Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 250 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 22445 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Nouman Abid Chuhan
Can we say that the CEng and IEng be considered equal titles in professional status or IEng is inferior than CEng.

As the Application Form for both CEng and IEng is same.
  • 0

    Nicholai Wilson:




    In this thread Andy Miller said:

    "I don't see this as illogical at all (in principle, obviously I can't comment on your individual case). It's not about management levels, it's about technical responsibility, and particularly responsibility for innovation. So an engineering team can be run by an IEng who is responsible for the ensuring the right people are working on the right tasks at the right times, even though that person may not have the technical authority to (say) sign off a particular piece of work. After all, the most senior technical person is very likely to be reporting in turn to an MD or VP with a financial, business organisation or marketing background.


    Now, if someone is both managing and technically signing off the work of CEngs, I would expect that person to be eligible to be a CEng.


    People get very bogged down in this idea that organisational seniority and technical seniority are the same things - they absolutely are not."


    On another thread, addressing the subject of whether CEng is an appropriate guarantee of technical competence he also said:


    "No-one (hopefuly!) is saying that CEng guarantees competence in any field a manager may be recruiting for. All it says is that you can expect this person to approach their work, including innovation, professionally. That's it. That's all it's for."

     





    There certainly seems to be some contradiction there.you.







    No there isn't. If you're approaching engineering (including possibly management) professionally you should be eligible for IEng. If you're approaching engineering (including possibly management but definitely including innovation) you should be eligible for CEng. Neither are "qualifications" for any particular role.


    In case anyone is puzzled as to why I'm talking about technical sign off, I am of course talking about systems with a high level of uncertainty where there is a level of engineering judgement required - that's the point of the "innovation" difference. 


    Good, that's that defined nicely.

     

  • 0
    Nice post Maurice. The problem comes when jobs are specified as requiring CEng. Better companies say "CEng or working towards." 

    Such jobs should not be based on management seniority, or any other "status" point, this should only appear when such a role is likely to require the incumbant to make critical engineering judgements on situations they haven't faced before - and if they are competent to do that I believe they will find themselves eligible for CEng anyway. Otherwise the employer is just narrowing their field of potential candidates - which is daft (but common).


    Which is why I find the whole discussion a bit moot - far more important is to get IEng properly recognised across industries.


    Cheers, Andy
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    ​Andy

    "Which is why I find this whole discussion a bit moot - far more important is to get IEng properly recognised across industries".


    ​Maurice is posting his opinions based on his work experiences and I have no problemn with that, but so have other members based on their experiences, which I have no problem with either.  It is a discussion forum and if you considered that the original question "ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS", was a moot question, then it was open for debate.  


    ​Regarding having " IEng recognised across industries", along is it going to take.?  Back in 2001 Dr.Mike Sanderson, the then Chief Executive, EMTA , himself a materials engineer was making his personal comments on the HAWLEY REVIEW -1999-2000 which had just been released and made this following comment as part of his discussion.:-


    ​"A real problem in the past has been with the Engineering Council and its register of engineers has been perceived by industry to be largely irrelevant, I say this with some authority.  Over the last 35 years I have employed literally hundreds of engineers.  I have chosen them largely on the basis of the degree or apprenticeship programme that they followed..  The designations CEng, IEng or EngTech have been largley irrelevant to me"


    ​The following year 2002, the IIE and the then EMTA ( formally the NTO), joined forces to tackle the skills crisis in the industry.

    ​John Beale, head of publications and promotions at the time, and Dr. Mike Sanderson, Chief Executive, EMTA had made the following comments.:-


    ​"We're working with EMTA to ensure the right standards are in place in company apprenticeships schemes so people on them are eligible for registration as engineering technicians or, perhaps through additional study or experience at work, as incorporated engineers".

    It is part of a bid to increase the number of engineers professionally qualified at the intermediate level, ​relative to those attaining the highest status of chartered engineer. 


    ​Notice the words status and intermediate level.? 


    Daniel
  • 0

    Daniel Scott:
    ​Andy

    "Which is why I find this whole discussion a bit moot - far more important is to get IEng properly recognised across industries".


    ​Maurice is posting his opinions based on his work experiences and I have no problemn with that, but so have other members based on their experiences, which I have no problem with either.  It is a discussion forum and if you considered that the original question "ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS", was a moot question, then it was open for debate.  


    ​Regarding having " IEng recognised across industries", along is it going to take.?  Back in 2001 Dr.Mike Sanderson, the then Chief Executive, EMTA , himself a materials engineer was making his personal comments on the HAWLEY REVIEW -1999-2000 which had just been released and made this following comment as part of his discussion.:-


    ​"A real problem in the past has been with the Engineering Council and its register of engineers has been perceived by industry to be largely irrelevant, I say this with some authority.  Over the last 35 years I have employed literally hundreds of engineers.  I have chosen them largely on the basis of the degree or apprenticeship programme that they followed..  The designations CEng, IEng or EngTech have been largley irrelevant to me"


    ​The following year 2002, the IIE and the then EMTA ( formally the NTO), joined forces to tackle the skills crisis in the industry.

    ​John Beale, head of publications and promotions at the time, and Dr. Mike Sanderson, Chief Executive, EMTA had made the following comments.:-


    ​"We're working with EMTA to ensure the right standards are in place in company apprenticeships schemes so people on them are eligible for registration as engineering technicians or, perhaps through additional study or experience at work, as incorporated engineers".

    It is part of a bid to increase the number of engineers professionally qualified at the intermediate level, ​relative to those attaining the highest status of chartered engineer. 


