, and conclusions were developed over a two‐year period
through various discussions, exchanges, and considerations by the Task Force.
The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and discussion of the topics identified herein;
they do not necessarily reflect those of NSPE, the individual members of the Task
Force, the professional organizations or local, state, or federal agencies
identified herein, or the employers or other affiliated professional organizations
or societies of the Task Force members. Only those recommendations later
incorporated into NSPE Professional Policies, Position Statements, or otherofficial NSPE documents or communications represent the position of NSPE.

“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

This Page Intentionally Blank“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE ................................................... 2
FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING REPORT ................................................................ 5
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 7
INDUSTRIAL EXEMPTION ........................................................................................................... 9
PUBLIC POLICY AND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING ....................................................................... 11
Legislative Attacks on Occupational Licensing .................................................... 11
Licensure Versus Certification ............................................................................. 13
Fragmentation of Licensure ................................................................................. 17
Procurement of Professional Engineering Services ............................................. 19
The Role of the PE in Shaping Public Policy ......................................................... 20
ENGINEERING EDUCATION ...................................................................................................... 21
Engineering Education Generally ......................................................................... 21
Licensure of Engineering Educators..................................................................... 23
Engineering Education on Licensure .................................................................... 25
LICENSURE MODEL AND MOBILITY ........................................................................................... 26
INTERNATIONAL LICENSURE ..................................................................................................... 28
THE ROLE OF THE CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN AND CERTIFIED ENGINEERINGTECHNOLOGIST ..................................................................................................................... 28
ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY METHODS ........................................................................................... 30
PUBLIC SECTOR ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................................. 31
COMMUNICATING THE VALUE OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER..................................................... 33
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 36
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 43
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 45
APPENDIX A: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 47
APPENDIX B: INDUSTRIAL EXEMPTION .................................................................................... 55
APPENDIX C: PUBLIC POLICY AND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING .................................................. 63
APPENDIX D: ENGINEERING EDUCATION ................................................................................. 89
Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."i

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

APPENDIX E: LICENSURE MODEL AND MOBILITY .................................................................... 101
APPENDIX F: INTERNATIONAL LICENSURE .............................................................................. 111
APPENDIX G: ROLE OF THE CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN AND CERTIFIED ENGINEERINGTECHNOLOGIST ................................................................................................................... 115
APPENDIX H: ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY METHODS .................................................................... 123
APPENDIX I: PUBLIC SECTOR ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................... 125
APPENDIX J: DEFINING AND COMMUNICATING VALUE ............................................................. 129
APPENDIX K: COMMUNICATION PLAN .................................................................................. 135

This report was developed by a team of volunteers appointed to the Future of Professional
Engineering (“FOPE”) Task Force of the National Society of Professional Engineers (“NSPE”)
from June 2016 to July 2018. The summaries, recommendations, and conclusions weredeveloped over a two‐year period through various discussions, exchanges, and considerations
by the FOPE Task Force. The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are
intended to encourage further understanding and discussion of the topics identified herein;
they do not necessarily reflect those of NSPE, the individual members of the FOPE Task Force,the professional organizations or local, state, or federal agencies identified herein, or theemployers or other affiliated professional organizations or societies of the FOPE Task Forcemembers. Only those recommendations later incorporated into NSPE Professional Policies,
Position Statements, or other official NSPE documents or communications represent theposition of NSPE.
The FOPE Task Force presents this report to NSPE with the intent that it will encouragethoughtful discussion around the recommendations identified herein. While the FOPE Task
Force worked diligently to analyze key issues and concerns from many different perspectives
and gathered input from many different sources, additional input and insight is warranted as
professional engineering progresses through the twenty‐first century. Further, this report is notintended to be, or capable of being, all‐encompassing of every key considerations related toprofessional engineering and the continued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

ii

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

INTRODUCTION
In 1907, Wyoming enacted the first engineering licensure law to protect the public health,safety, and welfare.1 By 1922, the American Association of Engineers developed a platform forengineering that included the “passage of anengineers’ registration law in every state and theenforcement of existing registration laws.”2 In
1934, the National Society of Professional
Engineers (“NSPE”) was formed, requiring thatmembers be professional engineers (“PEs”) or
3

those on the licensure track.

At the time, only 28 states had enacted
engineering licensure laws.4 By 1959, when Alaska
and Hawaii were granted their statehood, every
state in the United States had a PE licensure law.5
Today, every state regulates the practice ofengineering to ensure public safety by granting
only PEs the authority to sign engineering plans,
reports, and formal observations, and offer theirservices to the public.

Engineering Degree or PE License?
ONLY a PE may prepare, sign and seal, andsubmit engineering plans and drawings to a
public authority for approval, or sealengineering work for public and privateclients.
PES shoulder responsibility for not only theirwork, but for the lives affected by that work.
PES must hold the public health, safety, andwelfare paramount in their work. A PE who
does not practice engineering holding thisobligation paramount is subject to disciplineor license revocation by the PE licensing boardof their state or United States jurisdiction.
LICENSURE for a consulting engineer or a
private practitioner is a legal requirement for
those in responsible charge of work, be theyprincipals or employees.
LICENSURE for engineers in government has
become increasingly significant. Many federal,state, and municipal agencies require thatgovernmental
engineering
positions,particularly those considered higher level andresponsible positions, be filled only by PEs.

1

National Society of Professional Engineers. 100 Years of Engineering Licensure. Available athttps://www.nspe.org/resources/press‐room/resources/100‐years‐engineering‐licensure (accessed February 5,2018).
2
Id. Some states continue to use the term “registration” or “registered” instead of “licensure” or “licensed” whenreferring to professional engineers. “Licensure” and “licensed” will be used throughout this report, consistent with
the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (“NCEES”), the national non‐profit organization
composed of engineering and land surveying licensure boards of all states and territories of the United States.
3
Id. “Those on the licensure track” refers to those actively pursuing licensure, whether as students of anengineering baccalaureate degree program, or an engineer intern (“EI”) or engineer‐in‐training (“EIT”) as
designated by their state. “EI” will be used throughout this report to refer to both engineer interns and engineers‐in‐training.
4
Id.
5
Id. While Montana was the last state to adopt a professional engineering licensure law in 1947, the territories
admitted as states after this date already had licensure laws in place pre‐statehood.

Summary Report

1“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCEOn June 25, 2016, NSPE initiated the work of the Future of Professional Engineering (“FOPE”)
Task Force6 to evaluate the future of professional engineering and identify ways in which theoverall awareness of the PE license can be increased among engineering graduates, regulators,
and the public. As previously discussed, it is the duty of the PE to hold the public health, safety,
and welfare paramount above all other considerations. The FOPE Task Force was created toensure that as societal expectations, technology, and regulatory environments change for PEs
over the next century, that the public health, safety, and welfare continue to be the paramountconsiderations in the design, observation, and development of the built environment and in the
deployment of technological advancements for the betterment of society.7
The work of the FOPE Task Force commenced with a two‐hour, town‐hall‐style, conversation at
the 2016 NSPE Professional Engineers Conference (“PECON”) to which all conference attendees
were invited to participate. The session was guided by fundamental principles enumerated by
the authors of The Future of the Professions: How Technology will Transform the Work of
Human Experts, Richard and Daniel Susskind. These authors predicted “that increasingly
capable machines, operating on their own or with non‐specialist users, will take on many of thetasks that have been the historic preserve of the professions.” Their analysis examined the way
expertise is produced and distributed in our society. These fundamental changes, they predict,“will lead eventually to a dismantling of the traditional professions.”86

The FOPE Task Force includes 13 individuals who are PEs, certified engineering technicians and technologists, EIs,
and non‐licensed individuals whose backgrounds include state licensing board involvement, business owners,
consulting engineers, former public sector employment, non‐engineering employment, leaders within NSPE andother engineering or non‐engineering organizations, and industry engineers. The FOPE Task Force is comprised of:Adam Stodola, PE (Chair); Shelley Macy, PE (Vice‐Chair), Amy Barrett, PE; Keri Burchard‐Juarez, PE; Mike Clark,
CAE; Mike Conzett, PE; David D’Amico, PE; Russell Freier, CET; Thomas J. Frericks, Jr., CT; Rick Guerra, PE; Austin S.
Lin, EI; Arthur Schwartz, CAE; Kodi Jean Verhalen, PE, Esq.; and Michelle Winkelmann, PE.
7
For purposes of this report, the term “built environment” encompasses both those areas traditionallycontemplated in this term (i.e. roads, bridges, damns, processing and production plants, water treatment works,
vehicles, etc.) and also emerging areas where engineering plays a key role in the operation of an item for large‐
scale or personal use (i.e. the coding algorithms and physical operations upon which autonomous features make
operational decisions in place of human intervention).
8
Richard and Daniel Susskind. The Future of the Professions: How Technology will Transform the Work of Human
Experts at 2 (2015).

2

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Fundamentally, all professions around the world are facing these challenges. And this iscertainly not the first time in history that technological changes and human ingenuity have hada substantial effect on the way in which certain tasks are performed in society. In the UnitedStates, for example, the industrial revolution resulted in a shift from a manual‐labor society inwhich individuals performed painstaking tasks at alllevels of production to a technology‐ and machine‐
based approach to production.9 This shift resulted in (1)a notable change in the way in which products were
produced for market and (2) the lowering of prices.10“Professionals” are human specialists,
while “the professions” refers to theoccupational groups and institutions tothis professionals currently belong.
– The Future of theProfessions at 15

The industrial revolution also ameliorated the kind oflabor shortages that plagued the 18th and 19th centuries.11 The current changes in technology
are significantly different than those experienced during the industrial revolution, however, as
those earlier technological advancements still required substantial human intervention for
design, construction, operations, and decision‐making. Today’s changes in technology areproviding opportunities for and advancements into each aspect of, design, construction,
operations, and decision‐making, as well. Through the use of technology and automation tocarry out these critical built environment tasks, the professions are being impacted by shifting
societal expectations and market disruptions.
The Susskinds define professionals, for purposes of their critical analysis, as having four
similarities: (1) specialist knowledge; (2) credentials that determine admission to theprofession; (3) regulated activities; and (4) a common set of values.12 They challenge theprofessions to evaluate four key areas of their practice to maintain relevance as technology andsocietal expectations change and progress:Is there an entirely new way to organize work?

9

Wikipedia. Industrial Revolution in the United States. Available athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution_in_the_United_States (accessed June 8, 2018).
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
The Future of the Professions: How Technology will Transform the Work of Human Experts at 15.

Summary Report

3“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Must all current licensed work continue to be done only by licensed professionals?

Can licensed professionals be trusted to admit if services could be delivered by non‐licensees?

Is the traditional arrangement still fit for purpose and serving society well?13

The conversation around these four questions covered numerous topics during NSPE’s PECON
2016. The FOPE Task Force distilled those topics into four areas:
External Value Messaging

Internal
 Licensure Role of the PE

These four areas were used to develop the initial charges of the FOPE Task Force.
1. Identify internal and external issues related to the profession and how these issues
directly affect the success and sustainability of the profession. Issues may include, but
are not limited to, licensure, the role of the PE, the delivery of professional engineering
services, and how PEs communicate the importance and successes of the profession.
2. Develop recommendations that address both the internal and external issues the task
force identifies, specifically related to licensure, the role of the PE, the value of theprofession, and messaging (internal to NSPE, internal to the profession, and external tothe public at large).
Based on this initial organization of information, the FOPE Task Force was structured to directly
address these four areas. To that end, four subgroups were formed to provide the depth andbreadth necessary to focus on these issues and identify specific topics for investigation andfurther work to develop recommendations to NSPE related to the practice of the PE.
In the spring and summer or 2017, the FOPE Task Force provided substantive analysis andrecommendations for focus by NSPE. The NSPE Board of Directors approved further work by
the FOPE Task Force into summer 2018 based on the initial recommendations developed by the
13

4

Id. at 32‐33.

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

FOPE Task Force. In developing this report, the FOPE Task Force reached out to the professional
engineering community for input on trends and key areas of interest for PEs. Additionally, the
FOPE Task Force looked at other licensed and certified professions to draw parallels, identify
trends, and learn from actions they have taken to respond to changing technology and societal
expectations.
This report summarizes the FOPE Task Force’s work and provides recommendations to ensure
the continued viability of the profession and, in turn, to ensure that the public health, safety,
and welfare continue to be the paramount considerations in the (1) design, observation, anddevelopment of the built environment and (2) deployment of technological advancements forthe betterment of the society.
FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING REPORT
From June 2016 to July 2018, the FOPE Task Force prepared in‐depth analyses associated with
11 areas of focus related to the future of professional engineering. The detailed analysis,
discoveries, and recommendations are available as appendices to this report as follows:
Appendix A: Emerging Technology
Appendix B: Industrial Exemption
Appendix C: Public Policy and Professional Engineering
Appendix D: Engineering Education
Appendix E: Licensure Model and Mobility
Appendix F: International Licensure
Appendix G: Role of CET and CT
Appendix H: Alternative Delivery Methods
Appendix I: Public Sector Engagement
Appendix J: Defining and Communicating Value
Appendix K: Communication Plan

Summary Report

5“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

An overview of this material is provided in this summary report, but additional information andbackground are provided on each topic in the appendices. Each appendix has been drafted as astand‐alone paper.
The FOPE Task Force notes that while civil engineers comprise the largest contingent of NSPE
members, the work of the FOPE Task Force did not focus on one engineering discipline. Instead,the FOPE Task Force sought to examine the entire PE profession. In its analysis, the FOPE Task
Force identified, as a broad recommendation, that PEs should pay close attention to how they
are preparing for (from the client/municipality/government perspective) or responding to (fromthe consultant or service‐based perspective) requests for proposals (“RFP”) for built‐
infrastructure projects, PEs need to ensure they are transitioning from a role as a technicalresource to that of a counselor or trusted advisor, responsible for identifying the key issues thatmust be addressed on the client’s behalf. Such critical professional engineering analysis cannot
be performed solely by machines or technology and requires human involvement. This
interaction can be illustrated by comparing two example RFPs. The first RFP is for “the design ofa new right turn lane into a shopping complex.” The second RFP is written more broadly for“the development of an ingress and egress design that alleviates the current challenges
experienced at a shopping complex.” The latter allows for the consulting PE to provide, and theclient to receive, the most creative solutions to the real issue (ingress and egress to a shopping
complex) and provides the most economic use of financial and technical resources. This
provides society the best outcome, ensuring that the best and highest value solution is
deployed to address the issue that must be resolved through the engineering project.

6

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
The expanding use of technology in the design and construction of engineered products,
processes, and systems has the potential to put pressure on the need for engineers to belicensed as well as how engineers fulfill their roles. As to the latter, the use of increasingly more
complex software can shift routine engineering tasks
from the realm of the engineer to that of the technician
We predict that increasingly capablemachines, operating on their own orwith non‐specialist users, will take on
many of the tasks that have been thehistoric preserve of the professions.
– The Future of theProfessions at 2or even to the end user. Sophisticated software andmodeling, when tied to appropriate codes andstandards, can create a scenario in which the designand construction of a product can be accomplishedwith minimal human involvement and with, perhaps, noneed for the involvement of a PE. If the professional

engineering community continues with the mantra “it won’t happen to us” or “I will always beneeded,” it risks being marginalized, or worse, in the technology tidal wave.
In such a future world (aspects of which we are already witnessing), outside forces will
challenge the need for licensure. After all, the computer (or a successor technology) could beseen as the productive and reliable tool that has no internal biases or no “bad days in theoffice.” While we all know that human intelligence is required to design and build thetechnology, there could be a temptation to discount the role of human beings as technology
does more and more of the “thinking and creating.” In such cases, one may see the expanding
use and complexity of technology as a threat to licensure. While acknowledging these very real
scenarios, PEs must resist the urge to fear change. Technology will always be with PEs andprofessional engineering. PEs must, instead, have the desire and the ability to embrace theinherent change.
The role of licensure in the future is expected be as important and necessary as it is today.
There is one component of licensure that is unique from technology: the “conscience” ofhuman beings that no machine can possess. It is the reality that the PE must hold paramount
Summary Report

7“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

the health, safety, and welfare of the public. It is the ethical chip of the engineer that nocomputer has. Licensure should constantly remind PEs that their duty is to place the interests ofthe public over and above all other considerations.
The public deserves and demands that a license should exist to protect them. A computer will
not be held accountable by the public. If we fail to respond to our changing world, then we will
fail in our responsibility to the public we serve.
NSPE must acknowledge and accept the evolution of technology into the engineering
profession and use it and control it, accordingly. This begins with separately identifying thespecific engineering tasks that can and cannot be computerized (or automated). We need toensure that the public is protected by having PEs hold responsibility for the software andcomputer engineering required for automated processes and implementation of limited
artificial intelligence as its value is studied, analyzed and proven in the profession. Traditional
methodologies are giving way to more efficient, technologically strong, and automatedprocesses.
Further, professional engineering must be on the forefront when it comes to the delivery ofengineering services. There are many options for delivery of sealed professional documents.
They include paperless documents and interactive data/models. Sensitivity to the end users
must also be included for mobile‐device viewing. The evolution of CAD drawings to Revit
Models has made freely transferring work more of a reality. PEs must lead the change toaddress how, for example, Revit Models and 3D models of infrastructure have changed projectdelivery for the consulting professional engineers and what the ramifications are. Global
standardization of engineering practices will impact the development of projects, and it isimportant for these standards to be developed by the professional engineering community.

8

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

INDUSTRIAL EXEMPTION
The “industrial exemption” is a provision under most state licensing laws that exempts
companies that manufacture products or perform engineering services from the requirementthat a PE oversee the product’s design of the company’s services. Engineering services that are
exempt from PE licensure differs by state14, although the engineering community often refers
to the “industrial exemption” as a single piece of legislation. The industrial exemption has
contributed to the reality that between 15‐20 percent of graduate engineers ever become
licensed. Further, this can also lead to engineers practicing in multiple jurisdictions potentiallyviolating state and territorial laws as they may assume their practice does not require a licensein State B if their practice fell under the industrial
exemption of State A.15
Because of the industrial exemption, essential attributesof a PE, such as exercise of independent judgment andexertion of responsible charge or control over subject

The first [anxiety or concern from theprofessional] is a strong ‘status quobias’ – a preference for continuing todo things as they are done today.
– The Future of theProfessions at 43

matter within his/her expertise are too often inhibited, atbest, or silenced, at worst. This can cause a lack ofprofessional discretion that could ultimately lead to disastrous consequences for the health,safety and welfare of the public.
To help ensure that professional engineering maintains the recognized and generally‐
understood status as a profession, it must coexist with business and industry without
relinquishing ultimate control of engineering work. This will require engineers to assertively
advocate for the elimination of each state’s industrial exemption regulation. A different
engineering culture – requiring a paradigm shift – will be required to achieve this goal, which
the FOPE Task Force acknowledges is not easily accomplished. NSPE is at a critical point today

14

National Society of Professional Engineers. Exemptions to Engineering Licensure Laws (2016). Available athttps://www.nspe.org/resources/exemptions‐engineering‐licensure‐laws (accessed March 6, 2017).
15
See National Society of Professional Engineers. Exemptions to Engineering Licensure Laws (2016). Available athttps://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/exemptions‐engineering‐licensure‐laws (accessed March 6, 2017).

Summary Report

9“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

and NSPE, its state societies, other engineering societies, legislators, and public safetyadvocates must come together to collaboratively and proactively engage in this issue.
The argument in favor of the industrial exemption centers on professional liability and theassignment of risk, specifically, whether the liability burdens of large markets should be borneby corporations or government agencies instead of falling on the shoulders of one person ordesign team. While elimination of the industrial exemption would require that all activities
defined by a state as the “practice of engineering” be performed only by or under the
responsible charge of a PE, the same is true of other professions. Such as, if one goes to an
expert for legal advice, that expert is a lawyer, or to an expert for medical advice, that expert isa physician, physician’s assistant, nurse practitioner, or other licensed medical professional.
NSPE should utilize its legal expertise, relationship with state societies, and the NSPE member
base to guide legislatures to protect professionals engaged in industries where these
exemptions exist to limit the personal financial liability of the individual PE employees. This
would allow society to gain the benefit of the expertise of PEs who have been vetted byaccepted state standards, with their employers – industrial corporations – remaining legally andfinancially responsible for their management directives. Under this model, any designmodifications or changes to industrial products, processes or other devices or engineering
services would be required to be performed under the supervision of the PE in responsible
charge, ensuring the engineering design/service was evaluated with the protection of publichealth, safety, and welfare as a paramount consideration.
Given the existence of varying definitions of what is included in a specific state’s industrial
exemption, it is critical that engineering graduates understand this variability in practice.
Therefore, and as discussed in more detail in the Engineering Education section of this report,
NSPE must become a resource for engineering educators to inform and advise engineering
students on the variability of practice and engineering licensure requirements. There is no
greater disservice to an engineering graduate than to allow students to graduate from anengineering program ‐ with the belief that their degree is the only credential they will need to10

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

practice engineering, only to find immediately after graduation or in the future that they will
require an engineering license to perform an engineering job or to start an engineeringbusiness that impacts the public health, safety, and welfare.

PUBLIC POLICY AND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
Legislative Attacks on Occupational Licensing
Across the United States, there are a growing number of bills being introduced in statelegislatures that could weaken or eliminate professional engineering licensure.16 Most of thelegislation arises out of a belief that “less government and less regulation” is better. Thislegislation has been primarily supported by groups
The “Grand Bargain:”In acknowledgement of and in
returnfor
theirexpertise,
experience, and judgement, which
they are expected to apply indelivering affordable, accessible,
up‐to‐date,reassuring,andreliable services, and on theunderstanding that they will
curateandupdatetheirknowledge and methods . . . andthat they will always act honestly,
in good faith, putting the interestsof clients ahead of their own, we(society) place our trust in theprofessions in granting themexclusivity over a wide range ofsocially significant services andactivities . . . .
– The Future of theProfessions at 22

such as the American Legislative Exchange Council.17
It may be a reality that there are too manyoccupations requiring a license to practice in thatoccupation, such as florists18 or other activities.
However, each occupation and profession should beconsidered independently on its own and not
automatically included in broad legislative mandates
to eliminate occupational licensing merely because alicense is required for practice.
Professional engineering licensure is different frommany other occupations or professions. Professional
engineering licensure is a fundamental means of

16

National Society of Professional Engineers. Threats to Professional Licensure. Available athttps://www.nspe.org/resources/issues‐and‐advocacy/action‐issues/threats‐professional‐licensure (accessed June23, 2018).
17
See American Legislative Exchange Council. The Occupational Licensing and Job Creation Act. Available atwww.alec.org/model‐policy/the‐occupational‐licensing‐relief‐and‐job‐creation‐act/ (accessed March 6, 2017).
Other groups supporting similar legislation are Americans for Prosperity, the Institute for Justice, and the
Goldwater Institute, among others.
18
This is only provided as an example licensed occupation and the FOPE Task Force offers no opinion on whether alicense should be required for such activities.

Summary Report

11“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

protecting the public in a broad range of areas involving health, safety and welfare. Professional
engineering licensure sets the legally‐recognized standard of practice under state law andregulation is based on an engineer’s education, experience, examination, continuing
professional development, and other relevant qualifications. It also establishes the local
professional standard of care of all PEs when practicing engineering under the laws of thatstate. The larger challenge for professional engineering licensure is that many members of the
public do not understand the licensure model (education, examination, and experience
requirements) associated with the practice of professional engineering and the work required
to be performed by PEs. This issue is rooted in two common challenges: 1) the public generally
does not understand the differentiation between a degreed engineer and a PE and 2) broadly
speaking and with some exceptions, historically professional engineers have not been politically
active and there are very few PEs in legislative roles across the United States. These themes are
discussed in detail in the sections on Communicating the Value of the PE and the Role of the PE
in Public Policy, respectively, of this report.
To address these and related challenges, NSPE and all other engineering societies must work
harder to articulate the clear difference between professional engineering licensure and allother occupational licenses. In addition, there should be a concerted public relations effort toraise the public’s awareness regarding the health, safety, and welfare benefits resulting fromprofessional engineering licensure. The FOPE Task Force has determined that the threat toprofessional engineering licensure (and, in turn, to the continued protection of the publichealth, safety, and welfare) at the state level is a clear and present danger and is growing. As
part of this effort, in addition to actively initiating, organizing, and participating in federal andstate legislative coalitions and other likeminded professional groups opposing such efforts,
outreach should be made to key attack proponents on occupational licensure to educate thesegroups relative to the value of professional engineering licensure to the public and why suchlicensure should be exempted from any legislation introduced to eliminate occupational
licensure in a state or at the federal level.

12

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Professional engineering operates similarly to service professions such as accountancy, legal,
and medical. NSPE should continue to closely monitor any changes to licensure models – in
implementation, enforcement, and public perception, so NSPE can readily adapt to thischanging landscape. In this effort, however, it is necessary for NSPE and its state societies toreach out to its members and PE non‐members to inform them of the threats to licensure thathave occurred in their state or neighboring states and the efforts NSPE and the state societies
have undertaken to protect the professional engineering license. Through this effort, NSPE andthe state societies should encourage PEs to become active in their own advocacy, either
personally or through support of an advocacy effort like NSPE, against these occupational
licensure efforts that undermine professional engineering licensure.
Licensure Versus Certification
Proponents of the elimination of occupational licensure often advocate in favor of professionaland occupational certifications, which they argue are less restrictive and easier to obtain.
Therefore, the argument continues, a greater number of people could qualify for certification,
thereby eliminating the “barrier to entry” into the profession or occupation. This argument,
however, fails to recognize that certain activities being attacked under these legislative
initiatives relating to occupational licensure are of the types that directly impact the publichealth, safety, and welfare.
There are distinct differences between licensure and certification. The public generally does notappreciate the differences between the two classifications. Part of this is vernacular – thecommon language does not refer to other regulated professions as licensed (for example,
common language does not refer to an attorney as a “licensed attorney” or a doctor as a“licensed doctor”). Instead, they are identified and understood by the title of the profession(“Attorney” or “Doctor”) and then some may carry a special designation or certification

Summary Report

13“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS(“Patent Attorney,”19 “Attorney, [State Bar Association] Certified Real Property Law Specialist,”or “Certified Plastic Surgeon,” as examples).20 In addition, as a point of history, the terms“engineer” and “engineering” preceded the establishment of professional engineering licensing
laws at the state and territorial levels.
Certification is obtained after licensure in the learned professions of law and medicine. Further,in these learned professions, the core profession is the only title for those practicing therein,with certifications recognized after licensure and title.21 These differences between licensure
and certification must be effectively communicated both within the profession and to the
public at large.
The public is generally familiar and recognizes the use of certifications in other licensed
professions. In fact, there is even an organization for certifying licensing professionals for thoseworking in fields responsible for licensing other professionals.22 Further, if there are local, state,
or federal regulations or legislation requiring a specific certification to perform a specificengineering task, the public does not, and should not be expected to, know that there may be a
separate regulation or legislation that would exempt a PE from obtaining that engineering‐
related certification. For example, a state may require a specific certification to design astormwater plan through one statue, but then also have another statute in an entirely different
chapter, stating that a PE need not obtain that certification, without cross‐reference in either
statute. Such layered regulation makes it exponentially more difficult for the public to fully
understand who must be hired to complete a specific engineering task.
19

The American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct, a corollary to the NCEES Model Law andModel Rules, states, in part that, while a lawyer may “communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does notpractice in particular fields of law,” recognizing only “Patent Attorney” or “Admiralty,” as formal titles but allowing
a lawyer certified as a specialist by an organization “approved by an appropriate state authority” or the American
Bar Association to state that certification in communications along with the identification of the certifying
authority. Further, a lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fieldsof law. American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4 Communication of Fields ofPractice and Specialization.
20
Compare to a “Certified Public Accountant” where the license confers the title “Certified” but it is still a license.
21
In the case of public accountancy, those practicing in the profession are recognized as “Certified Public
Accountants” or “C.P.A.s” by applicable state law.
22
Certified Licensing Professionals, Inc. Available at http://www.licensingcertification.org/ (accessed June 12,2018).

14

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Several engineering societies (including the American Society of Civil Engineers (“ASCE”),
Society of Manufacturing Engineers (“SME”), International Society of Automation (“ISA”), andStructural Engineering Certification Board (“SECB”)) advocate for, and offer, certifications in
specialty areas. While both ASCE and SECB offer certifications only after an individual obtains a
professional engineering license, SME and ISA grant certifications entirely separate from(including prior to) licensure. SME specifically offers certifications as both Certified
Manufacturing Engineer (“CMfgE”) and Certified Manufacturing Technologist (“CMfgT”). ISA
focuses its Certified Automation Professional (“ISA‐CAP”) program across a global marketplace
for multi‐national corporations.23
The CMfgE, CMfgT, and ISA‐CAP certifications require demonstration of education and work
experience (with the CMfgE requiring “a minimum of eight combined years of manufacturing‐
related education and work experience,” quite similar to what is required under the NCEES
Model Law for PE licensure) followed by an exam.24 In developing this certification, SME and ISA
have gone even further in developing a body of knowledge, a competency model, and a three‐year recertification process. SME has promoted its certification as an alternative to professional
engineering licensing in engineering society discussion forums.
NSPE has adopted Position Statements 1737 and 1774 related to certifications for professional
engineers. NSPE should continue to advocate against certification as a substitute for or in lieu oflicensure for performing engineering tasks. NSPE should support local, state, and federal
regulation and legislation that requires PE licensure for the practice or performance ofengineering. Such licensure provides oversight by state boards and agencies to ensure the23

Unlike SME, however, ISA provides a direct link on its website about its CAP program to the American
Association of Engineering Societies website detailing the difference between licensure and certification providing
a link titled “Certification vs. Licensure” at the bottom of the webpage(http://www.aaes.org/sites/default/files/Differentiating_Licensure_and_Certification_for_Engr.pdf). See
International Society of Automation. Certified Automation Professional. Available at https://www.isa.org/isa‐
certification/certified‐automation‐professional/ (accessed June 12, 2018).
24
Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Certified Manufacturing Engineer. Available at www.sme.org/cmfge(accessed February 3, 2017); Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Certified Manufacturing Technologist. Availableat www.sme.org/cmfgt (accessed February 3, 2017); International Society of Automation. Certified Automation
Professional. Available athttps://www.isa.org/uploadedFiles/Content/Training_and_Certifications/ISA_Certification/CAP%20Benefits%20Br
ochure.pdf#page=10 (accessed June 20, 2018).

Summary Report

15“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

competent and ethical practice of engineering to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
NSPE should consider modifying its position (specifically, Position Statement 1737) of opposing
mandatory certification “beyond licensure.”
Given the prevalence of certification programs and societal expectations for some certificationsor specialization by licensed professionals, obtaining certifications should not be actively
opposed going forward. In fact, acceptance of certain certifications may strengthen theprofession and work to negate some attempts to fragment licensure by supporting a “PE license
first” approach with certifications to bolster and confirm competence in certain areas ofpractice.25 Instead, the FOPE Task Force recommends encouraging state licensing boards toactively evaluate engineering certification programs that could be employed to tailor thepractice of professional engineering to that state. Specifically, the FOPE Task Forcerecommends that Position Statement 1737 be sunset and readopted with revisions as follows:
7.

. . . Professional engineering licensure is the only qualification forengineering practice, unless other post‐PE certification is required by a state PE
licensing board for a particular practice of engineering. NSPE and its statesocieties actively oppose attempts to enact any local, state, or federal legislation
or rule that would mandate certification in lieu of or beyond licensure as a legal
requirement for the practice of engineering. Any post‐PE certification
requirements adopted by a state PE licensing board must provide for a
grandfathering or other pathway to practice for those PEs already practicing inthat area of engineering practice.
The FOPE Task Force recommends that Position Statement 1774 be sunset and readopted withrevisions as shown in Appendix C to this report.26

25

This is so long as the certification programs, when adopted, do not block out PEs who have already beenpracticing competently in those areas, allowing for a period of grandfathering, similar to what was allowed for thelegal and medical professions when they moved from an apprenticeship to education/examination path topractice.
26
NSPE Position Statement 1774 with revisions is not reproduced here due to its overall length.

16

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Fragmentation of Licensure
The regulation of PEs varies among states. Some states license all engineers as PEs. Other stateslicense by specific engineering disciplines (by use of a Title Act, Practice Act or both). In allcases, however, PEs are required to practice only in areas of their competence. This is different
than the practice of law or medicine, for example. All states regulate these professions only as“attorney” or “lawyer” and “doctor.” Titles for medical professionals such as “pediatrician,”“plastic surgeon,” and “cardiovascular surgeon” are conferred after obtaining licensure as a
“medical doctor (M.D)” and then earning a separate nationally‐approved certification in a
medical specialty. The possible embrace of a similar certification process for PEs is discussed in
the section above.
The fragmentation among PEs with terminology such as “engineer,” “professional engineer,”“licensed engineer,” and “registered engineer,” is already confusing to the general public.
Discipline‐Specific engineering titles fosters the potential for even greater fragmentation of theengineering profession. Further, continued support and adoption of Discipline‐Specific Title
Acts or Discipline‐Specific Practice Acts provide further opportunity for conflict that may benefit
those seeking to eliminate occupational licensing, as discussed above, as these acts create andeven more restrictive path than would be otherwise the case.
One way to address the concern that discipline‐specific licensure could further fracture theengineering profession, is to incorporate the certification process into a state’s existing process
for licensing PEs. NSPE should work diligently with both NCEES and its state boards and with the
NSPE state societies to advocate that separate discipline‐specific licensure not be supported(i.e. Discipline‐specific Title and Practice Acts). Instead, certifications in certain areas of practiceor expertise after obtaining a PE license should be supported. This could include, as an example,
similar to the practice of the American Bar Association or American Medical Association. If acertification program is recognized by NCEES or the state licensing board, then it is anappropriate certification required for specialized areas of practice, such as StructuralEngineering in states that determine such additional certification is necessary to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare.
Summary Report

17“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

The SECB is a national organization that provides Structural Engineering Certification. To obtain
this certification, one must be licensed as a PE, complete successful passage of the 16‐Hour
structural engineering NCEES examination, complete continuing education in six different
categories, and complete annual recertification. Such a framework could be recognized by state
licensing boards if the certification and recertification processes do not change and if a state
determines that a PE should also obtain Structural Engineering certification for certain
engineering activities to ensure another layer of protection for the public health, safety, andwelfare.
NSPE should continue to advocate for the elimination of Discipline‐Specific Title and PracticeActs, as these acts continue to not only confuse the public at large, but also make for
cumbersome and confusing processes for legislatures to understand and, also, as it relates to
the general mobility of PE licensure. Further, adoption of such positions (elimination ofDiscipline‐Specific Title and Practice Acts and Support for Post‐PE Certifications) would be morein line with the consistency of approaches adopted by other licensed and publicly‐understood
professions of the law and medicine.
Another recent development within engineering licensure, primarily promoted by the civilengineering community, is a change in the education requirements for PE licensure. There has
been an ongoing effort by ASCE to require additional education after attainment of anengineering bachelor degree as a condition for professional licensure.
The overall academic structure of the bachelor degree for engineering has changed over timeand must be closely understood and monitored by NSPE. NSPE participates actively in the ABET
education accreditation criteria development process. It is important to note, however, thatwhile the academic structure of engineering bachelor’s degrees has changed, it does notnecessarily mean that the current academic structure is “wrong” or “inadequate.” It has beenargued, however, that because licensure is considered to be the pinnacle of professional
practice, allowing the broadest abilities to practice engineering in the United States, education

18

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

requirements for individuals seeking licensure can be different than those seeking only anengineering degree.
Consistent with other learned professions, a degree demonstrates a minimum acceptable levelof education. In any area of the practice of engineering, for one to be competent and qualified
in that area one will need to obtain additional training or education. It is not necessary,
however, that the additional training or education need to be formal academic education andmay be done through various training programs or intensive on‐the‐job training after
undergraduate graduation. NSPE must be diligent and ensure that in all cases, it is the public
interest that is being protected.
Procurement of Professional Engineering Services
The long‐term sustainability of professional engineering is in harmony with the PE’s role inprotecting the public. To that end, steps must be taken to create and maintain a competitiveenvironment for the delivery of professional design services through Qualification Based
Selection (“QBS”). This environment must highlight the value of the profession while preventing
it from becoming a mere commodity.
In a recent letter to a state’s legislators, NSPE laid out the following position:
QBS is a procedure whereby service providers are retained on the basis ofqualifications, rather than price factors. Under the QBS method, the procuring
agency reviews the qualifications submitted by interested individuals and firms,
ranks respondents, and then negotiates with the most qualified respondent for amutually agreeable contract.
Further, NSPE provided four reasons as to why it is imperative that QBS methods are used.
1. QBS protects the public welfare
2. QBS protects the taxpayer
3. QBS benefits small firms
4. QBS promotes technical innovation

Summary Report

19“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Choosing an engineering firm for a project can have far‐reaching implications. How a project isdesigned and engineered in the early stages can affect its costs, performance, and quality
throughout its entire lifecycle. Therefore, it does not pay to treat engineering like a commodity
and compare firms by price only. This is one scenario where paying a little more upfront cansave huge costs and headaches down the road. In view of this, QBS has become the mantra inchoosing engineering firms, with many government agencies requiring it. NSPE and PEs must
continue to advocate on behalf of the use of QBS and place emphasis on the value it provides.
Without it, the public could be denied the benefit of those most qualified to provide
engineering services.
The Role of the PE in Shaping Public Policy
Engineers have long been recognized for their critical thinking and problem‐solving skills.
Moreover, the PEs in our country have pledged an oath to hold the public health, safety, andwelfare above all other considerations in exchange for practicing with a state‐granted license.
These skills and commitment to public health, safety and welfare uniquely position professional
engineering to be a positive and driving influence on the public policy making process.
Despite the obvious need for critical thinking and problem‐solving skills in the development andimplementation of public policy, engineers are currently underrepresented in policy making
bodies. Today, engineers represent a modest 0.9 percent of the US Congress as compared to41.5 percent attorneys and 4.4 percent healthcare professionals.
To ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are preserved in the future, PEs must playa greater role in shaping and/or otherwise informing public policy. Far more PEs will need toenter the public service arena by appointment or election to public office. Even greaternumbers of PEs will need to be increasingly visible and actively engage in the political processby building relationships with policy makers and providing much needed technical support andguidance.

20

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

ENGINEERING EDUCATION
Engineering Education Generally
Over the past forty years, the world has changed, and the nature of the practice of engineering
at a professional level has changed with it. The planning, design, and implementation ofengineering projects now takes place fully in a societal context, requiring extensive public andstakeholder input in project decision‐making and heightened consideration of economic,
environmental, public policy, code compliance, legal, and regulatory matters. More than everbefore, this requires advanced professional practice skills on the part of PEs in the areas ofcommunication, leadership and a broad understanding of the societal context. In technicalareas, an explosion of scientific and engineering information has led to the need for both
greater breadth of science and engineering knowledge and for much greater depth of technicalknowledge in ever‐narrowing areas of technical practice.
The education of engineers in preparation for professional practice in a four‐year baccalaureate
program faces two daunting and equally important challenges. First, the body of knowledge
required for practice as a PE has been and is expanding rapidly, both in terms of science andengineering knowledge and skills, and the need for more professional practice skills. Secondly,
the total credit hours for a bachelor of science degree has faced a downward trend. This is not,necessarily, to say that engineering graduates today are“less educated” as technological advancements havechanged the way engineering tasks are taught andaccomplished.

Our basic methods of educating havenot changed much for centuries.
– The Future of theProfessions at 55

The combination of an expanding body of knowledge and declining credit requirements has
resulted primarily in a decrease in engineering content in terms of both breadth and depth.
Furthermore, we are generally not expanding the professional practice content in engineering
education, even though professional practice requirements are accelerating.
It is for these reasons that the National Academy of Engineering—formed to advise the US
Congress on engineering matters—concluded in a major report that “it is evident that theSummary Report

21“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

exploding body of science and engineering knowledge cannot be accommodated within thecontext of the conventional four year baccalaureate degree.”27
NCEES has, therefore, set a goal to make a strong system of licensing engineers even stronger
by increasing the minimum engineering education required to practice as a PE. This education,
however, need not only be through formal academic education. NCEES believes that expanding
the education requirement will better prepare PEs to meet professional demands and will
significantly enhance their careers. NCEES also believes that expanding the education
requirement will promote greater proficiency in the practice of professional engineering for theprotection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To that end, NCEES has in place Position
Statement 35, “Future Education Requirements for Engineering Licensure.”28
Nationwide, the financial constraints on engineering education will continue to place stress on
our existing understanding of the PE. Engineering education is placing greater emphasis on
teamwork within the educational structure at the request of industry. Thus, there is less of anemphasis on an individual having embraced a “body of knowledge” and more on a “collective
body of knowledge” within the team. To complete a baccalaureate degree within the four‐year
time frame, students have less educational emphasis on the fundamentals of engineering
potentially resulting in being less prepared to sit for an exam on these topics.
The team approach requiring a few PEs on staff is already prevalent in many governmental
agencies (i.e., USACE, EPA, USDA), industries (Boeing, Airbus) and private industry (K‐Tron,
Great Plains, Koch).
The FOPE Task Force concurs with NCEES that the current baccalaureate degree which is now
the educational standard for engineering licensure is becoming insufficient to accommodate
the expanding body of knowledge required for practice as a PE. Global competitiveness is at risk
and engineering education should be reformed to respond to this risk. The FOPE Task Force27

National Academy of Engineering. Educating the Engineer of 2020 at 52 (2005).
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Future Education Requirements for Engineering
Licensure Position Statement 35 (August 2015).

28

22

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

therefore supports increasing the minimum engineering education required to practice as a PE.
This additional education may be fulfilled by an academic engineering degree beyond thebaccalaureate degree but, the FOPE Task Force recommends that alternative pathways otherthan formal academic education be developed to fulfill the additional education requirement.
One such alternative could consist of coursework and/or workshops that have sufficient
content rigor and outcomes assessment that is more robust than traditional continuing
education.
Licensure of Engineering Educators
In today’s university structure, faculty members are expected to focus even more on active
research leading to publications and contributions to the overall university goals. A majority ofdepartment’s promotion and tenure requirements do not utilize the PE as an accomplishment
worth of credit towards promotion. Thus, the PE is currently only of importance to faculty who
are actively involved in consulting engineering outside the university or who participate inresearch activities that interface with an industry requiring professional engineering licensure
to utilize their equipment.
With historically low or no salary increases, engineering faculty are fortunate in that they canpractice their profession as a means of supplementing their personal income. Salary issues havealso led to a reduction in interest in becoming members of NSPE because the rate of returnwith NSPE investment is low for a faculty member.
Little incentive is given for an engineering faculty member to obtain a professional engineering
license, unless there is a desire to practice their profession outside the University structure as aconsulting engineer. Within the University, most faculty members have spent 8‐10 years
completing a PhD degree program. The dissertation defense within a doctoral program alone isan extensive examination of the knowledge possessed by that individual. Many faculty
members feel that it is impractical for a faculty member to be subjected to an exam to verify hisor her knowledge base.

Summary Report

23“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

It is also important to note that where an unlicensed engineering professor may be able tocomplete some activities that fall within one state’s definition of the practice of engineering
within the University because it is an enumerated “education exemption” in that state, those
may not be available if that professor moves to another University in a different state with adifferent “education exemption.” Also, there is an important policy difference in research donesolely within the bounds of a research institution and research done reaching beyond the wallsof the institution, such as connecting into an electric distribution grid or field‐testing alaboratory innovation. This is where an alternative pathway to licensure may be worth further
exploration, if the goal is to get engineering educators licensed.
Currently, Wyoming is the only state with a state statute allowing for an alternative pathway tolicensure for engineers with a Doctor of Philosophy (“PhD”) in engineering. The intent in doing
so was to capture those in academia and achieve the multiple goals of licensing faculty, meetingstate statute for instructing upper level engineering courses in the case of an unlicensed dean
and to continue to promote the traditional professional engineering pathway to students andsubsequently increase the number of professional engineers. Due to its uniqueness, theWyoming license is only for practice of professional engineering in Wyoming and is not
accepted by other states via comity.
Until the metrics are known, NSPE should evaluate whether to support and promote suchalternatives or to propose other alternatives. For example, the PE license requires that theengineer practice only in his/her area of competence. Perhaps there is an alternative in which
tenured faculty could obtain a PE license by demonstrating proof of research in engineering
fields and attainment of tenure status, plus passing of a multi‐hour ethics examination offeredby NCEES. While considering whether alternative pathways to licensure are appropriate, NSPE
should forego efforts or using resources to attempt and get all engineering faculty licensed.
Instead, a determination of where, when, and why engineering licensure may be required
would be a more appropriate area of focus for NSPE.

24

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Engineering Education on Licensure
However, the focus should not be solely on getting university engineering faculty licensed.
Instead, efforts should focus on getting materials into the hands of engineering educators toshare with undergraduate engineering students. Professional engineering licensure may berequired for them to practice depending on their area of practice, their employer, and theirjurisdiction. Further, educating that while one jurisdiction may not require PE licensure topractice a certain engineering‐related activity, another may is critical. Therefore, it is of thegreatest importance for an engineering student to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (“FE”)
exam and sit for the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam as soon as possible. NSPE has
previously attempted to encourage ABET to require the sharing of this information, even
anecdotally, with undergraduate engineering students, but ABET has not incorporated this into
its education criteria. Further, with well‐known institutions abandoning ABET‐accreditation,other avenues for communication must be explored.
This information should also be shared with undergraduate engineering verification groups
within each of the discipline‐specific engineering societies as they have the direct lines ofcommunication with the engineering education programs around the country, outside of aformal ABET process. Also, given the recent Memorandum of Understanding executed between
NSPE and the National Society of Black Engineers (“NSBE”), which has a phenomenal on‐
campus presence in engineering programs around the country, NSPE could provide an
education module to be used by NSBE chapters in a meeting with its student members
explaining, in essence, that although they may not need a PE license tomorrow, it may berequired someday, and having the tools in their toolkit will set them up for a more rewarding
career.
Beyond incorporating the subject of licensure into the engineering education curriculum,
several key revisions to engineering education should be explored to ensure students in all
disciplines are prepared upon graduation. Engineering faculty should impress upon allengineering students the need for a commitment to lifelong learning, whether by obtaining
advanced degrees through formal academic education or education through technical societies
Summary Report

25“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSor other entities to ensure competence in one’s area of practice or to expand into a new area ofpractice. Further, certain fundamental education concepts promoted in engineering design andseminar courses, including project management, leadership capabilities, risk assessment,
initiative, making decisions in the face of uncertainty, the urgency and will to deliver on time in
the face of constraints or obstacles, resourcefulness and flexibility, trust and loyalty in a teamsetting, and the ability to relate to others, including the ability to recognize explicit or implicit
bias as well as ways to address and overcome these obstacles. Additional engineering
education considerations are discussed in more detailin Appendix D to this report.

LICENSURE MODEL AND MOBILITYNCEES is a national organization dedicated to advancing
professional licensure for engineers and surveyors.
NCEES

develops,

administers,

andscorestheexaminations used for engineering and surveying
licensure in the United States. It also facilitates

Before [professionals] are recognized
as fully‐fledged practitioners who canwork independently, professionals are
generally required to undergo
extensive education, training, andindenture, and be able to demonstratethat they gained sufficient knowledge
and practical experience along theway; and that they received adequate
supervision.
– The Future of theProfessions at 16

professional mobility and promotes uniformity of the
U.S. licensure processes through services for its member licensing boards and licensees.
Professional mobility means the movement between the US states/territories and around theworld of engineering professionals capable of independent practice having met therequirements for licensing or registration. At this time, each state and territory requires
application for licensure in their regulated environments. Wyoming, New Mexico, and a few
other states have led the charge in developing and entering into an agreement to set up amechanism for multi‐state application and licensure for Model Law Engineers (“MLEs”).29
Individuals licensed in one state or U.S. territory are often interested in becoming licensed topractice in additional jurisdictions. However, comity licensure provisions vary significantly from29

MLE is an NCEES designation whereby: the MLE has (1) a bachelor’s degree in engineering from an EAC/ABET‐
accredited program, (2) four years of acceptable engineering work experience, (3) passed the NCEES FE and PE
exams, (4) no felony convictions, and (5) a clean disciplinary record.

26

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, some but not all U.S. jurisdictions require thatcandidates graduate from an accredited program, and some jurisdictions may waive
examination requirements if candidates have obtained postgraduate education or haveextensive experience. Jurisdictions may also differ in their specific requirements regarding what
constitutes acceptable engineering experience. Candidates who received their initial license
based on different standards may encounter future difficulty in becoming licensed by comity inother jurisdictions. An important component of the NCEES Records Program is the MLE
designation, which NCEES developed to simplify the comity licensure process. Most jurisdictions
have adopted all or parts of the NCEES Model Law, and they can expedite the licensure process
for engineers who meet all criteria for the MLE designation.
The application of the MLE designation is, however, not consistent across all United States
territories and states. This creates mobility challenges, protracted application times, and, attimes, an inability of a PE licensed in one jurisdiction to obtain reciprocal licensure in anotherstate without completing a separate education or experience requirement. While notinsurmountable, these mobility challenges are frustrating for licensees. Streamlining themobility process across jurisdictions would not only ease the entrepreneurial opportunities forlicensees and expedite the cross‐border use of PEs where a temporary shortage may exist but
such streamlining would also ensure protection of the public health, safety, and welfare
through consistent application processes and also potentially encourage those who may nototherwise need a license in their particular practice or jurisdiction to obtain licensure that canbe efficiently transferred between jurisdictions.
NSPE must continue to promote mobility of the professional engineering license toaccommodate the needs of a more mobile society. To do so, NSPE should continue to support
the NCEES model laws and rules for licensure, which provide for licensure for the practice ofengineering by PEs only and by the same method, avoiding the introduction of additional
iterations of licensure laws, which just create barriers for the mobility of professional
engineering licensure.

Summary Report

27“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

PEs must be able to work in other jurisdictions with very little time impact as they move into
more national and international markets, including the potential use of temporary licenses. This
could be similar to the pro hac vice process used by the legal community for situation‐specificpractice outside an already‐licensed jurisdiction. Continuity and process streamlining which
eliminate bureaucratic barriers are valued by today’s PEs. A unified message to both the private
and public sectors is necessary for the survival of the current licensing system.

INTERNATIONAL LICENSURE
The world has been growing toward one world market since the recognition of interconnected
dependency through imports and exports to improve individual country’s economies andultimately the quality of life for its citizens. Mobility of professional engineers is a key part ofthe strategic plan for NCEES both domestically and internationally.
NSPE must continue to promote mobility of a PE license to accommodate the needs of a moremobile society. The efficient mobility of PEs in national and international markets is critical.
Continuity and process streamlining which eliminate bureaucratic barriers are valued by today’s
professional engineers. A unified message to both the private and public sectors is necessary
for the survival of the current licensing system.

