Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 92 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 9820 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Value in IEng Registration

Allan Rowan
Afternoon all, just sitting behind a laptop screen pondering and found myself plotting course for my career progression and seemingly unlikely professional registration for CEng.


My current employer has encouraged that I achieve CEng registration (easier said than done) and any promotion to the next grade would be subject to attaining CEng. I'm wary of submitting my application for CEng due to not having an adequate level of education (I have a Bachelors degree only)  and at my age there's little chance of me returning to university for further study. I'm employed as a senior engineer and acting principal engineer within a project I'm currently commissioned. I appreciate that working at a principal engineer level does not necessarily provide the evidence required to prove that my understanding and knowledge is at a MEng level.


Rewind a few years, I was reasonably proud of successful registration and to achieve IEng, however, to date I'm of the opinion that it has done little else other than measurement / benchmark of my competence and identify area's in which I need to strengthen. My employer (at the time of registration) did not professionally recognise IEng registration and from my own observations nor do other employers (that I've noticed). A cursory glance of job listings on LinkedIn, shall normally state a requirement for applicants to hold CEng registration or working towards CEng with no mention of IEng. There's an immense pressure to achieve Chartership and with failure to do so could be possibly observed as I'm either inadequate or not quite cutting the grade by a prospective or current employer.


Is there any value to the IEng registration other than a personal achievement and worth maintaining? I imagine the nervousness and apprehension about navigating the CEng route and the fear of failure that I'm not unique in this respect and other's may have a similar story? Not sure what I would wish to hear, but knowing of others that succeeded with a similar background and level of education would provide some encouragement.


Regards,

Allan. 

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi Guys

    I’m not suggesting any free rides - oh no - all I want is the recognition that IEngs are entitled to and not to see this group of Engineers relegated to second class citizens of our Profession. It’s time, I think, that the IET should start to champion the IEng community and insist on the recognition from the EC and the other PEIs.

    I am proud to be an IEng but not if we are to be relegated by officialdom. I want the recognition of serving my industry with some outstanding projects over my 50years.

    I experienced being looked down on by the Civils and Structures CEngs but always consoled myself with the knowledge that whilst I needed them to provide the boxes it was my team that made the boxes work for the people to use. No free ride just recognition. It won’t be free we will have to justify our worth.

    Regards Jim W
  • 0
    What is the purpose of having two “types” of graduate level Engineer, on top of the dozens of technical specialisms which also divide the profession?

    IEng (formerly Tech Eng) came into being to offer a form of recognition for trained engineers with HNC/D, when they were the majority, but the requirement to become Chartered had been moved from HNC/D to BSc.

    The subject of differentiating teenagers into “the best and the rest” is topical and controversial. For the vast majority of current Chartered Engineers their path was set by early teens and subsequent A level results in Maths & Science.

     
    Around 20 years ago the academic benchmark (or “requirement”) for chartered was increased to “masters level” although this proved difficult to implement and UK-SPEC supposedly moved the emphasis to “competence”. The IET came to embrace this, but many PEIs have remained largely wedded to the academic approach, with competences acting a “bolt on”.

     
    Chartered registration is intended to act as a threshold, passed around the age of 26. Typically 3-4 years in university, followed by two years training and two years mentored responsible experience. IEng became marginalised by the academics who controlled Engineering Council and Apprenticeships, even those with a degree included were seen as “cloth cap” or like a "third class" degree.

    I don’t object to having two tiers of engineer nominally at bachelors and masters level, but if so, all should be on the same pathway. Experiential learning should be valued fairly, not seen as inferior to rarely used academic theory and analytical techniques.  Not everyone will move along the pathway at the same speed, but blockages barriers and poorly signposted diversions should have no place.

      
    I also don’t object to two “equally valuable” types of practitioner, allowing employers and other customers to choose between the more “deeply technically orientated” and the “more practical or pragmatic”. This was attempted 20 years ago by Engineering Council, but it was resented by the more elitist status orientated types and was defenestrated a decade ago. (see below)

    6327f5ffc44f10d92630abb618a30285-original-ieng-ec-slide-2.jpg

    Using actual performance of experienced engineers in the workplace, UK-SPEC competences cannot reliably divide, because most engineers are not “extreme theorists/strategists” or “practical with a limited theoretical grasp”. They are flexible and “overlapping in practice”.   


    Given that registration is voluntary only in very specific niche situations with employer support will someone seek a “second class” ticket, except as an early career milestone. The IIE and its predecessors gave their members a sense of pride. Someone like Jim probably passed the CEng threshold decades ago, but the academic rules in force were a blockage and only in the snobbish world of PEI influence, did it matter anyway.                    

  • 0
    James Walker:

    I experienced being looked down on by the Civils and Structures CEngs but always consoled myself with the knowledge that whilst I needed them to provide the boxes it was my team that made the boxes work for the people to use. 


