National Society of Professional
Engineers
Professional Engineers in Industry (PEI)
1420 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
http://www.nspe.org/pei
pei@nspe.org
Task Force Report and
Recommendation for Computer
and Software Engineering
Licensure Path
August 10, 2006
Prepared by the Professional Engineers in Industry - Computer and Software
Engineering (PEI-CSE) Task Force for the NSPE Licensure & Qualifications for
Practice (L&QP) Committee
Executive Summary
The Computer and Software Engineering Task Force1 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 outof-the-box approaches 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 developed three 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 PEI Recommendations

Recommendation #1 PEI 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 #2 PEI urges NSPE to 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 #3 PEI suggests that the NSPE BOD’s issue a vote of
approval for the finalized Software Engineering licensure path being developed
by the State of Texas Licensing Board.
1
Formerly the Software Engineering Task Force, changed in Summer 2006 based on the research conducted in
this Recommendation.
1
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 it from 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 with health, welfare,
financial projects, information security issues, and other 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 reading2. Rather, the Task Force
addresses how to get from Point A to Point B in providing Computer 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;
2
See Appendix B – References: [4], [5], [6], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16].
2
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 April 2002. These
subjects are required for all candidates taking the Electrical and Computer Engineering P.E. exam3.
%
% of Entire Exam
Basic Electrical Engineering
Subject Matter, Breadth Module
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 Module4.
%
% of Entire Exam
General Computer Systems
Subject Matter, Depth Module
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
reading5. We only provide a brief overview and introduce its similarities and differences
with computer engineering.
3
NCEES website, <http://www.ncees.org/exams/professional/pe_electrical_breadth_exam_specs.pdf>.
NCEES website, <http:/www.ncees.org/exams/professional/pe_electrical_computer_exam_specs.pdf>.
5
See Appendix B – References: [3], [7], [8], [18], [19], [20], [22], [27], [28], and [29].
4
3
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
engineering6.
Expected Interest Level
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
Occupation
Change
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 years8.
Year
Software
Computer
2003
4
157
2004
6
170
2005
10*
180
Definition from the Software Engineering Board Advisory Committee, E.D. Dorchester, P.E. (Chairman) –
Licensing Committee. Date Unknown.
7
BLS website, <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t05.htm> and
<http://www.bls.gov/oco/print/ocos267.htm>.
8
ABET website, <http://www.abet.org/statistics.shtml>.
6
4
Current List of ABET/EAC Accredited Software Undergraduate Engineering
Programs*
1) Auburn University (Auburn, AL)
2) Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY)
3) Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Daytona Beach, FL)
4) Florida Institute of Technology (Melbourne, FL)
5) University of Michigan(Dearborn, MI)
6) Milwaukee School of Engineering (Milwaukee, WI)
7) Mississippi State University
8) Monmouth University (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 acknowledging that 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 encourages engineers practicing
engineering be licensed. We also encourage licensure in our professional societies. For
example, the new NSPE mission and vision explicitly 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 of Power 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
paths ultimately 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
5
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 provinces9. 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 Development10 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 NCEES as 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 motion the 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 analysis11. 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 $100,00012. An organization such as NSPE would cover this
cost upon approval of their appropriate committees. It is likely, that NSPE would form one
9
Frailey, PhD, Dennis, Email correspondence, June 19, 2006.
MERIC website, <http://www.missourieconomy.org/pdfs/gateway_skills2005.pdf>.
11
Talbert, Desiree, October 2005.
12
Tripp, Leonard, November 17, 1999.
10
6
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 L&QP 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
7
overlapped section of Figure 1, would be more significant then currently addressed in the
Computers Depth Module and indicated in Table 2.
Figure 1, Venn diagram showing the portion of commonality between the Computer Engineering
and Software Engineering discipline. The overlap of Software Engineering and Computer
Engineering subjects would represent the portion of networks found in each discipline. This overlap
would, also shown in Figure 3, would be introduced in a proposed Computer and Software
Engineering Examination.
Figure 2, Functional block organizational chart showing two levels of subject matter in a
