This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

UKSpec 4th Edition

Peter Miller over 4 years ago

The latest edition of UKSpec has been published. Downgrading of IEng competencies as promised.

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago
Some excellent debate and welcome back to this subject Roy Pemberton.

I’m glad I didn’t post this earlier having written it without reading the flurry of contributions. Some cynics will say that the debate involves only a few people, but the same could be said about governance!

I liked you latest post Peter, it shows that you are marshalling a strong evidence-based argument, behind your usual pithy short posts. The current state of my understanding is that a “degree apprenticeship end point assessment” falls somewhat short of IEng registration, but not far, so your basic point is valid. The CEng standard is squarely aimed at mid-20s graduates. See my later comments about leadership.

My initial reaction was that the new revision is quite clearly presented.

For disclosure, I made an individual submission as part of the consultation. I have no idea about whether that had any influence or not. Nevertheless, I felt a duty having been close to the issue for over a decade and involved for much longer, to offer a critique and some constructive suggestions.

I’m sure that others who contributed from a different perspective, also did so in good faith. What else is Engineering Council supposed to do, except consult stakeholders and update the standard? If it continues to fulfil its primary role as “the Chartered Engineer’s Council” without excessive cost or offending powerful stakeholders, then there will be little appetite for change.

Furthermore, the international consensus (of academics in the International Engineering Alliance) offers three divisions of, Engineer, Technologist and Technician.

I haven’t conducted a systematic study, but there seems a limited appetite in most jurisdictions for recognising a “slightly less qualified type of engineer” designated “Technologist”. Huge numbers of excellent technical professionals are employed to carry out responsible technical work, but for most of them public recognition via some system of registration seems unnecessary, or in a UK context unattractive/poor value.

My understanding is that UK-SPEC was originally developed to describe three types of “different but equally valuable” professional. At the time these were intended to have become, Engineering Technician, Chartered Engineering Technologist (IEng) and Chartered Engineer. However, IEng never got its charter, although other professions offer chartered recognition for no more.
It lost any clarity of purpose, distinctive attributes and value, which it had once enjoyed in the 1980s. By 2007 new IEng registrations were pitifully low.


It was therefore decided by the executive board of Engineering Council that a “progressive policy” should be adopted. Subsequent tweaks, have embedded the principle that CEng supersedes and subsumes the other categories. Applying this principle means that UK-SPEC is not a set of competence standards, but an academic or status-based hierarchy. Some broad generic and indicative “competencies” are used. But to make the hierarchy work from the top down, the characterisations used for each category are progressively more restricted. Peter (I think) has described this as “watering down”.

In practice the competence descriptors are used in two ways, for early and mid-career practitioners.
For a recent graduate working towards CEng (a few may seek IEng) they offer a template for training and employer monitored experience. Once they have experience across the range and sufficient responsibility (typically around 4-5 years) they usually succeed in gaining CEng. Timing might vary, especially if the employer prefers registration to be contingent on a grade or rank. However, in doing so the employer is inflating the standard a little. There is no reason why a newly qualified CEng has to have leadership seniority, they just need some leadership skills when required.                                                                                                             This is the traditional primary pathway to CEng. More recently with a modest revival of apprenticeships (long overdue and still a long way to go in my view) there are some pathways, to IEng in particular, combining part-time undergraduate study with work experience. There are also traditional graduate schemes for CEng being re-badged to gain government apprenticeship funding i.e. a “post-graduate apprenticeship”.

For an experienced professional coming late to registration, typically because having gained in seniority, CEng recognition comes onto their radar or seems potentially achievable. Some just never bothered despite having long ago met the requirements. For the few IEng, it is more likely that there has been a transition from a “more practical” role to “managerial”. In old fashioned terms “blue -collar to white collar”. Some just want to join a professional community and “put something back”.

Experienced professionals are generally less likely to hold fully accredited qualifications and this may have been a barrier to some of them in the past. For them, the minutiae of the competencies, interpretation by the IET of their achievements and especially whether or not underpinning knowledge can be inferred, or if additional knowledge assessment is necessary, becomes very important.

