Time to Knock IEng on the Head

It is interesting to review where our views were 8-9 years ago. I was trying to champion and reinvigorate the IEng category which was at a very low ebb. Others argued that it was a hopeless cause or even that it was counter-productive by perpetuating a failed system. The numbers of new IEng registrations did increase and I also supported The Engineering Council’s “proud to be IEng” campaign. Unfortunately, it also became clear that there was no consensus within the Engineering Council family about what IEng actually represented. My understanding was that it was a different but equally valuable type of engineer, having a more practical in orientation rather than the more academic CEng, with the two overlapping in the workplace, having equal standing as engineering managers (often operations versus design).

 

However, other institutions and even some within the IET took the view that IEng was an “assistant” or “part-qualified” CEng. One of the largest PEIs rarely registers an IEng and a number of others would take the view that only Chartered Engineers are “proper engineers”. The IIE had become one of the largest PEI’s by 2005, but as a minority within the IET its influence and distinctive IEng position dissipated. Although I wasn’t particularly active at the time, it seemed to me that with the introduction of a competency based system (UK-SPEC) that the distinctive IEng proposition probably wasn’t that useful anyway, because in the workplaces and amongst the people of my acquaintance, there was little meaningful, consistent and reliable difference between Chartered and Incorporated Engineers. 

 

IEng (Tech Eng) had come into being mainly to serve those who became excluded from Chartership on academic grounds. I took it because it was what I could get, having completed an Apprenticeship, HNC and Certificate in Industrial Management (7 years part-time study) rather than an undergraduate degree. Opportunity subsequently offered me a “second string” to my career, including a warm welcome on to a newly developed MSc course and eventual Chartership. At that time, had I wanted Chartered Engineer, then I would have had to enrol on an undergraduate engineering  degree course with 18 year olds, doing maths, maths and more maths – very useful for a thirty-year old manager! 

 

As UK-SPEC was being reviewed for 2013 it was made clear that at Engineering Council  “different but equally valuable was dead, long live progression”. Subsequently using whatever levers were available to it Engineering Council placed the three categories into "gold, silver and bronze" order. CEng was presumed to be superior to and to subsume the other categories, on the basis that it was the most “learned” and even the most “managerial”. Many experienced IEng were insulted, some resigned and I nearly followed, but decided instead to cease using the IEng post-nominal (along with others that I used). In the work that I currently do, I have to accept the authority of Engineering Council even when I might disagree and my registration has some value in that context. I also recognise that Engineering Council is de-facto the “Chartered Engineers Council”, that allows for the registration of two subsidiary categories.  Perhaps the Uff report may lead to some change, but if there is then it needs to have some obvious benefits to everyone in future. Past grievances are just that, EC kicked me so I just kicked them right back. Do we escalate such squabbles or move on?

 

As I see it the duty of the IET is to serve all Engineers and Technicians with equal respect. This includes to some extent the wider community of practitioners who are not members and those members who are not registrants, as part of our charitable remit. I expect each type of registrant to contribute professionally within their capabilities which often overlap and may require a Technician to advise or lead a Chartered Engineer where they are more expert.  We should enable enhanced recognition for enhanced achievement, including the widely recognised and valued Chartered designation. However whenever we divide, we risk factionalism.

 

Comparison with other professions has been made, but we should note that the requirements for chartered recognition in the UK are broadly set at graduate level (like IEng). The recently approved “Chartered Building Engineer” designation illustrates this. We have chosen to benchmark CEng at masters level, perhaps influenced by longer university course in other countries or in a search for more “elite” (academic) status, but we should remember that most existing CEng don’t hold a relevant masters. I see no evidence that the “restricted profession-social status” angle has made any progress in my lifetime.  If the profession wants to restrict CEng only to those “Consulting Engineers” operating independently, or as the head of major design led teams, then perhaps their status could be raised, but many incumbent CEng would have to be excluded. 

