The piece I wrote last week on doing more to protect the title of “engineer” drew a really heated response, so much so that I thought the matter merited a follow up post with some clarifications.

Everyone in the oil & gas industry plays an important role

To me, one of the best aspects of the oil & gas industry is that there is usually a place for anyone willing to work hard, regardless of past work or personal experience.

In fact, the people I worked with in the field when I was just starting out had no education past high school, and some even had run-ins with the law before, and yet they were highly professional, skilled at their occupation, and great teachers.

When I advocate for the protection of a title, it is not a “zero-sum” proposition, where I want to boost my own credentials and those of my peers by knocking down those of others.

Let me be clear: regardless of what appears behind your name, if you were hired by an oil & gas-related company, it was because you are good at something, and if you have been working in the industry for a long time, presumably that is because you carried on that good work.

Nevertheless, that shouldn’t allow anyone to unilaterally assume the title of “engineer”.

Titles are important signaling mechanisms, therefore they should be protected

Think of all the brands from which you buy. Today, there are endless choices out there in everything from shoes to cars to razors, so if you buy from one particular brand in any one category, it’s because of everything the brand represents to you: heritage, quality, design, etc.

For those reasons, brands are great because they are “shorthand” for an entire message, to the point where one slogan or logo can persuade someone to choose that brand; they make things easier for consumers faced with overwhelming arrays of choices. It’s worth noting too that because of their power and the work that goes into building them, brands are fiercely protected by their owners.

Engineering credentials are the same way: if someone wants to purchase engineering services specifically, they should be able, immediately, to ascertain who is truly capable of offering those services.

Those doing the engineering work should also be assured that the brand they worked hard to build is protected.

Transparency and consistency of services are crucial

Let’s assume that it were legal for doctors to take on apprentices (no medical school required, just a period of shadowing a physician), and that I found a willing mentor.

This doctor takes me under their wing, and I learn everything that doctor does.

Should I be able then to go out and sell my medical services?

Let’s assume that I can, and not only am I a scrupulous individual but my mentor also vouches that I can provide adequate levels of care.

Things work out well for my patients.

What about all the other apprentices out there?

Are they as scrupulous?

Are all the doctors as careful in training their apprentices?

With no centralized and standardized oversight no one can guarantee that, and ultimately patient care and the reputation of the medical profession suffer.

Furthermore, while doing procedures correctly is one thing, the “why” – the theory – behind those procedures is equally important. To continue to hold a license and practice medicine, a doctor must stay abreast of new technologies in the medical field, and re-test occasionally to prove they are still competent.

That is exactly why the term “engineer” needs to be controlled rigorously: a controlled, restricted title means there are consistent, transparent standards behind it. It also assures that professionals wanting to keep their title (protect their brand) don’t become complacent and neglect to keep their knowledge base up to date.

This is not about “young” versus “old”

I value the experience of many senior professionals in this industry, and I’m lucky to count some of them as my trusted mentors.

I respect them tremendously, which is why it’s so puzzling that every time I write a piece that advocates recognizing more than just “time served” in the industry, many others in that same demographic are quick to dismiss and put down the solid experience I do have, as well as all the work I have put into developing my current knowledge base.

Trust me, if “time served” is all it takes, my peers and I will get there eventually.

Nevertheless, that attitude is disappointing.

It’s disappointing not only because such negativity would not be tolerated going the other way, but also because it goes completely against the spirit of cooperation that is so important to the proper functioning of the industry.

I can only attribute this negativity to insecurity, perhaps due to the feeling that somehow if my recommendations were followed, all of the industry’s senior folks might end up out of a job.

Allow me to clear this up for everyone: yes I am highly capable, yes I am highly accomplished for my age, but no, I do not know everything.

I know my limitations, and I’m neither coming after anyone’s job, nor advocating for eliminating the positions all of those valuable, experienced professionals who have served the industry well, just not as officially recognized “engineers”.

Collaboration and respect between all members of the industry is critical for overcoming the “Great Crew Change” and generally making sure operations become even more safe and efficient. Standardized, transparent titles are important for facilitating that collaboration, as they make it clear to anyone looking for help who-knows-what when they search for knowledgeable resources.

Asking that the term “engineer” be standardized then has nothing – not one single thing – to do with me firing a shot across the generational gap.

It’s also not about “degreed” versus “non-degreed”

I like learning new things, and I like the feeling of setting and reaching goals. Given those aspects of my personality, I’ve gone back to school several times, and I’ve personally benefited greatly from those experiences.

While I think those achievements are a testament to my time management skills, perseverance and desire to learn constantly, they DO NOT imply that I know everything, and protecting the term “engineer” has nothing to do with putting down those whose start in the business came from the field.

Again, this is simply about standards and transparency.

It turns out there is such a title as “Master Welder“, and from what I can gather, while there is an Associate’s Degree requirement, most of what goes into earning this title comes from experience.

Makes perfect sense to me: I can spend years learning about welding theory (and there is quite a bit out there) but at the end of the day, someone’s value as a welding professional comes to down to whether or not they can lay a secure weld consistently in a wide variety of situations.

Now let’s say that I happen to do metalwork in my spare time, and the market for MBAs crashes suddenly, while that for Master Welders takes off.

I’m set, right? I’ve been metal working for years, and I know a clean weld when I see one.

My resume is getting updated immediately: “David Vaucher, Master Welder”.

Actually, it’s not.

I may think I’m excellent at what I do, but until my welding skills and understanding of the theory behind the practice of welding are verified by an independent third party, I’m putting my clients and my reputation at risk.

That’s not to mention that actual Master Welders wouldn’t appreciate it at all if they found out about my own, self-designated status of “Master Welder”.

When I ask that the term “engineer” be more exclusive, I only mean that it be formalized according to a set of standards, just as standards for other titles are set and controlled.

Yes, I care about my own title

A few of the comments I received last week were reflective of those directed more generally at the “Millenial” demographic, of which I am a part (if only just barely!): that we require constant positive reinforcement and that we value titles over experience.

I don’t need someone telling me “great job, David!” every time I send an email, but I do believe that if I do the work to achieve a certain credential or title, and someone else hasn’t, our relative “brands” should reflect that.

In the case of engineering degree, that qualification is not just a “piece of paper”: it represents not only years of hard work at the university or graduate level, but also quite possibly decades of preparation and studying to get oneself up to that point.

Put another way: if you, a senior professional without an engineering degree but lots of experience, ask that I respect your contributions to the industry, then I ask that you, in return, respect the hard work I have put into earning my own stripes.

I do believe that the only way to become an “engineer” should be by following a set of requirements put forth by an accredited, recognized body, period, end of story.

Being an engineer doesn’t mean I know everything, but when used correctly the title should mean the same thing everywhere: that I am starting from an established, recognized baseline, and the professionalism that title demonstrates means that I am willing and able to build on that baseline.

Yes, this should include, at the very beginning of the journey towards being an “engineer”, pursuing at least a four year college degree, but lest some people think that statement is exclusionary, know that anyone is free to apply to an accredited program and (if accepted) complete the course requirements to earn an engineering degree.

Ultimately, that is what I’d like to see from the industry: continued emphasis on the important role that EVERYONE plays in being a good steward of the industry, and more efforts not only to regulate and standardize qualifications, but also to make the path to those qualifications accessible to anyone wanting to earn them.

David Vaucher is a director with IHS, overseeing the Upstream Operating Costs Forum. He is also the editor-in-chief of “The Way Ahead” magazine, the Society of Petroleum Engineers’ official publication for young professionals in the oil and gas industry. 

This article was originally published on Fuel Fix.