THE ROLE OF THE CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN AND CERTIFIED ENGINEERINGTECHNOLOGISTAs technology continues to revolutionize the day‐to‐daytasks of the professional engineer, so does the publicdemand a competitive business model in order for
professional engineering to remain viable. To draw aparallel to describe such a model, we look to the legal andmedical profession. Operating similarly to paralegals or
physician assistants, Certified Engineering Technicians andMany [of the professions] havebecome increasingly introspective,
driven into greater specialization, sothat practitioners within a given
profession often have a limited view ofthe work and achievements of theirown colleagues, still less of theactivities and progress in otherdisciplines.
– The Future of theProfessions at 3

Certified Engineering Technologists (“CET” and “CT”) may
be able to provide competitive value to the engineering
28

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018profession. From a cost‐benefit perspective, the use of a CET/CT can provide an efficientapproach to the delivery of professional design services, under the supervision of theprofessional engineer in responsible charge. Identifying tasks that have traditionally been
completed by both PEs and unlicensed engineers that could/should be completed bytechnicians, under the supervision of the PE in responsible charge, could help the profession be
more sustainable and competitive.
Traditionally, the EI fulfilled this area in the business structure, providing for a morecompetitive professional services pricing model. This recommendation does not change theneed or requirement of the PE, but is a more inclusive and flexible, value added tool in theprofessional engineer’s toolbox to provide a broader array of services for the public. In this way,
the future of the profession can evolve with the recognition of the need for licensure. In
addition, alternate career paths can work together to eliminate further erosion caused byindustrial exemptions and other threats.
The professional engineering community should develop a better understanding of thecapabilities of CETs/CTs and, more importantly, identify ways in which the technician
community could expand their competency base. This
Might there be entirely new ways oforganizing professional work, waysthat are more affordable, moreaccessible,
andperhaps
more
conducive to an increase in quality
than the traditional approach?
– The Future of theProfessions at 31

could be a first step in the deeper implementation of
CET/CTs in the delivery of professional design services
through a more blended model.30
To further this blending, the FOPE Task Forcerecommends that NSPE, with the assistance of its

30

The National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (“NICET”) is a division of NSPE. Since theInstitute was founded in 1961, nearly 150,000 engineering technicians and technologists have met NICET’s
rigorous certification criteria – including a proctored written examination, documented work experience and on‐the‐job performance. The number of NICET‐certified engineering technicians (CET) and certified technologists (CT)continues to grow rapidly as more government agencies and private sector engineering firms, contractors andtesting laboratories rely on NICET certification to confirm the qualifications of their engineering technician andtechnologist workforce. NICET‐certified engineering technicians and technologists are required to renew theircertification every three years by accumulating 90 Continuing Professional Development credits; and are expectedto adhere to a Code of Ethics.

Summary Report

29“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

engineering technician and technologist certification body, NICET, and the volunteer technicalassociation, the American Society of Certified Engineering Technicians, seek opportunities tobetter communicate to its members, the broader professional engineering community, and the
public at large, the critical role performed by CETs/CTs. The FOPE Task Force also recommends
that NSPE communicate, at all available opportunities, how CETs and CTs can add value to thepractice of professional engineering and, in turn, to clients, by allowing PEs to focus on creating
solutions in the big‐picture sense and allowing CETs and CTs to perform critically important
technical work on drawings or calculations that are then reviewed by the PE in responsible
charge of that project or that portion of the project. This is similar to the way in which medical
doctors highlight the important role performed by physician assistants, nurse practitioners, andnurses in their practice, attorneys emphasize the critical impact paralegals and law clerks havein their practice. Professional engineering has been much slower to adopt this approach thanhave the medical and legal professions.

ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY METHODS
Alternate Delivery Methods (“ADMs”) have gained increasing popularity with government
agencies over the previous decade.31 ADMs can be broadly described as any method by whichgovernment or other publicly funded entities procure and contract for the construction of
public infrastructure other than traditional Design Bid Build. ADMs include Design Build,
Progressive Design Build, Construction Manager at Risk, Integrated Project Delivery,
Competitive Sealed Proposal and A+B Bidding. States have varying rules that regulate how
ADMs can be used by agencies and political subdivisions within the state.

31

National Society of Professional Engineers. Project Delivery Methods in the Public Sector – Position Statement
1779. Available at https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/GR%20downloadables/Project‐Delivery‐
Methods‐in‐the‐Public‐Sector.pdf (accessed March 30, 2018).

30

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Each type of ADM provides different benefits and risks to the owner. Factors such as safety,
function, time from conception to completion, capital
Whether inclined towards imminent
revolution or longer‐term evolution,
there are very few professionals orproviders who have thought deeply
about the future and concluded thatthe professions will carry on
indefinitely as they have for the past
fifty years.
– The Future of theProfessions at 104

and life‐cycle costs, environmental quality, andappearance may each play a role in the owner’s
decision to utilize a particular ADM. Owners typicallyuse ADMs in an effort to reduce project schedules andincrease project quality. As contracts are developed andnegotiated for specific projects, the allocation of risk,
control and other factors can be further defined andtailored to the needs of the project and desires of the contracting parties. Generally, as theowner’s schedule and budget risk decrease, so does the owner’s control over material choices
and design elements.
NSPE should consider (1) developing an ad‐hoc committee of NSPE members from around thecountry with diverse experience using ADMs for various project types and owners; (2)producing and actively maintaining an ADM body of knowledge32 from the PE’s perspective;and (3) developing a Guidance Document for public owners regarding the use of ADMs.

PUBLIC SECTOR ENGAGEMENT
As stated by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review:
Professional engineers working in the public sector have a unique role in serving
as guardians of various health, safety, and welfare issues. In addition to theirbasic professional role in holding paramount the public health, safety, andwelfare, engineers in the public sector are empowered to make recommendations
and approve only those drawings, plans, and specifications that are consistent32

As part of this effort, NSPE should revisit its existing professional engineering body of knowledge for updating.

Summary Report

31“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

with engineering standards. In many ways, engineers in the public sector are a key
line of defense in protecting the public.33
To that end, engaging public sector PEs, in general, in support for professional engineering
licensure issues and in membership in NSPE is important to build resources and advocates in
key decision‐making and stakeholder positions to ensure the continued protection of the publichealth, safety, and welfare in the development of the built environment and the deployment ofvarious engineering technologies. To encourage suchengagement, the FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE
develop and implement a rate for public sector PEs andthose on the PE track, consistent with the direction of the
NSPE House of Delegates in July 2017. Then, following

Still others will want to say that a jobin the professions should be ‘a careerof human significance . . . in terms ofhuman welfare and advancement.
– The Future of theProfessions at 17

such development, undertake an active public sector PE
member marketing campaigns.
The American Bar Association offers membership to government lawyers at an approximately
43 percent discount at its maximum. The American Medical Association offers membership tomilitary physicians at an approximately 33 percent discount. The American Public Works
Association offers membership to a public agency (that includes covering dues of rosteredmembers) at a discount of approximately 31 percent (when compared to the same corporategroup membership rostered member roster).
Beyond general engagement of public sector PEs, advocacy to ensure that selection committees
for federal, state, and municipal infrastructure projects should include a PE or multiple PE’s toanalyze the technical aspects that are required for firms to meet a qualifications‐based
selection process. NSPE and its state societies should work with appropriate state or local
governments to incorporate qualified PEs in the selection process. Additionally, NSPE should
work with federal agencies to ensure that qualified PEs are available and identified for
33

National Society of Professional Engineers. Board of Ethical Review. Engineer’s Duty to Adhere to Codes,
Standards and Guidelines. Available at https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/board‐ethical‐review/public‐
health‐and‐safety‐engineer‐s‐duty‐adhere‐codes (accessed June 1, 2018).

32

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

participation in the selection process, perhaps even maintaining an NSPE Community solely
dedicated to individuals who would be qualified for these selection committees. In furtheranceof these efforts, NSPE should work cooperatively with the American Public Works Association(“APWA”), ASCE, and Society of American Military Engineers (“SAME”) (three of the largest
public sector membership organizations) on key issues.

COMMUNICATING THE VALUE OF THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERAs discussed previously in this report, during its work, the FOPE Task Force identified multiple
ways in which PEs communicate what they do in response to the question, “What do you do?”Those responses included the following, among other responses: “I’m an engineer,” “I’m a PE,”
“I’m a licensed engineer,” “I’m a registered engineer,” “I’m a [discipline or specialty] engineer,”“I’m a consultant,” and “I’m a project manager,” The fact that a PE can communicate what theirprofession is in so many ways creates additional confusion among the public about who PEs are
and why licensure is critical for our profession. PEs can benefit greatly from developing
consistency in telling our story to the public.
NSPE takes ownership of our public identity as PEs andMost professionals are comfortablewith this broad statement: routine
work can be handed over to machines,
but human experts will still be needed
for the tricky stuff that calls forcreativity, innovation, and strategic
insight.
– The Future of theProfessions at 278

helps define who we are, what we do and what wevalue. Right now, the public has a generally positive
view of “engineers,” but a big part of the story is
missing. The term “engineer” is broad and all‐encompassing. Many surveys of public view ofprofessions do not offer any level of detail as to whatkind of engineers they are including in that survey. And

general knowledge of “professional engineer” versus “engineer” is limited. Additionally,
communication of “professional engineering” versus “the engineering profession” can bechallenging, even among PEs and PE regulators.
In general, engineers are seen as intelligent introverts who toil alone on important projects.
While this may be true for some in professional engineering, PEs are those pulling together
Summary Report

33“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

project teams, heading engineering departments or corporations, developing creative solutions
to everyday problems, and providing critical insight and expertise to find ways to improve life in
our society. It is imperative that NSPE take the charge in changing the “introverted professional
engineer” perspective as we are the ones who can communicate best what it is we do andchallenge long‐held assumptions about professional engineering.
PEs are collaborative solution creators who are socially engaged, innovative, and community
minded. We can also help people understand that all PEs abide by a code of ethics that says we“must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.” In most states,
following language similar to the NSPE Code of Ethics or NCEES Model Rules of Professional
Conduct is part of the legislative requirements for licensure. Given that this exists already and is
known to the professional engineers, NSPE should continually and exhaustively promote andmarket this code to the general public so that ethics or good moral character and value aresynonymous with professional engineers. Care must be taken to only promote and not compare
so as to not degrade unlicensed engineers or technicians.
NSPE is already educating the public about and advocating for the engineering profession. But
we can learn new ways of communicating from other professions. For example:
American Medical Association –advocates on behalf of medical professionals andpatients, maintains a model code of ethics, takes positions on policy issues, issues press
releases, makes recommendations related to public health issues

American Bar Association – advocates on behalf of legal professionals and consumers oflegal services, maintains a model code of ethics, takes positions on policy issues, issues
press releases, makes recommendations related to legal, governmental, and judicial
issues34

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants – Administers the C.P.A. certification

Certified Financial Planners – national sustained advertising campaign

Society for Human Resource Management – national sustained advertising campaign

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

These organizations have made their licenses34 and certifications part of the vernacular.
Everyone knows what profession an M.D., J.D./Esq., and C.P.A. are practicing. Perhaps NSPE canpublicize the “P.E.” in a way that increases the public’s familiarity with it while tying it to theCode of Ethics. This message should be communicated to both the public and within theprofession so that the public sees the value in professional engineers, unlicensed engineers see
the value of licensure, and PEs feel pride in their profession. PE Day and the new, moreconsistent and compelling branding is a great start, but can also get quickly diluted in “EWeek,”“Engineers’ Day,” “#ILookLikeAnEngineer,” etc. Communicating why we do what we do as PEs,
versus communicating only what we do can aid in this effort for a great public understanding
and appreciation of professional engineering.
Some other ways to increase awareness of professional engineering are:


Continue and expand the use social media



Engage with college students to help them understand they are part of a proud andvalued profession

Engage with professors to promote licensureSponsor local events geared toward science and engineeringIssue press releases

Publish studies

Provide opportunities and tools for PEs to share their stories

Continue to applaud those in academia who pursue licensure personally and actively
develop materials for educators, whether or not PEs, to promote it to their students
accordingly

As our profession continues to further define the PE and professional engineering licensure forthe public, our society’s trust in and respect for engineers will grow. There will be an increased
understanding of the value of the engineering perspective and people will expect to see
engineers involved in important decisions about public infrastructure. This will lead to better
34

Although called “Certified Public Accountants” the regulatory construct is really a license to practiceaccountancy.

Summary Report

35“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

and more informed deliberations about public investments in our systems of criticalinfrastructure.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONSTo ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, theFuture of Professional Engineering Task Force recommends that NSPE consider the following:Emerging Technology
o Develop or identify continuing education focused on new areas of engineering
practice with legislators or other key regulatory stakeholders as the target
audience to assist in their understanding of how the public health, safety, andwelfare may be impacted by changes.
o Develop or identify continuing education on new technology tools andapplications to aid EIs, PEs, and CET/CTs in the practice of engineering, including
the integration of emerging technologies into traditional engineering tools.
o Develop written materials (tapping into legal and ethical experts who also hold a
PE license) to discuss ethical implications, risks, and advantages of a connectedsociety and areas where the public health, safety, and welfare may be at risk insuch connectivity.

Industrial Exemptiono Positively recognize and encourage particular industries or industry partners
promoting professional engineering licensure in states where that industry
would otherwise be exempt from licensure requirements.
o Proactively communicate what is and is not considered the practice ofengineering requiring a PE license and not wait for someone to come upon thestate‐by‐state summaries containing this information on the NSPE website.
o Equip state society partners to articulate what is and is not encompassed bytheir state’s industrial exemption when speaking with local and state regulators,
including drawing important parallels to the legal and medical professions and36

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

concerns related to the public health, safety, and welfare in instances of
unregulated practice.


Public Policy and Professional Engineeringo Legislative Attacks on Occupational LicensingContinue and ramp up communication efforts on the core principles ofprofessional engineering licensure. Provide state society partners
materials that are PE licensure‐specific that focus on how PE licensure issimilar to that of the legal or medical professions (which are often more
understood by legislators and regulatory authorities) with a section
where each state society partner can highlight several key PE distinctions
for the intended audience.



Establish a legislative outreach Community within NSPE to communicate
to all members (automatically enrolling all members in the Community
along with the open forum Community, but allowing a member to optout) about active occupational licensing legislative efforts and also toprovide more awareness of the activities NSPE undertakes in furtheranceof the protection of the PE license and the public health, safety, andwelfare through various government relations efforts.

o Licensure Versus Certification

Sunset Position Statements 1737 and 1774 and adopt new language
related to certifications after obtaining a PE license.



Advocate for elimination of private certifications that seek to supplant
licensure.

Instead, support private certifications, as approved by NCEES orstate/territorial licensing boards, that are obtained post‐PE license andprovide further examination and verification of qualifications for initialcertification and continuing education for maintenance of thatcertification to perform in specific areas of professional engineering (suchas “Professional Engineer, Certified Structural Engineer” or “PE, CSE”).
Summary Report

37“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSo Fragmentation of LicensureCease using the terminology of “registered PE” or “registered engineer”
as “registration” solely requires payment of a fee and identification of anindividual on a roster. Use of this term further confuses and fragments
the profession. PEs are “licensed” as recognized by NCEES having
completed an education, examination, and experience evaluation by astate or territorial regulatory authority.



Advocate against restrictive discipline‐specific Title and Practice Acts
(maintaining support for and advocating for state licensure laws thatlicense engineers and “professional engineers”) and equip state society
partners with materials that are state‐specific to advocate against the
adoption of, and advocate for the elimination of, where applicable, such
restrictive discipline‐specific Title and Practice Acts.



Communicate parallels with the legal and medical professions where all
licensed practitioners are “lawyer/attorney” or “doctor,” respectively,
with other credentialing around that core and protected title approved
for use by state boards of licensure.



Adopt throughout NSPE communications the encompassing use of“professional engineer” and not various iterations thereof like “licensed
engineer.”Adopt a position supporting post‐PE certifications that continue torequire PE licensure as an initial requirement for that certification (alongwith the advocacy against restrictive discipline‐specific Title and PracticeActs).

o Procurement of Professional Engineering Services
Continue to advocate on behalf of QBS and its important role inprotecting the public health, safety, and welfare.

38

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018o Role of the PE in Shaping Public Policy

Look for opportunities to form alliances and/or otherwise cooperate withother engineering organizations to increase the engagement and active
participation of PEs in the shaping of public policy.

Seek out and support engineering programs that currently offer curricula
and/or degrees in Engineering and Public Policy, while encouraging wider
adoption of similar programs at other engineering institutions.



Identify and prepare qualified Professional Engineers for public service
and ultimately work to secure their appointment or election.



Engineering Educationo Advocate for the adoption of alternative pathways other than formal academic
education which could be developed to fulfill additional education requirements
beyond a baccalaureate degree prior to professional engineering licensure. One
such alternative could consist of coursework and/or workshops that havesufficient content rigor and outcomes assessment that is more robust than
traditional continuing education. This would be consistent with therecommendations in current NSPE Policy 168 and NCEES Position Statement 35.
o Cease efforts to “get all engineering faculty licensed” and instead shift efforts togetting materials into the hands of educators that they may then use ton inform
undergraduate engineering students to enforce that engineering licensure may
be required for them to practice depending on their area of practice, theiremployer, and their jurisdiction. Further, that education should include
informing students that while one jurisdiction may not require PE licensure topractice a certain engineering‐related activity, another may. Therefore, it is of
the greatest importance for an engineering student to pass the FE exam and sit
for the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam as soon as such examinationis allowed. Also share this information with undergraduate engineering
verification groups within each of the discipline‐specific engineering societies as

Summary Report

39“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
they have the direct lines of communication with the engineering education
programs around the country, outside of a formal ABET process.

Licensure Model and Mobilityo Continue to support the education, examination, and experience requirementsfor professional engineering licensure across all states and territories of theUnited States.
o Support multi‐state compacts that provide broad reciprocity between states if an
individual is determined eligible for licensure in one of the signatory states (i.e.
licensure in one provides for licensure in all without separate verifications foreach application for professional engineering licensure).
o Explore support of temporary professional engineering licensure upon moving to
a new state or territory so as to not infringe upon one’s ability to obtain
employment.
o Explore support of project‐specific professional engineering licensure in a statein which an individual is not licensed provided, however, they have a local PE
support the project‐specific licensure, similar to the pro hac vice system
employed in the legal profession.
o Actively advocate with state society partners and partners in other technical andprofessional engineering associations for states to comport their professional
engineering licensure laws to the NCEES model laws and model rules, including
those of continuing education, to ensure mobility and also the individualcompetency of PEs.

International Licensure
o Continue to promote the standard supported and regulated by NCEES.
o Provide an international pathway to membership in NSPE.

The Role of the CET/CT and the PE
o Communicate to NSPE members, and in communications to the professional
engineering community, and the public at large, the CET and CT fields.

40

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018o Communicate, at all available opportunities, how CETs and CTs can add value tothe practice of professional engineering and, in turn, to clients, by allowing PEs
to focus on creating solutions in the big‐picture sense and allowing CETs and CTs
to perform technical work on drawings or calculations that are then reviewed by
the PE in responsible charge of that project or that portion of the project.
o Communicate parallels between PEs, CETs, and CTs to the way in which medical
doctors make use of physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses in theirpractice or attorneys make use of paralegals and law clerks in their practice.


Alternative Delivery Methods
o Develop an NSPE Task Force with diverse experience using alternative delivery
methods (project owners, sponsoring governmental entities, engineering
services (PEs and CETs/CTs), and financing) to produce and maintain (at regularintervals) a best management practices and lessons learned document that could
be presented annually at PECON with updates in experience or example projects.
o Develop and maintain an ADM body of knowledge from the PE’s perspectiveo Develop a guidance document for public owners regarding the use of alternative
delivery methods and the importance of inclusion of PEs in the process.



Public Sector Engagemento Develop focused partnerships (formally or informally) with the APWA, ASCE, andSAME – three of the largest organizations with public sector membership – withthe specific goal of increasing, and maintaining, public sector engagement in the(1) long‐term sustainability of professional engineering, including throughmembership in NSPE; (2) support of NSPE advocacy efforts on behalf of the PE
license and continued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare inprojects funded by public tax dollars or constructed for the benefit of the public;or (3) education sponsored by NSPE of key issued facing public sector engineers(licensed and non‐licensed) that are of importance to the continued protectionof the public health, safety, and welfare.

Summary Report

41“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSo Develop and offer a government PE rate for membership in NSPE and provide
various platforms for government PEs to collaborate either amongst themselves
regarding best practices or amongst private practice and industry PEs.
o Actively work to increase the number of public sector members in NSPE so as toprovide additional perspectives to the work of NSPE in support of the PE license
and the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
o Advocate that all federal, state, and municipal infrastructure project selection
committees include a PE or multiple PEs to analyze the technical aspects that are
required for firms to meet a qualification based selection process. Increasing
membership in NSPE of employees of these key employers will also provide
opportunities to extol the value of PEs for potential resources as needed bythese key employers for project development.

Value of the PEo Develop an NSPE Task Force whose sole charge is to define and communicate
the value of PEs. This Task Force would engage NSPE Membership, Leadership,
and Staff to collectively define the value of professional engineering and, more
importantly, effectively communicate the value of PEs to those already in theprofession, those in public office, and the general public.



Broad Area Recommendationso Communicate the importance of PEs moving from a position of technicalresource to trusted advisor and counselor in the overall development of a
project.
o Reevaluate the ways in which members self‐select “Interest Groups” and,instead, consider moving to “Practice Areas” to better collaborate amongcolleagues as, for example, someone may move from industry, to private
practice, to government, but in that career progression, may work in the area ofwastewater treatment, controls, and compliance.

42

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

CONCLUSION
The preamble to the NSPE Code of Ethics states:
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of thisprofession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty
and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life forall people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty,
impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard ofprofessional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethicalconduct.”
As long as there is a group of people willing to “place
service before profit . . . and the public welfare above allother considerations . . . .” the PE will be of value.
However, for that value to be realized there must be anunderstanding of what PEs do and why they are critical tothe continued health, safety, and welfare of the public[Various defects in the current
structure of the professions] will andshould lead to a renegotiation of the
grand bargain; a rebalancing of therelationship between the professions,the state, and society.
– The Future of theProfessions at 32

and the built environment. Communicating that value tothe public at large to ensure they not only understand who a PE is but also why the PE is
important to their daily lives remains a challenge. Absent this, the grand bargain on which
professional engineering has provided great advancements in protecting the public health,safety, and welfare will wither.
The FOPE Task Force has attempted to identify ways in which NSPE can mobilize its members aswell as non‐member PEs in this effort, as we must depend on ourselves to communicate ourvalue. To do this, emphasis must shift from “what” we do to “why” we do it. The message must
be that we protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public through our technical expertiseand unwavering code of ethics.

Summary Report

43“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

This Page Intentionally Blank

44

Summary Report“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDICES

Appendices

45“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

This Page Intentionally Blank

46

Appendices“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX A: EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
BackgroundThe expanding use of technology in the design and construction of engineered products,
processes, and systems has the potential to put pressure on the need for engineers to belicensed as well as how engineers fulfill their roles. As to the latter, the use of increasingly more
complex software can shift routine engineering tasks from the realm of the engineer to that of
the technician or even to the end user. Sophisticated software and modeling, when tied toappropriate codes and standards, can create a scenario in which the design and construction ofa product can be accomplished with minimal human involvement and with, perhaps, no needfor the involvement of a PE. If the professional engineering community continues with themantra “it won’t happen to us” or “I will always be needed,” it risks being marginalized, orworse, in the technology tidal wave.
In such a future world (aspects of which we are already witnessing), outside forces will
challenge the need for licensure. After all, the computer (or a successor technology) could beseen as the productive and reliable tool that has no internal biases or no “bad days in theoffice.” While we all know that human intelligence is required to design and build thetechnology, there could be a temptation to discount the role of human beings as technology
does more and more of the “thinking and creating.” In such cases, one may see the expanding
use and complexity of technology as a threat to licensure. While acknowledging these very real
scenarios, professional engineers (“PEs”) must resist the urge to fear change. Technology will
always be with PEs and professional engineering. PEs must, instead, have the desire and theability to embrace the inherent change.
For PEs to gain credibility in a public forum on emerging technology, we have to improve thelevel of technical fluency in these subjects beginning with middle school through college, andeventually the engineer intern (“EI”) talent pipeline. We must promote and develop
technological expertise in these new areas while still fostering a strong, consistent advocacy forengineering ethics.
Appendix A

47“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

The role of licensure in the future is expected be as important and necessary as it is today.
There is one component of licensure that is unique from technology: the “conscience” ofhuman beings that no machine can possess. It is the reality that the PE must hold paramountthe health, safety, and welfare of the public. It is the ethical chip of the engineer that nocomputer has. Licensure should constantly remind PEs that their duty is to place the interests ofthe public over and above all other considerations.
The public deserves and demands that a license should exist to protect them. A computer will
not be held accountable by the public. If we fail to respond to our changing world, then we will
fail in our responsibility to the public we serve.
NSPE must acknowledge and accept the evolution of technology into the engineering
profession and use it and control it, accordingly. This begins with separately identifying thespecific engineering tasks that can and cannot be computerized (or automated). We need toensure that the public is protected by having PEs hold responsibility for the software andcomputer engineering required for automated processes and implementation of limited
artificial intelligence as its value is studied, analyzed and proven in the profession. Traditional
methodologies are giving way to more efficient, technologically strong, and automatedprocesses.
Further, professional engineering must be on the forefront when it comes to the delivery of its
services. There are many options for delivery of sealed professional documents. They include
paperless documents and interactive data/models. Sensitivity to the end users must also be
included for mobile‐device viewing. The evolution of CAD drawings to Revit Models has madefreely transferring work more of a reality. PEs must lead the change to address how, forexample, Revit Models and 3D models of infrastructure have changed project delivery for the
consulting professional engineers and what the ramifications are. Global standardization ofengineering practices will impact the development of projects, and it is important for thesestandards to be developed by the professional engineering community.
The fields of present and future engineering technologies impacting society are growing along48

Appendix A“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

an exponential rate, not a linear one. These fields will be led by experts in these newtechnologies. PEs have an opportunity to be a part of this leading field as connectors of thetechnology to the societal implications of such technologies, linking engineering andengineering ethics.
● Continue Promoting the Brand of the EI/PE ‐ For PE voices to be heard, the generalpublic must be aware of professional engineering licensure overall. The public will notturn to PEs if they are unaware of what a PE does.
● Make Technological Impact to have an Ethical Impact ‐ PEs must go beyond being
informed on the sidelines. Taking leadership roles in the specific details behindemerging technologies is the primary way of building credibility in advising on thosetechnologies.
● Start with the End User and End with the Technology: “Design Ethics In” ‐ PEs must
understand the end “users” or beneficiaries of emerging technologies. We must firstunderstand user needs and the key ethical issues to be considered before designing theend product or process, across multiple ethical “layers.”
Ethical Considerations
To understand engineering ethics in emerging technologies, we must first understand that it is
not technology itself that impacts an end user, but what that technology enables an end user todo.
Ethics in emerging technologies can be thought of in three layers:
1. Ethics of the End User ‐ Why does a user wish to engage in a particular technology to
begin with? What are the motivations behind what a technology enables a user to do vs.
a user investing time and effort to actually do it? Are technologies inadvertently
designed to be biased for/against users? Are some user populations excluded as a
byproduct of technological availability and access?
2. Ethics of the Ecosystem ‐ Technology is an increasingly connected ecosystem. Where
the public adoption of the internet connected computer terminals to one another, newAppendix A

49“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

technologies are creating increasingly dependent ecosystems:○ Autonomous vehicles are a connected network of cars, passengers, anddestinations.
○ The Internet of Things (“IoT”) are a connected network of software‐driven
hardware connecting users’ homes.
○ Artificial Intelligence is a connected network of knowledge, information, tasks
and decision making.
○ What are the ethical implications, risks, and advantages of these ecosystems andtheir impact to societal good?
3. Ethics of Connected Societies ‐ Technology connecting users to products and otherusers accelerates the pace at which data and information are transferred as well as the
speed of decisions being made which impact each stakeholder. Are there collective
societal impacts to what technology does and does not allow?
Engineering ethics that connect each layer to the other evolve in parallel.
Educate Early and Often
PEs should continue promoting the integration of emerging technologies into traditional
engineering tools. Traditional foundations of engineering — engineering sciences, physics,
mathematics, analytical thinking, are all here to stay. However, the way in which they areapplied and the speed at which they can impact society is rapidly accelerating.
Fluency – Present PEs must become comfortable at speaking the language of new andemerging technologies. The education of future engineers in the engineering pipeline must also
include this fluency in order to have meaningful impact to society when they enter theengineering profession.
Early Career Integration of Ideas Important to Engineering Ethics — encourage technologicalawareness on the path to obtaining EI classification. Many next generation engineers will befamiliar with usage and fluency in tech use, but the nuances of ethical usage of a technology
need to be part of this education.
50

Appendix A“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Public Perception of PEs, Engineering Ethics, and Technology
Technological experts are plentiful and growing, but PEs have a unique opportunity to leadthese discussions from the perspective of engineering ethics. For PE expertise to be relevant inemerging technologies, we must holistically continue to promote the purpose of PEs to thegeneral public.
If the general public is not aware of the “brand” of EIs and PEs, then PE advocacy for public
well‐being in emerging technologies will be limited in its efficacy. While the National Society ofProfessional Engineers (“NSPE”) and state societies are working to foster awareness of PEs,
there are three defining criteria that PEs can highlight to help elevate the public image of PEs.
First, PEs should emphasize that not having a license does not imply not having ethics. One who
is licensed as a PE has undergone state‐level evaluation through testing and an examination of
their professional record, verifying that an individual with a PE license is recognized as aprofessional by the state and is bound by law to protect public well‐being.
Second, many emerging technologies have accompanying certifications or educational
certificates of completion that recognize expertise in a given topic. As such, certification andlicensure differences are not semantic ones. Certification indicates that one has obtained a skill
in a technology. Professional licensure is demonstration that, regardless of specific skill, thatengineers have demonstrated dedication and support for public safety over time in a methodthat is recognized by the state in which the engineer has been licensed to practice.
Third, engineering is technology. “I’m not good with computers,” is not a badge of honor. While
it is often mentioned in jest, it is damaging to the public perception of how engineers and non‐engineers perceive PEs. To be advocates of public well‐being in emerging technologies, PEs
must be “good at technology.” As part of our duties to stay informed in our respectiveengineering fields, investing the time to become conversant in new technologies is how PEs
must approach our work.

Appendix A

51“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Learn then Promote
For PEs to become effective advocates of engineering ethics in emerging technologies, PEs mustpossess a basic fluency of the new technologies being discussed. For example, it is alone
insufficient to advocate that “machine learning must be designed with public safety in mind.”Instead PEs must understand what aspects of machine learning design can have the mostimpact to public well‐being and speak technically and collaboratively on paths forward.
Lacking that understanding would be the equivalent of advocating, for example, that “we mustbuild chemical plants safely” without first possessing an engineering understanding of chemical
reactions, reactor design, and the technical variables that make a particular chemical plantdesign more or less safe than another.
For example, NSPE Position Statement 1772 on Autonomous Vehicles states that “Licensed
Professional Engineers should be employed by autonomous vehicle and autonomous
technology developers.” As a profession of PEs, what can we do to help prepare a talentpipeline of EIs/PEs into the autonomous vehicle industry
that can speak to the ethical implications of having/not
having particular capabilities in this technology?
Anyone can advocate for public safety, but we must raiseawareness of the roles of PEs that actually assist in making
such technologies safe.

As a profession of PEs, what can
we do to help prepare a talentpipeline of EIs/PEs into theautonomous vehicle industry thatcan speak to the ethicalimplications of having / not having
particular capabilities in thistechnology?

Conclusion
One of the most direct ways of PE involvement in emerging technologies is to have expert
fluency in a given technology and, with an understanding of public safety and well‐being as
demonstrated by being licensed, design in those ethical considerations while emerging
technologies are in early stage development. Engineering ethics are not “bolted on” after thefact.
By raising the public awareness of PEs in society, PEs can move from advocacy to active, hands‐
52

Appendix A“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

on participation in these emerging fields. Given the rate at which societies are becoming
increasingly connected by new technologies, engineering ethics is now more scalable than everbefore and the reach of public well‐being more vast. If we continue to understand that thepower of any technology is not the technology itself but that which it enables the end user todo, understanding both the positive and negative risks, PEs can make a significant impact in
how new technologies reach and ultimately, benefit, society.
Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements


NSPE Professional Policies: PP‐122 and PP‐168

NSPE Position Statements: PS‐1737, PS‐1772, and PS‐1778

Recommendations
To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, theFuture of Professional Engineering Task Force recommends that NSPE:

Develop or identify continuing education focused on new areas of engineering practicewith legislators or other key regulatory stakeholders as the target audience to assist in
their understanding of how the public health, safety, and welfare may be impacted bychanges.



Develop or identify continuing education on new technology tools and applications to
aid EIs, PEs, and CET/CTs in the practice of engineering, including the integration of
emerging technologies into traditional engineering tools.



Develop written materials (tapping into legal and ethical experts who also hold a PE
license) to discuss ethical implications, risks, and advantages of a connected society andareas where the public health, safety, and welfare may be at risk in such connectivity.

Appendix A

53“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

This Page Intentionally Blank

54

Appendix A“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX B: INDUSTRIAL EXEMPTION
Background
Nearly a third of America’s workers must have some form of government‐issued license to dotheir jobs.35 This number is almost seven times higher than it was just fifty years ago36 and is a
striking shift from a time before the Civil War, when anyone could engage in virtually any
occupation or profession without a license.37 Today, every state requires some form of licensing
for an average of ninety‐two occupations.38 One of the first such groups to act with respect toengineering was a small group of civil engineers in Louisiana, which began lobbying in about1898 for laws to restrict the practice of civil engineering to engineering license holders.39
Initially, the legislature rebuffed their proposals when other civil engineers opposed them.40
The proponents of licensing eventually succeeded in 1908,41 but, before they did, a notable civilengineer and Wyoming’s state engineer, Clarence Johnston, lobbied for42 and obtained in
Wyoming in 1907 what has come to be recognized as the first engineering licensing law in the
United States, although the law was very limited in its scope.43
The “industrial exemption” is a provision under most state licensing laws that exempts
companies that manufacture products or perform engineering services from the requirements
35

Morris M. Kleiner. N.Y. Times, Why License a Florist? at A35 (May 28, 2014). Focus of this article is on the mostdemanding form of licensing, referred to as “license,” “licensure,” or “licensing.” Government typically uses it tolicense persons who pass an examination and satisfy education, experience, and character requirements. Less
demanding forms of licensing include certification, in which authorization is granted after verification of persons’education or expertise in that field and does not preclude others from practicing the occupation, and registration,in which a person merely declares that he or she is practicing, provides contact information and pays a fee.
36
During the 1950s, about 4.5% of the American workfoce worked on jobs requiring a license. Morris M. Kleiner. A
License for Protection: Why are States Regulating More and More Occupations?, 29 REG. 17 (2006).
37
Council of State Governments. Occupational Licensing Legislation in the States at 19 (1952).
38
Adam B. Summers. Reason Found, Occupational Licensing: Ranking the States and Exploring Alternatives at 5(2007). Available at http://reason.org/files/762c8fe96431b6fa5e27ca64eaa1818b.pdf (accessed December 7,2014). “The most regulated state in the nation is California, which requires licenses for 177 job categories . . . .” Id.
39
Louisiana Professional Engineering and Land Surveying Board. History of the Board 1908‐1950 at 2. Available at
http://www.lapels.com/History_of_the_Board_1908‐1950.pdf (accessed December 27, 2017).
40
Id.
41
Id.
42
Wyoming State Engineers Office. Seventh Biennial Report of the State of the Engineering to the Governor of
Wyoming (1905).
43
National Society of Professional Engineers. 100 Years of Engineering Licensure. Available athttps://www.nspe.org/resources/press‐room/resources/100‐years‐engineering‐licensure (accessed February 5,2018).

Appendix B

55“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

that a professional engineer (“PE”) oversee the product’s design of the company’s services. In
the 1940’s, to make certain that the engineering being done within the confines of industry did
not implicate licensing laws, industry mounted a campaign to gain legislation exempting fromlicensure engineering, as defined by the state, done by an employee of a manufacturer orindustrial firm. Industry asserted that, so long as it (industry) was willing to take responsibility
for its engineers’ work and was liable for their negligence, licensing of engineers employed bycompany was unnecessary for protection of theCurrently there are states that do nothave an industrial exemption, and anumber of others that have
exemptions so broad that they allow
the unlicensed practice of any kind ofengineering—whether it is ancillary or
primary—so long as it is done within
their defined industry context.

public’s interests.
Engineering services that are exempt from PE licensure
differs by state,44 although the engineering community
often refers to the “industrial exemption” as a single
piece

of

legislation.

Each

state

independently

formulates its engineering licensing laws; thus, the laws vary significantly from state to state aseach takes its own nuanced approach. Every state exempts from licensure engineers whose
practices fit within one or more of five categories: (1) engineers working under the supervisionof a PE who takes responsibility for the unlicensed engineer’s work; (2) engineers employed bypublic utilities; (3) engineers employed by the federal government; (4) engineers employed by astate government; and (5) “in‐house” engineers employed by a manufacturing or otherbusiness firm (known as the “industrial exemption”).45
The result is a hodgepodge of inconsistent laws. Currently there are states that do not have anindustrial exemption, and a number of others that have exemptions so broad that they allow
the unlicensed practice of any kind of engineering—whether it is ancillary or primary—so longas it is done within their defined industry context. Depending on the state, the exemptions to
the requirement of a license to practice engineering extends to those in government, railroads,
utilities, industry/ manufacturing, and research & development. The industrial exemption has
44

National Society of Professional Engineers. Exemptions to Engineering Licensure Laws (2016). Available athttps://www,nspe.org/resources/exemptions‐engineering‐licensure‐laws (accessed March 6, 2017).
45
Louisiana Professional Engineering and Land Surveying Board. History of the Board 1908‐1950 at 2. Available at
http://www.lapels.com/History_of_the_Board_1908‐1950.pdf (accessed December 27, 2017).

56

Appendix B“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

contributed to the reality that only about 15‐20 percent of graduate engineers ever become
licensed. Further, this can also lead to engineers practicing in multiple jurisdictions andunintentionally violating state and territorial laws as they may assume their practice does not
require a license in State B if their practice fell under the industrial exemption of State A.
In part because of the industrial exemptions, essential
attributes of a PE, such as exercise of independentjudgment and exertion of responsible charge or control
over subject matter within his/her expertise may be too

Industry was able to kill an effort in1993 to pare back the exemption in
Louisiana, even after much effort wasmade to accommodate industrial
interests.

often inhibited, at best, or silenced, at worst. This can cause
a lack of professional discretion that could ultimately lead to disastrous consequences for thehealth, safety and welfare of the public.
To help ensure that professional engineering maintains the recognized and generally‐
understood status as a profession, the industrial exemption must be seriously curtailed. This
will require engineers to advocate for the elimination of each state’s industrial exemption
regulation, including the tailoring of expansive state‐level exemptions to the professional
engineering licensure laws of that state. A different engineering culture – requiring a paradigm
shift – will be required which the Future of Professional Engineering (“FOPE”) Task Forceacknowledges is not easily accomplished. To achieve this goal, the National Society ofProfessional Engineers (“NSPE”), its state societies, other engineering societies, legislators, andpublic safety advocates must come together to collaboratively and proactively engage in thisissue.
Eliminating the exemption will not be easy. Industrial management has good reason to want toretain the status quo; it is in control. For example, when attempts were made in Texas during
2003 to eliminate the exemption, industry was effective in blocking the efforts. According to a
National Counsel of Examiners of Engineering and Surveying (“NCEES”) task force, “The industry
lobbies, arguing economic development via contracted cheaper foreign engineering services,

Appendix B

57“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

were able to stop any action . . . .”46 Industry was able to kill an effort in 1993 to pare back theexemption in Louisiana, even after much effort was made to accommodate industrial interests.
Engineers working in industry have little personal incentive for change. They avoid the hassles ofdifficult examinations and times of apprenticeship typically associated with licensing, and they
enjoy the “safe harbor” of engaging in an interesting job within an organization that assumes
responsibility for their work.
Understanding that eliminating the exemption will require a revolution of sorts, opponents ofthe exemption have called for a multi‐faceted campaign. An NCEES task force has recommended
beginning the campaign in the nation’s engineering classrooms. The group calls for convincing
engineering faculty to place more emphasis on licensure, especially in engineering ethics
courses, in hope of making licensure seem like the natural next step for graduates of engineeringschool. Given the existence of varying definitions of what is subsumed in a specific state’s“industrial exemption,” it is critical that engineering graduates understand this variability inpractice. Therefore, and as discussed in more detail in the Engineering Education section of thisreport, NSPE must become a resource of materials for engineering educators to informclassroom lectures or discussions on the variability of
There is no greater disservice to anengineering graduate than allowing
themtograduatefromanundergraduateor
graduateengineering program with the belief
that their degree is the only credential
they will need to practice engineering,
only to find they immediately or in the
future want a career in a state or areaof practice where professional
engineering licensure has been
deemednecessary
toensureprotection of the public health, safety,
and welfare.

practice and licensure requirements. There is no greater
disservice to an engineering graduate than allowing
them to graduate from an undergraduate or graduate
engineering program with the belief that their degree isthe only credential they will need to practiceengineering, only to find they immediately or in the
future want a career in a state or area of practice where
professional engineering licensure has been deemednecessary to ensure protection of the public health,46

National Society of Professional Engineers. Demonstrating Qualifying Engineering Experience for Licensure (July28, 2007). Available at http://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/resources/demonstratingqualifying‐engineering‐experience‐licensure (accessed February 6, 2018).

58

Appendix B“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018safety, and welfare.
The FOPE Task Force also recommends working for modifications of reciprocity laws to facilitate
interstate practices. The FOPE Task Force understands, too, that it must find a way to“grandfather” the hundreds of thousands of unlicensed engineers currently working inindustry.47 Finally, the FOPE Task Force recommends an all‐out public relations campaign. The
public will need to understand why the elimination should be undertaken, industry will need tounderstand why this change would to its long‐term benefit, the profession will have to agree tosome form of initial compromise on some of the legs of licensure, and the licensing boards will
have to address comity. To assist in this effort, the FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE forma new task force charged with this effort, as discussed further in Appendix J of this report.
So long as the public fails to perceive the danger posed by the industrial exemption — its
facilitation of badly engineered industrial and manufactured products — legislative complacency
will surely continue. The public must be made aware that engineering licensing laws rarely apply
to the engineering work being done in their states and that the overwhelming majority ofengineering is being done by unlicensed engineers. Legislators will be far more responsive to theoutcries of a public demanding explanation for why, if the legislatures deemed licensing laws to
be necessary for the public’s protection, they have seen fit to excuse all but a few engineersfrom licensure.
The argument in favor of the industrial exemption centers on professional liability and theassignment of risk, specifically whether the liability burdens of large markets should be borneby corporations or government agencies instead of falling on the shoulders of one person ordesign team. While elimination of the industrial exemption would require that all activities
defined by a state as the “practice of engineering” be performed only by or under the
responsible charge of a PE, the same is true of other professions. If one goes to an expert for

47

Paul M. Spinden The Enigma of Engineering ‘s Industrial Exemption to Licensure: The Exception that Swallowed A
Profession. Available at
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=lusol_fac_pubs (accessed November
1, 2017).

Appendix B

59“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

legal advice, that expert is a lawyer, or to an expert for medical advice, that expert is aphysician, physician’s assistant, nurse practitioner, or other licensed medical professional.
NSPE should utilize its legal expertise, relationship with state societies, and the NSPE member
base to guide legislatures to protect professionals engaged in industries where these
exemptions exist to limit the personal financial liability of the individual PE employees. This
would allow society to gain the benefit of the expertise of PEs who have been vetted byaccepted state standards, with their employers – industrial corporations – remaining legally andfinancially responsible for their management directives. Under this model, any designmodifications or changes to industrial products, processes, or other devices or to engineering
services would be required to be performed under the supervision of the PE in responsible
charge, ensuring the engineering design/service was evaluated with the protection of publichealth, safety, and welfare as a paramount consideration. To ensure this fuller understanding of
the important role PEs currently play, and could play, in protecting the public health, safety,
and welfare, PEs have the opportunity to promote licensure every time they present to aregulatory or deciding board. They are active with planning commissions, city councils, county
commissioners, utility regulatory boards and commissions, legislators, school boards, board of
directors – private and public, etc. NSPE should provide resources to its members to assist themin providing this important information beyond the professional engineering community.
Professional engineering licensure is an effective means of protecting the public’s health,safety, and welfare. It sets the legally‐recognized standard of practice under state law andregulation that is based on an engineer’s education, experience, examination and otherrelevant qualifications. It also establishes the local standard of care of all PEs when practicing
engineering under the laws of that state.
Given the existence of varying definitions of what is included in a specific state’s industrial
exemption, it is critical that engineering graduates understand this variability in practice.
Therefore, and as discussed in more detail in the Engineering Education section of this report,
NSPE must become a resource for engineering educators to inform and advise engineering
60

Appendix B“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018students on the variability of practice and engineering licensure requirements. There is no
greater disservice to an engineering graduate than to allow students to graduate from anengineering program ‐ with the belief that their degree is the only credential they will need topractice engineering, only to find immediately after graduation or in the future that they will
require an engineering license to perform an engineering job or to start an engineeringbusiness that impacts the public health, safety, and welfare.
Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements


NSPE Position Statements: 1737, 1747, 1748, 1766, 1764, 1767 and 1778

Recommendations
To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, the
FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE:

Positively recognize and encourage particular industries or industry partners promoting
professional engineering licensure in states where that industry would otherwise be
exempt from licensure requirements.

Proactively communicate what is and is not considered the practice of engineering
requiring a PE license and not wait for someone to come upon the state‐by‐statesummaries containing this information on the NSPE website.



Equip state society partners to articulate what is and is not encompassed by their state’s
industrial exemption when speaking with local and state regulators, including drawing
important parallels to the legal and medical professions and concerns related to the
public health, safety, and welfare in instances of unregulated practice.

Appendix B

61“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

This Page Intentionally Blank

62

Appendix B“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX C: PUBLIC POLICY AND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
Public policy spans a broad array of topics with respect to professional engineering. The Futureof Professional Engineering (“FOPE”) Task Force has organized this appendix to cover thefollowing topics as related to public policy and professional engineering:Legislative Attacks on Occupational LicensureLicensure Versus Certification

Fragmentation of LicensureProcurement of Professional Engineering Services



The Role of the Professional Engineer (“PE”) in Shaping Public Policy

These subjects and key concerns are first discussed, with all the recommendations related to
public policy and professional engineering included at the end of this appendix.
Legislative Attacks on Occupational Licensing
Nearly a third of America’s workers must have some form of government‐issued license to dotheir jobs.48 This number is almost seven times higher than it was just fifty years ago49 and is a
striking shift from a time before the Civil War, when anyone could engage in virtually any
occupation or profession without a license.50 Today, every state requires some form of licensing
for an average of ninety‐two occupations.51
Most of the legislation arises out of abelief that “less government and lessregulation” is better.

Across the United States, there are a growing number ofbills being introduced in state legislatures that could

48

Morris M. Kleiner. N.Y. Times, Why License a Florist? at A35 (May 28, 2014). Focus of this article is on the mostdemanding form of licensing, referred to as “license,” “licensure,” or “licensing.” Government typically uses it tolicense persons who pass an examination and satisfy education, experience, and character requirements. Less
demanding forms of licensing include certification, in which authorization is granted after verification of persons’education or expertise in that field and does not preclude others from practicing the occupation, and registration,in which a person merely declares that he or she is practicing, provides contact information and pays a fee.
49
During the 1950s, about 4.5% of the American workfoce worked on jobs requiring a license. Morris M. Kleiner. A
License for Protection: Why are States Regulating More and More Occupations?, 29 REG. 17 (2006).
50
Council of State Governments. Occupational Licensing Legislation in the States at 19 (1952).
51
Adam B. Summers. Reason Found, Occupational Licensing: Ranking the States and Exploring Alternatives at 5(2007). Available at http://reason.org/files/762c8fe96431b6fa5e27ca64eaa1818b.pdf (accessed December 7,2014).

Appendix C

63“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

weaken or eliminate professional engineering licensure.52 Most of the legislation arises out of abelief that “less government and less regulation” is better. This legislation has been primarily
supported by groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council.53 It may be a realitythat there is a proliferation of occupations that require a license for someone to work in thatoccupation, such as florists54 or other activities. However, each occupation and profession
should be considered independently on its own and not automatically included in broad
legislative mandates to eliminate occupational licensing merely because a license is required forpractice in a certain profession or occupation.
Professional engineering licensure is different from manyother occupations or professions. Professional engineering
licensure is a fundamental means of protecting the public
in a broad range of areas involving health, safety andwelfare. Professional engineering licensure sets thelegally‐recognized standard of practice under state law

The larger challenge for professional
engineering licensure is that manymembers of the public do notunderstand the licensure model(education,
examination,
andexperience requirements) associatedwith the practice of professional
engineering and the work required tobe performed by PEs.

and regulation is based on an engineer’s education,
experience, examination, continuing professional development and other relevant qualifications.
It also establishes the local professional standard of care of all PEs when practicing engineering
under the laws of that state. The larger challenge for professional engineering licensure is thatmany members of the public do not understand the licensure model (education, examination,and experience requirements) associated with the practice of professional engineering and thework required to be performed by PEs. This issue is rooted in two common challenges: 1) the
public generally does not understand the differentiation between a degreed engineer and a PE
and 2) broadly speaking and with some exceptions, historically professional engineers have not
52

National Society of Professional Engineers. Threats to Professional Licensure. Available athttps://www.nspe.org/resources/issues‐and‐advocacy/action‐issues/threats‐professional‐licensure (accessed June23, 2018).
53
See American Legislative Exchange Council. The Occupational Licensing and Job Creation Act. Available atwww.alec.org/model‐policy/the‐occupational‐licensing‐relief‐and‐job‐creation‐act/ (accessed March 6, 2017).
Other groups supporting similar legislation are Americans for Prosperity, the Institute for Justice, and the
Goldwater Institute, among others.
54
This is only provided as an example licensed occupation and the FOPE Task Force offers no opinion on whether alicense should be required for such activities.

