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

It seems that no one has chosen to pick up on David’s angle, so I’m going to return to Jack’s complaint to the BBC “about BT misusing the term engineer”. This became particularly topical when I saw this article in our own publication this morning https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/01/openreach-hiring-3-000-new-trainee-engineers-to-boost-full-fibre-rollout/ Naturally this led me to explore a little further which took me to this https://www.btplc.com/Careercentre/careersatbt/openreach/Engineers/index.htm

In the arguments that I have seen for licensing, this material could be deemed “illegal” and the organisation forced to use a different word than “engineer”. There are a range of other sectors where the term “engineer” is commonly used to describe someone who would fall short of the threshold for recognition as an Engineering Technician under UK-SPEC.I understand how this may be irritating to university educated engineers, but is it perhaps the Technician with more training and a higher level of qualification, who might have more grounds to feel aggrieved, since the risk of confusion is far greater, than with a “managing” or “consulting” engineer?

To justify legal intervention there must be a risk of harm, either physical or of prospective customers being misled. What is being described here doesn’t present such risks. The company is offering a significant level of training, a salary similar to that of many early career graduates and for those who demonstrate potential, further opportunities to progress.A proportion of these recruits will likely go on to become more technically specialised, or to blend technical understanding with management in ways that would be recognised by professional bodies and rewarded similarly to those who attended university to prepare for their career. Customers should also receive the service that they pay for, delivered by people who are competent to carry out their work, in terms of both hard (technical) and soft (personal) attributes.

The fact that others who have chosen to use the title “Engineer” or any semantic variation such as “Technologist” or “Technician” feel irritated, resentful or snobbish is no grounds for legislation. If “Telecoms Field Operatives” were to pass themselves off to householders as a Plumbers, Electricians or Gas Fitters then a risk could arise, so regulations cover this.In the world of employment generally, employers are responsible for the competence of their employees and there is a very high likelihood of prosecution if anyone is physically harmed through lack of diligence. https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/telecoms-field-operative/

An important purpose of the IET is to debate professional standards and forms of recognition. I have previously alluded to what I consider to be a very weak argument from some Chartered Engineers demanding privilege over others, including those with equal if not greater competence to themselves, often justified by reference to the theoretical content of their undergraduate degree course.

Coming as I do from an socially responsible employer’s perspective; where the needs of a business require someone to apply graduate/post graduate levels of thinking, then I have to find someone to hire, or develop the necessary attributes in an existing employee. I may require a detailed specialist or a strategist. Many CEng are technical experts in a domain, some are strategists and some just completed a degree course and training scheme, or passed a theory examination many years ago. The designation is a useful starting reference point but no more. The subsidiary designations of IEng and Eng Tech, may offer potential recruits a slight advantage (in my eyes at least), but more often than not just suggests “ex-service”, which may be a good thing anyway. Otherwise holders are few and far between. So rare in some sectors as to be effectively extinct and never seen by younger HR practitioners, except perhaps in a “text book”.

There are perfectly good arguments to be had about how our professional recognition proposition can add maximum value to members/prospective members and employers. There are also many examples in practice of employers, regulators and others valuing registration, as an element of due diligence in recruitment, an aid to career development, or as a source of competitive capital in the marketplace. On balance as I have explained, I would take the view, that many of the arguments put have come from a perspective of some “engineers” seeking advantageous treatment or enhanced status, often at the expense of, or by seeking to diminish others. Divisiveness and one-upmanship only subtracts from any positive arguments.

It seems that in those jurisdictions where some people are privileged, on the whole they are designated to have responsible oversight for potentially risky forms of engineering. Most employers have a similar internal system, but have more freedom of choice about who they choose to designate as their responsible person (s). Some sectors where risks are higher have further levels of external oversight. The majority of engineering activities are covered by codes and standards ,which require judgement and interpretation rather than “first principles” R&D work. For example, for many engineers such as those in major contracting, managing commercial risk can be “life and death” in terms of ongoing employment, as many corporate bankruptcies can testify. However, this is not seen as “pure” engineering so is held in low regard by many Chartered Engineers, relative to engineering science and design, only touched upon very briefly in most accredited degree courses, "someone else's job!".

Much of the debate seems to be about trust and who get what slice of the pie. Too much regulation creates red-tape and uncompetitive performance, too little excessive risk. https://ipa.org.au/red-tape-project https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/engineering/ontario-government-cuts-red-tape-keeps-industrial-exception/1003402812/ https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/01/23/inenglish/1390480478_080001.html

If we can demonstrate unity, a focus on competence and mutual respect, then we might persuade employers and others to use terminology more to our liking. In the meantime who can fairly criticise an organisation for advertising career opportunities in a way that they judge to be attractive and that is normalised in the marketplace, “the engineer will call”. This organisation after all employs a fall range of skilled technical professionals including “Chartered Engineers” which is a protected title.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

It seems that no one has chosen to pick up on David’s angle, so I’m going to return to Jack’s complaint to the BBC “about BT misusing the term engineer”. This became particularly topical when I saw this article in our own publication this morning https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/01/openreach-hiring-3-000-new-trainee-engineers-to-boost-full-fibre-rollout/ Naturally this led me to explore a little further which took me to this https://www.btplc.com/Careercentre/careersatbt/openreach/Engineers/index.htm

In the arguments that I have seen for licensing, this material could be deemed “illegal” and the organisation forced to use a different word than “engineer”. There are a range of other sectors where the term “engineer” is commonly used to describe someone who would fall short of the threshold for recognition as an Engineering Technician under UK-SPEC.I understand how this may be irritating to university educated engineers, but is it perhaps the Technician with more training and a higher level of qualification, who might have more grounds to feel aggrieved, since the risk of confusion is far greater, than with a “managing” or “consulting” engineer?

To justify legal intervention there must be a risk of harm, either physical or of prospective customers being misled. What is being described here doesn’t present such risks. The company is offering a significant level of training, a salary similar to that of many early career graduates and for those who demonstrate potential, further opportunities to progress.A proportion of these recruits will likely go on to become more technically specialised, or to blend technical understanding with management in ways that would be recognised by professional bodies and rewarded similarly to those who attended university to prepare for their career. Customers should also receive the service that they pay for, delivered by people who are competent to carry out their work, in terms of both hard (technical) and soft (personal) attributes.

The fact that others who have chosen to use the title “Engineer” or any semantic variation such as “Technologist” or “Technician” feel irritated, resentful or snobbish is no grounds for legislation. If “Telecoms Field Operatives” were to pass themselves off to householders as a Plumbers, Electricians or Gas Fitters then a risk could arise, so regulations cover this.In the world of employment generally, employers are responsible for the competence of their employees and there is a very high likelihood of prosecution if anyone is physically harmed through lack of diligence. https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/telecoms-field-operative/

An important purpose of the IET is to debate professional standards and forms of recognition. I have previously alluded to what I consider to be a very weak argument from some Chartered Engineers demanding privilege over others, including those with equal if not greater competence to themselves, often justified by reference to the theoretical content of their undergraduate degree course.

Coming as I do from an socially responsible employer’s perspective; where the needs of a business require someone to apply graduate/post graduate levels of thinking, then I have to find someone to hire, or develop the necessary attributes in an existing employee. I may require a detailed specialist or a strategist. Many CEng are technical experts in a domain, some are strategists and some just completed a degree course and training scheme, or passed a theory examination many years ago. The designation is a useful starting reference point but no more. The subsidiary designations of IEng and Eng Tech, may offer potential recruits a slight advantage (in my eyes at least), but more often than not just suggests “ex-service”, which may be a good thing anyway. Otherwise holders are few and far between. So rare in some sectors as to be effectively extinct and never seen by younger HR practitioners, except perhaps in a “text book”.

There are perfectly good arguments to be had about how our professional recognition proposition can add maximum value to members/prospective members and employers. There are also many examples in practice of employers, regulators and others valuing registration, as an element of due diligence in recruitment, an aid to career development, or as a source of competitive capital in the marketplace. On balance as I have explained, I would take the view, that many of the arguments put have come from a perspective of some “engineers” seeking advantageous treatment or enhanced status, often at the expense of, or by seeking to diminish others. Divisiveness and one-upmanship only subtracts from any positive arguments.

It seems that in those jurisdictions where some people are privileged, on the whole they are designated to have responsible oversight for potentially risky forms of engineering. Most employers have a similar internal system, but have more freedom of choice about who they choose to designate as their responsible person (s). Some sectors where risks are higher have further levels of external oversight. The majority of engineering activities are covered by codes and standards ,which require judgement and interpretation rather than “first principles” R&D work. For example, for many engineers such as those in major contracting, managing commercial risk can be “life and death” in terms of ongoing employment, as many corporate bankruptcies can testify. However, this is not seen as “pure” engineering so is held in low regard by many Chartered Engineers, relative to engineering science and design, only touched upon very briefly in most accredited degree courses, "someone else's job!".

Much of the debate seems to be about trust and who get what slice of the pie. Too much regulation creates red-tape and uncompetitive performance, too little excessive risk. https://ipa.org.au/red-tape-project https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/engineering/ontario-government-cuts-red-tape-keeps-industrial-exception/1003402812/ https://elpais.com/elpais/2014/01/23/inenglish/1390480478_080001.html

If we can demonstrate unity, a focus on competence and mutual respect, then we might persuade employers and others to use terminology more to our liking. In the meantime who can fairly criticise an organisation for advertising career opportunities in a way that they judge to be attractive and that is normalised in the marketplace, “the engineer will call”. This organisation after all employs a fall range of skilled technical professionals including “Chartered Engineers” which is a protected title.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Time for licenced Engineers?

Community Rules & Guidelines