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

Having addressed academic accreditation, I would like to also address training scheme accreditation (or “approval”).

The numbers of people becoming registered Engineers without some academic or vocational qualifications are very small. So, the first hurdle is an academic one. Traditionally for a Chartered Engineer this would involve attending university as full-time undergraduate student.

An Apprenticeship combining further/higher education and work-based training concurrently, is more intensive and in my opinion more effective, but was traditionally considered as appropriate only for the “lower social orders” not “higher status” Chartered professionals. How long has it taken for an apprenticeship to be mentioned as a possible pathway to CEng? How much kicking, screaming and gnashing of teeth, has this caused among some traditionlists?

A significant part of the efforts of some professional institutions (especially the “majors”) involves accrediting (or “approving”) employer’s training programmes, again traditionally for most, Graduate Initial Professional Development Schemes (IPD) for CEng. Arguably this has been the main mechanism for engagement between institutions and graduate employers.

I accept that the focus has been mainly on larger employers, including major blue chips with traditions of graduate recruitment. “Milk rounds” and “Assessment Centres” for example. This obviously means that a lot of younger engineers don’t pass through this structured route, but a high proportion of early career registrants (25-27) probably do.

Jim raised the issue of a graduate applying for IEng after 6 years. This suggests the lack of a structured training programme. From an employer’s perspective, I would want to regulate which employees gain CEng (or perhaps IEng) and when, to meet the needs of my business, including commercial and internal HR issues. I should note that the individual employee’s motivation for seeking CEng is often to improve their CV in preparation for moving on. Many recently registered IEng, stem from incentives to register by a large public sector employer with close links to Engineering Council (not a bad thing).


As I said in my earlier post, the minutiae of interpreting the competences only really becomes important to those who have not benefitted from structured preparation. The solution therefore lies, not in trying to differentiate between experienced professionals using “competence descriptors” at whatever time they suddenly decide that they want to become registered (typically late 30s) but in providing structure, guidance and support from the start of a career.

To briefly pick up on Andy’s point, conflating management and leadership with technical ability, completely undermines the credibility of separating experienced engineers into CEng & IEng using the competence descriptors. I have always argued that the C competences should be the same for both categories. Unfortunately, management and leadership is also conflated with status, so if a CEng is “higher” than an IEng, they have to hold higher rank. The most appropriate use of CEng is arguably to signify specialist professional judgement and expertise.

There is nothing wrong in Engineers with an aptitude for leadership, pursuing management careers and many do. In fact, its quite common for ambitious types to quickly move on from Engineering work towards more strategic leadership or other roles, still informed by their engineering understanding.
I could offer numerous examples of those who progressed to strategic leadership having followed an Eng Tech and or IEng “type” pathway, but if you don’t pass CEng then you’re not part of the club.

PS My excuse is that I’m not allowed to go to a Football Match today and played Golf yesterday – what's yours? ?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

Having addressed academic accreditation, I would like to also address training scheme accreditation (or “approval”).

The numbers of people becoming registered Engineers without some academic or vocational qualifications are very small. So, the first hurdle is an academic one. Traditionally for a Chartered Engineer this would involve attending university as full-time undergraduate student.

An Apprenticeship combining further/higher education and work-based training concurrently, is more intensive and in my opinion more effective, but was traditionally considered as appropriate only for the “lower social orders” not “higher status” Chartered professionals. How long has it taken for an apprenticeship to be mentioned as a possible pathway to CEng? How much kicking, screaming and gnashing of teeth, has this caused among some traditionlists?

A significant part of the efforts of some professional institutions (especially the “majors”) involves accrediting (or “approving”) employer’s training programmes, again traditionally for most, Graduate Initial Professional Development Schemes (IPD) for CEng. Arguably this has been the main mechanism for engagement between institutions and graduate employers.

I accept that the focus has been mainly on larger employers, including major blue chips with traditions of graduate recruitment. “Milk rounds” and “Assessment Centres” for example. This obviously means that a lot of younger engineers don’t pass through this structured route, but a high proportion of early career registrants (25-27) probably do.

Jim raised the issue of a graduate applying for IEng after 6 years. This suggests the lack of a structured training programme. From an employer’s perspective, I would want to regulate which employees gain CEng (or perhaps IEng) and when, to meet the needs of my business, including commercial and internal HR issues. I should note that the individual employee’s motivation for seeking CEng is often to improve their CV in preparation for moving on. Many recently registered IEng, stem from incentives to register by a large public sector employer with close links to Engineering Council (not a bad thing).


As I said in my earlier post, the minutiae of interpreting the competences only really becomes important to those who have not benefitted from structured preparation. The solution therefore lies, not in trying to differentiate between experienced professionals using “competence descriptors” at whatever time they suddenly decide that they want to become registered (typically late 30s) but in providing structure, guidance and support from the start of a career.

To briefly pick up on Andy’s point, conflating management and leadership with technical ability, completely undermines the credibility of separating experienced engineers into CEng & IEng using the competence descriptors. I have always argued that the C competences should be the same for both categories. Unfortunately, management and leadership is also conflated with status, so if a CEng is “higher” than an IEng, they have to hold higher rank. The most appropriate use of CEng is arguably to signify specialist professional judgement and expertise.

There is nothing wrong in Engineers with an aptitude for leadership, pursuing management careers and many do. In fact, its quite common for ambitious types to quickly move on from Engineering work towards more strategic leadership or other roles, still informed by their engineering understanding.
I could offer numerous examples of those who progressed to strategic leadership having followed an Eng Tech and or IEng “type” pathway, but if you don’t pass CEng then you’re not part of the club.

PS My excuse is that I’m not allowed to go to a Football Match today and played Golf yesterday – what's yours? ?
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