The number of newly registered incorporated engineers continues to decline. The strategy of the Engineering Council is clearly not aligned to supporting the engineering technologist professional. Given the governments commitment to technical education the IET should create their own professional register to provide a relevant standard. It is obvious the current UKSPEC standard lacks credibility in terms of the IEng grade
What is the image and understanding of who is Technologist?
From what I remember there was an attempt in the past to replace IEng with a Technologist designation and it failed.
Some think it will cause a decline in registration of persons who are IEng qualified.
On the other hand, it will be in line with some other countries that have Technician, Technologist, Engineer registration.
What would be the UK SPEC for the Technologist registration?
Do you think there should be Registered Engineering Technologist designation, following the Science Council they have Registered Science Technician, Registered Scientist, and Chartered Scientist designation?
When I talked to Russian professionals who are titled EngineerTechnologist, they are treated and considered Engineers in Russa.
Their education level could be that of a (5-year specialist degree) Master of Engineering Technology type of degree.
In Ireland, they have Associate Engineer in that area of designation.
Germany - Their State-certified Technicians are basically technologists.
In New Zealand, Associate Engineers are what Engineering Technicians.
Australia Associate Engineers are holders of two-year advanced Engineering diploma
Some people say Technologist is a glorified technician, I think this type of view is wrong but its there.
Peter, I wasn’t active in The IIE , but I replied to a consultative letter from the CEO Peter Wason circa 15 years ago suggesting that the idea of a Chartered Engineering Technologist was worthy of further consideration. At the time the IIE was one of the largest constituents of Engineering Council and had significant influence. Many of its ideas of a more inclusive and multidisciplinary approach carried forward into the IET. We are in a different place now and I think that the opportunity, if there was one, has passed.
I haven’t carried out a formal study , but it seems that wherever a distinction is made, it is based on academic preparation and positioned as “inferior” relative an Engineer. I have seen evidence from Canada which suggests a measure of success in presenting “Technologist” as sufficiently valuable for good numbers to voluntarily engage with it, but not much elsewhere. For example the 2017 Engineers Australia report suggests 10 times more completions of 4 year (Engineer) Degrees, than 3 year (Technologist) ones.
In an earlier thread I referred to this American diagram which suggests a continuum of practice by graduate level practitioners http://www.rit.edu/emcs/admissions/images/stories/assorted/engineering/eng-vs-engtech.gif . The diagram suggests that if we evaluate graduate practitioners on the basis of their work performance , rather than extrapolate from their academic preparation there is a huge overlap. In which case is there a valid, reliable and useful distinction to be made? It seems to me that outside a very narrow group of regulators and academics, few people could satisfactorily explain the distinction in practice. In the UK Engineer and Technologist are just synonyms to most people.
The UK Incorporated (formerly “Technician”) Engineer equating to “International Engineering Technologist”, evolved in the 1970s to serve those practising as professional engineers with higher level college qualifications, but not a university degree. In practice performance overlapped, but in order to satisfy the UK requirement for a “Chartered” profession to be of predominantly graduate level, non-graduates were rigidly excluded and IEng therefore had a viable market. The tens of thousands who did chose to engage ,eventually built a narrative of being the “different but equally valuable”, “more practical professionals”.
Changes to academic benchmarks (or “requirements”) implemented in practice around the same time at the IET came into being, left the IEng category positioned as what I would describe as “mainstream”, in contrast to the CEng category, presented as offering “The status of being part of a technological elite”. Clearly such flattery is potentially attractive to those with the right currency, but it also feels increasingly anachronistic even to many of those eligible, whilst at the same time insulting the “mainstream” who may feel the subjects of snobbery and unfair disadvantage.
We can’t affect the past, but I hope that we pause, step back , think what we are trying to achieve, understand our market and develop a modernised proposition to serve it. We have as a starting point Professors Uff’s report which confirms the problem (as if we didn't know). However, I think that we need an “outsider” to help devise a 21st Century proposition which is attractive and engaging, without losing the best of our learned society traditions and professional standards. I’ll summarise what I think that proposition should be, but only strategic level action in the face of difficult politics, can make a difference.
My proposition is.
Ensure that every student and apprentice aiming for at least a level 3 , was enrolled in the professional community at the beginning. The normal expectation of a member of a professional community should be to engage with and in return to be nurtured by it. This may include formal recognition for having demonstrated and/or maintained professional competence and commitment. Such formal recognition requires a review following a career transition or an interval of time. The professional title of Technician or Engineer is one mechanism , but a narrative or “reference” could also be provided as appropriate.
The threshold of recognition as a professional technician , seems adequately described by UK-SPEC although I think a minimum experience requirement will be necessary to distinguish between those in training and those fully responsible.
The threshold for recognition as an engineer should be set at graduate level as it currently is and broadly as currently defined by UK-SPEC. An early career Engineer could expect to reach this standard around the age of 25, although opportunities may vary. Some Technicians may also have transitioned in to an Engineer's role at this time. After a minimum of 5 years as a registered professional under “supervision” by their professional body, Engineers who demonstrate additional capability may be granted Chartered Engineer. This should be accessible to all of those who fall within a reasonable definition of a successful engineering career. Career technicians should also be encouraged to apply for an enhanced form of recognition (to be developed).
