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

A new model of high-value engineering education

Following on from the UK Engineering Report 2016 (and the discussion of same in this forum) and the adequacy or not of current efforts to educate and train, and to encourage the registration of our future engineers, I am intrigued about a “new model in technology and engineering” (NMiTE http://www.nmite.org.uk). It is a new University that is to focus on the teaching of engineering.

In a recent press release, it says:  


“At NMiTE we believe that engineering education can be different.
We’re here to unlock the creativity and drive of Britain’s next generation – the Passioneers – the designers and builders, problem solvers and innovators who will shape our future.


We’re establishing a new model of high-value engineering education:


  • Creating a beacon institution to help address the engineering skills shortage that threatens to hobble the UK’s ability to compete globally.

  • With a new approach to learning – based on real-world problem solving and the blending of high quality engineering, design, liberal arts and humanities with communication and employability skills targeted at the growth sectors of the future.

  • Located on a new and different type of campus – designed for inspiration, collaboration and a deep connection to the global community.

  • And reinforced by an innovation ecosystem of global corporations & SME entrepreneurs, coupled with global universities, not just to invest, but to contribute knowledge and expertise – with New Model students at its centre.

We’re shaping an institution to create and deliver 21st century engineers – catalysts for innovation and change – a new model generation of emotionally intelligent entrepreneurs, innovators, employees and leaders for the future."


Two things strike me as very different about this proposition:

  1. Its motto is “no lectures, no exams, no text books” (!). It plans to be very practically-based, largely conducted within real industry.

Apparently, it will also have no departments, no faculties, no tenure, no Council.  Instead, it’ll have “teaching teams designed around the delivery of our unique engineering and Human Interaction curriculum” (developed by an impressive, international, and overwhelmingly academic array of advisors and partners).


  1. It’s located in the city of Hereford (admittedly partly a personal one as a resident of Herefordshire for over 30 years). 

It is a city by virtue of its cathedral but it is one of the smaller cities in the UK with a population of just over 50k, and is in England's first or second most rural county (depending on how you rank it). Hereford’s engineering heritage is largely unremarkable as it is known more for its agricultural and food output (beef, potatoes, strawberries, apples, cider(!), beer, etc.) and of being home to the UK's elite special forces regiments. It has engineering history in munitions production from during WWII and it's current engineering association is with food production, double-glazing, Morgan chassis and JCB cab manufacture, insulation material forming, and that’s largely it. So, not the most obvious choice to base a new Advanced Engineering University then!


The NMiTE project has been described (The Times 6th Sep 2016) as “at worst an intriguing experiment and at best an innovative template that traditional universities might learn from”.

What do you think?


As an aside, I have seen nothing of NMiTE in these forums or indeed on the IET website – yet, apparently (and quite rightly) the IET has been an advisor/contributor/supporter.


As a footnote, I would very much like to reach out and connect with any IET members/fellows that are/have been involved in NMiTE with a view of my getting involved too.

  • Scott Williams:

    Hi Andy,


    .... The Government should encourage all engineering bodies and companies to get involved more with undergraduates which fortunately is happening (although very slowly). ...


    Best Regards, Scott




    Scott (and Andy),

    I agree with what you are saying, but with regard to the above, if engineering bodies and companies get involved more with undergraduates, they are already too late! The undergraduates have already chosen their courses, so involving them will not increase the number of engineering graduates. We need to catch them at school before they have made their choice to show them how rewarding (intellectually at least, perhaps also financially) such a career can be.


    We need to give the children of today the opportunity to learn enough to make their choices. As a start in this we have volunteers going to schools to talk to the children about engineering, which is something that wasn't around when I was at school - I ended up an engineer through a mixture of blind chance and nepotism, but had I known enough to make a sensible choice it is what I would have chosen.


    Best regards,


    Alasdair

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Andy, Scott,

    You do not seem to
    understand the market.

    We have
    two major fields of employment of engineers, one is in industry
    where engineers have long standing contracts as employees.

    The other
    is in major projects which are time limited. EPR being an
    example.

    EPR is a
    power industry design & build project and a second Operate and
    Supply contract. They will not use the same engineers.

    In the
    nuclear business, there are other attached markets as well, such as
    fuel, maintenance and dismantling.



