| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 401.1 | | DIEHRD::MAHLER | Yugo's for Yo Yo's | Tue Oct 13 1987 18:57 | 13 |
|
In Software...
Software Enginerd I
Software Enginerd II
Senior Software Engineer
Principal Software Engineer
Corporate Consulting Engineer
Wait, I think I missed one...
|
| 401.2 | You forgot 3 or 4 | DENTON::AMARTIN | Alan H. Martin | Tue Oct 13 1987 20:30 | 12 |
| Re .1:
Associate Software Engineer (I think)
> Software Enginerd I
> Software Enginerd II
> Senior Software Engineer
> Principal Software Engineer
Consulting (Software?) Engineer
Senior Consulting (Software?) Engineer
> Corporate Consulting Engineer [Corporate Consultant]
Senior Corporate Consultant
/AHM
|
| 401.3 | | TALLIS::DEROSA | I := not(number) | Wed Oct 14 1987 09:27 | 9 |
| re: .2:
My understanding is that "xxx Engineer I" replaced the older "Associate
xxx Engineer" designation some time ago.
Given the above statement, these same levels exist for hardware
engineers.
jdr
|
| 401.4 | get the facts from personnel | HUMAN::CONKLIN | Peter Conklin | Wed Oct 14 1987 09:52 | 10 |
| To get the correct list, ask Personnel.
There are about 20 job codes in each of Engineering and Software
Engineering. They have comparable levels. There is a progression
in each of technical, management, and product management, as well
as some other "tracks". There are formal job descriptions for each
level. There are also some supporting charts that personnel has
to help understand the differences between some of the functions.
And all this is being reviewed as part of the JEC program.
|
| 401.5 | I think we need to add one in between levels | STAR::ABBASI | Nobel price winner, expected 2035 | Sun Nov 15 1992 02:34 | 27 |
| ref .2
>Associate Software Engineer (I think)
>> Software Enginerd I
>> Software Enginerd II
>> Senior Software Engineer
>> Principal Software Engineer
>Consulting (Software?) Engineer
>Senior Consulting (Software?) Engineer
>> Corporate Consulting Engineer [Corporate Consultant]
>>Senior Corporate Consultant
> /AHM
I think we should have one more level between the principle engineer
and the consulting engineer, it should be called senior principle
engineer.
since it is very hard to become a consultant engineer
and so we need to have a middle step level between the principle and
the consultant, it is not fair to have a good principle engineer
on the same title for many years because it is very hard to become
consultant. plus by adding one level like this, it will help make
people more interested in getting there, since it is now less hard
to achieve that next promotion.
/nasser
|
| 401.6 | | ASICS::LESLIE | Waiting for the word | Mon Nov 16 1992 03:00 | 10 |
| Only a 5-year-old note this ime? You're slipping, Nasser.
Anyhow, "Senior Principal" was suggested in the UK some time back. The
Management team turned it down as such a move had to be corporate-wide
and it was opposed by Heff, I seem to recall.
Dunno why.
/andy - whose job code is halfway between Principal and Consulting, so
would be a "Senior Principal" if there was one.
|
| 401.7 | Some things never change | TLE::AMARTIN | Alan H. Martin | Mon Nov 16 1992 09:42 | 31 |
| Re .5:
Not many months ago, a software consulting engineer mentioned that senior
principal engineer had under consideration. (Might still be, I forget).
The reasons you listed were part of the reason. Another was that other
companies have this level, and it's difficult to hire people whom you can
neither pay appropriately as a principal engineer, nor are sure to successfully
make the transition from Member of Technical Staff to one of the consulting
titles. High level technical people only get a couple years to pass the CEPB,
or they have to depart this tearful vale.
The titles (from VTX JIS) from .2 are now:
Grouped by Job Function JOB INFORMATION SYSTEM
Job Function: SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
CODE JOB TITLE
50AA Software Engineer 1
50AB Software Engineer 2
50AC Software Senior Engineer
50AD Software Principal Engineer
50AE Software Engineering Consultant
50AF Software Engineering Senior Consultant
Note well the value added by "fixing" "Senior Software Engineer" (etc.) to the
far more euphonic "Software Senior Engineer" (etc.). The disadvantage is that
the job codes no longer descend as the titles ascend.
/AHM
|
| 401.8 | | MU::PORTER | savage pencil | Mon Nov 16 1992 11:25 | 5 |
| >Not many months ago, a software consulting engineer mentioned that senior
>principal engineer had under consideration. (Might still be, I forget).
Was considered, was rejected, according to what I hear.
|
| 401.9 | | ADSERV::PW::WINALSKI | Careful with that VAX, Eugene | Thu Nov 26 1992 00:12 | 14 |
| RE: .7
"High level technical people only get a couple of years to pass the CEPB, or
they have to depart this tearful vale."
Clearly you are not speaking of the Principal Engineer and Consultant Engineer
job titles at DEC. It is not expected that every engineer eventually will be
qualified for or have the desire to move to a consultant position. That is why
the Principal Engineer job codes have an unusually wide salary range. It is
certainly not true that you get a couple of years to move from Principal to
Consultant, or you are out. There are lots of us who wouldn't be here today if
that were the case.
--PSW (over 5 years as a Software Principal Engineer)
|
| 401.10 | | NAPIER::WONG | The wong one | Thu Nov 26 1992 22:56 | 10 |
| It may have to do with people who come in with a high enough salary
that they're in the Consulting Engineer range, but their abilities
are unknown. They might be put into a "Member of the Technical
Staff" classification where they're given a limited time to prove
themselves worthy of being a Consulting Engineer, or else they're
dropped to Principal.
We had someone like that in my old group.
B.
|
| 401.11 | MTS => [Software] Engineering [Senior] Consultant, or bust | TLE::AMARTIN | Alan H. Martin | Wed Dec 02 1992 22:32 | 8 |
| Re .10:
Exactly.
Re .9:
As should be clear from the context of the paragraph which you excerpt.
/AHM
|
| 401.12 | Consultant Eng... | PIGLET::WATERMAN | Dave Waterman, UCX Engineering | Thu Dec 03 1992 11:42 | 8 |
| Alas, 8 years as a Principal Eng. Always rated 1 or 2 but never considered for
Consultant Eng. Patents pending, Project leadership, etc....
Dare I say that you have to know the right people? I've given up hope...
:-(
Dave W.
|
| 401.13 | a process proposal | DELNI::MOONEY | | Thu Dec 03 1992 13:55 | 26 |
|
There has always been a catch-22 to get to Consulting Engineer. Since
to be approved you the need the approval and recommendation of other
consulting engineers. If you work in an area where there are none or few,
you're basically stuck.
On the other hand getting to Principal engineer is too easy, basically if
your local manager decides you are one - you are. So the quality at
Principal level has varied greatly across the company.
As several others have mentioned a step in between would be good. But how
to make it different than principal? Ie your local manager just approves
it?
A suggested process would be to achieve promotion to Senior Principal,
A set number (3-4) of WRITTEN recommendations from senior people (principal
engineers, engineering managers, etc) outside of the individuals own
department would be necessary. So a group of people will be on record to
agreeing that this person is at that level.
Also the current salary steps between managers and engineers would line
up differently. Currently Manager and Consultant are at the same pay scale.
The new process would line up Manager - Sen Prin. and Senior Manager -
Consultant.
/mike
|
| 401.14 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Dec 03 1992 22:17 | 39 |
| Come this May I will have been a Principal Engineer for 10 years.
I have asked a number of times about getting the process going for
a possible promotion to CE but have been repeatedly told I don't
qualify. This is rather depressing. The problem seems to be that
the concept of what it means to be a CE has strayed from its original
intent; recognition of someone who spreads their knowledge and
influence across the corporation. When I first started at
DEC, my boss was Tom Hastings, one of 5 (count 'em, five)
Consulting Engineers in the corporation. To me, Tom embodied the
true spirit of the title, serving as a fount of knowlegde and advice
for many throughout DEC and steering the company on a path which has
earned it much success.
Over the last 5 years or so, though, CE promotions were handed out
like candy to engineers who were certainly talented, but for many of
them, it seemed that the only qualification for the title was that they
had been the "point person" for a high-revenue product. Many of them
were unknown outside their own organizations. In the last couple of
years, CE promotions have pretty much disappeared entirely in my
neck of the woods.
The problem with the concept that one should be satified being a
Principal Engineer "forever" is that one feels "stuck", that DEC
doesn't choose to recognize personal growth in skills and influence.
Heck, we don't even have the anniversary dinners to look forward to
anymore to at least recognize that we "stuck it out".
I am told that a review of the Consulting Engineer promotion process
is underway, and that the review committee acknowledges many of the
points I've made above. I've also heard that a "Senior Principal"
position is being discussed, but I think that that just misses the
point; it's title inflation.
My belief is that if the corporation is going to insist that CE and
above is some sort of special elite corps, then an alternate promotion
path ought to be made available to the rest of us. (At least those
of us who are still around...)
Steve
|
| 401.15 | The secret handshake | STAR::DIPIRRO | | Fri Dec 04 1992 11:21 | 6 |
| Maybe those of us in the Principal-engineer-for-life club ought to
have our own secret handshake. A lot of it used to be that along with
all the other criteria, you had to be in the right place at the right
time, working on the right project with the right people. This is
what's supposed to change. Hopefully, the new process will not require
kissing the right butts for years, or I'll truly be a lifetime member.
|
| 401.16 | | MEMIT::CANSLER | | Wed Dec 09 1992 07:52 | 4 |
|
ref .15
I agree......
|