ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

The confusion in my opinion is because there are two tiles of Engineer. Again I was IEng and felt privileged to be one.

I think most countries have a 3 distinctive categories.

Technician, Technologist and Engineer.

This makes many persons around the world to equate I.Eng with Technologist.

Again I'm in minority but I do think that Chartered Engineering Technologist or just Chartered Technologist may be a more appropriate designation. 

IET is clear in placing IEng among Technologists.

Now why not be the top Technologist?  In UK its Chartered designation.

 

IntET registration

Incorporated Engineers (IEng) who are IET registered may be eligible to apply for International Engineering Technologist (IntET) professional registration.

IntPE registration

Chartered Engineers (CEng) who are IET registered can apply for International Professional Engineer (IntPE) professional registration.

Can I just make two comments:

1. No-one gets banned from these forums for constructively criticising the IET, the EC, or the professional statii. I know, I've been constructively criticising them on these IEE / IET forums for well over ten years! I would assume that potentially libellous postings would be removed.

2. Individual personal cases cannot be commented on here. Apart from being inpractical,  it would be a breach of confidentiality betwwen the IET and the member involved.


I am not employed by the IET, just a volunteer trying to help other engineers. And apologies for any typos, typing this while my dinner's getting cold... 


Thanks,


Andy

The renewed momentum in this forum , caused me to pull together some of my own thoughts and those of other contributors, since I have some measure of agreement with elements of many of the recent posts. The desperately diligent may wish to trawl historic forums, for repetition inconsistency etc. But as I see it we need to move forward with constructive intent, even if that is  suggestions for reform. To borrow a topical theme we need to focus on what mostly unites us rather than that which divides.   

 
Eur Ing & other grievances

 
There are a number of historic grievances about perceived unfairness, including Engineering Council barring UK IEng from registering as Eur Eng. I have come across a handful of IEng MET who met the Eur Ing criteria whilst previously practising in another EU country and were subsequently awarded IEng by the UK system.  In my experience many of those who complain wouldn’t have been eligible or found it beneficial anyway, but the issue is symbolic. Only John can pursue his individual grievances ,please John be careful not to make specific allegations or to insult individuals and organisations here. You make some valid points, which should be open to discussion, but wrapping them within a grievance risks undermining them.          

 
Policy & Politics

 
There are many under the Engineering Council umbrella who would bemoan the period during which it described IEng & CEng to be “different but equally valuable” as an aberration.  The standards for each category of professional registration reflect different “roles” or types of professional contribution, but they are also benchmarked to levels of “learnedness” , technical innovation or technically complex responsibilities . Therefore a hierarchy is presumed, from which various consequences flow. 

 
For example, the number one benefit of becoming a Chartered Engineer according to Engineering Council promotional material is gaining "The status of being part of a technological elite".  A  common definition of elite is  "a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group" another definition is "a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group".  However within Engineering Council regulation, the "elite" group is also the overwhelming majority.  Significant parts of the Engineering Council family continue to  view IEng as little more than a convenient inferior pejorative to help position CEng as “elite”.       

 
A few years ago Engineering Council decided to reinforce the concept of a hierarchy and cleanse any lingering vestiges of its “equal but different period” which for them ended from 2008 onwards. UK-SPEC was tweaked and procedural codes were adjusted to exclude experienced IEng from certain roles that they had previously fulfilled as “equals”. IET representatives mostly argued against this, but did not carry the day. If anyone wants to look backwards into these forums, the issues were extensively discussed including by me, but inevitably given that IEng registrants were a declining minority, and despite a “fighting rear-guard action”, what many veteran lEng saw as a “downgrade” took place. Incidentally IET CEng including a distinguished Professor led some IET arguments. It should be remembered that the IIE was a multi-disciplinary body with a significant CEng contingent before it merged with The IET. However this is now part of history and we can only affect the future.          

       
Some countries have statutory systems for regulating professions or  ways of restricting access into “respected” professions, often favouring those from particular social backgrounds. I see no compelling evidence of such systems resulting in generally higher standards of engineering in practice.  However for a voluntary system to work well, it needs to engage with those who practice, to enable knowledge sharing, encourage professionalism, support careers and contribute to a “better world”.

