Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

And herein lies a central problem - the key distinction between I.Eng/Technologists and C.Eng, is that word innovation.

For me, the key difference was management.  Having read the horribly woolly and wordy UKSPEC more times than I ever wish to, the one thing that prevented me from applying for CEng wasn't innovation, but management.  There's a requirement for CEng that you must have managed things (projects and/or people).  The requirement for IEng is a lot vaguer - assisting in management (for instance by preparing status reports) is sufficient.


Fundamentally, the difference between engineering and many other professions is the lack of a clear education and structured training path.  Engineering is just something that people drift into after they leave college or university.  After a few years, they may decide to aply for professional registration.  If they can be bothered with all the time and effort of going through the registration process, and paying all the fees.  This is to apply for registration in the job that they are already doing.

Hi Simon,


The "management" issue does confuse a lot of candidates unfortunately. You certainly do not have to manage staff or projects to be CEng, although you do have to take personal responsibility for aspects of them. To take it to an extreme, you can't just design a system and say "it's nothing to do with me whether it works or not, or whether it's implemented correctly or not". You are expected to be somewhat proactive in making sure your intentions are carried out - even if they are not carried out by people working for you.


It's for reasons such as this that I would recommend for the majority of candidates that they approach a PRA (we don't cost anything and we're very friendly ). You could compare it to getting a degree, I'm sure that theoretically it is possible to pass a degree by getting the module specs from the university and taking the exams, but it's much much easier with lecturers and tutors!


On your final point, it's a question of how does anyone know - looking from outside - that you know what you are doing. Again, using the university example, it is perfectly possible to gain degree level knowledge without going to university. But then if an employer, for example, needs to know that you've got that knowledge they need to do a whole load of tests on you every time you change job - how much easier if you just had a single piece of paper to show that an accredited third party had already tested you on this! Which is why we have degree certificates. So similarly with professional registration. I assess companies for their competence - including staff competences - for my job. The staff involved don't want to be interviewed by people like me every time they work on a new project, they want a single certificate that gives some evidence that they are professionally competent (just as their degree certificate says that they were - once upon a time - technically competent).


Of course none of this is perfect, but it all helps.


Cheers, Andy

Hi Roy,


I might be able to slightly answer your question with an example from my own career. For whatever reason I have always been happy to constructively challenge the status quo - if something looks stupid then let's find out if it is stupid, and if so change it - and also to take calculated risks when there is no status quo. If a solution is needed, and the existing rules do not apply, then I'm happy to work to create new rules. A consequence of this was that for very many years I have found myself in engineering management / leadership positions. The crucial point is that when I had staff they were very happy that I was in that position as (to paraphrase something that was very often said to me) "we don't want our heads above the parapet!". (This was tested a few times when I was moved to other positions and there was no rush by any of my team to take my place!)


It's absolutely not about higher or lower status, it's about people being in roles where they feel comfortable. I feel most comfortable in borderline unfamiliar situations where new solutions and change are needed, with consequent risk management, based on my existing knowledge. I get the impression this applies to yourself as well. Many engineers don't. This is a Good Thing for all concerned - vive la difference 


(P.S. I will lob in here yet again my favourite example of my good friend the electrician, who does everything by the book, and consequently has a huge house, indoor swimming pool, and regular cruise holidays. My wife is very jealous, as far as I'm concerned good on him! It would drive me completely mad doing his job.)


I have full sympathy with your point about industry fears of innovation, I work in the rail industry - historically possibly the most change averse industry there is! The only comment I can offer on this is that what is often needed is sheer bloody-minded determination that your innovation is a good thing, with an understanding of how to ensure that your innovation is reducing risk (of whatever form) not increasing it. A lot of which is judo mentality, working with the systems to drive change through. As an example, some years back I led the development of a highly innovative, highly safety critical, train detection system, which Network Rail were able to see would both improve its reliability and improve its safety argument. So we worked together to bring it in - even though it didn't meet the industry standard (because the solution was new) which meant that we had to create a new acceptance argument from scratch. From this I was invited onto the industry standards committee to help rewrite the standard, which we finally released last week(!), so the innovation is now the standard. It's been a long haul, and we only got there because a few of us were convinced all the way through that we were doing the right thing, and made sure we thoroughly understood the systems we were working with, but it can be done.


