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 14040 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
    Peter Miller:

    The meaning is clear that a chartered engineer has more competence than an incorporated engineer in both commercial and technical matters.




    See my discussion below on C competences. I agree. I don't like this wording. Back in the real world, CEng applicants will be judged on their higher technical leadership, but regarding line management, finance management etc they will be be judged like for like pretty much. Neither have to be line managers, or financial managers. But this doesn't mean IEngs aren't ever allowed to achieve higher management responsibility!!!  And very often they will..but I've already said all that.


    Mainly the wording is as it is because it is reasonably possible for an IEng to be achieved 2-3 years (?) after graduation, whereas Ceng is more likely to be 5-7 years (?) after graduation, and the C competences are trying to show what would be expected as the minimum competency of any professional engineer at those points. But of course more is good.


    So no, I don't like the 4th edition wording on the C's, but there's been a good internal discussion on how these will be interpreted in the real world, and it really shouldn't prevent a CEng responsible for managing themselves but no-one else from achieving registration.


    Thanks,


    Andy


    Re (?), if someone wants to quote different figures for these that's fine. I'm sure there's various figures around. 


  • 0
    Roy B,

    Point taken Roy,  but better still would be to turn it into a true Engineering Council that really does reflect and look after the interests of engineers at all levels 


    An uphill battle,  I'm sure. but that's no reason to shy away from it.
  • 0
      “CEng: Writes the rules.”

    Nailed it in one short sentence Andy. 

    It is for this reason that I have suggested that “Engineering Council” should be renamed “The Chartered Engineers Council”. Such a title would be a more accurate description of its role.

    I would argue that the three related activities codified; education, training and professional activity descriptors (UK-SPEC) are themselves organised as a hierarchy. 1. education 2. training 3. professional experience. Twas ever thus!

    The IET deserves great credit for developing accessible assessment processes for experienced professionals, that don’t necessarily require boxes 1&2 to be ticked. Many other licensees of Engineering Council have insufficient capability to carry out such a process reliably and some have no desire to do so anyway. They see “meeting academic requirements” as “essential”, structured training as “important” and meeting UK-SPEC competences to the letter as “optional” and easily fudged.

    The three categories are based on an both an intellectual and social hierarchy. The consensus on which they are based is that of the “Elite” (as self-described)
    https://www.engc.org.uk/EngCDocuments/Internet/Website/CEng Leaflet.pdf    You may well have what it takes to become one of the elites of the engineering profession – a Chartered Engineer.

    Being pragmatic, I see no option other than to accept the authority of Engineering Council and the reality that Chartered Engineer is where the market lies.

    There are independent estimates that even amongst those potentially CEng qualified, the market penetration is well below 50%.  For Eng Tech it would be well below 10% (from memory).  Estimates for IEng are also low but I don’t have much confidence in them.  Some CEng assert that there are several IEng for every CEng, assuming that Engineering is organised like a pyramid. It isn’t, although many traditional “military model” organisational management structures are.  

    There are greater numbers of mainstream engineers, than there are technical leaders or specialist expert consultants, but of the minority of the mainstream who are registered, most are CEng.  I happen to be IEng registered, but I don’t see myself as “an IEng” and haven’t used the post-nominal since the “downgrade”. I’m also not a “mainstream engineer”, although I once was.

    Engineering Council erred egregiously in my opinion by allowing a false dichotomy to be drawn between “different but equally valuable” and “progressive”.  It added to that error, by insulting and condemning “different but equally valuable”, parodying it as “different but the same”. It added injury to insult by allowing an arrogant and entitled group think by a group of Chartered Engineers, to downgrade the contribution of experienced IEng within its rules.

    “Different but equally valuable” (ie equal respect) is absolutely fundamental, if Engineering Council and its licensees are to offer fair assessment of the qualifications that they offer (which require ongoing membership).     

    This isn’t intended as a negative post. I advocate just getting on with it. The limitations of Engineering Council are outside my control and my influence is insignificant, although I have tried.  The numbers of people attracted to taxation (or subscription) without representation (other than patronised as a "minority") is always going to be limited.

    The market will decide and on past evidence it will predominantly choose CEng. I’m not uncomfortable with that, although the market for snobbery if that’s how it is promoted, isn’t what it was. I predict that more institutions will fold as a result, as has already happened. Something better for technicians and mainstream non-chartered engineers may emerge?    