proposed Computer and Software Engineering Examination. Percentages are not indicated and be
part of the PAKS survey. The important take-away from this figure is that the “software” and
“computers” already provide a good insight on the characteristics of the examination and are
currently being used to test competency.
8
The Task Force’s approach to the proposed Computer and Software Engineering exam is
based on an intuitive approach of aligning top level subjects shown in Figure 2 with the
OSI Layer Model shown in Figure 3. This approach makes sense because it provides a
well-established foundation for determining how to categorize problems and gives a basis
to laying out the examination specifications. The primary reason for this approach is
because that the concepts of software, computers and networks can systematically be
aligned to provide a level of traceability. This alignment correlates the specification
process of the PAKS survey with the widely accepted OSI Layer Model shown in Figure 3.
This would provide verifiability during the process. The Task Force felt that health, welfare
and safety aspects of software predominately had a reliance on either the computer and/or
network elements of the OSI Layer Model. This is a fundamental notion to why the Task
Force feels that a proposed Computer and Software Engineering exam be created rather
than proceeding with a standalone Software, Computer and/or Network Engineering
exam.
Figure 3, Distribution of disciplines among the OSI Layer Model. See definition of OSI.
Definition of OSI A model of network architecture and a suite of protocols (a
protocol stack) to implement it, developed by ISO13 in 1978 as a framework for
international standards in heterogeneous computer network architecture. The OSI
architecture is split between seven layers, from lowest to highest: 1) physical layer,
2) data link layer, 3) network layer, 4) transport layer, 5) session layer, 6)
presentation layer, 7) application layer. Each layer uses the layer immediately
below it and provides a service to the layer above. In some implementations a layer
may itself be composed of sub-layers.
As a last suggestion, the Task Force would like to finally bring into the fold, the testing of
ethics and professionalism on a Professional Engineering examination, which seems to be
13
Definition from <http://www.dictionary.com>: The International Organization for Standardization that sets
standards in many businesses and technologies, including computing and communications.
9
missing in the current Electrical and Computer Engineering Exam. These key concepts
are extremely important as this realm engineering blurs further and further into morality
issues such as cloning and traditional ethics dilemmas.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
The IEEE Computer Society has established a Certified Software Development
Professional14 (CSDP) Certificate in Software Engineering which is a very impressive and
a proactive response from IEEE to address the Software Engineering discipline’s path
toward licensure. The exam is broken down by those subjects shown in Table 5. The
topics in the CSDP are applicable to a new Computer and Software Engineering exam
which is demonstrated in Figure 2. The CSDP also has basic requirements for continuing
education, much as states require of Professional Engineers. Moreover, exams are
offered via Computer Based Testing (CBT), which helps produce faster results and
creates less paperwork. There can be valuable synergies between the CSDP and a
proposed Computer and Software Engineering Exam. In fact, the psychometricians used
in the development of the CSDP exam, are the same as those used by NCEES.
Table 5, CSDP Exam Specifications by subject matter. These are the specifications listed as the
second level categories in Figure 215.
Subject Matter
Business Practices and Engineering Economics
%
3-4%
Software Requirements
13-15%
Software Design
22-24%
Software Construction
10-12%
Software Testing
15-17%
Software Maintenance
3-5%
Software Configuration Management
3-4%
Software Engineering Management
10-12%
Software Engineering Process
Software Engineering Tools and Methods
2-4%
2-4
Software Quality
6-8%
Total
100%
Texas and Software Engineering16
The State of Texas in the past established a Software Engineering licensure path by a
process of credentialing based on experience rather than examination. The Task Force’s
understanding is that this license was not recognized throughout the Professional
Engineering community. This process is undergoing a change at this moment. A Texas
Board of Professional Engineers Software Engineering Task Force (SWETF) has been
established in Texas to look at a proposed approach. The kickoff meeting was held May
14
CSDP website, <http://computer.org/certification>.
CSDP website, <http://computer.org/certification>.
16
Kinney, P.E, Lance, Email <lance.kinney@tbpe.state.tx.us> or 512-440-3080.
15
10
2006 and is chaired by Dr. Dennis Frailey. The staff contact for SWETF is Mr. Lance
Kinney, P.E., Deputy Director of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers.
Vendor specific certification programs
In contrast with licensing and the aforementioned CSDP, the computer, software and
networking industries have formulated a number of vendor-specific certification programs
designed to designate individuals with sufficient knowledge and experience to provide
qualified support for their specific products. These certifications do not have the emphasis