Any change will upset some people, but but we should seek to minimise potential harm to all valid stakeholders. However, we must change our ethos from one which seeks to enhance the status of a few ,to one which emphasises our collective skill (which is immense) as a service to society. Those seeking enhanced status should be encouraged to do so through adding value by their skills.
My proposition does not seek to curtail the pursuit of excellence in academic and research environments or if universities want it, Washington Accord type accreditation. If these changes were to take place then governance in future would need to much more fairly reflect the wide practice of engineering , rather than seeming primarily to serve an elite.
My view is that IEng lacks a 'value proposition'. The UKSpec criteria for IEng is broadly applied across engineering disciplines with various professional institutes interpreting the regulations and relative status accordingly. There is no consistent understanding of what IEng constitutes.
I think you could also argue, using your words "The UKSpec criteria for CEng is broadly applied across engineering disciplines with various professional institutes interpreting the regulations and relative status accordingly. There is no consistent understanding of what CEng constitutes". The problem is across the spectrum, and also applies to EngTech.
I suspect that Roy's proposition would fail, mainly due to the inertia of the industry, but I would certainly support trying to make it succeed. However, to get back to the original issue of the decline in the number of Incorporated Engineers, I would be interested to know how many of the other PEIs are pushing IEng in addition to CEng. I am currently working with a multi-disciplinary team which has a number of CEng and one IEng. The IEng is on the structural side and felt that he was more aligned to IEng than CEng, so this is what he applied for - through IET. All the others are either CEng or working towards CEng, most of them through IMechE. This indicates to me that the other PEIs are either not pushing IEng or if they are, they are not doing it effectively. (Please note that this is just my view from what I have seen - I would be delighted to have confirmation that all are actively involved in promoting IEng!)
I think IEng is clearly defined in the UK SPEC. IEng is unique to the UK. A person who achieved this designation is a professional Engineer.
When I was IEng it definitely elevated my status and the professional recognition. Being registered with EC UK immediately provided a benchmark and standard.
Academically the IET and other PEI's involvement in accreditation of degree programs leading to IEng, and the UK SPEC for IEng is really demanding.
I always thought that additional work needed to be done on the industrial side, Business has to see sufficient value added and there in my humble opinion is the root
of the reason for what is reported as a decline in registration of IEng's.
Hiring manager knows there is value added bit is it sufficient? If the requirement to be registered IEng for specific Jobs was dominating the job market then the professionals will get registered.
Becuase there isn't a strong demand for it in the job market the professional is not sufficiently motivated to get registered.
For example, I think if hiring IEng is good for public safety and the government provides business and corporations incentives in tax relieve or another type of incentive then
businesses will respond. For example free(subsidized) mandatory quality CPD for members of PEI's who are registered EngTech, ICTTech, IEng, and CEng.
If employers will see IEngs overperform their peers who are not registered then it will be a turning point to prefer registered employees.
I think everyone here's heard me express the thoughts below before, but put in a different way this time:
Q: Is IEng (or equivalent) useful?
A: Yes, it shows that "implementation engineers" (or insert your own preferred description) are working in a professional fashion. Q: Is it useful to recruiters?
A: Yes, it gives peer-reviewed evidence that staff don't just know their subject (which can be determined in other ways) but will also act professionally. Q: Is it useful to employers?
A: Yes, it gives third party accreditation of their staff. Q: Is it useful to engineers?
A: Yes, working towards it gives guidance of industry best practice, and achieving it gives confidence that this has been met. Q: So why isn't it being used?
A: My guess is there are three issues: value, confidence, and usability. Q: What are the value issues?
A: It's a question of how much more confidence anyone involved can have in staff with IEng registration. Or to look at it the other way, what are the risks if you can't demonstrate that your staff are working to IEng standards. In my experience this is where the IEng/CEng difference becomes clear: it would be expected that IEng's should be working to processes, so actually the risks are (or should be) already being controlled by the control of the processes. The link of CEng to innovation comes where you need someone to take personal responsibility for a piece of engineering which has no specific processes to control it - so you need really good evidence that this person is going to act professionally. Whereas at IEng level companies and organisations can (and probably do) argue that if their organisation is good then internal competence control is sufficient. Personally I strongly disagree with this view, I would also add that they can gain added value in better delivery of their projects by following industry best practice in their engineers competence. Q: What are the confidence issues?
A: The PEIs are widely seen in the UK engineering industry as "old boy's clubs". Registration is often seen as a box ticking exercise with no relation to the real needs of engineering. I have very, very often come across these views, but very rarely - if ever - come across someone who holds these views who has actually read UKSpec. I strongly believe that if UKSpec was explained to employers etc they would have to admit that these are the qualities they are looking for in their staff. But this requires a very proactive approach to get into non-PEI interested industries. Crack that, and I think there's a chance of cracking the "old boys club" image. Q: What is the usability issue?
A: There are hardly any IEngs out there. So there's no point employers asking for it as they won't get enough applicants for jobs. So engineers don't get it as they don't see it as adding value. It's a chicken-and-egg situation, which can only be broken by there being some other drive for engineers to become IEng.
