This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Time for licenced Engineers?

Former Community Member over 7 years ago

As a result of a discussion within a Linkedin group. I had originally raised the issue of the EC UK or IET legally licencing Engineers and had agreed to bring this discussion from Linkedin to the IET members in an appropriate community for a frank and open debate.

The circumstances surrounding this discussion was the tragedy of Grenfell Towers and my personal observation that some of the alleged decision makers, had no technical qualifications to make decisions on public safety. I am wondering how far the inquiry will go to reveal that issue.

As I currently work in Canada we do have an act of law governing the conduct of its licenced Engineers and this makes the Engineer have some higher degree of responsibility for public safety.

Questions

1) Given the impact of Grenfell, does EC(UK) have to now start considering licencing? What are the perceived hurdles to achieve this?

2) If not. What can we do within our profession to improve pubic safety with an objective to prevent another 'Grenfell' ?

I am Interested to get IET members responses.

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

I would certainly accept the proposition that mathematics is an important element underpinning the competence of many engineering and technology professionals. For a minority some elements are an essential pillar of their practice and that fewer still regularly deploy the most complex forms. I haven’t carried out a systematic study, but I would consider this a reasonable hypotheses based on observing and evaluating many such professionals over the years. This is an academic study of the issue, there may be more? http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/4766/1/PhD%20THESIS%20-%20VOLUME%201-%20Eileen%20Goold.pdf

I am personally no longer fluent in more than basic mathematics. I excelled at 13, went “off the rails” somewhat, but did very well by 18 in ONC which included some calculus (this is an exemplifying qualification for Eng Tech). Continuing to HNC equipped with a newly available scientific calculator, I began to find some of the theory less relevant, since I already seemed to have a better grasp than experienced and successful colleagues. I had what seemed to be a reliable career ahead of me in O&M in what at the time was considered to be “at the forefront of technology”. Perhaps in a Design led or R&D focussed environment this might have been different?

Fast forward ten years and I had progressed (perhaps fortuitously) to lead a department in one of my major national organisation’s technical training establishments, becoming after some downsizing the most responsible person in that area. There were a comprehensive range of competence based standards that governed training and underpinned decisions about “who was competent to do what”. As much of this infrastructure and expertise was reduced (an excess overhead) some of the standards became adopted as the basis for some National Vocational Qualifications, with skills training (including appropriate underpinning knowledge and understanding) mostly contracted out, either to publicly operated colleges or specialist businesses.

All of what I have described was largely “below the radar” of “more prestigious” academics. Although from 1992 UK Polytechnics, who combined some of the attributes of an advanced college, often with strong engineering teaching capability to graduate and post-graduate level, became “Universities”. Naturally, given the environment they found, some sought to compete with longer established universities for academic prestige and league table position. This trend has probably exacerbated, in engineering and technology at least, the “academic versus vocational divide”?

As I highlighted in my previous post the “rites of passage” for an academic engineer involve becoming as a teenager an outstanding student of mathematics and maths based science. Being suitably prepared by this, understanding of engineering principles can be gained using the language of complex mathematics as the medium of instruction. Therefore many academic textbooks adopt this approach, rendering themselves effectively inaccessible to someone not fluent in that particular language. If our frame of reference is that; only those demonstrating such mathematical fluency should be defined as “Engineers” then academics can make that choice. However, this renders the overwhelming majority of professional practitioners of engineering and technology “Technologists” or “Technicians”, including many of those who once completed the rite of passage, but haven’t needed most of it since. Unfortunately both they and their employers consider themselves "Engineers" often Chartered Engineers.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable that those with appropriate aptitude should have academically stretching pathways available to them. "Scientist Eengineers", should rightly be the equals of other forms of scientist and held in the highest esteem. However, this is a discussion about “licensing”, which implies that a regulatory body should permit certain people to do specific things or advertise themselves as competent to do so, whereas others should not be permitted. The academic frame of reference may be appropriate to some circumstances, but of limited relevance to most. It is debateable whether having completed a “rite of passage” involving complex maths helps to develop desirable attributes. Just like the value of shiny boots, pressed uniforms and foot drill are considered essential to develop a good fighting soldier. Traditions exist and strong opinions may be offered, but to restrain someone’s right to legitimately offer their services as an “engineer”, requires a robust public interest justification and a consensus about “fair play”. It also seems likely to provide plenty of work for lawyers.

