U.K. ENGINEERING 2016 REPORT

My pennyworth: I found myself nodding in agreement with many of the conclusions and recommendations made in the report.

The proposal for REng is agreeable to my way of thinking - although the more generic/junior grade of Engineer (Eng?) seemed somewhat lacking (if I understood it correctly). Of course, its relationship with the RAE would need resolving, but REng feels like a much better reflection of capability and qualification than IEng (in my humble opinion) and I would expect that all IEngs would be automatically entitled to use REng.


As someone who came to the IET late (2016!) after 30 years and more as a practising Engineer, I can certainly relate to the lack of visibility or effort being expended to recruit the missing 3+ million engineers that function quite happily outside of any PEI (as I was one for 30+yrs). I had previously toyed with the idea of joining the IMfgE and or IED but just never got around to it or maybe understood what value was to be gained.


I am aware of the some of the history, but I strongly believe a merger of the PEIs (i.e. IMechE, IET, ICE, RAE, IED, etc) makes an awful lot of sense to me - and as someone that orchestrated and led the merger of three distinct but complimentary public bodies in 2009 and achieving it as a new single organisation in 2011, I have a good appreciation of the battles and benefits to be had. But I also recognise that divisions within that theoretical single PEI would undoubtedly form to best represent the disciplines and I question whether we would in effect be back at square one? But a merger of sorts, pooling of effort and much much closer collaboration seems in the best interests of the profession AND the PEIs, and the reputation of 'Engineering' in all its wonderful forms.


One area of confliction I found remains that of the stipulation of an academic qualification i.e. degree etc, to be a prerequisite to achieving registration as a CEng. If the pipeline given on page 104 is to be adopted, then there is no route to CEng envisaged without first acquiring a degree. But then I would bemoan this wouldn't I? I do not possess such a qualification having come up through the ranks from an apprenticeship to be a capable and competent (judged by my success, patents, awards and the like) consulting engineer similar to many of my age. As the report cites, so did "many of the most influential members of the profession" so it seeems a little odd to then construct a bar to prevent such people achieving PE registration. Rather than limiting accessibility to the CEng registration, we should be constructing routes for all to achieve it regardless of how they have acquired the the required level of theoretical and practical engineering wisdom. Thinking on, that reminds me of one of the reasons I had not previously progressed thoughts of joining a PEI and seeking PE registration - I always believed one needed a degree.

My pennyworth: I found myself nodding in agreement with many of the conclusions and recommendations made in the report.

The proposal for REng is agreeable to my way of thinking - although the more generic/junior grade of Engineer (Eng?) seemed somewhat lacking (if I understood it correctly). Of course, its relationship with the RAE would need resolving, but REng feels like a much better reflection of capability and qualification than IEng (in my humble opinion) and I would expect that all IEngs would be automatically entitled to use REng.


As someone who came to the IET late (2016!) after 30 years and more as a practising Engineer, I can certainly relate to the lack of visibility or effort being expended to recruit the missing 3+ million engineers that function quite happily outside of any PEI (as I was one for 30+yrs). I had previously toyed with the idea of joining the IMfgE and or IED but just never got around to it or maybe understood what value was to be gained.


I am aware of the some of the history, but I strongly believe a merger of the PEIs (i.e. IMechE, IET, ICE, RAE, IED, etc) makes an awful lot of sense to me - and as someone that orchestrated and led the merger of three distinct but complimentary public bodies in 2009 and achieving it as a new single organisation in 2011, I have a good appreciation of the battles and benefits to be had. But I also recognise that divisions within that theoretical single PEI would undoubtedly form to best represent the disciplines and I question whether we would in effect be back at square one? But a merger of sorts, pooling of effort and much much closer collaboration seems in the best interests of the profession AND the PEIs, and the reputation of 'Engineering' in all its wonderful forms.


One area of confliction I found remains that of the stipulation of an academic qualification i.e. degree etc, to be a prerequisite to achieving registration as a CEng. If the pipeline given on page 104 is to be adopted, then there is no route to CEng envisaged without first acquiring a degree. But then I would bemoan this wouldn't I? I do not possess such a qualification having come up through the ranks from an apprenticeship to be a capable and competent (judged by my success, patents, awards and the like) consulting engineer similar to many of my age. As the report cites, so did "many of the most influential members of the profession" so it seeems a little odd to then construct a bar to prevent such people achieving PE registration. Rather than limiting accessibility to the CEng registration, we should be constructing routes for all to achieve it regardless of how they have acquired the the required level of theoretical and practical engineering wisdom. Thinking on, that reminds me of one of the reasons I had not previously progressed thoughts of joining a PEI and seeking PE registration - I always believed one needed a degree.