    These very
    big projects treat engineers as commodities. 

    We are
    bought and discarded at short notice. I had a 10 min interview for
    EPR, I was asked can you do the job, do you want a coffee, can you
    start at 8.30 tomorrow morning.

    Once the
    engineer has completed his task he is dismissed. That's modern
    engineering. I could give the example of industry -
    telecommunication, where I have neighbours in France that have been
    bought and sold from England and fired high and dry here in France,
    I believe they are from Andy's old employer's company. 



    The major
    project is run by stakeholders who operate an ephemere company, no
    employees. They call in technical assistance which has a skeleton
    staff of experienced engineers and a list of available contract
    engineers. Secondary technical assistance companies supply the
    major tec-ass company.



    This is
    being seen more in industry as well. As an engineering manager in a
    design office, I had a skeleton staff that was too expensive to
    change, staff on short term, project, contracts and interim staff.
    Every Friday the CEO wanted to know if we were in profit or not. If
    not, then someone had to be sacrificed. That is the market
    economy.



    The
    contract nuclear engineers were in-fact engineering specialists,
    pipe-work, structures, instrumentation etc. They drifted between
    major engineering contracts - oil, gas, deep-sea, energy,
    special-machines. A good engineer can work in many disciplines.
    Instrumentation & electrical is common to all.

    I have
    mentioned Fusion, a contract engineer would ask for 1000 to 1200 €
    a day for a short fixed term contract but  he could be between
    contracts for a very long period.



    The days
    of contract for life engineers are rare as are companies with long
    lives; every company and R&D centre I have worked for has
    closed down.

    So how do
    we get companies to train and support engineers?



    This is
    how engineering started 250 years ago, which led to unions and
    PEIs.



    The truth
    is that government has no interest, especially the UK government
    and the market sees us as commodities.

    As for
    IET, it is completely lost.



    A tip :
    the only safe employment is DAD, nuclear dismantling, the only true
    innovative engineering left; there is over 100 years work and none
    of "us" experts left, they all have to be retrained.



    A new model of high-value
    engineering education is needed
    and PEIs have to redefine their
    role in this cut throat market place.

    I did my
    bit, now it is up to the likes of Scott to at least state what they
    need and for the more experienced PEs to implement against all
    odds.

    Look at
    IET Engineering Communities, no one else does, and see what Power
    Engineering up against.



    If we do
    not make changes, the engineers  in China that I helped train
    will help you out. (They are already here). They train 50 Million
    each year.



    If the UK
    wants to stay in engineering, it will have to bring in experienced
    modern engineers now, to work and to train the UK college leavers
    at all levels; whilst it defines - A new model of high-value
    engineering education. 

    That's not
    easy with BREXIT!

    Note on
    EPR we could not use any engineers between 35 to 55. They did not
    have the experience or the competences needed nor the high-value engineering
    education
    .



    John
    Gowman 

    Ingnieur Chercheur -
    retired







    Garanti sans virus. www.avg.com

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Andy, Scott,

    You do not seem to
    understand the market.

    We have
    two major fields of employment of engineers, one is in industry
    where engineers have long standing contracts as employees.

    The other
    is in major projects which are time limited. EPR being an
    example.

    EPR is a
    power industry design & build project and a second Operate and
    Supply contract. They will not use the same engineers.

    In the
    nuclear business, there are other attached markets as well, such as
    fuel, maintenance and dismantling.



    These very
    big projects treat engineers as commodities. 

    We are
    bought and discarded at short notice. I had a 10 min interview for
    EPR, I was asked can you do the job, do you want a coffee, can you
    start at 8.30 tomorrow morning.

    Once the
    engineer has completed his task he is dismissed. That's modern
    engineering. I could give the example of industry -
    telecommunication, where I have neighbours in France that have been
    bought and sold from England and fired high and dry here in France,
    I believe they are from Andy's old employer's company. 



    The major
    project is run by stakeholders who operate an ephemere company, no
    employees. They call in technical assistance which has a skeleton
    staff of experienced engineers and a list of available contract
    engineers. Secondary technical assistance companies supply the
    major tec-ass company.



