I am not an engineer, and neither are you

I’m called a Software Engineer. It says so when you look me up in my employer’s global address list: “Matthew Coe, Software Engineer.”

I am not a software engineer.

The most obvious place to begin is the fact that I don’t hold an undergraduate engineering degree from a board-accredited program. While I’ve been working at my current job for just over four years now (and have otherwise been in the field for an additional three years before that), I’ve never worked for a year under a licensed professional engineer, nor have I attempted, let alone passed, the Professional Practice Exam.

I don’t even satisfy the basic requirements of education and experience in order to be an engineer.

But let’s say I had worked under a licensed professional engineer. It’s not quite completely outside of the realm of possibility, since the guy who hired me into my current job is an engineering graduate from McGill… though also not a licensed professional engineer. But let’s pretend he is. There’s four years of what we call “engineering”, one of which would have been spent under an engineer. If we could pretend that my Bachelor of Computer Science is an engineering degree (and PEO does provide means to finagle exactly that, but I’d have to prove that I can engineer software to an interview board, among other things), then I’d be all set to take the exam.

Right?

There’s a hitch: what I do in this field that so many people call “software engineering”… isn’t engineering.

So what is engineering?

The Professional Engineers Act of Ontario states that the practice of professional engineering is

any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising that requires the application of engineering principles and concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment, or the managing of any such act.

There are very few places where writing software, on its own, falls within this definition. In fact, in 2008, PEO began recognising software engineering as a discipline of professional engineering, and in 2013 they published a practice guideline in which they set three criteria that a given software engineering project has to meet, in order to be considered professional engineering:

• Where the software is used in a product that already falls within the practice of engineering (e.g. elevator controls, nuclear reactor controls, medical equipment such as gamma-ray cameras, etc.), and
• Where the use of the software poses a risk to life, health, property or the public welfare, and
• Where the design or analysis requires the application of engineering principles within the software (e.g. does engineering calculations), meets a requirement of engineering practice (e.g. a fail-safe system), or requires the application of the principles of engineering in its development.

Making a website to help people sell their stuff doesn’t qualify. I’m sorry, it doesn’t. To the best of my knowledge, nothing I’ve ever done has ever been part of an engineered system. Because I miss the first criterion, it’s clear that I’ve never really practised software engineering. The second doesn’t even seem particularly close. While I’ve written and maintained an expert system that once singlehandedly DOS’d a primary database, but that doesn’t really pose a risk to life, health, property, or the public welfare.

The only thing that might be left to even quasi-justify calling software development “engineering” would be if, by and large, we applied engineering principles and disciplines to our work. Some shops certainly do. However, in the wider community, we’re still having arguments about ifwhen we should write unit tests! Many experienced developers who haven’t tried TDD decry it as being a waste of time (hint: it’s not). There’s been recent discussion in the software development blogosphere on the early death of test-driven development, whether it’s something that should be considered a stepping stone, or disposed of altogether.

This certainly isn’t the first time I’ve seen a practice receive such vitriolic hatred within only a few years of its wide public adoption. TDD got its start as a practice within Extreme Programming, in 1999, and fifteen years later, here we are, saying it’s borderline useless. For contrast, the HAZOP (hazard and operability study) engineering process was first implemented in 1963, formally defined in 1974, and named HAZOP in 1983. It’s still taught today in university as a fairly fundamental engineering practice. While I appreciate that the advancement of the software development field moves a lot faster than, say, chemical engineering, I only heard about TDD five or six years into my professional practice. It just seems a little hasty to be roundly rejecting something that not everybody even knows about.

I’m not trying to suggest that we don’t ever debate the processes that we use to write software, or that TDD is the be-all, end-all greatest testing method ever for all projects. If we consider that software developers come from a wide variety of backgrounds, and the projects that we work on are equally varied, then trying to say that thus-and-such a practice is no good, ever, is as foolish as promoting it as the One True Way. The truth is somewhere in the middle: Test-driven development is one practice among many that can be used during software development to ensure quality from the ground up. I happen to think it’s a very good practice, and I’m working to get back on the horse, but if for whatever reason it doesn’t make sense for your project, then by all means, don’t use it. Find and use the practices that best suit your project’s requirements. Professional engineers are just as choosy about what processes are relevant for what projects and what environments. Just because it isn’t relevant to you, now, doesn’t make it completely worthless to everyone, everywhere.

It’s not a competition

The debate around test-driven development reflects a deeper issue within software development: we engage in holy wars all the time, and about frivolous shit. Editors. Operating systems. Languages. Task management methods. Testing. Delivery mechanisms. You name it, I guarantee two developers have fought about it until they were blue in the face. There’s a reason, and it’s not a particularly good one, that people say “when two programmers agree, they hold a majority”. There’s so much of the software development culture that encourages us to be fiercely independent. While office planners have been moving to open-plan space, and long lines of desk, most of us would probably much rather work in a quiet cubicle or office, or at least get some good headphones on, filled with, in my case, Skrillex and Jean-Michel Jarré. Tune out all distractions, and just get to the business of writing software.

After all, most of the biggest names within software development, who created some of the most important tools, got where they are because of work they did mostly, if not entirely, by themselves. Theo de Raadt created OpenBSD. Guido van Rossum: Python. Bjarne Stroustrup: C++. John Carmack: iD. Mark Zuckerberg. Enough said. Even C and Unix are well understood to have been written by two or three men, each. Large, collaborative teams are seen as the spawning sites of baroque monstrosities like your bank’s back-office software, or Windows ME, or even obviously committee-designed languages like ADA and COBOL. It’s as though there’s an unwritten rule that if you want to make something cool, then you have to work alone. And there’s also the Open Source credo that if you want a software package to do something it doesn’t, you add that feature in. And if the maintainer doesn’t want to merge it, then you can fork it, and go it alone. Lone wolf development is almost expected.

However, this kind of behaviour is really what sets software development apart from professional engineering. Engineers join professional associations and sit on standards committees in order to improve the state of the field. In fact, some engineering standards are even part of legal regulations—to a limited extent, engineers are occasionally able to set the minimums that all engineers in that field and jurisdiction must abide by. Software development standards, on the other hand, occasionally get viewed as hindrances, and other than the Sarbannes-Oxley Act, I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that becomes legally binding on a software developer.

By contrast, we collaborate only when we have to. In fact, the only things I’ve seen developers resist more than test-driven development are code review and paired programming. Professional engineers have peer review and teamwork whipped into them in university, to the extent that trying to go it alone is basically anathema. The field of engineering, like software development, is so vast that no individual can possibly know everything, so you work with other people to cover the gaps in what you know, and to get other people looking at your output before it goes out the door. I’m not just referring to testers here. This applies to design, too. I’d imagine most engineering firms don’t let a plan leave the building with only one engineer having seen it, even if only one put their seal on it.

Who else famously worked alone? Linus Torvalds, who also quite famously said, “given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” If that isn’t a ringing endorsement of peer review and cooperation among software developers, then I don’t know what is. I know how adversarial code review can feel at first; it’s a hell of a mental hurdle to clear. But if everyone recognises that this is for the sake of improving the product first, and then for improving the team, and if you can keep that in mind when you’re reading your reviews, then your own work will improve significantly, because you’ll be learning from each other.

It’s about continuous improvement

Continuous improvement is another one of those things that professional engineering emphasises. I don’t mean trying out the latest toys, and trying to keep on top of the latest literature, though the latter is certainly part of it. As a team, you have to constantly reflect back on your work and your processes, to see what’s working well for you and what isn’t. You can apply this to yourself as well; this is why most larger companies have a self-assessment aspect of your yearly review. This is also precisely why Scrum includes an end-of-sprint retrospective meeting, where the team discusses what’s going well, and what needs to change. I’ve seen a lot of developers resist retrospectives as a waste of time. If no one acts on the agreed-upon changes to the process, then yeah, retrospectives are a waste of time, but if you want to act like engineers, then you’ll do it. Debriefing meetings shouldn’t only held when things go wrong (which is why I don’t like calling them post-mortems); they should happen after wildly successful projects, too. You can discuss what was learned while working on the project, and how that can be used to make things even better in the future. This is the purpose of Scrum’s retrospective.

But software developers resist meetings. Meetings take away from our time in front of our keyboards, and disrupt our flow. Product owners are widely regarded as having meetings for the sake of having meetings. But those planning meetings, properly prepared for, can be incredibly valuable, because you can ask the product owners your questions about the upcoming work well before it shows up in your to-be-worked-on hopper. Then, instead of panicking because the copy isn’t localised for all the languages you’re required to support, or hastily trying to mash it in before the release cutoff, the story can include everything that’s needed for the developers to their work up front, and go in front of the product owners in a fairly complete state. And, as an added bonus, you won’t get surprised, halfway through a sprint, when a story turns out to be way more work than you originally thought, based on the summary.

These aren’t easy habits to change, and I’ll certainly be the first person to admit it. We’ve all been socialised within this field to perform in a certain way, and when you’re around colleagues who also act this way, then there’s also a great deal of peer pressure to continue do it. But, as they say, change comes from within, so if you want to apply engineering principles and practices to your own work, then you can and should do it, to whatever extent is available within your particular working environment. A great place to start is with the Association for Computing Machinery’s Code of Ethics. It’s fairly consistent with most engineering codes of ethics, within the context of software development, so you can at least use it as a stepping stone to introduce other engineering principles to your work. If you work in a Scrum, or Lean, or Kanban shop, go study the literature of the entire process, and make sure that when you sit down to work, that you completely understand what it is that’s required of you.

The problem of nomenclature

Even if you were to do that, and absorb and adopt every relevant practice guideline that PEO requires of professional engineers, this still doesn’t magically make you a software engineer. Not only are there semi-legally binding guidelines about what’s considered software engineering, there are also regulations about who can use the title “engineer”. The same Act that gives PEO the authority to establish standards of practice for professional engineers also clearly establish penalties for inappropriate uses of the title “engineer”. Specifically,

every person who is not a holder of a licence or a temporary licence and who,
(a) uses the title “professional engineer” or “ingénieur” or an abbreviation or variation thereof as an occupational or business designation;
(a.1) uses the title “engineer” or an abbreviation of that title in a manner that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering;
(b) uses a term, title or description that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering; or
(c) uses a seal that will lead to the belief that the person is a professional engineer,
is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable for the first offence to a fine of not more than $10 000 and for each subsequent offence to a fine of not more than $25 000.

Since we know that PEO recognises software engineering within engineering projects, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that having the phrase “software engineer” on your business card could lead to the belief that you may engage in the practice of professional engineering. But if you don’t have your license (or at least work under the direct supervision of someone who does), that simply isn’t true.

Like I said up top, I’m called a Software Engineer by my employer. But when I give you my business card, you’ll see it says “software developer”.

I am not a software engineer.