Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 78 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 14050 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

UKSpec 4th Edition

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

  • 0
    Roy Bowdler:

    Get well soon! Roy P Interesting Ethnographic Research Andy ?  


    Not so much research as 60 years of bafflement of the world around me ? It's interesting  (as many people have pointed out) that whereas the internet could have allowed a greater understanding of other people's opinions, in practice it feels as if it's done the opposite and allowed everyone with each particular opinion to find each other and reinforce it. So I think it is useful for all of us to keep pointing out that there are other views (whether emotional or evidence based, and whether valid or based on misunderstandings or lack of information - we all have those!) 


    Yes, hoping to see Roy P back soon. You might remember that at the last Registration and Standards conference I used the description "those of us who grow hair in the wrong places" to describe the current average demographic of the R&S community...I could have used "those of us who if we are not recovering from an operation are waiting for the next one"! (That said, after my last one I'm finally back up to running 4.5k now, hopefully 5k in a couple of weeks if I don't do anything silly again.)


    So bringing us back on track - in the end all of this does come down to a judgement on the part of the assessors and always will, I don't believe you could ever write a spec that precisely defines all engineering roles, so I still stick to my guns that the best way to improve the current situation is to get more practising senior engineers and engineering managers involved in the assessment process - if they haven't got time to volunteer then they are probably the people we want! And if the standards are wrong these people will then have the oomph to drive it - because they're the users, "customers", out there in the real world.


    Cheers,


    Andy


  • 0
    Get well soon! Roy P Interesting Ethnographic Research Andy ?
  • 0
    And a problem I see in this very useful discussion, following on from Roy P's post, is that it's only involving those in or very aware of the PEIs. And by "this discussion" I don't just mean this thread, it's the whole discussion about registration. In my presentation yesterday there was a really good question raised at about 10 minutes in: "you're talking about the Engineering Council and UK-SPEC, who are they, I've never heard of them before, and what is this spec about?" For actual engineers they don't know, or care about the minutiae, they've just found that they've hit a potential glass ceiling without getting registration, they just want to know what they need to do to get it. Yes of course there needs to be a continuing internal debate to ensure that UK-SPEC and (taking Roy B's point) the demonstration process for UK&U are a valid and reliable measure of whatever we're trying to measure. But there's a separate issue of checking with the outside world that we are making process of achieving registration to whatever standard is agreed clear and accessible to candidates.


    It's a delicate and complicated balance. The EC and PEIs do need to maintain a standard: taking it to ridiculous extremes there would be no long term benefit for anyone if they took a populist approach and instantly awarded CEng to everyone with a qualification with the word engineering in it. But equally they are there to deliver a service to the market, again there is no long - or short - term benefit to them deciding in isolation a set of completely random criteria and then defending them to the hilt. And both forces are clearly at play.


    My instinct is, but like everyone I'm going to have my own biases:

    1. The standards themselves are really not that far off a useful and defendable service to industry and the wider public.

    2. The routes to achieving the standards are still too opaque for many engineers and their managers.  

    3. There is not yet a good enough understanding of point 2 in the registration community, and much better engagement with the non-PEI world is needed.

    4. Off topic, but it keeps coming up in this thread: Yes there is a lot of arrogance and elitism in engineering, but it's not located in any one group: it could be simplified to the idea that every engineer thinks that the route they followed is the one true route and everyone who followed a different route is incompetent! That's human beings for you...

    (5. As we've all discussed to death over several years and it's for the other thread, the majority of people inside and outside the PEIs don't realise how valuable IEng and EngTEch potentially are!!!)


    Thanks,


    Andy
  • 0
    Roy B, 

    I agree,  wise words (as ever) in there.

    Just to be clear,  reference to a saga was most definitely not aimed at you,  rather at myself - I seem to regularly start with the intention of being brief but,  for the very reasons you give,  find it growing into another epic or saga.  As you say,  the complexity and also subtleties necessitate it. 

    My reason for wishing it might be otherwise is entirely about the time it eats up. Given that,  like Andy,  I'm still working,  albeit now only 4 days per week,  I'm constantly striving to optimise my work/ life balance.  It's why you didn't hear from me for so long because I knew that it inevitably becomes a matter of all or nothing.  This topic was too important for me to make it nothing though,  so it's become all. Once we've 'talked this one out' (which I'm feeling we might be very close to) you may well hear nothing from me again for a good while again, in fact this will need to happen immediately as I'm undergoing my second knee replacement op tomorrow.

    Hopefully,  when we eventually get out the other end of this current situation,  we'll get to catch up personally at an IET event
  • 0
    Roy P and Andy, good posts. Its important for others to understand that we share common aims and values, which reflect the collective policy of the IET. However, we should understand that there are IET members and other stakeholders with power and influence, who have differing aims and values.

    As for “turning into a Saga”, I won’t apologise for my longer than ideal posts. It’s my risk if readers switch off, but given the complexity of the issues and new contributors joining the discussion, I think that additional explanation is justified.

    My key point about UK-SPEC is that it isn’t the only point of reference, or even for many stakeholders the main one.

    As I hope I have made clear, teenage academic selection is the primary influence on the career paths of new entrants and those aged under 35. Obviously, Engineers and Technicians need to be selected for employment and/or study on the basis of aptitude and motivation, which are not fixed points, they evolve, as do opportunities.

    The diversity of engineering and technology. The necessity so often for teamwork and the opportunity for talent to flower in the workplace. Leads me to challenge the culture and methods of the Engineering Council family, which are themselves strongly influenced by an “establishment” of other organisations.

    When the Cleese, Barker, Corbett sketch no longer seems redolent. The true culture of engineering in the workplace, may be allowed to shine through. We may also even collectively have higher status, for the benefits we bring to society, not through attempts to aggrandise an elite.          

  • 0
    Roy B,


    I'll let you know!


    Regarding "why now?", imagine that you are working in an organisation where, following a reorganisation, a number of senior-ish positions are suddenly redefined as having the requirement "should (or must?) be Chartered or working towards Chartership". It will focus the mind of those who've never previously considered it! As I understand it that's pretty much what has happened. Given that it's a very large engineering employer it'll be interesting to see if their next step is to say the same for IEng, I honestly wouldn't like to guess.


    I tend to assume that the majority of engineers won't apply for professional registration unless they have to - which correlates with the fact that the vast majority are not professionally registered. I don't think this is a good thing (otherwise I wouldn't do the voluntary roles I do!) but pragmatically it is where we are.



    Roy P,


    Excellent post! I particularly liked "dispel any perception of elitism/ old boys club". UK-SPEC must be seen to be clearly relevant to real roles in engineering, and we must be clearly accepting people according to UKSPEC - not because we "like the look of them" or because they're engineering things the way we did 30-40 years ago.


    If we want to have an "old person's club" we can use Fellowship for that!! And there's a serious point in there, as I keep banging on about, CEng describes a role or collection of roles in an organisation, and these are vanishingly unlikely to be the most senior roles (except in a very small engineering consultancy) - those go to the strategic, finance and business development positions. So let's push FIET as the "gold standard", the recognition that people have made a serious contribution to the world of engineering (because that's what it's about), whether they are EngTech, IEng, or CEng, and leave this other debate as the technical issue it should be. Some jobs need PRINCE2, some jobs need 6 sigma black belt, some jobs need CEng. No elitism should hang on that.


    Cheers,


    Andy


  • 0
    Roy B,

    i agree,  that's the nub of the issue isn't it? It's central to what I've been on about all the way through,  that any flaw in the value proposition for registration is not about the actual tangible benefits - I've described those multiple times,  but,  in summary,  the confidence it offers people such as Andy and me to tick the competence/ fit for role box based on prior peer assessment or even make it a requirement for appointment to role,  and the knowledge by the engineer themselves that their acceptability for roles is enhanced - but about the perception of value and that is,  as you say,  a major failure by the profession to engage and to communicate an attractive proposition.  


