Thanks for welcoming me 'back' Roy (I was never really away,  but had determined not to post so much as the many hours spent doing so were eating seriously into my life/work balance. 

So, with that in mind,  I'll try to be as brief as possible - but will look forward to discussing in more depth when we next meet (Covid permitting).


As usual,  I disagree with some,  agree with much more of your meticulously evidenced contribution,  and have a generally more upbeat flavour.  One key area is that I strongly support Andy in saying that it's not sufficient to have an accredited degree and a supportive employer,  my PRI experience is that most candidates who are rejected do so because of this assumption and their 'supportive' employer usually shares the responsibility for that because of their failure to understand the requirement for either innovation or management of complexity, plus personal responsibility for technical decisions and outcomes.


Ironically,  these are the very people who wield make excellent I.Eng candidates!


In response to Andy's response to your post,  two key points provoke my reaction.  I haven't yet looked at 4th edition in the same detail that you have,  Andy,  and clearly need to do so,  but I suspect that,  as ever,  the devil's in the detail,  it will be the descriptors that resolve issues.  I suspect the and/ or statements need clarification in the descriptors. Without a doubt,  the topic of innovation has been a tough nugget in 3rd edition with modern working practices often making this difficult, but even the 3rd edition offered the alternative of management of complexity,  a point that,  if I'm being honest,  has even been missed by some fellow interviewers. My hope is that these and/ or statements that may,  at first,  appear as a relaxation are really and attempt to make these alternatives clearer. Let's hope they don't do the opposite!


It does seem an odd contradiction to acknowledge the effect of matrix manageme yet increase the requirement for direct management,  but I'm hoping that this really means direct technical management.  Once again,  it's down to the descriptors.  There's a much longer discussion to be had on this,  but,  for instance,  it's the subtle distinction between managing the technical approach and outcome in an area of operation that holds a budget of xxx, and the technical performance (and professional development) of staff,  rather than actually managing that budget or holding line management responsibility for the staff. 


I have a strong feeling that,  when  this detailed interpretation becomes available,  even you,  Andy,  will meet the requirements! ?

Thanks for welcoming me 'back' Roy (I was never really away,  but had determined not to post so much as the many hours spent doing so were eating seriously into my life/work balance. 

So, with that in mind,  I'll try to be as brief as possible - but will look forward to discussing in more depth when we next meet (Covid permitting).


As usual,  I disagree with some,  agree with much more of your meticulously evidenced contribution,  and have a generally more upbeat flavour.  One key area is that I strongly support Andy in saying that it's not sufficient to have an accredited degree and a supportive employer,  my PRI experience is that most candidates who are rejected do so because of this assumption and their 'supportive' employer usually shares the responsibility for that because of their failure to understand the requirement for either innovation or management of complexity, plus personal responsibility for technical decisions and outcomes.


Ironically,  these are the very people who wield make excellent I.Eng candidates!


In response to Andy's response to your post,  two key points provoke my reaction.  I haven't yet looked at 4th edition in the same detail that you have,  Andy,  and clearly need to do so,  but I suspect that,  as ever,  the devil's in the detail,  it will be the descriptors that resolve issues.  I suspect the and/ or statements need clarification in the descriptors. Without a doubt,  the topic of innovation has been a tough nugget in 3rd edition with modern working practices often making this difficult, but even the 3rd edition offered the alternative of management of complexity,  a point that,  if I'm being honest,  has even been missed by some fellow interviewers. My hope is that these and/ or statements that may,  at first,  appear as a relaxation are really and attempt to make these alternatives clearer. Let's hope they don't do the opposite!


It does seem an odd contradiction to acknowledge the effect of matrix manageme yet increase the requirement for direct management,  but I'm hoping that this really means direct technical management.  Once again,  it's down to the descriptors.  There's a much longer discussion to be had on this,  but,  for instance,  it's the subtle distinction between managing the technical approach and outcome in an area of operation that holds a budget of xxx, and the technical performance (and professional development) of staff,  rather than actually managing that budget or holding line management responsibility for the staff. 


I have a strong feeling that,  when  this detailed interpretation becomes available,  even you,  Andy,  will meet the requirements! ?