    This is
    being seen more in industry as well. As an engineering manager in a
    design office, I had a skeleton staff that was too expensive to
    change, staff on short term, project, contracts and interim staff.
    Every Friday the CEO wanted to know if we were in profit or not. If
    not, then someone had to be sacrificed. That is the market
    economy.



    The
    contract nuclear engineers were in-fact engineering specialists,
    pipe-work, structures, instrumentation etc. They drifted between
    major engineering contracts - oil, gas, deep-sea, energy,
    special-machines. A good engineer can work in many disciplines.
    Instrumentation & electrical is common to all.

    I have
    mentioned Fusion, a contract engineer would ask for 1000 to 1200 €
    a day for a short fixed term contract but  he could be between
    contracts for a very long period.



    The days
    of contract for life engineers are rare as are companies with long
    lives; every company and R&D centre I have worked for has
    closed down.

    So how do
    we get companies to train and support engineers?



    This is
    how engineering started 250 years ago, which led to unions and
    PEIs.



    The truth
    is that government has no interest, especially the UK government
    and the market sees us as commodities.

    As for
    IET, it is completely lost.



    A tip :
    the only safe employment is DAD, nuclear dismantling, the only true
    innovative engineering left; there is over 100 years work and none
    of "us" experts left, they all have to be retrained.



    A new model of high-value
    engineering education is needed
    and PEIs have to redefine their
    role in this cut throat market place.

    I did my
    bit, now it is up to the likes of Scott to at least state what they
    need and for the more experienced PEs to implement against all
    odds.

    Look at
    IET Engineering Communities, no one else does, and see what Power
    Engineering up against.



    If we do
    not make changes, the engineers  in China that I helped train
    will help you out. (They are already here). They train 50 Million
    each year.



    If the UK
    wants to stay in engineering, it will have to bring in experienced
    modern engineers now, to work and to train the UK college leavers
    at all levels; whilst it defines - A new model of high-value
    engineering education. 

    That's not
    easy with BREXIT!

    Note on
    EPR we could not use any engineers between 35 to 55. They did not
    have the experience or the competences needed nor the high-value engineering
    education
    .



    John
    Gowman 

    Ingnieur Chercheur -
    retired







    Garanti sans virus. www.avg.com

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Andy, Scott,

    You do not seem to
    understand the market.

    We have
    two major fields of employment of engineers, one is in industry
    where engineers have long standing contracts as employees.

    The other
    is in major projects which are time limited. EPR being an
    example.

    EPR is a
    power industry design & build project and a second Operate and
    Supply contract. They will not use the same engineers.

    In the
    nuclear business, there are other attached markets as well, such as
    fuel, maintenance and dismantling.



    These very
    big projects treat engineers as commodities. 

    We are
    bought and discarded at short notice. I had a 10 min interview for
    EPR, I was asked can you do the job, do you want a coffee, can you
    start at 8.30 tomorrow morning.

    Once the
    engineer has completed his task he is dismissed. That's modern
    engineering. I could give the example of industry -
    telecommunication, where I have neighbours in France that have been
    bought and sold from England and fired high and dry here in France,
    I believe they are from Andy's old employer's company. 



    The major
    project is run by stakeholders who operate an ephemere company, no
    employees. They call in technical assistance which has a skeleton
    staff of experienced engineers and a list of available contract
    engineers. Secondary technical assistance companies supply the
    major tec-ass company.



    This is
    being seen more in industry as well. As an engineering manager in a
    design office, I had a skeleton staff that was too expensive to
    change, staff on short term, project, contracts and interim staff.
    Every Friday the CEO wanted to know if we were in profit or not. If
    not, then someone had to be sacrificed. That is the market
    economy.



    The
    contract nuclear engineers were in-fact engineering specialists,
    pipe-work, structures, instrumentation etc. They drifted between
    major engineering contracts - oil, gas, deep-sea, energy,
    special-machines. A good engineer can work in many disciplines.
    Instrumentation & electrical is common to all.

    I have
    mentioned Fusion, a contract engineer would ask for 1000 to 1200 €
    a day for a short fixed term contract but  he could be between
    contracts for a very long period.



    The days
    of contract for life engineers are rare as are companies with long
    lives; every company and R&D centre I have worked for has
    closed down.

    So how do
    we get companies to train and support engineers?



    This is
    how engineering started 250 years ago, which led to unions and
    PEIs.



