Time for licenced Engineers?

Both Mehmood and Roy Bowdler make very good points.  I agree with Roy that I had and continue to have, to some degree, some sympathy with the argument for licensing, but it is definitely not, on its own, going to make the difference for the issues that are of concern - as Roy says, we have a lot to do to get our own house in order first.


But Mehmood, in particular, has hit a highly relevant nerve in one particular respect, though it's possible that I may not be understanding him fully - forgive me if that is the case, regardless, it has prompted thoughts that I will outline.


Employers, organisations and stakeholders have to understand the importance of engineering decisions being made by suitably competent engineers before any attempt at licencing will take effect. I am fortunate enough to work in the rail industry and I say that because Network Rail has a mandatory standard applicable to both its own organisation and to any contractors which clearly provides a process requiring that engineering decisions in projects are taken by competent engineers, and only by such engineers - for its own project engineers, they have to hold an Authority to Work, which is based on detailed competence assessment whilst it defines the requirement for the direction, design approval, etc. for engineering work by contractors to be by suitably competent contractor's responsible engineers, with sign-off on their acceptability (based both on competence, understanding of the requirements of the role and availability of the time to undertake it) by the Network Rail Project Engineer. To be clear, competence is definitely not only about technical understanding, but covers all of the areas of competence you would expect to ensure safe and cost-effective engineering decisions are made and implemented. Even then, there are times when Project Managers contravene that standard and take it on their own shoulders to make decisions that should be carried out by these engineers, or seek to short-cut them or even overrule them - occasionally, there will be a PM who mistakes the inclusion of the word Manager in their title as meaning they are in charge of all aspects, whereas the standard I refer to makes it clear that, whilst they may be responsible for cost and programme, engineering assurance is clearly the responsibility of the engineers, who can decline to sign off the project works if they are not satisfied with it.  Fortunately, the standard is in place, hence such instances can be combatted by invoking it, and if necessary escalating the issue. 


There are also competence requirements set for maintenance staff, although these do vary somewhat between disciplines.  There is an industry licencing scheme in place, administered by the IRSE, and this is predominantly focused on signal engineering staff, who have a clear safety critical role.  This is mandatory across both maintenance and new works for signal engineering staff and roles.  There are also licencing categories for telecommunications, but these are not mandatory. This arose largely after the Clapham Junction disaster, hence its focus on signalling.  I do feel it a matter of regret that it was not applied more widely across other disciplines who also have a potential, to a varying degree, to impact on safety. 


Unfortunately, I don't believe this is the case in many other sectors - I am hopeful that other regulated industries have procedures that equal or exceed those in the railway, and maybe, if all those sectors which have the potential to create safety issues, do have such procedures, then we can take assurance from that, but I feel there are many sectors which do not operate such rigorous standards and which still have the potential to impact on safety or the environment, and in particular, in the sector that seems to have provoked a great deal of this debate, that of building services etc., there is, at the very least, the appearance of a lack of regulation, or at the very least, no mandate to demonstrate that all engineering decisions have been taken by people assessed to be suitably competent.   I think Mehmood has rightly flagged up that, until and unless this is addressed, licencing alone is unlikely to have much effect, and whilst I agree that, in order to be fully effective it needs to be mandated in law, there is little point in doing that until and unless the approach taken in all sectors has been pulled in line with one that requires the appropriate use of competent engineers, confirming that competence by mandatory licencing is not going to be of much effect. 


I have to confess to being slightly unsure why Mehmood believes the internet changes this - apologies if I'm missing a point or being a little slow, but I'm struggling to see why that should be so. Are you suggesting that we may be seeing AI take over engineering decisions over automated internet connections Mehmood?

Both Mehmood and Roy Bowdler make very good points.  I agree with Roy that I had and continue to have, to some degree, some sympathy with the argument for licensing, but it is definitely not, on its own, going to make the difference for the issues that are of concern - as Roy says, we have a lot to do to get our own house in order first.


But Mehmood, in particular, has hit a highly relevant nerve in one particular respect, though it's possible that I may not be understanding him fully - forgive me if that is the case, regardless, it has prompted thoughts that I will outline.


Employers, organisations and stakeholders have to understand the importance of engineering decisions being made by suitably competent engineers before any attempt at licencing will take effect. I am fortunate enough to work in the rail industry and I say that because Network Rail has a mandatory standard applicable to both its own organisation and to any contractors which clearly provides a process requiring that engineering decisions in projects are taken by competent engineers, and only by such engineers - for its own project engineers, they have to hold an Authority to Work, which is based on detailed competence assessment whilst it defines the requirement for the direction, design approval, etc. for engineering work by contractors to be by suitably competent contractor's responsible engineers, with sign-off on their acceptability (based both on competence, understanding of the requirements of the role and availability of the time to undertake it) by the Network Rail Project Engineer. To be clear, competence is definitely not only about technical understanding, but covers all of the areas of competence you would expect to ensure safe and cost-effective engineering decisions are made and implemented. Even then, there are times when Project Managers contravene that standard and take it on their own shoulders to make decisions that should be carried out by these engineers, or seek to short-cut them or even overrule them - occasionally, there will be a PM who mistakes the inclusion of the word Manager in their title as meaning they are in charge of all aspects, whereas the standard I refer to makes it clear that, whilst they may be responsible for cost and programme, engineering assurance is clearly the responsibility of the engineers, who can decline to sign off the project works if they are not satisfied with it.  Fortunately, the standard is in place, hence such instances can be combatted by invoking it, and if necessary escalating the issue. 


There are also competence requirements set for maintenance staff, although these do vary somewhat between disciplines.  There is an industry licencing scheme in place, administered by the IRSE, and this is predominantly focused on signal engineering staff, who have a clear safety critical role.  This is mandatory across both maintenance and new works for signal engineering staff and roles.  There are also licencing categories for telecommunications, but these are not mandatory. This arose largely after the Clapham Junction disaster, hence its focus on signalling.  I do feel it a matter of regret that it was not applied more widely across other disciplines who also have a potential, to a varying degree, to impact on safety. 


Unfortunately, I don't believe this is the case in many other sectors - I am hopeful that other regulated industries have procedures that equal or exceed those in the railway, and maybe, if all those sectors which have the potential to create safety issues, do have such procedures, then we can take assurance from that, but I feel there are many sectors which do not operate such rigorous standards and which still have the potential to impact on safety or the environment, and in particular, in the sector that seems to have provoked a great deal of this debate, that of building services etc., there is, at the very least, the appearance of a lack of regulation, or at the very least, no mandate to demonstrate that all engineering decisions have been taken by people assessed to be suitably competent.   I think Mehmood has rightly flagged up that, until and unless this is addressed, licencing alone is unlikely to have much effect, and whilst I agree that, in order to be fully effective it needs to be mandated in law, there is little point in doing that until and unless the approach taken in all sectors has been pulled in line with one that requires the appropriate use of competent engineers, confirming that competence by mandatory licencing is not going to be of much effect. 


I have to confess to being slightly unsure why Mehmood believes the internet changes this - apologies if I'm missing a point or being a little slow, but I'm struggling to see why that should be so. Are you suggesting that we may be seeing AI take over engineering decisions over automated internet connections Mehmood?