🚀 go-pugleaf

Lindsay Marshall writes:

> ... Information Engineer ...

Surely "Information Systems Engineer". Personally, I think it's
an excellent description of what a Computer Scientist does ...
-- 

--- internet    msj@dcs.warwick.ac.uk --- telephone  +44 203 523368 ---------
--- uucp  ...!mcsun!uknet!warwick!msj --- fax        +44 203 525714 ---------

Lindsay.Marshall@newcastle.ac.uk (Lindsay F. Marshall) writes:

>Several people recently have brought up the subject of the notion of
>"Engineer". Whilst I am a member of the BCS and have CEng status, I
>object VERY strongly indeed to being described as an Information
>Engineer. This is a stupid meaningless title and is offensive to other
>"proper" engineers - I am married to one and she thinks the whole
>thingt is a farce. I am Computer Scientist.
...

But the BCS _doesn't_ value scientists as much as *.Engineers. I've recently
discovered that when evaluating computing experience, research only counts
for half as much as routine software development. So, after 3 years doing
original computer science research for a PhD, and thus making a genuine
contribution to the field, I only have 1.5 years towards the requirement
for becoming an ordinary member of the BCS (min. 4 years).


/jon
-- 
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_   Could be an ever opening flower...  //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /  It's the beginning of               // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/__a new love inside________________///////////  //

In article <BzCoyL.Apw@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>Lindsay.Marshall@newcastle.ac.uk (Lindsay F. Marshall) writes:
>
>>Several people recently have brought up the subject of the notion of
>>"Engineer". Whilst I am a member of the BCS and have CEng status, I
>>object VERY strongly indeed to being described as an Information
>>Engineer. This is a stupid meaningless title and is offensive to other
>>"proper" engineers - I am married to one and she thinks the whole
>>thingt is a farce. I am Computer Scientist.
>...
>
>But the BCS _doesn't_ value scientists as much as *.Engineers. I've recently
>discovered that when evaluating computing experience, research only counts
>for half as much as routine software development. So, after 3 years doing
>original computer science research for a PhD, and thus making a genuine
>contribution to the field, I only have 1.5 years towards the requirement
>for becoming an ordinary member of the BCS (min. 4 years).
>

Hear, hear! And what bad news, as I was wondering what my PhD years would
count for to the BCS -- in fact, I was paid member of staff (research
assistant) at the time, so maybe playing that card will convince them? :-\

Not a good situation and it should be fixed. Mind you, employers seem to
take similar views, viz. 3 year PhD == 1.5 year work experience. I remain
unconvinced that this is a fair equality.

===========================================================================
Stewart Tansley     | BNR Europe Limited              |  'Be cool, or be
                    | London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK |    cast out...'
dswt@bnr.co.uk      | +44 279 429531 x2763 (ESN 742)  | Subdivisions, Rush
===========================================================================
  'You know how that rabbit feels -- going under your speeding wheels...'
===========================================================================

Lindsay Marshall says:
> .. I object VERY strongly indeed to being described as an Information
> Engineer. This is a stupid meaningless title and is offensive to other
> "proper" engineers - ...

I don't know what an "Information Engineer" is, but I do know that I
engineer software and systems.

So what do I do that makes me an engineer?
Well, some suggestions:
1   Collect detailed requirements, classifying them into those which define
    the scope of the problem, external appearance of the solution, features
    which my client has seen elsewhere but doesn't really need/want.
2   Specify the system, (whether in English, pseudo-code, Z, ..), including
    specification of the required test coverage.
3   Particularly for embedded systems and other critical applications,
    define and agree behaviour in event of software or system faults,
    (fail safe, fail soft, ..) - and recovery strategies.
4   Develop a test plan to meet the requirements of 2 & 3.  Including both
    functional and parametric tests.
5   Break the specification into logical blocks, each with a subspecification.
    Refine the breakdown into smaller blocks, to reach definitions for
    programming teams, libraries, functions, as required.
6   Refine the test plan, to include tests at each level in 5.
7   Implement the design.  Selecting programming tools, languages to suit the
    task.
8   Ensure that software/system is tested in accordance with the test plan
    before release.

The key is to apply a sound method.