Interesting thoughts, many thanks, Andy

Some very good points made, but they still lead me in a direction, which is that engineers who have developed a graduate level of technical understanding and committed to ongoing professionalism are equal members of the professional engineering community.  For each one a blend of formal learning, work-based learning and practical application will have optimised them differently for different roles.  For most incumbent Chartered Engineers, a degree, some form of training and demonstration of significant responsibility was sufficient to gain recognition.

 

I’m a supporter of using competences such as UK-SPEC, which has removed some unnecessary barriers and enabled experienced engineers to be evaluated on their current capability, not just their teenage academic performance.  However we have also got ourselves into a mess,  “dancing on the heads of pins” about the distinction between IEng (or Technologist) and CEng.  So for example “creativity and innovation” is used as a proxy for “clever and highly educated”  and “management” as a proxy for higher status, or at least higher responsibility.  Some of us argued during the last UK-SPEC revision for a change (underlined) , through innovation, creativity and change and/or they may have technical accountability for complex systems with significant levels of risk .   However it came to my attention recently that some regular users were unaware of this change.  

 

I also argued that management wasn’t a valid differentiator, since many from the more practical background manage substantial resources, whilst many of the more technical  may design, develop and advise. For example a City & Guilds study (2013) stated “an apprentice’s chance of becoming a director is greatest in the construction industry, with 47% of businesses in this sector employing former apprentices in board level positions. This is followed by manufacturing & engineering (43%), agriculture (33%) and energy and power (33%).”  Many such directors have an engineering background, with a few having found “the long way” to CEng , others either are or were IEng , but wouldn’t want to advertise something so widely seen as an inferior pejorative.   Simon’s point is also important, management and leadership activities are often about influence rather than control. I spoke with a member yesterday who having been successfully self-employed for twenty years , found it difficult to meet the UK-SPEC C competences as presented.        

 

The IET works hard through its committees, volunteer training, procedures used to moderate a consensus etc. However, if you are the person on the “wrong end of a verdict” then this may be little consolation. Expectation management is difficult because senior professionals (typically over 35) who tend to be drawn towards registration have an expectation of gaining chartered recognition. In the past many would have been curtly informed that they didn’t have a suitable degree (or didn’t know the right people), but now they are encouraged only to find tripping points somewhere further into the maze, not obviously signposted.  To borrow a cliché “sometimes it’s the hope that kills” . It can be quite humiliating to tell friends, colleagues  or your employer that you are seeking chartered recognition only to experience rejection. Once again the IET advises on what deficiency was identified and how it should be addressed next time, but trying to justify or turn this into good career advice is difficult.  I was an employer’s Training Manager for many years and the advice offered by PEI’s to our engineers (off the record) was “get another job, you won’t make CEng working for a contractor”.  The assumption being that CEng = “Consulting Engineer”.      

 

My suggestion respects the CEng tradition of setting a higher benchmark than is necessary to achieve Chartered recognition in other places. For example, in the latest Engineering Council newsletter they drew attention to a non UK-SPEC variety of Chartered Engineer and “Chartered Engineering Technologist” could have been possible for IEng, if a consensus could have been found to argue for it. Most CEng would not have been enthusiastic, because to return to my main point the natural question would have been- what’s the difference then? To which there isn’t a simple satisfactory answer, although some of us could no doubt write a thesis. In fact I recently commented a relevant PhD thesis.  If I did one it would be classified under “social science”, simply because Engineering Council’s primary focus has been to develop and maintain for a minority of practitioners  “The status of being part of a technological elite” and status is a sociological concept. Developing competence and commitment amongst practitioners of engineering beyond its minimum threshold (Eng Tech) is the mission that it is supposed to have, I think?  Dividing professional engineers of broadly graduate level and beyond, into first and second class (or gold and silver if you prefer) categories is having a dysfunctional effect. Enabling competent and committed practitioners to gain enhanced recognition from their peers, following a period of monitored practice and additional achievement, seems like a great idea to me.  Please tell me why I’m wrong?  

