Time to Knock IEng on the Head

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

Without re-writing UKSPEC, the whole "equal but different" thing is never going to happen.


When I applied for IEng a couple of years back, I had to read UKSPEC.  It was quite clear that anyone who qualified for CEng would more than meet the requirements for IEng, because the requirements for IEng were less than for CEng across the A and B sections.


Personally, I don't have an issue with a three-tier system, provided that the first two tiers have recognition for what they are.  At the present, only CEng has any real recognition, and there seems to be a vocal minority of CEng registrants who would like to not only keep it that way, but ensure that only CEng has any value at all.  If a CEng is the only sort of "real" engineer, and an IEng is just an engineer's assistant, then IEng isn't worth having.

Simon,

We know that IEng is not an Engineer assistant.  It's clear that IEng is a highly qualified Engineering professional. 

Also, I would argue that EngTech (first tier) is recognized designation and has a lot of value to the registrant with increasing registrations at that level. 

When I read UKSPEC for IEng I see highly demanding Engineering professional designation.  It's in my personal view more of an Applied or as some call Practical Engineer.

My colleagues call it more junior Engineer yet an Engineer.


Some countries have separated professional bodies handling registration of first and second tier vs the final third tier.

Canada is one such country. All provide recognition and value to the registrants.

Simon, 

I understand your point, but agree with Moshe's response. The trouble is, as long as we're trying to find a way to define what I.Eng is, were going to keep in struggling I suspect as it's difficult to put into words. As you say, simply reading UKSPEC for it as compared to C.Eng does suggest that.  There are very many C.Eng who are definitely not trying to reduce the model to the single  C.Eng registration.  However, those of us who do recognise not only the value of I.Eng, but how essential it is that there are plenty of people occupying I.Eng type roles, preferably with registration to provide the confidence to employers, other team members and clients that holding such registration provides, generally know, from working with those who are, or should be I.Eng, that there is in practice a high content of engineering activity in those roles that is equal in nature. Therein lies the problem, it's difficult to put into words in a way that doesn't make it simply a duplicate of C.Eng. Moshe users the term Practical Engineer, which is probably as close as we can get in one word (or two), but the trouble is that's difficult to tie down to what we really mean by it. I've tried in my earlier post, but it isn't easy. I think both Moshe and I knew what we mean, but how to convey that without misunderstanding or distortion.

​​​​​​ So our attempts to better define what we mean are, to some extent, doomed, and it brings me back to the question of whetter we critically need to. I recognise the point that having it properly defined, and consequently me universally accepted, could have a positive impact on uptake, but I'm not at all convinced that it would, that it really addresses the true problem which could be said to be apathy, but is really probably more black and white vision and laziness (plus the delusion previously mentioned wth many employers thinking they know better how to recognise the right person than the registration offers), and if we're not careful, we fall into the same black and white thinking ourselves when we hold this debate about equal but different against what I called the progressive model, and we yet again take the focus off addressing the real underlying problem (s). 

I believe that subtle understanding of what an I.Eng really is, even though not captured in UKSPEC, is probably present in most PRIs (it is in me and others I've met for certain) and most PRAs, and I feel that, if potential registration candidates approach the path to registration with an open mind, and place their trust in PRAs, the PRA will soon identify which category a candidate is best to pursue and can point them in the right direction, which will then be reflected in the assessment and interview process.

So maybe one answer is to promote the concept that candidates should be ready to have that dialogue first, without prejudging which category is right for them, without automatically assuming that, just because they think C.Eng is not achievable, that there isn't a category which is, and not feeling they've failed if they are pointed in the direction of I.Eng. 

Of course, that's only one half of the equation and, as many of us have already said, people are unlikely to accept that concept so long as employers continue to push for C.Eng or nothing.  We keep coming back to the same point, and I don't think the different but equal v. progressive levels debate is likely to affect that very much if at all.

Absolutely Alasdair!

I just saw this post on the LinkedIn


"Engineering Council commented on this

Jamie Hill IEng MRAeS

Senior Technical Specialist (Structures Engineer) at Chinook Delivery Team, DE&S, UK Ministry of Defence

1w

Thoroughly elated and proud to announce that I've been professionally recognised by the Royal Aeronautical Society and the Engineering Council as meeting the requirements for Incorporated Engineer! Absolutely massive career milestone for me achieved!"

• 64 Likes64 Likes on Jamie Hill IEng MRAeS’ post 

• 20 Comments20 Comments on Jamie Hill IEng MRAeS’ post

1wOpen options for Engineering Council’s comment

"Engineering Council

Engineering CouncilUK regulatory body for the engineering profession

Congratulations on achieving professional registration and becoming an IEng!  "

--------------------------------------

This shows people are proud to achieve IEng designation.

 

Excellent!

Andy Millar:

Simon Barker:

there seems to be a vocal minority of CEng registrants who would like to not only keep it that way, but ensure that only CEng has any value at all. 

If so please let us know where they are so that some of us very vocal CEng registrants can vocalise against them! I have not heard any CEng registrants express this view, but that is not to say there aren't any - if so I for one would like to see them brought out of the woodwork.

Unless what they are saying is that all professional engineers should be CEng (which would mean not that IEng has no value, but instead that it is unnecessary as it would be replaced by CEng), which is a perfectly valid proposal, although not one I would personally propose for the reasons I gave above.


As you can imagine I totally agree with Alasdair's post...


Cheers,


Andy

 

I was thinking of threads like https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/795/21647.  If only Chartered Engineers are licenced, and only licenced engineers can sign off work, then all the lower qualifications become a bit pointless.