ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Excellent post Roy - I was going to say "as ever" but actually I think that's your best yet. Nicely brings together the discussion on this point over many years.


Can I just add a bit more to one of Roy's points which I think is absolutely crucial (and again I've mentioned this before a few times). CEng flourishes in some industries because employers and their customers see a use for it. IEng doesn't because they don't.


It's fairly simple to see why: in critical and complex projects a considerable legal burden rests on proving the competence of the person that signs off that project - and it's become accepted that CEng is appropriate supporting evidence for this. This isn't the case where constrained, specific and rigorous standards apply (to take a simple example, house wiring to Part P), there the requirement is to demonstrate that the signatory is trained and certified to that standard, rather than being a generally competent engineer.


Somewhere in the middle of this sits the IEng engineer. They may not have to regularly prove to acceptance bodies that they are generally competent, they may well regularly need to show specific competencies but these can be shown in other ways. So is there any point?


I strongly believe there is. There are a very large number of vaguely IEng level engineers in the engineering community, far more than there are CEng, and at present there is a very imperfect method for employers (and the engineers themselves!) to judge their relative competence. This is particularly an issue for engineering, out of all professions, as so many professional engineers are non-graduates, and there is no industry wide accepted and practiced post-gradute training process. At the moment, employers make a judgement by CVs and interviews, which are the best processes we have but are really not terribly good. If only we had a recognised method by which engineers could be peer-assessed based on their actual history! Oh, that's right, we do...


The problem the EC have always faced is gaining industry acceptance of this, and this will be an uphill struggle. This is not least because many engineering recruiters will prefer to trust their own judgement over some piece of paper - which is slightly ironic given how excited they get by degree grades. A bigger issue is that it doesn't remove the need to review a canadidate's experience seperately, they may have got their IEng in a completely irrelevant field. BUT it should be providing a warm feeling that you are looking at a true "professional", and don't we want professionals on our teams?

 

I must add that I also recommend IEng (and EngTech) to individuals - especially non-graduates - as a way that they themselves can gain confidence in their abilities. This can particularly apply to those in very specific roles who struggle to get a view from their employer as to how generally well-rounded they are as an engineer. The professional registration process itself, even if unsuccesful, should give clear feedback as to areas of strength and weakness. Of course, only the candidate themselves can decide what to do with that feedback.


IEng engineers are different to CEngs, they are vital to the engineering industry (in fact we need more of them - and more good ones), and employers do need a way of distinguishing the professional ones - the ones that can be safely left alone to run projects by themselves - from those who still need development (or, indeed, those who will never be safe to leave alone with a screwdriver or a pen).


Sadly we are in a chicken and egg situation here - it would be possible in principle to persuade critical organisations (utilities, defence, rail) that, for a start, individual contractors must hold the appropriate level of professional registration. But they couldn't do it now because there aren't enough IEngs around. Don't know the answer to that one.


Let's keep plugging away at this one - it's worth it.


Cheers, Andy

Excellent post Roy - I was going to say "as ever" but actually I think that's your best yet. Nicely brings together the discussion on this point over many years.


Can I just add a bit more to one of Roy's points which I think is absolutely crucial (and again I've mentioned this before a few times). CEng flourishes in some industries because employers and their customers see a use for it. IEng doesn't because they don't.


It's fairly simple to see why: in critical and complex projects a considerable legal burden rests on proving the competence of the person that signs off that project - and it's become accepted that CEng is appropriate supporting evidence for this. This isn't the case where constrained, specific and rigorous standards apply (to take a simple example, house wiring to Part P), there the requirement is to demonstrate that the signatory is trained and certified to that standard, rather than being a generally competent engineer.


Somewhere in the middle of this sits the IEng engineer. They may not have to regularly prove to acceptance bodies that they are generally competent, they may well regularly need to show specific competencies but these can be shown in other ways. So is there any point?


I strongly believe there is. There are a very large number of vaguely IEng level engineers in the engineering community, far more than there are CEng, and at present there is a very imperfect method for employers (and the engineers themselves!) to judge their relative competence. This is particularly an issue for engineering, out of all professions, as so many professional engineers are non-graduates, and there is no industry wide accepted and practiced post-gradute training process. At the moment, employers make a judgement by CVs and interviews, which are the best processes we have but are really not terribly good. If only we had a recognised method by which engineers could be peer-assessed based on their actual history! Oh, that's right, we do...


The problem the EC have always faced is gaining industry acceptance of this, and this will be an uphill struggle. This is not least because many engineering recruiters will prefer to trust their own judgement over some piece of paper - which is slightly ironic given how excited they get by degree grades. A bigger issue is that it doesn't remove the need to review a canadidate's experience seperately, they may have got their IEng in a completely irrelevant field. BUT it should be providing a warm feeling that you are looking at a true "professional", and don't we want professionals on our teams?

 

I must add that I also recommend IEng (and EngTech) to individuals - especially non-graduates - as a way that they themselves can gain confidence in their abilities. This can particularly apply to those in very specific roles who struggle to get a view from their employer as to how generally well-rounded they are as an engineer. The professional registration process itself, even if unsuccesful, should give clear feedback as to areas of strength and weakness. Of course, only the candidate themselves can decide what to do with that feedback.


IEng engineers are different to CEngs, they are vital to the engineering industry (in fact we need more of them - and more good ones), and employers do need a way of distinguishing the professional ones - the ones that can be safely left alone to run projects by themselves - from those who still need development (or, indeed, those who will never be safe to leave alone with a screwdriver or a pen).


Sadly we are in a chicken and egg situation here - it would be possible in principle to persuade critical organisations (utilities, defence, rail) that, for a start, individual contractors must hold the appropriate level of professional registration. But they couldn't do it now because there aren't enough IEngs around. Don't know the answer to that one.


Let's keep plugging away at this one - it's worth it.


Cheers, Andy