Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 112 replies
  • Subscribers 15 subscribers
  • Views 6988 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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
Former Community Member
​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.
  • 0
    Hi Peter,


    I can't disagree with you, but I think that just emphasises the fact the Prof Luff is correct to say it (very much) isn't sorted out by the efforts that have been made so far, and it needs to be looked at again.


    Cheers,


    Andy
  • 0
    Hi Mark,


    Interesting post. My previous employer tried to create separate career paths for specialists and generalists, to ensure the essential specialists felt they had a way forward in their career and were not forced down the generalist route. Too early yet to see how well this worked, I'm still in touch with them so will watch with interest.


    I'm definitely a generalist with a few (rather obscure) deeply specialist niches.


    And it's not much off-topic: I have seen several times in my experience that specialist engineers find it tougher filling in the application for CEng/IEng than generalists. The way UKSpec is worded can seem to favour generalists if it's not read carefully.


    Cheers,


    Andy
  • 0
    Thus Andy, by definition, as someone who is a generalist with specialist areas/skills, you could equally consider yourself a Neo-Generalist. Personally, I see this all in a very positive light, being one or the other or both - simply helping to recognise it all. And that is part of the context of the book - where one might struggle to define one's skillset, as either or speciliast or generalist, it seeks to recognise that you can be both, or one or othe other as the situation/environment requires. I feel this describes most Engineers and Technologists. 

    From the Book's preface “The neo-generalist is both specialist and generalist, often able to master multiple disciplines. We all carry within us the potential to specialise and generalise. Many of us are unwittingly eclectic, innately curious. There is a continuum between the extremes of specialism and generalism, a spectrum of possibilities. Where we stand on that continuum at a given point in time is governed by context.
    Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, our society has remained in thrall to the notion of hyperspecialism. This places constraints on the ways in which we are educated, the work we do, the people we socialise with, how we are recruited, how our career progression is managed, how we label ourselves for the benefit of others’ understanding. To counter and challenge these social norms, the neo-generalist has to learn how to give expression to their more generalist tendencies, even as they practise various specialisms, guiding others as they do so.
    Our workplaces, governments, intelligence agencies and other communities and institutions constantly complain of silos, but that is an inevitable consequence of our promotion of hyperspecialism. So too the myopia of expertise that prevents us from seeing properly what is right in front of us, or connecting it in meaningful ways with other information, other people.”

    From the back cover: Have you encountered difficulties describing what you do to other people? Have you ever labelled yourself in order to be understood? Is there a difference in the way that a generalist and a specialist can stay relevant?

    This battle between the need for generalists and/or specialists is played out elsewhere constantly: Throughout my decade in the NHS, running several small hospitals, I battled it constantly. In a small hospital, it might not be able to afford the luxury of having specialists where the demand (i.e. population, prevalence of condition, etc) does not fully justify it yet equally a patient rightly wants to be treated by an expert in their condition or treatment (and usually prefers it to be local). This is no different to a small high-technology firm that needs specialist engineers that can also double as a generalist. In an acute hospital, a further dilemma exists where you need to staff your 'general' emergency dept. (or A&E) with generalists capable of dealing with whatever comes through the door - yet the Royal Colleges (encouraged by Govt policy) produce specialists that are ill-equipped for generalist work. Overlay the earning potential as a personal factor that individual Docs make, and you have a real problem - as the NHS is finding out. (As a rule, Specialist Docs earn more than Generalist Docs, have more socialable hours, and are rarely on-call, AND Specialists also have greater earning potential from private work which is not really an option for an Emergency Physician. All things considered, few want to be an A&E doc).


    I beleive the same arguments, the same dilemmas apply in engineering and technology.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Legh Richardson

     Mark Curtis
    -     Thus Andy, by definition,
    as someone who is a generalist with specialist skills, you could be
    considered a Neo-Generalist (personally, I see it as a good
    thing).

    J Gowman : personally I
    see this as arrogant.

    Andy Millar
    -
    Interesting post. My
    previous employer tried to create separate career paths for
    specialists and generalists, to ensure the essential specialists
    felt they had a way forward in their career and were not forced
    down the generalist route. Too early yet to see how well this
    worked, I'm still in touch with them so will watch with
    interest.

    I'm definitely a generalist
    with a few (rather obscure) deeply specialist niches.

    And it's not much off-topic:
    I have seen several times in my experience that specialist
    engineers find it tougher filling in the application for CEng/IEng
    than generalists.

    The way UKSpec is worded
    can seem to favour generalists if it's not read
    carefully.

    J Gowman - Most CEng do not
    meet UKSpec; CEng need experience in sales, management as well as a
    MEng. The person best fitting UKSpec is the General Manager of an
    Engineering MSE. CEng is a certificate for this year’s work only.
    Not a certificate for
    life.

    Andy Millar
    -     I can't disagree with
    you, but I think that just emphasises the fact the Prof Luff is
    correct to say it (very much) isn't sorted out by the efforts that
    have been made so far,

    and it needs to be looked
    at again.

    J Gowman – in a recent
    contract, I set up Engineering “Surveillance” the question was how
    to check a perfect system that had been checked and approved at 12
    stages from design to construction, all within proven IT
    systems.

    My solution was not to
    choose the same IT systems, to do it by hand with a different team.
    Result – catastrophic and confidential.

    We need to do the same
    with CEng and IEng registration and ECUK
    intervention.

    ECUK is run by CEngs,
    Professional Registration is governed by CEngs,     you can not review a
    system using the system – it’s so obvious.


    The
    U.K. ENGINEERING 2016
    REPORT     in Professional registration
    matters      has to be reviewed
    by non PEI non CEng. Responsible professionals. Why not academic
    experts.


     


    Secondly our PEI wanted
    to amalgamate with all PEIs to form a single umbrella grouping the
    entire specialist engineering PEIs as chapters or independent
    groups.


    IET did this in its first
    years with specialist interest groups, then the IEE Electricals
    CEngs reverted to what IET is now.     Not a generalist
    Institute    .


     


    Peter Miller -
    Andy, I would agree with
    your view that IEng and Engtech should not be merged if I thought
    that IEng would be promoted. History has shown us that it will
    not.


    J Gowman – Peter I would
    go further,if this merger takes place I would advise all IEng to
    leave IET and find a better suited PEI that protects their
    interests.


     


    IET was meant to
    be :     A group who promote
    science, engineering and technology, encourage people to enter the
    profession and provide opportunities to share and develop knowledge
    and network, at all levels and gender.

    IET Cannot accept any
    proposition that denigrates the Technician and Professional
    Engineer. They are two different professions.


     


    See Assistant engineer
    below.


    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I have done my bit in
    engineering, I will pass on what I can to the following
    generations.



    (>1980) Mr Ian M
    Barnes  -  Honorary Fellow of the IIE, established a
    small PEI dedicated to HNC type apprentice trained professional
    engineers, I was called upon to assist at Birdcage Walk. I helped
    as best I could.  I was a Professional Engineer, changing from
    aeronautical to nuclear engineering by distance BA courses in
    Mathematics & Technology. I was already an established engineer
    – a generalist, I was also leading the design & construction of
    the first non military, nuclear, gas reprocessing
    plant.



    All UK Civil service
    scientists and technologists were Professional Technologists PTO at
    that time.



    Our minority PEI was the
    foundation of IET and our basic aims were integrated into the IET,
    we went on to amalgamate and gain UK Royal Charter, then we
    registered our members who met UK Spec as Chartered Engineers. This
    all ended in 2006 when IET was formed.

    Having taken CPD studies
    in electronics, computing, vacuum technology and nuclear physics, I
    would consider myself already a generalist.

    My BA in Science made me
    a specialist in Special Techniques, a
    generalist in alternative process plant
    .

    I have since had two
    monographs
    validated to Master
    Degree.



    So as an I Eng (retired) I would
    consider myself a competent generalist.

    I was a registered Full
    Technician     C&G 293 pt 1, 2, 3, & endorsements, with
    apprenticeship training at the start of my career
    1972.

    I would never have accepted
    I Eng as being equal to a registered Technician

    I would consider my I Eng to
    be worth and equal to any CEng specialist.

    I am a leading Specialist in
    Special Techniques, in     Engineering
    “Surveillance”     and in DAD. (I suppose to the CEng
    engineering experts this means nothing, it is not electrical or IT,
    but it does include electrical & IT).



    DAD and Special
    Techniques     means nothing to a
    specialist Electrical CEng, so just call me a generalist in alternative
    power plant and special industrial plant.



