Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

Absolutely Andy, I see that as the nub of the issue as I think I've said earlier and that's why I'm happy to embrace either approach, if we can rate the pros and cons of each and determine which is best, but don't think it addresses this key issue which is, as you say, understanding, perceptions, acceptance and active use of the value provided by alternatives to C.Eng by both employers and potential registrants. Though I think it's most likely the latter follows from the former, I don't think that's a foregone conclusion and it may be that attention to both in parallel is the answer holistically. Like you, other than a little development of that last thought, I've offered up all I can think of, but I believe we're both getting to the point where we don't think we're going to answer that key issue in this thread. I think that maybe this is only going to go anywhere at all by getting a few of us together in a focus group or something similar to brainstorm it, but, as this thread has demonstrated, the terms of reference need to be highly focused on how to address perceptions and understanding rather than which is the right model, at least initially, otherwise we'll just go round in circles. It's possible that, once (if) an action plan for that emerges it may lead to the question of which model best fits that action plan and best serves the people we're discussing, but I think it has to be that way round or no real value will come out of it.
The IET is commendably putting great resources into trying to boost the number of people (especially young people) entering the profession, but I think this issue merits similar attention and resource, and almost certainty would help to achieve the former as it's one key element of overall perception of our profession. If we ourselves, and the potential employers/beneficiaries of our professional expertise don't attach sufficient value to all engineers across the spectrum, how can we expect the world at large, and our prospective new generations of entrants to the profession (and importantly their parents and teachers who counsel them) to do so? I don't feel anything is going to change until and unless a significant initiative to adjust perceptions is mounted - a veritable PR campaign of similar proportions to those mounted to attract new entrants to the profession.
So, as to that development of my earlier thought, and this is far from a full answer, but an important component to think through, whilst I accept that potential registrants will only attach value to I. Eng or any other non C.Eng registration if/when employers and the world attach value to it, I feel it needs a push from both directions as I do feel there's a component where employers will only attach value to what benefits it offers when the PEs themselves not only attach value to it, but also go out there and sell the benefits they offer. It may be a slow, uphill struggle but I knew that, whenever I interviewed for positions, I was always very taken with individuals who came along selling the benefits they had to offer to the role. And, despite what Roy Bowdler and others have said, as someone who has recruited extensively in my time, I do see the value proposition in someone who says "I will offer a focus on which, of the available tried and tested approaches, is most suitable for the requirements rather than devote effort to developing new approaches". I think the distinction is important. Sometimes innovation is needed (god knows we need it in rail!) but sometimes it simply over-complicates matters. That is where the value in a true I.Eng comes in, to steer you on the best course through existing terrain, in a safe, reliable and professional pair of hands rather than launching you into forays into new, unexplored territory. Whilst I love the latter, as Andy recognised, I also see that it's not always what's needed, and that's the proposition that needs selling. Ultimately this is primarily a selling exercise and I'm up for it if others are.

Absolutely Andy, I see that as the nub of the issue as I think I've said earlier and that's why I'm happy to embrace either approach, if we can rate the pros and cons of each and determine which is best, but don't think it addresses this key issue which is, as you say, understanding, perceptions, acceptance and active use of the value provided by alternatives to C.Eng by both employers and potential registrants. Though I think it's most likely the latter follows from the former, I don't think that's a foregone conclusion and it may be that attention to both in parallel is the answer holistically. Like you, other than a little development of that last thought, I've offered up all I can think of, but I believe we're both getting to the point where we don't think we're going to answer that key issue in this thread. I think that maybe this is only going to go anywhere at all by getting a few of us together in a focus group or something similar to brainstorm it, but, as this thread has demonstrated, the terms of reference need to be highly focused on how to address perceptions and understanding rather than which is the right model, at least initially, otherwise we'll just go round in circles. It's possible that, once (if) an action plan for that emerges it may lead to the question of which model best fits that action plan and best serves the people we're discussing, but I think it has to be that way round or no real value will come out of it.
The IET is commendably putting great resources into trying to boost the number of people (especially young people) entering the profession, but I think this issue merits similar attention and resource, and almost certainty would help to achieve the former as it's one key element of overall perception of our profession. If we ourselves, and the potential employers/beneficiaries of our professional expertise don't attach sufficient value to all engineers across the spectrum, how can we expect the world at large, and our prospective new generations of entrants to the profession (and importantly their parents and teachers who counsel them) to do so? I don't feel anything is going to change until and unless a significant initiative to adjust perceptions is mounted - a veritable PR campaign of similar proportions to those mounted to attract new entrants to the profession.
So, as to that development of my earlier thought, and this is far from a full answer, but an important component to think through, whilst I accept that potential registrants will only attach value to I. Eng or any other non C.Eng registration if/when employers and the world attach value to it, I feel it needs a push from both directions as I do feel there's a component where employers will only attach value to what benefits it offers when the PEs themselves not only attach value to it, but also go out there and sell the benefits they offer. It may be a slow, uphill struggle but I knew that, whenever I interviewed for positions, I was always very taken with individuals who came along selling the benefits they had to offer to the role. And, despite what Roy Bowdler and others have said, as someone who has recruited extensively in my time, I do see the value proposition in someone who says "I will offer a focus on which, of the available tried and tested approaches, is most suitable for the requirements rather than devote effort to developing new approaches". I think the distinction is important. Sometimes innovation is needed (god knows we need it in rail!) but sometimes it simply over-complicates matters. That is where the value in a true I.Eng comes in, to steer you on the best course through existing terrain, in a safe, reliable and professional pair of hands rather than launching you into forays into new, unexplored territory. Whilst I love the latter, as Andy recognised, I also see that it's not always what's needed, and that's the proposition that needs selling. Ultimately this is primarily a selling exercise and I'm up for it if others are.