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 14051 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
    Andy Millar:

    Hi Tim,


    I don't know if you're aware of the thread on the C competences I've started in the internal "IET- Registration and Standards" community, be good to see your really useful perspective (and that of any other assessors / PRIs / PRAs) there!

    I'll check it out...
  • 0
    I've done a comparison between the 3rd and 4th Editions - CEng and A-C competencies only for the moment.

    File is here:
    CEng Comparison


    The commentary is my own.


    Tim
  • 0
    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? ?
       

  • 0
    Hi Andy,

    firstly,  you've presented me with my first learning challenge of the day - I was convinced I was signed up to the registration and standards community,  but when I look in my list of available communities and can't find it! Can you give me any clues how I get to it and add it to my list?


    Secondly,  while I can't answer your question for the present,  and have asked the same question myself previously,  I can provide the historical perspective which,  perhaps unsurprising ties in with one of Roy B's comments.  When I went through C.Eng registration,  it was under SARTOR- v3 if I remember correctly.  Under that,  there were only two ways to demonstrate your (scientific) academic ability,  one was with a degree,  the other was the mature candidate scheme. 


    As the title suggests,  there was an age threshold for the latter - 35 if I recall correctly.  But then you had to submit a technical paper,  the sole purpose of which was to demonstrate academic ability to an equivalent level as a degree.  It was assessed before interview and progressing to interview meant you'd already attained that goal, in theory it didn't contribute to any other competencies,  but it did in fact,  like a presentation,  provide a useful vehicle for interview questions for other competencies. 


    I had the opportunity to see examples of successful papers and,  based on what I saw on them, I used an immunisation study I was carrying out for Irish Rail,  which was particularly useful as it was unusually for overhead dc traction,  and I developed my whole analysis right back to first principles of harmonic analysis of rectified,  poorly smoothed ac waveforms when train units were drawing load,  or returning it under regenerative braking,  even going back to fourier analyis (not fourier transforms, a common confusion), then of both inductive and capacitive coupling, 


    It is a matter of concern,  or at least curiosity,  for me as to how such detailed academic knowledge is demonstrated now,  either for non- degree candidates,  or those where their degree is a matter of distant history with the potential to have been forgotten or simply fallen into disuse.
  • 0
    Roy Bowdler:
    Much of our debate about how the competence descriptors differ between the two categories of Engineer, seem to ignore the fact that what we actually have is an academic hierarchy, biased greatly towards scientific analysis rather than knowledge about engineering techniques.

     


    Now that's an interesting perspective. As I've always banged on about, if I'm deciding whether a 40 year old engineer is professionally competent in their role I'm pretty uninterested in what they got up to in their early 20s. (Which I would be - ref your opening comments it is remarkable that my barely scraped through first degree has honours!) BUT, and it's a big bold capital letters but, if they are taking significant significant technical decisions I do want to know that somewhere along the line they have learned how to do scientific analysis to "Masters level", or more accurately to know how to carry out a rigorous scientific methodology. You can be trained to solve problems that existed in the past, but reliably and safely solving new problems or old problems in new situations needs that level of rigour. And it's very often missing. I suppose I'm particularly aware of this given that I'm working in innovation in safety critical systems, I am constantly explaining to very experienced and skilled (and senior) engineers that "we tried it and it worked" is not a methodical argument - as one of my colleagues used to say, "yes, it worked that time, doesn't mean it will work every time".


    Now, I thought 3rd edition was good on this, and I think 4th edition might be slightly better. And both (to my mind) make clear that at some level this "scientific analysis" approach is needed at all three registrations, which is good.


    So I'd be very concerned if any iteration of the process defined CEng as "professional engineer with academic background" and IEng as "professional engineer with practical background", that would be of no help to anyone at all. As long as they end up at the same place who cares how they got there. What's important is that, whatever the applicants background and route, the benchmark makes clear what is needed for a particular role. The driving test treats you the same whether you had lessons from an instructor or learned from your mum. And it's interesting to reflect that whatever the technical learning background in both cases they will still have had to pick up the wider C, D and E competences from somewhere. 


    Personally I'm happy that 4th edition doesn't change that (although I'm happy to change my view if someone points out something that I've missed!) There's a separate question in here, which I'm very interested in because it relates to a number of applicants I'm working with at the moment, which is how non-graduate engineers prove they hold that degree level of UK&U, but that's for a separate discussion. I don't think 4th edition makes that any easier or harder?