    To be honest James, I've been looked down on by CEngs, IEngs, EngTechs, Business Managers, Office Administrators, Security Guards and cats. Certain human beings (and cats) will always reinforce their cliques by being condescending to other human beings. That's life, that's also their problem because if we don't work as teams we fail.


    All individual engineers can do is keep the moral high ground by not joining in. 


    Cheers,


    Andy


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Andy

    You are, of course right in what you say. I hope that I always tried to respect others for their work and the sometimes difficult positions they held.

    But when the organisation that is supposed protect and monitor our profession continues to undervalue what has become minority section and only promotes its position as a stepping stone to their ideals - that, in my eyes, is unacceptable.

    If it is not politically acceptable for equality in standing between CEng and IEng then do away with the terms completely and use another term - Professional Engineer or similar and have a proscribed procedure that is understood by all.

    When seeking a career appointment your CV will show who and what you are and how much experience and expertise you have; to enable prospective employers to see what you are offering and what they should (might) be getting.

    Regards Jim W
  • 0
    Hi Roy,


    But what you're describing is not my understanding and experience of UKSpec? (It may be how some assessors see it, but that's another problem.) What's absolutely critical is the opening paragraph of the the CEng section, as Colin Sellers keeps trying to emphasise at the Registration and Standards Conference:  "Successful application of the knowledge to deliver innovative products and services and/or take technical responsibility for complex engineering systems". It shouldn't and must not matter how you got there, PhD or GCSE maths, skilled artisan or ten left thumbs, if you are currently demonstrably competent to sign off the technical argument for (say) a new nuclear power station you should be capable of achieving CEng. If you're a competent project manager who supervised the implementation of that power station, but would not feel comfortable (or be considered appropriate) to stand up in court following a major incident and defend why you signed off the technical argument then IEng is probably more appropriate. In the end when you work through UKSpec it's pretty much as simple as that. In my mind CEng is just about whether you are competent and happy to be held publicly and personally accountable for signing off the use of high risk technology (WITHOUT of course saying "well my staff told me it was ok"!).


    Ok, there's lots of challenges in how we (as a society) decide who we are happy to have finally signing off our power stations, railways, weapons systems etc, which is where these tweaks come in. (You can see how the argument goes that someone signing off serious installations should be well qualified, but we know in practice it's more complicated than that.) But the odd thing is that generally in practice the horse comes before the cart, Fred Bloggs Innovative Nuclear Power Solutions decides to appoint Chris Doe as their chief engineer, and because of that Chris Doe's CEng application flies through (again irrespective of their background). It's not perhaps the way it's supposed to work, it could be argued that we should be identifying Chris as competent to be CEng so that FBINPS know it's ok to appoint them. But since it's well nigh impossible for us to do that, based on a few pages of details and a 45 minute interview, it tends to happen the other way around. 



    Final general thought (not about Roy's post) - if individual engineers want status I suggest they go for FIET! That IS about status, whereas IEng and CEng (and actually EngTech) are about responsibility and accountability.


    Cheers,


    Andy
  • 0
    James Walker:

    But when the organisation that is supposed protect and monitor our profession continues to undervalue what has become minority section and only promotes its position as a stepping stone to their ideals - that, in my eyes, is unacceptable.

     




    Hi Jim,

    As people are probably bored of me writing at great length elsewhere: to be honest I think the PEIs would be pushing against a brick wall if they did try to promote IEng more. Industry values its "IEng" staff but sees no need for them to be registered by a third party. Whereas as I've just written, they need to identify their CEngs because they're the ones they're hoping will keep the directors out of jail when the system goes wrong - "What precautions did we take? We got a CEng to sign it off." Crack that problem for IEng and you've solved the whole issue.


    (So for all of this talk about "status", ok it's at a different scale but CEngs are wanted for the same reasons that Part P electricians and GasSafe fitters are wanted! Whenever we get too pleased with ourselves we need to remember that.)


    But again as I've written at length elsewhere, I think industry is wrong: I passionately believe that employers should be asking for IEng (and EngTech), just as I passionately believe that the whole of industry should be asking for professional registration - remember when we talk about "minorities" it's only a tiny minority of engineers who are professionally registered at all. But there you go, most things I believe are not believed by the vast majority of human society - I'm very used to it!


    Cheers,


    Andy


  • 0
    The IET is the largest institution affiliated to Engineering Council, so it has some influence but certainly not control. It hasn’t for many years registered the largest number of Chartered Engineers. The institution that has held that honour has always emphasised the importance of first and foremost “meeting the academic requirement” as a prerequisite to judging “competence”.


     Another major institution hardly ever registers any IEng and if they do it is a “consolation prize” for a “failed” CEng. Other institutions treat the category as an “associate” or “supervisory technician”.  

    Therefore, whatever policy the IET applies in its interpretation of UK-SPEC is a minority one. The standard pathway to becoming a Chartered Engineer is to gain an accredited degree, followed by accredited training and professional supervision. “Mopping up” those competent professionals who for whatever reason didn’t get on to this “conveyor belt”, became something of an IET speciality. This has had some influence on other institutions, where the potential for competition exists.  

