Thanks for that Timothy.  I will,  of course,  read it fully myself very soon,  but in the meantime, your information does provide some reassurance. 


It's also occurred to me that,  even for an engineer in a matrix organisation who is not a budget holder,  or responsible for programme,  you are not necessarily restricted to the management of your own costs and timescales/ deadlines. I am pretty certain that any engineer who is providing technical leadership,  or even acting as a lone resource,  will still be providing information to allow the build- up of cost and programme,  but even more significantly,  will be flagging up to budget holders and planners any engineering issues or options that may/ will impact on budget and/or programme (which could be negative or positive,  e.g. overspend or savings,  delay or acceleration), and also identifying and managing engineering solutions that may avoid overspend or delay,  or achieve savings or improved timescales,  and this may include knock on impact to other disciplines.  As far as I'm concerned,  that constitutes managing budget and programme.  


In all likelihood this will be reflected in a 'consulted' mark in a RACI - if I were interviewing such a candidate and they presented me a RACI showing them as consulted,  I would probe a little to find out in what way they're consulted,  with examples,  ask about outcomes and identify whether such consultation only takes place when requested or whether they volunteer it.  If the answers stack up,  I'd be happy to accept the RACI as evidence of managing budget and programme. 


So,  as a suggestion,  maybe it's worth PRAs suggesting the inclusion of a RACI (or two) either in their application or in their presentation,  especially for candidates in this situation.

Thanks for that Timothy.  I will,  of course,  read it fully myself very soon,  but in the meantime, your information does provide some reassurance. 


It's also occurred to me that,  even for an engineer in a matrix organisation who is not a budget holder,  or responsible for programme,  you are not necessarily restricted to the management of your own costs and timescales/ deadlines. I am pretty certain that any engineer who is providing technical leadership,  or even acting as a lone resource,  will still be providing information to allow the build- up of cost and programme,  but even more significantly,  will be flagging up to budget holders and planners any engineering issues or options that may/ will impact on budget and/or programme (which could be negative or positive,  e.g. overspend or savings,  delay or acceleration), and also identifying and managing engineering solutions that may avoid overspend or delay,  or achieve savings or improved timescales,  and this may include knock on impact to other disciplines.  As far as I'm concerned,  that constitutes managing budget and programme.  


In all likelihood this will be reflected in a 'consulted' mark in a RACI - if I were interviewing such a candidate and they presented me a RACI showing them as consulted,  I would probe a little to find out in what way they're consulted,  with examples,  ask about outcomes and identify whether such consultation only takes place when requested or whether they volunteer it.  If the answers stack up,  I'd be happy to accept the RACI as evidence of managing budget and programme. 


So,  as a suggestion,  maybe it's worth PRAs suggesting the inclusion of a RACI (or two) either in their application or in their presentation,  especially for candidates in this situation.