on fundamentals that one would expect from licensing or from the CSDP, nor do they
require the academic credentials that the latter do, but they may have some overlap with
the subject matter one would expect a licensed engineer to understand.
Three of the more widely recognized certification programs in the computing and
networking industry that have overlapping skill sets with a proposed Computer and
Software Engineering exam are listed below. It has been a contentious issue in the past
that some certification paths infer “Engineer” without being properly licensed or educated.
The emphases on these programs are to indicate the value of their content and not the
title that they may mistakenly bestow on an individual.
1) Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE)17 – Microsoft Corporation
2) Certified Novell Engineer (CNE)18 – Novell Corporation
3) Cisco Certified Internetwork Professional (CCIP)19 – Cisco Systems
These areas of curriculum are significantly product specific. These and other similar
programs can be self-study or classroom led and usually average six (6) months to a year
to complete. These programs require passage of rigorous exams in approximately a half
dozen areas that usually must accompany “hands on” experience in order to pass. A core
set of two to three exams usually revolves around the core product or technology.
Administration of the examinations is through Sylvan Prometric, which tightly controls and
oversees the examination process.
The benefits of these three in particular are that they provide a reinforcement foundation in
network engineering. Network engineering is becoming intrinsically application-centric
and, so; the upper layers of the OSI Layer Model are becoming more relevant to a
network engineer. Therefore, it would be prudent to encourage participation in these
certification paths as one becomes a Professional Engineer under the proposed Computer
and Software Engineer Exam.
It is conceivable, that many of those degreed-engineers in industry, who are already
certified in one of the above programs, would be prime candidates for developing
specifications under the proposed Computer and Software Engineer Exam. Moreover,
these candidates could, become likely candidates for the first generation exam. It is felt by
the Task Force that many of these individuals have migrated toward the vendor
certifications, for the precise lack of a licensure path. Networks are far beyond simple
configuration and management, and have just as much affect on health, welfare and
safety as do Computer Engineering and Software Engineering.
17
For more information on the MCSE program: <http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mcp/mcse/default.asp>.
For more information on the CNE program: <http://www.novell.com/training/certinfo/cne/index.html>.
19
For more information on the CCIP program: <http://www.cisco.com/go/ccip>.
18
11
Proposed NSPE Response
The process that NCEES requires for development of a new exam is that any proposed
exam development be initiated once a minimum of 10 State Licensing Boards request and
show need for a new exam. As a reminder, the NCEES is a body that consists of
membership of each of the 50 state license boards and District of Columbia, Guam and
Puerto Rico. For the most part, each state will honor an exam by NCEES. Granted, an
NCEES created exam is not mandatory nor the only method of licensing these new types
of engineers. It is, however, the most expedient manner to move a process along that
normally takes several years. Also, NCEES is in the test development business, while
NSPE is not.
Having said this, it becomes important that NSPE leverage its Legislative & Government
Affairs (L&GA) and State Legislative Network to lobby 10 states to submit interest and
show a “need” for initiating the exam. This would formally be done at an NCEES meeting
by the 10 participating State Boards. It is conceivable that a rudimentary list of 10 states
could be compiled and contacted. This list could be developed with help from the NSPE
Licensure and Qualifications for Practice (L&QP) Committee. From this list, the State in
each state would be contacted by that are NSPE member within that state and
recommend this action before NCEES. Once the initial contact is made by an NSPE
member, the Government Relations committee would be put into action to follow-up and
begin the process of whipping the votes until at least 10 supportive State Boards are found
to request action from the NCEES. During this process, a draft recommendation could be
made so that each state had common language in their request to the NCEES board. The
Task Force believes that this will likely be a one year process as identified in Figure 4.
Figure 4, Schedule of tentative dates and tasks to the best of the Task Force’s knowledge.
With NSPE’s improved relations with NCEES, this will be a good time to structure a
collaborative effort. Assuming that 10 State Boards approach NCEES and it is initiated, it
will next become incumbent on NCEES to survey the industry for experts in this area to
capture feedback. This is where NSPE can begin to use some of its tools at its disposal,
such as PEI and the PEI Industrial Advisory Group (IAG), Professional Engineers in
Higher Education20 (PEHE) and the PEHE Dean’s Council, the L&QP, NSPE members in
allied professional organizations (i.e. IEEE-USA), the New Mexico American Engineers’
Association (AEA), etc.
20
nee Professional Engineers in Education (PEE). Name changed in Fall 2005.
12
Conclusions
In summary, it is concluded that,