In the UK, the actions of Engineering Council have created a compromise between academics and practitioners around Chartered Engineer. Those who wish to emphasise the academic element have the masters level benchmark and those who wish to emphasise competence in practice can emphasise the UK-SPEC competences. It seems that in the US some state regulatory commissions organise their own theory examinations, rather than accept university assessments and one UK institution also conducts its own examination.

A theory test can’t prove competence in practice, although it might contribute useful evidence. Actual work isn’t artificially structured to fit an academic syllabus, or for that matter neatly divided to fit into a generic competency framework. What the IET does, is an evolving attempt to provide an holistic approach at an accessible cost, using the expertise of its members given voluntarily. Other institutions offer their own interpretation of Engineering Council Regulations using the wherewithal that they have. Therefore, there is significant variability, just like university degrees, but with overarching supervision to maintain minimum standards and some measure of consistency.

Our problem with licensing or even achieving mass voluntary engagement is that most Engineering and Technology work is not carried by, or under the direct supervision of, those who we currently define as Chartered Engineers,who are held in our esteem as “the best”, it is carried out by “the rest”. That includes in appropriate circumstances a craftsperson falling short of our Technician definition and a few scientists at the other end of a spectrum.

Even if those holding Chartered Engineer recognition were suitably qualified and experienced to validate standards of practice, which some are; how would this work in practice? Where something like this does take place, it seems mainly to involve checking and signing off potentially risky designs. In an large organisational context, perhaps acting on behalf of an Executive Director, often an accountant by background, but in many sectors an earlier in career Apprentice/Technician/Engineer who wasn’t valued by PEIs.

If we were to introduce licensing then we would need to create new infrastructure, perhaps consisting of “industry boards” with a suitably broad range of representatives. Since the current Engineering Council proposition has evolved to serve effectively only a small fraction of the space, between practically orientated craft work and scientific inquiry.

I wouldn’t in principle be opposed to something that reaches the places that Engineering Council/Washington Accord doesn’t, but a return on investment case could be difficult to make. Perhaps UK government attempts to revitalise apprenticeships, engaging employers to create models with graduate and post-graduate level output benchmarks will begin to redress the balance, allowing The IET and others to offer a more attractive proposition for engagement in voluntary regulation? Some changes of attitudes and sensible evolution could reduce the snobbery that is felt by so many to permeate our current system? I’m not talking about those who are barely aware of what the proposition is, or feel that they don’t have a need, but senior and influential people who have been exposed to and thought about these issues.

I wrote this before seeing Philip’s thoughtful post, perhaps even too thoughtful for me but I think that I agree.

There was a time when all we seemed to get in some of these threads was “knock about” and angry disgruntlement.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

I would certainly accept the proposition that mathematics is an important element underpinning the competence of many engineering and technology professionals. For a minority some elements are an essential pillar of their practice and that fewer still regularly deploy the most complex forms. I haven’t carried out a systematic study, but I would consider this a reasonable hypotheses based on observing and evaluating many such professionals over the years. This is an academic study of the issue, there may be more? http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/4766/1/PhD%20THESIS%20-%20VOLUME%201-%20Eileen%20Goold.pdf

I am personally no longer fluent in more than basic mathematics. I excelled at 13, went “off the rails” somewhat, but did very well by 18 in ONC which included some calculus (this is an exemplifying qualification for Eng Tech). Continuing to HNC equipped with a newly available scientific calculator, I began to find some of the theory less relevant, since I already seemed to have a better grasp than experienced and successful colleagues. I had what seemed to be a reliable career ahead of me in O&M in what at the time was considered to be “at the forefront of technology”. Perhaps in a Design led or R&D focussed environment this might have been different?

Fast forward ten years and I had progressed (perhaps fortuitously) to lead a department in one of my major national organisation’s technical training establishments, becoming after some downsizing the most responsible person in that area. There were a comprehensive range of competence based standards that governed training and underpinned decisions about “who was competent to do what”. As much of this infrastructure and expertise was reduced (an excess overhead) some of the standards became adopted as the basis for some National Vocational Qualifications, with skills training (including appropriate underpinning knowledge and understanding) mostly contracted out, either to publicly operated colleges or specialist businesses.

All of what I have described was largely “below the radar” of “more prestigious” academics. Although from 1992 UK Polytechnics, who combined some of the attributes of an advanced college, often with strong engineering teaching capability to graduate and post-graduate level, became “Universities”. Naturally, given the environment they found, some sought to compete with longer established universities for academic prestige and league table position. This trend has probably exacerbated, in engineering and technology at least, the “academic versus vocational divide”?