64

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

been politically active and there are very few PEs in legislative roles across the United States.
These themes are discussed in detail in the sections on Communicating the Value of the PE andthe Role of the PE in Public Policy, respectively, of this report.
One argument in favor of the elimination of occupational licensing is that health and safetyconcerns can often be addressed through less restrictive alternatives to licensing laws such as
registration or certification. Professional engineering licensure is clearly different. PE licensure
is an effective means of protecting the public’s health, safety, and welfare. It sets a legally‐recognized standard of practice under state law and regulation that is based on an engineer’s
education, experience, examination, and other relevant qualifications. It also establishes the
local standard of care of all PEs when practicing engineering under the laws of that state.
Occupational regulation has many forms. The occupational regulation of engineers in the
United States generally takes three forms. The least restrictive form is registration, in which
individuals file their names, addresses, and qualifications with a government agency before
practicing their occupation. The registration process may include posting a bond or filing a fee.
In contrast, certification permits any person to perform the relevant tasks, but the government— or sometimes a private, nonprofit agency — administers an examination or other method todetermine qualifications and certifies those who have achieved the level of skill and knowledge
for certification. For example, travel agents and car mechanics are generally certified but notlicensed. The toughest form of regulation is licensure; this form of regulation is often referred
to as “the right to practice.” Under licensure laws, working in an occupation for compensation
without first meeting government standards is illegal. Engineers must be licensed to practiceprofessional engineering as described in each individual state’s statutes.
To address these and related challenges, the National Society of Professional Engineers (“NSPE”)
and all other engineering technical societies must be able to articulate the clear difference
between professional engineering licensure and other occupational licenses. In addition, there
should be a concerted public relations effort to raise the public’s awareness regarding thehealth, safety, and welfare benefits resulting from professional engineering licensure. The FOPE
Appendix C

65“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Task Force has determined that the threat to professional engineering licensure (and, in turn, tothe continued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare) at the state level is a clear
and present danger and is growing. As part of this effort, in addition to actively initiating,organizing, and participating in federal and state legislative coalitions and other likeminded
professional groups opposing such efforts, outreach should be made to key attack proponents
on occupational licensure to educate these groups relative to the value of professional
engineering licensure to the public and why such licensure should be exempted from any
legislation introduced to eliminate occupational licensure in a state or at the federal level.
Professional engineering operates similarly to service professions such as accountancy, legal,
and medical. NSPE should continue to closely monitor any changes to licensure models – in
implementation, enforcement, and public perception, so NSPE can readily adapt to thischanging landscape. In this effort, however, it is necessary for NSPE and its state societies toreach out to its members and PE non‐members to inform them of the threats to licensure thathave occurred in their state or neighboring states and the efforts NSPE and the state societies
have undertaken to protect the professional engineering license. Through this effort, NSPE andthe state societies should encourage PEs to become active in their own advocacy, either
personally or through support of an advocacy effort like NSPE, against these occupational
licensure efforts that undermine professional engineering licensure.
Licensure Versus Certification
Proponents of the elimination of occupational licensure often advocate in favor of professionaland occupational certifications, which they argue are lessrestrictive and easier to obtain. Therefore, the argument
continues, a greater number of people could qualify forcertification, thereby eliminating the “barrier to entry”

The public generally does notappreciate the differences between
the two classifications [of licensure or
certification].

into the profession or occupation. This argument,
however, fails to recognize that certain activities being attacked under these legislative
initiatives relating to occupational licensure are of the types that directly impact the publichealth, safety, and welfare.
66

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

There are distinct differences between licensure and certification. The public generally does notappreciate the differences between the two classifications. This confusion can compromise theeffectiveness of these credentials. Some of the current misunderstanding is due to lack of basic
knowledge about credentials, their benefits and limitations, and credentialing terminology. The
Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Boards and NSPE have come together in the past
to address these issues.
Part of this is vernacular – the common language does not refer to other regulated professions
as licensed (for example, common language does not refer to an attorney as a “licensed
attorney” or a doctor as a “licensed doctor”). Instead, they are identified and understood by thetitle of the profession (“Attorney” or “Doctor”) and then some may carry a special designationor certification (“Patent Attorney,” 55 “Attorney, [State Bar Association] Certified Real Property
Law Specialist,” or “Certified Plastic Surgeon,” as examples). 56 In addition, as a point of history,
the terms “engineer” and “engineering” preceded the establishment of professional
engineering licensing laws at the state and territorial levels and one can obtain a college degree
in “engineering.”
In general terms, “licenses” and “certifications” can be understood as follows:
Licenses ‐ Professional Engineering (PE) licenses are issued by specific boards appointed bystates and territories of the United States. They require completion of an educational degree ina particular area of study, a sufficient period of experience acceptable to the licensing board asdirected by their governing statutes and regulations, and successful completion of competency
examinations specific to their field of practice. Such licenses are state‐specific, i.e., individuals
must be licensed by each jurisdiction in which they wish to practice.
55

The American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct, a corollary to the NCEES Model Law andModel Rules, states, in part that, while a lawyer may “communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does notpractice in particular fields of law,” recognizing only “Patent Attorney” or “Admiralty,” as formal titles but allowing
a lawyer certified as a specialist by an organization “approved by an appropriate state authority” or the American
Bar Association to state that certification in communications along with the identification of the certifying
authority. Further, a lawyer may communicate the fact that the lawyer does or does not practice in particular fieldsof law. American Bar Association, Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.4 Communication of Fields ofPractice and Specialization.
56
Compare to a “Certified Public Accountant” where the license confers the title “Certified” but it is still a license.

Appendix C

67“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Licenses are employed by state and territorial jurisdictions to regulate the practice ofengineering and to protect the public from incompetence and misconduct of professional
engineers. This allows for uniform vetting of engineers with degrees of differing structure,validation of acceptable experience, continuing education requirements and testing of the basic
knowledge required to provide professional engineering services to the public.
Certifications ‐ Certification attests to an individual’s capability to perform a defined task or
related series of tasks, commonly referred to as a body of knowledge. Obtaining a certification
is a voluntary act; there is no legal requirement that a certification be obtained to practice a
profession or deliver a service. However, some market conditions may operate to require or
give preference to those who have a particular certification; a market requirement forcertification is far more common in the medical profession than it is in engineering.
Certification requires a sufficient period of experience acceptable to the certifying body andsuccessful completion of an examination. Many also require a collegiate degree in a particulararea of study. Some certifications require professional licensure as a prerequisite. Certifications
are not constrained by political boundaries.
Some certification programs are accredited; others are not. Accredited certification programs
have been scrutinized by one or more of the three nationally‐recognized certification
accreditation bodies to ensure that the programs are operated consistent with recognizedcredentialing practices. Certification is obtained after licensure in the learned professions of law
and medicine. Further, in these learned professions, the core profession is the only title forthose practicing therein, with certifications recognized after licensure and title.57 These
distinctions are important and differences between licensure and certification must be
effectively communicated both within the profession and to the public at large.
The Relationship between Licenses and Certifications ‐ Licenses and accredited certifications are
granted using similar credentialing practices, i.e., they rely upon a prescribed education57

In the case of public accountancy, those practicing in the profession are recognized as “Certified Public
Accountants” or “C.P.A.s” by applicable state law.

68

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

program, applicable experience of some duration and scope, and an examination of theindividual’s knowledge and judgment. Both ensure that the credentialed individual is minimallycompetent in the scope of the service regulated. Licenses are required for a professional tooffer services to the public. Certifications are not required and do not grant authority to aprofessional to offer services to the public.
Overall, licenses and accredited certifications are complementary credentials. Together, they
testify to the public about an individual’s general and specific capabilities. Where licenses do
not exist, accredited certifications provide the public the only independent testimony to anindividual’s capabilities. However certifications do not legally regulate an individual’s practice.
Only licenses regulate practice with the force of law.
The public is generally familiar and recognizes the use of certifications in other licensed
professions. In fact, there is even an organization for certifying licensing professionals for thoseworking in fields responsible for licensing other professionals.58 Further, if there are local, state,
or federal regulations or legislation requiring a specific certification to perform a specificengineering task, the public does not, and should not be expected to, know that there may be a
separate regulation or legislation that would exempt a PE from obtaining that engineering‐
related certification. For example, a state may require a specific certification to design astormwater plan through one statue, but then also have another statute in an entirely different
chapter, stating that a PE need not obtain that certification, without cross‐reference in either
statute. Such layered regulation makes it exponentially more difficult for the public to fully
understand who must be hired to complete a specific engineering task.
Appropriate Uses of Credentials ‐ Licenses and certifications can attest to an individual’s
capabilities. The possession of one or more of these credentials indicates to the public that theholder’s capabilities have been vetted using regularly accepted practices. Certifications should
not be used in lieu of, or to supplant, professional engineering licenses as they do not have the58

Certified Licensing Professionals, Inc. Available at http://www.licensingcertification.org/ (accessed June 12,2018).

Appendix C

69“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

same level of regulatory oversight associated with them. Certifications, can, however, provide
additional layers of qualification verification when properly and strategically deployed.
Licenses identify the individuals who are legally authorized to offer regulated services to the
public. Certifications do not. Regrettably, some government licensing bodies use the wordcertification (or registration) in the title granted to licensees.
Both licenses and accredited certifications can be appropriately used as parameters to qualify
individuals for employment, for consulting assignments, for advancement, or for employment
rewards.
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (“NCEES”) Position Statement ‐ The
position statement of the NCEES regarding certification is as follows:
NCEES does not oppose those programs wherein professional organizations andsocieties recognize or certify their members for any purpose, provided suchcertification does not imply legal licensure. NCEES opposes certification by anyorganization or society wherein the purpose of such certification is to substitutefor legal licensure as established by the statutes of the various jurisdictions.
The whole conversation of licensing versus certification has taken on a somewhat different
tenor in the past two years due to the move among many state jurisdictions to restrict oreliminate occupational licensing.
Proponents of bills to eliminate occupational licensing advocate that certifications are lessrestrictive and easier to obtain. Therefore, the argument continues, a greater number of people
could quality for certification, thereby eliminating a potential obstacle to entrepreneurship.
There are distinct differences between licensure and certification, especially in the practice ofengineering. The general public generally does not understand the differences between the twoclassifications. Part of this is vernacular – the common language does not refer to otherregulated professions as licensed (for example, common language does not refer to an attorney
70

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018as a “licensed attorney” or a doctor as a “licensed doctor”). Instead, they are identified andunderstood by the title of the profession (“Attorney” or “Doctor”) and then some may carry a
special certification (“Patent Attorney” or “Attorney, [state bar association] Certified Real
Property Law Specialist”).
Certification is not a “bad” thing, but it is generally distinct from the education, experience, andexamination requirements of licensure. It is a way for an individual to show additional expertisein a particular area of engineering. This must be effectively communicated to legislators and the
public.
NSPE has adopted Position Statement 1737 which provides:
Following licensure as a professional engineer, individuals may voluntarily havetheir expertise in a specified field of engineering recognized through anappropriate specialty certification program. Such certification must not imply
that other licensed professional engineers are less qualified for practice in aparticular field of specialty. Professional engineering licensure is the only
qualification for engineering practice. NSPE and its state societies actively oppose
attempts to enact any local, state, or federal legislation or rule that would
mandate certification in lieu of or beyond licensure as a legal requirement for thepractice of engineering. . . .
NSPE Position Statement 1774 provides additional information on this issue:
Private certification programs are not a substitute for licensure. In fact, private
certification may have the effect of confusing the public’s understanding of therole of licensed professional engineers and blur the distinction between thepractice of engineering by licensed professionals and other services, particularly
when such private certification programs employ engineering titles in theirprivate certification programs.

Appendix C

71“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

NSPE should continue to advocate against certification as a substitute for or in lieu of licensure
for performing engineering tasks. NSPE should support local, state, and federal regulation andlegislation that requires PE licensure for the practice or performance of engineering. Suchlicensure provides oversight by state boards and agencies to ensure the competent and ethicalpractice of engineering to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. NSPE should, however,modify its position (specifically, Position Statement 1737) of opposing certification “beyond
licensure.” Given the prevalence of certification programs and societal expectations for somecertifications or specialization by licensed professionals, obtaining certifications should not be
actively opposed going forward.
In fact, acceptance of certain certifications may strengthen the profession and work to negate
some attempts to fragment licensure by supporting a “PE license first” approach withcertifications to bolster and confirm competence in certain areas of practice.59 Given theprevalence of certification programs and societal expectations for some certifications or
specialization by licensed professionals, obtaining certifications should not be actively opposedgoing forward. In fact, acceptance of certain certifications may strengthen the profession andwork to negate some attempts to fragment licensure by supporting a “PE license first”
approach with certifications to bolster and confirm competence in certain areas of practice.60
Instead, the FOPE Task Force recommends encouraging state licensing boards to actively
evaluate engineering certification programs that could be employed to tailor the practice ofprofessional engineering to that state. Specifically, the FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE
consider sunset of Position Statement 1737 with re‐adoption including as follows:
7.

. . . Professional engineering licensure is the only qualification forengineering practice, unless other post‐PE certification is required by a state PE
59

This is so long as the certification programs, when adopted, do not block out PEs who have already beenpracticing competently in those areas, allowing for a period of grandfathering, similar to what was allowed for thelegal and medical professions when they moved from an apprenticeship to education/examination path topractice.
60
This is so long as the certification programs, when adopted, do not block out PEs who have already beenpracticing competently in those areas, allowing for a period of grandfathering, similar to what was allowed for thelegal and medical professions when they moved from an apprenticeship to education/examination path topractice.

72

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018licensing board for a particular practice of engineering. NSPE and its statesocieties actively oppose attempts to enact any local, state, or federal legislation
or rule that would mandate certification in lieu of or beyond licensure as a legal
requirement for the practice of engineering. Any post‐PE certification
requirements adopted by a state PE licensing board must provide for a
grandfathering or other pathway to practice for those PEs already practicing inthat area of engineering practice.
These changes would bring NSPE in line with NCEES and the licensing community. Additionally,
the FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE consider sunset of Position Statement 1774 andreadopt a new Position Statement as shown below.
NSPE Position Statement No. xxxx— Use of Certification Credentials
Adopted: May 2016
NSPE Contact: Committee on Policy and Advocacy
It is the position of NSPE that the importance of engineering licensure should not
be minimized or diluted by the use of certification titles issued by private
certification programs and offered in lieu of engineering licensure (e.g.,
certification programs offered by non‐governmental groups or organizations).
Certification titles and private certification programs should not, in any way,
imply engineering licensure. The requirement for any certification related to thepractice of engineering be predicated on one having first obtained an engineering
license.
DISCUSSION: The professional practice of engineering is regulated by state andterritorial licensing boards. These boards are created by the state and territorial
governments for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public.
State engineering licensing boards examine the qualifications of engineering
licensure applicants, issue jurisdictional licenses to those who meet legally
established qualifications to practice professional engineering, and enforce the
Appendix C

73“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

laws that govern engineering practice. Importantly, state engineering licensureboard have the legal authority to take disciplinary action against licensed
professional engineers who engage in improper, unethical or illegal conduct.
Penalties for such improper, unethical or illegal action may include censure,suspension or revocation of a professional engineer’s license. Private certification
programs are not a substitute for engineering licensure or for the verification ofqualifications for the practice of engineering. In fact, private certification may
have the effect of confusing the public’s understanding of the role of licensed
professional engineers and blur the distinction between the practice ofengineering by licensed professionals and other services, particularly when suchprivate certification programs employ engineering titles and make themavailable to non‐licensed engineers in their private certification programs. In
addition, private certification programs, absent state or national regulatory
oversight, lack the level of personal and professional accountability provided by
the professional engineering licensure process as required and administeredunder state or territorial law.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. To better separate private certifications from the licensure process, NSPE
advocates that all jurisdictions should restrict the use of the title “engineer” tolicensed professional engineers in their engineering licensure laws andregulations. Additional certifications deemed necessary by the state or territorial
licensing board to practice engineering may use the title “engineer” so long as
such certifications are available only to those that have already obtained
professional engineering licensure.
2. NSPE advocates that state and territorial jurisdictions recognize that licensure
is the first requirement to the practice of engineering.
3. To avoid confusing the public’s understanding of certifications with licensure
and the role of licensed professional engineers, licensed professional engineers
74

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

are encouraged to employ the PE designation as their primary credential
designation, before the use of other professional, academic or certification
designations.
Several engineering societies (including the American Society of Civil Engineers (“ASCE”),
Society of Manufacturing Engineers (“SME”), International Society of Automation (“ISA”), andStructural Engineering Certification Board (“SECB”)) advocate for, and offer, certifications in
specialty areas. While both ASCE and SECB offer certifications only after an individual obtains a
professional engineering license, SME and ISA grant certifications entirely separate from(including prior to) licensure. SME specifically offers certifications as both Certified
Manufacturing Engineer (“CMfgE”) and Certified Manufacturing Technologist (“CMfgT”). ISA
focuses its Certified Automation Professional (“CAP”) program across a global marketplace formulti‐national corporations.61
The CMfgE, CMfgT, and ISA‐CAP certifications require demonstration of education and work
experience (with the CMfgE requiring “a minimum of eight combined years of manufacturing‐
related education and work experience,” quite similar to what is required under the NCEES
Model Law for PE licensure) followed by an exam.62 In developing this certification, SME and ISA
have gone even further in developing a Body of Knowledge, a Competency Model, and a three‐year recertification process. SME has promoted its certification as an alternative to professional
engineering licensing in engineering society discussion forums.

61

Unlike SME, however, ISA provides a direct link on its website about its CAP program to the American
Association of Engineering Societies website detailing the difference between licensure and certification providing
a link titled “Certification vs. Licensure” at the bottom of the webpage(http://www.aaes.org/sites/default/files/Differentiating_Licensure_and_Certification_for_Engr.pdf). See
International Society of Automation. Certified Automation Professional. Available at https://www.isa.org/isa‐
certification/certified‐automation‐professional/ (accessed June 12, 2018).
62
Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Certified Manufacturing Engineer. Available at www.sme.org/cmfge(accessed February 3, 2017); Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Certified Manufacturing Technologist. Availableat www.sme.org/cmfgt (accessed February 3, 2017); International Society of Automation. Certified Automation
Professional. Available athttps://www.isa.org/uploadedFiles/Content/Training_and_Certifications/ISA_Certification/CAP%20Benefits%20Br
ochure.pdf#page=10 (accessed June 20, 2018).

Appendix C

75“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Fragmentation of Licensure
The regulation of PEs varies among states. Some states license all engineers as PEs Other stateslicense by specific engineering disciplines (by use of a Title Act, Practice Act or both). In allcases, however, PEs are required to practice only in areas of their competence. This is different
than the practice of law or medicine, for example. All states regulate these professions only as“attorney” or “lawyer” and “doctor.” Titles for medical professionals such as “pediatrician,”“plastic surgeon,” and “cardiovascular surgeon” are conferred after obtaining licensure as a
“medical doctor (M.D)” and then earning a separate nationally‐approved certification in a
medical specialty. The possible embrace of a similar certification process for PEs is discussed in
the section above.
The fragmentation among engineers with terminology such as “engineer,” “professional
engineer,” “licensed engineer,” and “registered engineer,” is already confusing to the generalpublic. Discipline‐Specific engineering titles fosters the potential for even greater fragmentationof the engineering profession. Further, continued support and adoption of Discipline‐Specific
Title Acts or Discipline‐Specific Practice Acts provide further opportunity for conflict that may
benefit those seeking to eliminate occupational licensing, as discussed above, as these acts
create and even more restrictive path than would be otherwise the case.
One way to address the concern that discipline‐specific licensure could further fracture theengineering profession, is to incorporate the certification process into a state’s existing process
for licensing PEs. NSPE should work diligently with both NCEES and its state boards and with the
NSPE state societies to advocate that separate discipline‐specific licensure not be supported(i.e. Discipline‐specific Title and Practice Acts). Instead, certifications in certain areas of practiceor expertise after obtaining a PE license should be supported. This could include, as an example,
similar to the practice of the American Bar Association or American Medical Association. If acertification program is recognized by NCEES or the state licensing board, then it is anappropriate certification required for specialized areas of practice, such as Structural

76

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Engineering in states that determine such additional certification is necessary to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare.
The SECB is a national organization that provides Structural Engineering Certification. To obtain
this certification, one must be licensed as a PE, complete successful passage of the 16‐Hour
structural engineering NCEES examination, complete continuing education in six different
categories, and complete annual recertification. Such a framework could be recognized by state
licensing boards if the certification and recertification processes do not change and if a state
determines that a PE should also obtain Structural Engineering certification for certain
engineering activities to ensure another layer of protection for the public health, safety, andwelfare.
NSPE should continue to advocate for the elimination of Discipline‐Specific Title and PracticeActs, as these acts continue to not only confuse the public at large, but also make for
cumbersome and confusing processes for legislatures to understand and, also, as it relates to
the general mobility of PE licensure. Further, adoption of such positions (elimination ofDiscipline‐Specific Title and Practice Acts and Support for Post‐PE Certifications) would be morein line with the consistency of approaches adopted by other licensed and publicly‐understood
professions of the law and medicine.
Another
It is important to note, however, thatwhile the academic structure ofengineering bachelor’s degrees haschanged, it does not necessarily meanthat the current academic structure is“wrong” or “inadequate.”

recentdevelopment

withinengineering

licensure, primarily promoted by the civil engineeringcommunity, is a change in the education requirementsfor professional engineering licensure. There has been
an ongoing effort by ASCE to require additional
education after attainment of an engineering bachelor

degree as a condition for professional licensure.
The overall academic structure of the bachelor degree for engineering has changed over timeand must be closely understood and monitored by NSPE. NSPE participates actively in the ABET
education accreditation criteria development process. It is important to note, however, that
Appendix C

77“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

while the academic structure of engineering bachelor’s degrees has changed, it does notnecessarily mean that the current academic structure is “wrong” or “inadequate.” It has beenargued, however, that because licensure is considered to be the pinnacle of professional
practice, allowing the broadest abilities to practice engineering in the United States, education
requirements for individuals seeking licensure can be different than those seeking only anengineering degree.
The position of the National Academy of Engineering on education beyond a bachelor’s degree isdetailed as:
Educating the Engineer of 2020
To prepare the engineer of 2020 for that challenging future, the NAE undertook
an in‐depth study of how engineering education would have to change. Amongthe several recommendations:

The bachelor’s degree should be considered a pre‐engineering or“engineer in training” degree.

The master’s degree should become the recognized engineering“professional” degree.

Institutions should take advantage of flexible accreditation criteria
in developing curricula and expose students to the essence ofengineering early in their undergraduate experience.



University education should produce engineers who can bothdefine and solve problems.



Institutions must teach students how to be lifelong learners.

Engineering undergraduate programs should introduce
interdisciplinary learning and use case studies of both engineering
successes and failures as a learning tool.

The bachelor’s degree may be defined as: a credential that normally requires at least four but
not more than five years of full‐time equivalent college‐level work. This includes all bachelor’s
78

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018degrees conferred in a five‐year cooperative (work‐study) program. The overall academic
structure of the bachelor degree for engineering has changed over time and must be closely
understood and monitored by NSPE. NSPE participates actively in the ABET education
accreditation criteria development process. It is important to note, however, that while theacademic structure of engineering bachelor’s degrees has changed, it does not necessarilymean that the current academic structure is “wrong” or “inadequate.”
Consistent with other learned professions, a degree demonstrates a minimum acceptable levelof education. In any area of the practice of engineering, for one to be competent and qualified
in that area one will need to obtain additional training or education. It is not necessary,
however, that the additional training or education need to be formal academic education andmay be done through various training programs or intensive on‐the‐job training after
undergraduate graduation. NSPE must be diligent and ensure that in all cases, it is the public
interest that is being protected.
Additional components of future engineering education to prepare PEs for life after graduation
are discussed in Appendix D of this report.
Procurement of Professional Engineering Services
The long‐term sustainability of professional engineering is in harmony with the PE’s role inprotecting the public. To that end, steps must be taken to create and maintain a competitiveenvironment for the delivery of professional design services through Qualification Based
Selection (“QBS”). This environment must highlight the value of the profession while preventing
it from becoming a mere commodity.
In a recent letter to a state’s legislators, NSPE laid out the following position:
QBS is a procedure whereby service providers are retained on the basis ofqualifications, rather than price factors. Under the QBS method, the procuring
agency reviews the qualifications submitted by interested individuals and firms,

Appendix C

79“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

ranks respondents, and then negotiates with the most qualified respondent for amutually agreeable contract.
Further, NSPE provided four reasons as to why it is imperative that QBS methods are used.
1. QBS protects the public welfare
2. QBS protects the taxpayer
3. QBS benefits small firms
4. QBS promotes technical innovation
Choosing an engineering firm for a project can have far‐reaching implications. How a project isdesigned and engineered in the early stages can affect its costs, performance, and quality
throughout its entire lifecycle. Therefore, it does not pay to treat engineering like a commodity
and compare firms by price only. This is one scenario where paying a little more upfront cansave huge costs and headaches down the road. In view of this, QBS has become the mantra inchoosing engineering firms, with many government agencies requiring it. NSPE and PEs must
continue to advocate on behalf of the use of QBS and place emphasis on the value it provides.
Without it, the public could be denied the benefit of those most qualified to provide
engineering services.
The Role of the PE in Shaping Public Policy
We often hear that history repeats itself. The history behind professional engineering licensurein the United States is a history worth learning, but not repeating. The professional engineering
license, as with many other icenses across the county, came about over 100 years ago due tothe need for standardization and accountability in the Wild West. The first state to offer anlicense for the practice of engineering was Wyoming in 1908. By 1920 PE licensure wasavailable in 10 states, including Wyoming, Louisiana, Florida, Illinois, Colorado, Michigan, Idaho,
Iowa, Nevada and Oregon. With licensure laws and requirements varying from state to state,many realized that a reciprocal license would be needed and in the 1920’s what would
eventually become the NCEES began to take shape. By 1950, each of the 50 states plus the
80

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

District of Columbia had enacted some form of licensure law.63 Today all states and territoriesof the United States regulate the practice of engineering at the state level by issuing licenses topractitioners based solely on education, experience, and examination requirements.
Additionally, those state boards of licensure are responsible for investigating complaints andadministering appropriate civil penalties over PE licensees when necessary, ensuring there iseffective oversight that ensures the continued protection of the public health, safety, andwelfare.
Many states enacted laws after major disasters. California created a state licensing board a year
after the 1928 collapse of a dam on the Santa Clara River which killed more than 500 people. In
1937, Texas created its state licensing board months after more than 300 students and teachers
died in a natural gas explosion attributed to faulty engineering at an elementary school in New
London, Texas. In communications about the value of PE licensure, it is important to remind theaudience, whether legislators, regulators, the community of engineering professionals, or the
public at large, why PE licensure was created and the ethical requirements tied to the PE
license.
Increasing technological advancements push other aspects of society to advance as well,including politics. Over $3.4 billion was spent on lobbying efforts in the United States in 2017.64
Effective lobbying and advocacy requires mastering a “seven‐second soundbyte.”65 To ensurethat the political construct advances along with technological advancements, engineers,particularly PEs, must engage in the political process to ensure that the societal implications
that may arise with advancements in technology are appropriately and accurately addressed.
Engineers have long been recognized for their critical thinking and problem‐solving skills.
Moreover, the PEs in our country have pledged an oath, and are bound by law, to hold the63

While some of the now‐50 states were still territories at this time, they had adopted PE licensure laws withinthose territories.
64
Statista. Total Lobbying Spending in the United States from 1998 to 2017. Available athttps://www.statista.com/statistics/257337/total‐lobbying‐spending‐in‐the‐us/ (accessed June 20, 2018).
65
American Society of Engineering Educators. The Engineer’s Role in Public Policy at 2 (2003). Available athttps://peer.asee.org/the‐engineer‐s‐role‐in‐public‐policy.pdf (accessed June 1, 2018).

