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 6102 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.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Roy,

    I wasn't from Tunbridge Wells but now based in Scotland.

    I complained about the use of' 'Engineer' by BT as the Today programme featured a call by BT for more recruits which described the role which was obviously aimed at 'Techs'.

    The same comment could apply to gas fitters being described as 'engineers! 

    As an aside I was a craft apprentice and now a Fellow of the I.Mech.E. and the IEE (I don't use F.I.E.T. as I was elected by the IEE!).

    Jack
  • 0

    Moshe Waserman:

    My wife used to work at a facility that requires a specific number of hours and casework to be handled by licensed professionals, the owners had unlicensed well-trained and educated experienced professionals working full time and a visiting Licensed professional (highly paid) on a part-time basis in order to be in compliance with the state regulations.

    Seemed like a workable compromise for that particular business.


    Moshe W BEET, MCGI, CEng MBCS, MIET



    Sounds like a very good deal for the licenced engineer who was well paid to come in and rubber-stamp work by the people who actually understood what they were doing.

    And it's precisely why so many people are against the idea of licencing.
     

  • 0
    This is a reply to Moshe Waserman's submission. Moshe what a beautifully succinct comment which I think sums up the whole issue neatly, thank you. We need a whole range of engineering people with a whole range of practical and academic capabilities that suit the task that they are employed to do. BUT we need 'Engineers' who are able to see a much larger picture, responsible and committed they will complement the abilities of local staff who are highly capable but perhaps limited by their particular employment to a fairly narrow experience - no matter how good they are. Problems are solved by teamwork mainly but often it is the 'Engineer' with wide experience that makes the break through contribution. These engineers need academic training to have the ability to prove their case. Barnes Wallis solved a wide range of problems by his brilliant 'practical' and 'academic' ability besides having that other great engineering talent - perseverance. 


    As I have said before we have a great engineering community and I am delighted at the responses from my colleagues. Its a hot topic isn't it!
  • 0
    Is co-existence possible?  It seems to be  in many jurisdictions. The devil, of course, is in the details of the definitions and the wording of the statutes.
    Public Engagement
    Engineering Services to the public
    Individual Accountability & Liability

    Not permitted by statute

    Protected Titles for

    “Licensed Engineer”/
    “Accredited Engineer”/
    “Registered Engineer”
    “Chartered Engineer”

    Private Employment
    /Industry exemption/
    Product exemption
    Employer Accountability & Liability


    Unprotected titles for
    “Engineer”
    “Certified Engineer”

     

    Allowed by statute

     

    Unregulated Professional
    Defined by industry or certified in a specific discipline by 3rd party organisation


    Regulated Professional


    Legally Defined & Protected


  • 0
    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  

  • 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.

  • 0
    Adoption of new technologies takes time and the extent of adoption varies across use cases. It's typical for new technologies to have failures during maturation or be applied in some unanticipated way as they mature and evolve.

    For those interested to continue the discussion, see my earlier discussion post:

  • 0
    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. 


  • 0
    Roy,

    Well said! I can't see that the advertising of Trainee Engineer opportunities can have any detrimental effect on the profession as a whole. It is also potentially accurate even by the narrow definition of the 'snobbish', as with 3,000 openings it is quite likely that some will progress to CEng. I think you are right in your last paragraph that we need to demonstrate unity. However to demonstrate unity we need to have some compromise, and that can be notoriously difficult (just look at the Brexit discussions in parliament). The big problem with negotiation and compromise is everyone needs to participate and if parliament has trouble with only 650ish people trying to find a compromise, how are we going to manage with hundreds of thousands. Though if we don't try, we certainly won't solve the problem.

    Alasdair
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Twelve month's training to become a BT "Engineer". It doesn't bear thinking about!

    As I previously found when I pointed out the anomaly the response was "that old chestnut". It really is an uphill struggle which I despair of ever winning.

Community Rules & Guidelines