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

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.

0 Former Community Member over 4 years ago

Andy

Perhaps an employer’s annual assessment could be used as a device to monitor overall competency in post. Continued Registration could only be retained if in receipt of a good report (no “could try harder” comments of course). With so many employers financing membership fees etc it is in their interest to maintain high levels for their business’ sake. Of course technical assessments should be by technically qualified line managers with perhaps an IET or EC pro-former to assist in the process.

Regards Jim W
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 4 years ago

James thanks for pointing it out; error corrected!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 4 years ago

When one considers that an MEng graduate can gain CEng at a young age, I wouldn't worry about it.

I've been IEng and CEng (and a PRA). It can be done although at the time it was deemed "Not right" by the academic snobs who ran the the then IEE.

Forget them. They're all probably in care homes or dead.

Go for it. If you need a PRA, give me a shout.

Dave.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 4 years ago

David

Thanks for your offer but at 73 there’s little to be gained going for CEng except to satisfy a career long frustration in that had I been four years older my qualifications would have got me CEng! But then I would have had to serve National Service so I shouldn’t really get upset.

I just find an organisation that is highly respected is still run by those who have little knowledge and/or respect for those of us who have served our industries to the highest standards.

Regards - still a Grumpy Old IEng
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Rhino60 over 4 years ago

All

I am one year into the first job of my career (1977 start) where I am 'off tools'.

Something I have observed, my role is varied, but based around intelligent client function (government department)

Most that I have contact with (projects wise) I would estimate are operating at I Eng day to day, a lot are actually C Eng.

My point is, as an ex-tools aspirant I Eng, the majority are not in 'leadership/ innovation' style functions, any more than I am?

In the real world, as contributors, I think there are an awful lot more people doing I Eng level jobs.

This does not seem to correlate: qualification/ function?

I think the EC etc need to look at what people are actually doing, this would strengthen the I Eng case as a valid stand alone level, not just a stepping stone.

Colin
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

Andy,

I would like to see a process of voluntary periodic review for all registrants explored. This would be recommended following a significant change in circumstances, like a career transition or additional major qualification. It would provide a short constructive narrative report. In effect be a “light touch” version of a registration assessment.

The intent of the review would not be punitive and it could not rescind anything that had been earned. It might however encourage a “progressive transfer” if appropriate.

If an employer or anyone else with a valid interest wishes to ask the question; “When was your last review and what were the recommendations” then they can do so.

Colin,

Your post simply observes the real world, not a theoretical divide or “false dichotomy”. To my knowledge, no serious research has ever been undertaken to compare the current practice and performance of similarly experienced professionals falling on either side of the divide.
Engineering Council themselves in the illustration I posted earlier (which was theirs) explicitly acknowledged, “overlap in mobility and employment”. This diagram illustrates typical work for those gaining “Technologist degrees” (IEng) with Engineering Degrees (CEng).

Under UK-SPEC (introduced around 2004). The IET developed an assessment process for evaluating the competence of experienced engineers, that more easily allowed for the registration of those without accredited (or near equivalent) degrees.

Prior to this the only option was to be aged over 35 and be judged to be working at equivalent level/standard by the institution. It was then necessary to produce a Technical Report (or “dissertation”) to demonstrate your knowledge. The report had to “demonstrate a grasp of mathematical and scientific fundamentals”. Maxwell’s Equations were used as an example for CEng.

Much of the debate involving IEng v CEng seems to be based on the “stereotypes” or “pen portraits” of what each is supposed to do. UK-SPEC offers generic competences to help in this division.
“Creativity and innovation” for example has been a totemic distinguishing CEng characteristic. However, it doesn’t literally mean what it says. It’s a code for either being more “intellectual” or better equipped to deal with situations where compliance with standards isn’t enough. The actual interpretation will vary depending on who you ask (individual or committee). For example, “innovative” practice in laying railway tracks, might differ from a space mission.

Professional Registration is a qualification. To retain the right to use the registered title, it is necessary to demonstrate ongoing commitment, by membership of a “supervising” professional body, which requires a subscription.

Anyone who met the standard in force at the time they gained it, may retain the “title”. The only ongoing “competency” requirement, is the general code of conduct obligation to act within your competence. A small number of people have been “struck off” for malpractice (including dishonesty) but it’s rare. “CPD” rules have been beefed up more recently and some people who lapsed their subscription (commitment) have had an unpleasant surprise, when seeking to undo their suspension from the register.

Most registered Engineers became so by means of a attaining a “benchmark” academic qualification and subsequent training/experience. Even in its current form the qualification(s) should primarily be aimed at Engineers and Technicians in their twenties who have completed a form of structured development.