I don't think what the status is called is a huge issue, I also find the "equal but different" / "stepping stone to CEng" debate unhelpful. The critical point is making industry confident that:
Third party accreditation of engineering staff at positions not covered by CEng is of value,
The PEIs are competent to provide such accreditation,
UKSpec is an appropriate standard.
As I say, I personally strongly believe in point 1, but making a Value Proposition for this to industry is hard (but I don't think is impossible).
I am very happy to robustly defend points 2 and 3 - but we do need the IET as a body to accept that it still needs to persuade the wider industry of this. I get very frustrated by those involved with the IET who, because they only deal with others in PEI-heavy industries, simply don't appreciate that the majority of the engineering world exists outside the PEIs. The Uff report should be a wake-up call, but the snooze button mustn't be hit...
A very well presented summary. I would like to take up your answer to "What are the confidence issues?"
You state (and I fully agree with) "I have very, very often come across these views, but very rarely - if ever - come across someone who holds these views who has actually read UKSpec." However I would like to comment that I and many of my peers gained CEng in the days before UKSpec. Many of these people are in management (read 'recruiting') positions now and they will only know and understand UKSpec if they have been mentoring or acting as a volunteer PRA, Interviewer, etc., which many managers feel they don't have time to do. (I should point out that I was fortunate to be in a business that expected senior engineers and managers to be at least Mentors, possibly more.) The challenge is therefore not just limited to non-PEI interested industries but includes those industries which support the PEIs but the recruiters have not maintained their knowledge of the changes in the Professional Registration requirements.
VERY good point! You're absolutely right, if I hadn't been mentoring people through the process (and latterly PRA'ing) I'm sure I wouldn't have kept up to date with UK Spec.
Andy is right in terms of "there are hardly any IEngs out there". The number of incorporated engineers is half the number a few years ago and IEng is the only grade where the numbers of newly registered engineers has been lower in the previous 2 years. According to EngineeringUK survey there about 5.7 million workers in engineering organisations in the UK. I'm not sure of the exact number of incorporated engineers domiciled in the UK and active in the work force in the UK but I would be surprised if it were more than 10k. The ratio of incorporated engineers to the total number of workers in engineering could be about 0.5%. It really surprises me the Engineering Council are not concerned. To me the ECUK strategy for the next few years does not address any of the issues facing technical education and the shortage of skilled engineers in the UK.
Many well made points by most contributors to this thread. There is, without a doubt, a broad lack of knowledge/understanding of the value proposition offered by UKSPEC except for those engaging with it regularly (assessors and interviewers largely speaking), especially for IEng, and I think Moshe makes a particularly important point regarding the failure of employers to see the value offered, compounded, as others have pointed out, by those existing registered (mostly Chartered) engineers who are out of touch with UKSPEC and who are often the recruiters. As a C.Eng who works with many who I believe would warrant IEng, I believe that registration at either level should be offering all stakeholders the benefit of a 'gold' standard for professional competence and conduct that would deliver immense value, and that, in most contexts, but especially in a project delivery organisation, such as I'm working, the ratio needs to be exactly the opposite to what we see - Incorporated Engineers, or Engineering Technologists, or whatever we call them need to outnumber C.Eng by several multiples. However, as touched on, there is a general lack of acceptance of the 'equal but different' proposition. I think there's a great deal of value in the thought that it needs those of us who do understand UKSPEC and the (different) values/benefits offered by C.Eng & I.Eng to educate employers/clients to the value derived, but needs, potentially, even more effort to the potential candidates themselves. One of the ways to educate those employers/clients is for the job applicants/holders themselves to believe in it and then 'sell' their value to their employer/client. And herein lies a central problem - the key distinction between I.Eng/Technologists and C.Eng, is that word innovation. However hard we try to convey that the need for those who can offer/deal with innovation is at least no more than that for those who operate competently, knowledgeably and with appropriate conduct but who don't innovate, and in many cases is less, there is a society perception that all 'clever' or 'high valued' people should be innovative, and if you're not, you are, in some way, still only second prize winner. It has a similar kudos to it as the word creative. With current society outlook, with its buzz words and arbitrary classifications and judgements, anyone who admits to not innovating, or not being creative, is encouraged to think of themselves as inferior, and this is a far stronger force than UKSPEC! The real irony here is that many of us who are C.Eng and have that innovative component to offer, are in roles where our client or employer aspires to our position requiring C.Eng but then stifle the very innovation that brings along by insisting on 'competence' assessments which require slavish adherence to tried and tested (or worse still, often untested and flawed) solutions and decisions, and to often out of date standards that continue unchallenged, and with challenge discouraged. As example, I do innovate, with certainty, but I have to fight the fight to do so - it's a constant battle to resist the forces that seek to discourage me from doing so, and I think it would be an interesting exercise to question my client as to whether, in this risk averse/innovation averse atmosphere, would they not be better off with, and derive more value from an I.Eng (though heaven knows, my industry desperately needs innovation!). But, to illustrate my own point, would this then demotivate candidates for the role by making them feel inferior because they were not 'innovators'?