 
In a voluntary system people have choices about university course, apprenticeship, career path, country to work in and also what wider recognition might be of value. However for most people such choices are constrained by their aptitude, personal  circumstances and potential opportunities. The majority of talented people gain good rewarding careers and are respected by others including employers, customers colleagues  etc.  A recent high profile legal case illustrated that a craft/technician  (plumber) who would perhaps be placed at the lowest threshold of Engineering Council recognition, was earning more than most Chartered Engineers (Andy’s point) . Peter’s point and Moshe’s reflection on a potential missed opportunity are also relevant here, because our challenge is to gain engagement, demonstrate relevance and broaden the influence of Engineers and Technicians. Arguments about relative status between two different flavours of Engineer or “Technologists” with an average age around 60, adds little to this mission. We shouldn't really need to ask the question about the relative status of different “titles”.  The answers to questions about status are sociological not technical. Engineers should be able to measure performance, but should also understand that the results obtained depend on what measures you choose.  If I asked whether a Baron is of higher status than a Viscount, then there are rules and answers of sorts, but for most people they would be little more than a historical curiosity.   

 
As I have posted before, I would like to see practising professionals subject themselves to a voluntary peer review, at a threshold point in early career and ideally from time to time later.  Some sort of "progressive" structure would be useful, but only if it is respectful, supportive, fair and performance based.  If the threshold for recognition as a professional engineer is broadly at graduate level , then there should never again be a systematic disadvantage or “stigma” (Mark Carne CEO Network Rail) for that standard having been achieved via an apprenticeship and fair value should be given to work-based learning. Undergraduate engineering programmes need to have different balances, to more optimally prepare people with different aptitudes for different types of roles and ideally post-graduate options would be more readily available to practising professionals. Former Polytechnics and colleges have a long tradition of responding to local employers’ needs. There isn’t a one (calculus based) size that fits all!

 
Employers’ perspectives  

 
The term “employer” is shorthand for a huge variety of different individuals and groups in many types of circumstances.  Some employers have detailed policies and standards for the employment of technical staff, others a patchwork of opinions or practices established through experience over time.  Professional Engineering Institutions (aka “Learned Societies”) and their umbrella body Engineering Council have some influence , but relatively weak engagement , only listening effectively to those who share the same perspective.  My previous suggestion is intended to “add value” to Engineers and Technicians, including by implication whoever is employing them.  However to fundamentally change the current level of voluntary engagement by employers, professional registration needs to contribute towards performance and productivity , rather than obsess about teenage academic achievement and the relative status of mid-career engineers.        

    
A few years ago I looked into why so few recruiters were advertising for IEng. To simplify the answer was; “ because it doesn’t attract suitable applicants”. If we accept Peter’s point, then recruiters, if they are aware of IEng at all , see it as associated with someone younger perhaps on a “stepping stone” towards CEng, then the worldwide total of IEng registrants under 30 years old  in 2015 was less than 400.  When I registered as IEng at age 27, my perception at the time was that I had “delayed” since a minimum age of 23 was specified as a requirement. The average age of a newly registered IEng or CEng has hovered around 37 for many years now. Even if recruiters understood in detail the UK-SPEC standard, then no more than 25% of registrants have been assessed against it.  “CEng or working towards” is indicative, as is  the common “at least HNC” which taken together with work-based learning indicates “degree level”.       

 
It seems that many employers are equally positive about the two categories, because to seek either demonstrates a commitment to professionalism and a willingness to subject oneself to peer review. Some employers might find the IEng/CEng differentiation useful but many wouldn’t. In my experience many of those who favour CEng assume that clients won’t understand or value IEng, or they have a tradition of graduate entry from which CEng became a “normal” expectation for generations. IEng is more likely to be valued where there is an apprenticeship tradition, or for the “status neutral” reason that the IEng standard is more appropriate to the type of work being carried out. There are circumstances where a person passing the CEng threshold will have demonstrated IEng and perhaps also Eng Tech in “progression”, but many others where the presumption that CEng subsumes the other categories isn’t valid in practice, but conveniently supports the idea of a hierarchy.

 
Only in relatively few employment situations is there scope for genuine independent thinking and innovation as aspired to by the CEng standard  “through innovation, creativity and change” . Mostly Engineers (or “Technologists”) and Technicians work in teams seeking to add value and manage technical risks. The statement added at the last UK-SPEC revision to CEng “they may have technical accountability for complex systems with significant levels of risk”, aligns better with most employment practice in my opinion. However, it is important to differentiate between technically expert “enabling” contributions, or “technical leadership” and those which may be mainly managerial or bureaucratic in nature.  In these circumstances employers are likely to value a “seasoned” professional  and reasonably consider CEng recognition as part of due-diligence efforts. I can’t think of any legitimate reason why senior professionals of this nature shouldn’t enjoy the highest level of respect from their peers, but this contribution is well beyond an appropriate threshold for recognition. Talk of being “elite” or even “creative and innovative” would seem to many of them overblown and even unwelcome.              

