Professional Engineers in Industry (PEI)
1420 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Task Force Report and Recommendation for Computer and Software Engineering Licensure Path
August 10, 2006
Prepared by theProfessional Engineers in Industry - Computer and Software Engineering (PEI-CSE) Task Force for the NSPE Licensure & Qualifications for Practice (L&QP) Committee
1
Executive Summary
The Computer and Software Engineering Task Force[1] within Professional Engineers in Industry (PEI) assessed how National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) should consider the relationship of Computer Engineering and Software Engineering as disciplines for licensure. Software Engineering, like other engineering disciplines, now has its curriculum accredited by ABET. Computer Engineering has been a discipline accredited by ABET for several years.
The Task Force reviewed the current National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) structure and available examinations for the Principles and Practice of Engineering with respect to current NCEES exam specifications. Also, we considered out-of-the-boxapproaches to examinations besides what is being offered by NCEES. For example, we considered the Certified Software Development Professional (CSDP) offered by the IEEE Computer Society and a new licensing effort by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers currently under revision by their Software Engineering Task Force.
The PEI Task Force evaluated how Computer and Software Engineering fits within the current engineering process. We considered how the courses for Software Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering are taught at accredited Universities, and how these types of jobs are being performed in U.S. industry. The Task Force felt it was important to understand the relationship among other related subjects taught in the University.
The Task Force developedthree recommendations that PEI supports as conveyed by this Task Force. Each recommendation has been thoughtfully considered. Deference in each case was given to expedience and the path that would lead to the widest discipline coverage.
Summary of PEIRecommendations
- Recommendation #1PEI urges NSPE Board of Directors (BOD)to approve the position in this Recommendation, and request NCEES to develop a Computer and Software Engineering Principles & Practice Exam. Note: PEI felt that the NSPE Licensure & Qualifications for Practice Committee review the Recommendation and draft the language to be used in the formal request made to both the NSPE BOD and the communications to NCEES.
- Recommendation #2PEI urges NSPEto lobby at least 10 State Licensing Boards to collectively request NCEES to begin the process of developing a licensure path. We would expect that an NSPE Program Manager be designated to coordinate the timing between Recommendation #1 and Recommendation #2.
- Recommendation #3PEI suggests that the NSPE BOD’sissue a vote of approval for the finalized Software Engineering licensure path being developed by the State of Texas Licensing Board.
Introduction
One of the benefits of the Professional Engineering (P.E.) licensure process is that it establishes a minimum competency level ensuring that the P.E. is properly trained in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and other engineering sciences. It indicates that the P.E. has a solid understanding of both the practical and theoretical aspects of engineering in their field of specialization. Licensure also promotes ethics and accountability among practitioners. Additionally, the most important benefit of a Professional Engineer license is that it is legally required by all states to call oneself an “Engineer” when offering to provide engineering services.
Professional Engineers in Industry (PEI) has spent the past several years evaluating the merits of creating a path toward Computer and Software Engineering licensure as an option for P.E. candidates in the United States. This important area of industry lacks a viable path toward licensure. The outcome was to form the Software Engineering Licensure Task Force. The Task Force was established by then PEI Chair, Douglas Benner, P.E., F.NSPE, in 2001. The Task Force has had many qualified members serving upon itfrom both industry and academia that provided input for this recommendation. The current and past members are listed in Appendix C.
The Task Force consulted with individuals knowledgeable about the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), who administer examinations in most states throughout the country including Guam, Puerto Rico and District of Columbia. NCEES also develops a majority of the engineering licensure exams offered in the United States.
The Task Force’s approach is not to dwell on the aspects involved withhealth, welfare, financial projects, information security issues, andother life and non-life safety concepts of Computer and Software Engineering. Rather these well-researched topics are listed in Appendix B or available upon request for additional reading[2]. Rather, the Task Force addresses how to get from Point A to Point B in providingComputer and Software Engineers a path for licensure.
Background
Through its research, The Task Force found that the NCEES has made positive strides with the Electrical & Computer Engineering Exam they currently provide. This exam was restructured in early 2000 and made available at that time to P.E. candidates. The new format allows a candidate to select from one of three depth modules which includes Computers.
Current Path
The current structure of the Electrical & Computer Engineering Principles & Practice Exam consists of two 4-hour modules. The content of the A.M. session, called a Breadth Module, is shown in Table 1. Each of these subjects is required by everyone taking the Electrical and Computer Engineering Exam, or Breadth Module. The P.M. session, called a Depth Module, provides for an option of one of three 4-hour modules: Computers; Power and Electronics; and Controls and Communication. As shown in Table 2 for the Computer option, Software is given 35% of the examination’s P.M. session but only 17.5% of the overall 8-hour examination.
Table 1, Top level specifications of the existing A.M.Breadth Module, effective April2002. These subjects are required for all candidates taking the Electrical and Computer Engineering P.E. exam[3].
