When you are in college studying engineering, you are offered the opportunity to become an EIT – Engineer in Training. They don’t go into why this is good, they don’t push it real hard. Then you get out in the world and find a plethora of environments nobody gave you a heads up about in school.
First, you will discover that there are many, many people in the United States with the title of Engineer who never went to college. They can create stuff and likely run a CAD system well, but they aren’t cursed with years of looking at steel under a microscope, or doing chemistry, or endless mathematics. Nope – they just got to work makin’ stuff. They kept makin’ stuff for decades, and they hold no high opinion of those folks who wasted four profitable years in school when they should have been learning how to weld, or run an endmill. Engineer is what you do, gadamit, not a fancy piece of paper.
Next you will meet the folk who believe that an engineer is only an engineer if they have a PE license. Which is to say they went to school, spent time in the world testing their skills, then took a test to demonstrate proficiency. These folk believe an engineer needs scholastic credentials PLUS state or board certifications. Like a lawyer. Or a doctor.
Or a plumber. You can see where this is going.
Finally you’ll settle in with the rest of us who just want to work and make cool stuff. We did the school, we know the math, we listen to the boss and we make what they need. Not so hard, is it? Not really, until you talk to Human Resources.
HR wants to assign you a grade. You’re an engineer 1A, or a TSE-3/2. Some code that defines you. Doesn’t seem right though – why are you being defined?
Companies define you so they know what to pay you. It’s that simple for them. Set up a job description, see if they fit it, then pay them accordingly. But here’s the problem. How is this determined? There’s no overseeing board assigning titles and job descriptions, it’s mostly arbitrary. Well, arbitrary ranges is fine for someone who just wants to group stuff, but if you want to make sure your engineers are getting paid in alignment with their capabilities you need to set the ground rules. Without some guidance – like the unions and trades have – it tends to swirl arbitrary.
Most places I have had the opportunity to contribute to have this in common. None of them really have a set of Job Descriptions in place that are effective. Most of the job descriptions were built around hiring that woman, or that guy, or on-boarding these folks who we acquired. I bet it sounds familiar. The job descriptions were built around the individuals, not laid out ahead of the individuals. If they were laid out in advance, you would know what training was missing when Elza was hired. She had mad skills in stress analysis, but had no idea how to do an FMEA, or why her parts were so expensive. If her job description had been done before she was hired, it would have flagged a training program for her first two years that would have equipped her for what the company needed, and what Elza would want on her resume’.
Trades have this. Trades know what is required, they lay out expectations around training and time. An apprentice needs to be an apprentice for some time, and it’s not an eight-hour training program. Pilots know this too – go get a pilot licence. You need x number of hours logged with someone who knows what the eff before you can take an exam. It just makes sense. Why is this not the case with engineers? Engineers are assumed to be people who invent life saving devices, or rocket ships. Seriously – why are they not scrutinized more? Why do companies not pay closer attention to what their engineers should be able to do?
I have a suggestion. Borrow from the trades.
Whether or not an engineer goes to the state board and takes a PE exam doesn’t affect what happens next. You can get your EIT the second year of college, and right after graduation go take your PE certification exam. You still haven’t had the chance to learn the real role. After graduation, with or without a PE license, you need some coaching and development.
An entry level engineer should be considered an Apprentice. An apprentice needs a mentor, a Master level person that can coach them through. A job description for an entry level engineer should be clear about what the entry level engineer is expected to learn in the three to five years they are in the entry level position, not about the qualifications they should have coming in the door. Think about that too! You’re a new engineer, fresh out of school. You interned with a civil engineering firm that made you spend the summer in the field holding a stick for the surveyor, getting chiggers in your shorts and a leather neck. What did you learn? Put sulfur on your socks before going into a field and bring sunscreen. So when you apply for a job, they want to know your experience. Wouldn’t it be great if they just examined you as a person to see if you’re a fit for the team, knowing you have no friggin’ experience, and then explained the training they were going to give you? Well, that won’t happen, but it would be cool. The job description is still the important thing. A new engineer with no experience needs training and coaching and direction. The job description should lay out what that needs to be.
Which would naturally lead to the next level engineer. This would fit a Journeyman role, where you are not needing the Master as much, and need to be on your own to learn and fail – a mid level engineer. This person should be expected to have the credentials defined as training in the Entry level role. See! It’s simple! Then this job description describes the training a mid-level engineer needs to follow to move ahead. Coaching is less now, they probably don’t need a coach but they will need a mentor. The key is the grading and transition. Define the requirements for the mid level person based on the entry level person. Establish a credential – have the entry level person accomplish something before they are accepted by the hive (I poke fun, but it should be true). Entry level Sam needs to have finished three full projects, or successfully launched a system, or installed a new product. A review of what they were supposed to learn is important. It shouldn’t be a three hour exam, but something that is not a check-the-box exercise should be in place. It needs to be earned. They need to feel worth the promotion. Last but most important, a peer review should be applied. Don’t promote someone that the rest of the team can’t stand, or has been answering the questions for. It can be as simple as asking opinions. For God’s sake, don’t make it a public event. ‘Nuff said.
The top of the ladder (notice there are only three levels in my tier?) is the senior engineer, or Master level engineer. The seasoned senior engineer may be moving to management, or may be moving to technical leadership (Principal engineer, etc). This person should be the coach for the next new engineer out of school. Again – getting to this level should not be easy, and should not be without some examination of credentials and accomplishments. Go look at how a Professional Project Manager earns the cred. It takes time, it takes recorded accomplishments. And it takes an examination that can be failed. An exam that cannot be failed is nonsense.
All of this will help everyone. An engineer working up through a system like this knows they have earned their stripes. A manager promoting someone knows that person is worthy. The CEO knows his technical team is holding themselves accountable.
Okay – why three levels? Because I am simple and lazy. Salary ranges for engineers start round about $65k and max out in the neighborhood of $120k, unless you are in management or technical leadership. HR, they love their polls and stats, know most companies have either a five step tier or a three step tier. I like three because figuring out the subtle distinction between entry level and early-mid level is frustrating. I like entry level, mid level, senior level. The ranges are wider, that’s fine, but I know how to describe the requirements and the training to move forward. Too much granularity makes me twitch.
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.
-o-
David West is a mechanical engineer with over twenty years in engineering management and building teams. He has consulted with, or worked for, companies in Production Manufacturing, Pharma, High Tech and Med Device
sigmakatadojo.com 