Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

Roy Bowdler:


..... they aren’t less innovative, lower graded or anything else, they just sit within the same spectrum.

Roy, 

As I started to read your post I was thinking in terms of the word spectrum. Part of the problem is that people view CEng, IEng and EngTech as gold, silver and bronze, whereas they are really three broad areas within the same continuous spectrum. I believe that the system we have would work if used as it was intended, but until people stop viewing the different categories as having widely different values we do have a problem. I agree with Andy and Roy (P) that perhaps we weren't expressing ourselves well but I do think the system is well designed but not working, though we should probably not 'throw the baby out with the bath water' as Andy points out. Rebranding may work but runs the risk of not changing peoples perceptions. Any new categories will have existing registrants transferred to them with the immediate conclusion "Category X = CEng so it is the gold standard, Category Y = IEng so I don't want it..."

All I can say from the above is we seem to be good at identifying the problems without working out solutions, though you (Roy B.) have at least some ideas. Perhaps the "Registered Professional Engineer" title to go along with CEng, IEng and EngTech would work in that if you are not registered you can't use the title, but can use it when registered at any level. This would then mean that those who have not developed sufficiently to apply for CEng could still apply for IEng and title themselves "Registered Professional Engineer (IEng)", and later move to "Registered Professional Engineer (CEng)". This might enhance the IEng and EngTech categories such that they become desirable. Certainly this is something that can be discussed.

Needless to say, all this would need the Engineering Council on board, but I think that going to them with a solid proposal beats just complaining about the lack of take up of IEng.

Best regards,

Alasdair Anderson

Roy Bowdler:


..... they aren’t less innovative, lower graded or anything else, they just sit within the same spectrum.

Roy, 

As I started to read your post I was thinking in terms of the word spectrum. Part of the problem is that people view CEng, IEng and EngTech as gold, silver and bronze, whereas they are really three broad areas within the same continuous spectrum. I believe that the system we have would work if used as it was intended, but until people stop viewing the different categories as having widely different values we do have a problem. I agree with Andy and Roy (P) that perhaps we weren't expressing ourselves well but I do think the system is well designed but not working, though we should probably not 'throw the baby out with the bath water' as Andy points out. Rebranding may work but runs the risk of not changing peoples perceptions. Any new categories will have existing registrants transferred to them with the immediate conclusion "Category X = CEng so it is the gold standard, Category Y = IEng so I don't want it..."

All I can say from the above is we seem to be good at identifying the problems without working out solutions, though you (Roy B.) have at least some ideas. Perhaps the "Registered Professional Engineer" title to go along with CEng, IEng and EngTech would work in that if you are not registered you can't use the title, but can use it when registered at any level. This would then mean that those who have not developed sufficiently to apply for CEng could still apply for IEng and title themselves "Registered Professional Engineer (IEng)", and later move to "Registered Professional Engineer (CEng)". This might enhance the IEng and EngTech categories such that they become desirable. Certainly this is something that can be discussed.

Needless to say, all this would need the Engineering Council on board, but I think that going to them with a solid proposal beats just complaining about the lack of take up of IEng.

Best regards,

Alasdair Anderson