 

My suggestion is that we emphasise the service that Engineering gives to society collectively, to which experts and leaders are valuable but humble servants. I used to sympathise a little with the idea of restricting the title engineer, until I realised that I would probably be barred myself and that many of the proponents of this argument were just academic snobs or even old fashioned (Cleese, Barker, Corbett sketch) social snobs. To those who don’t harbour such sentiments, I would suggest, that they stop being so needy of social status, employers and society in general love Engineers and Technicians with a professional attitude when we give them a benefit. Obviously we can’t match the medical profession in that direction, but we can compete with most others.

 

Returning to IEng, the category retains some market value in parts of the engineering community. However like most endangered species sightings are rare outside the niches where it is more commonly found. These would include the Armed Forces for senior non-commissioned and less senior commissioned officers in technical corps, MOD and some infrastructure management organisations . Holding the registration (and the related PEI membership) always has the potential to create a positive impression in well-informed or sympathetic circles. However, as Chris Downie has described the potential benefits are typically much less than CEng (even though the capabilities overlap) and there are potential downsides where ignorance or negative prejudice exists. Unfortunately this is quite widespread. EC IEng promotion campaign 2011;  “adds Jon Prichard;  The campaign is purely setting out to ensure that the value of registration as an Incorporated Engineer achieves the recognition and standing similar to that which is enjoyed by those with CEng status.  We would also like to dispel some of the myths that seem to surround IEng, many of which were based on misconception and prejudice.”  In the intervening period, I haven’t detected an improvement and the subsequent actions of Engineering Council to promote a hierarchy (which few people actually progress through) have probably inadvertently diminished the “brand” further, potentially reinforcing any negative stereotyping.

 

Degree (and some higher) Apprentices will be well placed to meet the IEng standard in early career, but may eschew the proposition if it seems to position them unfairly as “second class” relative to those from “purer” academic pathways. Also a wide range of mid-career engineers often moving from Supervisory Technician to Engineering Manager roles still find their way to IEng in modest numbers. In addition more recently, some graduate trainees are being encouraged by mentors/employers to take IEng as a “first stepping stone”.  On this basis I would speculate that perhaps there is potential for a viable and sustainable IEng cohort of perhaps 10000 (with many passing through) in around ten years?  This is low penetration of the potential market for practising “mainstream” engineers, as has always been the case except for perhaps a modest “purple patch” in the 1980s.

 

I would advocate a new alternative proposition that encourages all those who aspire to registration as professional engineers, to first work towards “registered engineer”, a standard of competence similar to the current UK-SPEC IEng. In academic terms this means at “degree level” but with work-based learning accepted as also making a valid contribution. Chartered Engineer recognition should only be available to those who have undertaken a significant period of practice as a “registered engineer” supervised by their professional institution. All professionals should be encouraged to engage voluntarily in a periodic review at an interval of their choosing. Employers and other relevant stakeholders should be educated to ask “how was your last review”. All of this should be conducted in a supportive way designed to nurture and encourage professional growth, not the petty division and one-upmanship, that so often seems to characterise our current approach.

 

I have left out Technicians who perform a different but equally valuable often overlapping with engineers, in order to keep it simpler. There is a separate discussion about how we best serve those who want a form of professional affiliation, the IET does seem committed to this, but most of the Engineering Council family and other representatives such as the Royal Academy are just “cut from a different cloth”.  Aspects of trade association and trades union activities often evolved to serve parts of this market which is more vocational than academic in its nature.  Also I haven’t mentioned “Technologist” because the term has no clearly distinctive meaning in the UK, where the academic distinctions created by the Washington and Sydney Accords, or by local practice such as in North America might create a distinction.

 

My proposition for engineers would require the graceful retirement of the IEng brand with the option of easy transfer or honorary retention. It is nearly ten years since an Engineering Council management “retreat” decided that registration should be “progressive”.  All that I am suggesting is a “fair progressive” system in which every professional engineer has to progress and is expected to maintain a level of ongoing engagement. Rates of progress will vary, as different forms of academic preparation, vocational training and career development create the huge variety of different specialisms and optimisations that are the landscape of engineering and technology.  What we should be talking about is the future not the past.  If we want more status then work together to show society the value that we bring to it, instead of fruitless internecine strife, over who wears the top hat (if we can afford one).  Performance may lead to status not vice versa!

