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
As Peter points out a number of changes were made to UK-SPEC in 2103, most users probably didn’t notice. It is due for another five year review next year. The 2013 review was the first opportunity to adjust the standard to reflect the change in policy from “different but equally valuable” to “progressive”. In broad terms the proposals “weakened” the requirements of IEng across the board. Engineering Council would argue that the intent was to help progression by enabling early career engineers to access IEng as a step. Placed side-by-side as some interested members did, the changes just looked like a “downgrade” for IEng. However, we should remember that the standard represents a threshold, which should ideally be being used to evaluate engineers around their mid-20s not mid-50s. The IET through its registration and standards committee critiqued the proposals and the current version is a result of the eventual “consensus” at Engineering Council.
An ongoing problem is the conflation of technical capability and management. Many more technically able engineers aren’t very managerial and their organisations sensibly encourage this. In other circumstances engineering careers are quite managerial in nature, including much of what many would consider “IEng territory”. It is these dilemmas around valuing technical expertise or “pure” engineering in development or design, versus professionals informed by engineering expertise realising a myriad of outcomes, that for me ultimately invalidate the IEng/CEng distinction as a reliable measure (see earlier continuum and Hamish Bell’s comments).
Very wise counsel was offered by our then committee chair about the risks of describing some engineers as being “higher” than others. Many engineers have a strong emotional connection to their registration, as evidenced by their propensity to volunteer for example and to disrespect that, is to disrespect them. Nevertheless after the UK-SPEC changes Engineering Council went through all the supporting regulations, ensuring that CEng was presumed to be both higher than and to subsume IEng. The result was that a number of experienced IEng volunteers found their competence to evaluate CEng practice doubted and were excluded from certain duties. I personally fought this hard, arguing that they were proven “suitably qualified and experienced persons” but lost. In protest, I no longer use the post-nominal except when absolutely necessary, although I do retain the registration, which does have some practical rather than just sentimental value for me.
As some people will be aware, I was fortunate to find myself a decade or so ago in the vanguard of developing what was later to be taken up by government as a “degree apprenticeship”. A majority of the engineers who completed the programme with a BSc (which became IEng accredited) would be more than a match for an MEng counterpart, often for the rest of their career in that sector, but would be seen in the Professional Engineering world as “lower”. Therefore an important part of my argument seeks to ensure that we don’t place this upcoming element of the future profession into a “second class box”. I doubt if they will be shy to “cry foul” if a peer of no higher capability is deemed to be of higher value. My proposal would spike this problem. If we do nothing then the unhelpful internecine argument between those around sixty could just shift to those in mid-twenties.
Looking to 2018, even if of you agreed with me, there would be substantial resistance from those who hold to the view, that engineers should be a categorised on the basis of their “education”. For most Engineers this comes as academic preparation for a career, although some re-engage with academia in mid-career. Many within the Engineering Council family, still hold strongly to the idea that the UK-SPEC competences are a secondary “bolt-on”, after meeting the “academic requirement”.
The International Engineering Alliance (Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accords) takes this perspective “ As the science base of engineering developed a further division occurred in the second half of the twentieth century, the emergence of the engineering technologist, skilled at applying established technology as distinct from the science-based professional engineer. Thus, in the period covered by this history the roles of professional engineer, engineering technologist and engineering technician exist in many jurisdictions.”.
To those of you trying to knock off for Christmas , my apologies for keeping your nose to the grindstone. In my defence I didn’t start it and I’m willing to modify my opinion, if the evidence convinces me. Apologies also to those overseas for the British slang, and to those who don’t celebrate Christmas.
Well done David Cumming! An excellent example of career progression from an Electrician Apprenticeship and achievement whilst registered in the IEng category. He could like many have waited for CEng, but is already proving himself as a registered professional engineer and role model.
Keep your eyes peeled for the next thrilling edition of Member News, for the story of one of our members who rose from a ten year old foundry boy to became one of the great engineers of his generation and how his legacy that is still relevant today, has been restored to prominence.
