ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Nouman

I agree with Moshe, Daniel and others who emphasise that employment and the marketplace for engineering skills are the most important elements. The Washington & Sydney accords deal with academic qualifications in Engineering & Technology. 

In the UK there is no commonly agreed or widely understood difference between an “Engineer” and “Technologist”. To declare oneself a “Technologist” would typically invite the question “is that like an Engineer” and to declare oneself an Incorporated Engineer invites the question “is that like a Chartered Engineer”. Engineering Council has decided to provide their preferred answer, “yes it is a partial CEng”. As Moshe points out Chartered Engineering Technologist (or a similar title) has been proposed in the past as an IEng alternative, but this would have left a lot of frustrated Chartered Engineers having to explain why they were superior to a “Technologist” and IEng “Technologists” trying to explain why they were an “Engineer”, to audiences that didn’t understand the difference or care, including most employers.I have never worked (in the last 40 years) in an organisation where anyone was described as a “Technologist”. I have encountered a few leading organisations using the title, although I suspect that most individuals would self-describe themselves as “engineers”. Dr Dieter takes an American perspective, one in which I would visit my “Physician” for example, rather than “General Practitioner” (aka Doctor). I posted something earlier about the NSPE/ABET interpretation which Moshe seems to have confirmed, this might also influence Dr Dieters definitions (I haven't read the book).

I don’t actually think that a Technologist title is a bad idea in principal, because I totally support the idea that each type of contribution deserves an equal measure of respect. However, I think that it would be very difficult to persuade most people who think of themselves as an Engineer, carry the job title “Engineer” or “Engineering Manager” and have qualifications in Engineering that they should become a “Technologist”. Although I note that NASA has a prestigious “Chief Technologist”. I also think that most current Chartered Engineers would oppose the idea for the reasons I set out above. I understand that Chartered Architectural Technologist was opposed (unless anyone knows differently?). However, an Engineering Council affiliated body created and owns “Chartered Marine Technologist” so it is obviously possible. 

A voluntary system creates a market, so status is defined within the marketplace. The current marketplace offers CEng “premium” status, but it is also the only category that is widely held and understood. There are a large number of other Chartered designations in a wide range of professions, so the general public also recognise the term. Therefore, there is a reasonable argument that the best hope of drawing more suitable practitioners into seeking IEng registration, is to link it to CEng as part of a “progression”. The downside of this approach is that gives the impression that current IEng registrants (average age circa 57) have not “progressed” relative to current CEng registrants (average age circa 57), when all that can be said is that each passed a particular threshold as defined at that time. The thresholds have been continually adjusted over the years, special schemes have been operated and different assessment bodies have used different interpretations.

If the required threshold for registration is a University Degree (conducted full-time over 3-5 years) then this is a measure of the potential to become an Engineer (or Technologist) typically assessed at the age of 21-23. An actual Engineer or Technologist is someone who has gained appropriate experiential learning through work practice and illustrated sustained achievement in their chosen field, UK-SPEC provides a framework to enable this “competence” to be evaluated. 

I’m unclear if Nouman’s post is suggesting that 12-18 years of additional experience is required for registration in Pakistan, if so this seems excessive.

In an Apprenticeship, theory and practice are blended together, so that on completion of the training scheme (typically 4 years) a level of competent practice has been developed. This is usually sufficient to be able to practice independently in many skilled trade/technician roles typically from the age of 21-23. Many excellent professional engineers have been grown from a “craft”( aka “trade”) apprenticeship and additional ongoing learning. Ideally this involves an academic element, but learning doesn’t only occur in academic environments, or in ways set out by a formal syllabus. 

An apprenticeship specifically designed to develop professional engineers will blend deeper academic elements such as a bachelors degree with appropriate work experience. Typically someone completing such a programme will be competent to practice as an engineer on completion (age 22-23) but to gain professional recognition they would need to demonstrate further achievement and “responsibility” to be IEng. It is at this point, perhaps typically from the age of 25 onwards that we have a problem. By now an engineer who was prepared by full-time undergraduate study may have gained 4-5 years of work experience and be an established professional with a track record of achievement. 

