Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

Hi Alasdair,

Excellent points.

Just wanted to add that I think the "gold standard" issue is manageable if we consider this parallel: do those of us with bachelor's degrees feel "second class" because we don't have PhDs? Or, do those of us who are engineers feel second class because we're not Technical Directors? Of course the answer in both cases is that some people do, and we hear exactly the same complaints about "that chap with a PhD / that Technical Director can't wire a plug" as we do leveled at CEngs - as you say, that's human nature. But in general it is accepted that different people fulfill different roles. Very few people would suggest that all graduates should be called PhDs or all engineers should be called Tech Dirs because otherwise they would feel second class. Of course that's not to belittle the fact that the problem here is that the IEng / CEng distinction as it stands is maybe too subtle.

To continue this parallel, no-one would be surprised if the MD of a company had a BEng (and was proud of it) whilst their Technical Director had a PhD (and was proud of it). It would be excellent, and I think perfectly achievable, for that same MD to be proud of their IEng. We've just got to get past this idea that CEng is correlated with organisational seniority.

I must stop reading these replies...I'm supposed to be writing an IET conference paper...

Cheers,

Andy

Alasdair, absolutely. I think that is exactly the point I've been trying to make - rather than throw it out as failed, let's do what's needed to fix it. Like Andy, I'm ready to consider the merits of all options, but personally, I feel there's nothing wrong with the registrations as they are intended to work, the problem is more with it not being used in the way it was intended, so let's try to fix that as our first option.

I get the feeling that the majority of contributors to this discussion consider the status quo to be satisfactory. My view is that IEng is uniquely disadvantaged compared to other 'professional' qualifications. The Engineering Council and the majority of PEI's talk about the importance of technical educationand and shortage of technologists but in reality there is a complete failure to accept anything needs to change. The number of incorporated engineers is at an all time low and almost irrelevant in term of  recognisable measure of competence.


​The most prestigeous organisations in engineering such as the Enginners Trust and the Royal Academy of Engineering do not feature incorporated engineers in their membership but conversely argue for a more inclusive and diverse enginnering commuinity.

Hi Peter,

I get the feeling that the majority of contributors to this discussion consider the status quo to be satisfactory.

If that's the feeling you're getting, then unfortunately that's the fault of some of us in not expressing ourselves clearly enough. Personally I don't get the impression that anyone here thinks the status quo is in the least satisfactory. And the figures for IEng registration (both pure numbers and age profile) make it, to me, very obvious there is clear evidence that it is not. 


But that's not to say that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. I fully agree with the views expressed above that what is needed is a serious investigation to consider what is needed (or indeed if anything is needed) and how (or if) EC and the IET should provide it - what this discussion has shown to me is that there are no simple answers. Unfortunately that's a bit beyond the scope of a forum...


Personally I do like IEng as it stands, and I don't find a problem in either defining it or justifying it, but it's apparent that something like 99.9% (or more) of industry disagrees with me so I'm certainly not going to say that either I'm right and they're wrong or say that nothing needs to change!


Cheers, Andy

One of the remaining strong volunteer advocates for IEng approached me last week, concerned because he thought that the Uff report was proposing a merger of IEng & Eng Tech. A majority could probably be found for such a step, since it potentially creates the clear blue water to CEng that many desire and want to emphasise.  The change in the 1980s from Tech Eng to IEng was of course motivated by IEng wanting to be seen as Engineers not Technicians.

 

A decade or so ago Engineering Council was espousing a “different but equally valuable” philosophy. This concept meant that each type of “graduate level” engineer had a different function, as reflected in a European Directive. IEng might have been codified as a “Chartered Technologist” but there was no real support from IEng registrants and with the demise of IIE the idea faded away.  Many Chartered Engineers found the idea of “equality”  rather insulting and were keen to undo it, so Engineering Council adopted a “progressive philosophy”. This policy respected that  the “lower” registration categories had “value in their own right”, but emphasised that they should be seen a “part of a progression”.  I don’t believe that anything useful can come of tacking back a decade again, so my suggestions are progressive, but “fair progressive” not an obstacle course of confusing tripping points, designed to advantage some from an early age, but not others. 


One of the reasons that I suggest a fresh start built from the bottom up, is that it is very difficult to separate the person from the category. Most experienced IEng are only in the category because their academic preparation was different to a CEng colleague, they aren’t less innovative, lower graded or anything else, they just sit within the same spectrum. (Included again for clarity)     http://www.rit.edu/emcs/admissions/images/stories/assorted/engineering/eng-vs-engtech.gif 


If all those who were eligible actually held IEng and were enthusiastic to display it, then the many directors and senior managers who emerged from apprenticeships would be obvious role models. Some stepped forward for the 2011 “proud to be IEng” campaign, only to discover what they needed was to be “proud of being downgraded” to fit into Engineering Council’s plans. I don’t think that any  "IEng type" business leaders are in routine technical compliance roles. Llike every dog in the street who recognises an engineer, they also know that the incorporated one is held to be inferior and don’t fancy that.  


My argument is a sociological not a technical one, but “IEng” is a brand and in those terms it is a weak one. It isn’t without value especially in certain places, but also it isn’t capable of being rebuilt in any substantial or wide ranging way.  A story of the Skoda brand in reverse perhaps? I have used stronger language, to reflect the legacy of bitterness felt by some, which will continue to poison the brand for years.  


It might be useful to compare the requirements for recognition as a Chartered Engineer described here  https://www.cbuilde.com/membership/routes-to-membership/key-competencies/   I would see these as similar to the “Registered/Professional” Engineer that I’m advocating, with an opportunity to build CEng on top.  A risk to the current system may arise as yet more organisations offer alternative chartered propositions.  I’m not party to Privy Council’s deliberations, but I wonder why it would support Engineering Council in the virtual monopoly that it once enjoyed for technical people. 

 

If we were to start at the beginning; we need to work through the barriers one by one, to ensure that any reasonable definition of success at a career stage is valued. As a school leaver this could be becoming an apprentice or student ( I was as proud as punch to walk home in my new overalls as a 16 year old), completing education and training milestones, gaining experience and professional recognition by age 25, enhanced standing in your profession by 30 etc.  


I don’t think that I’m stating anything here that isn’t obvious to us all and the IET advantage membership packages are trying to support this.  Unfortunately, what I gain when I look at the influential heights of the profession is an impression of, seemingly perpetuating a social hierarchy that was looking tired by the 1960s, never mind the second quarter of the 21^st Century. Intentionally or otherwise, the priority of  some seems to be rationing access to prestige, in an ultimately fruitless search for status.  


Engineering and Technology professionals can collectively gain enhanced status by; respecting their own, focussing on their contribution to society, such as adding value in employment, creating wealth, serving communities by, offering skills development, careers and social mobility, improving the environment, health etc.  I think that a modernised registration system would help to enable this better, but to do so we have to get everyone on a similarly respected journey, not just look for  a "trickle down" of status.


We should continue to collaborate in codifying and assessing practice, but in a much more supportive and equal way. Why for example should an Technician Electrician not have a valid view of CEng practice in their domain, since vice-versa is assumed to be the case. Another assumption is that an early career MEng graduate is "higher" than a similar aged Bachelors Degree Apprenticeship graduate. I could continue ad nauseam about dubious assumptions being made, on the basis of questionable evidence to justify division. What we need is more unity, not more division!  

Andy and Peter,
I agree completely with Andy, and clearly, as he says, we've not expressed ourselves well if Peter has gained that impression. I thought we were mostly agreeing violently that the situation is far from satisfactory and needs action. I think what you're mistaking for us being happy with the status quo is that people like Andy and I who are engaged fairly heavily in having to understand what the definitions and intentions are (though that doesn't mean we're experts!) feel that the problem doesn't lie with those definitions and intentions, which I think we both feel are fit for purpose, but with perceptions and interpretations by others in industry - employers and registrants alike. As long as the vast majority believe that I.Eng is second prize or for those who "aren't good enough" for C.Eng, which is not accurate either to what UKSPEC says, what they intention is, or how those of us playing a part in registration as advisors, assessors and interviewers are guided in undertaking registration activity, it will continue this way. I believe that potential registrants are just as responsible for that pervading view as employers. So we believe the right thing is not to reject or greatly amend what we have (it might bear slight tweaks, but nothing major) so much as to find a way to adjust those perceptions and inaccuracies of understanding. We need to convince both employers and potential registrants of the value offered by I.Eng.
As a thought, I'm not automatically assuming that you fit what I describe, but I wonder how good your understanding is? I wonder if your reason for perceiving that we're happy with the status quo is that you think the 'system' that we are saying is not, in our view, broken does in fact support that second prize interpretation and so you too believe that's what I.Eng currently is by definition and intent? I don't mean either to insult your intelligence or to imply it's "your own fault" and don't need/want an answer - just answer it to yourself - you may well be well versed in it, but if you're not, that's the fault of "the system" for not getting the message over properly! If you think there's a chance that you're not completely sure, then that's the value of PRA's such as Andy. But it's no good waiting for folk to seek that guidance, we need to get the message over that, if they do, they will discover that I.Eng (if that is in fact the best registration category for them) is in fact a registration with the value that is a solid endorsement of professionalism. As I've commented previously, we really need some I.Eng ambassadors to go out there and sell themselves to employers, and convince those employers that, in many cases, I.Eng may actually be a far more appropriate registration level for many roles, and that the individuals who hold I.Eng are high value, professional engineers.

Roy Bowdler, I have to admit you make some highly valid points in there, I particularly take your point about the brand and it's current perceived value. Maybe you're right, the thing to do may be to completely rebrand, but sometimes you can in fact succeed in turning perceptions of a brand around, there are good examples of where this had happened - you quote one, Skoda, but I'd also tentatively offer easyJet and even Samsung (think of the Samsung position in relation to Apple a few years ago).
I think we need to do an appraisal of both approaches, and for that matter of hybrid approaches and totally different approaches. I'm with Andy in feeling that this is going well beyond something we can since in this forum. It needs something more substantial to work through the options and the details, with people who are ready to be open minded and creative,

Some of my colleagues asking me why in my opinion the UK they need two registrations of Engineers?


I reply the following way, you know at times you hire or your company uses an accountant but at times you need a Chartered Accountant.

Maybe it's similar.

But then there is a void created if both are Engineers who will fulfill the void between Technicians and the Engineers?

Some other countries have Associate Engineer or 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