4 ms·

What helps with this is that in traditional engineering practice, the recipient of engineering services is typically qualified to judge whether the product is f

What helps with this is that in traditional engineering practice, the recipient of engineering services is typically qualified to judge whether the product is fit for purpose. When I have a contractor doing design/build/commissioning of a high-voltage substation, it's my responsibility as the owner's engineer to specify appropriate codes and standards for the contractor to meet and audit/witness their work to a sufficient extent to satisfy myself that it is being done properly. In software, you can often have people with no technical knowledge managing software procurements. In traditional engineering we understand the importance of the owner's engineer(s) and site representatives to completing a job properly.

Retra 12y ago
>the recipient of engineering services is typically qualified to judge whether the product is fit for purpose. I'm not so sure. Most people who want a building made, for instance, wouldn't know if the electrician did it right, or if the foundation was laid using the best methods, or if the right materials were used. Instead, you have a inspector come and verify the work.
- krschultz 12y ago
  That's simply inaccurate. When you are constructing a building, the owner hires engineers to oversee the work done by the general contractor. There are a lot of intricate details here, but the work is exactly as the parent to your comment described. My brother is one of the owners rep for structural work on a 60 story building going up in Manhattan right now. They're pouring an 8' thick foundation tomorrow. The people involved are all engineers working for the developer, and the inspectors aren't showing up until after the fact.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retra 12y ago
    It really depends on who you consider to be the recipient of the engineering services. The customer can't be trusted to evaluate the quality of the software, so they can't evaluate whether or not you've met your ethical obligations. You need a third party to look over the code.

Retra 12y ago

>the recipient of engineering services is typically qualified to judge whether the product is fit for purpose. I'm not so sure. Most people who want a building made, for instance, wouldn't know if the electrician did it right, or if the foundation was laid using the best methods, or if the right materials were used. Instead, you have a inspector come and verify the work.

krschultz 12y ago
That's simply inaccurate. When you are constructing a building, the owner hires engineers to oversee the work done by the general contractor. There are a lot of intricate details here, but the work is exactly as the parent to your comment described. My brother is one of the owners rep for structural work on a 60 story building going up in Manhattan right now. They're pouring an 8' thick foundation tomorrow. The people involved are all engineers working for the developer, and the inspectors aren't showing up until after the fact.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Retra 12y ago
  It really depends on who you consider to be the recipient of the engineering services. The customer can't be trusted to evaluate the quality of the software, so they can't evaluate whether or not you've met your ethical obligations. You need a third party to look over the code.