    The truth
    is that government has no interest, especially the UK government
    and the market sees us as commodities.

    As for
    IET, it is completely lost.



    A tip :
    the only safe employment is DAD, nuclear dismantling, the only true
    innovative engineering left; there is over 100 years work and none
    of "us" experts left, they all have to be retrained.



    A new model of high-value
    engineering education is needed
    and PEIs have to redefine their
    role in this cut throat market place.

    I did my
    bit, now it is up to the likes of Scott to at least state what they
    need and for the more experienced PEs to implement against all
    odds.

    Look at
    IET Engineering Communities, no one else does, and see what Power
    Engineering up against.



    If we do
    not make changes, the engineers  in China that I helped train
    will help you out. (They are already here). They train 50 Million
    each year.



    If the UK
    wants to stay in engineering, it will have to bring in experienced
    modern engineers now, to work and to train the UK college leavers
    at all levels; whilst it defines - A new model of high-value
    engineering education. 

    That's not
    easy with BREXIT!

    Note on
    EPR we could not use any engineers between 35 to 55. They did not
    have the experience or the competences needed nor the high-value engineering
    education
    .



    John
    Gowman 

    Ingnieur Chercheur -
    retired







    Garanti sans virus. www.avg.com

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Andy, Scott,

    You do not seem to
    understand the market.

    We have
    two major fields of employment of engineers, one is in industry
    where engineers have long standing contracts as employees.

    The other
    is in major projects which are time limited. EPR being an
    example.

    EPR is a
    power industry design & build project and a second Operate and
    Supply contract. They will not use the same engineers.

    In the
    nuclear business, there are other attached markets as well, such as
    fuel, maintenance and dismantling.



    These very
    big projects treat engineers as commodities. 

    We are
    bought and discarded at short notice. I had a 10 min interview for
    EPR, I was asked can you do the job, do you want a coffee, can you
    start at 8.30 tomorrow morning.

    Once the
    engineer has completed his task he is dismissed. That's modern
    engineering. I could give the example of industry -
    telecommunication, where I have neighbours in France that have been
    bought and sold from England and fired high and dry here in France,
    I believe they are from Andy's old employer's company. 



    The major
    project is run by stakeholders who operate an ephemere company, no
    employees. They call in technical assistance which has a skeleton
    staff of experienced engineers and a list of available contract
    engineers. Secondary technical assistance companies supply the
    major tec-ass company.



    This is
    being seen more in industry as well. As an engineering manager in a
    design office, I had a skeleton staff that was too expensive to
    change, staff on short term, project, contracts and interim staff.
    Every Friday the CEO wanted to know if we were in profit or not. If
    not, then someone had to be sacrificed. That is the market
    economy.



    The
    contract nuclear engineers were in-fact engineering specialists,
    pipe-work, structures, instrumentation etc. They drifted between
    major engineering contracts - oil, gas, deep-sea, energy,
    special-machines. A good engineer can work in many disciplines.
    Instrumentation & electrical is common to all.

    I have
    mentioned Fusion, a contract engineer would ask for 1000 to 1200 €
    a day for a short fixed term contract but  he could be between
    contracts for a very long period.



    The days
    of contract for life engineers are rare as are companies with long
    lives; every company and R&D centre I have worked for has
    closed down.

    So how do
    we get companies to train and support engineers?



    This is
    how engineering started 250 years ago, which led to unions and
    PEIs.



    The truth
    is that government has no interest, especially the UK government
    and the market sees us as commodities.

    As for
    IET, it is completely lost.



    A tip :
    the only safe employment is DAD, nuclear dismantling, the only true
    innovative engineering left; there is over 100 years work and none
    of "us" experts left, they all have to be retrained.



    A new model of high-value
    engineering education is needed
    and PEIs have to redefine their
    role in this cut throat market place.

    I did my
    bit, now it is up to the likes of Scott to at least state what they
    need and for the more experienced PEs to implement against all
    odds.

    Look at
    IET Engineering Communities, no one else does, and see what Power
    Engineering up against.



    If we do
    not make changes, the engineers  in China that I helped train
    will help you out. (They are already here). They train 50 Million
    each year.



    If the UK
    wants to stay in engineering, it will have to bring in experienced
    modern engineers now, to work and to train the UK college leavers
    at all levels; whilst it defines - A new model of high-value
    engineering education. 

