The Future of Software Engineering in Canada

By Stacy Cholewinski

In Newfoundland, Canada, the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (CCPE) has filed a lawsuit against Memorial University. CCPE is the umbrella organization for the twelve associations created by the legislatures of the provinces to make sure that engineers are qualified to do their job. Formal document exchange is anticipated to be complete by mid-January and the court date has been set for February. This case has been slated for immediate resolution because this issue involves two major professions and academic institutions throughout Canada.

CCPE filed the lawsuit based on Memorial University's alleged infringement upon their trademark of the words "engineer" and "engineering." Specifically, the controversy involves the use of these terms in association with a degree that Memorial offers leading to an Honours in Computer Science (Software Engineering) or Computer Science Honours in Software Engineering. CCPE is demanding that its trademark words not be associated with these degrees because individuals who receive these degrees are not receiving them from an accredited engineering department. Therefore, according to CCPE, this is misleading and potentially threatening to the public. Under the law in Canada, no one can call himself or herself an engineer unless they have been licensed by the Provincial Engineering Societies.

In a formal letter in mid-December 1996, CCPE contacted universities offering courses, options, or degrees in software engineering. This letter stated,

"The practice of engineering has been regulated in Canada for many years. Each of the Statutory Provincial and Territorial Engineering Associations has a duty to protect the public from deception or misunderstanding through the misuse of the words "Engineer" and "Engineering" or misrepresentation by a person claiming to be an engineer who is not licensed by a Provincial or a Territorial Association."

Apparently, the distribution of this letter was meant to be a warning to stop the use of these trademark terms. However, the result was to ignite controversy in Canada over what is a software engineer and who is most qualified to teach this discipline.

The engineering side of the debate is that the use of the term "engineer" or "engineering" in association with software implies engineering knowledge, skills, and ethics. However, on the engineering side of the debate the question is not merely, what is in a name? Many engineers believe that at the heart of the discipline of software engineering exist principles of engineering. They believe that software engineers, for the most part, are doing engineering work. Therefore, an accredited department in order to provide the necessary safeguards for the public and to ensure a proper and safe environment, must offer the degree. Only engineering departments are properly equipped to teach the standards that are recognized by the accreditation board, which was established to protect the public. Software is an integral part in the operation of devices in the public domain. Such examples of this range from aircraft software to biomedical system software to nuclear power station control software. These clearly, as the engineers argue, are under the auspices of the Engineering Acts as being actions that only accredited engineers can practice. It is also believed that this discipline should be based on principles that will last for forty years, a standard to which engineering must adhere. Many engineers would like to see these courses, options, and degrees taught collaboratively with computer science, but under the umbrella of the engineering department.

Many of the twenty-eight departments offering some type of course work in software engineering are computer science departments. The belief by computer scientists is that the department that has the most expertise in this area should teach these courses. CS departments for over twenty years have taught software engineering in Canada and many believe that it should stay this way. Computer Science also has its own accreditation process and body, the Computer Science Accreditation Council (CSAC). Computer scientists believe that the exclusive right to teach and practice this discipline by a particular group is wrong. Many believe that the essence of software engineering is computer science and that the degree, like computer science, is not engineering and therefore should not be held to the accreditation standards of the Professional Engineering societies. It is also believed that if the name were simply changed that the ramifications to the students would be tremendous. It is thought that this terminology already has an international understanding and is accepted, on the whole, to mean "the technical and managerial discipline concerned with producing and maintaining large software systems." The students formerly known as software engineers would be lost in a profession without public recognition. Perhaps the greatest point of contention between the two sides is the position of the computer scientists that the terms "software engineer" of "software engineering" are not deceptive to the public and in no way portrays the individual calling himself or herself this as a professional engineer.

Both sides of this debate agree that this field has a prominent place in industry and society. The field has seen exponential growth in the past decade and there is no end to this growth in sight. The controversy over the alleged misuse and deceptive use of the terms "engineer" and "engineering" is not new. Similar litigation has been filed in the United States.

The decision in the Memorial lawsuit will have a long-lasting effect on software engineering. As always, CRN welcomes and encourages comments on this dispute.