U.K. ENGINEERING 2016 REPORT

For anyone wanting to read the report before contributing to this discussion thread, it can be found here

Was the author of this report paid by the page?  Even the Executive Summary runs to 4½ pages - most of it just waffle.  I have only skimmed through the rest of it.


Having just gone through the process of applying for IEng, I am disturbed that the author thinks my new qualification should be discarded and replaced with a generic "Registered Engineer", which is indistinguishable from EngTech.  I would consider that a downgrade.

Mr. Barker, 

 

I personally think R.Eng its a good designation for the Engineer.

I compare it to Science Councils Registered Scientists, RSci, It requires Bachelors of Science degree and additional 5 major areas / standards in UK SPEC style.

The Science council has Chartered Scientist (CSci), Registered Scientist(RSci) and Registered Science Technician (RSciTech).

I seen RSci PhD's.

In my humble opinion R.Eng is better sounding designation then I.Eng. Its clearly a designation of an Engineer.

I think the EngTech should remain unless it will move under a Technicians Council.(didn't really work in the past)  This way EngC only registers Engineers.
 "Coupled with additional recruitment the PEIs should undertake, through the Engineering Council, a review of all registration and membership grades with the objective of creating new grades which better suit the demands of members. While Chartered status continues to hold value there is clearly little appetite for registration at either 

Incorporated or Technician level. The review of registration grades should therefore consider the replacement of the present three grades with two, namely “Chartered Engineer” and “Registered Engineer”. In addition the institutions should review their internal membership grades and consider the introduction of a new grade of engineering members, to be known as “Engineers” and intended to be available in particular to new members who have had no previous connection with the PEIs and who are engaged in significant engineering work. "

Memberships as an Engineer in interesting concept but it may compete with registration, some may opt to be "Engineer" of the IET. or "Member Engineer", actually this has potential to increase member base.

Should R.Eng with appropriate degree be allowed to register as Eur Ing?  Will Brexit affect UK representation in FEANI is yet to see.

Registered Engineer was tried before to replace Incorporated Engineer and failed, and don't forget that the designation for the Royal Academy of Engineering is REng, although every member is a Fellow and uses the FREng post nominal.

​I originally posted that it may be a good idea, but now have changed my mind.   The engineering team consists of EngTech's, IEng's and CEng's, as well as those in the engineering world who feel that in the UK there is no need to have any of the above.


Daniel

The report is clear that the current system does not engage with the majority of practising engineer and technicians. No other countries have made a success of the 3 levels of engineer (technician, technologist, engineer) so change is necessary. I think that implementing the report findings should be the number one priority of all PEI's.

Peter Miller:

The report is clear that the current system does not engage with the majority of practising engineer and technicians. No other countries have made a success of the 3 levels of engineer (technician, technologist, engineer) so change is necessary. I think that implementing the report findings should be the number one priority of all PEI's.

First, I don't see that it solves any problem.  The engineering institutions aren't properly promoting the current EngTech and IEng, and just replacing it with a new name won't help.  That's going to be especially true if it's not clear just what level a new Registered Engineer is working at.


Second, it would effectively downgrade everybody currently on IEng to EngTech status.  I cann't see how that would encourage anybody with a BEng to apply, or for anyone currently on IEng to retain their registration.

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.

We've only just closed the CEng/IEng debate after things got ugly. I can't see how tinkering with these things will address that state of the UK engineering industry.

Mark, the leaking pipeline diagram on page 104 (annex 5) is included as an illustration of the 'as is' model not the 'to be' model. It is referred to only on page 52 quote

Petty internecine squabbles about the relative value or status of different Engineers, Technicians or Technologists will add no value to anyone except those caught in an introspective bubble of very little interest to society, including employers. This isn’t unique to the UK and I quoted in an earlier forum a US debate for example, where only those who had carried out “multiple semesters of calculus based study” were considered by some to be “Professional Engineers”.  

 

The snobbery,  prejudice and apparent irrational pettiness, widely acknowledged to exist within the profession (and some other professions) has led to widespread apathy towards professional recognition amongst practitioners of engineering.  As we have seen in these forums there are also a significant number of people who have sought to engage, only to feel that they have suffered injustice or disrespect. The bitterness and sometimes angry recrimination generated as a result, especially towards other professionals is particularly unfortunate.

 

I see no point in looking backwards now, but the disrespectful treatment of senior “loyal” IEng volunteers by Engineering Council during the last revision UK-SPEC and especially its Registration Regulations, was a “last-straw” for me.

 

I respect the arguments of those who wish to restrict the practice of “engineers” through some form of statutory or licensing system. I was at one time even somewhat sympathetic, until I experienced this at much closer quarters. There are some circumstances where this is important, but not that many and often at the level of public interface such work in the home. I was initially taken aback by a comment made to me by a senior NHS manager a few years ago; “you don’t think we would trust Engineering Council to confirm people’s technical competence do you?”, but the point was fair.

 

I think that there is potentially great value to be gained by benchmark standards of performance being set and by practitioners subjecting themselves to “peer review”, including periodic re-validation. However all that value and more can be lost through political manipulation and systematic disadvantage created mainly for sociological reasons. For example, I have observed many an engineer trained via an apprenticeship, performing to an equal or higher standard than an equivalent person from a full-time undergraduate background, especially in early career. However the established system has pigeon holed them as being of “inferior status” relative to an age group peer who performed well academically in their teens, for reasons either of aptitude or systematic educational advantage.  

 

As I see it, the practice of engineering is an extremely “broad church” and different roles require different emphasis in the application of knowledge and skills. We need to set some sort of minimum standard for professional recognition and this is currently the threshold of Technician, which seems reasonable to me. Beyond this point people will continue to progress based on a mixture of talent and opportunity in many different ways. The role of a professional community should be to nurture and respect that development ,within appropriate boundaries, if necessary sanctioning those who step outside accepted standards.

 

In the UK “Chartered” Professional designation can be awarded by approved bodies to those who have demonstrated graduate level understanding and reached the standard of a responsible “trusted” professional.  Typically this might represent a combination of 8-10 years of learning and professional practice.  Prof Uff’s tentative suggestion of REng offers something which might be achieved as part of being ultimately becoming “Chartered”, or as part of an equally valuable career pathway such as a “more practical” Technician.  In my opinion Chartered recognition should only available to those REng who had demonstrated over a reasonable time period, significantly enhanced performance at “graduate level” or beyond, including affording fair value to work-based learning.                  

         

For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I am keen to support academic research and learning provision in engineering and technology. However our system has for too long been allowed to presume that teenage academic prowess, is somehow superior to current workplace performance. There are exemplars of work-based learning assessment by universities of experienced practitioners and many who would benefit from a masters level academic experience in mid-career, as would the institution hosting them. Practical refresher and update training has also always been part of many craft and technician careers.

 

We need a sensible evolution and carefully considered transition period which needs strategic level leadership. Change of this nature can never be without pain for those wedded to the established order, but what I am arguing for is not a radical revolution, it is a sensible evolution aimed at providing a compelling proposition to today’s teenager who may be seeking professional registration and recognition in a few years.