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
I'm ready/prepared to have counter arguments placed to this - there's no point in this thread unless we do so - but I do believe there is confusion between engineering technologist and I.Eng here. It has been suggested that many/most I.Eng still innovate and that those who don't are technologists rather than professional engineers.
It all hinges on the definition of innovation. To me, UKSPEC is still clear on that. It says clearly that I.Eng selects the best solution from a number of established solutions. Let's think about that and be careful not to do that down.
That is still one hell of a hefty and responsible action to take. It involves methodical assessment of all options, together with their outcomes, risks and cost effectiveness to determine which is the most appropriate. It culminates in making a professional decision that you are prepared to stand by, and stake your professional reputation on. It is definitely the act of a professional engineer, not a technologist. You may have to defend your decision and be placed under the magnifying glass - sometimes in court.
I believe that some people are taking the 'not innovative' tag to mean that they don't even do that, that they manage the implementation of a single option as directed. That would be a technologist, but it is not what is defined for I.Eng. Selecting from available, tried and tested solutions is still one hell of a call to make, and is indicative of a professional engineer. But it's not the same as the C.Eng requirement to identify new, possibly untried solutions, usually in a scenario that has not been encountered previously, at least in the context it now arises.
I feel that distinction is an important one that does not reduce the high level of responsibility involved in the I.Eng requirement, and most certainly does not push the I.Eng status into that of a technologist, yet does make a clear distinction between the two, whilst also making a clear distinction between I.Eng and Eng Tech or any other technologist title.
Without a doubt, there are a large number of inappropriately registered engineers - C.Eng who don't innovate according to this definition, or I. Eng who do. This is for a variety of reasons, sometimes operating in combination: historical imperfection in the assessment and interview process (I would like to think this is at the least much better controlled now, if not actually eradicated, as a result of the quality control efforts of the registration team, with training, monitoring, appeals process, etc. but I'm too new to interviewing to say so with certainty - I at least felt that those who provided my training are passionate and diligent about trying to achieve this); I.Eng who don't recognise their eligibility for C.Eng, or that they have in fact moved on to this type of innovation; those who apply for the wrong category, because they don't understand it, especially if they don't consult a PRA (and as has been stated previously, somebody who could qualify as C.Eng will meet the requirements of I.Eng,); C.Eng who no longer innovate, even though they did originally, either because they no longer have the opportunity because of resistance to change, or because they have simply run out of energy or passion to do so as they get older or simply want a change of role - nothing to be ashamed of, but the reason some of us talk of both-way movement between the registration categories if only we could overcome the 'demotion' attitude to that move.
So certainly some effort and thought is required to decide what happens about that. But that's why I don't believe we can simply jump to the conclusion that one approach to the problem or the other is right, why I think it's now pretty pointless continuing to post yet more "I think we should do this" v " I think we should do that" posts - continuing to simply take positions is not going to get us anywhere.
We have, instead, to put together a working group that's as diverse and representative as possible (and that may be the hardest part) to work their way through all issues and possible resolutions to determine what is most likely to achieve the desired result - promotion of those who fit the I.Eng profile as equally valuable and regarded professional engineers, whether by merging, redefining, improving application of the definition or just massive PR and education of all - employers, potential registrants and the public at large - to what the true meaning of each is.
Let's stop batting the 'this v that' debate (which is not really debate at all!) around and get on with working it through methodically to try to achieve something that can gain general consensus. We'll not achieve that on this thread, though I think it's been useful in identifying the need to devote effort to addressing the issue.
I'm ready/prepared to have counter arguments placed to this - there's no point in this thread unless we do so - but I do believe there is confusion between engineering technologist and I.Eng here. It has been suggested that many/most I.Eng still innovate and that those who don't are technologists rather than professional engineers.
It all hinges on the definition of innovation. To me, UKSPEC is still clear on that. It says clearly that I.Eng selects the best solution from a number of established solutions. Let's think about that and be careful not to do that down.
That is still one hell of a hefty and responsible action to take. It involves methodical assessment of all options, together with their outcomes, risks and cost effectiveness to determine which is the most appropriate. It culminates in making a professional decision that you are prepared to stand by, and stake your professional reputation on. It is definitely the act of a professional engineer, not a technologist. You may have to defend your decision and be placed under the magnifying glass - sometimes in court.
I believe that some people are taking the 'not innovative' tag to mean that they don't even do that, that they manage the implementation of a single option as directed. That would be a technologist, but it is not what is defined for I.Eng. Selecting from available, tried and tested solutions is still one hell of a call to make, and is indicative of a professional engineer. But it's not the same as the C.Eng requirement to identify new, possibly untried solutions, usually in a scenario that has not been encountered previously, at least in the context it now arises.
I feel that distinction is an important one that does not reduce the high level of responsibility involved in the I.Eng requirement, and most certainly does not push the I.Eng status into that of a technologist, yet does make a clear distinction between the two, whilst also making a clear distinction between I.Eng and Eng Tech or any other technologist title.
Without a doubt, there are a large number of inappropriately registered engineers - C.Eng who don't innovate according to this definition, or I. Eng who do. This is for a variety of reasons, sometimes operating in combination: historical imperfection in the assessment and interview process (I would like to think this is at the least much better controlled now, if not actually eradicated, as a result of the quality control efforts of the registration team, with training, monitoring, appeals process, etc. but I'm too new to interviewing to say so with certainty - I at least felt that those who provided my training are passionate and diligent about trying to achieve this); I.Eng who don't recognise their eligibility for C.Eng, or that they have in fact moved on to this type of innovation; those who apply for the wrong category, because they don't understand it, especially if they don't consult a PRA (and as has been stated previously, somebody who could qualify as C.Eng will meet the requirements of I.Eng,); C.Eng who no longer innovate, even though they did originally, either because they no longer have the opportunity because of resistance to change, or because they have simply run out of energy or passion to do so as they get older or simply want a change of role - nothing to be ashamed of, but the reason some of us talk of both-way movement between the registration categories if only we could overcome the 'demotion' attitude to that move.
So certainly some effort and thought is required to decide what happens about that. But that's why I don't believe we can simply jump to the conclusion that one approach to the problem or the other is right, why I think it's now pretty pointless continuing to post yet more "I think we should do this" v " I think we should do that" posts - continuing to simply take positions is not going to get us anywhere.
We have, instead, to put together a working group that's as diverse and representative as possible (and that may be the hardest part) to work their way through all issues and possible resolutions to determine what is most likely to achieve the desired result - promotion of those who fit the I.Eng profile as equally valuable and regarded professional engineers, whether by merging, redefining, improving application of the definition or just massive PR and education of all - employers, potential registrants and the public at large - to what the true meaning of each is.
Let's stop batting the 'this v that' debate (which is not really debate at all!) around and get on with working it through methodically to try to achieve something that can gain general consensus. We'll not achieve that on this thread, though I think it's been useful in identifying the need to devote effort to addressing the issue.
