Challenges for Academics Applying for CEng

I would like to highlight the challenges faced by applicants from academia when applying for professional registration (e.g., CEng) through the Institution of Engineering and Technology. From my experience, some common challenges include:

  • Demonstrating industry-relevant engineering practice while primarily working in teaching and research
  • Evidencing competencies related to responsibility, leadership, and decision-making in real-world engineering contexts
  • Aligning academic activities (teaching, supervision, research) with the required professional competencies
  • Providing strong evidence for design, development, and implementation in practical settings
  • Which reminds me of the CEng applicant I helped to a successful application a few years ago. He joined us as a technician with (IIRC) an HNC, we quickly realised that he was an excellent project manager and, given that we were developing safety critical systems, an excellent manager of the functional safety process. 18 years after he started, he took over my role as head of the R&D team when I moved on - not because he was an R&D engineer but because he knew as much as I did about the process. A few years later when he applied for CEng he'd risen to become global R&D lead for a significant division of the major multinational we'd been working at. It was an interesting and challenging CEng application, we were asked for significant additional evidence for As and Bs which was perfectly reasonable, but in the end he sailed through it - it was clear that he held significant technical accountability for the right engineers making the right decisions, the challenge was demonstrating to others how he'd picked up sufficient technical understanding to get there. (A problem I see a lot with people who've risen within a single organisation.)

    Almost the exact counterpart of the original question in the thread: you can have an academic who has huge technical knowledge of an area of engineering but needs to show that they take technical responsibility and accountability for decisions that affect wider society, and you can have the technical leader who carries great responsibility and accountability but needs to show sufficient UK&U to explain why they should be trusted to be there. 

    Which in the end is why I see CEng is useful, it shows that the engineer has both of these. 

  • The Paul Meenan story (e5 group) is similar (Excellent guy)

  • It only becomes a problem if the manager believes that they are competent to make technical decisions.

    The extra bit we should also be aware of in this PLUDs discussion is that being a CEng (other categories available) doesn't mean one is competent to make technical decisions in almost all areas of the Engineering Disciplines anyway (the 'other Institutions' available factor).  If anything, it's about knowing our incompetence, and avoiding it!

    PLUD :: "People Like Us Dear" - that soft British English snootiness we all love Grin

  • Absolutely - our discussion reminded of the period when (as an electronics engineer) I was also in charge of mechanical and software development teams, it's a very challenging management role. You need to be sensitive to the fact that those teams know their subject much better than you do, and you will look very stupid, or cost the company a lot of money, or probably both, if you try over ruling their technical decisions.

    On the other hand, you do also need to be manage them to make sure that they are delivering what's needed to budget. If the team leaders for disciplines that aren't yours are good then it'll be fine, but if they have their own agenda it can be an absolute nightmare...