Appendix C

81“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

public health, safety and welfare above all other considerations in exchange for practicing witha state‐granted license. These skills and commitment to public health, safety, and welfare
uniquely position professional engineering to be a positive and driving influence on the public
policy making process.
Despite the obvious need for critical thinking and problem‐solving skills in the development andimplementation of public policy, engineers are currently underrepresented in policy making
bodies. Today, engineers represent a modest 0.9 percentof the US Congress as compared to 41.5 percent attorneys
and 4.4 percent healthcare professionals.

There must be PEs willing to take upservice in government or public policy
activities.

To ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare arepreserved in the future, PEs must play a greater role in shaping and/or otherwise informing
public policy. Far more PEs will need to enter the public service arena by appointment orelection to public office. Even greater numbers of PEs will need to be increasingly visible andactively engage in the political process by building relationships with policy makers andproviding much needed technical support and guidance.
To undertake such engagement, PEs must not only meet with their legislators and regulators,
but must also be willing to take on the role of citizen‐PE. There must be PEs willing to take upservice in government or public policy activities. This includes running for elected office,proactively seeking out panels and groups convened by governmental agencies where PE skills
and knowledge would be valuable, finding opportunities to teach in engineering courses as aguest lecturer, advocating on behalf of the adoption of specific legislation (such as the typedescribed in NSPE Position Statement 1780) or forming coalitions of PEs and other interested
stakeholders in key issues and discussing those issues with key legislators and regulators. As
PEs, we pledge to hold the public health, safety, and welfare above all other considerations – todo so, we must ensure that the laws and regulations governing engineering issues that will
touch the public include the appropriate protections and oversight to ensure continued
protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To take on these roles will mean that at
82

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

times PEs who volunteer will not be accepted, will receive rejections, or may not always havetheir conclusions incorporated into final laws or regulations. Such a marked change cannot
happen overnight, but it can, over time, have an impact and effectuate the changes necessary
to achieve these goals.
Additional Background Data
Demographics vs representation in US CongressIn 2010 total population of US was approximately 308,700,000.

In 2010 there were approximately 2,495,000 engineers in the US – 0.8% of total
population;66 only 5 of the 541 seats in congress were filled by engineers (0.9%)67

In 2010 there were approximately 1,225,452 attorneys in the US – 0.4% of total
population;68 225 of the 541 seats in congress were filled by attorneys (41.5%)69

In 2010 there were approximately 15,700,000 healthcare professionals in the US – 5% of
total population;70 during the same time 24 of the 541 seats in congress were filled byhealthcare professionals (4.4%)71

Engineering Curricula Geared Toward Engineering and Public PolicyBerkley – MS Public Policy and EngineeringCarnegie Mellon – Engineering and Public Policy degree programsNortheastern University – MS in Engineering and Public Policy

Dartmouth – Engineering and Public Policy modified major

Purdue – Engineering and Public Policy Minor

Princeton – Center of Information Technology Policy

66

US Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Data. May 2010. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
(accessed July 5, 2018).
67
Wikipedia. Members of the 11th United States Congress. Available athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress. (accessed July 5, 2018).
68
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Data. May 2010. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
(accessed July 5, 2018).
69
Wikipedia. Members of the 11th United States Congress. Available athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress. (accessed July 5, 2018).
70
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Data. May 2010. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.
(accessed July 5, 2018).
71
Wikipedia. Members of the 111th United States Congress. Available athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress. (accessed July 5, 2018).

Appendix C

83“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018


REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

McMaster University – Engineering and Public Policy program

Ongoing NSPE public policy outreach/initiatives
States are currently hosting PE Days at their state capitalCommunity forum on threats to licensure

Public policy outreach/initiatives by other engineering organizations
American Council of Engineering Companies (“ACEC”)


Public Policy Council



Action Alert Center

Online Congressional DirectoryCongressional ScorecardCommunitiesCouncils and Forums

American Society of Civil Engineers (“ASCE”)
Key Contact Program

Key Contact Briefing Conference Calls

“Click and Connect with Congress”

State Legislative Tracking Service

Legislative “Fly‐Ins”

State “Drive‐Ins” and “Legislative Days”

Section/Branch Government Relations Committees

Engineering Change Lab USA (“ECL‐USA”)

Public Policy Sub‐Group

Still in early stages of formation and strategic planning

American Institute of Architects (“AIA”)


84

Legislative Action Center

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements


NSPE Professional Policies: PP‐02, PP‐30, PP‐45, PP‐50, PP‐58, PP‐61, PP‐66, PP‐75,
PP‐96, PP‐122, PP‐152, PP‐166, PP‐167, PP‐170, PP‐171, PP‐173

NSPE Position Statements: PS‐1737, PS‐1747, PS‐1748, PS‐1750, PS‐1751, PS‐1766,
PS‐1767, PS‐1771, PS‐1774, PS‐1778, PS‐1779, and PS‐1780

Recommendations
To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, the
FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE:

Legislative Attacks on Occupational Licensingo Continue to closely monitor and ramp up communication efforts on the core
principles of professional engineering licensure. Provide state society partners
materials that are PE licensure‐specific that focus on how PE licensure is similar
to that of the legal or medical professions (which are often more understood bylegislators and regulatory authorities) with a section where each state society
partner can highlight several key PE distinctions for the intended audience. In
addition, NSPE must encourage PEs to become active in their own advocacy
against these occupational licensure efforts that subsume professional
engineering licensure, either personally or through support of NSPE.
o Establish a legislative outreach Community within NSPE to communicate to allmembers (automatically enrolling all members in the Community along with theopen forum Community, but allowing a member to opt out) about active
occupational licensing legislative efforts and also to provide more awareness of
the activities NSPE undertakes in furtherance of the protection of the PE license
and the public health, safety, and welfare through various government relations
efforts.

Appendix C

85“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018


REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Licensure Versus Certificationo Sunset Position Statements 1737 and 1774 and adopt new language related tocertifications after obtaining a PE license.
o Continue advocacy efforts against certifications required by non‐licensing stateagencies in lieu of professional engineering licensure, as they relate to thepractice of engineering. NSPE must also advocate that certification should nottake precedence over licensure and that PE licensure should be obtained firstwith specialty certification after that.
o Support private certifications, as approved by NCEES or state/territorial licensing
boards, that are obtained post‐PE license and provide further examination andverification of qualifications for initial certification and continuing education formaintenance of that certification to perform in specific areas of professional
engineering (such as “Professional Engineer, Certified Structural Engineer” or“PE, CSE”).



Fragmentation of Licensure
o Cease using the terminology of “registered PE” or “registered engineer” as“registration” solely requires payment of a fee and identification of an individual
on a roster. Use of this term further confuses and fragments the profession. PEs
are “licensed” as recognized by NCEES having completed an education,
examination, and experience evaluation by a state or territorial regulatory
authority.
o Advocate against restrictive discipline‐specific Title and Practice Acts
(maintaining support for and advocating for state licensure laws that licenseengineers and “professional engineers”) and equip state society partners withmaterials that are state‐specific to advocate against the adoption of, andadvocate for the elimination of, where applicable, such restrictive discipline‐
specific Title and Practice Acts.
o Communicate parallels with the legal and medical professions where all licensed
practitioners are “lawyer/attorney” or “doctor,” respectively, with other86

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

credentialing around that core and protected title approved for use by stateboards of licensure.
o Adopt throughout NSPE communications the encompassing use of “professional
engineer” and not various iterations thereof like “licensed engineer.”o Adopt a position supporting post‐PE certifications that continue to require PE
licensure as an initial requirement for that certification (along with the advocacy
against restrictive discipline‐specific Title and Practice Acts).
Procurement of Professional Engineering Services
o Continue to advocate on behalf of QBS and its important role in protecting the
public health, safety, and welfare.

Role of the PE in Shaping Public Policy
o Look for opportunities to form alliances and/or otherwise cooperate with otherengineering organizations to increase the engagement and active participation of
PEs in the shaping of public policy.
o Seek out and support engineering programs that currently offer curricula and/or
degrees in Engineering and Public Policy, while encouraging wider adoption ofsimilar programs at other engineering institutions.
o Identify and prepare qualified PEs for public service and ultimately work tosecure their appointment or election.

Appendix C

87“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

This Page Intentionally Blank

88

Appendix C“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX D: ENGINEERING EDUCATION
BackgroundEngineering Education
Over the past forty years, the world has changed, and the nature of the practice of engineering
at a professional level has changed with it. The planning, design, and implementation ofengineering projects now takes place fully in a societal context, requiring extensive public andstakeholder input in project decision‐making and heightened consideration of economic,
environmental, public policy, code compliance, legal, and regulatory matters. More than everbefore, this requires advanced professional practice skills on the part of professional engineers
in the areas of communication, leadership and a broad understanding of the societal context. In
technical areas, an explosion of scientific and engineering information has led to the need forboth greater breadth of science and engineering knowledge and for much greater depth oftechnical knowledge in ever‐narrowing areas of technical practice.
The education of engineers in preparation for professional practice in a four‐year baccalaureate
program faces two daunting and equally important challenges. First, the body of knowledge
required for practice as a professional engineer (“PE”) has been and is expanding rapidly, bothin terms of science and engineering knowledge and skills, and the need for more professional
practice skills. This expanded body of knowledge no longer fits in the four year “bucket.”Secondly, the “bucket” is getting smaller. A bachelor of science degree (“BS”) in engineering in
the 1930’s typically required 150 or more credits.72 In the 1970’s, it was typically in the mid‐
130’s. Now, it is trending toward 120. Of the programs that report credit requirements to theAmerican Society for Engineering Education, 17 percent are now at 120, and the median is lessthan 128. Each year, several more institutions drop their engineering program requirements to
120 credits.

72

Paul Robbins, PE. Building for Professional Growth: A History of the National Society of Professional Engineers,
1934–1984 (1984).

Appendix D

89“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

The combination of an expanding body of knowledge and declining credit requirements has
resulted primarily in a decrease in engineering content in terms of both breadth and depth.
Each individual program deals with the narrowing of curriculum requirements in its own uniqueway. As examples of long‐term changes in civil engineering curriculum content, programs havebeen reducing requirements for thermodynamics, electrical circuits, surveying (yielding futureengineers who lack a basic understanding of geometrics), engineering economics (yielding
future engineers who don’t understand the concept of present worth and the time value ofmoney), and/or upper‐level undergraduate engineering electives needed to provide any
manner of technical depth. Not all programs make all these types of changes, but these areexamples of compromises that are made. This year, at least two US civil engineering programs
announced changes to no longer require dynamics, yielding future engineers who have very
limited backgrounds in the engineering science of motion and momentum. Each change
reduces the breadth and/or depth of science and engineering background at a time when the
background required for practice at the professional level is increasing. Furthermore, we are
generally not expanding the professional practice content in engineering education, eventhough professional practice requirements are accelerating.
It is for these reasons that the National Academy of Engineering—formed to advise the US
Congress on engineering matters—concluded in a major report that “it is evident that the
exploding body of science and engineering knowledge cannot be accommodated within thecontext of the conventional four year baccalaureate degree.”73
Virtually every other profession in the US has faced the fact that the body of knowledge
required to practice at a professional level (i.e., licensure) necessitates education beyond thebaccalaureate level. It is not surprising that engineering has reached this point as well. The
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (“NCEES”) has concluded that thecurrent baccalaureate degree which is now the educational standard for engineering licensure
is becoming insufficient to accommodate the expanding body of knowledge required forpractice as a PE. The technological revolution of the 21st century and the ever‐increasing need73

National Academy of Engineering. Educating the Engineer of 2020 at 52 (2005).

90

Appendix D“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

for engineers to address more complex issues have increased the demands placed on today’spracticing PEs.
NCEES has therefore set a goal to make a strong system of licensing engineers even stronger byincreasing the minimum engineering education required to practice as a PE. It believes that
expanding the education requirement will better prepare PEs to meet professional demands
and will significantly enhance their careers. NCEES also believes that expanding the education
requirement will promote greater proficiency in the practice of professional engineering for theprotection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To that end, NCEES has in place Position
Statement 35, “Future Education Requirements for Engineering Licensure.”74
The body of knowledge related to the licensed practice of engineering has dramatically
expanded in recent decades and will continue to do so. Concurrently, the number of credit
hours required for graduation has decreased due primarily to political and economic pressuresin virtually all states to provide baccalaureate programs with fewer hours of coursework (anaverage of 144 credits 25 years ago to an average of about 128 credits today).75 The
combination of an expanding body of knowledge and declining credit requirements has
resulted in a decrease in engineering content in terms of breadth and depth.76 Engineering
students do not have time to attain technical depth and, in most cases, lack exposure to project
management, leadership, ethics, communications, finance, management, and other courses
important and essential for many areas of professional practice in the 21st century.77 The body74

National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Future Education Requirements for Engineering
Licensure Position Statement 35 (August 2015).
75
Craig N. Musselman, PE. National Academy of Engineering. Requiring A Master’s or Equivalent as a Prerequisite
for Engineering Licensure – The Rationale and Implementation (June 2009); Johnathan Patterson. Science inSociety, Engineers should take a skills proficiency test (November 2017).
76
National Society of Professional Engineers Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee. Why It Is
Important to Raise the Educational Bar for Future Engineering Licensure (2013).
77
Craig N. Musselman, P.E., Jon D. Nelson, P.E., and Monte L. Phillips, Ph.D., P.E. National Council of Examiners forEngineering and Surveying, The Positive Impact of “B+M/30” On the Engineering Profession (2008); Danielle Boykin.
PE Magazine, Is a Bachelor’s Degree Enough? (November, 2009).

Appendix D

91“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSof knowledge required to enter the practice of engineering in the future does not fit within the
curricula currently provided by undergraduate engineering programs.78
The principal issues that have been found lacking in our engineering education are the basis of
the future of engineering in the US and being competitive in the global market. Requiring
additional education as a prerequisite for licensure as a professional engineer is about keeping
pace with the minimum requirements for practice as a professional engineer.
The Future of Professional Engineering (“FOPE”) Task Force concurs with NCEES that thecurrent baccalaureate degree which is now the educational standard for engineering licensure
is becoming insufficient to accommodate the expanding body of knowledge required forpractice as a PE. The technological revolution of the 21st century and the ever‐increasing needfor engineers to address more complex issues have increased the demands placed on today’spracticing engineers. Our global competitiveness is at risk and engineering education needs tobe reformed to respond to this risk.
Nationwide, the financial constraints on engineering education will continue to place stress on
our existing understanding of the PE. Engineering education is placing greater emphasis on
teamwork within the educational structure at the request of industry. Thus, there is less of anemphasis on an individual having embraced a “body of knowledge” and more on a “collective
body of knowledge” within the team. To complete a BS degree within the four‐year time frame,
students have less educational emphasis on the fundamentals of engineering potentiallyresulting in being less prepared to sit for an exam on these topics.
The team approach requiring a few PEs on staff is already prevalent in many governmental
agencies (i.e., USACE, EPA, USDA), industries (Boeing, Airbus) and private industry (K‐Tron,
Great Plains, Koch).

78

Bill Murphy. Former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine offers prescription for ‘reengineerig engineering
education’.

92

Appendix D“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

The FOPE Task Force therefore supports increasing the minimum engineering education
required to practice as a PE. This additional education may be fulfilled by an academicengineering degree beyond the baccalaureate degree but, the FOPE Task Force recommends
that alternative pathways other than formal academic education be developed to fulfill the
additional education requirement. One such alternative could consist of coursework and/or
workshops that have sufficient content rigor and outcomes assessment that is more robust
than traditional continuing education. This would be consistent with the recommendations incurrent National Society of Professional Engineers (“NSPE”) Policy 168 and NCEES Position
Statement 35. Expanding the education requirement will better prepare PEs to meet
professional demands and will enhance their ability to compete in a global market.
NSPE already supports continued lifelong learning of PEs to promote greater proficiency inengineering practice for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. ThroughPosition Statement 1752 NSPE maintains that NSPE has concluded that the following
requirements for core curriculum and additional outcomes are necessary to properly prepareindividuals for professional practice. The FOPE Task Force recommends certain revisions to thecore curriculum and additional outcomes as herein incorporated.
CORE CURRICULUM
Undergraduate engineering education in accredited programs in the United Statesrequire graduates with the ability to:

Apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering;Design and conduct experiments;Design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within a broad
set of constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical,
health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability;Function on multidisciplinary teams;



Identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems;

Understand professional and ethical responsibility;Communicate effectively;
Appendix D

93“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Understand the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic,
environmental, and societal contexts;



Recognize the need for life‐long learning;

Understand contemporary issues; andUse the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary forengineering practice.

ADDITIONAL OUTCOMESIn addition to core curriculum requirements we advocate that additional outcomesbeyond those included in current accreditation criteria are necessary for professional
engineering practice:

Leadership capabilities including the ability to assess risk and take initiative, thewillingness to make decisions in the face of uncertainty, a sense of urgency andthe will to deliver on time in the face of constraints or obstacles, resourcefulness
and flexibility, trust and loyalty in a team setting, and the ability to relate toothers, including the ability to recognize explicit or implicit bias and ways toaddress such instances.



Assessment of risk and uncertainty be incorporated in the engineering thoughtprocess throughout engineering curricula, beginning with undergraduate
engineering educationEffective project management is essential to ensure that engineering projects
have a positive effect on the public. The ability to apply project management
principles should be an outcome attained by all engineering graduates.

Public policies, including laws, regulations, institutions, codes, and standards,
impact engineering disciplines in different ways; thus, engineering graduatesneed to know how public policy is established and who sets it at the various
levels of government relative to their discipline.



94

Understanding of business concepts both private and public.

Appendix D“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

The public increasingly demands that sustainability concepts be applied toengineering projects in practice, and it is necessary to incorporate theseconcepts in the engineering thought process, beginning with undergraduate
engineering education, if these concepts are to be thoroughly integrated into thedesign process in the future.

To adequately protect public health, safety, and welfare, PEs must have relevant knowledge of
public policy, laws and regulations within the context of their profession. The professional
practice of engineering requires dedication to lifelong learning. Beyond the fundamental
education and experience for initial licensure, PEs must stay current with ever emerging
technology and advancements to base meaningful judgment. Therefore, NSPE Professional
Policies and Position Statements related to post‐baccalaureate/pre‐licensure education should
be revised to include support for a requirement of documentation of continuing education thatwould meet the criteria for qualifying PE‐renewal continuing education in that state or territory
along with an application for PE licensure by that jurisdiction.
To be competitive engineers need to be creative and innovative while understanding andmitigating risk. There is a need for engineers to acquire and apply basic leadership skills. We
need engineers who have learned how to be professionals and when the body of knowledge
broadens, licensees must keep pace. NSPE recognizes four essential requirements of all licensed
professionals:


Education and experience adequate to base meaningful judgement

Native capacity to perform at the professional level

Sterling integrity and ethics



Ongoing will to maintain the license agreement

Licensure of Engineering Education Faculty
In today’s university structure, faculty members are expected to focus even more on active
research leading to publications and contributions to the overall university goals. In a majority
of department’s promotion and tenure requirements do not utilize the PE as an
Appendix D

95“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

accomplishment worth of credit towards promotion. Thus, the PE is currently only ofimportance to faculty who are actively involved in consulting engineering outside the university
or who participate in research activities that interface with an industry requiring professional
engineering licensure to utilize their equipment.
With historically low or no salary increases, engineering faculty are fortunate in that they canpractice their profession as a means of supplementing their personal income. Salary issues havealso led to a reduction in interest of PE faculty in becoming members of NSPE because the rateof return with NSPE investment is low for a faculty member.
Little incentive is given for an engineering faculty member to obtain a professional engineering
license, unless there is a desire to practice their profession outside the University structure as aconsulting engineer. Within the University, most faculty members have spent 8‐10 years
completing a PhD degree program. The dissertation defense within a doctoral program alone isan extensive examination of the knowledge possessed by that individual. Many faculty
members feel that it is impractical for a faculty member to be subjected to an exam to verify hisor her knowledge base.
It is also important to note that where an unlicensed engineering professor may be able tocomplete some activities that fall within one state’s definition of the practice of engineering
within the University because it is an enumerated “education exemption” in that state, those
may not be available if that professor moves to another University in a different state with adifferent “education exemption.” Also, there is an important policy difference in research donesolely within the bounds of a research institution and research done reaching beyond the wallsof the institution, such as connecting into an electric distribution grid or field‐testing alaboratory innovation. This is where an alternative pathway to licensure may be worth further
exploration, if the goal is to get engineering educators licensed.
Currently, Wyoming is the only state with a state statute allowing for an alternative pathway tolicensure for engineers with a Doctor of Philosophy (“PhD”)in engineering. The intent in doing
so was to capture those in academia and achieve the multiple goals of licensing faculty, meeting
96

Appendix D“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018state statute for instructing upper level engineering courses in the case of an unlicensed dean
and to continue to promote the traditional professional engineering pathway to students andsubsequently increase the number of professional engineers. Due to its uniqueness, theWyoming license is only for practice of professional engineering in Wyoming and is not
accepted by other states via comity.
Until the metrics are known, NSPE should evaluate whether to support and promote suchalternatives or to propose other alternatives. For example, the PE license requires that theengineer practice only in his/her area of competence. Perhaps there is an alternative in which
tenured faculty could obtain a PE license by demonstrating proof of research in engineering
fields and attainment of tenure status, plus passing of a multi‐hour ethics examination offeredby NCEES. While considering whether alternative pathways to licensure are appropriate, NSPE
should forego efforts or using resources to attempt and get all engineering faculty licensed.
Instead, a determination of where, when, and why engineering licensure may be required
would be a more appropriate area of focus for NSPE.
However, the focus should not be solely on getting university engineering faculty licensed.
Instead, efforts should focus on getting materials into the hands of engineering educators toshare with undergraduate engineering students. Professional engineering licensure may berequired for them to practice depending on their area of practice, their employer, and theirjurisdiction. Further, educating that while one jurisdiction may not require PE licensure topractice a certain engineering‐related activity, another may is critical. Therefore, it is of thegreatest importance for an engineering student to pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (“FE”)
exam and sit for the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam as soon as possible. NSPE has
previously attempted to encourage ABET to require the sharing of this information, even
anecdotally, with undergraduate engineering students, but ABET has not incorporated this into
its education criteria. Further, with well‐known institutions abandoning ABET‐accreditation,other avenues for communication must be explored.

Appendix D

97“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

This information should also be shared with undergraduate engineering verification groups
within each of the discipline‐specific engineering societies as they have the direct lines ofcommunication with the engineering education programs around the country, outside of aformal ABET process. Also, given the recent Memorandum of Understanding executed between
NSPE and the National Society of Black Engineers (“NSBE”), which has a phenomenal on‐
campus presence in engineering programs around the country, NSPE could provide an
education module to be used by NSBE chapters in a meeting with its student members
explaining, in essence, that although they may not need a PE license tomorrow, it may berequired someday, and having the tools in their toolkit will set them up for a more rewarding
career.
While engineering educators who perceive a particular career path, may encourage students topursue licensure, it is not a topic discussed in all engineering programs. NSPE has weighed in on
this issued through the ABET Criteria 5 process by advocating that licensure education must bepart of engineering undergraduate education in that a faculty member has no way of knowing
what path their students may take in their careers and knowing about the concept of licensure
and the potential need for licensure in their future is a critical education component currently
absent from the ABET criteria. ABET has rejected these requests. Instead, some individual
technical societies, such as ASCE, have picked up this mantle and as part of their technicalreview of engineering education programs, inquire as to whether the concepts of licensure andethics are incorporated into engineering curricula.
Beyond incorporating the subject of licensure into the engineering education curriculum,
several key revisions to engineering education should be explored to ensure students in all
disciplines are prepared upon graduation. Engineering faculty should impress upon allengineering students the need for a commitment to lifelong learning, whether by obtaining
advanced degrees through formal academic education or education through technical societies
or other entities to ensure competence in one’s area of practice or to expand into a new area ofpractice. Further, certain fundamental education concepts promoted in engineering design andseminar courses, including project management, leadership capabilities, risk assessment,
98

Appendix D“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

initiative, making decisions in the face of uncertainty, the urgency and will to deliver on time in
the face of constraints or obstacles, resourcefulness and flexibility, trust and loyalty in a teamsetting, and the ability to relate to others, including the ability to recognize explicit or implicit
bias as well as ways to address and overcome these obstacles.
Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements


NSPE Professional Policies: PP‐38, PP‐65, PP‐122, and PP‐168

NSPE Position Statements: PS‐1752, PS‐1766, and PS‐1768

While the FOPE Task Force concurs that a greater emphasis must be placed on the engineering
aspect of STEM education with significant changes to the core curriculum in the K–12 levels; wechose to base our discussion and recommendation on NSPE Position Statement No. 1752 and
NSPE Professional Policy No. 168 which focus on the educational requirements for professional
licensure.
Recommendations
To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, the
FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE:

Advocate for the adoption of alternative pathways other than formal academic
education which could be developed to fulfill additional education requirements beyonda baccalaureate degree prior to professional engineering licensure. One such alternative
could consist of coursework and/or workshops that have sufficient content rigor andoutcomes assessment that is more robust than traditional continuing education. This
would be consistent with the recommendations in current NSPE Policy 168 and NCEES
Position Statement 35.

