Ok, Roy, held back a while in this if only because time is precious, for which I have to commend you for the time and thought out into this.
My thoughts on this after some consideration. It's a highly informative and interesting post, definitely set me thinking.
I do still maintain that there is a very really value in maintaining the I.Eng registration in some form or another, and would hate to see it either disappear or be rebadging simply to quell I those who don't recognise it's worth.
However, I do feel strongly, as the whole force of your post was making evident, that thought is required on what it really means to everyone. Frankly, for the purposes of this current response, I don't really think that the EC viewpoint is a real factor, both because I'm looking more at what feels right and appropriate in the current situation, and taking current requirements of the profession into account, rather than what has been decided in past history, a and because, as I see it, they should be touring m representing the interests of the profession and as such, should be teaching on board the views of the members of that profession (including the point that it should be all members of the profession, not only the members of PEI's) filters only by what is necessary to protect the integrity of the profession.
So, against that starting point, I will say that I feel somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing of "different but equal" as against the Gold, Silver, Bronze take on I.Eng and Eng Tech. (I'll call it the progressive model for lack of an obvious other tag).
On one hand, I do see some pragmatic benefit in providing s path of progression, with intermediate steps of registration on the way to the Gold Standard, IF, and only if, it does truly become recognised as that, and genuinely provides a useful path to candidates to do that, as well as incentive to pursue the path. To clear one thing, though, when I use the term Gold Standard, I do so, add much as anything, because, some 15 years ago, before the suggestion of Gold, Silver and Bronze was mentioned for these three registration levels arose, I believe, and certainly independent of, in my efforts overseas to hold dialogue with s client who was unfamiliar with it, and more locked into the US Registered Engineer system, I went online to reputed sources who all described C.Eng as the International Gold Standard for engineering accreditation,, and who all rated the US Registered Engineer system as not even approaching the same standard, , hence my resistance to allowing the International dimension to dilute this system.
However, I do have a strong leaning to the different but equal view as I really do think that a true I.Eng (and that is the important point - we have to be taking of a true I.Eng) has other qualities to offer, but offered by the true C.Eng.
In practice, I think the reason we keep going round in circles is that the real fact is that it's some of each Allow me to explain
Within the with environment, I am a strong champion of what is, largely, the different but equal view - those who, in my view, would be ideal I.Eng candidates, but not C.Eng buttons only perform a highly essential role in getting the detailed practicalities dealt with but also possess current skills and ability that are no longer in toolkit as a C.Eng.
The fact that I say "no longer" is part of why I feel there is an element of the progressive model that is valid, as I finely have performed roles for which I.Eng was appropriate, held those skills at the time, and indeed did Register as I.Eng before moving on to C.Eng, and, undoubtedly do still hold the K&U (not as defined by UKSPEC in this instance but those I know regularly bring to bear in people in roles of an I.Eng profile) for performing in an I.Eng role, and could, if required, return to such roles. I don't believe I could do my C.Eng role otherwise as I need to be able to assess the work they've undertaken to provide engineering assurance/sign-off. However, the skills are not current, have not been exercised for a long time and I definitely turn to people at an I.Eng level for guidance on achieving the best engineering outcomes, for assessing the with involved and making it happen. I believe this is an expertise that is highly valuable and which I no longer possess, and possibly never held if judged against current practices as opposed to those in force when I did that type of job. And frankly, I would almost certainly never return to working in such roles as the people able to operate in my kind of role, and take sign-off responsibility, plus perform as an agent for innovation, are relatively rare, so it's where I offer best value and will obtain best reward (both financially and for job satisfaction). But, to be clear, some of that is because that's what floats my boat and it doesn't do so for many - I know one or two C.Eng who definitely justify the accreditation, but regularly to me they would much prefer to "be on the tools".
So, in the workplace I definitely see them as different but equal
However, having said that, I can't dismiss a free facts:
That I could return to their role with a little time to go through a learning curve that would be reasonablue fast, whilst they would have some way to go to move into my roles
That my responsibility and authority levels are higher - entry into service of work carried out by them can't take place without my approval and acceptance, and I can, and do, sometimes, require changes in order to provide my acceptance.
That they are only permitted to take on their roles after an appointment system that either requires my approval or the approval of those that I have approved.
That I set the parameters for the work they undertake
That I provide briefing and guidance on standards, etc.
That's why I say there's an element of both, in practice. Despite that list of things where it could be said I operate, as do most C.Eng, at a higher level, it doesn't make them subordinate, they are definite equals, in my view. Maybe the closest other with relationship I can think of is that with Project Managers where I can't agree an engineering solution without PM authority on cost, programme and scope, but they can't issue a scope without my agreement to the engineering content, and they can't complete the project and enter into service without my approval for engineering assurance. Only this morning, a potential client discussed with me the reason that I was the most suitable person to take a role because it focused on engineering assurance, not delivery, whereas, were it more delivery focused, I would not be the best for the role.
i don't profess to know the best way to define I.Eng, or its relationship to C.Eng best to reflect this mix between different but equal and the progressive model, I only know that I believe it is this dichotomy that causes if to keep going round in circles.
I do reiterate that I do strongly feel there is a huge need to keep trying to get I.Eng right and therefore to spend time trying to capture all of that in a registration system that reflects it
Ok, Roy, held back a while in this if only because time is precious, for which I have to commend you for the time and thought out into this.
