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.

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

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

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

Get well soon! Roy P Interesting Ethnographic Research Andy ?