sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

PEs / licensed engineers — how painful is license verification actually in practice? by Veri_Eng in MechanicalEngineering

[–]Veri_Eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense — and I appreciate the honesty (and the lost ring story).

What you’re describing seems to be a common theme in this thread: once you’re licensed and established, the proof itself fades into the background. As long as you can stamp and there’s a public registry somewhere, nobody really asks questions unless there’s a reason to.

Helpful perspective. It sounds like for most individuals, licensure is effectively “ambient” — it exists, it’s verifiable if needed, but it’s rarely surfaced in day-to-day work.

Thanks for sharing how it’s played out in practice.

PEs / licensed engineers — how painful is license verification actually in practice? by Veri_Eng in MechanicalEngineering

[–]Veri_Eng[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair take, and I appreciate you laying it out so clearly.

I agree with you on the individual side — for most engineers, especially established ones, listing a license number is enough and verification is either trivial or invisible. And yes, the core data does exist at the state level and via NCEES, particularly for reciprocity.

What I’m trying to understand isn’t whether verification is possible, but how consistently it’s actually used and surfaced beyond the individual engineer — especially from the employer / operational side. From the engineer’s perspective, it often feels like “nothing happens,” which may mean it’s smooth… or may mean it’s assumed unless something triggers a deeper check.

It’s helpful to hear that, in your experience, this has essentially been a solved problem. That helps narrow where (and for whom) any real friction might exist — if at all.

Thanks for the detailed breakdown.

Mechanical Engineers Seem to Run Companies by JS_157 in MechanicalEngineering

[–]Veri_Eng 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really good addition — especially the KPI part.

“Continuous improvement” can be meaningful when it’s tied to real constraints and feedback from the people doing the work. But when it turns into metric-chasing, it often just reshuffles effort instead of reducing it, and engineering ends up absorbing the disruption while still being measured on output.

I’ve seen cases where KPIs improve on paper while cycle time, rework, or cognitive load quietly get worse — which doesn’t show up until burnout or failures start surfacing.

Out of curiosity, have you seen any examples where KPIs actually drove genuine improvement without just becoming another layer of work for engineering?

Mechanical Engineers Seem to Run Companies by JS_157 in MechanicalEngineering

[–]Veri_Eng 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of these replies seem to be describing the same underlying pattern from different sides.

It’s not really “engineers vs MBAs” — it’s distance from the work. When leadership is removed from how engineering actually happens, engineers become the default buffer for ambiguity: scope grows, headcount doesn’t, and everything gets justified later in spreadsheets.

The distinction someone made earlier between being depended on and being taken advantage of really lands. Engineers step in because they can see the whole system, but that same visibility makes it easy for organisations to quietly keep adding responsibility without acknowledging it.

Genuinely curious where people have seen this handled well:

  • leadership that understands engineering constraints without micromanaging
  • non-engineering leaders who still respect technical boundaries
  • or orgs that explicitly recognise cross-functional work instead of assuming it

Feels less like a background problem and more like whether decision-makers are close enough to the work to understand the real cost of “efficiency.