Subject Matter, Breadth Module / % / % of Entire ExamBasic Electrical Engineering / 45% / 22.5%
Electronics, Electronic Circuits and Components / 20% / 10%
Controls and Communications Systems / 15% / 7.5%
Power / 20% / 10%
Total / 100% / 50%
Table 2, Top level specifications of the existing P.M.Depth Module, effective October 2005. These subjects are required for all candidates taking the Computers Depth Module[4].
Subject Matter, Depth Module / % / % of Entire ExamGeneral Computer Systems / 10% / 5%
Hardware / 45% / 22.5%
Software / 35% / 17.5%
Networks / 10% / 5%
Total / 100% / 50%
Software Engineering Defined
Unlike Computer Engineering, Software Engineering is not as mature of an academic discipline. Therefore, it is worth establishing a definition for the purposes of the Recommendations. Software has come into its own as an engineering discipline within the last 15 to 20 years. Transistors, solid state devices, and computer architecture have enabled many advances in computing power. In order for computing power to continue to push the limit of engineering advances, software needs to take a more important role. In order for software to evolve, appropriate engineering principles, methods, and approaches have to be applied.
A complete discourse on software engineering is beyond the scope of this Recommendation; however, there are several references in Appendix B for further reading[5]. We only provide a brief overview and introduce its similarities and differences with computer engineering.
Software engineering is the analysis, design, implementation and assurance of the software that comprises or is a part of a system produced by the practice of engineering[6].
Expected InterestLevel
The Task Force believes that it is realistic to expect an initial number of potential participants for a Computer and Software Engineering Exam. This expectation is evident in several examples outlined in this section.
First, potential employment statistics (see Table 3), show a strong demand by the United States market of Computer and Software Engineers. This represents available employment over the next 10 years which should drive high school graduate to enter Software Engineer and Computer Engineering Undergraduate Programs, since that is where the jobs will be upon graduation from college. It is felt that if a path toward licensure is available for these graduates, a large number of them will fulfill the Fundamental of Engineering Exam and a subsequent Professional Engineering exam.
Table 3, Growth expectations of Computer and Software Engineers as determined by the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)[7] requiring Bachelor’s degree. Numbers are in thousands.
Employment / ChangeOccupation / 2004 / 2014 / Number / Percent
Computer software engineers, applications / 460 / 682 / 222 / 48%
Computer software engineers, systems software / 340 / 486 / 146 / 43%
Total (Calculated) / 800 / 1,168 / 368 / 46%
Second, the convincing demonstration of interest level is the growth in Software Engineering and Computer Engineering Undergraduate Programs in the last 3 years that are ABET accredited. Table 4 shows the growth of accredited Software Engineering Programs increasing 50% or more over the last 3 years. Meanwhile, Computer Engineering programs continue to grow as well.
Table 4, Annual accredited basic programs for Software Engineering and Computer Engineering programs as reported on the ABET/EAC website. The Software Engineering programs reflect approximately 50% growth per year over 3 years[8].
Year / Software / Computer2003 / 4 / 157
2004 / 6 / 170
2005 / 10* / 180
Current List of ABET/EAC Accredited Software Undergraduate Engineering Programs*
1)AuburnUniversity (Auburn, AL)
2)ClarksonUniversity (Potsdam, NY)
3)Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Daytona Beach, FL)
4)Florida Institute of Technology (Melbourne, FL)
5)University of Michigan(Dearborn, MI)
6)MilwaukeeSchool of Engineering (Milwaukee, WI)
7)MississippiStateUniversity
8)MonmouthUniversity (West Long Branch, NJ)
9)Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester, NY)
10)University of Texas (Arlington, TX)
The benefits and merits of NCEES providing a Computer and Software Engineering licensure path are important. ABET, by accrediting ten educational institution programs, has provided the first step in acknowledgingthat Software Engineering is a separate discipline of Engineering. The next step, the Task Force believes, is for NCEES to develop an examination that encompasses a more significant portion of the Computer and Software Engineering discipline. Moreover, the Task Force realizes that there is a gap between the technology as defined by multiple universities establishing degree programs and establishment of a P.E. for that technology.
This distinction is important because our profession encouragesengineers practicing engineering be licensed. We also encourage licensure in our professional societies. For example,the new NSPE mission and visionexplicitly call of supporting only EI/PE related programs. However, when we demand licensure for individuals, we must provide them a realistic path toward licensure. For example engineers graduating from a Software Engineering or Computer Engineering curriculum, will not be in a position to successfully understand the subject ofPower as shown in Table 1 solely based on their Bachelor of Science curriculum. However, this is currently the most likely path that is available for either Engineer to become licensed in most States.
In the past, engineers in the software and computing industry who were cognizant interested in licensure followed several alternatives to obtain licensure. Each of these pathsultimately granted a P.E.license. However, these alternate paths forced the candidate to study outside his/her area of expertise.
Electrical and Computer exam with the Computers Depth Module
Electrical exam prior to the Electrical and Computer exam
Mechanical exam or some other related exam
Interest for licensure of Computer and Software Engineers in the United States are evident in many examples. However, licensure for Software Engineering already exists in Australia, Great Britain and most Canadian provinces[9]. The Task Force believes that it makes prudent economic sense to enable American Engineers practicing in Computer and Software Engineering the ability to reciprocate the licensure process with our most loyal trading partners and Allies.