Based on my experience of this over the last decade or so, there are too many uncertainties, iniquities and injustices for my liking. Very many excellent engineers have found a straightforward pathway to CEng. Including through collaborations with some major employers (which I had a leading role in at one time). Unfortunately, some have also suffered a bitter experience.

Using the competence descriptors to divide between IEng and CEng on the basis of work achievement is a very inaccurate science. The range of technical professionals with significant responsibility is vast, with considerable overlap, yet they have to be placed into two categories. Furthermore, one of those categories is regrettably seen in many quarters as a “failed” or “second-class” Engineer. An attitude which some powerful/influential people and organisations have no intent of changing!


For early career Engineers, UK-SPEC may be fairly inconsequential, since their pathway is set out via accredited academic qualifications and accredited employer’s training schemes. Apprenticeships may also perhaps be beginning to return from the “poor relation” and “low status” place, that academic and social snobbery left them in. The problem isn’t unique to Engineering, but for a profession with such a strong historical tradition, it’s a disgrace that this was allowed to happen and Engineering Council must bear some culpability.

For mid-career Engineers it remains to be seen whether the latest revision will smooth their experience, increase clarity and remove tripping points. This will be determined by how it is implemented.


I am not optimistic because of “The IEng Problem”. I won’t pursue that here but it has been extensively and almost continuously debated in the forums over many years. Failing to address that problem, which requires an independent of Engineering Council review of the whole system, is a missed opportunity in my view.

Whatever happened to the Uff Report? Produced, by a distinguished Barrister who gained CEng in his mid-twenties before transitioning into a second career. I don’t think that it would have resulted in anything more than tinkering anyway?

As I said earlier, for most people on a CEng pathway with an accredited degree under their belt and a supportive employer, UK-SPEC is a pretty minor issue, similar in purpose to a course prospectus offering some structure to your learning ahead of the “final exam”.

As it stands those who want to develop the profession can only work with the tools that they are given, so they have to make the best of UK-SPEC. It works reasonably well as a terminal standard for the CEng qualification, rather less well for IEng and only adds a little by way of commitment to professionalism to good Technician training. Technician being the only category where you are likely to find an actual “competence based” qualification (eg NVQ) rather than an academic one.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago
Some excellent debate and welcome back to this subject Roy Pemberton.

I’m glad I didn’t post this earlier having written it without reading the flurry of contributions. Some cynics will say that the debate involves only a few people, but the same could be said about governance!

I liked you latest post Peter, it shows that you are marshalling a strong evidence-based argument, behind your usual pithy short posts. The current state of my understanding is that a “degree apprenticeship end point assessment” falls somewhat short of IEng registration, but not far, so your basic point is valid. The CEng standard is squarely aimed at mid-20s graduates. See my later comments about leadership.

My initial reaction was that the new revision is quite clearly presented.

For disclosure, I made an individual submission as part of the consultation. I have no idea about whether that had any influence or not. Nevertheless, I felt a duty having been close to the issue for over a decade and involved for much longer, to offer a critique and some constructive suggestions.

I’m sure that others who contributed from a different perspective, also did so in good faith. What else is Engineering Council supposed to do, except consult stakeholders and update the standard? If it continues to fulfil its primary role as “the Chartered Engineer’s Council” without excessive cost or offending powerful stakeholders, then there will be little appetite for change.

Furthermore, the international consensus (of academics in the International Engineering Alliance) offers three divisions of, Engineer, Technologist and Technician.

I haven’t conducted a systematic study, but there seems a limited appetite in most jurisdictions for recognising a “slightly less qualified type of engineer” designated “Technologist”. Huge numbers of excellent technical professionals are employed to carry out responsible technical work, but for most of them public recognition via some system of registration seems unnecessary, or in a UK context unattractive/poor value.

My understanding is that UK-SPEC was originally developed to describe three types of “different but equally valuable” professional. At the time these were intended to have become, Engineering Technician, Chartered Engineering Technologist (IEng) and Chartered Engineer. However, IEng never got its charter, although other professions offer chartered recognition for no more.
It lost any clarity of purpose, distinctive attributes and value, which it had once enjoyed in the 1980s. By 2007 new IEng registrations were pitifully low.


