You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion
Can IET Offer back charted mechanical/electrical/manufacturing engineering?
Former Community Member
I remember IEE time, the Institute offered its member Chartered Electrical Engineer, I think this is good since The IET is a multi-disciplines organization, people outside don't know our specialist. If IET can offer Chartered Electrical/ Electronics/ Manufacturing/ Mechanical Engineer titles would be good for us to let people know our discipline. Now either people still think of us as Electrical Engineer or nothing, don't know us. I met people who are engineers who either assume I am Electrical Engineer or don't know my discipline. I always need to explain. I have experience in a job interview asking me that you are not an Electrical Engineer why you join IET, not I Mech E? If we can have a Chartered XXXX Engineer then no need to explain.
This is something of an emotive issue, since people develop loyalties and affinities of many kinds, these can include geographic affinity, shared education experience, clan or social class, religion, ethnicity, political, sporting and other club or society memberships.
The IET benefits from an enviable level of commitment, by many of its members, including time and effort contributed voluntarily. For many older members, that includes a residual loyalty to the IEE, including some resentment about the evolution of the IET. Some dispassionately judge the IET approach to be harmful and would prefer smaller more niche specialised institutions, under a “neutral” regulator (e.g., Engineering Council).
Those who are affiliated to organisations who have overlapping aims to the IET, such as The IMechE for example (which intended to merge into the IET circa 15 years ago), will naturally prefer to place the IET into the “Electrical” niche and there are inevitable tensions between competition for, influence, control, income from membership fees and collaboration towards mutually beneficial aims.
Other similar professions have different structures, sometimes competing, sometimes monopolistic. RICS for example, has attracted recent adverse publicity and internal discontent. IMechE was going through ructions a couple of years ago. A minority of IET members tried to overturn the IET strategy (and presumably also the CES with it?) a few years ago.
There is a lot of politics in this area of life!
The IEE had already changed its name and merged with others. The IIE was also a merger of former Electrical & Mechanical bodies, with members from other backgrounds, who were either unwelcome or who didn’t warm to the often snobbish and elitist proposition of other institutions. It also registered Chartered Engineers under its own licence, so one could become “CEng MIIE”.
For the record, I was a member of the IIE, although when I became registered it was with the “Association of Supervisory and Executive Engineers”. I would not have been accepted as MIEE, having progressed via an Apprenticeship, HNC and Certificate in Industrial Management within the Electrical Power Industry. At the time I was “Head of the Electrical Department”, but my skills and knowledge included a range of more mechanically orientated aspects, some electronics and even a bit of civils. Within a few years, I had migrated into training management and became chartered in that domain.
My own opinion, although it is not strongly held, is that the IET should aspire to be the professional home of engineers and technicians, just like it says on the tin. This doesn’t preclude it from being an authoritative voice in subject areas such as electrical installation in buildings, or radar, or cyber security, or a wide range of other subjects where it has expertise.
Other organisations have every right to compete in a fair way. If their customers/ stakeholders don’t like their proposition, such as for example, a very experienced, qualified and well-proven structural engineer, I helped towards CEng a few years ago, then they should have a choice. They should not be beholden to a monopoly.
I’m very open-minded to appropriate regulation of the competence of professionals to protect Health, Safety and the Environment. At present, that mainly applies to very specialised areas of higher risk, intended mainly to protect the public. The current Engineering Council led system of professional registration, makes a modest and useful contribution towards this. I have advocated in the past, a system of relatively light touch regular review, but a “beefing up” of CPD has been considered sufficient.
This is something of an emotive issue, since people develop loyalties and affinities of many kinds, these can include geographic affinity, shared education experience, clan or social class, religion, ethnicity, political, sporting and other club or society memberships.
The IET benefits from an enviable level of commitment, by many of its members, including time and effort contributed voluntarily. For many older members, that includes a residual loyalty to the IEE, including some resentment about the evolution of the IET. Some dispassionately judge the IET approach to be harmful and would prefer smaller more niche specialised institutions, under a “neutral” regulator (e.g., Engineering Council).
Those who are affiliated to organisations who have overlapping aims to the IET, such as The IMechE for example (which intended to merge into the IET circa 15 years ago), will naturally prefer to place the IET into the “Electrical” niche and there are inevitable tensions between competition for, influence, control, income from membership fees and collaboration towards mutually beneficial aims.
Other similar professions have different structures, sometimes competing, sometimes monopolistic. RICS for example, has attracted recent adverse publicity and internal discontent. IMechE was going through ructions a couple of years ago. A minority of IET members tried to overturn the IET strategy (and presumably also the CES with it?) a few years ago.
There is a lot of politics in this area of life!
The IEE had already changed its name and merged with others. The IIE was also a merger of former Electrical & Mechanical bodies, with members from other backgrounds, who were either unwelcome or who didn’t warm to the often snobbish and elitist proposition of other institutions. It also registered Chartered Engineers under its own licence, so one could become “CEng MIIE”.
For the record, I was a member of the IIE, although when I became registered it was with the “Association of Supervisory and Executive Engineers”. I would not have been accepted as MIEE, having progressed via an Apprenticeship, HNC and Certificate in Industrial Management within the Electrical Power Industry. At the time I was “Head of the Electrical Department”, but my skills and knowledge included a range of more mechanically orientated aspects, some electronics and even a bit of civils. Within a few years, I had migrated into training management and became chartered in that domain.
My own opinion, although it is not strongly held, is that the IET should aspire to be the professional home of engineers and technicians, just like it says on the tin. This doesn’t preclude it from being an authoritative voice in subject areas such as electrical installation in buildings, or radar, or cyber security, or a wide range of other subjects where it has expertise.
Other organisations have every right to compete in a fair way. If their customers/ stakeholders don’t like their proposition, such as for example, a very experienced, qualified and well-proven structural engineer, I helped towards CEng a few years ago, then they should have a choice. They should not be beholden to a monopoly.
I’m very open-minded to appropriate regulation of the competence of professionals to protect Health, Safety and the Environment. At present, that mainly applies to very specialised areas of higher risk, intended mainly to protect the public. The current Engineering Council led system of professional registration, makes a modest and useful contribution towards this. I have advocated in the past, a system of relatively light touch regular review, but a “beefing up” of CPD has been considered sufficient.