The proposed Computer and Software Engineering Professional Engineering exam is
essential.

A new exam will take approximately 3-5 years to develop unless NCEES entrusts the
specification process that IEEE used to shorten this cycle

The State Board of Texas should be a key player in this (if willing) as they seem to be
proactive in developing an exam. Others states will follow suit based on results of the
state support solicitations.

Vendor specific certifications may have a great value in the industry but can not be
replaced by P.E. examination.

The P.E. examination can add value to a Computer, Software or Network Engineer’s
career by documenting an understanding of the core disciplines.

To initiate the process of developing a P.E. examination, the L&QP should urge the
NSPE BODs to make a formal request to NCEES.

NSPE should develop a special partnership with PEI to foster the new Software
Engineering discipline as well as Computer and Network Engineers.

A program manager on the NSPE staff and a volunteer should be established to
centralize communication and understanding as this proposal proceeds.

Software Engineering degrees are growing significantly and they need a mechanism
for licensure.

Public safety issues dictate that a licensing mechanism is required. Software affects
physical devices and financial assets, and can thus cause substantial damage to life
and property.

Computers and software control many aspects of our life and engineers practicing in
these fields need to be qualified and appropriately trained when it comes to health,
welfare, and safety is concerned.
In order for our profession to continue to survive and maintain credibility in the future, we
must support and recognize Computer and Software Engineers. Computer and Software
Engineers need to have the same ability of being licensed as Civil, Mechanical and
Electrical Engineers have had for years. A proposed Computer and Software Engineering
exam is essential.
Path Forward
The Task Force felt compelled to offer guidance to the anticipated next steps. These are
to be taken only as suggestions and not in any particular order.
13
1) NSPE should assign a Program Manager to coordinate Government Relations, L&QP
process and other activities of interrelated committees.
2) A communication should be sent to IEEE, IEEE-USA, ACM, Industrial Advisory Group
alerting and other professional organizations that may have an interest in the licensure
path indicating NSPE’s intentions.
3) A cost analysis could not addressed by the Task Force, but it is required at some
stage. The suggestion here is that this be a request for collaboration between NSPE
and NCEES upon Recommendation #1. A joint task force between NCEES and
NSPE may be the best vehicle to accomplish this goal. The expertise required for this
activity is beyond NSPE’s alone.
4) NSPE should begin the process of soliciting members to become exam writers and
develop specifications for NSPE. These members would be subject matter experts in
Computing Technology, Software Development and Networks.
5) Negotiations should commence with other professional organizations to assist in the
cost sharing. NSPE will also need to evaluate what they are willing to contribute (if
any) towards a new exam.
14
Appendix A - Acronyms
AEA
(New Mexico) American Engineers’ Association
ABET
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
A.M.
ante meridiem
BLS
Bureau of Labor Statistics
BOD
Board of Directors
CBT
Computer Based Training
CCIP
Cisco Certified Internetwork Professional
CNE
Certified Novell Engineer
CSDP
Certified Software Development Professional
EAC
Engineering Accreditation Commission
IEEE
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IAG
Industry Advisory Group
ISA
Instrumentation Society of America
L&QP
Licensure & Qualifications for Practice Committee
MCSE
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
NCEES
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
NSPE
National Society of Professional Engineers
OSI
Open Systems Interconnection
PAKS
Professional Activities and Knowledge Study
P.E.
Professional Engineer
PEHE
Professional Engineers in Higher Education
PEI
Professional Engineers in Industry
P.M.
post meridiem
SWETF
(Texas Board of Professional Engineers) Software Engineering Task Force
15
Appendix B - References
[1]
ACM and IEEE-CS, Software Engineering Code of Ethics, 1999,
<http://www.acm.org/serving/se/code.htm> or <http://computer.org/computer/codeof-ethics.pdf>.
[2]
ACM, Position on Licensing of Software Engineers and related position papers,
2000, <http://www.acm.org/serving/se_policy>.
[3]
Bauer, Dr. F. L., “Software Engineering”, Report on a conference sponsored by
NATO Science Committee, Garmisch, Germany, October 7-11, 1968.
[4]
Cosgrove, P.E., John, “Software Engineering and the Law”, IEEE Software,
May/June 2001, pages 14-16.
[5]