My question is; how do we discriminate between any two engineers of similar age who may have followed these different pathways? Potentially a CEng accredited academic pathway with a strong focus on maths and science fundamentals may have prepared an engineer more optimally for certain types of “technically deep” roles, such as research for example. However, the overwhelming majority of engineering and technology work, involves practical realisation and the management of technical activities in support of organisational objectives. I haven’t carried out a systematic research study, but I think that it will be self-evident to most readers that there isn’t a valid or useful basis to discriminate on academic grounds, whatever title we may award having done so. 

On the basis of evidence at my disposal I would suggest that the threshold of Technician is probably the minimum standard of fundamental understanding required for professional engineering practice. Ideally a bachelors degree is optimum, but an “IEng type”(or Engineering Technology) one is sufficient for most engineers. Deeper undergraduate study or extension into a higher degree may add additional value, but this should be beyond the benchmark for recognition by registration. Whether we like it or not, the market has determined that this recognition is Chartered Engineer. Incorporated Engineer is seen as “CEng Lite”. 

In a voluntary system “you can’t buck the market”. Engineering Council has the extremely difficult task of balancing the desire for elite status from a majority of its more influential stakeholders, whilst at the same time trying to demonstrate relevance to and gain the engagement of, engineers and technicians in employment. Throw into the mix trying to seek mobility and consistency internationally and the task becomes more challenging still. It has to do this using relatively limited resources, by involving other organisations such as Professional Engineering Institutions, The Royal Academy of Engineering, The Engineering Professors Council and by leveraging voluntary effort. I have long argued that more influence is needed for employers, especially those who are not seeking to employ “elite” engineers , but just excellent, committed, competent engineers and technicians of the “normal variety”. 

The relevance of a registration title varies according to situation. Many people choose to register mainly for their own satisfaction and the benefits of being able to contribute fully to the professional community. For example, many IET registered engineers may rarely display their title, but are involved as volunteers in helping to assess others. Nearly 10 000 Engineers and Technicians joined the Engineering Council register last year and each one is peer reviewed by existing registrants, in the IET assessment process this would typically involve a contribution from up to 10 volunteer registered members. I am quite sympathetic to some of Mehmood’s comments and I think that he offers a valuable perspective, but the existing system does succeed in harnessing a fantastic amount of voluntary engagement and goodwill. I would like to see this strengthened and improved, rather than jettisoned.

As I see it, our primary challenge is to add maximum value to our members , employers and society generally by operating a fair, rigorous and attractive system for recognising Engineers and Technicians. I would prefer a situation where the “status” of being part of a registered and regulated community is the most important aspect. Unfortunately, our current system has historically been much too concerned with relative “status” between different types of practitioner as this forum illustrates. There is also a bureaucratic dimension in which it is simple and efficient to count academic qualifications, plus years of experience. There is a line of argument that the current system is over-complicated and confusing. 

There are no easy answers about how we resolve these dilemmas. Previous discussions on this subject have been mainly from the perspective of IEng grievances, so it is useful that this discussion is adopting a different and more constructive perspective.

PS

I don't find the idea of another “Council” attractive, we had a temporary “Technician Council” a few years ago spanning science and engineering, this had a distinguished and influential membership chaired by the CEO of a major employer. There were some good ideas and a philanthropic organisation put some money in, but it doesn't seem to have changed much. I would prefer to see fewer divisions not more.

Georgios Chliveros:

 

IEng can be thought of as a "technology" derivative, and CEng as an "engineering" derivative. The only issue is that neither of the titles or its derivatives are protected by law in the UK. Having said that, the majority of the countries outside UK, seem to have set the equivalence at that level.




The word engineer is not protected by law , but the designations CEng and IEng are.