    ​Notice the words status and intermediate level.? 


    Daniel




    Hi Daniel,


    I spent ages composing a lovely reply and then the system lost it! Haven't got the energy to write it all again, but in summary:


    1. Brilliant point re "moot", you used it right, I used it wrong!

    • I disagree with Dr Sanderson's use of the word "status", "senior technical authority" would be what I would use, that's the whole point. And if you find yourself as the senior technical authority making major technical decisions - writing the rules rather than following them - and you're IEng, then what you need to do is apply for CEng. There's no reason why you shouldn't get it.

    • Can we stop worrying about this and think about how to get IEng recognised for what it is instead? It's a darn sight more useful certification in my mind than CEng, I am hugely, hugely frustrated that it is not recognised and used. But we're stuck in a viscous circle where employers won't ask for it because there aren't enough IEngs  to be worth it, and people won't apply for it because employers don't ask for it.  Very, very, very very annoying.


    Cheers,


    Andy
  • 0
    I suggest that any further postings on this thread start with the poster defining what they mean by status.  Otherwise it's not getting anywhere.


    And for "third party" readers I would just say, writing as a very long term experienced recruiting manager and engineering capability assessor, read Roy's posts if you actually want to know the answer to the question. And read UKSpec of course!


    Cheers,


    Andy
  • 0
    Andy,

    I couldn't agree more about everybody using 'status' in a different way.

    My take on this is they are equal in status if by status you mean 'value in what they show about the holder having been professionally recognised by his/her peers', but they are not equal in status if by status you mean the value that they confer to the holder.

    I consider them to be  equal in some respects (equal in status but showing different competences), but the problem is that the general perception is that CEng is 'above' IEng. Until recruiters and employers change their ways we are going to perpetuate the perception, since those applying for registration see the difference in the adverts. There are some jobs where you need IEng competencies that I have known some CEng people to lack (a small minority I admit) so employers asking for CEng sometimes do themselves a disservice.

    When advertising when I was recruiting i always had 'CEng or IEng or working towards this' but this does seem to be an exception (and I ignored what level they were at when comparing between candidates!).

    Alasdair Anderson (CEng FIET PRA)
  • 0
    Hi Alasdair,


    Absolutely agree. It's like when recruiters ask for specific degrees, or specific grades of degrees, or experience on specific CAD systems, and then complain that they don't get enough candidates! I have no sympathy in those cases. But if you are in an industry or location where you get 100s of applications for each role I can see it would be tempting to set some bars. But as you suggest, it's risky doing so - I personally wouldn't.


    When I was recruiting engineers at whatever level I would always say "degree or equivalent experience" and leave it at that. I never mentioned registration level, but if they had it then it might make a good talking point in the interview. I was much more interested in getting good people in to the right roles, and then helping them to achieve the appropriate registration level, which as an employer we could then use in our competency evidence for our staff (and, of course, we paid all their fees for this).


    But that all said, the reason I said above that I see IEng as potentially more useful than CEng is that it could help a lot in recruitment - I'm sure you've been in the same postion as me where you see a lot of CVs where it's really hard to tell if the candidate is at technician level or engineer level, particularly where they've come up the HNC type route or perhaps from a military background. Pure job roles on a CV can be very misleading. That's where I think IEng has a fabulous opportunity to give a peer reviewed reference point where a recruiter can see that the candidate is (to give a classic example) likely to be an IEng maintenance engineer rather than a EngTech maintenance technician. Have you learned to do a general role, or been trained to do a specific role. But I would still give anyone very short shrift who claimed that maintenance engineers were "superior" to maintenance technicians.


    I have admitted here before that I originally got IEng and then CEng in attempt to distract recruiters from my awful first degree grade (before I got my Master's). I don't think it ever worked. Those that were obsessed with grades and certifications ruled me out anyway, and those that were - like me - more open minded and just wanted to know what I'd actually achieved focussed on my career, not my registration! But other industries may be different. (I spent ages helping the - very good - maintenance tech at our last company get his EngTech, and he was promptly able to use it to get himself another job elsewhere! Frustrating from a company view, but good on him for showing initiative.)


    Right, coffee break over, thanks for the nice post,


    Cheers,


    Andy


    P.S. Thinking about it, I don't remember recruiting anybody who was CEng or IEng, and I've recruited a lot of people over the years! I've helped a lot of people get it once they were in post though! But I suppose on the whole I have tended to recruit early career engineers and then develop them on.
  • 0
    What are others views that IEng and Engtech are combined into a single grade as recommended by Prof John Luff?
  • 0

    Peter Miller:

    What are others views that IEng and Engtech are combined into a single grade as recommended by Prof John Luff?



    As someone who has only recently got IEng registration, I would consider that a downgrade.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    In UK usually Chartered means pinnacle of the professional designation.

    As such the public perception that other then Chartered professional is less or lower in standing.

    Take Accountant and Chartered Account and both are accountants yet the CA is considered with higher authority or the final authority etc.

    I will argue that perception of the the CEng is not equal to IEng and it is higher in professional standing.

    It requires additional competencies and levels of responsibility. 

    IEng is impressive UK SPEC requirements yet its is short of CEng not only different.

    As to practical skills and experiences its on case by case basis.  In reality employers don't limit ones progress by a type of registration and it can be found that someone

    who is registered as IEng or unregistered is performing more advanced duties then a CEng.


    Moshe. M. Waserman BTEchEE, MCGI, CEng MBCS, MIET

Community Rules & Guidelines