Qingbin Cui, Ph.D., Kyle Davy, AIA & Michael McMeekin, P.E.
March 13, 2024
Advanced technologies such as connected autonomous vehicles, robotics and drones, artificial intelligence, bio-medical technologies, smart cities, and other cyber-physical systems pose new and serious challenges to the ability of the current engineering licensure regime to assure that engineers and the organizations employing them are protecting public health, safety, and welfare. The existing licensure system is also challenged with respect to providing guidance on the many macro-ethical dilemmas emerging alongside these advanced technologies.
It is imperative that our systems of regulating and licensing engineering adapt in parallel with the development and deployment of these emerging technologies and in a manner that is reflective of the engineering community’s role as stewards of public safety, society, and the environment.
These conclusions, reached at the end of Engineering Change Lab – USA’s (ECL) 2020 summit exploring Licensure Models for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, prompted the launch of a follow-on ECL initiative designed to imagine a transformational regulatory system that addresses the demands and dynamics of engineering practice in the 4th Industrial Revolution (4th IR).
Early in 2024, the ECL initiative team along with a research team led by Dr. Qingbin Cui of the Build America Center at the University of Maryland reported the findings from a two-phase study that developed and explored a potential reimagined regulatory framework focused on a single emerging technology and engineering practice area, mobility engineering. The study also explored a set of four alternative models for implementation of the potential framework.
Background
Early in the 2020 ECL summit, Patty Mamola and Lance Kinney, executive directors of the licensing boards in Nevada and Texas, respectively, encouraged participants to look comprehensively at a set of major changes occurring in engineering practice and their potential impact on our engineering regulatory system, including:
- Education: Emergence of new engineering disciplines and multi-disciplinary degrees driven by industry and student demand.
- Technology: Emergence of multiple technologies (AI, machine learning, data analysis, IOT, etc.) often developed by non-engineers but being utilized in engineering solutions.
- Engineering Practice. Shift toward complex, interdisciplinary projects; increased focus on sustainable design and stakeholder involvement; and integration of emerging technologies into projects.
- Legislation: Increasing focus by legislators on reducing barriers to entry and easing the portability of all types of professional licenses.
- Public Perception and Expectations: Lack of understanding by the public of what engineers do, of the fact that not all engineers need to be licensed, and of the difference between software developers and licensed engineers.
During the summit, explorations of these changes and other dynamics of the 4th Industrial Revolution demonstrated a clear need for an exploration of a transformational shift in engineering licensure. That shift was captured in the ECL Map of the Future shown below.
Fig. 1. Licensure Models for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Map of the Future
There was a strong desire by participants at the summit to continue the discussion. A steering committee of ECL stakeholders including practicing engineers, state licensing board members, NCEES leadership, and other engineering professional society representatives assembled to guide this initiative and set out to answer questions such as:
- What might a regulatory scheme matched to the needs and dynamics of emerging 4th IR technologies look like?
- Could such a regulatory framework address the growing numbers of engineering technologists, computer programmers, and non-engineers actively engaged in the creation and development of these emerging technologies?
To answer these questions, the steering committee decided to develop a prototype regulatory model for a representative 4th IR emerging technology — mobility engineering, with a particular focus on connected autonomous vehicles.
To develop background research necessary for understanding the current practice of mobility engineering and to assist in the development of the prototype regulatory system ECL partnered with Dr. Qingbin Cui and his team at the Build America Center at the University of Maryland.
Overview of Mobility Engineering Study
The Mobility Engineering Study was completed in two phases. Phase 1 research developed a deep and comprehensive understanding of the Mobility Engineering discipline. Research efforts looked at educational programs, the job market, emerging technologies, and engineering failures. This research was accomplished through literature review and through interviews with subject matter experts from government, industry, and academia. Major findings from Phase 1 are summarized below.
- Mobility engineering integrates multiple traditional engineering disciplines (civil, mechanical, electrical, computer, systems, energy, and safety).
- The job market is looking for engineers with diverse and integrated expertise related to the vehicle, infrastructure, or IT / data analytics. Job market requirements often diverge from conventional educational curriculums.
- Automated Driving System (ADS) technologies are complex and are at the core of the practice of mobility engineering. These technologies encompass object and event detection and response, human-machine interfaces, vehicle cybersecurity, post-crash behavior, data recording and analysis, and others.
- Evaluations of failures and crashes highlight limitations in the partially automated systems currently in use, overreliance by drivers on these limited systems, lack of regulation, and inconsistent commitment to a culture of safety across the industry.
The Phase 1 study revealed that the overall body of knowledge and team composition for mobility engineering includes elements of traditional engineering disciplines, IT/data analytics, and human factors (see diagram below). A key element of these teams, that is often missing in current practice, is the role of systems integrator. The systems integrator role could include coordination of the technical disciplines along with overall responsibility for ethics, professionalism, stakeholder engagement, and public safety. The entire Phase 1 report can be viewed at this link.
Fig. 2. Mobility Engineering Body of Knowledge
Phase II of the study focused on developing a potential framework for regulation of mobility engineering along with a set of alternative models for implementation of that framework. A key difference from the traditional engineering licensure model that was explored in this study was the feasibility of a team-based regulatory approach. This was included in the study because complex, inter-disciplinary areas of engineering practice, such as mobility engineering, comprise multiple professional disciplines that are beyond the capacity of a single individual and their competencies. An effective approach for emerging complex technologies may be to regulate a team rather than an individual.
In addition to the framework itself, an evaluation system and rubric was developed to evaluate potential regulatory implementation alternatives. The models were evaluated with respect to effectiveness, efficiency, and feasibility and their ability to guarantee competence, uphold the highest standards of integrity, promote responsible behavior, and ensure ethical conduct in the realm of Mobility Engineering professional practice.
Mobility Engineering Regulatory Framework
The basic elements of the Regulatory Framework were developed at a June 28, 2023, workshop that included Dr. Cui’s team and the ECL Steering Committee and further elaborated during the Phase II effort. The Mobility Engineering Regulatory Framework diagram shown below presents a further evolution of that framework containing four major dimensions.
- Foundational Principles
- Team Body of Knowledge
- Regulatory Elements
- Administration / Governance Structure
Fig. 3. Mobility Engineering Regulatory Framework
The Foundational Principles dimension sets out seven overarching principles that a new regulatory framework could be designed around. The Team Body of Knowledge describes the overall knowledge, competencies, and capabilities that organizational teams must demonstrate mastery of to comply with regulatory requirements. The Regulatory Elements dimension includes essential processes to define and assess requirements to establish and maintain team certification. Finally, the Administration / Governance dimension presents a collaborative regulatory structure combining a new national certification body with existing state licensure entities.
All three of the upper dimensions need to be designed and administered in a manner that provides flexibility and adaptability, ensuring the ability of the regulatory regime to adjust and change as engineering and technology evolves over time.
As part of the June 28, 2023, workshop, participants identified the benefits such a prototypical regulatory framework could bring across the mobility engineering ecosystem. These benefits are captured in the Phase 2 report and the diagram shown below.
Fig. 4. Prototype Regulatory Framework Benefits
Alternative Models for Implementation
Following creation of the overall regulatory framework for mobility engineering, four alternatives for implementation were imagined and examined.
I. New Individual P.E. License
II. Team Certification Through NCEES
III. Team Certification Through ISO
IV. Team Certification Through New Mobility Engineering Institute
The four alternatives provide a spectrum of options – ranging from the current engineering licensure model to outside-the-box options envisioning completely new frameworks and organizations.
Alternative I proposes the development of a new Professional Engineer license, and customized PE exam, for mobility engineers based on NCEES principles and administered by State Licensing Boards.
Alternative II leverages the resources of NCEES to establish a team-based mobility engineering regulatory system based on certification. This model would include mechanisms for collaboration and coordination among multiple governing bodies and different jurisdictions or levels of government to administer the certification process.
Alternative III builds on existing international standards organizations, specifically the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to develop and administer an ISO-like certification for mobility engineering.
Alternative IV imagines a completely new organization, the Mobility Engineering Institute (MEI), specifically tailored to the Regulatory Framework shown above. The MEI organization would document a team-based, interdisciplinary Body of Knowledge and Regulatory Elements and standards. The Mobility Engineering Institute could be just the first of a set of “institutes” addressing the regulatory needs of other 4th Industrial Revolution emerging technologies, leading to the creation of a more comprehensive national “Future Engineering Institute.”
The alternatives were evaluated with respect to the 12 criteria listed below and then ranked with respect to both opportunities and risks.
Opportunity Criteria
- Applicability across multiple emerging technologies.
- Compatibility with existing systems.
- Agility.
- Value proposition.
- Scalability.
- Innovation.
- Partnership opportunities.
Risk Criteria
- Endeavor or level of effort involved in establishing.
- Bureaucracy.
- Public / market acceptance.
- Ambiguity.
- Effectiveness.
- Implementation obstacles and challenges.
- Ease of transition.
Highlights from the analysis and ranking of these four alternatives are noted below.
