🚀 go-pugleaf

I think everything you say is valid. I would (and  do) make the same
comments to the PEO.  (and as for the CA's well we all know wht Engineers
think of Accountants!!). So we are all guily of self serving  NIMBY type of
thinking. My  (probably naive) view is that fighting fire with fire
usually means we all get burned and on the flip side someone has to make
the attempt to look for constructive solutions...  (I think this is a
spuerior position that should eliminate any possibility of being a
subordinate arm -- how about "first among equals" or something of that ilk.

I think I've blown my wad on this issue. Happy "COBOLing"!!!

On Tue, 16 Apr 1996 rutat@CADVISION.COM wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, Charlie Whitfield
> <whitfiel@THUNDERBIRD.AUC.LAURENTIAN.CA> wrote:
> >I couldn't let this one pass as hard as I tried. As an IS professional
> >for the past 15 years and a P. Eng in Ontario I see a lot more room for
> >forging co-operative bonds and partnerships that engaging in "turf"
> >fights and innuendos about each others motives and qualifications.
> >
> >Any takers?
> >
> Far be it for me to pass up on a challenge...<grin>
>
> I agree that forging bonds is an worthwhile and admiral goal for IS
> professionals (especially high denomination "bearer bonds" like that
> Neeson character did... sorry -- bad joke).  But the evidence of the
> efforts in Alberta (at least) by those that you would have us forge
> bonds with is that they (engineers and CAs) have NOT considered doing
> the same before embarking on their journey to (IMO) have themselves
> declared _the_ de facto and perhaps, de jure, systems professionals and
> keepers of the IS faith.  How else would you explain their advertizing
> efforts?
>
> As for their motives, I expect that they are merely looking out for
> their membership.  If the future is computers, then far better to be at
> the front then following behind a bunch of "systems weenies" (note:
> tongue planted firmly in cheek; hyperbole, etc. for the "sarcasm
> impaired"), no?  As all professions become more and more systemized, the
> risk is that others will then begin to take over THEIR profession,
> albeit through the back door.  Just think about the impact on
> engineering society by PC based products that do everything from IC
> circuit simulation, through finite element analysis or what have you.
> Tasks that formerly required a true engineer with a sharp mind and slide
> rule can be done by a junior high school student with a PC.  Now before
> you say "that's not really true, etc.; who'd drive over a bridge built
> by a hacker with a copy of PATRAN PC and/or Autocad, etc.; or no way can
> a PC replace a good engineer", just think about things like desktop
> publishing.  Previously the domain of skilled MAC (usually) editors with
> a lot of technical and literary expertise, practically every Tom (hey!),
> Dick and Harry is churning out a spiffy newsletter.
>
> Given the rapid expansion in the "state of the art", why shouldn't
> engineers grab the cream and leave the scut work (Cobol maintenance
> <smile>?) to those computer weenies who did not "engage in a turf war"
> to protect their livlihoods?
>
> With respect to enginner's dickering over qualifications, is it not true
> that the engineering society has also raised the bar for those
> attempting to enter the profession?  I believe that in recent years
> APEGGA has done that kind of thing.  Why?  To ensure that engineering
> work is done by engineers, not "johnny-come-latelys" who are engineering
> wanna-bes.
>
> Now clearly, there are a good many areas where systems and classical
> engineering overlap: biomechanical (adds medicine, too!) engineering,
> circuit design and some others too numerous to mention.  And in these
> areas, some roles need to be defined vis a vis engineers and IS
> professionals.  But to suggest that all areas in both engineering and
> systems are fair game on a reciprocal basis is stretching it.  Engineers
> should _concentrate_ on engineering and systems profesionals should do
> likewise for their domain.  Where there is desired or deemed overlap,
> then, sure, have a mechanism in place to address cross-certification.
>
> I think Ron Baugh hit it on the head (shown below) when he suggested
> that...
>
> "I for one would prefer to take a hand in shaping my own future
> rather than (for example) becoming a subordinate offshoot to the
> Professional Engineers of this country."
>
> As an engineer and a system professional, Charlie, you are in the
> (somewhat) enviable position of making out like a bandit no matter who
> "wins".  But for the vast majority of IS practioners, they do not have
> that luxury but must rely upon dedicated peers who will define roles and
> promulgate the certification process along the way.
>
> I welcome any and all comments.
>
> Tom Ruta, ISP
>
> p.s.  FWIW, I qualify as a "Professional Biologist" according to the
> ALberta Biology Professions act and am eligible to register with the
> Canadian Institute of Planners based on grad studies.  But in neither
> case would I hold myself out to be an effective purveyor of either skill
> now!
>
> ==============================================================
>      Tom Ruta, ISP                     "Nunc hoc in marmore
>      Manager, Information Services       non est incision"
>      Tarragon Oil and Gas Limited
>      FAX:   (403)262-5324
>      PHONE: (403)974-7690          Email: rutat@cadvision.com
>
>       WWW ---> http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~rutat/togl.html
> ==============================================================
>
>
> >
> >On Mon, 15 Apr 1996 rutat@CADVISION.COM wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, Ron Baugh <rbaugh@CCINET.AB.CA> wrote:
> >> >To the Anonymous Sender (and any others who care to read this)
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> > I for one would prefer to take a hand in shaping my own future
> >> >rather than (for example) becoming a subordinate offshoot to the
> >> >Professional Engineers of this country.
> >>
> >> Actually, according to their advertizing, both the CAs and Engineers
>  probably
> >> wouldn't have any of us.  Both groups have advertized heavily (at
> least in
> >> ALberta) in all forms of media to suggest that they are the IS
> professionals
> >> of the future!
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Tom
> >> ==============================================================
> >>    Tom Ruta, ISP                     "Nunc hoc in marmore
> >>    Manager, Information Services       non est incision"
> >>    Tarragon Oil and Gas Limited
> >>    FAX:   (403)262-5324
> >>    PHONE: (403)974-7690          Email: rutat@cadvision.com
> >>
> >>      WWW ---> http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~rutat/togl.html
> >> ==============================================================
> >>
> >
> >
>