It is interesting to review where our views were 8-9 years ago. I was trying to champion and reinvigorate the IEng category which was at a very low ebb. Others argued that it was a hopeless cause or even that it was counter-productive by perpetuating a failed system. The numbers of new IEng registrations did increase and I also supported The Engineering Council’s “proud to be IEng” campaign. Unfortunately, it also became clear that there was no consensus within the Engineering Council family about what IEng actually represented. My understanding was that it was a different but equally valuable type of engineer, having a more practical in orientation rather than the more academic CEng, with the two overlapping in the workplace, having equal standing as engineering managers (often operations versus design).

 

However, other institutions and even some within the IET took the view that IEng was an “assistant” or “part-qualified” CEng. One of the largest PEIs rarely registers an IEng and a number of others would take the view that only Chartered Engineers are “proper engineers”. The IIE had become one of the largest PEI’s by 2005, but as a minority within the IET its influence and distinctive IEng position dissipated. Although I wasn’t particularly active at the time, it seemed to me that with the introduction of a competency based system (UK-SPEC) that the distinctive IEng proposition probably wasn’t that useful anyway, because in the workplaces and amongst the people of my acquaintance, there was little meaningful, consistent and reliable difference between Chartered and Incorporated Engineers. 

 

IEng (Tech Eng) had come into being mainly to serve those who became excluded from Chartership on academic grounds. I took it because it was what I could get, having completed an Apprenticeship, HNC and Certificate in Industrial Management (7 years part-time study) rather than an undergraduate degree. Opportunity subsequently offered me a “second string” to my career, including a warm welcome on to a newly developed MSc course and eventual Chartership. At that time, had I wanted Chartered Engineer, then I would have had to enrol on an undergraduate engineering  degree course with 18 year olds, doing maths, maths and more maths – very useful for a thirty-year old manager! 

 

As UK-SPEC was being reviewed for 2013 it was made clear that at Engineering Council  “different but equally valuable was dead, long live progression”. Subsequently using whatever levers were available to it Engineering Council placed the three categories into "gold, silver and bronze" order. CEng was presumed to be superior to and to subsume the other categories, on the basis that it was the most “learned” and even the most “managerial”. Many experienced IEng were insulted, some resigned and I nearly followed, but decided instead to cease using the IEng post-nominal (along with others that I used). In the work that I currently do, I have to accept the authority of Engineering Council even when I might disagree and my registration has some value in that context. I also recognise that Engineering Council is de-facto the “Chartered Engineers Council”, that allows for the registration of two subsidiary categories.  Perhaps the Uff report may lead to some change, but if there is then it needs to have some obvious benefits to everyone in future. Past grievances are just that, EC kicked me so I just kicked them right back. Do we escalate such squabbles or move on?

 

As I see it the duty of the IET is to serve all Engineers and Technicians with equal respect. This includes to some extent the wider community of practitioners who are not members and those members who are not registrants, as part of our charitable remit. I expect each type of registrant to contribute professionally within their capabilities which often overlap and may require a Technician to advise or lead a Chartered Engineer where they are more expert.  We should enable enhanced recognition for enhanced achievement, including the widely recognised and valued Chartered designation. However whenever we divide, we risk factionalism.

 

Comparison with other professions has been made, but we should note that the requirements for chartered recognition in the UK are broadly set at graduate level (like IEng). The recently approved “Chartered Building Engineer” designation illustrates this. We have chosen to benchmark CEng at masters level, perhaps influenced by longer university course in other countries or in a search for more “elite” (academic) status, but we should remember that most existing CEng don’t hold a relevant masters. I see no evidence that the “restricted profession-social status” angle has made any progress in my lifetime.  If the profession wants to restrict CEng only to those “Consulting Engineers” operating independently, or as the head of major design led teams, then perhaps their status could be raised, but many incumbent CEng would have to be excluded. 