    The IET states
    :


    ·        
    The IET is the
    Professional Home for Life Registered for engineers and
    technicians.


    ·        
    We'll support you at
    every stage of your professional journey.


    ·        
    Working to engineer a better
    world


    ·        
    Inspiring the next
    generation of engineers and technicians


    ·        
    Informing the wider
    engineering community


    ·        
    Influencing government and
    standards to advance society

     

     So either we
    protect and stand up for our members or we revert to a specialist
    Electrical IT CEng PEI.



    IET has to be above this CEng battle and restrictive club, we have
    a huge potential of PEs outside who can develop into experts in
    unthinkable domains. We should help them be PE registered, who
    cares about titles.

    Get them in; get them
    started, on the ladder of continuing knowledge.

     

    Keep & respect
    Technicians, value and respect IEng

     

    IET has to be open to all
    cultures, sciences and technologies

    IET is not an electrical
    – IT PEI.

    IET is multi disciplinary, calling on all competences, genders and
    experiences.


    Assistant Engineer – not
    a Technician, not an IEng.

    Assistant engineer is a
    profession in France taught in Universities to a level equivalent
    to HND.

    I have employed two Assistant engineers,
    neither wanted the responsibility or the constraints of being a
    Professional engineer.

    One was a Russian Girl who
    liked making things but did not want to compromise future family
    life, the other wanted flexibility and time for other activities
    outside of work.

    They were capable of
    handling any IT system within the company, could carry out
    mathematics and modelling to HND level, and were competent in
    sales, QA,  buying, document writing etc. They were at hand to
    alleviate the routine tasks of the Project engineer.

    A technician could not carry
    out their tasks. They were a time saver, why ask an engineer to do
    routine work when others could do it quicker at a lesser charge. It
    was an equal compromise productive. The senior engineers called my
    Assistant engineers
    all sorts of insulting terms until my projects began to lead all
    others. The company Director made Assistant engineer a must in
    the company.

    The UK should face up to
    change and not be conservative and Luddite.

    Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



    How can anyone justify being
    a member of an institute that cannot respect its members of all
    grades, origins and genders.


    John Gowman, BA
    MIET




  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Legh Richardson

     Mark Curtis
    -     Thus Andy, by definition,
    as someone who is a generalist with specialist skills, you could be
    considered a Neo-Generalist (personally, I see it as a good
    thing).

    J Gowman : personally I
    see this as arrogant.

    Andy Millar
    -
    Interesting post. My
    previous employer tried to create separate career paths for
    specialists and generalists, to ensure the essential specialists
    felt they had a way forward in their career and were not forced
    down the generalist route. Too early yet to see how well this
    worked, I'm still in touch with them so will watch with
    interest.

    I'm definitely a generalist
    with a few (rather obscure) deeply specialist niches.

    And it's not much off-topic:
    I have seen several times in my experience that specialist
    engineers find it tougher filling in the application for CEng/IEng
    than generalists.

    The way UKSpec is worded
    can seem to favour generalists if it's not read
    carefully.

    J Gowman - Most CEng do not
    meet UKSpec; CEng need experience in sales, management as well as a
    MEng. The person best fitting UKSpec is the General Manager of an
    Engineering MSE. CEng is a certificate for this year’s work only.
    Not a certificate for
    life.

    Andy Millar
    -     I can't disagree with
    you, but I think that just emphasises the fact the Prof Luff is
    correct to say it (very much) isn't sorted out by the efforts that
    have been made so far,

    and it needs to be looked
    at again.

    J Gowman – in a recent
    contract, I set up Engineering “Surveillance” the question was how
    to check a perfect system that had been checked and approved at 12
    stages from design to construction, all within proven IT
    systems.

    My solution was not to
    choose the same IT systems, to do it by hand with a different team.
    Result – catastrophic and confidential.

    We need to do the same
    with CEng and IEng registration and ECUK
    intervention.

    ECUK is run by CEngs,
    Professional Registration is governed by CEngs,     you can not review a
    system using the system – it’s so obvious.


    The
    U.K. ENGINEERING 2016
    REPORT     in Professional registration
    matters      has to be reviewed
    by non PEI non CEng. Responsible professionals. Why not academic
    experts.


     


    Secondly our PEI wanted
    to amalgamate with all PEIs to form a single umbrella grouping the
    entire specialist engineering PEIs as chapters or independent
    groups.


