Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

Resounding agreement with both of you on that. Also with Andy's point that he's only commenting on what employers are allowed/entitled to do by law, but on whether he (or we) agree that it's right.
In fact I believe that the very fact that so many employers so misunderstand the registration distinctions is at then very nub of the issue that this whole thread is discussing and without a doubt, trying to adjust those understandings and perceptions of undoubtedly where I believe the key effort is needed if we are to try to support/promote the whole spectrum of professional engineers.

Many thanks Roy. I had a look at the email that landed successfully, and it's clearly the alias one that worked. Frankly, I had no idea at all that my ntlworld one was still in file. I've not used that for over a decade! Clearly I need to go on my profile and delete it - of that I didn't spot it when I reviewed my profile very recently.

Thanks to Roy Bowdler, who brought this to my attention and kindly provided me with a copy taken from his email notification of my post, I'm reposting something I originally posted on the 13th. I got caught out by the dreaded edit tool which appears, instead of really allowing you to edit, to overwrite your original with totally new text! This time I've taken the opportunity to correct typos, which is why I tried to edit it in the first place! I won't make that mistake again! The thread has moved on (a little) from Andy's post that I was replying to, but hopefully the content is still relevant and interesting - Roy certainly felt it was:

Andy, I agree with every element of your response, and, though I didn't say it, my experience of resistance to innovation is also from working in the rail industry. The key thing I was flagging up is that, though we may be fully agreed that it's not about being better, more senior, or any such factors, that it's a broad spectrum of practitioners, all professional engineers wth education, knowledge, experience and ability to demonstrate that they apply those elements in a professional manner, society at large has placed an artificial perception that, to be of highest value, you have to be creative or innovative and that this is working against us to make accreditation as I.Eng less attractive, as potential applicants feel that it's labelling them as second class, when we and our colleagues across all of the institutes licensed to register I.Eng, and the EC itself, don't see it that way at all. It's a huge perception barrier to overcome and I definitely know that's the reaction I get from colleagues whom I feel would find I.Eng more appropriate, when I try to encourage them to apply. To come back to the management issue, I agree with your response - concerns regarding demonstrating management competence are, as you say, largely unfounded - if someone has been operating professionally as an engineer for any length of time, they have almost certainly demonstrated management competence - I usually make the point that it's not managing people or money that's being looked for so much as managing situations. I have no direct reports and no direct budget - but I regularly guide large volumes of contractors' staff in providing cost effective and acceptable solutions to project requirements as client project engineer, and accept design submissions and construction standards, using collaborative approaches to attempt to get it right first time, rather than go through iterations of submission, rejection and then finally acceptance. That is most definitely management as we see it when carrying out registration assessment. What is far more relevant than managing people is communicating with them and influencing them. I would encourage Simon Barker, who first said that innovation is not the issue, it's management, to examine the innovation distinction between C.Eng and I.Eng more closely. It is far more important than management and, to reiterate, is not about being better or worse, but about being appropriately registered to reflect the type of role he feels able and ready to fulfill. As you say, it's not something that everybody feels comfortable with, and there's no stigma attached to it (by the profession at least) if you don't. The intention is not to place a hurdle in the way, or use it as an indication of seniority, but to ensure registration at the appropriate end of that broad spectrum of professional engineers - to paraphrase you, a spectrum across a horizontal line, not a vertical one. I completely agree that these components of understanding the registration requirements, which are so often misunderstood, will be far easier to understand and address if a PRA is consulted. I have just become a PRI (professional registration interviewer) and am fresh enough out of the training for the role to remember the issues that cause most problems, and from real life case studies, it's abundantly clear that both interviewer and candidate have a massively tougher task with candidates who have not consulted a PRA. I would take issue with Simon in his final paragraph. Firstly, there are very clear guidelines for knowledge, and what he refers to as vagueness are really an attempt to provide a diversity of ways in which to demonstrate that knowledge. There are two distinct ways, one of which is based on education, which focuses on accredited qualifications, and which is extremely clear, the other is by demonstration of knowledge by diverse means (not necessarily the UKSPEC words - I don't have them to hand right now) which may include from work carried out over a period of time. This is the 'vague' part, though even there, UKSPEC is very specific, and the IET adds its own extra layer of detail to defining what level/type of knowledge has to be demonstrated. This is very important in recognition of the many engineers who have entered the profession by other routes than degrees. This is effectively the successor to the mature candidate route which was my own path to registration, but this is far more flexible in acknowledging the diverse routes by which people enter the profession. It also removes the age qualification that existed then, so recognising that entry by other routes is not the sole province of those who are older. But what I would change even more is the assertion that all the time, effort and fees are only to become registered in the job they are already doing. In some ways it's true, but there is value in that as it is the only means to provide formal demonstration of the level of professionalism exhibited by the individual. Knowledge/education is only one component. What registration does is take it to the next level by confirming that you have not only been educated/gained knowledge, but that you put it into practice, that you do so in a professional manner, with diligence and integrity and with the goal of achieving high quality engineering outcomes - and that you check that those outcomes are achieved. There are other factors, but these are the really key elements that registration demonstrates, and that is regardless of whether it is C.Eng or I.Eng. One further benefit is that it does focus you heavily on CPD - a highly desirable outcome. Simon, I encourage you to re-examine the value of registration in light of Andy and my observations (and others too numerous to mention), to consider carefully the innovation component in order to determine whether C.Eng or I. Eng is the best registration for you (to be clear, I.Eng selects appropriate solutions/approaches from a number of pre-determined possibilities, whilst C. Eng develops solutions/approaches - quite possibly from scratch. I paraphrase again as I don't have the specification immediately to hand) and very importantly, once you have made a decision, or believe you have, consult a PRA. I.Eng is NOT second prize. If I've missed anything important, please feel free, anybody, to put me right as I'm relying totally on my memory which is, at the best of times, imperfect!

Roy Bowdler, interesting food for thought. I do take all of your well made points and I think what you suggest is definitely worthy of exploration and could very possibly be a good solution.
I still feel there is a pretty clear distinction in the definition - especially the innovation focus - between the two classes of registration, but do accept that there are overlaps, and that, in many cases, employers are less focused on that distinction - even if they understand it. Many C.Eng are inhibited by their industry from operating at any more than I.Eng approaches (selecting from a number of tried and tested solutions), especially the sector in which both Andy Millar and I are currently pursuing, rail, though, like him, I do seek to go against the tide in this respect.
But I feel there are also a good number of roles and employers where the distinction is important, and they, in particular, and the people who work in, or seek to work in those roles, would benefit from continuing the distinction.
Maybe both approaches need to be examined far more closely alongside each other and evaluated for pros and cons.
However, as we are all strongly concluding, the problem is the general lack of understanding it perception of these distinctions or, worse still, that it is not necessarily a matter of better/worse or seniority both amongst employers and potential registrants. We either need to turn that round or, if the problem is far too huge and established to turn round, then that would be, in itself, to go with Roy's suggested approach, though we definitely need to ensure that it's not just a technician or engineer distinction, as that takes us too far the other way - we don't only avoid overlap, we create a chasm.
I think that could be an excellent reason to develop his concept of Master Technician, even if that wasn't what he had in mind initially.
One final thought though - if this change is to be pursued, before we even get to educating employers and candidates to the changes, how, if at all, do we pull the other PEIs along with us?

Roy and Roy,


Excellent points throughout, but I'm still struggling to see the answer to what I see as the key question in all this - what are the arguments that would make employers start demanding professional registration for all engineering staff? Or to turn that around, can we show that much wider use of registrations other than CEng would add real value to organisations, and if so, how? (I think I've given all my ideas on this back up this thread.) I think answering that would, to a large extent, steer any structural changes.


Cheers, Andy

Andy,


One way is to lobby the government to provide incentives to employers is some form that will hire registered professionals.