    That's not
    easy with BREXIT!

    Note on
    EPR we could not use any engineers between 35 to 55. They did not
    have the experience or the competences needed nor the high-value engineering
    education
    .



    John
    Gowman 

    Ingnieur Chercheur -
    retired







    Garanti sans virus. www.avg.com

  • Hi Scott,


    It's a nice idea, but I think again UK government will (and do!) say it's down to industry to work with schools and colleges to do that. For all the reasons I put in my first post.


    It's very frustrating, taking schools in particular they are now fully responsible for giving career advice, and the government's argument is that it is down to schools and industry to work together to give the best advice without goverment interference. The problem is - as many of us who do voluntary work in this area have found - schools don't know what they don't know. So if a particular school head of careers has a fixed idea that engineering is about bricklaying and car repairs it is nearly impossible for us to even get invited in to change that view.

    The Darwinian theory is that those schools will fail, because the pupils won't go on to get the best jobs, whereas those schools that do collaborate and hence offer good career advice will succeed. (I personally consider this idea, in the words of Douglas Adams, to be a load of fetid dingo's kidneys, as it misses the point about what schools are actually rated on - which is exam results.)


    Whilst I don't think we'll get government itself to invest in this area, we could try persuading government to tighten standards on career advice in schools - including trying to ensure that they must consult widely with industry. I feel very sorry for the schools in this, they've been lumbered with something they often didn't want and certainly in general didn't have the expertise for, but as ever we can only start from where we are and move forward.


    Meanwhile I'd better get on with the day job...


    Cheers, Andy


    (Hi Alasdair, I wrote the above over lunch but only just posted before I saw your post! Absolutely 100% agree with you.)
  • John, I thought you were “resting"?  The on-line world can become a bit addictive and not just to a younger generation! I happened to be in the forums addressing a members complaint when your first post of today landed. The main subject of this discussion thread is preparing Engineers and Technicians described as “Education” in title, but within which I would include Training and Development.  

     

    When I strip away those aspects of your arguments and oservations that seek to pin the blame on guilty parties for past failings and even apparently corrupt practice, I have some sympathy for aspects of your argument. I haven’t honestly encountered in my involvement with the IET or Engineering Council any corruption. However, wherever people gather together there will be politics, it is as fundamental as gravity. Unfortunately when any form of political process creates winners and losers, criticism and antagonism is likely follow.

     

    Most readers of this forum will probably have engaged in some form of negotiation skills training. I hope therefore that they are familiar with the concepts of “Win-Lose”, “Lose-Lose” and “Win-Win”.  

     

    Moshe’s contribution as so often is helpful, since he seeks to explain what we have, acknowledging its imperfections and is seeking to build on that legacy rather than destroy. That system has ultimately worked well for him and he is a successful professional built via Technician and IEng, taking the time to put something back. On the other hand you feel that it has ultimately hampered you and clearly you have found yourself on the “wrong side” of politics.  We can’t turn the clock back to deal with your grievances which were not caused by the IET (or ITEME, IMechIE, IIE). However, I would agree with the proposition that most of those “mainstream” engineers who for various reasons did not become chartered, have found themselves marginalised or disadvantaged by the current system.

     

    I have been critical of Engineering Council, not in a search for blame, but as the “parliament” it is where the buck stops. If we cannot establish a fresh consensus and build for the future, then current trends will reduce substantially the size of the registered profession in the next decade or so.

     

    At present the system for professional recognition is built from the top-down, it explicitly sets out to establish an elite. The elite who govern the system then allow others to engage in subsidiary forms of recognition.  This seems increasingly anachronistic to those who might think of themselves as professional engineers or technicians and who potentially might be willing to participate in a professional community.

     

    The solution is to pause and to rebuild from the bottom-up in future.

     

    The proposition of professional recognition has to be “Win-Win”.  Simply in practice this means engaging with every new apprentice or student of technology in equally respectful terms and seeking to nurture their progress.  Different patterns of education and training will offer differently optimised blends of skills and knowledge.  We can codify thresholds for recognition as a competent practitioner, committed to professional ethics. We can offer enhanced recognition to those who demonstrate further professional growth and ongoing commitment.  This is different from focussing on the most selective academic undergraduate programmes and offering them elite status, which is currently the foundation stone.  

     

    We should focus on professional performance and on the service of engineers or technicians to society. Because the second part of this is sociological, I have to focus on the UK , since different cultures will drive different assumptions elsewhere. A report on “social mobility” in the UK was published earlier this week. Engineering was one of the professions which was praised with a good proportion emerging from more modest social backgrounds. This included those identified as professional engineers by government statisticians, not just our “Technological Elite”.  If we consider this social benefit, in addition to wealth creation and practical usefulness of engineered products to society, then we have much with which to enthuse our own practitioners.

     

    Our UK thresholds for recognition of a Technician and an Engineer seem about right to me.  People who haven’t demonstrated the necessary standards will continue to colloquially style themselves as “Engineers”. Only ill-informed members of the public could possibly be superficially confused by this. If we really do want statutory protection then convince politicians that a majority of us are behind such a step.  

     

    Returning to the main subject of this thread, plurality and “life-long learning”, would be key themes for me.  Our mission to enthuse and inspire shouldn’t just be aimed at children , but at current early and mid-career practioners. Several posts came before I could find time to respond plus the time to draft this, but keep it up Scott! We need a fresh perspective through younger eyes and challenges to the “exam factory” mentality.  

     

    By coincidence, I bumped into someone yesterday who I managed when he was an apprentice 20 years ago. He was very enthusiastic about how the intense blend of practice and theory had set him up for a successful career.  He hadn’t registered yet because he had received negative messages about “only” having an enhanced HNC (“acceptable” for CEng for my manager when I was an apprentice). Hopefully he will get the recognition that his career deserves (many years too late) soon.

     

    What we need in my opinion is a culture change (i.e. attitudes and behaviours), because if we take our standards out of the sociological context then they are mostly reasonably Ok. Elitism doesn’t just create a short term “Win-Lose” in creates a long term “Lose- Lose”.  

     

    Change is never easy, but the old-ways can’t dominate for ever. How about designating “status” a swear word within our community. Would that be a quick win?  

     


  • Roy Bowdler:

     

     How about designating “status” a swear word within our community. Would that be a quick win?  

     




    Second that!!!!! Much better to replace it with what the user actually means - the word "status" is far to vague to be useful. 



    Coming back to my post above (and, vaguely, to the thread) as an example of excellent work in bringing industry and academia (in this case schools) together: One of the events I take part in once a year is a "speed networking" event at Truro College. A group of us from a wide range of STEM industries set out our stalls, and all the vaguely STEM interested sixth form pupils are rotated around us in small groups. OK, it's short and sweet, but it really does seem to give real visibility both of the huge range of roles and careers in the industries, and the paths into them. And really interested students have ended up with company introductions, visits, and more from this. It costs the companies a day of our time (I get a small allowance of time to spend on STEM activities), it costs the school a bit of time organising time free across one day for the students, and the potential benifits are huge. If anyone gets invited to participate in such an event I'd really strongly recommend it. You do feeel very tired at the end though!


    What I'd also like to see is this done further down the school, before students choose GCSE and A level options. But the main thing is to encourage more and more schools to do it - perhaps as a cluster so that engineers / employers don't have to decide which ones they have time to support.


    Cheers, Andy

     


  • Roy Bowdler:


    Returning to the main subject of this thread, plurality and “life-long learning”, would be key themes for me.  Our mission to enthuse and inspire shouldn’t just be

    aimed at children , but at current early and mid-career practioners.


     




    I keep meaning to start another thread on this - because there's a huge topic there (came over very strongly to me at the Registraton and Standards conference) - I'll find the time eventually. In brief, no, I don't think "we" (whoever "we" are!) are enthusing and inspiring early and mid-career practitioners anything like as well as "we" should. But that's not to say they're not being enthused and inspired elsewhere though.


  • Roy,


    Excellent post! Thanks for that. Agree with what you are saying wholeheartedly.


    Andy,


    Reference your last post, I agree that we may need to start a separate thread. We have at least two issues here with different answers, viz. how to get more people studying engineering to come into the industry / how to get the graduating engineers more involved, enthused, inspired and subsequently putting more back into the industry.


    Regards,


    Alasdair