    IET did this in its first
    years with specialist interest groups, then the IEE Electricals
    CEngs reverted to what IET is now.     Not a generalist
    Institute    .


     


    Peter Miller -
    Andy, I would agree with
    your view that IEng and Engtech should not be merged if I thought
    that IEng would be promoted. History has shown us that it will
    not.


    J Gowman – Peter I would
    go further,if this merger takes place I would advise all IEng to
    leave IET and find a better suited PEI that protects their
    interests.


     


    IET was meant to
    be :     A group who promote
    science, engineering and technology, encourage people to enter the
    profession and provide opportunities to share and develop knowledge
    and network, at all levels and gender.

    IET Cannot accept any
    proposition that denigrates the Technician and Professional
    Engineer. They are two different professions.


     


    See Assistant engineer
    below.


    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I have done my bit in
    engineering, I will pass on what I can to the following
    generations.



    (>1980) Mr Ian M
    Barnes  -  Honorary Fellow of the IIE, established a
    small PEI dedicated to HNC type apprentice trained professional
    engineers, I was called upon to assist at Birdcage Walk. I helped
    as best I could.  I was a Professional Engineer, changing from
    aeronautical to nuclear engineering by distance BA courses in
    Mathematics & Technology. I was already an established engineer
    – a generalist, I was also leading the design & construction of
    the first non military, nuclear, gas reprocessing
    plant.



    All UK Civil service
    scientists and technologists were Professional Technologists PTO at
    that time.



    Our minority PEI was the
    foundation of IET and our basic aims were integrated into the IET,
    we went on to amalgamate and gain UK Royal Charter, then we
    registered our members who met UK Spec as Chartered Engineers. This
    all ended in 2006 when IET was formed.

    Having taken CPD studies
    in electronics, computing, vacuum technology and nuclear physics, I
    would consider myself already a generalist.

    My BA in Science made me
    a specialist in Special Techniques, a
    generalist in alternative process plant
    .

    I have since had two
    monographs
    validated to Master
    Degree.



    So as an I Eng (retired) I would
    consider myself a competent generalist.

    I was a registered Full
    Technician     C&G 293 pt 1, 2, 3, & endorsements, with
    apprenticeship training at the start of my career
    1972.

    I would never have accepted
    I Eng as being equal to a registered Technician

    I would consider my I Eng to
    be worth and equal to any CEng specialist.

    I am a leading Specialist in
    Special Techniques, in     Engineering
    “Surveillance”     and in DAD. (I suppose to the CEng
    engineering experts this means nothing, it is not electrical or IT,
    but it does include electrical & IT).



    DAD and Special
    Techniques     means nothing to a
    specialist Electrical CEng, so just call me a generalist in alternative
    power plant and special industrial plant.



    The IET states
    :


    ·        
    The IET is the
    Professional Home for Life Registered for engineers and
    technicians.


    ·        
    We'll support you at
    every stage of your professional journey.


    ·        
    Working to engineer a better
    world


    ·        
    Inspiring the next
    generation of engineers and technicians


    ·        
    Informing the wider
    engineering community


    ·        
    Influencing government and
    standards to advance society

     

     So either we
    protect and stand up for our members or we revert to a specialist
    Electrical IT CEng PEI.



    IET has to be above this CEng battle and restrictive club, we have
    a huge potential of PEs outside who can develop into experts in
    unthinkable domains. We should help them be PE registered, who
    cares about titles.

    Get them in; get them
    started, on the ladder of continuing knowledge.

     

    Keep & respect
    Technicians, value and respect IEng

     

    IET has to be open to all
    cultures, sciences and technologies

    IET is not an electrical
    – IT PEI.

    IET is multi disciplinary, calling on all competences, genders and
    experiences.


    Assistant Engineer – not
    a Technician, not an IEng.

    Assistant engineer is a
    profession in France taught in Universities to a level equivalent
    to HND.

    I have employed two Assistant engineers,
    neither wanted the responsibility or the constraints of being a
    Professional engineer.

    One was a Russian Girl who
    liked making things but did not want to compromise future family
    life, the other wanted flexibility and time for other activities
    outside of work.

    They were capable of
    handling any IT system within the company, could carry out
    mathematics and modelling to HND level, and were competent in
    sales, QA,  buying, document writing etc. They were at hand to
    alleviate the routine tasks of the Project engineer.

