Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 84 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 6124 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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
Former Community Member
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

    David McQuiggan:
    Hopefully this post is not too tangential, but is regulation by statute and licensure the only option? Could emerging technologies and market forces provide an answer?  Consider these two interesting and thought-provoking papers:



    1. Blockchain Technology: Implications and Opportunities For Professional Engineers  - National Society of Professional Engineers; 2015-2016 FinTech Task Force; July 2016 Daniel R. Robles, P.E., Chairman Keith Beatty, P.E. William Begg, P.E. John Conway, P.E. David D’Amico, P.E., F.NSPE Mark Davy, P.E., F.NSPE, Rick Ensz, P.E. John Evangelisti, P.E. Bart Hogan, P.E. Bradley Layton, Ph.D., P.E. Tom Maheady, P.E., F.NSPE Robert Uddin, P.E. Chad Williams, P.E.


    Also check out the emergence of cryptographic tokens of value like Quant and platforms like CoEngineers.io  


     




    The articles and their references, and some light reading about the many failed (stolen etc) blockchains I don't think actually solves the problems they state, nor the problems we think we have.


    That said, the articles do help give an alternate frame of reference to consider how the various chains/networks of trust are generated and maintained, and the role of the licencing/registration bodies in the maintenance of the infrastructure that supports the trust networks.


    The value of the registrations is not at the margins but at the centres of each category. The margin lines are 'half way up a hill', where the value is near the summit. In some cases it can be a broad round summit with indistinct top, and others a sharp peak. It's not reaching the summit that matters, but getting out from the lowlands and getting well past 'half way'.


    Often we are arguing about the division line, when we should be discussing how we recognise the summit zone and map the terrain. On that basis the Blockchain, as with most other pure technical solutions, won't solve the engineering trust issue.


    And people are (by definition) shallow/stupid in their application of their limited time and brain power relative to the bigger pictures, especially when it comes to critical personal problems (cue lawyers and medics). Good engineering keeps people happy in their ignorance.


    Summary: the papers help compare and contrast the perceived hierarchies of the value of engineers/engineering, and how such value is recorded and maintained.

Reply
  • 0

    David McQuiggan:
    Hopefully this post is not too tangential, but is regulation by statute and licensure the only option? Could emerging technologies and market forces provide an answer?  Consider these two interesting and thought-provoking papers:



    1. Blockchain Technology: Implications and Opportunities For Professional Engineers  - National Society of Professional Engineers; 2015-2016 FinTech Task Force; July 2016 Daniel R. Robles, P.E., Chairman Keith Beatty, P.E. William Begg, P.E. John Conway, P.E. David D’Amico, P.E., F.NSPE Mark Davy, P.E., F.NSPE, Rick Ensz, P.E. John Evangelisti, P.E. Bart Hogan, P.E. Bradley Layton, Ph.D., P.E. Tom Maheady, P.E., F.NSPE Robert Uddin, P.E. Chad Williams, P.E.


    Also check out the emergence of cryptographic tokens of value like Quant and platforms like CoEngineers.io  


     




    The articles and their references, and some light reading about the many failed (stolen etc) blockchains I don't think actually solves the problems they state, nor the problems we think we have.


    That said, the articles do help give an alternate frame of reference to consider how the various chains/networks of trust are generated and maintained, and the role of the licencing/registration bodies in the maintenance of the infrastructure that supports the trust networks.


    The value of the registrations is not at the margins but at the centres of each category. The margin lines are 'half way up a hill', where the value is near the summit. In some cases it can be a broad round summit with indistinct top, and others a sharp peak. It's not reaching the summit that matters, but getting out from the lowlands and getting well past 'half way'.


    Often we are arguing about the division line, when we should be discussing how we recognise the summit zone and map the terrain. On that basis the Blockchain, as with most other pure technical solutions, won't solve the engineering trust issue.


    And people are (by definition) shallow/stupid in their application of their limited time and brain power relative to the bigger pictures, especially when it comes to critical personal problems (cue lawyers and medics). Good engineering keeps people happy in their ignorance.


    Summary: the papers help compare and contrast the perceived hierarchies of the value of engineers/engineering, and how such value is recorded and maintained.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines