Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

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 21^st 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.  

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 21^st 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.