As I highlighted in my previous post the “rites of passage” for an academic engineer involve becoming as a teenager an outstanding student of mathematics and maths based science. Being suitably prepared by this, understanding of engineering principles can be gained using the language of complex mathematics as the medium of instruction. Therefore many academic textbooks adopt this approach, rendering themselves effectively inaccessible to someone not fluent in that particular language. If our frame of reference is that; only those demonstrating such mathematical fluency should be defined as “Engineers” then academics can make that choice. However, this renders the overwhelming majority of professional practitioners of engineering and technology “Technologists” or “Technicians”, including many of those who once completed the rite of passage, but haven’t needed most of it since. Unfortunately both they and their employers consider themselves "Engineers" often Chartered Engineers.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable that those with appropriate aptitude should have academically stretching pathways available to them. "Scientist Eengineers", should rightly be the equals of other forms of scientist and held in the highest esteem. However, this is a discussion about “licensing”, which implies that a regulatory body should permit certain people to do specific things or advertise themselves as competent to do so, whereas others should not be permitted. The academic frame of reference may be appropriate to some circumstances, but of limited relevance to most. It is debateable whether having completed a “rite of passage” involving complex maths helps to develop desirable attributes. Just like the value of shiny boots, pressed uniforms and foot drill are considered essential to develop a good fighting soldier. Traditions exist and strong opinions may be offered, but to restrain someone’s right to legitimately offer their services as an “engineer”, requires a robust public interest justification and a consensus about “fair play”. It also seems likely to provide plenty of work for lawyers.

In the UK, the actions of Engineering Council have created a compromise between academics and practitioners around Chartered Engineer. Those who wish to emphasise the academic element have the masters level benchmark and those who wish to emphasise competence in practice can emphasise the UK-SPEC competences. It seems that in the US some state regulatory commissions organise their own theory examinations, rather than accept university assessments and one UK institution also conducts its own examination.

A theory test can’t prove competence in practice, although it might contribute useful evidence. Actual work isn’t artificially structured to fit an academic syllabus, or for that matter neatly divided to fit into a generic competency framework. What the IET does, is an evolving attempt to provide an holistic approach at an accessible cost, using the expertise of its members given voluntarily. Other institutions offer their own interpretation of Engineering Council Regulations using the wherewithal that they have. Therefore, there is significant variability, just like university degrees, but with overarching supervision to maintain minimum standards and some measure of consistency.

Our problem with licensing or even achieving mass voluntary engagement is that most Engineering and Technology work is not carried by, or under the direct supervision of, those who we currently define as Chartered Engineers,who are held in our esteem as “the best”, it is carried out by “the rest”. That includes in appropriate circumstances a craftsperson falling short of our Technician definition and a few scientists at the other end of a spectrum.

Even if those holding Chartered Engineer recognition were suitably qualified and experienced to validate standards of practice, which some are; how would this work in practice? Where something like this does take place, it seems mainly to involve checking and signing off potentially risky designs. In an large organisational context, perhaps acting on behalf of an Executive Director, often an accountant by background, but in many sectors an earlier in career Apprentice/Technician/Engineer who wasn’t valued by PEIs.

If we were to introduce licensing then we would need to create new infrastructure, perhaps consisting of “industry boards” with a suitably broad range of representatives. Since the current Engineering Council proposition has evolved to serve effectively only a small fraction of the space, between practically orientated craft work and scientific inquiry.

I wouldn’t in principle be opposed to something that reaches the places that Engineering Council/Washington Accord doesn’t, but a return on investment case could be difficult to make. Perhaps UK government attempts to revitalise apprenticeships, engaging employers to create models with graduate and post-graduate level output benchmarks will begin to redress the balance, allowing The IET and others to offer a more attractive proposition for engagement in voluntary regulation? Some changes of attitudes and sensible evolution could reduce the snobbery that is felt by so many to permeate our current system? I’m not talking about those who are barely aware of what the proposition is, or feel that they don’t have a need, but senior and influential people who have been exposed to and thought about these issues.

I wrote this before seeing Philip’s thoughtful post, perhaps even too thoughtful for me but I think that I agree.

There was a time when all we seemed to get in some of these threads was “knock about” and angry disgruntlement.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Time for licenced Engineers?

Community Rules & Guidelines