Moshe,

 

I think that your first statement is the most important. “Chartered” is widely recognised and used across a range of professions anything else has to be explained to a potentially sceptical audience. The Institution of Incorporated Engineers argument was that IEng represented an equal level of “learnedness” but with a more practical or “applied” emphasis. Most IEng emerged via the apprenticeship system and the academic world gave no value to the 4 or 5 years of work-based learning that this entailed, only the part-time study element in college (perhaps 20%). A complicating factor is that careers are long and the academic “requirements” (more recently seen by IET as “benchmarks”) have been inflated over time. This meant that many IEng hold the same qualifications and have exercised similar responsibility to their predecessors a decade older who are CEng.  The balance of people going to university post-compulsory education, rather than entering work-based training programmes with a part-time educational element has also changed enormously.

 

A recent leisure based visit to the USA provoked me to explore the related issue of Bachelor of Engineering (BE) versus Bachelor of Engineering Technology (BET) Degrees. Although state licensing and various other political factors create a different environment to the UK there are some interesting parallels. One of our CEng members (with a BET) has offered an interesting and perhaps more positive view of IEng.

 
Simon

 

This is the intention of Engineering Council who own the UK-SPEC standard.  When UK-SPEC was developed during a “different but equally valuable” time. The intention was that CEng would be distinguished by more deeply analytical understanding being applied to more “innovative” situations, With IEng using more standardised engineering solutions. Management communication and commitment to professionalism were not differentiated, except through a difference between “leadership” (CEng) and “management” (IEng).

 

The conflation between management and technical contribution is one of the biggest challenges with the current standard. Many fine Engineers (and Technicians) are better suited to pursuing technical excellence in specialist roles, they should be admired and respected for that. However, status and money are associated with management and leadership. In some sectors it is common for senior management to have developed from apprenticeships.  An apprentice’s chance of becoming a director is greatest in the construction industry, with 47% of businesses in this sector employing former apprentices in board level positions. This is followed by manufacturing & engineering (43%), agriculture (33%) and energy and power (33%). (City & Guilds 2013). Although some may also be CEng, many would be IEng under UK-SPEC but couldn’t be credibly positioned as “second rank”.                      

 
Peter

 

Ten years ago it was not unusual to see some senior managers and senior officers in the Armed Forces using their IEng post-nominal occasionally. Some have left the register, some remain but have become “closet”, many of those for whom holding registration offered value have sought transfer to CEng with a very high success rate. Unfortunately for some, their current circumstances in relation to UK-SPEC are not ideal and there are particular “tripping points”, in relation to design for example.

It is important not to idealise the past and put on rose-tinted spectacles. Engineering Council would legitimately argue that it changed policy because new IEng registrations were in steep decline. Chartered Engineer’s representatives would also argue that most of them never accepted the “different but equally valuable” proposition and that they are the majority. 

 

If there is a “stain”, it is the failure to recognise and manage the situation of long-standing IEng in a changed policy. This has unfairly damaged some, to which resignation was one of a range of reasonable responses.  There are other issues, but I won’t pursue these again (after the long running “IEng discontinued” thread) as someone who tried to offer some leadership in the “Proud to be IEng” campaign of 2011. It is “water under the bridge”.

 

As IEng is now seen as a “progression” ladders and bridges have to exist to enable those who illustrate a similar standard of competence, to gain an equitable amount of recognition. For me this has to focus first on early career where Engineers emerging  from degree and higher apprenticeships should “progress” equitably with those from full-time undergraduate pathways, if they are demonstrating a similar level of competent performance.

 

The average typical current registration assessment  is a one-off review conducted on someone in their late 30s. It is possible to place such experienced engineers into the IEng or CEng category, although there is substantial overlap and difficulty at the margin, especially in sectors where most technology is mainly “mature” rather than “innovative”. My challenge to us collectively is; does making this distinction add value, or could we use the capability that we have developed to add greater value to our members, their employers and society. I feel that we are rather stuck in awarding “titles” based primarily on academic attainment. I don’t object to using academic evidence or deny the value of academic preparation and mid-career learning, but for most people academic opportunities inevitably occur mainly in their teens. If on average engineers are seeking registration 15-20 years into career, they are mostly using a limited repertoire of maths and science fundamentals.  

 

Nouman

 

The idea of an “Engineer” and “Technologist” being distinctively different has never gained a serious foothold in the UK. I mentioned in my response to Moshe the US situation. Our member in the US who works for a UK domiciled multi-national company found CEng preferable to the rigidity of a US system created by statutory state registration and opposition from NSPE towards those with Engineering Technology Degrees becoming registered Engineers.  To quote ABET

 
Engineering programs often focus on theory and conceptual design, while engineering technology programs usually focus on application and implementation. Engineering programs typically require additional, higher-level mathematics, including multiple semesters of calculus and calculus-based theoretical science courses, while engineering technology programs typically focus on algebra, trigonometry, applied calculus, and other courses that are more practical than theoretical in nature.

 

Our member’s comments were  

 
The actual work scope I have observed for engineers has much more in common with the definition of "engineering technologist" than it does "engineer".  In my experience (as well as the experience of my father, a mechanical engineer with 3+ decades of experience in a variety of industries), there appears to be a lot of overlap between the classes of degrees and the work accomplished in industry. Additionally, the most commonly repeated argument against including ET graduates as engineers seems to be a repeated focus on the lack of advanced math such as Differential Equations.  I know many engineers, especially those whose areas of expertise focus on machine element design, pressure vessels, and other areas that are stress-analysis focused, who have never used math more advanced than Algebra in designing equipment. 

 
I believe that there is room for both Engineering and Engineering Technology graduates within the licensure system.  I also believe that approval for licensure should be based on their scope of work compared with the body of knowledge of their degree. 

 
Daniel

 

I think that your observation is valid, but I have probably already made the counter argument why work-based learning should be taken into account. I think what people who don’t share what your length of experience may not realise, is that an HNC (plus some extra subject credits) was once an approved qualification for CEng, as held by my former manager who is still registered. There have in my memory always been special routes for experienced “senior” engineers.  When I was 27 I looked into it, but you had to be over 35 to be considered. As I later discovered, I would also have needed to be a grade higher than I was at the time to be considered “senior” enough.  By the time I got to 35 my career had migrated in a less technical direction which led me to Chartership there. If you are suggesting a connection between the more pragmatic approach to academic “requirements” and  the inflation of CEng to “Masters level”  from the early 2000s, which would have positioned most engineering graduates as IEng, I’m not going to disagree. Many more recent graduates are employed as Technicians, since the decline of apprenticeships which used to mainly feed this need. There is of course no substitute for practical training where there is a craft or “on the tools” element, but many roles are now more “knowledge based” (i.e. driving a computer).   

 

Looking forward and coming from a UK perspective, but one that is open inclusive and welcoming to Engineers and Technicians those who wish to affiliate to UK standards from other countries my challenge is –

    

Could we not try to normalise the process of reasonably regular review from the beginning of a career, alongside the award and use of registration titles?  Whatever we do, it has to be supportive not punitive, we have a voluntary system that engineers and their employers have to want to engage in.  We have most of the building blocks in-place, including excellent examples of flexible academic provision incorporating work–based learning.   

       

 

Moshe,

 

I think that your first statement is the most important. “Chartered” is widely recognised and used across a range of professions anything else has to be explained to a potentially sceptical audience. The Institution of Incorporated Engineers argument was that IEng represented an equal level of “learnedness” but with a more practical or “applied” emphasis. Most IEng emerged via the apprenticeship system and the academic world gave no value to the 4 or 5 years of work-based learning that this entailed, only the part-time study element in college (perhaps 20%). A complicating factor is that careers are long and the academic “requirements” (more recently seen by IET as “benchmarks”) have been inflated over time. This meant that many IEng hold the same qualifications and have exercised similar responsibility to their predecessors a decade older who are CEng.  The balance of people going to university post-compulsory education, rather than entering work-based training programmes with a part-time educational element has also changed enormously.

 

A recent leisure based visit to the USA provoked me to explore the related issue of Bachelor of Engineering (BE) versus Bachelor of Engineering Technology (BET) Degrees. Although state licensing and various other political factors create a different environment to the UK there are some interesting parallels. One of our CEng members (with a BET) has offered an interesting and perhaps more positive view of IEng.

 
Simon

 

This is the intention of Engineering Council who own the UK-SPEC standard.  When UK-SPEC was developed during a “different but equally valuable” time. The intention was that CEng would be distinguished by more deeply analytical understanding being applied to more “innovative” situations, With IEng using more standardised engineering solutions. Management communication and commitment to professionalism were not differentiated, except through a difference between “leadership” (CEng) and “management” (IEng).

 

The conflation between management and technical contribution is one of the biggest challenges with the current standard. Many fine Engineers (and Technicians) are better suited to pursuing technical excellence in specialist roles, they should be admired and respected for that. However, status and money are associated with management and leadership. In some sectors it is common for senior management to have developed from apprenticeships.  An apprentice’s chance of becoming a director is greatest in the construction industry, with 47% of businesses in this sector employing former apprentices in board level positions. This is followed by manufacturing & engineering (43%), agriculture (33%) and energy and power (33%). (City & Guilds 2013). Although some may also be CEng, many would be IEng under UK-SPEC but couldn’t be credibly positioned as “second rank”.                      

 
Peter

 

Ten years ago it was not unusual to see some senior managers and senior officers in the Armed Forces using their IEng post-nominal occasionally. Some have left the register, some remain but have become “closet”, many of those for whom holding registration offered value have sought transfer to CEng with a very high success rate. Unfortunately for some, their current circumstances in relation to UK-SPEC are not ideal and there are particular “tripping points”, in relation to design for example.

It is important not to idealise the past and put on rose-tinted spectacles. Engineering Council would legitimately argue that it changed policy because new IEng registrations were in steep decline. Chartered Engineer’s representatives would also argue that most of them never accepted the “different but equally valuable” proposition and that they are the majority. 

 

If there is a “stain”, it is the failure to recognise and manage the situation of long-standing IEng in a changed policy. This has unfairly damaged some, to which resignation was one of a range of reasonable responses.  There are other issues, but I won’t pursue these again (after the long running “IEng discontinued” thread) as someone who tried to offer some leadership in the “Proud to be IEng” campaign of 2011. It is “water under the bridge”.

 

As IEng is now seen as a “progression” ladders and bridges have to exist to enable those who illustrate a similar standard of competence, to gain an equitable amount of recognition. For me this has to focus first on early career where Engineers emerging  from degree and higher apprenticeships should “progress” equitably with those from full-time undergraduate pathways, if they are demonstrating a similar level of competent performance.

 

The average typical current registration assessment  is a one-off review conducted on someone in their late 30s. It is possible to place such experienced engineers into the IEng or CEng category, although there is substantial overlap and difficulty at the margin, especially in sectors where most technology is mainly “mature” rather than “innovative”. My challenge to us collectively is; does making this distinction add value, or could we use the capability that we have developed to add greater value to our members, their employers and society. I feel that we are rather stuck in awarding “titles” based primarily on academic attainment. I don’t object to using academic evidence or deny the value of academic preparation and mid-career learning, but for most people academic opportunities inevitably occur mainly in their teens. If on average engineers are seeking registration 15-20 years into career, they are mostly using a limited repertoire of maths and science fundamentals.  

 

Nouman

 

The idea of an “Engineer” and “Technologist” being distinctively different has never gained a serious foothold in the UK. I mentioned in my response to Moshe the US situation. Our member in the US who works for a UK domiciled multi-national company found CEng preferable to the rigidity of a US system created by statutory state registration and opposition from NSPE towards those with Engineering Technology Degrees becoming registered Engineers.  To quote ABET

 
Engineering programs often focus on theory and conceptual design, while engineering technology programs usually focus on application and implementation. Engineering programs typically require additional, higher-level mathematics, including multiple semesters of calculus and calculus-based theoretical science courses, while engineering technology programs typically focus on algebra, trigonometry, applied calculus, and other courses that are more practical than theoretical in nature.

 

Our member’s comments were  

 
The actual work scope I have observed for engineers has much more in common with the definition of "engineering technologist" than it does "engineer".  In my experience (as well as the experience of my father, a mechanical engineer with 3+ decades of experience in a variety of industries), there appears to be a lot of overlap between the classes of degrees and the work accomplished in industry. Additionally, the most commonly repeated argument against including ET graduates as engineers seems to be a repeated focus on the lack of advanced math such as Differential Equations.  I know many engineers, especially those whose areas of expertise focus on machine element design, pressure vessels, and other areas that are stress-analysis focused, who have never used math more advanced than Algebra in designing equipment. 

 
I believe that there is room for both Engineering and Engineering Technology graduates within the licensure system.  I also believe that approval for licensure should be based on their scope of work compared with the body of knowledge of their degree. 

 
Daniel

 

I think that your observation is valid, but I have probably already made the counter argument why work-based learning should be taken into account. I think what people who don’t share what your length of experience may not realise, is that an HNC (plus some extra subject credits) was once an approved qualification for CEng, as held by my former manager who is still registered. There have in my memory always been special routes for experienced “senior” engineers.  When I was 27 I looked into it, but you had to be over 35 to be considered. As I later discovered, I would also have needed to be a grade higher than I was at the time to be considered “senior” enough.  By the time I got to 35 my career had migrated in a less technical direction which led me to Chartership there. If you are suggesting a connection between the more pragmatic approach to academic “requirements” and  the inflation of CEng to “Masters level”  from the early 2000s, which would have positioned most engineering graduates as IEng, I’m not going to disagree. Many more recent graduates are employed as Technicians, since the decline of apprenticeships which used to mainly feed this need. There is of course no substitute for practical training where there is a craft or “on the tools” element, but many roles are now more “knowledge based” (i.e. driving a computer).   

 

Looking forward and coming from a UK perspective, but one that is open inclusive and welcoming to Engineers and Technicians those who wish to affiliate to UK standards from other countries my challenge is –

    

Could we not try to normalise the process of reasonably regular review from the beginning of a career, alongside the award and use of registration titles?  Whatever we do, it has to be supportive not punitive, we have a voluntary system that engineers and their employers have to want to engage in.  We have most of the building blocks in-place, including excellent examples of flexible academic provision incorporating work–based learning.