In Europe, an engineer who wishes to practice throughout the European Union can obtain an EU Professional Engineers License. In Australia, one obtains a Chartered Engineer's license to practice throughout the country of Australia (for those less familiar with Australia, it is about the size of the lower 48 states of the United States and is divided into five different states with laws in each of those states). In the UK, one obtains a Chartered Engineers License to practice throughout the UK. When the North American Free Trade Agreement was first drafted, the concept was also to allow engineers from Mexico, Canada and the US to practice freely across borders. However, of course with the individual state licensing boards and laws, this aspect of the treaty never came about. And thus starts the debate of whether it is time for a national engineer's license.

It is no surprise that different states have different laws and different requirements. For instance, in California there are very strict requirements under the civil engineering license as it relates to seismic codes and for very good reasons. Being up to date on state building codes is critical to the practice design in all states. There may always be the need to take an "extra" specific exam relative to a specific requirement for a particular engineering practice. However, as we emerge into an era where infrastructure projects are becoming more and more large and costly that only major national or even international companies or consortiums can handle the job, do we complicate the process by imposing a separate license for each state? Would it not be more efficient and effective to provide for a national engineer's license for those that practice nationwide with the proviso for any special requirements as noted above?

The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) has published "Model Rules" for potential use by state boards of registration. The rules provide definitions for "Model Law Engineer." The definition is similar to that used by most state boards, including the requirements of passing the eight-hour Fundamentals of Engineering (F.E.) exam and an eight-hour P.E. exam. NCEES intends that an engineer who achieves licensure under the Model Law Engineer would be a Professional Engineer (P.E.). Thus, the basis a national exam already exists. Since the NCEES model law would require additional education in order to obtain a professional engineering license, are we not approaching qualifications and practice requirements that can be applied to engineers across the country and not just state-specific? It can take as long as six months to process an individual state license application. Given the dire forecasts of engineering shortages, do we benefit or disadvantage our infrastructure by imposing strict requirements?

The answer is not simple and there are views on both sides of the issue. As the world becomes smaller, we need to look outside the box to determine how best to replace our aging infrastructure as well as to build new infrastructure. People are more mobile than ever. The internet facilitates working across multiple offices. Engineering is really not different state by state--only certain "standards" are. Maybe it's time to consider a national engineering license. The organization to provide necessary oversight exists already. Change does not come easily with engineers, let alone state governments. Is it time to change?

May 14, 2007

I think it is a valuable proposal. A single national core set of skills affects more people, so it can garner more attention, and it is also easier to harmonize with the other national standards you list. It's a single point of content for evolving the discipline. It also can become a single model (i.e. simulation system) that can be easily experimented upon, off-line.

These benefits afford the discipline, and those who rely on it for solutions, the opportunity to confidently test and adopt advances in knowledge into accepted practice.

Imagine an engineering knowledgebase environment that includes collaboration portals dedicated to bringing specific technologies to the point of general professional acceptance! Imagine not only using it to expand the range of solutions, and provide least-cost yet best performance ones, but also using it to validate traditional construction technologies from cultures all over the planet, identifying the most appropriate testing regimes both for the core validation of the procedures, and also for field use to verify specific solutions and materials as they are applied to individual projects.

This has its parallels in the work of Chinese and Indian universities to scientifically validate their traditional health systems after World War II.

The available advances include not only new ones, but old concepts that were set aside in modern times, such as the tension and compression balance of building with cob (long straw, sand, clay and water -- monolithic adobe). Its advocates say, tell me the cost of the roof and I'll tell you the cost of the building -- and two of them could not find any damage in a theoretically weak (thin walls, large windows, low quality cob) home that survived earthquakes that tumbled most of the brick buildings around it, TWICE.

Modern advances include tension structures (such as the Denver airport), and replacements for the traditional truss, such as the Captive Column (U.S.Patent 3, 501,880), with a 2000 to 1 or more strength to weight ratio in column loading with some materials (e.g. fiberglass, and balsa wood or aluminum). (Note the mine shoring column test at the Denver Bureau of Mines, on the website).

The technologies mentioned, and others, will have an important impact on both energy and financial sustainability in all types of structures, once they are widely adopted. Their pioneers and early adopters are committed advocates, and some are available to assist projects to advance their causes.