"Selecting programming tools, ..", sounds a bit heavy, but I approach it in
the same way as I do electronics - at the micro level, selecting components
to suit the task, such as logic ICs, audio circuits, video circuits, radio
circuits, or humble transistors.  While a spectrum of parts/tools may do a
task it is my duty to select the most appropriate, balancing the specification
and cost against the requirements of the task in hand.  At the macro level
I need test equipment that is appropriate, for example equipment that must
comply with RF (radio frequency or electro-magnetic) emission and
susceptibility regulations requires special test equipment and considerations.


Finally, I am not claiming that all my programming is 'engineering', but
I believe that on the occasions when I use the above methods that I am
then applying engineering principles.


Anthony Naggs
Software/Electronics Engineer                   P O Box 1080, Peacehaven
                                                East Sussex  BN10 8PZ
Phone: 0273 589701                              Great Britain
Email: (c/o Univ of Brighton) amn@vms.brighton.ac.uk  or  xa329@city.ac.uk

amn@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Anthony Naggs) writes:
>So what do I do that makes me an engineer?
>Well, some suggestions:
>1   Collect detailed requirements, classifying them into those which define
>    the scope of the problem, external appearance of the solution, features
>    which my client has seen elsewhere but doesn't really need/want.
>2   Specify the system, (whether in English, pseudo-code, Z, ..), including
>    specification of the required test coverage.
>3   Particularly for embedded systems and other critical applications,
>    define and agree behaviour in event of software or system faults,
>    (fail safe, fail soft, ..) - and recovery strategies.
>4   Develop a test plan to meet the requirements of 2 & 3.  Including both
>    functional and parametric tests.
>5   Break the specification into logical blocks, each with a subspecification.
>    Refine the breakdown into smaller blocks, to reach definitions for
>    programming teams, libraries, functions, as required.
>6   Refine the test plan, to include tests at each level in 5.
>7   Implement the design.  Selecting programming tools, languages to suit the
>    task.
>8   Ensure that software/system is tested in accordance with the test plan
>    before release.

>The key is to apply a sound method.

Sorry, but if this makes you an engineer then Picasso was a "paint
engineer". The link between programming and Engineering is a spurious
one invented to make clients think that we have abetter understanding
of the processes involved than we actually do. However, dont get me
wrong I am not knocking what you have outlined above - its exactly how
I would go about it myself - but what you have described is in fact
"craft" not "engineering". We have a very long way to go before
software development is an engineering skill.

>"Selecting programming tools, ..", sounds a bit heavy, but I approach it in
>the same way as I do electronics - at the micro level, selecting components
>to suit the task, such as logic ICs, audio circuits, video circuits, radio
>circuits, or humble transistors.  While a spectrum of parts/tools may do a
>task it is my duty to select the most appropriate, balancing the specification
>and cost against the requirements of the task in hand.  At the macro level
>I need test equipment that is appropriate, for example equipment that must
>comply with RF (radio frequency or electro-magnetic) emission and
>susceptibility regulations requires special test equipment and considerations.

Again this is not engineering - a painter selects her materials before
she starts work.

>Finally, I am not claiming that all my programming is 'engineering', but
>I believe that on the occasions when I use the above methods that I am
>then applying engineering principles.

There is a difference between applying engineering principles and
actually doing engineering. 

L.
MAIL :	Lindsay.Marshall@newcastle.ac.uk
POST :	Computing Laboratory, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU
VOICE:	+44-91-222-8267
FAX  :	+44-91-222-8572

In article <BzG57A.50y@newcastle.ac.uk> Lindsay.Marshall@newcastle.ac.uk (Lindsay F. Marshall) writes:
>amn@unix.brighton.ac.uk (Anthony Naggs) writes:

[Stuff deleted]
>
>There is a difference between applying engineering principles and
>actually doing engineering. 

Come on then Lindsay, let's hear your definition of an engineer and
engineering -- or can you direct us to a current post in another
newsgroup?

