Late into this thread as I've been much less active in these forums than I used to be ad they were eating up far too much of my time,  so apologies if that means I cover ground already covered.


However, prompted by Simon's list of benefits, I felt I could keep this relatively brief as I feel his list is spot on for my industry,  the railway industry (in particular Rail projects) if only we could overcome the vicious chicken and egg we're currently in. 

I see registration at either C.Eng or I.Eng as offering all of those benefits,  and from my personal perspective,  I regularly have to approve the appointment of Contractors' Responsible Engineers.  Bear in mind that this is a crucially responsible role,  as the title suggests,  given it is their role to approve all design and construction within their discipline,  a role that sits firmly with the contractor under CDM.


Whenever we encounter anybody new to us,  we have a really difficult job of determining their suitability. If they have undertaken a similar role elsewhere, we can consult the "network" of other client's project engineers,  but this often doesn't produce results. To have the benchmark of peer assessment provided by registration would make this far easier and more reliable. 


Whether the most appropriate registration is C.Eng or I.Eng is completely dependent on the nature of the project - for many,  I.Eng would be fine,  but for more complex projects,  especially where innovative solutions would be desirable,  C.Eng would be preferred. 


The problem is that chicken and egg I refer to.  I would love it if we could stipulate registration as a requirement, possibly defining which level on a project by project basis,  but we simply can't do that at present as the proportion of engineers who are registered is far too low. But if we did so,  this would provide the motivation for our contractors to require registration for their engineers,  and that would provide motivation for those engineers to seek registration.  As it is,  because it's not a requirement,  many engineers don't see the value in seeking registration.  


So,  until and unless we make it a requirement,  we will not get the critical mass of available registered engineers,  but if we did make it a requirement,  we would currently not be able to find sufficient to fill the roles,  so it becomes a step that the organisation is unprepared to sanction, hence nothing changes. 


I would love to see the vicious circle broken.  Maybe the only answer is to put a time limit by which it will become a requirement,  one that is practical for currently unregistered but potentially suitable engineers to achieve,  but,  to do that,  there needs to be a big change in organisational readiness to embrace this.  


As I've commented in previous threads,  this is where I feel that an Institute driven "marketing" campaign is required to convey that such a move would be beneficial (maybe a list such as that provided by Simon would help) and that it is a realistic,  achievable goal.

Late into this thread as I've been much less active in these forums than I used to be ad they were eating up far too much of my time,  so apologies if that means I cover ground already covered.


However, prompted by Simon's list of benefits, I felt I could keep this relatively brief as I feel his list is spot on for my industry,  the railway industry (in particular Rail projects) if only we could overcome the vicious chicken and egg we're currently in. 

I see registration at either C.Eng or I.Eng as offering all of those benefits,  and from my personal perspective,  I regularly have to approve the appointment of Contractors' Responsible Engineers.  Bear in mind that this is a crucially responsible role,  as the title suggests,  given it is their role to approve all design and construction within their discipline,  a role that sits firmly with the contractor under CDM.


Whenever we encounter anybody new to us,  we have a really difficult job of determining their suitability. If they have undertaken a similar role elsewhere, we can consult the "network" of other client's project engineers,  but this often doesn't produce results. To have the benchmark of peer assessment provided by registration would make this far easier and more reliable. 


Whether the most appropriate registration is C.Eng or I.Eng is completely dependent on the nature of the project - for many,  I.Eng would be fine,  but for more complex projects,  especially where innovative solutions would be desirable,  C.Eng would be preferred. 


The problem is that chicken and egg I refer to.  I would love it if we could stipulate registration as a requirement, possibly defining which level on a project by project basis,  but we simply can't do that at present as the proportion of engineers who are registered is far too low. But if we did so,  this would provide the motivation for our contractors to require registration for their engineers,  and that would provide motivation for those engineers to seek registration.  As it is,  because it's not a requirement,  many engineers don't see the value in seeking registration.  


So,  until and unless we make it a requirement,  we will not get the critical mass of available registered engineers,  but if we did make it a requirement,  we would currently not be able to find sufficient to fill the roles,  so it becomes a step that the organisation is unprepared to sanction, hence nothing changes. 


I would love to see the vicious circle broken.  Maybe the only answer is to put a time limit by which it will become a requirement,  one that is practical for currently unregistered but potentially suitable engineers to achieve,  but,  to do that,  there needs to be a big change in organisational readiness to embrace this.  


As I've commented in previous threads,  this is where I feel that an Institute driven "marketing" campaign is required to convey that such a move would be beneficial (maybe a list such as that provided by Simon would help) and that it is a realistic,  achievable goal.