Ian, I wholeheartedly agree, and you confirm my own reservations. I see the reason for the suggestion, so don't want to dismiss it completely, but the possibility of demoting the I.Eng status was my biggest concern. To offset that, the lack of uptake is a serious concern, but we have to be careful that, in our attempt to overcome that, we don't debate the whole. Those who are potential I.Eng registrants really are the bedrock of the profession.
I.Eng could be one rout to C.Eng out of existing routs. IEng today is not equal to IEng a decade or two ego. I was proud to be IEng. Its all debatable.
But Moshe, it should be! If it isn't now, then we surely need to be acting to restore it to that position. I'd be interested to know the detailed reasons you feel it isn't - we're only too aware of some, and I don't believe they are fundamentally reductions in what I.Eng is in itself, so much as wrong perceptions by others, but I'd be interested to know if there are other factors that I'm not recognising.
I work as a safety assessor, looking at highly safety critical, generally innovative, projects and giving my professional opinion as to whether the organisations involved have managed the risks in a way and to a level that will be acceptable to society.
I don't check every calculation, I don't test the systems. What I am doing is looking for evidence on two points: have the organisations involved followed best practice (the appropriate standards and any other best practice in the environment they are working in), AND are all the staff carrying out the work competent and professional in their roles. Because if someone (deliberately or otherwise) acts negligently it is extremely hard to spot, however good your processes are. There are always engineering tasks, at all levels, where you cannot justify having two engineers / technicians doing the same work in case one of them gets it wrong, and anyway if they are both not competent it won't help!
A fine example is type testing. Someone has to decide and justify which tests are and are not to be carried out for a particular safety argument, someone needs to plan those tests (typically to a standard but adapted to the specific system being tested) and ensure the results are managed correctly into the project documentation, and someone needs to set up the tests according to the plan, operate the equipment, and log the results accurately. I want to be assured that all of those staff will approach their work professionally, so if in those three roles I saw the staff were CEng, IEng, and EngTech that would help reassure me that they had been independently assessed in how they approach their work. Of course it's only a part of the story, I will also want to know that they are competent in the particular field in which they are working, but that tends to be easier to prove.
This is why I am a passionate supporter of IEng and EngTech registrations, and particularly get frustrated that my clients don't push it.
I also support them as a good benchmark for engineers and technicians to be aware of their own competences and areas of improvement. Personally I am very happy to support the requirements of UKSpec as being a sound baseline for the standards an engineer or technician should expect to meet - which can be important when commercial pressures or traditional practices within a company can set different expectations. As, for example, we may have seen recently in the VW emissions case.
HOWEVER, to play devil's advocate for a moment, if I was set the challenge of making a qualitative - let alone a quantitative - judgment of how many lives had been lost through failures in UK engineering which would have been prevented if staff had been IEng and EngTech accredited I couldn't do it. And in fact in my own particular field I suspect that the answer is probably none (since we don't kill very many people anyway). Companies that work in safety critical fields tend to have a safety culture anyway which permeates through them (although there are exceptions), and where they don't it could be argued that it doesn't matter - but again where does this leave the VW case?
But it still feels to me like totally the right thing to do, given that the costs to engineering companies (assuming they cover registrants costs) are really pretty trivial. Not just for safety critical or high reliability engineering, but just generally to improve standards. I do believe that any employer that made it a condition that their staff (at all levels) became registered, and provided support to train them through this, would see an improvement in their output quality and efficiency.
Roy. In my opinion when IEng was equated to a Technologist it was set to a standard. In Ireland its viewed as an Associate Engineer etc. Only when people read detailed description such as the UK SPEC etc they get the more accurate benchmark. So I'm asked is it an Engineer or a Technologist? In Russia they solved the issue by calling such a professional a "Engineer Technolog" :-)
I don't think throwing the title "Technologist" into the mix helps - I'm not convinced that most people in the profession have a clear idea what this means either. (Maybe it's just me. I have absolutely no idea what one is. It's not a term I ever hear used.)
My view is that an IEng is an engineer just as a CEng is. The only difference is that a CEng will take personal final signoff responsibility for significant projects based on their own judgement (and get it right most of the time).
I think you've sort of picked up on the point: the role / title / status / whatever you like to call it is CEng / IEng / EngTech, to know what they mean you need to read UKSpec.
I can see this getting into a circular reference: "What's an IEng?" "It's a technologist." "So what's a technologist?" "Someone who's an IEng"
I really don't see it's the definition that's the problem - it's the fact that employers don't see the value (completely wrongly in my view) of third party accreditation of their staff except at senior level. It's got to be employer led. So the institutions and EC have got to be able to go to employers' groups and say "your businesses will do better if you get your staff accredited" in such a way that they are believed.
Andy. I think there are 2 different views. One is UK Two is International My point was on the international level. IEng recognition internationally is equated by EC not to IntTech. Can IEng register as Int PE? Or Eur Eng? Hope this clarify my point. IET is International as well. The UK SPEC for IEng is demanding and impressive. But there is double standard set and its not by me. Why IEng is equated to Technologists is EngC question.
Moshe, Firstly, in case my wording doesn't convey my intention correctly, this isn't to challenge what you said, but to seek genuine enlightenment. When you mention I.Eng being equated to technologist, who are you suggesting is doing that? Is anybody involved in EC, UKSPEC or IET doing so? If so, I believe that needs correcting as I most definitely don't see I Eng as a technologist - it is, I believe, very definitely an engineer as the title suggests, and so do the UKSPEC requirements . One that doesn't provide final sign-off or responsibility, and who typically selects solutions from a number of pre-defined ones, rather than producing new solutions, but an engineer nonetheless. Like Andy, I'm not as sure of what a technologist really is, but I would have thought Eng Tech is more likely to be the appropriate registration grade to be equated with technologist, again simply by virtue of the title, as further confirmed by UKSPEC. So, if someone associated with EC, UKSPEC or IET has suggested or defined the equating of I.Eng with technologist, I'd really like to know, please. If not, who are you suggesting has done so? Other countries internationally? If so, then we surely have to educate them to the fact that it's an invalid equation. Employers? Well, quite possibly so, but that brings us back to exactly the position I, Andy and others take, that it's time for serious action to educate regarding their error.
Perhap below link document will give you all a clearer picture on IEng as an Engineering Technologist title from International Engineering Alliance (IEA) website.
IEng is not a Professional Engineer title and IEng can not apply for International Professional Engineer (IntPE), only CEng can apply to IntPE. IEng can only go for International Engineering Technologist (IntET).
