Time for licenced Engineers?

Andy,

spot on, as usual, in both posts. Just to fit my post about indemnity insurance in with yours, that's what i was trying to say - that it ultimately falls to the organisation to take accountability, hence the requirement to select appropriately and to manage competence. In the case of contract workers they are able to mitigate this to some degree by requiring PI and placing the management of competence in the contractor, but then they have to double check that the competence offered is sufficient and relevant. As you say, that is either by conducting something very similar to the C.Eng/I.Eng registration process (I'm not including Eng Tech as I feel it would be unreasonable to place the burden of sign-off on an engineering technician) and that effort is alleviated if the candidate is registered. Incidentally, picking up Andy's other point in here, I describe it as a burden (albeit a reasonable one for a professional engineer) rather than a badge. Naturally, if you do carry that burden and do it well, it's completely reasonable to claim credit, whether you're registered or not. Not everyone is happy to carry that burden, hence it's important to make the distinction as it would be perilous to place that burden on somebody who is not happy to carry it.

But relevance of competence and knowledge of the industry context, the application requirements and the issues of criticality still require confirmation and this is what a system such as the authority to work that I described needs to address. Unfortunately, in less regulated sectors/scenarios, i think this is all too often missing. It wasn't always present in rail, and it took a series of disasters, worst of which was Clapham Junction, to push the industry down that path.

And yes, that risk in Brexit is very worrying.

So I think that, even if the detail was a little uncertain, Mehmood's fundamental point was will made, that getting the approach used by industry/responsible organisations right needs way more action before licencing becomes the central issue in need of attention. - it would be very dangerous to see it as a panacea for all ills until and unless there is suitable regulation (even if it's self regulation) in place for it to plug into.

Andy,

spot on, as usual, in both posts. Just to fit my post about indemnity insurance in with yours, that's what i was trying to say - that it ultimately falls to the organisation to take accountability, hence the requirement to select appropriately and to manage competence. In the case of contract workers they are able to mitigate this to some degree by requiring PI and placing the management of competence in the contractor, but then they have to double check that the competence offered is sufficient and relevant. As you say, that is either by conducting something very similar to the C.Eng/I.Eng registration process (I'm not including Eng Tech as I feel it would be unreasonable to place the burden of sign-off on an engineering technician) and that effort is alleviated if the candidate is registered. Incidentally, picking up Andy's other point in here, I describe it as a burden (albeit a reasonable one for a professional engineer) rather than a badge. Naturally, if you do carry that burden and do it well, it's completely reasonable to claim credit, whether you're registered or not. Not everyone is happy to carry that burden, hence it's important to make the distinction as it would be perilous to place that burden on somebody who is not happy to carry it.

But relevance of competence and knowledge of the industry context, the application requirements and the issues of criticality still require confirmation and this is what a system such as the authority to work that I described needs to address. Unfortunately, in less regulated sectors/scenarios, i think this is all too often missing. It wasn't always present in rail, and it took a series of disasters, worst of which was Clapham Junction, to push the industry down that path.

And yes, that risk in Brexit is very worrying.

So I think that, even if the detail was a little uncertain, Mehmood's fundamental point was will made, that getting the approach used by industry/responsible organisations right needs way more action before licencing becomes the central issue in need of attention. - it would be very dangerous to see it as a panacea for all ills until and unless there is suitable regulation (even if it's self regulation) in place for it to plug into.