Alternative I: New Individual P.E. License
This model was included as a baseline for comparison to other alternatives. It does not offer the opportunity for team-based, interdisciplinary regulation. It would require ABET accreditation of mobility engineering programs and would require development of a new examination. Ratings showed this option was low risk but also low for opportunities and flexibility.
Alternative II: Team Certification Through NCEES
This model was ranked just below the new MEI Institute (Alt. IV) alternative with respect to opportunities. This model could effectively leverage the current resources of NCEES, which are well known and respected in the engineering community. Consequently, risks were considered to be moderate.
Alternative III: Team Certification Through ISO
This model was ranked mid-range for opportunities, below Alternatives II and IV, particularly because it could take advantage of the existing ISO/ANSI structure for certification. Potential risks were gauged to be greater than the NCEES team certification option (Alternative II), because of NCEES’ current position in the engineering community, but lower than those for the all-new organization needed for the Mobility Engineering Institute (Alternative IV).
Alternative IV: Team Certification Through New Mobility Engineering Institute
This model proposes a new organization that could be expanded beyond mobility engineering to encompass other emerging areas of engineering practice. This alternative was ranked slightly higher than the NCEES certification model (Alternative II) with respect to opportunities and potential for success, but significantly higher in potential risks, due to the unknown challenges associated with establishing a new organization.
In general, Alternatives II and IV were both considered to be the ‘best’ overall options with the opportunity edge favoring Alternative IV. Comparing alternatives II and IV, the reduced risk rating favors Alternative II. Either could make a significant positive contribution as new, transformational regulatory models for the practice of engineering involving emerging technologies such as mobility engineering. Detailed comparisons across all four alternative regulatory models are provided in the Phase II Report.
Panel Discussion
Insight on the mobility engineering study and prototype framework was provided by a panel of the ECL Future of Licensure Steering Committee.
- Bill Atkinson. 2023-2024 NSPE President and member of the State of Vermont Licensing Board since 2004.
- Lance Kinney. Executive Director of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors.
- Patty Mamola. Executive Director of the Nevada Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors and 2013-2014 NCEES President.
- Karl Tonander. Member of the New Mexico Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Professional Surveyors since 2017 and current National Treasurer for NCEES.
Highlights from the panel discussion are noted below.
- Panelists agreed about the potential value that the framework offers to address challenges that come with emerging multi-disciplinary, team-based areas of engineering practice such as mobility engineering. Panelists also agreed that the framework could be a valuable tool for enhancing regulation of practice areas currently covered by the industrial exemption. Quotes from the panelists included…
- “The framework has the potential to be broadly accepted.”
- “Regulation of team-based practice is worth exploring.”
- “The four implementation models are viable. We need to continue the dialogue and work toward something.”
- “The framework presents an implementable path forward.”
- There was consensus that this new regulatory framework could be applied to areas of engineering practice other than mobility engineering.
- Panelists saw potential for the regulatory framework to positively impact public trust in engineering and technology. Two panelists emphasized that political support would be needed to implement any new laws and regulations required for new models. Lance Kinney stressed the difficulty of impacting public trust but cited ISO and LEED as examples of certification systems that have become widely known, accepted, and trusted within their industries. Karl Tonander also emphasized the difficulty of gaining public trust around technical issues in today’s environment but described this as “a challenge we cannot step away from.”
Conclusion
Like all areas of society, the practice of engineering is continually evolving and adapting. The rapid development and deployment of emerging technologies is having disruptive impacts on this practice. It is imperative that the deployment of emerging technologies in engineering occur in a manner that is reflective of our role as stewards of public safety, society, and the environment. As a result, we must be open to adaptation in our systems of regulating and licensing all areas of engineering. ECL’s Future of Licensure study offers a viable prototype framework and evaluation rubric that could be a valuable tool for moving forward with that challenge. We welcome opportunities to continue this discussion.
Acknowledgements
The completion of our Future of Licensure examination was made possible due to the financial support of NCEES. We are grateful to the staff and Board of Directors of NCEES who have made this support possible.
We are also grateful for the dedication and commitment of the members of our Steering Committee who are listed below.
- Bill Atkinson, NSPE & Vermont Mechanical
- Kyle Davy, ECL Creative Director & Lead Facilitator
- Rick Guerra, NSPE & Jose I. Guerra, Inc.
- Caitlin Kenney, International Systems Management Corporation
- Lance Kinney, Texas Board of Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors
- Patty Mamola, Nevada Board of Professional Engineers
- Mike McMeekin, Engineering Change Lab – USA
- Brian Robertson, NCEES Board of Directors
- Monika Schulz, NSPE
- Karl Tonander, NCEES Board of Directors