Cosgrove, P.E., John, “Chapter 2 - Software Engineering Litigation”, Wiley.
[6]
“Economic Impacts of Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing”, NIST
Planning Report 02-3, May 2002, <http://www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report023.pdf>.
[7]
Ford, Gary and Norman E. Gibbs, A Mature Profession of Software Engineering,
Carnegie-Mellon University Technical Report SEI-96-TR-004 1996.
[8]
Frailey, Dennis, “Licensing Software Engineers”, Communications of the ACM, Vol
42, No 12, December 1999.
[9]
Frailey, Dennis, “Professionalism and Licensing of Software and System
Engineers”, published in Raytheon Electronic Systems Texas System Engineering
Newsletter (March 2001), updated May 2003.
[10]
Gotterbarn, Don, “Software Engineering as a Profession”, No Date.
[11]
Lawson, H.W., “An Assessment Methodology for Safety Critical Systems,”
(unpublished paper). Available at <Bud@lawson.se>.
[12]
Lawson, H.W., and others, “Twenty Years of Safe Train Control in Sweden”,
Available at <Bud@lawson.se>.
[13]
Leveson, Nancy, “Final Report: A Demonstration Safety Analysis of Air Traffic
Control Software”, NASA Grant, September 1997.
[14]
Leveson, Nancy, System Safety Engineering: Back to the Future”, MIT, June 2002,
<http://sunnyday.mit.edu/book2.pdf>.
[15]
Leveson, Nancy, “The Role of Software in Spacecraft Accidents”, AIAA Journal,
<http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/jsr.pdf>.
[16]
Leveson, Nancy, “The Therac-25 Accidents”,
<http://sunnyday.mit.edu/papers/therac.pdf>.
IEEE,
June
1993,
16
[17]
Lethbridge, Timothy, "What Knowledge is Important to a Software Engineer?” IEEE
Computer, May, 2000.
[18]
IEEE Computer Society, Position Statement on Certification and Licensing of
Software
Engineers,
2000,
<http://computer.org/computer/connection/CSBoGReports_3.htm>.
[19]
IEEE Computer Society, Certified Software Engineering Professional web site,
2001, <http://computer.org/certification>.
[20]
IEEE Computer Society, Software Engineering Body of Knowledge Project,
<http://www.swebok.org>.
[21]
Krebs, Robert, “Examining the cut-score process”, Licensure Exchange (NCEES),
April 2006, pages 9-10.
[22]
McConnell, Steve and Leonard Tripp, "Professional Software Engineering—Fact or
Fiction?" IEEE Software, November, 2000.
[23]
Mead, Nancy R. and Turner, A. Joe, "Current Accreditation, Certification, and
Licensure Activities Related to Software Engineering," Annals of Software
Engineering, vol 6 1998, 167-180. Baltzer Science Publishers.
[24]
Mead, Nancy R., "Are We Going to Fish or Cut Bait?", Cutter IT Journal, May, 1998.
[25]
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Forum, “Emerging Issues in
Licensure: Software Engineering”, San Antonio, TX, July 11, 2003.
[26]
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Forum, “Software/Computer
Engineering Registration”, Detroit, MI, July 28, 2001.
[27]
Parnas, David, “Software Engineering: Should it be viewed as Engineering”,
November 27, 1998.
[28]
Parnas, David, “Software Engineering Principles”, April 1984.
[29]
Professional Engineers Ontario, Software Engineering Task Force, Memorandum
on Recommendations of CCPE/AUCC Software Engineering Panel, 2000,
<http://www.peo.on.ca//news/Software_ccpesubmission.htm>.
[30]
Pyritz, Bill, “Craftsmanship versus Engineering: Computer Programming-An Art of
Science?” Bell Labs Technical Journal, 8(3), 2003, pages 101-104.
[31]
Registration Committee of the St. Louis Chapter of Missouri Society of Professional
Engineers (MSPE), “Proposal for a Computer Engineering PE Exam in Missouri”,
January 15, 2000.
[32]
Keil-Slawik, Reinhard and Aspray, William and Parnas, David (Editor), “The History
of Software Engineering”, Position Papers for Dagstuhl Seminar 9635, August 2630, 1996.
[33]
Shaw, Mary, "Software Engineering Education: A Roadmap," Proceedings 22nd
International Conference on Software Engineering, ACM Press, 2000, pages 371380.
17
[34]
Speed, John, "What Do You Mean I Can't Call Myself a Software Engineer?" IEEE
Software, November, 2000.
[35]
Talbert, Desiree, “A Word on PAKS”, Licensure Exchange, NCEES, Clemson, SC,
October 2005, page 9-10
[36]
Texas Board of Professional Engineers, information on software licensing,
<http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/sofupdt.htm>.
[37]
Werth, Laurie, “Certification and Licensing for Software Professionals and
Organizations”, CSEE&T, January 29, 1998.
18
Appendix C - Acknowledgements
Donald Bagert, Ph.D., P.E. (Indiana, Texas)
Bob Becnel, P.E. (Missouri)
Doug Benner, P.E. (Georgia)
Douglass Bowman, Ph.D., P.E. (Florida)
Mark Ciechanowski, P.E. (Michigan)
Dave Dorchester, P.E. (Texas)
John Featherly, P.E. (Oregon)
Carl Gray, P.E. (Illinois)
Kathryn Gray, P.E. (Illinois)
Kyle Hardy, P.E. (Missouri)
Dennis Frailey, Ph.D. (Texas)
Lance Kinney, P.E. (Texas)
David Parnas, P.Eng (Canada)
Roger Zimmerman, Ph.D., P.E. (New Mexico)
19