My thoughts on this after some consideration. It's a highly informative and interesting post, definitely set me thinking.
I do still maintain that there is a very really value in maintaining the I.Eng registration in some form or another, and would hate to see it either disappear or be rebadging simply to quell I those who don't recognise it's worth.
However, I do feel strongly, as the whole force of your post was making evident, that thought is required on what it really means to everyone. Frankly, for the purposes of this current response, I don't really think that the EC viewpoint is a real factor, both because I'm looking more at what feels right and appropriate in the current situation, and taking current requirements of the profession into account, rather than what has been decided in past history, a and because, as I see it, they should be touring m representing the interests of the profession and as such, should be teaching on board the views of the members of that profession (including the point that it should be all members of the profession, not only the members of PEI's) filters only by what is necessary to protect the integrity of the profession.
So, against that starting point, I will say that I feel somewhat ambivalent about the whole thing of "different but equal" as against the Gold, Silver, Bronze take on I.Eng and Eng Tech. (I'll call it the progressive model for lack of an obvious other tag).
On one hand, I do see some pragmatic benefit in providing s path of progression, with intermediate steps of registration on the way to the Gold Standard, IF, and only if, it does truly become recognised as that, and genuinely provides a useful path to candidates to do that, as well as incentive to pursue the path. To clear one thing, though, when I use the term Gold Standard, I do so, add much as anything, because, some 15 years ago, before the suggestion of Gold, Silver and Bronze was mentioned for these three registration levels arose, I believe, and certainly independent of, in my efforts overseas to hold dialogue with s client who was unfamiliar with it, and more locked into the US Registered Engineer system, I went online to reputed sources who all described C.Eng as the International Gold Standard for engineering accreditation,, and who all rated the US Registered Engineer system as not even approaching the same standard, , hence my resistance to allowing the International dimension to dilute this system.
However, I do have a strong leaning to the different but equal view as I really do think that a true I.Eng (and that is the important point - we have to be taking of a true I.Eng) has other qualities to offer, but offered by the true C.Eng.
In practice, I think the reason we keep going round in circles is that the real fact is that it's some of each Allow me to explain
Within the with environment, I am a strong champion of what is, largely, the different but equal view - those who, in my view, would be ideal I.Eng candidates, but not C.Eng buttons only perform a highly essential role in getting the detailed practicalities dealt with but also possess current skills and ability that are no longer in toolkit as a C.Eng.
The fact that I say "no longer" is part of why I feel there is an element of the progressive model that is valid, as I finely have performed roles for which I.Eng was appropriate, held those skills at the time, and indeed did Register as I.Eng before moving on to C.Eng, and, undoubtedly do still hold the K&U (not as defined by UKSPEC in this instance but those I know regularly bring to bear in people in roles of an I.Eng profile) for performing in an I.Eng role, and could, if required, return to such roles. I don't believe I could do my C.Eng role otherwise as I need to be able to assess the work they've undertaken to provide engineering assurance/sign-off. However, the skills are not current, have not been exercised for a long time and I definitely turn to people at an I.Eng level for guidance on achieving the best engineering outcomes, for assessing the with involved and making it happen. I believe this is an expertise that is highly valuable and which I no longer possess, and possibly never held if judged against current practices as opposed to those in force when I did that type of job. And frankly, I would almost certainly never return to working in such roles as the people able to operate in my kind of role, and take sign-off responsibility, plus perform as an agent for innovation, are relatively rare, so it's where I offer best value and will obtain best reward (both financially and for job satisfaction). But, to be clear, some of that is because that's what floats my boat and it doesn't do so for many - I know one or two C.Eng who definitely justify the accreditation, but regularly to me they would much prefer to "be on the tools".
So, in the workplace I definitely see them as different but equal
However, having said that, I can't dismiss a free facts:
That I could return to their role with a little time to go through a learning curve that would be reasonablue fast, whilst they would have some way to go to move into my roles
That my responsibility and authority levels are higher - entry into service of work carried out by them can't take place without my approval and acceptance, and I can, and do, sometimes, require changes in order to provide my acceptance.
That they are only permitted to take on their roles after an appointment system that either requires my approval or the approval of those that I have approved.
That I set the parameters for the work they undertake
That I provide briefing and guidance on standards, etc.
That's why I say there's an element of both, in practice. Despite that list of things where it could be said I operate, as do most C.Eng, at a higher level, it doesn't make them subordinate, they are definite equals, in my view. Maybe the closest other with relationship I can think of is that with Project Managers where I can't agree an engineering solution without PM authority on cost, programme and scope, but they can't issue a scope without my agreement to the engineering content, and they can't complete the project and enter into service without my approval for engineering assurance. Only this morning, a potential client discussed with me the reason that I was the most suitable person to take a role because it focused on engineering assurance, not delivery, whereas, were it more delivery focused, I would not be the best for the role.
i don't profess to know the best way to define I.Eng, or its relationship to C.Eng best to reflect this mix between different but equal and the progressive model, I only know that I believe it is this dichotomy that causes if to keep going round in circles.
I do reiterate that I do strongly feel there is a huge need to keep trying to get I.Eng right and therefore to spend time trying to capture all of that in a registration system that reflects it