    To repeat the theme that we've both raised endlessly,  to provide that engagement and communication there are some (to me clear) first steps:

    1. dispel any perception of elitism/ old boys club,  which first means ensuring that neither are actually in operation

    2. Adjust the mindset/ requirements definition for the Eng Council from what you describe ss the "Chartered Engineer's Council" to that of a true Engineering Council,  inclusive, representative and engaged with all levels of Engineer 

    3. Communication/ promotion of the value (including as a benchmark of personal attainment and a vehicle for professional development) of registration both to all stakeholders and through all stages of the engineering career lifecycle,  right back to the career selection stage at schools


    There is another issue which is the result of the perversity of human nature  - the more inclusive and accessible we make registered status,  the more will there be the tendency for many people to believe that there's only value in something if you've had to work hard for it. Of course,  the truth is that anybody who meets the requirements of registration at any level has worked hard for  it,  but that fact is not always self evident.  It's the mindset that perceives that anything short of a gold medalist is mediocre and mediocrity is to be avoided at all costs. 


    Having said that,  there is a dichotomy in there that emanates from factors outside of the profession.  On one hand,  it's essential to dispel the snobbery present in many people's minds within the profession (which I'm still fairly insistent is not prevalent among the vast majority of registered engineers and fellows in our own PEI, but am fairly certain is prevalent in others,  and for sure among some other PEIs), but, on the other hand,  it's almost essential that the snobbery is played on in that early career path selection stage (in schools) because the majority of teachers and parents perceive engineering as not being 'good enough' as a career for their darlings/protegés. 


    Oh dear,  I've  done it again,  my original planned brief response has turned into a saga! Also straying off topic.
  • 0
    Good luck Andy!
    I would be interested in your views about when each of them likely passed the threshold of either/and IEng/CEng. The answer may of course be “not yet”.

    It seems that they have already followed a “long-route” if they are “experienced and relatively senior”. If they previously had no aspiration towards registration, then that is a serious failure by the profession to engage.

    If they had the aspiration, but either didn’t believe they were eligible, or what they might be eligible for wasn’t worth the cost (time, money, risk to reputation etc) then that is a failure by the profession to develop and communicate an attractive proposition.

    I accept that pre UK-SPEC (as Roy P testified), lack of an accredited degree was a huge deterrent/barrier for CEng and it is still widely quoted as a concern by people becoming belatedly interested.    

  • 0
    Roy Bowdler:
    What the status quo demands is academic selection into silos at a relatively young age. So, if you wish to “progress” in engineering, then you better start young (say age 12-13), otherwise you may find the route to becoming a “fully-qualified” chartered professional a long and tricky one.

     


    Tomorrow I'm going to be holding a session with a group of experienced and relatively senior non-graduate engineers (ONC/D, HNC/D) who are working towards professional registration. I should also be getting the chance to follow them along their journeys over the next few months, it's going to be interesting, I'm looking forward to this. I will be describing the differences between IEng and CEng, but making it clear that it's up to them to decide which they aim at  dependent on their role, not on their education.


    But I will be emphasising that, because those who want Chartership will be working in "significant technical responsibility" roles rather than "innovation" roles, 4th edition should give them an advantage compared to 3rd.


    So in, say, six months to a year's time I might have a clearer opinion on whether their route was a long and tricky one...


    Cheers,


    Andy


  • 0
    Tim,

    Having said that we have no option but to welcome the revised UK-SPEC 4th edition and make the best of it. There is debate to be had here, because the registration process relies on volunteer judgement. There is another current thread “Value in IEng” which might overlap, but your points aren’t just about IEng. 

    There will always be differences of opinion about interpretation, but without open discussion, there is the smell of a “closed shop” or “stitch up”. Registration decisions can have a significant influence on a person’s career, reputation and sense of self-worth. So justice must, in my opinion, always be seen to be done.

    Medicine has been a popular comparison for Chartered Engineers over the years, because arguably it has the “highest status” of any profession. I haven’t personally come across such discussions amongst IEng or Technicians, although that doesn’t mean that some haven’t taken place.  I would suggest that few IEng would compare themselves with Doctors? The obvious comparison is CEng, or perhaps in the built environment domain, Surveyors or Builders, rather than Architects which might be a CEng preference?