As Peter points out a number of changes were made to UK-SPEC in 2103, most users probably didn’t notice. It is due for another five year review next year. The 2013 review was the first opportunity to adjust the standard to reflect the change in policy from “different but equally valuable” to “progressive”. In broad terms the proposals “weakened” the requirements of IEng across the board. Engineering Council would argue that the intent was to help progression by enabling early career engineers to access IEng as a step. Placed side-by-side as some interested members did, the changes just looked like a “downgrade” for IEng. However, we should remember that the standard represents a threshold, which should ideally be being used to evaluate engineers around their mid-20s not mid-50s. The IET through its registration and standards committee critiqued the proposals and the current version is a result of the eventual “consensus” at Engineering Council.
An ongoing problem is the conflation of technical capability and management. Many more technically able engineers aren’t very managerial and their organisations sensibly encourage this. In other circumstances engineering careers are quite managerial in nature, including much of what many would consider “IEng territory”. It is these dilemmas around valuing technical expertise or “pure” engineering in development or design, versus professionals informed by engineering expertise realising a myriad of outcomes, that for me ultimately invalidate the IEng/CEng distinction as a reliable measure (see earlier continuum and Hamish Bell’s comments).
Very wise counsel was offered by our then committee chair about the risks of describing some engineers as being “higher” than others. Many engineers have a strong emotional connection to their registration, as evidenced by their propensity to volunteer for example and to disrespect that, is to disrespect them. Nevertheless after the UK-SPEC changes Engineering Council went through all the supporting regulations, ensuring that CEng was presumed to be both higher than and to subsume IEng. The result was that a number of experienced IEng volunteers found their competence to evaluate CEng practice doubted and were excluded from certain duties. I personally fought this hard, arguing that they were proven “suitably qualified and experienced persons” but lost. In protest, I no longer use the post-nominal except when absolutely necessary, although I do retain the registration, which does have some practical rather than just sentimental value for me.
As some people will be aware, I was fortunate to find myself a decade or so ago in the vanguard of developing what was later to be taken up by government as a “degree apprenticeship”. A majority of the engineers who completed the programme with a BSc (which became IEng accredited) would be more than a match for an MEng counterpart, often for the rest of their career in that sector, but would be seen in the Professional Engineering world as “lower”. Therefore an important part of my argument seeks to ensure that we don’t place this upcoming element of the future profession into a “second class box”. I doubt if they will be shy to “cry foul” if a peer of no higher capability is deemed to be of higher value. My proposal would spike this problem. If we do nothing then the unhelpful internecine argument between those around sixty could just shift to those in mid-twenties.
Looking to 2018, even if of you agreed with me, there would be substantial resistance from those who hold to the view, that engineers should be a categorised on the basis of their “education”. For most Engineers this comes as academic preparation for a career, although some re-engage with academia in mid-career. Many within the Engineering Council family, still hold strongly to the idea that the UK-SPEC competences are a secondary “bolt-on”, after meeting the “academic requirement”.
The International Engineering Alliance (Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accords) takes this perspective “ As the science base of engineering developed a further division occurred in the second half of the twentieth century, the emergence of the engineering technologist, skilled at applying established technology as distinct from the science-based professional engineer. Thus, in the period covered by this history the roles of professional engineer, engineering technologist and engineering technician exist in many jurisdictions.”.
To those of you trying to knock off for Christmas , my apologies for keeping your nose to the grindstone. In my defence I didn’t start it and I’m willing to modify my opinion, if the evidence convinces me. Apologies also to those overseas for the British slang, and to those who don’t celebrate Christmas.
Well done David Cumming! An excellent example of career progression from an Electrician Apprenticeship and achievement whilst registered in the IEng category. He could like many have waited for CEng, but is already proving himself as a registered professional engineer and role model.
Keep your eyes peeled for the next thrilling edition of Member News, for the story of one of our members who rose from a ten year old foundry boy to became one of the great engineers of his generation and how his legacy that is still relevant today, has been restored to prominence.
