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
When I was in Business School (The Open University actually) a historic case study was – why did VHS triumph over Betamax. Received wisdom was that Betamax was technically superior, but that VHS was better marketed and supported. There is an interesting article here. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2003/jan/25/comment.comment
We have three products, which taken purely on their product features , seem to be a reasonable attempt to serve a market divided into three segments. Inevitably, simplifying a myriad of possibilities into three generic categories, leaves quite large grey areas for interpretation and some false dichotomies, but there isn’t anything seriously wrong with the design in principle.
Unfortunately, in the marketplace only one of the products could be considered moderately successful. It may be that there just isn’t actually a large amenable market for the other two products. However, because the overall mission of Engineering Council is one of public service, it has to offer something to all of those within its defined scope, even if they aren’t particularly interested.
The basic concept of publicly expressing professionalism and subjecting yourself to peer review, is clearly most appealing to senior practitioners with some form of leadership profile. It is probably most useful as an early career milestone and valuable if providing expert consultant services. Since registration is presented as being about status, which is a basic human need, this creates relative status in which some are held in higher esteem than others, this can drive a range of basic emotions like resentment, which can lead to conflict.
Engineers, even the most educated and distinguished seem “needy” and resent what they see as the higher status of some other professions, or the perceived higher status of engineers in other countries. The response is to often to emphasise their superiority over those with “oily rags”, which sometimes seems to mean anyone without a higher degree and social capital, but as this trickles down, the repair person can be confident of another verbal bashing for passing themselves off as an engineer.
Moshe highlights a useful angle. If we look at what we have; CEng was built to serve the most educated engineers, when this came to mean only the small minority who had attended certain university courses (with a few exceptions), this created a space for the Tech Eng/IEng category, aimed at the apprenticeship/HNC/HND path with its own institutions. Although this gained tens of thousands of adherents over time, it was only a modest penetration of the potential market. Eng Tech was an alternative/addition to Trades Union participation. The Electricians Union for example had grading agreements and excellent vocational training facilities.
The IET has evolved to serve all these elements. Engineering Council exists in the public interest to regulate our efforts and that of other professional bodies, but expressly not Trades Union activity. It seems that the Uff report supports our direction of travel and if the big three institutions agree, then that is an overwhelming majority within the current structure. There are some large bodies within the Engineering Council family who clearly don’t share the same inclusive aims and also a long tail of small specialist interest groups with limited resources.
My suggestions are about redefining status within the profession to emphasise professional growth, performance and service to society. This includes categorising and nurturing such growth, as well as where necessary sanctioning those who fall short of our standards. To symbolise this change, the weak and now poisoned IEng brand should be sacrificed, to be replaced by a mainstream professional engineer category, at “graduate level” in which every engineer registrant must prove themselves over a reasonable period of time to gain any further recognition. If that seems reasonable then we need an implementation plan. I don’t propose taking anything away from anyone, although some are bound to allege “dumbing down” of standards or “watering down” of status. Such arguments can be fairly countered.
Finally if we are all going to be in this together, then we need to bear down on snobbery or “classism”. I don’t find this prevalent in the IET, although others may have a different perception? Nevertheless the Cleese, Barker and Corbett sketch of 1966 seems somehow to still have resonance in the engineering profession as a whole.
Roy, as always – eloquent and to the point (my poor keyboard skills first resulted in ‘to the pint’!). I really don’t have the ‘will to live’ to respond to the broader forum.
I’m wondering if I can become registered as a Chartered Washing Machine Mechanic.!
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.
I think I have some clarity on UKSpec (unless I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance). The latest edition of UKSpec did in fact reduce the scope and level of IEng competencies and at the time I did write to the Engineering Council voicing my concerns that in many areas the scope and capability levels of IEng were being downgraded in comparison to CEng.
I'm in a agreement with Roy that IEng should be replaced.
Peter, OK, fair enough. I wasn't sure what your level of understanding was, but clearly is good and I'm definitely open to accept that you may be right. As I have said, I think this needs a close look in more detail by a team of people of different perspectives and situations - as close to representative of PEs as possible, and maybe aspiring/developing engineers too. I don't think we'll get any further from different individuals expressing different viewpoints on here. It's been useful to expose those viewpoints though, because it has clearly demonstrated the need and desire for change.
I'm in agreement with Roy that IEng should be replaced.
I am not quite in agreement with Peter or Roy here. I don't think IEng should be replaced but rather think that something needs to be done and this may result in IEng being replaced. A subtle difference, but I don't think we should approach the problem with the preconceived idea that we need to replace IEng (though of course we should still discuss Roy's suggestions which I consider to be well thought out, especially as he understands the politics of the Engineering Council and PEIs far better than I ever will).
Best wishes to all,
Alasdair
(p.s. Using the edit facility to say that of course I mean Roy Bowdler's suggestions, no disrespect to Roy Pemberton who is also posting valuable comments...)
Alasdair, 100% agreement with that. But it's not going to get sorted by a to and fro debate on here of people with opposing views. I think it needs a working group of diverse members, registrants and potential registrants to be as representative as possible. Possibly a number of people who've posted on here, though we have to be careful that it really is representative of the wider community, without a disproportionate number of those who hold a strong view in one direction or the other. That could be as difficult as arriving at the right conclusion! ;)
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.
Roy, thank you for the reference. I would certainly support the merging of IEng and CEng. I think the distinction has become purely artificial. A much lower technical level, possibly the existing Engineerint Technician (possibly I've got the term wrong - sorry) would then be appropriate. It would certainly be seen as "different" and there would be no confusion.
Best wishes to all for Christmas or the holiday season, which ever you prefer.
My understanding is that the requirement for MEng as the exemplar qualification for CEng was down to international pressure from other countries that have 4 year degrees as standard. They didn't consider that the UK 3-year BEng was adequate. Of course, all those people who already got CEng with a 3-year degree get to keep it!
The Engineering Council seem somewhet confused as to what the distinction between IEng and CEng is supposed to be. We've have "equal but different" and we've had "IEng is for engineering managers". Whoever came up with these obviously never read UKSPEC.
Having gone through the process last year (and eventually deciding on IEng), and having read UKSPEC more times than I ever care to, I came to a couple of conclusions:-
If somebody qualifies for CEng, then they meet or exceed all the requirements for IEng. Obviously, the reverse isn't true.
The primary differences between CEng and IEng are:-
A CEng must have managed things - people and/or projects. An IEng can assist in management (e.g. by status reports).
A CEng must have done new and innovative things. An IEng should know how to apply best practice.
So there's two, largely unrelated, differences. None of this seems to be properly recognised or explained by the Engineering Council.