  • 0
    Andy Millar:

    (This does not mean that an EngTech can't be the CEO, the IEng the MD, and the CEng a humble wage slave!!!! These only relate to technical responsibilities. Hence I always get very twitchy about "CEngs should be managers". In practice many engineers have to make a decision at some point as to whether to go the management route or the technical leadership route - so fine, the process is there, there's the path to CEng and there's the path to IEng CMgr - note who has the most letters and generally the most pay and "status"!!)


    There's two quite different debates - whether the model above is appropriate (which personally I think is for industry to decide), and secondly whether 3rd and 4th edition provide a reliable and valid measure of whether applicants meet these.


    Yes, for both editions EngTech could be seen as a subset of IEng, and IEng could be seen as a subset of CEng, but the point is that this is only talking about one part - the technical part - of someone's career path. 

    Thanks,


    Andy


    I'm not sure if I'm misreading UKSpec but from my perspective its does not seem to limit the scope to the 'technical part'  someone's career path.


    It specifically says:-


    quote

    C. Responsibility, management and leadership



    Chartered Engineers shall demonstrate technical and commercial leadership.



    This competence is about the ability to

    plan the applicant’s own work and manage or specify the work of others effectively, efficiently, and in a way which provides leadership at an appropriate level, whether technical or commercial.

    Unquote


    The meaning is clear that a chartered engineer has more competence than an incorporated engineer in both commercial and technical matters.


  • 0
    I suggest forgetting the fact that the term "equal but different" was used some years ago, and instead consider whether 3rd and 4th editions now provide accurate assessment of applicants for the range of engineering roles present in the real world. Personally I think third edition didn't quite (because there were technically senior engineers who weren't clearly CEng under it) and that 4th edition does.


    To heavily simplify, but many of us find this a useful model: 

    EngTech: Trained to follow the rules to the letter.

    IEng: Can work out how to apply the rules even to something where no-one has applied them there before (which as most of us have said, is where most professional engineers sit).

    CEng: Writes the rules.

    (This does not mean that an EngTech can't be the CEO, the IEng the MD, and the CEng a humble wage slave!!!! These only relate to technical responsibilities. Hence I always get very twitchy about "CEngs should be managers". In practice many engineers have to make a decision at some point as to whether to go the management route or the technical leadership route - so fine, the process is there, there's the path to CEng and there's the path to IEng CMgr - note who has the most letters and generally the most pay and "status"!!)


    There's two quite different debates - whether the model above is appropriate (which personally I think is for industry to decide), and secondly whether 3rd and 4th edition provide a reliable and valid measure of whether applicants meet these.


    Yes, for both editions EngTech could be seen as a subset of IEng, and IEng could be seen as a subset of CEng, but the point is that this is only talking about one part - the technical part - of someone's career path. As above, if a graduate decides after a year or two to take the money and go down the project and line management route then the spec worked well, and in 4th edition still works well, to recognising their engineering competence. Provided industry recognises it - but that's for the other thread.


    I have to disagree on the relevance of analogies with other professions, learning lessons and transferring (with critical consideration) best practice from elsewhere is always good. Of course taking them to an extreme just to prove a point is unhelpful.


    Thanks,


    Andy
  • 0
    Roy P,
    I was going to post that I found the medical analogy unhelpful, but your explanation seemed reasonable and rational.

    I don’t know much about medical careers, only my own experience of eventually being referred to a professor medical specialist, by other specialists. The problem was easily resolved, but could have been something more serious and a GP plus two other specialists just weren’t sure. I will just say that we have to be careful about comparisons to other professions, because they inevitably break down. Nursing for example, has required a degree qualification for many years now.

    Most engineering is carried out quite successfully by mixed and often unregistered teams. In the UK in particular, there is one dominant medical employer and everyone passes through the same structured pathways of university and practical supervised learning.

    In my view, the practice of engineers is far too diverse to fit into simple stereotypes.


    It isn’t necessary to hold a degree to be a good engineer, but in the modern era , where being a graduate is commonplace, I think that it is necessary to set a “graduate level” benchmark for registration. I also think that the benchmark for Chartered recognition should be post-graduate (e.g. MSc).    

    Engineering differs from many other chartered professions in arguably having two “fully qualified” types of professional. Although that is controversial because IEng is certainly not “fully qualified” in the eyes of many powerful stakeholders, it is an “associate” or “part-qualified” engineer. Some other jurisdictions use “Engineer & Technologist” although that distinction is largely academic, it forms the basis for some state sponsored registration systems.

    As I read UK-SPEC, it intends to position IEng as “CEng lite”. This was the original intention of the category. Therefore, instead of being Associate Members of a Chartered Institution, engineers who didn’t meet the academic requirements for CEng, developed their own institutions. This was moderately successful in the 70s & 80s peaking in 1987. I don’t know whether changing IEng to Chartered Engineering Technologist (or some other chartered title) would have given it fresh impetus, but I doubt it.  Whatever distinctive attributes IEng was claimed to possess were only forms of marketing and spin. Just like the pompous and overblown claims about “creativity and innovation” or being “part of an engineering elite” used to market CEng.

    I have no objection to a two-stage process of “CEng Lite” then CEng, but for the system to work everyone has to pass the same hurdle. The transition from “registered engineer” to CEng should require a period of “peer supervised development”.  Although peer selection is important, badge snobs and people stuck in their own selective education of decades ago aren’t “peers”. We are here to help our fellow engineers not hinder them.

    PS I only just saw Peter & Simon’s posts as I was submitting this. Both right. Can we move on please!

  • 0
    My point is that reading through UKSpec, for every competence that an IEng is expected to have, the CEng one is either the same or more onerous.  There is nothing that an IEng does that a CEng would not also do.


    If UKSpec had "IEng does these things and CEng does those things", then the whole "equal but different" would be plausible.
  • 0
    I really find these analogies tedious and annoying. There seems to be anachronistic snobby nature about them which makes me feel slightly embarrassed about the engineering profession.
  • 0
    Simon, 

    on this occasion I have to disagree completely.  I think the GP/ distinction is a near perfect analogy that is embraced in UKSPEC, including in 4th edition.  


    The key factor that makes the analogy right,  for me,  is that a GP does not,  generally,  identify new solutions or applications, nor deal with complexity.  They select the most appropriate from a range of pree- defined solutions (treatments) then refer on to an appropriate specialist who deals with greater complexity and/ or more  radical treatments, honed to the individual. They may also undertake research in their specialist field.


    That is precisely the distinction between I.Eng and C.Eng. Admittedly,  some GPs remain GPs until late in life and become more encyclopedic in their knowledge and selection/ application of the tried,  tested pre- defined treatments,  but, as I've said previously,  that is a choice that many an I.Eng may also make. 


    I struggle to see in what way UKSPEC does not deliver an analogous distinction.  


    I also believe there is a complete analogy between nurses and technicians.  It's why many of us get so upset at the application if the term engineer to technicians,  it's exactly as if nurses were to be called doctors.  This doesn't mean that muses and technicians don't have their value,  they are both essential,  but their role is similarly different in both medicine and engineering.
  • 0
    Philip Oakley:

    In response to the IEng/CEng Equal but Different similies for doctors, it's not really the distinction between 'junior' doctor and a consultant, but (to me) more between a GP and a consultant. That is the GP does have certain capabilities beyond the 'junior' doctor, dealing with a broad range of issues with competence, while the Consultant is expected to have in a sense a greater (but different) level of capability in their specialist area.


    Apologies if I've misused the 'junior' doctor terminology for the initial career stage. The wider world probably isn't ready for what they see as irrelevant distinctions that we think we can make...


    Maybe we are describing it all wrong anyway (see the diversity literature regarding techne vs empathe)


    Philip


    The junior doctor / consultant analogy was the best I could come up with at the time.  A more obvious analogy would be doctors and nurses, but a doctor isn't a nurse who as done further academic studies, nor are they a nurse with more years experience.  But, ultimately, a consultant is a junior doctor with more training and experience.


    If IEng vs.CEng could be more like GPs vs. consultants, then that would make IEng a different thing entirely.  But that isn't the way UKSpec is written.


    In the past, it's been suggested that IEng should be engineering managers and CEng should be practicing (senior) engineers.  But if that's the case, then ECUK have got the C competences the wrong way round!


Community Rules & Guidelines