I think this basically boils down to "are lives at risk?" As you hint at, most companies likely don't have the rigors of an "actual" engineer. But places like

I think this basically boils down to "are lives at risk?" As you hint at, most companies likely don't have the rigors of an "actual" engineer. But places like NASA or a medical company where lives are at stake would likely have the same rigors and reliability of a civil engineer and their bridge. I think it is unfair to compare software _____s to civil engineers. We just don't have anywhere near the level of laws and regulations on most of our projects as someone who is building things that lives depend on being reliable. And even then, bridges can and do fail. If a civil engineer were building bridges for his kid's matchbox cars I bet they do not put in the same level of reliability as a bridge where human lives must cross it daily for many years. Since no lives are at stake for most software in the world, the guys up top will opt for the cheaper route over the route that involves a high level of process, measurability, and discipline. Once they start losing sales/customers due to bugs they may change their tune of course :)