Revise the core curriculum and additional outcomes as included above by the FOPE Task
Force. Additionally, it may be necessary to revise the NSPE Professional Engineeringbody of knowledge.

Appendix D

99“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018


REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Cease efforts to “get all engineering faculty licensed” and instead shift efforts to getting
materials into the hands of educators that they may then use to inform undergraduate
engineering students to enforce that engineering licensure may be required for them topractice depending on their area of practice, their employer, and their jurisdiction.
Further, that education should include informing students that while one jurisdiction
may not require PE licensure to practice a certain engineering‐related activity, anothermay. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance for an engineering student to pass the
FE exam and sit for the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam as soon as suchexamination is allowed. Also share this information with undergraduate engineering
verification groups within each of the discipline‐specific engineering societies as they
have the direct lines of communication with the engineering education programsaround the country, outside of a formal ABET process.

100

Appendix D“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX E: LICENSURE MODEL AND MOBILITY
Background
The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (“NCEES”) is a nationalorganization dedicated to advancing professional licensure for engineers and surveyors.
NCEES develops, administers, and scores the examinations used for engineering and surveying
licensure in the United States. It also facilitates professional mobility and promotes uniformityof the U.S. licensure processes through services for its member licensing boards and licensees.79
Professional mobility means the movement between states and territories in the United States
and around the world of professional engineers (“PEs”) capable of independent practice having
met the requirements for licensing or registration.80 In order to consistently and effectively
license engineers, we must have vetted educational institutions, training arrangements, andsome measures of performance. Engineering is a global profession, changing with time andplace but the principles are universally applied. In NCEES’
PE’s must be able to work in otherjurisdictions with very little time
impact as they move into morenational and international markets

Strategic Plan, Absolute/full comity and mobility ofpractice, is listed third in long term goals.81 At this time,each state and territory requires application for licensurein their regulated environments. Wyoming, New Mexico,

and a few other states have entered into an agreement to set up a mechanism for multi‐state
application and licensure for Model Law Engineers (“MLEs”).82 This process is currently underdevelopment.

79

National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. About. Available at https://ncees.org/about/(accessed March 2018).
80
Dr Peter Greenwood, Hon FIEAust, FIET, SMIEEE, CPEng, EngExec. Mobility of Engineering Professionals for
WFEO Standing Committee on Education In Engineering (December 2011).
81
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. Strategic Plan (2015). Available at
http://ncees.org/wp‐content/uploads/2016/05/Strategic‐Plan‐February‐2015.pdf (accessed March 2018).
82
MLE is an NCEES designation whereby: the MLE has (1) a bachelor’s degree in engineering from an EAC/ABET‐
accredited program, (2) four years of acceptable engineering work experience, (3) passed the NCEES FE and PE
exams, (4) no felony convictions, and (5) a clean disciplinary record.

Appendix E

101“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Enhanced Mobility – (MLE Program)
Individuals licensed in one state or U.S. territory are often interested in becoming licensed topractice in additional jurisdictions. However, comity licensure provisions vary significantly fromjurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, some but not all U.S. jurisdictions require thatcandidates graduate from an accredited program, and some jurisdictions may waive
examination requirements if candidates have obtained postgraduate education or haveextensive experience. Jurisdictions may also differ in their specific requirements regarding what
constitutes acceptable engineering experience. Candidates who received their initial license
based on different standards may encounter future difficulty in becoming licensed by comity inother jurisdictions.
To expedite the process of becoming licensed in multiple jurisdictions, the National Council of
Examiners for Engineering and Surveying established the Council Records Program. The
program assists engineers by compiling all licensure credentials in one place, minimizing
duplicate efforts, and reducing the processing time at the board level. A completed Council
Record includes a concise report of education, experience, professional references, exam
results, and licensure status. Once an engineer has successfully obtained a Record, NCEES cantransmit it electronically to multiple jurisdictions.
An important component of the NCEES Records Program is the MLE designation, which NCEES
developed to simplify the comity licensure process. Most jurisdictions have adopted all or partsof the NCEES Model Law, and they can expedite the licensure process for engineers who meetall criteria for the MLE designation.
To attain MLE status, applicants must meet four criteria:
1.

They must have graduated from an engineering program accredited by theEngineering Accreditation Commission of ABET Inc.

2.

They must have passed the NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) and
Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exams.

102

Appendix E“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
3.

July 2018

They must have completed four years of acceptable engineering experience after
confirmation of a bachelor’s of science degree in an appropriately‐accredited
engineering program.

4.

Their license must be clear of any disciplinary action.

Although a Council Record does not completely eliminate the need for paperwork, it doessignificantly streamline the application process for engineers whose services are needed
beyond state borders.
Temporary Permits
In most states, a professional engineer who holds a current and valid license issued by alicensing authority in another state that is recognized by the state licensing board may apply fora temporary permit to provide engineering services for a specific project, not to exceed one
year. A professional engineer is typically eligible for only one temporary permit; multiple
temporary permits are not issued. Extensions on temporary permits are usually not issued. In
the event that the project will not be completed within the one year period, the professional
engineer must apply for licensure in order to continue practicing, or offering to practice,engineering in that state.
Opportunities to Promote Mobility
PEs can promote licensure every time they present to legislators, companies already operating
or looking to operate between states or internationally. They can explain to these group andothers the need to establish mobility standards to promote the safety, health and welfare of all
people.
Diploma Privilege
One model for licensure of practice that is completely different from the current model would
be a diploma privilege model or approach. Within the legal profession, the diploma privilege is amethod by which one may practice law without having passed a state bar examination. Onceused by 33 United States jurisdictions, only two states accept this model for practice: Wisconsin
Appendix E

103“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

and New Hampshire.83 Wisconsin has offered the diploma privilege since 1870, when it was
adopted for purposes of encouraging prospective lawyers to attend law school, instead of juststudying the law, which was the legal training at the time. The diploma privilege was firstabolished in 1917 in California. Other states followed, with the last abolishment occurring in
1988 in West Virginia. Since 1988 only one state has created a new diploma privilege program.
New Hampshire’s program, which is quite different from Wisconsin’s program, was approvedby the state legislature in 2005 to encourage students to attend New Hampshire’s law schooland remain in the state to practice the law, with the first eligible class graduating in 2008.
Wisconsin’s program allows any student who graduates from one of the state’s two law schools
to immediately practice law in the state without needing to pass the bar examination. New
Hampshire’s program, in contrast, allows second‐ and third‐year students to apply foradmission to a special honors program. In the program, the students learn legal practicum
basics, such as taking depositions or motion practice before tribunals. Those accepted to theprogram have portfolios of written work and records of oral performance reviewed by the New
Hampshire state bar examiners each semester. If students pass all semester reviews by
instructors and the state bar examiners, they are allowed to practice in the state after
graduation from the program and law school, bypassing the bar examination. This licensing
model was initially explored in 1992 and, after multiple evaluations and several years as a pilot,
the program was adopted 17 years later.
Diploma privilege creates challenges as it is only recognized for mobility purposes by 25 states.
This creates inconsistencies in the overall licensure model for the legal profession and, forsomeone admitted via diploma privilege, would require someone who may have practiced formany years or even decades to sit for the bar examination for admission to practice law in a
new state.
Overall, the legal profession continues to evaluate admissions and licensure models for thepractice of law that ensures a minimum level of competence. To understand the various
83

Wikipedia. Diploma Privilege. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_privilege (accessed June 7,2018).

104

Appendix E“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

iterations of admission to the legal profession, which creates its own challenges for mobility, it’s
important to understand the testing procedures adopted by a majority of jurisdictions. Unlike
professional engineering, where all jurisdictions have adopted the engineering exams(fundamentals and principles and practice) developed by NCEES for verification of engineering
competence, only 21 jurisdictions have adopted the Uniform Bar Exam for the verification oflegal competence. The Uniform Bar Exam includes the Multistate Essay Examination, two
Multistate Performance Test problems, and the Multistate Bar Examination. This portion of theexamination process requires two 8‐hour days of examination. In addition to this post‐
graduation examination (16 hours) there is a separate examination that those seeking
admission to the practice of law must take and pass, the Multistate Professional Responsibility
Examination (2 hours).84
For a period in 2015, there was a push by several law school deans to abolish the bar exam,
thereby adopting a diploma privilege. These deans argued that the bar exam does not test real‐world skills and only, instead, tests the ability of students to memorize information – seemingly
ignoring that the essay portion of the Uniform Bar Exam is graded on both correct answers but
also ability to spot issues and develop thoughtful organization of essay responses. Additionally,by 2016, a few jurisdictions allowed early taking of the bar examination by third‐year law
students instead of having to wait until after graduation to sit for the bar examination.
Successful examinees must complete law school within a specific time after taking and passing
the bar examination, but upon completion of law school are allowed to begin practicing law
several months ahead of fellow graduates who wait until after graduation to sit for the bar
examination.
While the diploma privilege, if applied to professional engineering (i.e., calling everyone who
graduates from an engineering program a “PE”), would certainly increase the number of PEs in
the United States, such an approach could have tremendous unintended consequences. An
84

Despite only 21 states adopting the Uniform Bar Exam, all United States bars require passing of the Multistate
Professional Responsibility Examination except Maryland, Wisconsin, and Puerto Rico. Both the Uniform Bar Examand the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination are developed by the National Council of Bar
Examiners.

Appendix E

105“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

engineering diploma privilege has been conceptually explained as: “everyone who graduateswith a baccalaureate degree in engineering could receive a PE license but the difference would
be in obtaining separate approval/certification to be an engineer in responsible charge.”
As differentiated from the licensure model for lawyers, the licensure model for engineers
includes three independent components (i.e., education, examination, and experience). For theengineering license, a diploma privilege would essentially eliminate the examination andexperience components. One can argue about the value of the Fundamentals of Engineering or
Principles and Practice of Engineering, but it would be problematic to eliminate the traditional
exams in one fell swoop. Regarding experience component, the diploma privilege would not
require an engineer to gain mentorship and progressive experience under other PEs prior to
becoming licensed and being able to call themselves a “PE.”One could reasonably wonder if the public would be adequately protected when new graduates
are allowed to practice engineering right out of college. The diploma privilege would say: “Yes,you are good to go!” Finally, deciding what qualifies as an appropriate degree for purposes ofan engineering diploma privilege may prove challenging. Some states currently allow non‐ABET‐
degreed engineers to obtain PE licensure. Additionally, at least two previously‐ABET‐accredited
engineering programs in the United States have dropped ABET accreditation, thus complicating
what programs will qualify for licensure education, let along an added complexity of a diploma
privilege.
Also to be considered is the body of knowledge (“BOK”) required to practice engineering in a
specific discipline. A BOK is different for each engineering discipline. Some technicalengineering societies say the BOK for their discipline cannot be fulfilled within a baccalaureate
degree program. The diploma privilege could be problematic when reasonable people argue
that a master’s degree should be the minimum requirement for licensure. Which diploma is
acceptable? And, how do you get the public, legislators, and stakeholders to understand thesevarious iterations?

106

Appendix E“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Given the recent and aggressive attacks on occupational licensure that question whether
licensure of engineers is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, if a PE
license is given to “everyone at graduation,” the next reasonable question from the dissenterswould be: “if everyone gets a PE license just for graduating, without testing competence or
requiring progressive and mentored experience, then why retain PE licensure at all.”Finally, trying to make a distinction between a “PE” at graduation and a “PE in Responsible
Charge” makes the entire process of engineering licensure and determination of qualificationby the general public unnecessarily convoluted and confusing. At this time, there are alreadychallenges in ensuring the public understands the difference between a “PE” and a “degreed
engineer” given the looseness with which the term “engineer” is used across the United Statesin commerce and education, the lack of common use of “I am a professional engineer” versus “I
am an engineer” by the professional engineering community, the varying definitions state‐by‐state as to what activities require, or are exempt from, requiring professional engineering
licensure, and the nuances associated between design and responsible charge. Approaching
licensure in the conceptual way described above is more likely to harm the profession and put
at risk the public health, safety, and welfare given the difficulty for Licensure Boards ininvestigating and enforcing a nuance such as “PE at graduation” and “PE in responsible charge”
as well as introducing an additional level of confusion for the public.
Mobility
These multiple approaches to legal licensure and the various iterations thereof create
substantial mobility challenges for lawyers seeking to practice in multiple jurisdictions. In
addition to admission requirements varying across jurisdictions, there are further post‐
admission iterations as well. These include total hours of continuing education for renewal,
varying renewal periods (bi‐annual versus tri‐annual), non‐synchronous renewal periods or timeframes (some set renewal periods and education periods by last name on date of admission
whereas others are set by admission date and some are a hybrid thereof), and some stateseven require, by statute, membership in the jurisdiction’s bar association to maintain licensure.

Appendix E

107“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

To aid in mobility, the legal profession has established a cross‐jurisdictional admission process
for purposes of temporary practice.
The legal profession offers an approach to practice in multiple jurisdictions that is significantly
distinct from professional engineering. A lawyer admitted in one jurisdiction may seek theability to temporarily (for the tenure of a particular case) practice in a jurisdiction to which they
are not admitted. To do this, the lawyer must find another lawyer licensed in that target
jurisdiction and be admitted by the tribunal overseeing the case at issue via motion of pro hac
vice. The locally‐admitted lawyer must participate in certain aspects of the case proceedings
before that tribunal and takes certain involvement in the case, but this approach allows a non‐jurisdictionally‐admitted lawyer to practice in that jurisdiction for a short period of time for aparticular matter in which they may be particularly experienced to assist with or to ensure
continuity of representation for a client.
Compact Model
Another model for licensure is the “compact” model. The nursing profession has led the way inthe implementation of this model. Removing barriers to cross‐border practice, the Nurse
Licensure Compact (“NLC”) is an interstate agreement allowing a nurse to have one license andthe privilege to practice in other compact states. Implemented in 2000, the NLC fosters public
protection and access to care through the mutual recognition of one state‐based license that is
enforced locally and recognized nationally. Along with a majority of state nurses associations,
hospital associations and health care facilities in every state overwhelmingly support the NLC.
The NLC includes important patient safety features such as facilitation of the sharing oflicensure, investigative and disciplinary action information among member states. Since the
NLC’s initial launch, advances in technology and an increasingly mobile nursing workforce andpatient population have created the need to break down barriers to interstate practice. Accessto care has expanded and telehealth has transformed care delivery and erased geographic
boundaries. The NLC has the ability to remove the licensure barrier to telehealth practice formore than 4 million nurses.
108

Appendix E“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements Policies/Position Statements:


NSPE Professional Policies: PP‐45, PP‐50, PP‐58, PP‐61, PP‐65, PP‐66, PP‐75, PP‐96, PP‐
122, PP‐152, PP‐166, PP‐168, PP‐171, and PP‐173

NSPE Position Statements: PS‐1752, PS‐1768, PS‐1737, PS‐1766, PS‐1767, PS‐1747, PS‐
1748, PS‐1750, PS‐1751, PS‐1774, PS‐1778, and PS‐1780

Recommendations
NSPE must continue to promote the standards supported and regulated by NCEES and others
involved in the national and international licensing mobility movement.
NSPE must continue to promote mobility of the PE license to accommodate the needs of amore mobile society. To achieve this, NSPE should continue to support the NCEES model laws
and rules for licensure, which provide for licensure for the practice of engineering by PEs only
and by the same method, avoiding the introduction of additional iterations of licensure laws,
which just create barriers for the mobility of professional engineering licensure.
PEs must be able to work in other jurisdictions with very little time impact as they move into
more national and international markets, including the potential use of temporary licenses. This
could be similar to the pro hac vice process used by the legal community for situation‐specificpractice outside an already‐licensed jurisdiction. Continuity and process streamlining which
eliminate bureaucratic barriers are valued by today’s PEs. A unified message to both the private
and public sectors is necessary for the survival of the current licensing system.
NSPE should not advocate for a new model to licensure similar to the diploma privilege
employed by two states for the practice of law.
To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, theFuture of Professional Engineering Task Force recommends that NSPE:

Appendix E

109“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018


REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Continue to support the education, examination, and experience requirements for
professional engineering licensure across all states and territories of the United States.

Support multi‐state compacts that provide broad reciprocity between states if an
individual is determined eligible for licensure in one of the signatory states (i.e. licensure
in one provides for licensure in all without separate verifications for each application for
professional engineering licensure).



Explore support of temporary professional engineering licensure upon moving to a newstate or territory so as to not infringe upon one’s ability to obtain employment.



Explore support of project‐specific professional engineering licensure in a state in which
an individual is not licensed provided, however, they have a local PE support the
project‐specific licensure, similar to the pro hac vice system employed in the legal
profession.

Actively advocate with state society partners and partners in other technical andprofessional engineering associations for states to comport their professional
engineering licensure laws to the NCEES model laws and model rules, including those ofcontinuing education, to ensure mobility and also the individual competency of PEs.

110

Appendix E“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX F: INTERNATIONAL LICENSURE
Background
The world has been growing toward one world market since the recognition of interconnected
dependency through imports and exports to improve individual country’s economies andultimately the quality of life for its citizens. As engineering increasingly becomes a professionthat crosses international borders, some organizations have initiated efforts to not only
facilitate the flow of engineers and projects but also to ensure rigorous standards ofcompetence and professionalism.85 Mobility of professional engineers is key part of thestrategic plan for the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (“NCEES”)
both domestically and is growing internationally.
NCEES first offered overseas exams in Japan in 2006, taking over administration there from theOregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, which had provided theexams at the request of the Japan Technology Transfer Association.
NCEES signed an agreement with the Japanese PE/FE Examiners Council (“JPEC”) to continue
the exams. Another agreement with the Korean Professional Engineer Association (“KPEA”)
soon followed. “We found we were dealing with professionals with the same values andprofessionalism as [in the US],”86 said Jerry Carter, current CEO of NCEES. In December of 2014,
NCEES renewed its examination agreement with JPEC during a ceremony in Tokyo. NCEES also
has agreements to offer the FE and PE exams in Canada, Saudi Arabia, the United ArabEmirates, Egypt, and Turkey with ongoing discussions for additional countries in Asia and the
Middle East. Carter says one of the driving forces behind the growth in international exams has
been the increase in ABET accreditation overseas. Once organizations become accredited,
they’ve been interested in accessing the FE exam as an outcomes assessment tool.
The NCEES International Registry assists United States‐based professional engineers who areseeking recognition in countries that are members of the Asia‐Pacific Economic
85
86

Eva Kaplan‐Leiserson. PE Magazine, Going Global (April 2014).
Id.

Appendix F

111“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Cooperation (APEC) or the International Engineering Alliance (IEA), formerly the Engineers
Mobility Forum (EMF).
The Washington Accord is an international agreement that is a constituent of the IEA between
organizations and countries who have taken on the responsibility for accrediting engineering
degree programs. It was originally signed in 1989 and is a multi‐lateral agreement for validationof tertiary‐level engineering qualifications to assist the mobility of professional engineers. The
Accord outlines the mutual recognition, between the participating bodies, of accredited
engineering degree programs. It also establishes and benchmarks the standard for professional
engineering education across those bodies.87 The Accord has grown from an initial group of six
signatories to a well‐structured and sought‐after organization. The international recognitionand portability of both educational qualifications and professional competency is becoming
increasingly important in this age of global interdependence but unbalanced global
development, which requires movement of engineering skills around the world.88
Currently there are fifteen signatories that make up the Washington Accord. They are as
follows: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States,89 Hong Kong
China, South Africa, Japan, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Turkey, Russia; and six with
provisional signatory status: Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka.
PEs can promote licensure every time they present to academic institutions, board of directors,
legislators, companies already operating or looking to operate internationally. They can explain
to these group and others the need to establish a basic, uniform competency level to promote
the safety, health and welfare of those all around the world and they can be assured regarding
those they hire in foreign countries meet expected, known standards.

87

Washington Accord. Available at http://www.ieagreements.org/accords/washington/, (accessed June 1, 2018).
Basil Wakelin, Chair, IEA Governing Group. 25 Years of Washington Accord 1989‐2014. Available at
http://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Documents/History/25YearsWashingtonAccord‐A5booklet‐
FINAL.pdf (2014) (accessed June 1, 2018).
89
The U.S. signatory is ABET.
88

112

Appendix F“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

The world market continues to expand, and economies become more interconnected. As
companies continue to move into foreign arenas the need for known measurements ofprofessional standards that are regulated are desired to promote economic development. The
greatest challenges appear to be in the ethics of differing cultures and stages of civilized
advancement.
Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements


NSPE Professional Policies: PP‐45, PP‐50, PP‐58, PP‐61, PP‐65, PP‐66, PP‐75, PP‐96, PP‐
122, PP‐152, PP‐166, PP‐168, PP‐171, and PP‐173

NSPE Position Statements: PS‐1752, PS‐1768, PS‐1737, PS‐1766, PS‐1767, PS‐1747, PS‐
1748, PS‐1750, PS‐1751, PS‐1774, PS‐1778, and PS‐1780

Recommendations
The National Society of Professional Engineers (“NSPE”) must continue to promote thestandards supported and regulated by NCEES and others involved in the international licensing
movement. A marketing campaign to promote the NSPE Code of Conduct so that it issynonymous with professional engineering behavior much like the Hippocratic Oath isassociated with physicians, would help all entities grasp the need for ethical as well as technicalbehavioral standards to uphold the health, safety and welfare of our societies.

To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, the
FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE:Continue to promote the standard supported and regulated by NCEES.



Provide an international pathway to membership in NSPE.

Appendix F

113“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

This Page Intentionally Blank

114

Appendix F“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX G: ROLE OF THE CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN AND CERTIFIEDENGINEERING TECHNOLOGISTBackgroundAs technology continues to revolutionize the day‐to‐day tasks of the professional engineer, sodoes the public demand a competitive business model for professional engineering to remain
viable. To draw a parallel to describe such a model, we look to the legal and medical profession.
Operating similarly to paralegals or physician assistants, Engineering Technicians may be able toprovide competitive value to the engineering profession. From a cost‐benefit perspective, theuse of a Certified Engineering Technician (“CET”) or Certified Engineering Technologist (“CT”)
can provide an efficient approach to the delivery of professional design services, under thesupervision of the professional engineer in responsible charge. Identifying tasks that havetraditionally been completed by both licensed and unlicensed engineers that could/should becompleted by technicians, under the supervision of the professional engineer (“PE”) in
responsible charge, could help the profession be more sustainable and competitive.
Traditionally, the engineer intern (“EI”) fulfilled this area in the business structure, providing fora more competitive professional services pricing model. This recommendation does not change
the need or requirement of the PE, but is a more inclusive and flexible, value added tool in to
the PE’s toolbox to provide a broader array of services for the public. In this way, the future of
the profession can evolve with the recognition of the need for licensure. In addition, alternate
career paths can work together to eliminate further erosion caused by industrial exemptions
and other threats.
The professional engineering community should develop a better understanding of thecapabilities of CETs/CTs and, more importantly, identify ways in which the technician
community could expand their competency base. This could be a first step in the deeper
implementation of CET/CTs in the delivery of professional design services through a more
blended model.