 
Most employers of engineers and technicians in the 21st century value flexibility and productivity, over rigidity, demarcation and status. I have met Chartered Engineers who work in overalls and Technicians with a PhD. Over twenty years ago on behalf a leading employer, I approached a major engineering institution, with a view to them recognising our graduate training scheme. The business was looking to move its culture away from rigid roles and hierarchies, towards something more flexible and performance driven,  symbolised by senior managers having the same overalls with their name on as worn by a Technician. I recommended that we delayed getting the institution involved, because they seemed more interested in perpetuating status, rank and snobbery. When eventually we went ahead, a site visit in Yorkshire attracted an equal and opposite reaction of inverse snobbery from the local managing engineers, in the internal “wash up”, probably undeserved , but illustrative of a problem that still persists to this day.    

 
Current and future challenges

 
We are where we are and a “blame game” doesn’t move us forward!  I have only re-visited the history to help explain why. Like any historical interpretation there are other equally valid and valuable interpretations as  seen from other perspectives.  I would also defend the IET’s registration assessment process as trying to be as fair, rigorous and efficient as it can be in serving IET members, within the licence requirements of Engineering Council.    

 
I see two key elements, the first being the appropriateness of the UK-SPEC standard. As a generic standard describing three different categories of Engineer and Technician it has imperfections, but also strengths. In my opinion it is a better approach than reverting to the old  “x qualification + y years of experience” formula. However, downsides are that it needs significant interpretation in a huge range of different circumstances, by different people with different ideas or prejudices, many of whom have never actually been assessed against it themselves. Furthermore, real world practice doesn’t necessarily neatly divide, so the categories overlap, especially IEng and CEng. There are also significant “tripping points” for those who as part of a successful career might seek progressive transfer through the categories and many of those “tripped” feel frustrated and cheated. The standard is a distillation of much thought over time and the best attempt we have to usefully categorise three types of engineering practice. Unfortunately it is also heavily conflated in most people’s minds with the second sociological element of status, magnifying any negative emotive elements.       

 
Therefore my question is; Is the distinction being created being created between Engineers, often of similar age, experience , capability and responsibility a valid or useful one?  The market mostly  seems to be saying - not really! Most importantly of all the key market segment of engineers and technicians who are passing through the threshold of professional competence in their 20s are mostly voting with their feet by not engaging.  

 
If we are to maintain and revitalise our voluntary system, then we need to be able to offer a clear, fair, consistent and attractive proposition to those who aspire to professionalism and their employers. As I see it, engaging with, respecting and nurturing early career engineers and technicians, is far more important than squabbles within the “seniors section” about who should be allowed to join, whether that exceptional round should lead to one or two shots off the handicap, or who chairs what committee. The analogy with Golf is intentional and many of the challenges similar.  We have to find a new way forward that respects the older enthusiasts and doesn’t spoil their enjoyment, but also deliberately passes control to a newer generation with hopefully more open and inclusive attitudes.

 
If we can build something better through gentle evolution, including a stronger IEng proposition then that would be great, we have been trying but previous efforts have had only limited success. In my opinion the many past grievances have now been adequately ventilated in these forums. There have also been constructive and useful suggestions. I used Golf as the sporting analogy, rather than The Football Association which has a higher political profile and has therefore hit the news for the wrong reasons ( A motion of "no confidence" in the Football Association has been passed by MPs debating the organisation's ability to reform itself –BBC 9^th Feb 2017 ) .  I don’t want to “throw the baby out with the bath water” but many Engineers and Technicians clearly don’t feel well-served by the Engineering Council family proposition and we need to address this.   

 
Could we find a way forward in which every new entrant to a career in engineering through an apprenticeship, a suitable degree course or other credible combination of knowledge and skills development, is offered a form of professional engagement which seems normal, affordable, fair and relevant? Any such proposition needs to grow with their current capability and performance, not hamper those who didn’t start with certain advantages. The IET and perhaps some others have made efforts and achieved some progress in this direction, but our regulator Engineering Council seems rather “stuck”.  I imply no personal criticism of past incumbents, but a new Head of Engineering Council is due to be announced soon and I hope they have the wherewithal and opportunity to seek a broad strategic review, including the roles of other stakeholders. To return to the sporting analogy, it is no good blaming the referee, but an over fussy one can spoil the game and a good one enhance it.            

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