Take your point, but from a individual perspective, having a degree in engineering and say a PMI or APM qualification is going to be of much more value than IEng. For most engineering companies IEng is just not on the radar.
Peter, Alasdair is right - I would never take on someone who had Chartered Manager or Chartered Project Manager in an engineering position if they didn't also offer me evidence of being a practicing Engineer at a suitable level. If they were not a registered engineer (C.Eng, I.Eng or Eng Tech, dependant upon what the nature of the engineering role was) then they would have to demonstrate that in another way, and I wouldn't even take the management registration into account, unless I clearly also required them to be a manager or project manager, which would be quite unusual. It might occur if I wanted someone to manage an engineering team, but then I'd hope to see C.Eng, and that already reflects management responsibility as focused on engineering, so more valuable than either Chartered Manager or especially Chartered Project Manager, the latter being (unsurprisingly) focused exclusively on managing projects. I'm not knocking Chartered Manager for what it's intended to demonstrate - I was one of the 50 pioneer Chartered Managers, so of course I wouldn't, but it's completely irrelevant to a purely engineering role. The beauty of I.Eng is that it affirms to me that the candidate has already demonstrated, in an assessment process that I trust, that they are a well rounded practicing professional engineer, in a fashion that I couldn't possibly equal through CV, application and interview. It also demonstrates commitment to the profession. How can I take seriously someone who doesn't have sufficient commitment to the engineering profession to seek registration? To be clear, I would never hire based purely on an educational qualification - it doesn't demonstrate that they know how to apply their knowledge in a competent, professional and committed manner. I would see the value in the opposite - if I want a Project Manager, or a general manager, for managing engineering activity or projects, I would see one of the engineering registrations as being of value to supplement the management registration. In fact, when I was hiring project managers for infrastructure engineering projects, I insisted that they had first proven themselves as senior engineers before going on to become project managers.
Peter, having now seen your response to Alasdair, I hope my last response addresses it, but just on your two specific points, no, most emphatically not, an engineering degree does not, on its own or in conjunction with PMI or APM demonstrate that you are a practicing, competent, committed and professional engineer. As for the lack of interest in I.Eng by most employers, there's no disagreement by anybody on here at all, but that's exactly the point so many of us are making, that we need to tackle that and turn it round as it offers a valuable affirmation of a highly important level of engineer which forms an essential component of the range of engineering roles and activities. I completely understand, and you'll see most of us on here have acknowledged it, that until employers' attitudes change, there really is no incentive to seek registration as I.Eng.
The other day I had tea withna fellow Engineer. He suggests that I.Eng has tobe earned first then additional work to be done to meet the UK Spec requirements for CEng. He thinks the minimum time between I.Eng and C.Eng should be 4 years. And that I.Eng is no longer equal but different. This way every one who works toward CEng will have to be registered first as I.Eng.
An interesting possibility, Moshe, I'd say worthy of consideration, but unsure how it would go down with the wider IET agenda/policies, or with the EC. Without a doubt there are murky waters when it comes to the whole topic of whether I.Eng is equal but different, or a less senior registration. Perhaps it's time to open that debate up afresh, especially as a way to reinvigorate I.Eng, give it a greater purpose in light of how poor the take-up is.
I suspect the only consequence would be to reduce the number of CEng registrations even further - it's hard enough getting applicants to get around to finishing their applications as it is, without making them have to do it twice!
That said, this is exactly what I did 20 something years ago (IEng and then CEng), but in hindsight the IEng probably didn't contribute to getting CEng, and actually if I'd been properly advised I should have been able to go to CEng straight away anyway.
Andy. I think maybe I.Eng should be one of the paths to C.Eng. Not the only one but it could offer a rout and be taken in to consideration and offer some preference toward C.Eng.
Yes that makes sense, just as the academic qualifications address some - but not all - of the UK&U requirements, similarly the CDE competences of IEng would address most of the CEng CDE competences so should lead to a reduced assessment burden.
Hi Ian,
But realistically not everyone can be the chief engineer of a company or division. The seperation you describe already exists, the problem at the moment is that the majority of engineers who aren't in those senior (technical) positions have no third party accreditation of their competence at all. It's a bit like the army saying that they are going to abolish all officer ranks below colonel, because they don't want those other officer positions to feel second rate?? Which would lead to the position we have now, where you can't tell a major from a private. (I'm not claiming this analogy is perfect - it is important to remember this is about technical leadership only, an IEng could easily have very senior functional management responsibility over a CEng.)
Personally I've never seen a CEng / IEng decision come down to a discussion about CD&E competences, it's always been down to A&B competences. And unfortunately these are often, in the end, a judgement call, particularly for those many applicants who are not working in a development environment. I certainly don't think the assessment system is perfect as it stands, the important thing is to keep raising questions regarding those cases which appear to fall through the cracks to try to close them. Unfortunately here isn't the best place to do it either, as these forums don't get heavily read by R&S team (with a couple of exceptions). Doing it through PRAs probably really is the best approach for most members.
It's interesting to look at the IMechE MPDS process, this is much more structured, but equally much harder work to implement, I'm not sure either approach is "better", both have advantages and disadvantages.
