Hi Andy,
All fair points and I don't dispute that some (would not wish to make any assumption on what proportion) do see it that way, but I agree with you that I don't believe it would produce financial benefit. I also agree that even the most qualified and experienced engineers can and do make mistakes, but the key, for me, is to at least aim for a situation where they are at least genuinely trying to avoid them - after all, doctors and solicitors also make mistakes. And it's why we have checking and approval built in to our work.
I'd also agree with your point about managers - they are even further behind on recognising the need for competence validation, with the Management Charter Initiative, which was an attempt to codify competence in Management and establish that it's a profession in its own right, being very poorly embraced. Unfortunately, the widespread means to progress into management is dead men's shoes/next in line, with little appreciation of the standards of competence that should be attached to the positions. I feel equally passionate about that, especially as one of the 50 pioneer Chartered Managers in the early years of this century, which was only possible from having demonstrated those competencies in action in the workplace. Again, it was not financial reward (I didn't get any) but in the interests of improving my professionalism.
If I recall correctly, you and I are both in Rail, Andy, so I share your experience there, wouldn't go quite as far as saying never for the safety risk from misrepresentation, but accept rarely, especially as, unlike in many other sectors, we rarely if ever call a technician an engineer. However, in fairness, that's surely because we do have our requirements for authority to work or equivalent because of the safety criticality of the industry, whereas no such systems apply to managers. Isn't that, in itself, an element of evidence to show that some form of authorisation achieves the benefit, even though, for the historical reasons of past disasters, it's self regulation in the industry?
I originally responded on this because it was being suggested, because of Grenfell Tower, that this is not necessarily the same in other sectors, and in particular, in this instance, building standards, management and services. In honesty, I don't really know if that is the case or not as it's outside my field of expertise, so I took other people's word on it. But it makes your point especially relevant if it's true, as the suggestion is that this is down to decisions by managers rather than engineers, and the suggestion was that, by having some form of mandatory licensing, registration or any other authority that confirms an individual as a professional engineer, that would enable the mandate that any engineering decision that impacts on safety (or on mission sensitive outcomes for that matter) must have been endorsed by such an engineer. If such a mandate was not based on some form of formal standard for what constitutes an engineer, then this allows those managers to (deliberately or unintentionally) select somebody to be their 'engineer' who would allow those bad decisions through - indeed they may even appoint their own 'engineer', who may be no more qualified than themselves - indeed, they may even put engineer in their own title in order to get round any such legislation.
So you and Simon may be right that there's no inherent value to safety from making Registration of some form compulsory for engineers as an initiative in isolation, but if regulations to mandate that an engineer must approve engineering solutions are to be considered, then defining a mandatory definition of what constitutes an engineer is needed to support it. This could be achieved by licensing within each sector, which is effectively what we do in Rail, or by a common standard across all sectors.
You will see in my original response to this thread that I don't believe it's realistic to implement an all-sector licensing system that addresses the specifics in the way that Railway licenses and authority to work do, but suggested that, if we do wish a cross-sector form of authorisation, the current PEI registration system already offers the vehicle to do so, even if, as we've discussed in other threads, we acknowledge that it would bear some improvements.
I would also repeat my previous assertion that, whilst you and I may agree that mandatory registration/protected title won't afford financial benefit to the individuals, it would surely up the public perception of engineers, wth the dual result that people may become more discriminating about who they select to do their work, and more importantly still, make the profession more attractive and attract greater numbers as Gareth was suggesting is the case in Canada.

Hi Andy,
All fair points and I don't dispute that some (would not wish to make any assumption on what proportion) do see it that way, but I agree with you that I don't believe it would produce financial benefit. I also agree that even the most qualified and experienced engineers can and do make mistakes, but the key, for me, is to at least aim for a situation where they are at least genuinely trying to avoid them - after all, doctors and solicitors also make mistakes. And it's why we have checking and approval built in to our work.
I'd also agree with your point about managers - they are even further behind on recognising the need for competence validation, with the Management Charter Initiative, which was an attempt to codify competence in Management and establish that it's a profession in its own right, being very poorly embraced. Unfortunately, the widespread means to progress into management is dead men's shoes/next in line, with little appreciation of the standards of competence that should be attached to the positions. I feel equally passionate about that, especially as one of the 50 pioneer Chartered Managers in the early years of this century, which was only possible from having demonstrated those competencies in action in the workplace. Again, it was not financial reward (I didn't get any) but in the interests of improving my professionalism.
If I recall correctly, you and I are both in Rail, Andy, so I share your experience there, wouldn't go quite as far as saying never for the safety risk from misrepresentation, but accept rarely, especially as, unlike in many other sectors, we rarely if ever call a technician an engineer. However, in fairness, that's surely because we do have our requirements for authority to work or equivalent because of the safety criticality of the industry, whereas no such systems apply to managers. Isn't that, in itself, an element of evidence to show that some form of authorisation achieves the benefit, even though, for the historical reasons of past disasters, it's self regulation in the industry?
I originally responded on this because it was being suggested, because of Grenfell Tower, that this is not necessarily the same in other sectors, and in particular, in this instance, building standards, management and services. In honesty, I don't really know if that is the case or not as it's outside my field of expertise, so I took other people's word on it. But it makes your point especially relevant if it's true, as the suggestion is that this is down to decisions by managers rather than engineers, and the suggestion was that, by having some form of mandatory licensing, registration or any other authority that confirms an individual as a professional engineer, that would enable the mandate that any engineering decision that impacts on safety (or on mission sensitive outcomes for that matter) must have been endorsed by such an engineer. If such a mandate was not based on some form of formal standard for what constitutes an engineer, then this allows those managers to (deliberately or unintentionally) select somebody to be their 'engineer' who would allow those bad decisions through - indeed they may even appoint their own 'engineer', who may be no more qualified than themselves - indeed, they may even put engineer in their own title in order to get round any such legislation.
So you and Simon may be right that there's no inherent value to safety from making Registration of some form compulsory for engineers as an initiative in isolation, but if regulations to mandate that an engineer must approve engineering solutions are to be considered, then defining a mandatory definition of what constitutes an engineer is needed to support it. This could be achieved by licensing within each sector, which is effectively what we do in Rail, or by a common standard across all sectors.
You will see in my original response to this thread that I don't believe it's realistic to implement an all-sector licensing system that addresses the specifics in the way that Railway licenses and authority to work do, but suggested that, if we do wish a cross-sector form of authorisation, the current PEI registration system already offers the vehicle to do so, even if, as we've discussed in other threads, we acknowledge that it would bear some improvements.
I would also repeat my previous assertion that, whilst you and I may agree that mandatory registration/protected title won't afford financial benefit to the individuals, it would surely up the public perception of engineers, wth the dual result that people may become more discriminating about who they select to do their work, and more importantly still, make the profession more attractive and attract greater numbers as Gareth was suggesting is the case in Canada.