    As a company manager and later as an employee of The IET, I always held to the principle that all registrants were entitled to equal respect. Like a parent of three siblings, it is the responsibility of leadership to nurture the talents of each. 


    Unfortunately, Engineering Council has been run by Chartered Engineers for Chartered Engineers, with the other types of registrant treated patronisingly as “junior” or "cloth cap" associate members.     The illustration I included in my last post was an attempt (under IIE influence) to change that culture. This was defenestrated by the board of Engineering Council and you will have to search very hard for evidence of the “different but equally valuable” message, since it was purged. 


    A “progressive philosophy” was described instead, but in practice this just downgraded experienced IEng and led to a few developing young engineers taking IEng as a “stepping stone”. The only other “growth” area for IEng, comes from the actions of a major public sector employer with close links to Engineering Council.  

      
    UK-SPEC represents some guidance for professional institutions to help them classify three categories of practitioner. Engineering Council licenses, audits and to a modest extent moderates the institutions.

    I don’t particularly mind a focus on CEng, which as Andy describes is probably all “the market” wants or expects. I don’t go to a premium marque car dealership expecting to acquire an inexpensive runabout.  

    The “IEng problem” isn’t about improving the interpretation of UK-SPEC to place experienced professionals into two categories. Naturally, the IET tries to achieve this in a fair and rational manner, but it is impossible to divide that which so substantially overlaps, accurately and reliably across the broad range that is engineering. 

    Exams and academic qualifications are (as Andy also said) a relatively poor proxy for real world professional performance. However, they seem “valid” and “fair” to most people. Most of the world uses academic qualifications and/or exams as the primary measure and that isn’t going to change.

    It seems that we will remain “stuck in a rut” of having three classifications, two of which attract very limited participation by experienced professionals, but are useful for academic purposes to benchmark qualifications and training programmes.

    I’m disappointed that the IET and Engineering Council haven’t taken on board my suggestions for reform, but I understand why. Even if there wasn’t a single Eng Tech or IEng registrant, they would still revert to the international academic classification of “Engineer”, “Technologist” and “Technician”.

    I was enticed in, as were others, many years ago thinking that I was an “Engineer”. If Engineering Council can only effectively serve the premium category of Chartered Engineer, then I’m happy to support high standards in that regard.  I would also want to support high standards, professionalism and mutual support for Technicians and Technician Engineers, who perhaps need governance of their own?  Perhaps the IET should press for such a body?  Would older IEng have been better off as "Chartered Engineering Technologists" rather than "part-qualifed engineers"? 

    PS sorry for the long response, the greens were flooded this morning by overnight rain. ?    
     

  • 0
    Andy Millar:

    ... to be honest I think the PEIs would be pushing against a brick wall if they did try to promote IEng more. Industry values its "IEng" staff but sees no need for them to be registered by a third party. 




    Very true. I also think that it is wrong to say that the IET undervalues IEng. There are certain people who undervalue IEng and they tend to be CEng though from my experience of meeting IEng and CEng they tend to be a minority, but unfortunately seem to be rather vocal. (I have a suspicion that they tend to be those who struggled to get CEng and therefore want to make out CEng is an elite, but I will leave it to the psychologists to work on that thought).

    The biggest difficulty we have is altering preconceptions/prejudices. The difficulty of eliminating racial prejudice (or even sex discrimination) is a demonstration of this, and shows that it can take years to make a difference.

    The views that are seen to be held by the IET are the views held by the members who are actively participating in the running of the IET. Perhaps part of the answer is that those of us who value all categories of registration (and I am not just limiting it to CEng and IEng here) should take a more active part in the running of the Institution. Unfortunately I am as guilty as anyone else in feeling I am too busy elsewhere to spare the time....

    Alasdair

    Late edit:

    Just read Roy's post. Well thought out and cogent as usual - the suggestion for a separate body for IEng and EngTech is thought provoking. Perhaps the IET should set up such an internal body to show the need in the wider engineering community.


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi guys

    I don’t know why but I need my half- penny worth on the last couple of posts. Gas Fitters have to be Safe registered - this is a legal issue - you’re not supposed to work on gas installations without it. Part P electricians who are registered are covered for domestic installations only - Part P  is a section of the Building Regulations and has no real legal standing as such. It has been made a commercial thing by various organisations. Various bodies wanted more but the powers that be wouldn’t play.

    CEngs in the Civils and Structures have legislative standing many others don’t - irrespective of this employers need Professional Indemnity Insurance - just in case and IEngs can also be covered.

    On a lighter note, taking one of Roy’s comments - “last week I couldn’t spell Engineer but now I are one”?

    Regards Jim W
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Andy

    I’m sorry but if your Nuclear PS went pear shaped and following what would be the obligatory enquiry, you are deemed accountable then your registration status won’t mean a thing. It might get mentioned in your introduction but that would be about it. You would be praying that your employer is up to date with his PI premiums; I would suggest.

    Regards Jim W

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines