Time for licenced Engineers?

Thanks Alasdair, that's exactly what I had in mind when mentioning EngTech - similarly my usual example of being reassured if validation tests are carried out and signed off by an EngTech, even though the tests were specified by an IEng. The most impressive safety case often relies in the end on tests being carried out competently "to the book".

 

Ahh..the wonderful day when every engineering signature we see is backed up by the appropriate level of professional registration 

Andy,  To broaden the scope of your comments on RAIB, I believe the way the RAIB is set up is very much along the lines of the MAIB (Marine Accident Investigation Branch) as everything you have said about the RAIB is also applicable to the MAIB. The only drawback with the MAIB (I can't speak for the RAIB) is that they have KPIs which include the number of recommendations made, so they sometimes seem to be including recommendations just for the sake of meeting their KPIs.

Alasdair

Reminds me of the time in a past company when I got a phone call from a board meeting: "we've just realised we've got no KPIs for Engineering, you need to give us something right now that you can be measured on". (I suggested we thought about what would be useful to measure rather than just having KPIs to be seen to have KPIs, but that was seen as a silly suggestion.) One suggestion was that we should measure how many Engineering Change Records we had implemented each week, when I asked whether the right answer would be a high number (because we were doing lots of work)  or a low number (because we had made very few mistakes) the phone finally went silent and I could get back on with some work...


KPIs can be useful, but too many business implement the wrong KPIs, and then believe they are telling them something useful - right until the business goes bust.


Sorry, way off topic  But it did amuse me.


RAIB probably are measured on the number of their recommendations, but I do still like their reports. The report on the Croydon Tram accident https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a2a6289ed915d458e4214ba/R182017_181024_Sandilands_v2.pdf  I'd recommend to anyone entering the world of safety engineering as an exemplar of quite how many different contributory factors can lead to a horrific and avoidable accident. I was thinking about this when writing my earlier post: when the report was first released the press picked up on "the driver fell asleep" - the grossest of oversimplifications. What was interesting, in the context of this thread, is that despite the numerous engineering issues that related to the root causes and severity for this incident the only competence recommendation (that I can see at a brief re-read) relates to the competence of the managers supervising drivers to ensure they are managing workload and rest periods to best practice. So should managers be licensed?


Cheers,


Andy

Firstly, a like didn't seem anything like enough for Roy B's post - I always expect a good and interesting view from Roy, but I think this one exceeds even his norm for useful and interesting information!


Secondly, Alasdair, i think I maybe didn't make myself clear enough. I was not saying that an Engineering Tech can't undertake sign-off if their competence covers it, but that it is unreasonable for an organisation to place the responsibility for sign off on an Engineering Tech (i.e. to make it a requirement for them to do so) - my point being that organizations can and do place the responsibility for sign off on I.Eng or C.Eng (or an equivalent in their own general competence assessments, given my point was that one or the other is required, registration being only one way to satisfy that) and that is reasonable and to be expected if you are operating at that level, but it would be unreasonable for them to place that responsibility on an eng tech.  Let's not forget the maxim "you can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility". 


It may well be that the person who has reasonably been required to take responsibility for sign off delegates the task of assessing suitability for sign off of an engineering solution to an engineering tech (or indeed any other suitably competent person), but it would be unreasonable to expect them to be accountable for that sign off, hence they still have to satisfy themselves that the assessment is suitable and sufficient and provide the sign off so that the accountability sits at their level, not the Eng Tech.


Indeed, this is an excellent development opportunity and could be used as evidence to submit in an application to upgrade registration level.


As a little side-track anecdote as an analogy, when i made the ridiculously (for me) bad career choice on first leaving school of entering accountancy, within a year as Articled Clerk, I reached the point where I and my fellow Articled Clerks did all of the work of preparing accounts and producing audit reports, which then went through to the Partners (Chartered Accountants) for sign off, and the meeting to present accounts to the client. From our perception it seemed grossly unfair that we clerks on a Bob Cratchett level pittance (really, this was the '70''s - £8pw which was way below what we would now call the minimum wage) did all the work whilst these Partners sat in their plush offices, drove their luxury cars, and were wined and dined by clients after only signing on the dotted line of the work done by us. But I now wonder how we would have reacted if somebody had offered us the opportunity to do the sign off but then explained the accountability implications of doing so! Yes, undoubtedly there were elements of Chartership being a badge, a status symbol and a one-off 'prize' with no subsequent requirement to satisfy anybody as to ongoing competence or CPD, but as I say, this was the '70's. 


Which leads me to answer another point raised - if there is any value to be gained by pursuing a licensing scheme it most definitely should be focused on attaining suitable and sufficient engineering standard of practice, not to support status or remuneration aspirations. Yes, it's right to renumerate appropriately, but that should arise from worth, not from the award of a licence.

Roy Bowdler:

De-facto an academic semester of calculus is held to have more value than many thousands of hours of relevant vocational practice. 


------------------


Many Engineers are leveraging engineering calculations in their design process. 

The math is needed to solve the challenges in leveraging engineering knowledge in product design.

Many times calculations are the heart of engineering information. Engineers and their team must be able to find, reuse, and share this important intellectual property.


While there ate tools to be used such as Mathcad and Engineering Notebook etc the fact is that Engineers do use maths and sciences and this is why part of the licensing requirements in the US is written exams in order to cover calculations and also graduation from programs that cover the important math for the engineers.

 

Moshe W  BEET, MCGI, CEng MBCS, MIET

Roy (Pemberton),

With your more detailed explanation of what you meant I think I can follow and can agree with what I think you mean (which is not quite as you say). My understanding would be that the organisation can place the responsibility for sign of on a contract on an Eng Tech (assuming he/she has the requisite experience and knowledge for that project) but the decision on what level the authority can be delegated to is made by a higher level of authority within the organisation.

Alasdair

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.             

       

Whilst I agree the licencing of professional engineers is required I have to say we have been here before. Have look at the Finniston Report and review the IEE Secretary Dr. George Gainsborough's obituary (https://www.electricalreview.co.uk/news-mm/5976-118100) and his valuable contribution in this field. He held public consultations throughout the U.K. and generated a massive amount of support for his proposals. Unfortunately quashed the politics of the time, as referred to an article in Engineering News some time ago.

I once contacted the BBC Today Programme to complain about BT technicians being called engineers as a policy by BT. The Producer of the programme groaned and said "that old chestnut"!