 

My suggestion is that we emphasise the service that Engineering gives to society collectively, to which experts and leaders are valuable but humble servants. I used to sympathise a little with the idea of restricting the title engineer, until I realised that I would probably be barred myself and that many of the proponents of this argument were just academic snobs or even old fashioned (Cleese, Barker, Corbett sketch) social snobs. To those who don’t harbour such sentiments, I would suggest, that they stop being so needy of social status, employers and society in general love Engineers and Technicians with a professional attitude when we give them a benefit. Obviously we can’t match the medical profession in that direction, but we can compete with most others.

 

Returning to IEng, the category retains some market value in parts of the engineering community. However like most endangered species sightings are rare outside the niches where it is more commonly found. These would include the Armed Forces for senior non-commissioned and less senior commissioned officers in technical corps, MOD and some infrastructure management organisations . Holding the registration (and the related PEI membership) always has the potential to create a positive impression in well-informed or sympathetic circles. However, as Chris Downie has described the potential benefits are typically much less than CEng (even though the capabilities overlap) and there are potential downsides where ignorance or negative prejudice exists. Unfortunately this is quite widespread. EC IEng promotion campaign 2011;  “adds Jon Prichard;  The campaign is purely setting out to ensure that the value of registration as an Incorporated Engineer achieves the recognition and standing similar to that which is enjoyed by those with CEng status.  We would also like to dispel some of the myths that seem to surround IEng, many of which were based on misconception and prejudice.”  In the intervening period, I haven’t detected an improvement and the subsequent actions of Engineering Council to promote a hierarchy (which few people actually progress through) have probably inadvertently diminished the “brand” further, potentially reinforcing any negative stereotyping.

 

Degree (and some higher) Apprentices will be well placed to meet the IEng standard in early career, but may eschew the proposition if it seems to position them unfairly as “second class” relative to those from “purer” academic pathways. Also a wide range of mid-career engineers often moving from Supervisory Technician to Engineering Manager roles still find their way to IEng in modest numbers. In addition more recently, some graduate trainees are being encouraged by mentors/employers to take IEng as a “first stepping stone”.  On this basis I would speculate that perhaps there is potential for a viable and sustainable IEng cohort of perhaps 10000 (with many passing through) in around ten years?  This is low penetration of the potential market for practising “mainstream” engineers, as has always been the case except for perhaps a modest “purple patch” in the 1980s.

 

I would advocate a new alternative proposition that encourages all those who aspire to registration as professional engineers, to first work towards “registered engineer”, a standard of competence similar to the current UK-SPEC IEng. In academic terms this means at “degree level” but with work-based learning accepted as also making a valid contribution. Chartered Engineer recognition should only be available to those who have undertaken a significant period of practice as a “registered engineer” supervised by their professional institution. All professionals should be encouraged to engage voluntarily in a periodic review at an interval of their choosing. Employers and other relevant stakeholders should be educated to ask “how was your last review”. All of this should be conducted in a supportive way designed to nurture and encourage professional growth, not the petty division and one-upmanship, that so often seems to characterise our current approach.

 

I have left out Technicians who perform a different but equally valuable often overlapping with engineers, in order to keep it simpler. There is a separate discussion about how we best serve those who want a form of professional affiliation, the IET does seem committed to this, but most of the Engineering Council family and other representatives such as the Royal Academy are just “cut from a different cloth”.  Aspects of trade association and trades union activities often evolved to serve parts of this market which is more vocational than academic in its nature.  Also I haven’t mentioned “Technologist” because the term has no clearly distinctive meaning in the UK, where the academic distinctions created by the Washington and Sydney Accords, or by local practice such as in North America might create a distinction.

 

My proposition for engineers would require the graceful retirement of the IEng brand with the option of easy transfer or honorary retention. It is nearly ten years since an Engineering Council management “retreat” decided that registration should be “progressive”.  All that I am suggesting is a “fair progressive” system in which every professional engineer has to progress and is expected to maintain a level of ongoing engagement. Rates of progress will vary, as different forms of academic preparation, vocational training and career development create the huge variety of different specialisms and optimisations that are the landscape of engineering and technology.  What we should be talking about is the future not the past.  If we want more status then work together to show society the value that we bring to it, instead of fruitless internecine strife, over who wears the top hat (if we can afford one).  Performance may lead to status not vice versa!