    I don’t follow medical careers, but Nursing has required a degree for some years now, with talk of being “too posh to wash” as a result. I don’t think that they would welcome a comparison between their “level 6” qualification and Eng Tech at “level 3”.  I should also note the relative gender balance between nursing and engineering technicians. “Degree level” is IEng/CEng equivalent.

    Your comment

    “My view is that Technician and Engineer are distinct roles and therefore there is no need, indeed it is a mistake, to look at Eng Tech as being a step towards IEng or CEng (but note that this does not preclude this by any means). My issue is that, as far as I can see, there is no statement by the Eng Council as to why we have two professional standards, after all many professions manage with a single registration level.”

    I agree that “Engineer” and “Technician” are sufficient differentiation.

    However, if CEng assert that they are the “elite” of the profession, then something has to serve the mainstream, “non-elite” professional engineer. At present the mainstream is also served by CEng, although some IEng of overlapping capability are found, mostly within one major employer’s sphere of influence.  

       
    Some other countries have a “Technologist” and “Chartered Engineering Technologist” was under discussion for IEng twenty years ago. This would have genuinely created two “equal” types. However, would that not still have sown confusion and internecine argument?

    I can’t speak for Engineering Council, although I did for a time work closely with them, so I can speculate. I often criticise them, but only because it is where the buck stops as our “parliament”. Personal attacks on hard working staff and volunteers, would be unfair and wrong.  They have to try and broker an acceptable compromise involving many factors, with very influential stakeholders involved. Change is difficult!
    • IEng offers an opportunity for engineers of good standard, but not in a position to meet CEng requirements, to qualify and become members of the registered community. 

    • I don’t have the most recent figures, but I can state that in the 1980s there were 60 000+ IEng (compared to 200 000 CEng). As of a couple of years ago IEng was around 28 000 (CEng 181 000), with over 1000 new IEng each year.  These figures include overseas residents.

    • IEng was recognised in EU mutual recognition treaties and is part of the international “Sydney Accord” for “Technologist Degrees”. 

    • A change of title or abolition would have to be approved by Privy Council (I think?).

    • IEng has been linked to the outcome of a number of degree apprenticeship frameworks.

    I could go on, but would the status quo not just be an easier path?   

    If we see UK-SPEC as three “qualifications”, rather than three “personalities” it may help?

    An Engineer or Technician needs to pass a threshold to gain one of the qualifications.  Once qualified there is an ongoing membership obligation, to retain the right to use the professional title.
    This isn’t (in the UK at least) a legal or even formal demarcation into roles. Therefore, if an Eng Tech develops appropriate attributes they can lead design of the next space probe and likewise a CEng can “work on the tools”. 

    However, because the qualifications relate to an intellectual hierarchy (Bloom’s Taxonomy), one direction is seen in our world as “forwards” or “upwards”, the other “backwards” or “downwards”. 
    Also conflated with technical ability, is status in various forms. The “social cache” difference between CEng & IEng is often enormous, even if the practical performance of the two “types” often greatly overlaps in practice.  

    I proposed to Engineering Council that every new Engineer should become a “registered engineer”. The benchmark would be “bachelors level” and the competence descriptors similar to current IEng. Only registered engineers would be eligible to work towards CEng, over a minimum period of monitored practice (several years). The benchmark would be “masters level”. I suggest that this is the logical structure of a properly “progressive profession”.

    What the status quo demands is academic selection into silos at a relatively young age. So, if you wish to “progress” in engineering, then you better start young (say age 12-13), otherwise you may find the route to becoming a “fully-qualified” chartered professional a long and tricky one.

    It remains to be seen, if the current “fudge”, allows excellent recent degree apprentices who have followed an IEng accredited pathway, to progress easily and seamlessly to CEng, without a “baked-in” disadvantage. If they do suffer such disadvantage relative to age group peers, despite demonstrating often greater ability, then talk of “competence” and “progression” is misleading. The system will deservedly lack credibility and should sacrifice the right to public funding.             

Community Rules & Guidelines