Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

Thanks to Roy Bowdler, who brought this to my attention and kindly provided me with a copy taken from his email notification of my post, I'm reposting something I originally posted on the 13th. I got caught out by the dreaded edit tool which appears, instead of really allowing you to edit, to overwrite your original with totally new text! This time I've taken the opportunity to correct typos, which is why I tried to edit it in the first place! I won't make that mistake again! The thread has moved on (a little) from Andy's post that I was replying to, but hopefully the content is still relevant and interesting - Roy certainly felt it was:

Andy, I agree with every element of your response, and, though I didn't say it, my experience of resistance to innovation is also from working in the rail industry. The key thing I was flagging up is that, though we may be fully agreed that it's not about being better, more senior, or any such factors, that it's a broad spectrum of practitioners, all professional engineers wth education, knowledge, experience and ability to demonstrate that they apply those elements in a professional manner, society at large has placed an artificial perception that, to be of highest value, you have to be creative or innovative and that this is working against us to make accreditation as I.Eng less attractive, as potential applicants feel that it's labelling them as second class, when we and our colleagues across all of the institutes licensed to register I.Eng, and the EC itself, don't see it that way at all. It's a huge perception barrier to overcome and I definitely know that's the reaction I get from colleagues whom I feel would find I.Eng more appropriate, when I try to encourage them to apply. To come back to the management issue, I agree with your response - concerns regarding demonstrating management competence are, as you say, largely unfounded - if someone has been operating professionally as an engineer for any length of time, they have almost certainly demonstrated management competence - I usually make the point that it's not managing people or money that's being looked for so much as managing situations. I have no direct reports and no direct budget - but I regularly guide large volumes of contractors' staff in providing cost effective and acceptable solutions to project requirements as client project engineer, and accept design submissions and construction standards, using collaborative approaches to attempt to get it right first time, rather than go through iterations of submission, rejection and then finally acceptance. That is most definitely management as we see it when carrying out registration assessment. What is far more relevant than managing people is communicating with them and influencing them. I would encourage Simon Barker, who first said that innovation is not the issue, it's management, to examine the innovation distinction between C.Eng and I.Eng more closely. It is far more important than management and, to reiterate, is not about being better or worse, but about being appropriately registered to reflect the type of role he feels able and ready to fulfill. As you say, it's not something that everybody feels comfortable with, and there's no stigma attached to it (by the profession at least) if you don't. The intention is not to place a hurdle in the way, or use it as an indication of seniority, but to ensure registration at the appropriate end of that broad spectrum of professional engineers - to paraphrase you, a spectrum across a horizontal line, not a vertical one. I completely agree that these components of understanding the registration requirements, which are so often misunderstood, will be far easier to understand and address if a PRA is consulted. I have just become a PRI (professional registration interviewer) and am fresh enough out of the training for the role to remember the issues that cause most problems, and from real life case studies, it's abundantly clear that both interviewer and candidate have a massively tougher task with candidates who have not consulted a PRA. I would take issue with Simon in his final paragraph. Firstly, there are very clear guidelines for knowledge, and what he refers to as vagueness are really an attempt to provide a diversity of ways in which to demonstrate that knowledge. There are two distinct ways, one of which is based on education, which focuses on accredited qualifications, and which is extremely clear, the other is by demonstration of knowledge by diverse means (not necessarily the UKSPEC words - I don't have them to hand right now) which may include from work carried out over a period of time. This is the 'vague' part, though even there, UKSPEC is very specific, and the IET adds its own extra layer of detail to defining what level/type of knowledge has to be demonstrated. This is very important in recognition of the many engineers who have entered the profession by other routes than degrees. This is effectively the successor to the mature candidate route which was my own path to registration, but this is far more flexible in acknowledging the diverse routes by which people enter the profession. It also removes the age qualification that existed then, so recognising that entry by other routes is not the sole province of those who are older. But what I would change even more is the assertion that all the time, effort and fees are only to become registered in the job they are already doing. In some ways it's true, but there is value in that as it is the only means to provide formal demonstration of the level of professionalism exhibited by the individual. Knowledge/education is only one component. What registration does is take it to the next level by confirming that you have not only been educated/gained knowledge, but that you put it into practice, that you do so in a professional manner, with diligence and integrity and with the goal of achieving high quality engineering outcomes - and that you check that those outcomes are achieved. There are other factors, but these are the really key elements that registration demonstrates, and that is regardless of whether it is C.Eng or I.Eng. One further benefit is that it does focus you heavily on CPD - a highly desirable outcome. Simon, I encourage you to re-examine the value of registration in light of Andy and my observations (and others too numerous to mention), to consider carefully the innovation component in order to determine whether C.Eng or I. Eng is the best registration for you (to be clear, I.Eng selects appropriate solutions/approaches from a number of pre-determined possibilities, whilst C. Eng develops solutions/approaches - quite possibly from scratch. I paraphrase again as I don't have the specification immediately to hand) and very importantly, once you have made a decision, or believe you have, consult a PRA. I.Eng is NOT second prize. If I've missed anything important, please feel free, anybody, to put me right as I'm relying totally on my memory which is, at the best of times, imperfect!

Thanks to Roy Bowdler, who brought this to my attention and kindly provided me with a copy taken from his email notification of my post, I'm reposting something I originally posted on the 13th. I got caught out by the dreaded edit tool which appears, instead of really allowing you to edit, to overwrite your original with totally new text! This time I've taken the opportunity to correct typos, which is why I tried to edit it in the first place! I won't make that mistake again! The thread has moved on (a little) from Andy's post that I was replying to, but hopefully the content is still relevant and interesting - Roy certainly felt it was:

Andy, I agree with every element of your response, and, though I didn't say it, my experience of resistance to innovation is also from working in the rail industry. The key thing I was flagging up is that, though we may be fully agreed that it's not about being better, more senior, or any such factors, that it's a broad spectrum of practitioners, all professional engineers wth education, knowledge, experience and ability to demonstrate that they apply those elements in a professional manner, society at large has placed an artificial perception that, to be of highest value, you have to be creative or innovative and that this is working against us to make accreditation as I.Eng less attractive, as potential applicants feel that it's labelling them as second class, when we and our colleagues across all of the institutes licensed to register I.Eng, and the EC itself, don't see it that way at all. It's a huge perception barrier to overcome and I definitely know that's the reaction I get from colleagues whom I feel would find I.Eng more appropriate, when I try to encourage them to apply. To come back to the management issue, I agree with your response - concerns regarding demonstrating management competence are, as you say, largely unfounded - if someone has been operating professionally as an engineer for any length of time, they have almost certainly demonstrated management competence - I usually make the point that it's not managing people or money that's being looked for so much as managing situations. I have no direct reports and no direct budget - but I regularly guide large volumes of contractors' staff in providing cost effective and acceptable solutions to project requirements as client project engineer, and accept design submissions and construction standards, using collaborative approaches to attempt to get it right first time, rather than go through iterations of submission, rejection and then finally acceptance. That is most definitely management as we see it when carrying out registration assessment. What is far more relevant than managing people is communicating with them and influencing them. I would encourage Simon Barker, who first said that innovation is not the issue, it's management, to examine the innovation distinction between C.Eng and I.Eng more closely. It is far more important than management and, to reiterate, is not about being better or worse, but about being appropriately registered to reflect the type of role he feels able and ready to fulfill. As you say, it's not something that everybody feels comfortable with, and there's no stigma attached to it (by the profession at least) if you don't. The intention is not to place a hurdle in the way, or use it as an indication of seniority, but to ensure registration at the appropriate end of that broad spectrum of professional engineers - to paraphrase you, a spectrum across a horizontal line, not a vertical one. I completely agree that these components of understanding the registration requirements, which are so often misunderstood, will be far easier to understand and address if a PRA is consulted. I have just become a PRI (professional registration interviewer) and am fresh enough out of the training for the role to remember the issues that cause most problems, and from real life case studies, it's abundantly clear that both interviewer and candidate have a massively tougher task with candidates who have not consulted a PRA. I would take issue with Simon in his final paragraph. Firstly, there are very clear guidelines for knowledge, and what he refers to as vagueness are really an attempt to provide a diversity of ways in which to demonstrate that knowledge. There are two distinct ways, one of which is based on education, which focuses on accredited qualifications, and which is extremely clear, the other is by demonstration of knowledge by diverse means (not necessarily the UKSPEC words - I don't have them to hand right now) which may include from work carried out over a period of time. This is the 'vague' part, though even there, UKSPEC is very specific, and the IET adds its own extra layer of detail to defining what level/type of knowledge has to be demonstrated. This is very important in recognition of the many engineers who have entered the profession by other routes than degrees. This is effectively the successor to the mature candidate route which was my own path to registration, but this is far more flexible in acknowledging the diverse routes by which people enter the profession. It also removes the age qualification that existed then, so recognising that entry by other routes is not the sole province of those who are older. But what I would change even more is the assertion that all the time, effort and fees are only to become registered in the job they are already doing. In some ways it's true, but there is value in that as it is the only means to provide formal demonstration of the level of professionalism exhibited by the individual. Knowledge/education is only one component. What registration does is take it to the next level by confirming that you have not only been educated/gained knowledge, but that you put it into practice, that you do so in a professional manner, with diligence and integrity and with the goal of achieving high quality engineering outcomes - and that you check that those outcomes are achieved. There are other factors, but these are the really key elements that registration demonstrates, and that is regardless of whether it is C.Eng or I.Eng. One further benefit is that it does focus you heavily on CPD - a highly desirable outcome. Simon, I encourage you to re-examine the value of registration in light of Andy and my observations (and others too numerous to mention), to consider carefully the innovation component in order to determine whether C.Eng or I. Eng is the best registration for you (to be clear, I.Eng selects appropriate solutions/approaches from a number of pre-determined possibilities, whilst C. Eng develops solutions/approaches - quite possibly from scratch. I paraphrase again as I don't have the specification immediately to hand) and very importantly, once you have made a decision, or believe you have, consult a PRA. I.Eng is NOT second prize. If I've missed anything important, please feel free, anybody, to put me right as I'm relying totally on my memory which is, at the best of times, imperfect!