In a time of belated acknowledgement of global warming's impacts, and of degrees of poverty from moderate to extreme for much of the world's population, such a system needs to be developed, and soon. It can truly make a huge difference, and a national engineering certification process can open the door for it to happen.

I welcome feedback and offers to collaborate and / or fund the work of bringing advances such as I mention to full acceptance.

Mark Roest, Financial Manager and Strategic Planner
OneVillage Foundation

May 14, 2007

This is a fine proposal for guys like Mr. Peng, who is at the rarefied elite levels of the profession. For those of us who work on less high profile projects, and scramble for all the small and medium size projects from clients with notoriously tight wallets; this is a recipe for engineering disaster and economic ruin for American engineers, who will be undercut at every level by foreign engineers from penny per day labor economies like China, Indonesia and India.

Engineering these days is, like it or not, largely viewed as a commodity (apart from certain specialized design and construction services like tunneling) by those that contract for engineering services. Those clients will pressure engineering firms for the cheapest possible prices, which will force firms to either off-shore the bulk of their design and engineering services or hire more foreigners at half or less than what they'd pay an American.

Bryan

May 14, 2007

This is an answer to John Bachner's question below as to whether a national PE license would cover all disciplines. It should. Our professions (not just engineering) are endangered. For the most part they have stopped aggressive self-policing. Some evidence of this can be seen in the medical field. Good doctors are faced with huge malpractice insurance premiums because there are others that make costly "mistakes." Instead of having their licenses revoked, they simply move to another state and continue to practice.
Some state PE board programs face similar challenges. PEs lose their licenses for failure to use a written
contract in some states, and for obtaining a license under false pretenses in others. But we seldom see PEs lose their licenses for failure to maintain competency or for "mistakes" that cause costly property damage or leave a person injured.

If we went to a national program with funding sufficient to oversee competency, I believe the profession could move into a direction of consistency and assure public health, safety and welfare. specialization also seems to be needed as clients and employers do not have assurance that an engineer is truly qualified or competent in a specific area of practice. Of course whoever enforces the national system must also enforce ethics rigorously. It will also be critical to ensure that geographic factors are considered (e.g., one needs to know about permafrost in Alaska and sinkholes in Florida). Engineers, to be professionals, must be more than technicians.

May 11, 2007

I can see two sides of this. On one side it does seem more efficient and it would be nice to not have to register over and over everytime you have another job in a new state.

However, the government is not good at much of anything. Everything they get involved in seems like a good idea but it becomes inneffective and costly. Look at schools, welfare, public housing, roads, etc.

If we can keep the government out of it, it can only get better.

Sam

May 11, 2007

It is about time to open the doors for this debate.

I think it is a good idea to have a national engineering license. One can always spcialize in a particular field such as in the case of seismic engieering when practicing in states like California.

Orlando Arteaga, P.E.

May 11, 2007

This is absurd along with all other requirements for licensing. Too many lawyers, too many laws, too much control. People need to learn how to think and not rely on some law or some lawyer to protect them and what they do.

Curtis Johnson

May 11, 2007

I agree entirely with the premise. Tunneling is an international business. I have worked across Canada, the US, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,Columbia, French West Africa and Argentina and Europe.

I believe the time has come to harmonize our licensing requirements with commercial Federal law such as NAFTA, so we are not unnecessarily restricting trade.

Bernie Martin Peng (ON, PQ, BC), PE ( NY), M.Eng. FASCE
Principal Professional Associate Parsons Brinckerhoff

May 11, 2007

Great idea.

V. Govindarajan

May 11, 2007

I am registered in Canada..We too have about 11 licensing bodies in Canada. I have also looked into obtaining a P.E. designation in USA. Your article reflects my feelings very well regarding National & NAFTA professional registration,, but what will happen to all those state & provincial empires that have been created over the past century???? Gus

Gus Dubyk, P.E.

May 11, 2007

A good idea. If you are able to develop a way to do it, I love to see it. Architects have explored the idea, but have been unable so far to develop a rational approach. Perhaps the Engineers and Architects should combine forces to get something through Congress. We have national commerical drivers licenses, national pilots licenses and my state drivers license is good in any state.

Richard E. Barrow FAIA

May 10, 2007

Tell us how the national approach would effect discipline, Pat.

John Bachner
ASFE