U.K. ENGINEERING 2016 REPORT

Mark,


I think you're absolutely right, and again I agree with Prof Luff's conclusions that the old divisions in the engineering institutes (mechanical, civil, electronic, software) are not necessarily useful  - and, I would actually suggest, possibly never were. It is a very complicated issue, as when you are conducting R&D work specialisms can be intense (more intense than, say, IMechE / IET divisions), but in leading engineering projects they get much broader. By the early 1990s I was an audio frequency analogue electronics design engineer - very, very specific. By 2010 I was managing mixed analogue/digital/software/mechanical/systems development with a large safety engineering bias.


But that said, I have to be honest and say that when I was working as a design engineer I was in the IEE for the CEng registration, and the IEEE for useful technical knowledge. This may well still be true. However, in a web based world it OUGHT to be possible for "broad church" institutions to also cover the technical specialist needs of sections of their membership.


There's also often on obsession with industry streams - something I have long debated with the IET (and which is now being recognised in the IET as an issue). I've worked in the process control industry, the music industry, the rail signalling industry (with a sideline in the offshore oil industry), and now as a general purpose safety engineer. The engineering principles don't change across different industries, although there might be different biases in the management processes - it was harder for us to kill people with our mistakes in the music industry! William Webb's presidential address when he became president of the IET in 2014 was excellent - in summary he said that we are not going to be able to solve real world problems by working in silos in industry sectors or, indeed, individual companies and organisations.


I think the real bottom line is that a good engineer, when they are working in a sector which they don't understand in detail, knows what they don't know and gains advice and expertise from those who do!


I also think it is very risky for senior industry professionals to reconstruct the IET (or any other PEI) by themselves, we do tend to end up us generalists or (to use your example) neo-generalists and view the world in that light. If we are going to attract more real engineers doing engineering (not well phrased, but I think most people here will know what I mean) we need to ensure that the institutes do support deep specialist engineers as well - the people who are actually solving technical issues. Which means talking to such people. I think this report may have fallen a bit into this trap.


Cheers,


Andy

Mark,


I think you're absolutely right, and again I agree with Prof Luff's conclusions that the old divisions in the engineering institutes (mechanical, civil, electronic, software) are not necessarily useful  - and, I would actually suggest, possibly never were. It is a very complicated issue, as when you are conducting R&D work specialisms can be intense (more intense than, say, IMechE / IET divisions), but in leading engineering projects they get much broader. By the early 1990s I was an audio frequency analogue electronics design engineer - very, very specific. By 2010 I was managing mixed analogue/digital/software/mechanical/systems development with a large safety engineering bias.


But that said, I have to be honest and say that when I was working as a design engineer I was in the IEE for the CEng registration, and the IEEE for useful technical knowledge. This may well still be true. However, in a web based world it OUGHT to be possible for "broad church" institutions to also cover the technical specialist needs of sections of their membership.


There's also often on obsession with industry streams - something I have long debated with the IET (and which is now being recognised in the IET as an issue). I've worked in the process control industry, the music industry, the rail signalling industry (with a sideline in the offshore oil industry), and now as a general purpose safety engineer. The engineering principles don't change across different industries, although there might be different biases in the management processes - it was harder for us to kill people with our mistakes in the music industry! William Webb's presidential address when he became president of the IET in 2014 was excellent - in summary he said that we are not going to be able to solve real world problems by working in silos in industry sectors or, indeed, individual companies and organisations.


I think the real bottom line is that a good engineer, when they are working in a sector which they don't understand in detail, knows what they don't know and gains advice and expertise from those who do!


I also think it is very risky for senior industry professionals to reconstruct the IET (or any other PEI) by themselves, we do tend to end up us generalists or (to use your example) neo-generalists and view the world in that light. If we are going to attract more real engineers doing engineering (not well phrased, but I think most people here will know what I mean) we need to ensure that the institutes do support deep specialist engineers as well - the people who are actually solving technical issues. Which means talking to such people. I think this report may have fallen a bit into this trap.


Cheers,


Andy