Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

Simon,

In a nutshell! You worked hard to find the differences... Well done!

But... wait a minute... have you never seen an IEng come up with an innovative idea?

Or a CEng who could hardly manage themselves?


Time to "incorporate" IEng into CEng and stop the artificial distinction.

Merry Christmas!

Hamish

Artificial Distinction:

Junior Engineer or Technologist is IEng.

and

Senior Engineer or Technologist is CEng.

On the other hand:

Engineer do innovations.

Technologist effectively apply those innovations.

IEng and CEng Engineers can do innovations.

IEng and CEng Technologists cant do innovations.

is it the Engineering Council's distinction?

Nouman,


And we know unregistered engineers also innovate. 

I think it's a good idea to create one designation for registered Engineers as a Chartered Engineer 

But not all see it eye to eye with me, My good friend who is also MIET thinks its good to have two registrations, one for more junior engineers - Associate Engineer. And a final registration as a Chartered Engineer. He thinks that Technologist is a separate professional designation that requires somewhat different education a Degree in Engineering Technology.

Then followed by Registered Engineering Technologist as a unique registration for such professionals.

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 think there are some confusion here between IEng and Technologist in this forum discussion. As per my last thread, they are the same under International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Sydney Accord definition, only different term. Below table from IEA documents:

“

2. SYDNEY ACCORD

Sydney Accord recognition of equivalence of educational base for Engineering Technologists

Definition:

For the purposes of this Agreement, and any future Rules and Procedures made under this Agreement, engineering technology academic programmes are defined as the programmes through which practitioners normally satisfy the academic requirements for the engineering roles currently known amongst the initial signatories as:

Engineering Technologist - Australia

Certified Engineering or Applied Science Technologist - Canada

Associate Member of HKIE - Hong Kong China

Associate Engineer - Ireland

Engineering Technologist - New Zealand

Professional Technologist (Engineering) - South Africa

Incorporated Engineer - United Kingdom

“

Hard fact is IEng is an Engineering Technologist.


Because of the IEA, there are 3 level of engineering professional define under different accord namely Charted Engineer/Professional Engineer, Technologist and Technician level.

You may argue that some people with CEng are doing IEng role, some people with IEng are doing equivalent or more than CEng scope. That is people perception. We need to talk about when come to the assessment for each category. No point to talk about I doing more than CEng role and exceed the UKSpec for CEng when one isn’t register as CEng or never apply for CEng or fail in the CEng assessment.


We need to recognise that in reality CEng is the highest level of competency, then follow by IEng then EngTech as define very clearly in UKSpec and IEA accord. No point to talk about IEng is superior or inferior or equal, or to merge IEng into CEng (For me, this is mission impossible under the IEA accord unless ECUK pull out from IEA and form own rules) and ect and ect to make people more confuse. Of course, each category is important to the whole engineering workforce.


The challenge here is how to make IEng (with the mindset that IEng is Technologist) great and values added for people to apply for it. I think that the real direction need to be address and discuss here rather than talk about crossover role between IEng and CEng and ended the discussion in status quote which bring nowhere.

Mr. Yung Lai,


Some argue that IEng is unique UK qualification of a Professional Engineer as well. The Graduate of BEng degree is closer to Engineer. What will be closer to Sydney accord is a programme for BEngT (Bachelor of Engineering Technology) - engineering technology academic programme. In the UK BEng degree is accredited for IEng/CEng more of the Engineer rout.

If the IEng changes to Engineering Technologist then there will be no confusion. This way clearly one registration remains for the Engineer, CEng.

Yet some see holders of BEng more on a path to CEng. Possibly UK universities may have to reintroduce engineering technology academic programmes for the Technologist rout.


Interestingly the Science Council has two Scientist levels 

1. Registered Scientist

2. Chartered Scientist. 

Hi Moshe,

In my opinion, I don’t think IEng is a unique qualification for PE, if not IEng can apply for International Register Professional Engineer (IntPE) which they cannot. IEng only allow to apply for International Register Engineering Technologist (IntET) which clearly shown that IEng is an Engineering Technologist.


On the academic side, Washington Accord only accredited 4 years Engineering Degree. That’s why in UK if you want to apply CEng, standard academic route is you need to have 4 years study either by accredited MEng (4 years) or accredited BEng(Hons) (3 years) + MSc (1 year). Most of the country under WA have 4 years BEng(Hons) programme except for UK which is 3 years. All country under WA like Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, US and ect will only accept 4 years study degree for their Professional Engineer assessment/registration. Otherwise 3 years study like UK degree will fall straight to Technologist registration category. (We are discussing normal/standard route, not special case or mature route)


The idea to change IEng name to Technologist I think is still very blur in future which I don’t see any action or direction from ECUK to address it. I very much like this idea if I have the oppurnity I would like to proposed IEng to change to CEngT - Charterd Engineering Technologist.


Like I said before we need to brainstorm idea/way forward to make IEng more attractive and worth applying and add value to a person which the top management of IET and ECUK can pick up from this forum for future implementation. And the action has to be practical which can apply to all PEI not just in IET. If possible, the value added not only for UK but also outside UK  register member if possible.


Regards,

Moshe,


Yes the IEA Accords are for the education accreditation purpose and I fully agreed with you.


Apart from the Accords, in IEA there are also 4 Agreements as below:

IPEA – International Professional Engineer Agreement

APEC – Professional Engineer for APEC Country

IETA – International Engineering Technologist Agreement

AIET – Agreement of International Engineering Technicians

If we look into IETA, It is a “Substantial Equivalency of Standards Establishing the Competency for Practicing Engineering Technologist.” Quote from IEA website.

 

And ECUK is one of the member for this IETA using their IEng as the benchmark for IntET registration. You may agued that the IEng is a unique PE qualification in UK (Which I hope this is a fact but it is not). In the eye of the IEA and the rest of the world Engineering Institution IEng is just an Engineering Technologist title. It never makes it to the Professional Engineer status although its used Engineer word. 


Suprisingly US is no part of this agreement and because of that US have their own right and way to determine their Technologist requirement/registration/assessment.


Ya...this world is really complicated for such IEng title. I think the best way is still to rename IEng to Technologist title to make it a straigh forward title. I do hope IET and ECUK can read this forum and bring the issue to the top management radar. But still like I said for the renaming proposal to be bring to EC table is still far far away.


Something need to be done for the title name or else it will be always be confusion for engineering practictioner for their professional registration.


Moshe,

By the way Science Council UK have 4 level of registrations:

Registered Science Technician (RSciTech)

Registered Scientist (RSci)

Chartered Scientist (CSci)

Chartered Science Teacher (CSciTeach)


Best regard,