Is Licensing a Bad Idea?

Here is a summary of the arguments that licensing is a bad idea:

  • Licenses would unduly restrict the number of people who could practice software engineering at a time when demand for software engineers is increasing.[13]

  • When an engineer receives a license, it will be good for life, which is inappropriate considering that software engineering's body of knowledge is changing so rapidly.[14]

  • Licensing can't guarantee that every individual who's licensed will actually be competent. Licensing will give the public a false sense of security.[15]

Let's take a closer look at these arguments.

Licenses would unduly restrict the number of people who could practice software engineering at a time when demand for software engineers is increasing.

This argument is based upon the assumption that after licensing is in place only licensed software engineers will be allowed to produce software. As I mentioned earlier in this chapter, that is not how licensing works in other engineering disciplines, and it is not how it would work in software. Most people writing software will be classified as software technologists or unlicensed software engineers, not as professional software engineers. Most kinds of software are not safety critical and can be written by someone other than a professional software engineer.

Only a small number of software engineers who work on specific kinds of safety-critical software systems would ever be required to have licenses.

When an engineer receives a license, it will be good for life, which is inappropriate considering that software engineering's body of knowledge is changing so rapidly.

This argument is based on two misunderstandings of software engineering licensing. The first misunderstanding has to do with how rapidly the body of knowledge is changing, as discussed in Chapter 5. The second misunderstanding is the idea that "licensing" is "licensing for life." Licensees in other fields are required to stay current by obtaining continuing professional education to maintain their licenses. Licensing supports keeping professionals up to date.

Licensing can't guarantee that every individual who's licensed will actually be competent. Licensing will give the public a false sense of security.

The argument that some less-qualified people might obtain licenses and some more-qualified people might be denied licenses contains a grain of truth. Licensing acts as a filter that improves the quality of the labor pool, but it is not perfect. Figure 19-1 shows what the labor pool without professional licensing looks like.

Figure 19-1. Pool of all software developers before the filter of professional licensing is applied.

graphics/19fig01.jpg

Without professional licensing, the public is exposed to both good and bad software development practices and is unprotected against potentially dangerous software. To protect the public interest, we would like the licensing procedure to act as a filter that denies licenses to the worst software developers and grants licenses only to the best, as shown in Figure 19-2.

Figure 19-2. Pool of software developers after professional licensing has been applied assuming ideal licensing.

graphics/19fig02.gif

Realistically, licensing will not be an ideal filter. We've all heard of good and bad attorneys, good and bad doctors, and good and bad practitioners from other licensed professions. Even with the combination of university education, exams, and experience, the software-licensing filter won't be any better than filters for existing professions. Initially, it is likely to be worse because other professions have had more time to fine-tune their licensing exams and other requirements. As Figure 19-3 illustrates, even with the best current approaches, software licensing will allow a few unqualified people into the field and will exclude a few who should have been licensed.

Figure 19-3. Pool of software developers after professional licensing has been applied assuming realistic licensing.

graphics/19fig03.gif

Ideal licensing might not be attainable, but realistic licensing can still be valuable. Most software employers would rather choose their software developers from the pool in Figure 19-3 than from the pool in Figure 19-1. Most members of the general public would rather have their safety-critical software designed and checked by developers from the pool in Figure 19-3 than from the pool in Figure 19-1. Guarantees are nice when you can get them. When guarantees are not possible, more assurance is still better than less.



Professional Software Development(c) Shorter Schedules, Higher Quality Products, More Successful Projects, [... ]reers
Professional Software Development(c) Shorter Schedules, Higher Quality Products, More Successful Projects, [... ]reers
ISBN: N/A
EAN: N/A
Year: 2005
Pages: 164

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net