 

 

Hi Roy,


Exactly.


On a couple of points, I can't see any reason whatsoever now to link CEng / IEng to "management" now that the IET is offering Chartered Manager as well (I got my CMgr before this). I do agree (as I mentioned to Simon above) that any of the engineering professional statuses carry some responsibility to ensure that your work is technically carried through correctly - part of the point of them is to show that you aware that your work does not exist in a bubble. But if you're good at delivering projects to time then get CMgr, if you're good at delivering projects to meet technical needs then get CEng / IEng / EngTech. And if you can do both then get both.


On the CEng / IEng distinction, I tend to see it very simply - is the candidate prepared to, and likely to, make the right decision in complex situations when there are no rules that apply? If so then they are CEng. If they are unhappy to do so, but may have very good technical competence to follow the rules and choose the appropriate rule in complex situations, then IEng is a useful indication that this is a professionally competent person. 


At present in practice we have a situation where CEngs are recognised, while the vast majority of engineers have no certification as to their professional competence. I don't like that situation at all. However, I also regularly have the experience of wanting assurance that the final signatory to a technical sign off will do a bit more than follow the book, but will apply that extra... (insert phrase as appropriate )  So that's why I tend to see a solution similar to that present as the most practical solution IF there was a properly recognised designator other than CEng...and I still tend to think that if industry would start recognising IEng properly much of the "first class / second class" argument would go away. Reminds me a bit of the fact that no-one is a salesperson any more, they are all "customer account executives" - if every engineer in a company was a Principal Engineer (insert your own company's grade as appropriate) does that mean they are all final signatories? (The answer is no  ) The engineering profession is divided into roles, let's make sure each of those roles is respected and has the third party accreditation it deserves.


When you and I rule the whole engineering profession it will all get sorted  *


(I've been waiting all this morning for a huge piece of rush work to arrive...must be about due now...might be a late one tonight!)


Cheers,


Andy


(* Having been caught out by very literal minded people on IET forums in the past, can I mention that this is a joke!)

Roy knows that my view for many years has been that IEng/CEng is a spectrum, a horizontal spectrum, not a staircase leading to "higher" things. It is largely an artificial distinction. I see the solution as simple. Do away with IEng, transferring them without further ado into CEng and accept that pretty well every engineer knows their limitations. They will make decisions based on their competence and how comfortable they are with the situation, not by reference to UK-Spec. Innovation is not a gift which only CEng have - it arises from need, curiosity, and imagination, allied with some experience and the ability to forsee (some of) the consequences.

I well remember interviewing candidates in the 70s when the requirement for a degree was introduced. Lack of a degree (they had HNC/HND) did not really matter to a relatively mature individual. They had all accepted varying levels of responsibility and been responsible for a range of adaptations and innovations, making them well worthy of what is now called Chartered Engineer.

Regards

Hamish

A number of typos in there - the ever present spectre of predictive text! But hopefully you'll all work the right words out!

A few years ago there would have quite a few incorporated engineers participating in this discussion but  many are now past the point where peer acceptance is of any importance to them. You have to ask why so many remain registered when it can have no bearing on actual career prospects or professional status. It can only be out of a irrational sentimental attachment to IEng!

Peter,


I respectfully disagree, IEng is a registered Professional Engineer and I think the people who achieved this designation are proud of it and majority at least contained with it.

It's possible when IIE existed there was a higher level of focus on the IEng.

When I was IEng I felt I had added recognition to when I wasn't registered. 

I see Jobs in the UK that request or prefer a candidate who is registered at the level of IEng or CEng.

The logic can also be that if you have candidates who are equal, given all equal but one of them also a registered IEng then there is an increased chance the IEng will get the job.

Here is a 1-minute google search: