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

U.K. ENGINEERING 2016 REPORT

Former Community Member over 8 years ago

I have noted in another discussion, several comments of my own, but there seems to be a lack of interest or it takes too long to read and digest the report.

Apart from Roy's original comments and direction to be able to read the report, it would be great to find out if IMechE, ICE and the IET have had any official comments on the report and if not, when can we expect any.?

Daniel

P.S. Just had to get away from CEng v IEng status discussion.

Parents

0 Mark Curtiz over 8 years ago

The more I reflect and review the ‘Report the more I feel it is an important work (though somewhat rushed). I really do hope that the PEI’s are actively working toward implementing the Reports’ recommendations as far as is practicably achievable, and indeed, are right now working out the mechanics of what will change and by when.

Andy, I think the PEIs can have an effect of the relative regard the profession is held – and that can have an impact on salaries (over time).
And PEIs and certainly the Eng Council can expend much more effort to elevate the meaning of professional registration as an indicator of validated competence/capability that can be relied upon – that does not necessarily mean changing CEng et al, per se. This too ought to have an impact on reward (over time).

We are not alone of course, all industries that seek to have their capability and competence recognised externally, to build their reputation, go through machinations.
Having spent 10 years until 2014 in the NHS leading clinical professionals and non-clinical staff, I am very aware that it too has similar discussions about status, reputation, and more. For example, only in the UK do we have the prevailing silliness that means a qualified Doctor (i.e. one possessing a degree or doctorate in medicine) elevates to a ‘Mr (et al) when postgrad study and training is completed to achieve full consultant status. I have always bemused the irony with this - a Mr becomes a Dr to become a Mr. Historically (until 1845) a ‘Mr was someone without a degree having completed an apprenticeship under a surgeon and been awarded a diploma by the Surgeons Company (or Royal College of Surgeon after 1800) – and thus had no degree so could not call themselves a Doctor! The various bodies that work in that industry: the BMA, the GMC, and the Royal Colleges all have common goals that support the relative regard they and their ‘members’ are held by ensuring public confidence in them remains positive. Indeed, the GMC introduced mandatory revalidation (c.2013) that Docs would have to undergo in order to maintain their registration or licence to practise – not unlike our CPD requirements.

My comments above point to the effort that is expended in ensuring that standards are defined, and that are met by those wishing to practise, and that means something inside and outside the industry. And more, that the effort that is expended by the collective bodies in communicating the whole to all (particularly externally) is clear, effective and persistent. Building a good reputation is not easy but always worthwhile.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Mark Curtiz over 8 years ago

The more I reflect and review the ‘Report the more I feel it is an important work (though somewhat rushed). I really do hope that the PEI’s are actively working toward implementing the Reports’ recommendations as far as is practicably achievable, and indeed, are right now working out the mechanics of what will change and by when.

Andy, I think the PEIs can have an effect of the relative regard the profession is held – and that can have an impact on salaries (over time).
And PEIs and certainly the Eng Council can expend much more effort to elevate the meaning of professional registration as an indicator of validated competence/capability that can be relied upon – that does not necessarily mean changing CEng et al, per se. This too ought to have an impact on reward (over time).

We are not alone of course, all industries that seek to have their capability and competence recognised externally, to build their reputation, go through machinations.
Having spent 10 years until 2014 in the NHS leading clinical professionals and non-clinical staff, I am very aware that it too has similar discussions about status, reputation, and more. For example, only in the UK do we have the prevailing silliness that means a qualified Doctor (i.e. one possessing a degree or doctorate in medicine) elevates to a ‘Mr (et al) when postgrad study and training is completed to achieve full consultant status. I have always bemused the irony with this - a Mr becomes a Dr to become a Mr. Historically (until 1845) a ‘Mr was someone without a degree having completed an apprenticeship under a surgeon and been awarded a diploma by the Surgeons Company (or Royal College of Surgeon after 1800) – and thus had no degree so could not call themselves a Doctor! The various bodies that work in that industry: the BMA, the GMC, and the Royal Colleges all have common goals that support the relative regard they and their ‘members’ are held by ensuring public confidence in them remains positive. Indeed, the GMC introduced mandatory revalidation (c.2013) that Docs would have to undergo in order to maintain their registration or licence to practise – not unlike our CPD requirements.

My comments above point to the effort that is expended in ensuring that standards are defined, and that are met by those wishing to practise, and that means something inside and outside the industry. And more, that the effort that is expended by the collective bodies in communicating the whole to all (particularly externally) is clear, effective and persistent. Building a good reputation is not easy but always worthwhile.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

U.K. ENGINEERING 2016 REPORT

Community Rules & Guidelines