    Thanks,


    Andy


  • 0
    Hi Tim,


    I don't know if you're aware of the thread on the C competences I've started in the internal "IET- Registration and Standards" community, be good to see your really useful perspective (and that of any other assessors / PRIs / PRAs) there! I'm probably not going to comment further on the C competence issue on this thread until that internal discussion has run its course and we're clearer how these are likely to be interpreted.


    Thanks,


    Andy
  • 0
    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.
  • 0
    Just to emphasise that the UK-SPEC publication is just part of an overall system, which the new version seems to make clearer.

    There are three types of qualification offered, all with a requirement for ongoing registration. They are characterised in a form of “pen portrait” or “product particulars”.

    The benchmark academic/vocational qualifications associated with each category are also described. This aspect is untidy and confusing in my opinion. 

    Older and uncommon qualifications are referenced, such as NVQ level 4 for IEng (I have never seen one) and HNC which was downgraded in recent years. The meaning of “further learning” has never been clarified, so it is open to individual PEI interpretation.

    The easiest qualification to recognise for IEng is, An accredited Bachelors or honours degree in engineering or technology. In practice, universities do not offer Bachelors Degrees without honours. It may be possible to gain one by accumulating a lower number of credits, where such study is an option. However, in most circumstances it is seen as a “consolation award”, if the full honours degree is not completed.

    For CEng the following is stated  

    An accredited Bachelors degree with honours in engineering or technology, plus either an appropriate Masters degree or engineering doctorate accredited by a Licensee, or appropriate further learning to Masters level*

    The PEI registering the most numbers of CEng has explicitly stated that a few post-graduate level credits, well short of a full Masters Degree is acceptable “further learning” for CEng. The IET in line with its broader policy simply evaluates UK&U “holistically” at the time of a registration application.

    Therefore, the prime academic qualification underpinning both IEng & CEng is a Bachelors Honours Degree. University regulators ensure that all such degrees meet the same broad outcomes and quality standards. So, an IEng accredited honours degree is not “lower” than a CEng version, it is the same! In practice, it may even be superior since it may be more focussed on engineering and less on theoretical science.    

    A reference to Apprenticeships has been introduced into CEng, which is welcome and something that I have made some noise about.   

    This forum isn’t about Academic Accreditation. However, wouldn’t it be much clearer and simpler, to designate two types of engineers on the basis of those applying “bachelors level” UK&U and “masters level” UK&U. To be fair to MEng graduates (given the cost and academic entry tariff) we’ll call them masters too.

    I should state that I supported the Gateway’s “MSC in Professional Engineering” programmes for experienced engineers. Although there could be other mechanisms for working engineers to demonstrate these benchmarks in lieu of a masters degree. After all, most full-time masters students in recent years have been from overseas just “staying another year” (with a temporary work-permit in return).

    Much of our debate about how the competence descriptors differ between the two categories of Engineer, seem to ignore the fact that what we actually have is an academic hierarchy, biased greatly towards scientific analysis rather than knowledge about engineering techniques.

    Long before anyone gets chance to demonstrate any competencies in the work place, academia has already sorted them into sheep and goats.

    I appreciate that the contributors here may feel that the academic element isn’t relevant. It was for a long time virtually all Engineering Council was. Dig out the UK-SPEC predecessor SARTOR if you don’t believe me.  


    For the international dimension     https://www.ieagreements.org/   

  • 0
    Andy Millar:

    I've just had a careful read through of all the competences for 3rd and 4th edition for IEng and CEng. Really interesting. The IEng competences are basically completely unchanged. The CEng competences are very different. If one wanted to, one could say that IEng has stayed the same and that technical competences for CEng have been downgraded!


    What I hadn't spotted before is that the management competences for CEng have been increased.




    I'd agree that the A/B competencies have been loosened, particularly A2, B1 and B2.


    I'm not convinced at all that C competencies have changed significantly. C1 and C2 are re-worded but look equivalent. C3 has been extended from just leading teams to "lead teams or technical specialisms". This I think is a positive move as the 3rd edition tended to make things difficult for the SME type of engineer.


    C4 is broadly the same although "quality" has been removed, which I think is a mistake, but ultimately not significant.


    Tim


     


  • 0
    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! ?

Community Rules & Guidelines