Appendix G

115“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

The National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (“NICET”) is a division of
NSPE. Since the Institute was founded in 1961, nearly 150,000 engineering technicians andtechnologists have met NICET’s rigorous certification criteria – including a proctored written
examination, documented work experience and on‐the‐job performance. The number of NICET‐
certified CET and CT continues to grow rapidly as more government agencies and private sector
engineering firms, contractors and testing laboratories rely on NICET certification to confirm
the qualifications of their engineering technician and technologist workforce. NICET‐certified
engineering technicians and technologists are required to renew their certification every three
years by accumulating 90 Continuing Professional Development credits; and are expected toadhere to a Code of Ethics.
Because of the important role CET and CT can play in the deployment of professional
engineering services across all engineering disciplines, the Future of Professional Engineering(“FOPE”) Task Force recommends that NSPE, with the assistance of its engineering technician
and technologist certification body, NICET, and the volunteer technician association, theAmerican Society of Certified Engineering Technicians, better communicate to its members, theprofessional engineering community, and the public at large the critical role performed by
CETs/CTs. The FOPE Task Force also recommends that NSPE communicate, at all available
opportunities, how CETs and CTs can add value to the practice of professional engineering and,in turn, to clients, by allowing PEs to focus on creating solutions in the big‐picture sense andallowing CETs and CTs to perform critically important technical work on drawings or
calculations that are then reviewed by the PE in responsible charge of that project or that
portion of the project. This is similar to the way in which medical doctors highlight theimportant role performed by physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses in theirpractice, and attorneys emphasize the critical impact paralegals and law clerks have in theirpractice. Professional engineering has been much slower to adopt this approach than the
medical and legal professions.
More and more the public served by the engineering profession is requiring higher quality andfaster services, at a lower cost. Additionally, advances in technology have made it increasingly
116

Appendix G“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018difficult for PEs to remain proficient in every aspect of their technical specialty. As we have seenin the medical and legal professions, the inclusion and greater use of highly skilled and qualified
support staff (i.e., certified paraprofessionals) has significantly increased the quality and speedof services in these professions, while keeping costs as low as possible for the consumer.
Paraprofessionals that lack the official authority (i.e., license) of the professional are frequently
able to perform many tasks requiring significant knowledge in the field that were previously
performed by licensed professionals, often as well as or better than the licensed professional,
and may even function independently of direct professional supervision. In the medical
profession, these support staff include medical technicians, technologists, nurses, nurse
practitioners, and physician assistants. In the legal profession, these support staff include legal
assistants and paralegals. In the engineering profession, these support staff must include
engineering technicians, and engineering technologists.
The PE holds an engineering license and is qualified to be professionally responsible forengineering work. Such an individual comprehends and applies advanced knowledge ofengineering principles in the solution of complex problems. The Engineering Technologist exerts
a high level of judgment and generally specializes in one or more technical areas, while under
the direct control and supervision of a Professional Engineer. A person working as an
Engineering Technologist comprehends and applies knowledge embodied in widely accepted
and applied procedures, processes, systems or methodologies, to the solution of broadly‐
defined problems. The Engineering Technician is a person that typically performs task‐oriented
scientific or engineering related activities, under the direct control and supervision of a
Professional Engineer or direction of an Engineering Technologist. An Engineering Technician
comprehends and applies knowledge embodied in standardized practices to the solution ofwell‐defined problems.
Engineering Technologists have always been members of the engineering profession, even if
they are not identified as such. Many governmental organizations and private corporations
have developed job classifications that specify levels of education and experience which closely
Appendix G

117“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

reflect those of an Engineering Technologist. Engineering Technologists are often identified bytheir area of practice and expertise. For example, a Transportation Technologist at a state DOT
may perform skilled technical tasks such as coordinating field survey crews, preparing projectplans and specifications, providing on‐site project management, or supervising construction
materials testing activities. A Manufacturing Technologist for a private firm may be responsible
for supervising assembly‐line operations, assisting with product research and development,
managing supply acquisitions and product distributions, or sales.
Engineering technicians are the “hands‐on” members of the Engineering Team who work under
the direction of engineers, scientists, and technologists. They have knowledge of thecomponents, operating characteristics, and limitations of engineering systems and processes
particular to their area of specialization. Technicians assist with project design, systems
installation, construction management, systems commissioning, maintenance and repairs,
updates and renovations, and the plethora of reports, standard specifications, permit
applications, and other technical documents that must be prepared. Engineering technicians
serve as surveyors, materials sampling and testing technicians, drafting technicians,
construction inspectors, technical installers, and system programmers.
As with any other profession, the effectiveness of CET and CT involvement is tied directly totheir knowledge and experience. Engineering Technologists will typically acquire theirknowledge initially through a 4‐year, bachelor’s degree curriculum in Engineering Technology
from a college or university program accredited by ABET‐ETAC. Engineering Technicians
typically acquire their knowledge either through a 2‐year, associate degree curriculum inEngineering technology, or from on‐the‐job experience. This knowledge, and the skill to apply
this knowledge, increases over time as individuals are exposed to a wider array of activities andenvironmental conditions.
Independent, third‐party credentialing (i.e., from organizations such as NICET) for CETs and CTs
demonstrates their acquired competencies, and a commitment to their chosen profession.
Professional certification programs, much like professional licensure programs, will assess
118

Appendix G“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018individuals’ knowledge (typically through an education requirement or a written examination),
their skill at applying knowledge (typically through an assessment of on‐the‐job performance ora staged performance examination), and their relevant work experience over time. Continuing
professional development, adherence to a Code of Ethics, and recertification every 3‐5 years
are also hallmarks of professional certification.
NICET currently offers certification for engineering technicians in twelve specialty areas. NICET‐
certified engineering technicians are required by governmental agencies throughout the UnitedStates – and at various levels of competency based on the work tasks being performed (seeattached chart). In addition, many private sector specifiers require NICET‐certified engineering
technicians for their contracts; and many employers around the world require and recognize
NICET‐certified engineering technicians within their organizations to demonstrate the quality
and economic value of the engineering services being provided to their clients. The following
table provides a summary of CET and CT certifications required by governmental agencies:

Fire

Inspection

Water

SpecialConstruction

Geotechnical

Highway

BridgeAlarms& Testing

Based

Hazards

Materials

Engineering

Construction

Safetyof Water

Systems

Systems

Testing

Based

LayoutLayoutInspection

Systems
GSA
Contracts

GSA
Contracts

Alabama

AlaskaAlaskaGeorgia

AlaskaGeorgia

Alabama

AlaskaAlaskaColorado

Arizona

NebraskaConnecticut

Illinois

AlaskaArizona

Arizona

Delaware

California

Ohio

Maine

Iowa

Arizona

DelawareArkansas

Iowa

ColoradoSouth Carolina

Nebraska

Louisiana

California

FloridaColorado

Kentucky

Delaware

New York

Michigan

DelawareGeorgia

Connecticut

Montana

Maine

Ohio

Minnesota

KansasIowa

DelawareNew
Hampshire

Michigan

South
Carolina

Nebraska

KentuckyKansasGeorgiaNew
JerseyNebraskaUtah

New Jersey

Michigan

Maryland

Idaho

New
MexicoOhio

North
Carolina

Appendix G

119“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Fire

Inspection

Water

SpecialConstruction

Geotechnical

Highway

BridgeAlarms& Testing

Based

Hazards

Materials

Engineering

Construction

Safetyof Water

Systems

Systems

Testing

Based

LayoutLayoutInspection

Systems
Minnesota

New Jersey

Illinois

Ohio

Montana

Ohio

IndianaOklahoma

Washington

NebraskaSouth
Carolina

Iowa

Texas

Wisconsin

NevadaSouth
DakotaKentucky

Vermont

New
Hampshire

Texas

Louisiana

New
Jersey

Utah

Maine

New
MexicoWashington

MarylandNew York(City)

West
Virginia

Minnesota

Ohio

NebraskaSouth
Carolina

New
HampshireSouth
DakotaNorth
Carolina

Texas

Ohio

Utah

Pennsylvania

West
Virginia

South
Carolina

Wyoming

South Dakota

South
Carolina

Texas

Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin

In the truest sense, certified CETs and CTs should be viewed as individuals that has acquired ahigh level of knowledge and skill in their chosen area of specialty, and a significant amount of120

Appendix G“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

practice in that field. Active participation in technical and professional membershiporganizations (such as the American Society of Certified Engineering Technicians),demonstrates a commitment to their chosen profession, and to the engineering community.
Therefore, an individual that chooses engineering technology as a long‐term occupation has thepotential to add significant value to the Engineering Team.
From a cost‐benefit perspective, the use of CETs and CTs can provide an efficient approach to
the delivery of professional services. Identifying tasks that have traditionally been completed byboth licensed and unlicensed engineers that can be completed by CETs and CTs, under thesupervision of the PE, would help the profession be more sustainable and competitive in the
future. This allows the PE to focus on the more complex tasks that they are uniquely qualified
to perform, and delegate the widely accepted and applied tasks to qualified CETs and CTs.
Many federal, state and local governmental agencies already recognize the value of having
CET/CTs involved with the design, construction and maintenance of their engineering projects.
Traditionally, the EIT/EI fulfilled these more routine tasks in the business structure to provide amore competitive professional services pricing model. This recommendation to better utilize
engineering technologists and engineering technicians does not change the need or
requirement for PEs, but is an inclusive, value added role in to the professional engineer’s
toolbox to provide the best possible services for the public. In this way, the future of theprofession can evolve with the recognition of the need for licensure of engineers andcertification for engineering technologists and engineering technicians; and qualified individuals
in these two career paths can work together to eliminate further erosion caused by industrial
exemptions and other threats.
Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements


NSPE Professional Policies: PP‐166



NSPE Position Statements: PS‐1749

Appendix G

121“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Recommendations
To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, the
FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE:

Communicate to NSPE members, and in communications to the professional
engineering community, and the public at large, the CET and CT fields.

Communicate, at all available opportunities, how CETs and CTs can add value to thepractice of professional engineering and, in turn, to clients, by allowing PEs to focus on
creating solutions in the big‐picture sense and allowing CETs and CTs to perform
technical work on drawings or calculations that are then reviewed by the PE in
responsible charge of that project or that portion of the project.

Communicate parallels between PEs, CETs, and CTs to the way in which medical doctors
make use of physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses in their practice orattorneys make use of paralegals and law clerks in their practice.

122

Appendix G“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX H: ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY METHODS
Background
Alternate Delivery Methods (“ADMs”) have gained increasing popularity with government
agencies over the previous decade. ADMs can be broadly described as any method by whichgovernment or other publicly funded entities procure and contract for the construction of
public infrastructure other than traditional Design Bid Build. ADMs include Design Build,
Progressive Design Build, Construction Manager at Risk, Integrated Project Delivery,
Competitive Sealed Proposal and A+B Bidding. States have varying rules that regulate how
ADMs can be used by agencies and political subdivisions within the state.
Each type of ADM provides different benefits and risks to the owner. Factors such as safety,
function, time from conception to completion, capital andlife‐cycle costs, environmental quality, and appearance
may each play a role in the owner’s decision to utilize aparticular ADM. Owners typically use ADMs in an effort to

Owners typically use ADMs in an effort
to reduce project schedules andincrease project quality.

reduce project schedules and increase project quality. As
contracts are developed and negotiated for specific projects, the allocation of risk, control andother factors can be further defined and tailored to the needs of the project and desires of thecontracting parties. Generally, as the owner’s schedule and budget risk decrease, so does theowner’s control over material choices and design elements.
Owners face the following risks when using ADMs:
1. Lack of experience developing and negotiating contracts
2. Lack of control over material choices and design elements
3. No direct contractual relationship with design engineer
The first two of these risks are relatively well understood and described in several guidance
documents published by the Construction Management Association of America (“CMAA”) andAppendix H

123“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

the Design Build Institute of America (“DBIA”).90 However, the risks associated with the absenceof a direct contractual relationship between the owner and the engineer are less wellunderstood. Due the experience and insight members of the National Society of Professional
Engineers (“NSPE”) members have gained using ADMs over the past two decades, NSPE is well
positioned to provide guidance to owners on managing these risks.
Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements


NSPE Professional Policies: PP‐22, PP‐45, PP‐50, PP‐58, PP‐61, PP‐96, PP‐122, PP‐131,
PP‐149, PP‐166, and PP‐171



NSPE Position Statements: PS‐1749, PP‐130, PS‐1777, PS‐1747, PS‐1748, PS‐1750, PS‐
1751, PP‐66, PS‐1774, PP‐75, PS‐1778, and PS‐1780

Recommendations
To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, theFuture of Professional Engineering Task Force recommends that NSPE:

Develop an NSPE Task Force with diverse experience using alternative delivery methods(project owners, sponsoring governmental entities, engineering services (PEs and
CETs/CTs), and financing) to produce and maintain (at regular intervals) a best
management practices and lessons learned document that could be presented annuallyat PECON with updates in experience or example projects.

Produce and maintain an ADM body of knowledge from the PE’s perspective.



Develop a guidance document for public owners regarding the use of alternative
delivery methods and the importance of inclusion of PEs in the process.

90

Construction Management Association of America. An Owner’s Guide to Project Delivery Methods (2012).
Available at https://cmaanet.org/files/Owners%20Guide%20to%20Project%20Delivery%20Methods%20Final.pdf(accessed March 2017);Design Build Institute of America. Design Build Done Right (2014). Available athttps://www.dbia.org/resource‐center/Documents/Best_Practices_2014.pdf (accessed March 2017).

124

Appendix H“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX I: PUBLIC SECTOR ENGAGEMENT
As stated by the National Society of Professional Engineers’ (“NSPE’s”) Board of Ethical Review:
Professional engineers working in the public sector have a unique role in serving
as guardians of various health, safety, and welfare issues. In addition to theirbasic professional role in holding paramount the public health, safety, andwelfare,engineersinthepublicsectorareempowered

to

make

recommendations and approve only those drawings, plans, and specifications
that are consistent with engineering standards. In many ways, engineers in the
public sector are a key line of defense in protecting the public.91
To that end, engaging public sector professional engineers (“PEs”), in general, in support for
professional engineering licensure issues and through membership in NSPE is important tobuild resources and advocates in key decision‐making and stakeholder positions to ensure thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in the development of the built
environment and the deployment of various engineering technologies. To encourage suchengagement, the FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE develop and implement a rate forpublic sector PEs and those on the PE track, consistent with the direction of the NSPE House ofDelegates in July 2017. Then, following such development, undertake an active public sector PE
member marketing campaign.
In reviewing other professional associations, three associations that offer discounts for public
sector members stood out and were evaluated further. The American Bar Association offers
membership to government lawyers at an approximately 43 percent discount at its maximum.
The American Medical Association offers membership to military physicians at an
approximately 33 percent discount. The American Public Works Association offers membershipto a public agency (that includes covering dues of rostered members) at a discount of

91

National Society of Professional Engineers. Board of Ethical Review. Engineer’s Duty to Adhere to Codes,
Standards and Guidelines. Available at https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/board‐ethical‐review/public‐
health‐and‐safety‐engineer‐s‐duty‐adhere‐codes (accessed June 1, 2018).

Appendix I

125“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

approximately 31 percent (when compared to the same corporate group membership roster
member inclusion).
Beyond general engagement of public sector PEs, advocacy to ensure that selection committees
for federal, state, and municipal infrastructure projects should include a PE or multiple PE’s toanalyze the technical aspects that are required for firms to meet a qualification based selection
process. NSPE and its state societies should work with appropriate state or local governments
to incorporate qualified PEs in the selection process. Additionally, NSPE should work withfederal agencies to ensure that qualified PEs are available and identified for participation in theselection process, perhaps even maintaining an NSPE Community solely dedicated to individuals
who would be qualified for these selection committees. In furtherance of these efforts, NSPE
should work cooperatively with the American Public Works Association (“APWA”), American
Society of Civil Engineers (“ASCE”), and Society of American Military Engineers (“SAME”) (threeof the largest public sector membership organizations) on key issues.
Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements


NSPE Professional Policies: PP‐152, PP‐168, and PP‐131



NSPE Position Statements: PS‐1778, PS‐1737, and PS‐1767

Recommendations
To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, the
FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE:

Develop focused partnerships (formally or informally) with the APWA, ASCE, and SAME
– three of the largest organizations with public sector membership – with the specificgoal of increasing, and maintaining, public sector engagement in the (1) long‐termsustainability of professional engineering, including through membership in NSPE; (2)support of NSPE advocacy efforts on behalf of the PE license and continued protectionof the public health, safety, and welfare in projects funded by public tax dollars or

126

Appendix I“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

constructed for the benefit of the public; or (3) education sponsored by NSPE of key
issued facing public sector engineers (licensed and non‐licensed) that are of importanceto the continued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.


Develop and offer a government PE rate for membership in NSPE and provide various
platforms for government PEs to collaborate either amongst themselves regarding bestpractices or amongst private practice and industry PEs.



Actively work to increase the number of public sector members in NSPE so as to provide
additional perspectives to the work of NSPE in support of the PE license and theprotection of the public health, safety, and welfare.



Advocate that all federal, state, and municipal infrastructure project selection
committees include a PE or multiple PEs to analyze the technical aspects that are
required for firms to meet a qualification based selection process. Increasing
membership in NSPE of employees of these key employers will also provide
opportunities to extol the value of PEs for potential resources as needed by these key
employers for project development.

Appendix I

127“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

This Page Intentionally Blank

128

Appendix I“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX J: DEFINING AND COMMUNICATING VALUE
As discussed previously in this report, during its work, the Future of Professional Engineering(“FOPE”) Task Force identified multiple ways in which professional engineers (“PEs”)
communicate what they do in response to the question, “What do you do?” Those responses
included the following, among other responses: “I’m an engineer,” “I’m a PE,” “I’m a licensed
engineer,” “I’m a registered engineer,” “I’m a [discipline or specialty] engineer,” “I’m a
consultant,” and “I’m a project manager,” The fact that a PE can communicate what theirprofession is in so many ways creates additional confusion among the public about who PEs are
and why licensure is critical for our profession. PEs can benefit greatly from developing
consistency in telling our story to the public.

An engineer is a constructive artist. The artof engineering is based on science andmathematics, where the tools and materials
are technological. It’s a constructive art
because engineers build and optimize
things. And yes, the intent here is tohighlight the concept that engineering is art—interpretation, design, creation, invention,and expression—in contrast to the common
stereotype that the profession is rigid andformulaic.
– Citizen Engineer
by Greg Papadapolous and Dave Douglas:

The National Society of Professional Engineers(“NSPE”) takes ownership of our public identity
as PEs and helps define who we are, what wedo and what we value. Right now, the public
has a generally positive view of “engineers,” buta big part of the story is missing. The term
“engineer” is broad and all‐encompassing.
Many surveys of public view of professions do
not offer any level of detail as to what kind ofengineers they are including in that survey. And

general knowledge of “professional engineer” versus “engineer” is limited. Additionally,
communication of “professional engineering” versus “the engineering profession” can bechallenging, even among PEs and PE regulators.

Appendix J

129“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

In general, engineers are seen as intelligent introverts who toil alone on important projects.92
While this may be true for some in professional engineering, PEs are those pulling together
project teams, heading engineering departments or corporations, developing creative solutions
to everyday problems, and providing critical insight and expertise to find ways to improve life in
our society. It is imperative that NSPE take the charge inchanging the “introverted professional engineer”
perspective as we are the ones who can communicate

PEs are collaborative solution creators
who are socially engaged, innovative,
and community minded.

best what it is we do and challenge long‐heldassumptions about professional engineering.
PEs are collaborative solution creators who are socially engaged, innovative, and community
minded. We can also help people understand that all PEs abide by a code of ethics that says we“must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.” In most states,
following language similar to the NSPE Code of Ethics or the National Council of Examiners forEngineering and Surveying Model Rules of Professional Conduct is part of the legislativerequirements for licensure. Given that this exists already and is known to PEs, NSPE should
continually and exhaustively promote and market this code to the general public so that ethics
or good moral character and value are synonymous with professional engineers. Care must be
taken to only promote and not compare so as to not degrade unlicensed engineers or
technicians.
To raise awareness of the critical role of PEs in protecting the health, safety and welfare of the
public, attention must be drawn to engineering failures as well as successes as they relate to
the daily lives of human beings. Historically, engineers have been reluctant to share theirsuccess stories and even more so their failures. Only through repeated exposure to the societal

92

American Society of Engineering Educators. The Engineer’s Role in Public Policy at 2 (2003). Available athttps://peer.asee.org/the‐engineer‐s‐role‐in‐public‐policy.pdf (accessed June 1, 2018). There remains a “popular
perception that engineers are geeks, technonerds, or loners who have highly developed technical skills, but lacksocial skills. The popular perception (as illustrated in the Dilbert cartoons) is that engineers work alone, doing
boring work in small offices surrounded by computers . . .” Id.

130

Appendix J“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

impacts of good and bad engineering practice, will the public come to truly understand andappreciate the role of the PE.
NSPE is already educating the public about and advocating for PEs. But we can learn new waysof communicating from other professions. For example:
American Medical Association – administers medical licenses, takes positions on policy
issues, issues press releases, makes recommendations related to public health issues,
disciplines doctors for misconductAmerican Bar Association – grants and rescinds the right to practice law (at state level),
disciplines attorneys for misconductAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants – Administers the C.P.A. certification

Certified Financial Planners – national sustained advertising campaign

Society for Human Resource Management – national sustained advertising campaign

These organizations have made their licenses part of the vernacular. Everyone knows what
profession an M.D., J.D./Esq., and C.P.A. are practicing. Perhaps NSPE can publicize the “P.E.” ina way that increases the public’s familiarity with it while tying it to the Code of Ethics. Thismessage should be communicated to both the public and within the profession so that the
public sees the value in professional engineers, unlicensed engineers see the value of licensure,and PEs feel pride in their profession. PE Day and the new, more consistent and compellingbranding is a great start, but can also get quickly diluted in “EWeek,” “Engineers’ Day,”“#ILookLikeAnEngineer,” etc.
Communicating why we do what we do as PEs, versus
Communicating why we do what we
do as PEs, versus communicating only
what we do can aid in this effort for agreat public understanding andappreciationofprofessional
engineering.

communicating only what we do can aid in this effort fora great public understanding and appreciation of
professional engineering. This includes the need todevelop clear and effective talking points to bedelivered that explain why PEs do what they do and not

only what PEs do in their practice of engineering. Such communications should be updated
Appendix J

131“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

regularly and should also include state‐specific information on the breadth of engineering
activities that are exempt in that state from licensure, thereby not ensured the additional layerof regulatory oversight related to holding the public health, safety, and welfare paramountabove all other considerations.
Some other ways to increase awareness of professional engineering are:


Continue and expand the use social media



Engage with college students to help them understand they are part of a proud andvalued profession

Engage with professors to promote licensureSponsor local events geared toward science and engineeringIssue press releases and publish studies

Provide opportunities and tools for PEs to share their stories

Continue to applaud those in academia who pursue licensure personally and actively
develop materials for educators, whether or not PEs, to promote it to their students
accordingly

As PEs work to further define the profession for the public’s understanding, our society’s trust
in and respect for engineers will grow. There will be an increased understanding of the value ofthe engineering perspective and people will expect to see engineers involved in important
decisions about public infrastructure. This will lead to better and more informed deliberations
about public investments in our systems of critical infrastructure.
Current NSPE Professional Policies and Position Statements


NSPE Position Statements: PS‐1737, PS‐1750, PS‐1751, PS‐1766, PS‐1767, PS‐1771, PS‐
1778, and PS‐1779

132

Appendix J“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Recommendations
To ensure the continuation of the practice of professional engineering, and thereby thecontinued protection of the public health, safety, and welfare in engineering endeavors, the
FOPE Task Force recommends that NSPE:

Develop an NSPE task force whose sole charge is to define and communicate the valueof PEs. This task force would engage NSPE Membership, Leadership, and Staff tocollectively define the value of professional engineering and, more importantly,
effectively communicate the value of PEs to those already in the profession, those inpublic office, and the general public. This task force should be focused solely on
developing and testing messaging and should include members but also marketing
professionals.

Appendix J

133“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

This Page Intentionally Blank

134

Appendix J“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

APPENDIX K: COMMUNICATION PLAN

The Future of Professional Engineering (“FOPE”) Task Force completed its work and preparedthis report for the National Society of Professional Engineers (“NSPE”). The FOPE Task Force,
however, believes the information contained in this report may be of interest to other key
stakeholders to the practice of professional engineering. Below, the FOPE Task Force proposes
lists of other constituencies that may find various portions of this report of interest.
As a broad matter, the FOPE Task Force believes that until NSPE formally adopts anything
specific from this report, any communications related to the report should include thefollowing, or similar language to ensure avoidance of doubt regarding NSPE’s position on any of
the information contained herein:
This report was developed by a team of volunteers appointed to the Future ofProfessional Engineering (“FOPE”) Task Force of the National Society ofProfessional Engineers (“NSPE”) from June 2016 to July 2018. The summaries,
recommendations, and conclusions were developed over a two‐year period
through various discussions, exchanges, and considerations by the FOPE Task
Force. The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended
to encourage further understanding and discussion of the topics identified herein;
they do not necessarily reflect those of NSPE, the individual members of the FOPE
Task Force, the professional organizations or local, state, or federal agencies
identified herein, or the employers or other affiliated professional organizations
or societies of the FOPE Task Force members. Only those recommendations later
incorporated into NSPE Professional Policies, Position Statements, or otherofficial NSPE documents or communications represent the position of NSPE.
The FOPE Task Force presents this report to NSPE with the intent that it willencourage thoughtful discussion around the recommendations identified herein.
While the FOPE Task Force worked diligently to analyze key issues and concerns
Appendix K

135“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

from many different perspectives and gathered input from many different
sources, additional input and insight is warranted as professional engineering
progresses through the twenty‐first century. Further, this report is not intended
to be, or capable of being, all‐encompassing of every key considerations related
to professional engineering and the continued protection of the public health,safety, and welfare.
As to particular topics, the FOPE Task Force has identified the following stakeholders, inaddition to the NSPE membership, to which this information should be disseminated, that may
be most interested in the material associated therewith. This list is not all‐inclusive, but isintended to be a starting point for further communication of the FOPE Task Force’s two years ofwork, this report, and any subsequent actions on recommendations contained herein that NSPE
chooses to take.
Industrial Exemption:National Council of Examiners of Engineering and Surveying (“NCEES”), including
member organizations of its Professional Engineering Licensure CoalitionState licensing boards/administratorsStudents in engineering programs



NSPE’s Professional Engineering in Higher Education Interest GroupEngineering Educators – providing materials on state‐by‐state summaries andinconsistencies in state definitions of industrial exemption for their own practice ofengineering as well as for the education of studentsLegislators and Administrators of State and Federal Agencies

Public Policy and Professional Engineering

NCEES, including member organizations of its Professional Engineering Licensure
Coalition

The broad professional engineering community (including all licensees)

Federal and State Legislators and Agency Administrators

136

Appendix K“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."REPORT ON THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TO THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

July 2018

Nationally‐Active Political Action Committees supporting efforts to eliminate
occupational licensureEngineering Educators – providing materials to educate students on the concept of“citizen PE” and regarding engineering programs offering courses or combined degrees
in engineering and public policy

Engineering Education

NCEES, including member organizations of its Professional Engineering Licensure
CoalitionState licensing boards/administratorsAmerican Society of Engineering Educators

National Society of Black EngineersNationally‐Active Political Action Committees supporting efforts to eliminate
occupational licensure

Licensure Model and Mobility/International Licensure

NCEES, including member organizations of its Professional Engineering Licensure
CoalitionState licensing boards/administratorsStudents in engineering programs



NSPE’s Professional Engineers in Higher Education Interest GroupEngineering EducatorsState Legislators

The Role of the Certified Engineering Technician and Certified Engineering Technologist

NCEES, including member organizations of its Professional Engineering Licensure
CoalitionNational Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies

American Society of Certified Engineering TechniciansThe broad professional engineering communityFederal and State Agency Administrators
Appendix K

137“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."

July 2018

REPORT OF THE FUTURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING TASK FORCE TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Alternative Delivery Methods


NCEES



State licensing boards/administrators



Design Build Institute of America and other similar organizations

Federal and State Agency Administrators

138

Appendix K“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."This Page Intentionally Blank“The opinions and recommendations presented in this paper are intended toencourage further understanding and do not necessarily reflect any official position of NSPE."