A case can be built that added values to the public safety and the education system etc.

That's one area that will make the employer interested.

Once Employers increase their demand for registered professional engineers then students and graduates all will be interested in getting registered.


The power of financial incentive such as for example tax reduction can't be underestimated.

At one point in my life, I lived in a small developmental city with 16,000 residents.  High crime, high unemployment area. Young couples moved on to other cities with better opportunities.

Then there was an election and a new Mayor was elected. He put together a recovery plan.

One of it was that any company that will move to our industrial zone will enjoy a number of incentives, one of them was significant, I stress significantly reduced taxes and well-trained workforce that is also competitive wages as living cost in our town and surrounding areas was much lower.  

Companies such as National Semiconductor - Tower moved to our city and many others. The economic growth was fantastic, Colleges saw a high rise in STEM students etc.

The transformation was great.

Now imagine UK government with EC UK and the industry working out a plan of incentives that will elevate the UK Engineers into what I think a better place, there will be more funds for accreditation of Engineering and Technology programmes etc, etc.


I saw this happened and experienced it as well when I joined one of my former employers who required registration.We had a separate scale and benefits than un-registered professionals.

We had training fund, car allowance etc and a better pay scale.

The nonregistered professional scale 11 would be equal in pay to the registered professional scale 8.

This system still exists.

The town unrecognizable the country one of the most innovative and leading High-tech in the world,.

Absolutely Andy, I see that as the nub of the issue as I think I've said earlier and that's why I'm happy to embrace either approach, if we can rate the pros and cons of each and determine which is best, but don't think it addresses this key issue which is, as you say, understanding, perceptions, acceptance and active use of the value provided by alternatives to C.Eng by both employers and potential registrants. Though I think it's most likely the latter follows from the former, I don't think that's a foregone conclusion and it may be that attention to both in parallel is the answer holistically. Like you, other than a little development of that last thought, I've offered up all I can think of, but I believe we're both getting to the point where we don't think we're going to answer that key issue in this thread. I think that maybe this is only going to go anywhere at all by getting a few of us together in a focus group or something similar to brainstorm it, but, as this thread has demonstrated, the terms of reference need to be highly focused on how to address perceptions and understanding rather than which is the right model, at least initially, otherwise we'll just go round in circles. It's possible that, once (if) an action plan for that emerges it may lead to the question of which model best fits that action plan and best serves the people we're discussing, but I think it has to be that way round or no real value will come out of it.
The IET is commendably putting great resources into trying to boost the number of people (especially young people) entering the profession, but I think this issue merits similar attention and resource, and almost certainty would help to achieve the former as it's one key element of overall perception of our profession. If we ourselves, and the potential employers/beneficiaries of our professional expertise don't attach sufficient value to all engineers across the spectrum, how can we expect the world at large, and our prospective new generations of entrants to the profession (and importantly their parents and teachers who counsel them) to do so? I don't feel anything is going to change until and unless a significant initiative to adjust perceptions is mounted - a veritable PR campaign of similar proportions to those mounted to attract new entrants to the profession.
So, as to that development of my earlier thought, and this is far from a full answer, but an important component to think through, whilst I accept that potential registrants will only attach value to I. Eng or any other non C.Eng registration if/when employers and the world attach value to it, I feel it needs a push from both directions as I do feel there's a component where employers will only attach value to what benefits it offers when the PEs themselves not only attach value to it, but also go out there and sell the benefits they offer. It may be a slow, uphill struggle but I knew that, whenever I interviewed for positions, I was always very taken with individuals who came along selling the benefits they had to offer to the role. And, despite what Roy Bowdler and others have said, as someone who has recruited extensively in my time, I do see the value proposition in someone who says "I will offer a focus on which, of the available tried and tested approaches, is most suitable for the requirements rather than devote effort to developing new approaches". I think the distinction is important. Sometimes innovation is needed (god knows we need it in rail!) but sometimes it simply over-complicates matters. That is where the value in a true I.Eng comes in, to steer you on the best course through existing terrain, in a safe, reliable and professional pair of hands rather than launching you into forays into new, unexplored territory. Whilst I love the latter, as Andy recognised, I also see that it's not always what's needed, and that's the proposition that needs selling. Ultimately this is primarily a selling exercise and I'm up for it if others are.

Moche Waserman (I do hope my predictive text doesn't embarrassingly edit your name incorrectly as had happened with one other!)
I agree, incentives would definitely help, but need careful thought. I feel employers would lap up incentives that are easy to realise, preferably (from their perspective) in a nice, one flavour fits all model that risks amplifying the universal C.Eng to the exclusion of I.Eng regardless of which is really needed/warranted by their needs. I think it would take a great deal of thought and attention to find a model for incentivisation that would produce the desired result. Unless carefully designed, it would be seized on by HR and bean counter types eager to grab either simple financial gain or HR brownie points with no reference to the subtle distinctions we've been discussing and have no net benefit to the matter we're discussing. If we're not careful they simply hire the same number of engineers, but increase the tendency to stipulate C.Eng regardless of whether that's the appropriate type of engineer required or not, purely to capture the financial incentive.
Also, I think we may find that educating politicians/government to the subtleties would almost certainly be more difficult than tackling employers.

Roy,

The representation of Engineers was done by a different body then Technicians and TechnicianEngineers.

My rank when I started was 9 on the scale of TechnicianEngineers. And each registration body protected the interests of their designation.

Engineers made sure others didn't overlap to match with their "turf".

There was a separate scale for Engineering and better pay and benefits.

In that country there is simple law, if you are not registered as Technician you cant call your self a Technician and be working on a technician scale.

The Employer hires a professional who is not registered on what is called Vocational Scale. And the type of the employee is Vocational or Professional Employee.

He/She cannot be called a Technician until he/she are registered and in my department, there were no vocational employees because the type of work required qualified registered professionals.

The watchdog so to speak is the registration body for each level.

Smaller companies that had 10 employees didn't have to adhere to strict rules with larger companies.

But individually if one is describing themselves as a Technician or Technician Engineer or Engineer the first thing HR will require is recognized registration.

Some of my friends who started at vocational type grew to be division managers, directors etc. If you are a hiring manager and you liked a candidate, there was a way to bring that candidate on board. And for the unregistered professionals, there was motivation to get registered.

The vocational/Professional classification was created specifically for companies that needed freedom from restrictions.

It worked then, it still works.

For persons with foreign education, there is a process of registration, as long as they completed recognized education.

I had to bring an original certificate with two copies to the regional office with the application form and pay the fee. My copies got stamped by the clerk as matching the original, the original was returned to me. The comity decision may take up to 6 months. 

The government deemed the education law of Technicians, TechnicianEngineers, and Engineers as a national priority and treated it accordingly.

 

Fully agree with Moshe's and Roy's posts above ("How can you agree with sometimes contradictory posts?" "Because this is the debate! Every issue has at least two sides.") Just one final point I'd like to make...we do need to be realistic that the outcome from all this might be that actually there is no justification for any professional registration level, including CEng. Personally I don't think that will be the case, but if the IET is going to consider this matter seriously - and I very seriously hope it does - it's got to (in my mind) start from the viewpoint that industry has overwhelmingly rejected all professional registration, as the Uff report has highlighted, and it would be unacceptably arrogant of us to simply state that we're right and they're wrong.


It's a time for listening, understanding, and co-operation between the PEIs and industry. Actually this has been the case for a very long time, but hopefully the Uff report has been a wake-up call.


In the mean time I am very happy to continue to champion the existing professional registration statuses to both candidates and employers, they may not be perfect but I think they're pretty good.


As ever, comments from senior IET volunteers and management would, PLEASE, be welcomed - we may well be griping unnecessarily about things you are already doing!!!


Happy mid-winter holidays (or, for any in the southern hemisphere, happy mid-summer holidays!)


Cheers,


Andy