    A technician could not carry
    out their tasks. They were a time saver, why ask an engineer to do
    routine work when others could do it quicker at a lesser charge. It
    was an equal compromise productive. The senior engineers called my
    Assistant engineers
    all sorts of insulting terms until my projects began to lead all
    others. The company Director made Assistant engineer a must in
    the company.

    The UK should face up to
    change and not be conservative and Luddite.

    Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



    How can anyone justify being
    a member of an institute that cannot respect its members of all
    grades, origins and genders.


    John Gowman, BA
    MIET




  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Legh Richardson

     Mark Curtis
    -     Thus Andy, by definition,
    as someone who is a generalist with specialist skills, you could be
    considered a Neo-Generalist (personally, I see it as a good
    thing).

    J Gowman : personally I
    see this as arrogant.

    Andy Millar
    -
    Interesting post. My
    previous employer tried to create separate career paths for
    specialists and generalists, to ensure the essential specialists
    felt they had a way forward in their career and were not forced
    down the generalist route. Too early yet to see how well this
    worked, I'm still in touch with them so will watch with
    interest.

    I'm definitely a generalist
    with a few (rather obscure) deeply specialist niches.

    And it's not much off-topic:
    I have seen several times in my experience that specialist
    engineers find it tougher filling in the application for CEng/IEng
    than generalists.

    The way UKSpec is worded
    can seem to favour generalists if it's not read
    carefully.

    J Gowman - Most CEng do not
    meet UKSpec; CEng need experience in sales, management as well as a
    MEng. The person best fitting UKSpec is the General Manager of an
    Engineering MSE. CEng is a certificate for this year’s work only.
    Not a certificate for
    life.

    Andy Millar
    -     I can't disagree with
    you, but I think that just emphasises the fact the Prof Luff is
    correct to say it (very much) isn't sorted out by the efforts that
    have been made so far,

    and it needs to be looked
    at again.

    J Gowman – in a recent
    contract, I set up Engineering “Surveillance” the question was how
    to check a perfect system that had been checked and approved at 12
    stages from design to construction, all within proven IT
    systems.

    My solution was not to
    choose the same IT systems, to do it by hand with a different team.
    Result – catastrophic and confidential.

    We need to do the same
    with CEng and IEng registration and ECUK
    intervention.

    ECUK is run by CEngs,
    Professional Registration is governed by CEngs,     you can not review a
    system using the system – it’s so obvious.


    The
    U.K. ENGINEERING 2016
    REPORT     in Professional registration
    matters      has to be reviewed
    by non PEI non CEng. Responsible professionals. Why not academic
    experts.


     


    Secondly our PEI wanted
    to amalgamate with all PEIs to form a single umbrella grouping the
    entire specialist engineering PEIs as chapters or independent
    groups.


    IET did this in its first
    years with specialist interest groups, then the IEE Electricals
    CEngs reverted to what IET is now.     Not a generalist
    Institute    .


     


    Peter Miller -
    Andy, I would agree with
    your view that IEng and Engtech should not be merged if I thought
    that IEng would be promoted. History has shown us that it will
    not.


    J Gowman – Peter I would
    go further,if this merger takes place I would advise all IEng to
    leave IET and find a better suited PEI that protects their
    interests.


     


    IET was meant to
    be :     A group who promote
    science, engineering and technology, encourage people to enter the
    profession and provide opportunities to share and develop knowledge
    and network, at all levels and gender.

    IET Cannot accept any
    proposition that denigrates the Technician and Professional
    Engineer. They are two different professions.


     


    See Assistant engineer
    below.


    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I have done my bit in
    engineering, I will pass on what I can to the following
    generations.



    (>1980) Mr Ian M
    Barnes  -  Honorary Fellow of the IIE, established a
    small PEI dedicated to HNC type apprentice trained professional
    engineers, I was called upon to assist at Birdcage Walk. I helped
    as best I could.  I was a Professional Engineer, changing from
    aeronautical to nuclear engineering by distance BA courses in
    Mathematics & Technology. I was already an established engineer
    – a generalist, I was also leading the design & construction of
    the first non military, nuclear, gas reprocessing
    plant.



    All UK Civil service
    scientists and technologists were Professional Technologists PTO at
    that time.



    Our minority PEI was the
    foundation of IET and our basic aims were integrated into the IET,
    we went on to amalgamate and gain UK Royal Charter, then we
    registered our members who met UK Spec as Chartered Engineers. This
    all ended in 2006 when IET was formed.

    Having taken CPD studies
    in electronics, computing, vacuum technology and nuclear physics, I
    would consider myself already a generalist.

    My BA in Science made me
    a specialist in Special Techniques, a
    generalist in alternative process plant
    .

    I have since had two
    monographs
    validated to Master
    Degree.



    So as an I Eng (retired) I would
    consider myself a competent generalist.

    I was a registered Full
    Technician     C&G 293 pt 1, 2, 3, & endorsements, with
    apprenticeship training at the start of my career
    1972.

    I would never have accepted
    I Eng as being equal to a registered Technician

    I would consider my I Eng to
    be worth and equal to any CEng specialist.

    I am a leading Specialist in
    Special Techniques, in     Engineering
    “Surveillance”     and in DAD. (I suppose to the CEng
    engineering experts this means nothing, it is not electrical or IT,
    but it does include electrical & IT).



    DAD and Special
    Techniques     means nothing to a
    specialist Electrical CEng, so just call me a generalist in alternative
    power plant and special industrial plant.



    The IET states
    :


    ·        
    The IET is the
    Professional Home for Life Registered for engineers and
    technicians.


    ·        
    We'll support you at
    every stage of your professional journey.


    ·        
    Working to engineer a better
    world


    ·        
    Inspiring the next
    generation of engineers and technicians


    ·        
    Informing the wider
    engineering community


    ·        
    Influencing government and
    standards to advance society

     

     So either we
    protect and stand up for our members or we revert to a specialist
    Electrical IT CEng PEI.



    IET has to be above this CEng battle and restrictive club, we have
    a huge potential of PEs outside who can develop into experts in
    unthinkable domains. We should help them be PE registered, who
    cares about titles.

    Get them in; get them
    started, on the ladder of continuing knowledge.

     

    Keep & respect
    Technicians, value and respect IEng

     

    IET has to be open to all
    cultures, sciences and technologies

    IET is not an electrical
    – IT PEI.

    IET is multi disciplinary, calling on all competences, genders and
    experiences.


    Assistant Engineer – not
    a Technician, not an IEng.

    Assistant engineer is a
    profession in France taught in Universities to a level equivalent
    to HND.

    I have employed two Assistant engineers,
    neither wanted the responsibility or the constraints of being a
    Professional engineer.

    One was a Russian Girl who
    liked making things but did not want to compromise future family
    life, the other wanted flexibility and time for other activities
    outside of work.

    They were capable of
    handling any IT system within the company, could carry out
    mathematics and modelling to HND level, and were competent in
    sales, QA,  buying, document writing etc. They were at hand to
    alleviate the routine tasks of the Project engineer.

    A technician could not carry
    out their tasks. They were a time saver, why ask an engineer to do
    routine work when others could do it quicker at a lesser charge. It
    was an equal compromise productive. The senior engineers called my
    Assistant engineers
    all sorts of insulting terms until my projects began to lead all
    others. The company Director made Assistant engineer a must in
    the company.

    The UK should face up to
    change and not be conservative and Luddite.

    Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



    How can anyone justify being
    a member of an institute that cannot respect its members of all
    grades, origins and genders.


    John Gowman, BA
    MIET




  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Legh Richardson

     Mark Curtis
    -     Thus Andy, by definition,
    as someone who is a generalist with specialist skills, you could be
    considered a Neo-Generalist (personally, I see it as a good
    thing).

    J Gowman : personally I
    see this as arrogant.

    Andy Millar
    -
    Interesting post. My
    previous employer tried to create separate career paths for
    specialists and generalists, to ensure the essential specialists
    felt they had a way forward in their career and were not forced
    down the generalist route. Too early yet to see how well this
    worked, I'm still in touch with them so will watch with
    interest.

    I'm definitely a generalist
    with a few (rather obscure) deeply specialist niches.

    And it's not much off-topic:
    I have seen several times in my experience that specialist
    engineers find it tougher filling in the application for CEng/IEng
    than generalists.

    The way UKSpec is worded
    can seem to favour generalists if it's not read
    carefully.

    J Gowman - Most CEng do not
    meet UKSpec; CEng need experience in sales, management as well as a
    MEng. The person best fitting UKSpec is the General Manager of an
    Engineering MSE. CEng is a certificate for this year’s work only.
    Not a certificate for
    life.

    Andy Millar
    -     I can't disagree with
    you, but I think that just emphasises the fact the Prof Luff is
    correct to say it (very much) isn't sorted out by the efforts that
    have been made so far,

    and it needs to be looked
    at again.

    J Gowman – in a recent
    contract, I set up Engineering “Surveillance” the question was how
    to check a perfect system that had been checked and approved at 12
    stages from design to construction, all within proven IT
    systems.

    My solution was not to
    choose the same IT systems, to do it by hand with a different team.
    Result – catastrophic and confidential.

    We need to do the same
    with CEng and IEng registration and ECUK
    intervention.

    ECUK is run by CEngs,
    Professional Registration is governed by CEngs,     you can not review a
    system using the system – it’s so obvious.


    The
    U.K. ENGINEERING 2016
    REPORT     in Professional registration
    matters      has to be reviewed
    by non PEI non CEng. Responsible professionals. Why not academic
    experts.


     


    Secondly our PEI wanted
    to amalgamate with all PEIs to form a single umbrella grouping the
    entire specialist engineering PEIs as chapters or independent
    groups.


    IET did this in its first
    years with specialist interest groups, then the IEE Electricals
    CEngs reverted to what IET is now.     Not a generalist
    Institute    .


     


    Peter Miller -
    Andy, I would agree with
    your view that IEng and Engtech should not be merged if I thought
    that IEng would be promoted. History has shown us that it will
    not.


    J Gowman – Peter I would
    go further,if this merger takes place I would advise all IEng to
    leave IET and find a better suited PEI that protects their
    interests.


     


    IET was meant to
    be :     A group who promote
    science, engineering and technology, encourage people to enter the
    profession and provide opportunities to share and develop knowledge
    and network, at all levels and gender.

    IET Cannot accept any
    proposition that denigrates the Technician and Professional
    Engineer. They are two different professions.


     


    See Assistant engineer
    below.


    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    I have done my bit in
    engineering, I will pass on what I can to the following
    generations.



    (>1980) Mr Ian M
    Barnes  -  Honorary Fellow of the IIE, established a
    small PEI dedicated to HNC type apprentice trained professional
    engineers, I was called upon to assist at Birdcage Walk. I helped
    as best I could.  I was a Professional Engineer, changing from
    aeronautical to nuclear engineering by distance BA courses in
    Mathematics & Technology. I was already an established engineer
    – a generalist, I was also leading the design & construction of
    the first non military, nuclear, gas reprocessing
    plant.



    All UK Civil service
    scientists and technologists were Professional Technologists PTO at
    that time.



    Our minority PEI was the
    foundation of IET and our basic aims were integrated into the IET,
    we went on to amalgamate and gain UK Royal Charter, then we
    registered our members who met UK Spec as Chartered Engineers. This
    all ended in 2006 when IET was formed.

    Having taken CPD studies
    in electronics, computing, vacuum technology and nuclear physics, I
    would consider myself already a generalist.

    My BA in Science made me
    a specialist in Special Techniques, a
    generalist in alternative process plant
    .

    I have since had two
    monographs
    validated to Master
    Degree.



    So as an I Eng (retired) I would
    consider myself a competent generalist.

    I was a registered Full
    Technician     C&G 293 pt 1, 2, 3, & endorsements, with
    apprenticeship training at the start of my career
    1972.

    I would never have accepted
    I Eng as being equal to a registered Technician

    I would consider my I Eng to
    be worth and equal to any CEng specialist.

    I am a leading Specialist in
    Special Techniques, in     Engineering
    “Surveillance”     and in DAD. (I suppose to the CEng
    engineering experts this means nothing, it is not electrical or IT,
    but it does include electrical & IT).



    DAD and Special
    Techniques     means nothing to a
    specialist Electrical CEng, so just call me a generalist in alternative
    power plant and special industrial plant.



    The IET states
    :


    ·        
    The IET is the
    Professional Home for Life Registered for engineers and
    technicians.


    ·        
    We'll support you at
    every stage of your professional journey.


    ·        
    Working to engineer a better
    world


    ·        
    Inspiring the next
    generation of engineers and technicians


    ·        
    Informing the wider
    engineering community


    ·        
    Influencing government and
    standards to advance society

     

     So either we
    protect and stand up for our members or we revert to a specialist
    Electrical IT CEng PEI.



    IET has to be above this CEng battle and restrictive club, we have
    a huge potential of PEs outside who can develop into experts in
    unthinkable domains. We should help them be PE registered, who
    cares about titles.

    Get them in; get them
    started, on the ladder of continuing knowledge.

     

    Keep & respect
    Technicians, value and respect IEng

     

    IET has to be open to all
    cultures, sciences and technologies

    IET is not an electrical
    – IT PEI.

    IET is multi disciplinary, calling on all competences, genders and
    experiences.


    Assistant Engineer – not
    a Technician, not an IEng.

    Assistant engineer is a
    profession in France taught in Universities to a level equivalent
    to HND.

    I have employed two Assistant engineers,
    neither wanted the responsibility or the constraints of being a
    Professional engineer.

    One was a Russian Girl who
    liked making things but did not want to compromise future family
    life, the other wanted flexibility and time for other activities
    outside of work.

    They were capable of
    handling any IT system within the company, could carry out
    mathematics and modelling to HND level, and were competent in
    sales, QA,  buying, document writing etc. They were at hand to
    alleviate the routine tasks of the Project engineer.

    A technician could not carry
    out their tasks. They were a time saver, why ask an engineer to do
    routine work when others could do it quicker at a lesser charge. It
    was an equal compromise productive. The senior engineers called my
    Assistant engineers
    all sorts of insulting terms until my projects began to lead all
    others. The company Director made Assistant engineer a must in
    the company.

    The UK should face up to
    change and not be conservative and Luddite.

    Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



    How can anyone justify being
    a member of an institute that cannot respect its members of all
    grades, origins and genders.


    John Gowman, BA
    MIET




  • 0
    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
  • 0
    As I don't want people to be misled by John's post above, can I just be clear to everyone (writing as a volunteer PRA and someone who has supported many applications through, 100% successfully so far (touch wood)) that you do not need experience of sales or management, or an MEng, to become CEng. Really.


    You do need to be able to show awareness of the commercial environment your organisation works in (perhaps the impact on the customer of your project costs and timescales), you do need to be leading engineering activities (in other words, people need to be doing their work differently because of your input - which I see as the role of an engineer anyway), and you need to show the same level of technical understanding as would be expected of someone with an MEng. That is all quite different.


    I'm commenting on this because these are long held and widespread myths that need to be repeatedly hit on the head. It directly relates to this thread - in my experience one reason (albeit minor) that professional registration levels are so low is that many people do not believe they are "qualified" when, in fact, they are. And the information presented by the IET and EC does often unfortunately contribute to this. As I said above, UKSpec needs to be read very carefully, and this is why many of us volunteer as PRAs to help people through this very misunderstood process.


    It is perfectly possible to be (say) a research engineer with your highest qualification being HNC and still get CEng.


    If in doubt, ask! And don't believe what anyone on a forum (myself included wink) or "down the pub" says about this - get UKSpec, read it carefully, and ask through the institutes for further personal advice if neccessary.


    Apologies, rant over, maybe one outcome of this report will be that the IET will make much clearer the many and varied paths to registration. I know they are trying by promoting more case studies, but based on conversations I've had with potential registrants it doesn't seem to be working sad
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    The registration as EngTech, IEng or CEng is generalist becuase unless further information provided we don't know if the CEng a Mechanical, Electrical , Electroncs or maybe Water Engineer.

    The CV definitly helps in this area.

    But also the PEI.

    If a Person CEng MIChemE then its a Chartered ENgineer who is most likely a Chemical Engineer?

    Or CEng MIMechE - a Mechanical Engineer?   

    With CEng MIET its also general and can apply to specialist or generalist or neo-generalist.

    "In cases where membership of or a     professional qualification from either a chartered or non-chartered professional body is necessary to practice a profession or to hold a certain title, the European Professional Qualification Directives require that suitably qualified people from other states (without any charter) in the European Union are also allowed to practice or hold a title in the UK and vice versa    ."  quotet from Wikki.

    Not sure how Berxit will if at all affect the above.

Community Rules & Guidelines