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
It seems that we are merely conducting an argument around whether or not the current system has “failed”. As is so often the case with such arguments it depends on where you stand. Those who have found it useful support it ( recognising that problems exist) whilst others have much more negative experiences and demand change. Meanwhile the majority of practitioners of engineering and technology take little interest.
A system of professional recognition exists, which in the UK includes a voluntary register governed by Engineering Council as the “Parliament” of Professional Engineering Institutions. Other main influential bodies include the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Professors Council et al. To my knowledge (I’m happy to stand corrected) there is one Incorporated Engineer and no Engineering Technicians directly involved in governing any of this. It is presumed by such organisations that a person who has not attained Chartered Engineer is not a “full member” of the profession. However, subsidiary registrations are offered in the categories of Incorporated and Technician. The categories could be characterised as “Gold, Silver and Bronze”. Engineering Council itself describes recognition as a Chartered Engineer as offering “the status of being part of a technological elite”.
The UK-SPEC standard is a consensus based on the cumulative efforts of many, to discriminate between three generic types of practitioner. This standard added an important dimension to the previous UK practice, still widely used internationally, of discriminating mainly on the basis of academic qualifications, sometimes supplemented by other examinations.
Good quality argument has been offered about how a distinction can be drawn between the two types of engineer described by UK-SPEC and justifications made for the IETs approach to implementing this. I don’t disagree, except to observe that across the great variety of engineering the overlap is huge (see earlier continuum). If the division was value neutral and merely helped to signpost an engineer’s optimisation for different types of activity (such as R&D v production management) then only minor harm could occur. Unfortunately this isn’t the case, since one category is held to be significantly inferior than the other.
Clearly the world of employment is enormously varied and it would be impractical to generalise too much. Many employers hold professional titles to have little value, for various reasons. Of those who do value them, some may consider them to be an externally validated competency benchmark, but this is usually only assessed once (on average 30+ years ago for incumbent engineer registrants). The threshold for recognition also appears to have changed over time, with masters degrees and “creativity and innovation” appearing more recently on the registration landscape.
It seems to me that on the whole employers are looking for professional engineers of “graduate standard” with a range of other attributes. Few employers seeking to employ and/or develop Chartered Engineers have much interest in the current criteria used to divide CEng and IEng. Many have no significant understanding and merely expect CEng to represent a “terminal standard” achieved from 8-10 years into career.
Our efforts and this discussion are focussed in the wrong place to achieve what should be our primary objective. Simply put, this is to nurture the knowledge skills and commitment of our members. Recognition in the form of registration is an important element including an obligation of ongoing mutual engagement and support.
My proposal is that graduate level (including by work-based learning) practitioners of engineering and technology with relevant achievement and commitment should be recognised as Professional Engineers. Professional Technicians applying a more practical approach are an equally valuable part of the engineering community. In each case a period of monitored development (say 5 years) should allow for enhanced recognition as a Chartered Engineer or “Master Technician” (TBC). Transfer between the two should be possible , but not presumed to be desirable, or only in one direction. There would still be some overlap in practice between Technician and Engineer, but this would be easier to codify, including by graduate level attributes.
This places our primary focus where it should properly be, at the threshold of professional recognition not dividing “the elite” from “the rest”. I don’t think that we can change for cultural reasons without fresh strategic vision and action. What I’m suggesting wouldn’t lower our standards, it would raise them overall. However, we are so deeply wedded to rationing our chartered title that we can’t see the space beyond it where most engineers should still be “progressing” in different, but equally valid ways depending on opportunities.
It seems that we are merely conducting an argument around whether or not the current system has “failed”. As is so often the case with such arguments it depends on where you stand. Those who have found it useful support it ( recognising that problems exist) whilst others have much more negative experiences and demand change. Meanwhile the majority of practitioners of engineering and technology take little interest.
A system of professional recognition exists, which in the UK includes a voluntary register governed by Engineering Council as the “Parliament” of Professional Engineering Institutions. Other main influential bodies include the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Professors Council et al. To my knowledge (I’m happy to stand corrected) there is one Incorporated Engineer and no Engineering Technicians directly involved in governing any of this. It is presumed by such organisations that a person who has not attained Chartered Engineer is not a “full member” of the profession. However, subsidiary registrations are offered in the categories of Incorporated and Technician. The categories could be characterised as “Gold, Silver and Bronze”. Engineering Council itself describes recognition as a Chartered Engineer as offering “the status of being part of a technological elite”.
The UK-SPEC standard is a consensus based on the cumulative efforts of many, to discriminate between three generic types of practitioner. This standard added an important dimension to the previous UK practice, still widely used internationally, of discriminating mainly on the basis of academic qualifications, sometimes supplemented by other examinations.
Good quality argument has been offered about how a distinction can be drawn between the two types of engineer described by UK-SPEC and justifications made for the IETs approach to implementing this. I don’t disagree, except to observe that across the great variety of engineering the overlap is huge (see earlier continuum). If the division was value neutral and merely helped to signpost an engineer’s optimisation for different types of activity (such as R&D v production management) then only minor harm could occur. Unfortunately this isn’t the case, since one category is held to be significantly inferior than the other.
Clearly the world of employment is enormously varied and it would be impractical to generalise too much. Many employers hold professional titles to have little value, for various reasons. Of those who do value them, some may consider them to be an externally validated competency benchmark, but this is usually only assessed once (on average 30+ years ago for incumbent engineer registrants). The threshold for recognition also appears to have changed over time, with masters degrees and “creativity and innovation” appearing more recently on the registration landscape.
It seems to me that on the whole employers are looking for professional engineers of “graduate standard” with a range of other attributes. Few employers seeking to employ and/or develop Chartered Engineers have much interest in the current criteria used to divide CEng and IEng. Many have no significant understanding and merely expect CEng to represent a “terminal standard” achieved from 8-10 years into career.
Our efforts and this discussion are focussed in the wrong place to achieve what should be our primary objective. Simply put, this is to nurture the knowledge skills and commitment of our members. Recognition in the form of registration is an important element including an obligation of ongoing mutual engagement and support.
My proposal is that graduate level (including by work-based learning) practitioners of engineering and technology with relevant achievement and commitment should be recognised as Professional Engineers. Professional Technicians applying a more practical approach are an equally valuable part of the engineering community. In each case a period of monitored development (say 5 years) should allow for enhanced recognition as a Chartered Engineer or “Master Technician” (TBC). Transfer between the two should be possible , but not presumed to be desirable, or only in one direction. There would still be some overlap in practice between Technician and Engineer, but this would be easier to codify, including by graduate level attributes.
This places our primary focus where it should properly be, at the threshold of professional recognition not dividing “the elite” from “the rest”. I don’t think that we can change for cultural reasons without fresh strategic vision and action. What I’m suggesting wouldn’t lower our standards, it would raise them overall. However, we are so deeply wedded to rationing our chartered title that we can’t see the space beyond it where most engineers should still be “progressing” in different, but equally valid ways depending on opportunities.