Many institutions, still as they always have, treat the competences as a “light touch bolt on” to academic qualifications. Only the IET would (occasionally) insult an MEng graduate by suggesting that they were “doing IEng work”. This even extends to someone with a CEng accredited BEng degree, unless a “stepping stone” is being suggested, or a “consolation prize” is being offered for failure.

I would characterise much of The IET work over recent years as “mopping up” those who passed the threshold for registration some considerable time ago. There are a variety of reasons why people come belatedly. If they lack ideal qualifications, but have a strong track record, then a focus on competence can help them. Unfortunately, if their self-evaluation based on a reasonable comparison with others is that CEng is appropriate, then a suggestion of IEng can be somewhere between difficult and insulting. Some are also too modest.

Frankly, how the h*** does the average Engineer, second guess the interpretation of UK-SPEC by IET Committees & Assessors? Even PRAs have different opinions about the same evidence. ?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Alasdair Anderson over 4 years ago

Roy Bowdler:
... if their self-evaluation based on a reasonable comparison with others is that CEng is appropriate, then a suggestion of IEng can be somewhere between difficult and insulting. Some are also too modest.

Frankly, how the h*** does the average Engineer, second guess the interpretation of UK-SPEC by IET Committees & Assessors? Even PRAs have different opinions about the same evidence. ?

Roy,

You raise many perfectly valid comments. I gained CEng more than 25 years ago and yet even now, a large proportion of my work would be classed as "IEng" (with some not even reaching that level). However there is other work that I do that I can proudly point to and say "that is definitely CEng level!"

If a colleague looks at what I am doing as a comparison he/she could decide they are doing much of the same or similar work and therefore must be CEng, yet only actually be doing the bits that are IEng. This is one of the reasons I hate it when people come to me saying "I am working alongside others who are all CEng so I must also be CEng...."

I have certainly found that some Interviewers seem to have a different interpretation of UK Spec, as do some other PRAs, but I think that the majority I have come across are pretty much in line with my interpretation (or perhaps I should state it as I am pretty much in line with them as they are the majority).

Regarding the interpretation of UK Spec, whenever I am giving advice to a candidate I always (nowadays at least, having learned from experience) caveat my advice with the point that this is my opinion based on my interpretation of UK Spec and while this seems to coincide with a fair proportion of interviewers (based on previous candidates passed) there can be variations in interpretation. I therefore try to ensure that the candidate has a sensible understanding of the competence requirement so that if there is probing of the competence there is a chance he/she will understand what is being asked and why - I don't just assure them that what they have written should be ok without an understanding of why it should be ok.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Andy Millar over 4 years ago

James Walker:

Andy

Nice concept but how could that be managed, monitored?

Oh, absolutely - it would mean putting all registrants regularly back through assessment. And also it would need to be driven by those who could potentially "suffer" from the outcome. This is why I only mention this very occasionally, as I don't see it ever happening in practice!

But if it did happen it wouldn't half boost the credibility of registered engineers.

Cheers,

Andy
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 4 years ago

Andy

You've the nail on the head - those in their ivory towers are not interested and probably at greatest risk from the consequences. It will only happen if employers as a group (another mission impossible) were to demand it.

Regards Jim W
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Andy Millar over 4 years ago

Roy Bowdler:

Many institutions, still as they always have, treat the competences as a “light touch bolt on” to academic qualifications. Only the IET would (occasionally) insult an MEng graduate by suggesting that they were “doing IEng work”. This even extends to someone with a CEng accredited BEng degree...

Which is a completely unhelpful approach - we (employers, assessors, accident investigators etc etc) already know if someone has a degree of whatever description - because they have a nice certificate to say so! There's no value to anyone in a PEI awarding some additional letters (in return for an annual fee) just to recognise that. The value comes in the assessment that the engineer not only has that UK&U - from wherever they got it - but is also able to add on that the wider context of how to apply that UK&U in a useful way appropriate and proportionate to their role.

So it's more than, say, whether they are doing innovation - I can think of a case I came across years ago where a PhD engineer was doing fabulous innovative work, but the rest of the company had to run around them to get that work actually applicable to the clients' problems. They were certainly valuable to their company, but I would suggest were not eligible for either CEng or IEng - they did not meet, and had not interest in meeting, the broader aims of UKSPEC in considering their responsibility to their company and their clients (relating to costs, timescales etc), and the application of the work in their clients context.

I really like Alasdair's point that there's a test that you need to be able to show all the competences for the relevant standard whenever they arise, even if that isn't very often. And that's what makes all three registration levels useful, employers etc know they're not "just" getting an HNC / HND / BSc / BEng / MEng / PhD engineer.

Cheers,

Andy
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Value in IEng Registration

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines