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
One of the remaining strong volunteer advocates for IEng approached me last week, concerned because he thought that the Uff report was proposing a merger of IEng & Eng Tech. A majority could probably be found for such a step, since it potentially creates the clear blue water to CEng that many desire and want to emphasise. The change in the 1980s from Tech Eng to IEng was of course motivated by IEng wanting to be seen as Engineers not Technicians.
A decade or so ago Engineering Council was espousing a “different but equally valuable” philosophy. This concept meant that each type of “graduate level” engineer had a different function, as reflected in a European Directive. IEng might have been codified as a “Chartered Technologist” but there was no real support from IEng registrants and with the demise of IIE the idea faded away. Many Chartered Engineers found the idea of “equality” rather insulting and were keen to undo it, so Engineering Council adopted a “progressive philosophy”. This policy respected that the “lower” registration categories had “value in their own right”, but emphasised that they should be seen a “part of a progression”. I don’t believe that anything useful can come of tacking back a decade again, so my suggestions are progressive, but “fair progressive” not an obstacle course of confusing tripping points, designed to advantage some from an early age, but not others.
One of the reasons that I suggest a fresh start built from the bottom up, is that it is very difficult to separate the person from the category. Most experienced IEng are only in the category because their academic preparation was different to a CEng colleague, they aren’t less innovative, lower graded or anything else, they just sit within the same spectrum. (Included again for clarity) http://www.rit.edu/emcs/admissions/images/stories/assorted/engineering/eng-vs-engtech.gif
If all those who were eligible actually held IEng and were enthusiastic to display it, then the many directors and senior managers who emerged from apprenticeships would be obvious role models. Some stepped forward for the 2011 “proud to be IEng” campaign, only to discover what they needed was to be “proud of being downgraded” to fit into Engineering Council’s plans. I don’t think that any "IEng type" business leaders are in routine technical compliance roles. Llike every dog in the street who recognises an engineer, they also know that the incorporated one is held to be inferior and don’t fancy that.
My argument is a sociological not a technical one, but “IEng” is a brand and in those terms it is a weak one. It isn’t without value especially in certain places, but also it isn’t capable of being rebuilt in any substantial or wide ranging way. A story of the Skoda brand in reverse perhaps? I have used stronger language, to reflect the legacy of bitterness felt by some, which will continue to poison the brand for years.
It might be useful to compare the requirements for recognition as a Chartered Engineer described here https://www.cbuilde.com/membership/routes-to-membership/key-competencies/ I would see these as similar to the “Registered/Professional” Engineer that I’m advocating, with an opportunity to build CEng on top. A risk to the current system may arise as yet more organisations offer alternative chartered propositions. I’m not party to Privy Council’s deliberations, but I wonder why it would support Engineering Council in the virtual monopoly that it once enjoyed for technical people.
If we were to start at the beginning; we need to work through the barriers one by one, to ensure that any reasonable definition of success at a career stage is valued. As a school leaver this could be becoming an apprentice or student ( I was as proud as punch to walk home in my new overalls as a 16 year old), completing education and training milestones, gaining experience and professional recognition by age 25, enhanced standing in your profession by 30 etc.
I don’t think that I’m stating anything here that isn’t obvious to us all and the IET advantage membership packages are trying to support this. Unfortunately, what I gain when I look at the influential heights of the profession is an impression of, seemingly perpetuating a social hierarchy that was looking tired by the 1960s, never mind the second quarter of the 21st Century. Intentionally or otherwise, the priority of some seems to be rationing access to prestige, in an ultimately fruitless search for status.
Engineering and Technology professionals can collectively gain enhanced status by; respecting their own, focussing on their contribution to society, such as adding value in employment, creating wealth, serving communities by, offering skills development, careers and social mobility, improving the environment, health etc. I think that a modernised registration system would help to enable this better, but to do so we have to get everyone on a similarly respected journey, not just look for a "trickle down" of status.
We should continue to collaborate in codifying and assessing practice, but in a much more supportive and equal way. Why for example should an Technician Electrician not have a valid view of CEng practice in their domain, since vice-versa is assumed to be the case. Another assumption is that an early career MEng graduate is "higher" than a similar aged Bachelors Degree Apprenticeship graduate. I could continue ad nauseam about dubious assumptions being made, on the basis of questionable evidence to justify division. What we need is more unity, not more division!
One of the remaining strong volunteer advocates for IEng approached me last week, concerned because he thought that the Uff report was proposing a merger of IEng & Eng Tech. A majority could probably be found for such a step, since it potentially creates the clear blue water to CEng that many desire and want to emphasise. The change in the 1980s from Tech Eng to IEng was of course motivated by IEng wanting to be seen as Engineers not Technicians.
A decade or so ago Engineering Council was espousing a “different but equally valuable” philosophy. This concept meant that each type of “graduate level” engineer had a different function, as reflected in a European Directive. IEng might have been codified as a “Chartered Technologist” but there was no real support from IEng registrants and with the demise of IIE the idea faded away. Many Chartered Engineers found the idea of “equality” rather insulting and were keen to undo it, so Engineering Council adopted a “progressive philosophy”. This policy respected that the “lower” registration categories had “value in their own right”, but emphasised that they should be seen a “part of a progression”. I don’t believe that anything useful can come of tacking back a decade again, so my suggestions are progressive, but “fair progressive” not an obstacle course of confusing tripping points, designed to advantage some from an early age, but not others.
One of the reasons that I suggest a fresh start built from the bottom up, is that it is very difficult to separate the person from the category. Most experienced IEng are only in the category because their academic preparation was different to a CEng colleague, they aren’t less innovative, lower graded or anything else, they just sit within the same spectrum. (Included again for clarity) http://www.rit.edu/emcs/admissions/images/stories/assorted/engineering/eng-vs-engtech.gif
If all those who were eligible actually held IEng and were enthusiastic to display it, then the many directors and senior managers who emerged from apprenticeships would be obvious role models. Some stepped forward for the 2011 “proud to be IEng” campaign, only to discover what they needed was to be “proud of being downgraded” to fit into Engineering Council’s plans. I don’t think that any "IEng type" business leaders are in routine technical compliance roles. Llike every dog in the street who recognises an engineer, they also know that the incorporated one is held to be inferior and don’t fancy that.
My argument is a sociological not a technical one, but “IEng” is a brand and in those terms it is a weak one. It isn’t without value especially in certain places, but also it isn’t capable of being rebuilt in any substantial or wide ranging way. A story of the Skoda brand in reverse perhaps? I have used stronger language, to reflect the legacy of bitterness felt by some, which will continue to poison the brand for years.
It might be useful to compare the requirements for recognition as a Chartered Engineer described here https://www.cbuilde.com/membership/routes-to-membership/key-competencies/ I would see these as similar to the “Registered/Professional” Engineer that I’m advocating, with an opportunity to build CEng on top. A risk to the current system may arise as yet more organisations offer alternative chartered propositions. I’m not party to Privy Council’s deliberations, but I wonder why it would support Engineering Council in the virtual monopoly that it once enjoyed for technical people.
If we were to start at the beginning; we need to work through the barriers one by one, to ensure that any reasonable definition of success at a career stage is valued. As a school leaver this could be becoming an apprentice or student ( I was as proud as punch to walk home in my new overalls as a 16 year old), completing education and training milestones, gaining experience and professional recognition by age 25, enhanced standing in your profession by 30 etc.
I don’t think that I’m stating anything here that isn’t obvious to us all and the IET advantage membership packages are trying to support this. Unfortunately, what I gain when I look at the influential heights of the profession is an impression of, seemingly perpetuating a social hierarchy that was looking tired by the 1960s, never mind the second quarter of the 21st Century. Intentionally or otherwise, the priority of some seems to be rationing access to prestige, in an ultimately fruitless search for status.
Engineering and Technology professionals can collectively gain enhanced status by; respecting their own, focussing on their contribution to society, such as adding value in employment, creating wealth, serving communities by, offering skills development, careers and social mobility, improving the environment, health etc. I think that a modernised registration system would help to enable this better, but to do so we have to get everyone on a similarly respected journey, not just look for a "trickle down" of status.
We should continue to collaborate in codifying and assessing practice, but in a much more supportive and equal way. Why for example should an Technician Electrician not have a valid view of CEng practice in their domain, since vice-versa is assumed to be the case. Another assumption is that an early career MEng graduate is "higher" than a similar aged Bachelors Degree Apprenticeship graduate. I could continue ad nauseam about dubious assumptions being made, on the basis of questionable evidence to justify division. What we need is more unity, not more division!