Not only is the BLS projecting large growth among Computer and Software Engineering positions in the United States, the Missouri Department of Economic Development[10] is projecting 35% growth in Computer Software Engineers for the same time period within the State of Missouri. This is stunning growth, even if one wants to believe that there is a significant export of engineering jobs to off-shore markets. So it becomes imperative that NSPE continue to focus upon promotion of Professional Engineering licensure as well as build a better relationship with NCEESas prescribed in the Future Directions Task Force Action Plan. This focus needs to go beyond traditional engineering disciplines.
Computer and Software Engineering Licensure
Exam Development Background
Each State Board is responsible for establishing new P.E. examinations in their respective states. It is typical that any Principles & Practice Exam created by NCEES will automatically be accepted and offered within each state. This does not imply that the State will license by discipline, for some, such as California, license in this manner. The Task Force believes the Recommendations presented by the Task Force will become transparent in the current State Licensing Board exam operations.
The NCEES Executive Board is composed of one member from each of the State Boards. In order for NCEES to realize the interest in a new exam ten members of the represented State Boards must formally motionthe NCEES Board. This becomes an indicator for other outside organizations as well as NCEES to begin development of a new exam. It is recommended that NSPE be the outside organization expressing interest to NCEES for development of a Computer and Software Engineering exam. Therefore, coordination between allied State Boards and NSPE’s Government Relations or State Outreach office would be necessary in order to move the Recommendations forward. NSPE and PEI would develop a Program for the proposed exam.
The development of a new exam is a tedious and long process. There are specifications that must be written and extensive surveying performed to solicit topics and questions to be placed in the exam. This survey process is called the Professional Activities and Knowledge Study (PAKS) that includes sending out questionnaires and basing the responses on psychometric analysis[11]. Multiple face-to-face gatherings will be required to bring together all of those on the development team. A program needs to be established for the on-going resources required to maintain the exam, update questions, and provide continuing support. A typical period from start to finish for this process could be 3-5 years with a cost of $50,000 to $100,000[12]. An organization such as NSPE would cover this cost upon approval of their appropriate committees. It is likely, that NSPE would form one or more strategic alliances through the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) process to share in the cost burden. The cost burden that NSPE might be required to support is beyond the scope of this Recommendation. The Task Force believes that there several important steps to complete in this process prior to understanding the unknowns of the full cost burden. One such unknown includes the expensive process of the PAKS survey. Further, the Task Force believes that the LQP Committee has greater insight to proprietary NCEES information on exam development that is not available to the Task Force and thus, the reason for including them as a stakeholder in the approval process.
The Task Force believes that the software and computer portion could simply be used from existing, established examination processes as those indicated in Figure 2. Moreover, we strongly believe that the remaining networks portion of the examination would be representing less than a third of the overall exam. Further, with NSPE’s role as program management of this effort, the speed and development of the exam can be greatly simplified and fast-tracked compared with previous exam efforts. NSPE offers the unique ability to help recruit potential candidates to provide survey results, specification development and exam writing.
An alternative would be for an independent development of a Principles & Practice Exam. While this course of action has been accomplished in the past through the Control Engineering Principles & Practice Engineer Exam by the Instrument Society of America (ISA), the authors do not think NSPE has the immediate wherewithal to coordinate such an effort nor willingness. However, the Task Force considers this a last resort option, and should only be pursued after a period of inactivity from NCEES.
Approach
The Task Force proposes that the overall architecture of the exam be defined as indicated in Figure 1 which incorporates the topic areas within the Computer Engineering and Software Engineering that are interrelated between one another. The overlap area in Figure 1 could conceivably constitute the networks element of a proposed Computer and Software Engineering Exam. Further, the overlapped area is the area within each discipline that supports those elements that can be found in the middle of the OSI Layer Model shown in Figure 3.
This Task Force proposes a new Computer and Software Engineering exam that addresses software, computers and networks based on an Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Layer Model as shown in Figure 3. The idea here is that the existing Electrical & Computer Engineering exam with Computers module would be left untouched by this Recommendation. The Task Force thought there might be duplication with a new Computer and Software Engineering exam, but considers that decision be left to the NCEES Board to evaluate and determine.
A functional block of the proposed exam shown in Figure 2 would remove a significant portion of the Electrical Engineering concepts in the current Electrical and Computer Engineering Exam and build upon an additional level of software, networks and computer topics. Additionally, the new exam would incorporate a greater amount of ethics and concepts of professionalism. The software topics would be based on those listed in Table 5 from the IEEE CDSP Software Engineering exam which would satisfy those subjects supporting Software Engineering in Figure 1. The computer topics would be based on the current specification of the Computers Depth Module and satisfy those subjects supporting Computer Engineering in Figure 1. The networks portion, shown as the overlapped section of Figure 1, would be more significant then currently addressed in the Computers Depth Module and indicated in Table 2.