A trade union will offer similar (possibly better?) social/soft benefits as the IET. It is hard to show any real benefits of joining the IET to a young engineer. As Mike said where is the public face of the IET? If it is offering ‘position statements’ such as this I cannot consider it a good selling point.

https://engx.theiet.org/f/discussions/29789/how-can-we-develop-an-effective-sustainable-energy-strategy-that-also-ensures-a-just-transition/134823

To be ‘salable’ the IET should be taking the lead in areas like this rather than just reporting on it.

https://engx.theiet.org/f/discussions/30458/using-touchscreens-for-basic-controls-in-vehicles/140923

Other than the Wiring Regulations where does the IET actually publicly display any engineering or technology? Where is it’s relevance?

How long long have you been a member and professionally registered? It would be good to hear why you continue your membership depite the problems you see with the IET.

I have been professionally registered and an IET (IEE) member for more than 30 years. I fully support the concept of proof of competence, continuing professional development etc. I do not think the IET presents itself well and makes it difficult to encourage others to join. I remain a member at the moment, however I am 65 next month and will probably not renew my membership after that. I have the hope that I can have more influence from inside than from outside but that is probably just wishful thinking.

I don't know how to find evidence for some of the competences as I don't supervise anyone.  I read recently that I can use examples from outside of work but - while I do participate in activities outside of work - I'm not a "leader".  

Yes, I agree.

Also, I've been a contractor for the last few years, so have done lots of short-term things for organisations who don't want to deal me with ever again.

Furthermore, I'm very modest, and not positive about my skills, even though I'm experienced enough.

I would like to go through the process, but I think someone would have to hold my hand every step of the way.  It's rather daunting.

You do not have to supervise people. You can technically lead people as an alternative. In this way you are responsible for delivery etc but not responsible for day to day HR issues etc. 

I know what you mean.  I am much more of a collaborator and don't like to take the credit for anything - even if it was my idea initially.  It feels like bragging and I'm not comfortable with that.  

Thanks Gerard - that's quite helpful actually.  

I ended up applying for IEng, rather than CEng, because I didn't see how I met the leadership requirements for CEng.  That said, UKSPEC gets revised every few years, so it may be different now.

IEng was easier, because you only had to assist the leader, e.g. doing planning, estimation and project status updates.

Strangely, at the time, ECUK was promoting IEng as being for engineering managers and CEng for practising engineers.  They obviously hadn't read their own requirements.

Simon Barker said:

ECUK was promoting IEng as being for engineering managers and CEng for practising engineers.

Yes, quite right too! And yes it is (thankfully) clearer in UKSpec 4th Edition.

CEng is about technical leadership - or, more accurately, about technical responsibility and accountability. If you're project manager of a £100million project, and managing the time and budgeting for 100 engineers but not signing any of the drawings off as technical authority you may well be eligible for IEng (and quite possibly FIET!), while the senior engineer working for you who is signing the drawings off but has no budgetary responsibility and no line management responsibility is very likely to be eligible for CEng.

Sadly I come across many line managers, who may well be CEngs, telling their staff that they need to get management responsibility before they apply. Very frustrating.

P.S. Not say that you need that line / budget responsibility to be IEng either, but it's just the point that if you're more project manager than you are engineer then IEng might be a better fit.

Thanks,

Andy