It's sounds to me as if most of the engineers I know don't even do
engineering! :-)

===========================================================================
Stewart Tansley     | BNR Europe Limited              |  'Be cool, or be
                    | London Rd, Harlow, CM17 9NA, UK |    cast out...'
dswt@bnr.co.uk      | +44 279 429531 x2763 (ESN 742)  | Subdivisions, Rush
===========================================================================
  'You know how that rabbit feels -- going under your speeding wheels...'
===========================================================================

In article <BzCoyL.Apw@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:

> But the BCS _doesn't_ value scientists as much as *.Engineers. I've recently
> discovered that when evaluating computing experience, research only counts
> for half as much as routine software development. So, after 3 years doing
> original computer science research for a PhD, and thus making a genuine
> contribution to the field, I only have 1.5 years towards the requirement
> for becoming an ordinary member of the BCS (min. 4 years).

But why should the BCS value science as much as engineering
experience? After all, the PhD is the reward for the research. The
C.Eng (or whatever) is supposed to indicate something else. 

Building research systems, whether you make a genine contribution to
the field or not, is frequently (though not always) significantly
different to building industrial strength systems, and should be.

Whether the BCS succeeds in doing what it sets out to do is another
matter.

--
Andrew Ormsby	 AI & Robotics Research Group, Department of Computer Science,
aro@aber.ac.uk   University of Wales, Aberystwyth, SY23 3DB, UK.

aro@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby) writes:

>J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>
>> But the BCS _doesn't_ value scientists as much as *.Engineers. I've recently
>> discovered that when evaluating computing experience, research only counts
>> for half as much as routine software development.

>But why should the BCS value science as much as engineering
>experience? After all, the PhD is the reward for the research. The
>C.Eng (or whatever) is supposed to indicate something else. 

It's not obvious from the name that "Member of the British Computer
Society" is an engineering rather than scientific designation...

>Building research systems, whether you make a genine contribution to
>the field or not, is frequently (though not always) significantly
>different to building industrial strength systems, and should be.

That's certainly true. For one thing research is creative, and seems to
be much harder work (PhDs take long hours, and you have much more
responsibility and less help available than a junior programmer does).

If the BCS is just going to be for engineers, it should rename itself the
Institute of Information Systems Engineers or something and make it explicit.
If it's going to be for everyone in computing, as the current name implies,
it should value us all equally.


/Jon
   ___________________ ____ ________________________________________
  / -- Jonathan Harley \  /_    And they covered up the sun        //    //  //
 / J.W.Harley@ncl.ac.uk \/ /   until the birds had flown away...  // // //////
/_Phone:UK 091 222 8504__\/___________________________________///////////  //

There is one necessary (but not sufficient!) condition which I feel
must be satisfied by anyone in the computer industry who wishes to
call themselves an engineer: take full responsibility for your
creations. 

If a bridge falls down due to a design error, then the engineer is
held responsible, and can expect to be sued and/or prosecuted.

Contrast this with the pages of disclaiming fine print attached to
software. 

By this criterion, I do not believe I have ever met a "software
engineer".  

Mario Wolczko

In article <BzLzI3.3J6@newcastle.ac.uk> J.W.Harley@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>
> >Building research systems, whether you make a genine contribution to
> >the field or not, is frequently (though not always) significantly
> >different to building industrial strength systems, and should be.
>
> That's certainly true. For one thing research is creative, and seems to
> be much harder work (PhDs take long hours, and you have much more
> responsibility and less help available than a junior programmer does).

Though PhD students often work inefficiently either because they just
work that way, or lack the level of support that a junior engineer
would hope to have in industry.  I think the big distinction is not in
creativity (there's lots of creativity in industry), nor in how hard
people have to work (there seems to be a wide variation) but in the
degree of collaboration with other people and the way in which various
constraints have to be met.

> If the BCS is just going to be for engineers, it should rename itself the
> Institute of Information Systems Engineers or something and make it explicit.
> If it's going to be for everyone in computing, as the current name implies,
> it should value us all equally.

On almost every bit of paperwork I receive from the BCS, there is a
subtitle which reads "The Society of Information Systems Engineering"
(note: not "Information Engineering" as Lindsay Marshall seems to have
been saying) so I suppose they have come close to making it explicit.

--
Andrew Ormsby	 AI & Robotics Research Group, Department of Computer Science,
aro@aber.ac.uk   University of Wales, Aberystwyth, SY23 3DB, UK.