It was therefore decided by the executive board of Engineering Council that a “progressive policy” should be adopted. Subsequent tweaks, have embedded the principle that CEng supersedes and subsumes the other categories. Applying this principle means that UK-SPEC is not a set of competence standards, but an academic or status-based hierarchy. Some broad generic and indicative “competencies” are used. But to make the hierarchy work from the top down, the characterisations used for each category are progressively more restricted. Peter (I think) has described this as “watering down”.

In practice the competence descriptors are used in two ways, for early and mid-career practitioners.
For a recent graduate working towards CEng (a few may seek IEng) they offer a template for training and employer monitored experience. Once they have experience across the range and sufficient responsibility (typically around 4-5 years) they usually succeed in gaining CEng. Timing might vary, especially if the employer prefers registration to be contingent on a grade or rank. However, in doing so the employer is inflating the standard a little. There is no reason why a newly qualified CEng has to have leadership seniority, they just need some leadership skills when required.                                                                                                             This is the traditional primary pathway to CEng. More recently with a modest revival of apprenticeships (long overdue and still a long way to go in my view) there are some pathways, to IEng in particular, combining part-time undergraduate study with work experience. There are also traditional graduate schemes for CEng being re-badged to gain government apprenticeship funding i.e. a “post-graduate apprenticeship”.

For an experienced professional coming late to registration, typically because having gained in seniority, CEng recognition comes onto their radar or seems potentially achievable. Some just never bothered despite having long ago met the requirements. For the few IEng, it is more likely that there has been a transition from a “more practical” role to “managerial”. In old fashioned terms “blue -collar to white collar”. Some just want to join a professional community and “put something back”.

Experienced professionals are generally less likely to hold fully accredited qualifications and this may have been a barrier to some of them in the past. For them, the minutiae of the competencies, interpretation by the IET of their achievements and especially whether or not underpinning knowledge can be inferred, or if additional knowledge assessment is necessary, becomes very important.

Based on my experience of this over the last decade or so, there are too many uncertainties, iniquities and injustices for my liking. Very many excellent engineers have found a straightforward pathway to CEng. Including through collaborations with some major employers (which I had a leading role in at one time). Unfortunately, some have also suffered a bitter experience.

Using the competence descriptors to divide between IEng and CEng on the basis of work achievement is a very inaccurate science. The range of technical professionals with significant responsibility is vast, with considerable overlap, yet they have to be placed into two categories. Furthermore, one of those categories is regrettably seen in many quarters as a “failed” or “second-class” Engineer. An attitude which some powerful/influential people and organisations have no intent of changing!


For early career Engineers, UK-SPEC may be fairly inconsequential, since their pathway is set out via accredited academic qualifications and accredited employer’s training schemes. Apprenticeships may also perhaps be beginning to return from the “poor relation” and “low status” place, that academic and social snobbery left them in. The problem isn’t unique to Engineering, but for a profession with such a strong historical tradition, it’s a disgrace that this was allowed to happen and Engineering Council must bear some culpability.

For mid-career Engineers it remains to be seen whether the latest revision will smooth their experience, increase clarity and remove tripping points. This will be determined by how it is implemented.


I am not optimistic because of “The IEng Problem”. I won’t pursue that here but it has been extensively and almost continuously debated in the forums over many years. Failing to address that problem, which requires an independent of Engineering Council review of the whole system, is a missed opportunity in my view.

Whatever happened to the Uff Report? Produced, by a distinguished Barrister who gained CEng in his mid-twenties before transitioning into a second career. I don’t think that it would have resulted in anything more than tinkering anyway?

As I said earlier, for most people on a CEng pathway with an accredited degree under their belt and a supportive employer, UK-SPEC is a pretty minor issue, similar in purpose to a course prospectus offering some structure to your learning ahead of the “final exam”.

As it stands those who want to develop the profession can only work with the tools that they are given, so they have to make the best of UK-SPEC. It works reasonably well as a terminal standard for the CEng qualification, rather less well for IEng and only adds a little by way of commitment to professionalism to good Technician training. Technician being the only category where you are likely to find an actual “competence based” qualification (eg NVQ) rather than an academic one.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

UKSpec 4th Edition

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines