I could be really naughty and suggest that a "registered engineer" who's registered because they will "always follow the rule book and only the rule book" isn't really an engineer at all, they're a technician. But of course I wouldn't want to suggest that ?
“Engineering Technician”, “Technologist”, “Technician Engineer”, “Incorporated Engineer”, “Chartered Engineer” Have all been codified by regulators , although “Chartered Engineering Technologist” wasn’t ultimately adopted in the UK twenty years ago, it was discussed at Engineering Council. Other bodies have codified “Registered Engineer” (now owned by Engineering Council) and more recently “Chartered Building Engineer”. There are many other forms of recognition for expertise and professionalism, many with a “Chartered” version, which suggests that the holder has graduate/post graduate attributes.
I’m personally quite comfortable with the principal that a “Technician” will primarily rely on implementing that which is clearly codified. In doing so, they will often demonstrate practical initiative and originality to deliver results effectively. Experienced Technicians are typically highly expert in specific areas of activity, with essential practical “nous”, which many engineers from a more academic background may lack. We have over recent decades absorbed into the description of a “Technician” the role of a skilled Craftsperson or Tradesperson who may be towards the more practical end of the quite broad span of Technician practice. Technicians in some areas (eg Science) are often university graduates.
I have strongly opposed any suggestion that a “Technician” should be seen as “lower”, or as an “inferior” form of “Engineer”. I was happy to describe myself as a Technician (including in my passport) although I didn’t register because in the academic frame of reference I seemed “over-qualified” (with an HNC) so I went towards “Technician Engineer” instead, although that changed to “Incorporated Engineer”. In that capacity , I was informed by my Professional Institution and Engineering Council that I was “different but equally valuable” , although within a few years I migrated away from an engineering role into a form of management. It is sad that certain elements of the Chartered Engineer community resented the idea of others being described as “equally valuable” and once the Institution of Incorporated Engineers (4th largest PEI) was no longer represented at Engineering Council, this important principle was throw out of the window.
I have posted the material below before in the context of an earlier thread. These are the thoughts that a distinguished Professor (CEng) sent to me in 2011, not intending for them to be published in this form. They have however guided my thinking on the issue.
I have always thought of the categories of registration as related to different sets of skills each deserving recognition and status. An Incorporated Engineer I would expect to be knowledgeable about specific engineering products or services, processes and machinery and able to explain things about them to people within his or her engineering organisation; I would expect them to be “streetwise” and able to supervise others confidently. An engineering or ICT technician I would expect to be a proficient user of particular tools, have patience and be thoroughly knowledgeable about the operation of a particular process or machine. A Chartered Engineer should have to be able at justifying engineering decisions to anyone especially themselves, be prepared to deliberate and research, set out an argument and work confidently in unfamiliar situations.
Because the skills required are different, anyone in one category does not automatically have the skills for another. Thus movement in any direction requires the honing of unrehearsed skills or their acquisition. Progress for an individual can be in any direction! It means Incorporated Engineers are not apprentice Chartered Engineers and to see them as such is to remove an important distinction. Nevertheless we should recognise that a competent Incorporated Engineer can through education and experience gain the skills of a Chartered Engineer so being an Incorporated Engineer is not a disqualification for later registration as a Chartered Engineer. Similarly being a Chartered Engineer is not a disqualification for becoming, with appropriate skill development, an Engineering Technician.
It is the case that intellectual skills of deliberation and argumentation of a Chartered Engineer demand a longer time than the intellectual skills of an Engineering technician, however the technician has to develop “know how” for which an academic setting is not necessarily appropriate. And it is the case that there are some commonalities in the intellectual skill development of all categories but at some point they each go in a different direction to develop different portfolios.
We should be careful of the metaphors we use: words like “level” imply a hierarchy, “grade (as in “registration grade” ) implies a scale, “class” (at least for the English) implies a hierarchy, “progress” and “progressive” imply a forward movement and hence going the other way is backward!
I could be really naughty and suggest that a "registered engineer" who's registered because they will "always follow the rule book and only the rule book" isn't really an engineer at all, they're a technician. But of course I wouldn't want to suggest that ?
“Engineering Technician”, “Technologist”, “Technician Engineer”, “Incorporated Engineer”, “Chartered Engineer” Have all been codified by regulators , although “Chartered Engineering Technologist” wasn’t ultimately adopted in the UK twenty years ago, it was discussed at Engineering Council. Other bodies have codified “Registered Engineer” (now owned by Engineering Council) and more recently “Chartered Building Engineer”. There are many other forms of recognition for expertise and professionalism, many with a “Chartered” version, which suggests that the holder has graduate/post graduate attributes.
I’m personally quite comfortable with the principal that a “Technician” will primarily rely on implementing that which is clearly codified. In doing so, they will often demonstrate practical initiative and originality to deliver results effectively. Experienced Technicians are typically highly expert in specific areas of activity, with essential practical “nous”, which many engineers from a more academic background may lack. We have over recent decades absorbed into the description of a “Technician” the role of a skilled Craftsperson or Tradesperson who may be towards the more practical end of the quite broad span of Technician practice. Technicians in some areas (eg Science) are often university graduates.
I have strongly opposed any suggestion that a “Technician” should be seen as “lower”, or as an “inferior” form of “Engineer”. I was happy to describe myself as a Technician (including in my passport) although I didn’t register because in the academic frame of reference I seemed “over-qualified” (with an HNC) so I went towards “Technician Engineer” instead, although that changed to “Incorporated Engineer”. In that capacity , I was informed by my Professional Institution and Engineering Council that I was “different but equally valuable” , although within a few years I migrated away from an engineering role into a form of management. It is sad that certain elements of the Chartered Engineer community resented the idea of others being described as “equally valuable” and once the Institution of Incorporated Engineers (4th largest PEI) was no longer represented at Engineering Council, this important principle was throw out of the window.
I have posted the material below before in the context of an earlier thread. These are the thoughts that a distinguished Professor (CEng) sent to me in 2011, not intending for them to be published in this form. They have however guided my thinking on the issue.
I have always thought of the categories of registration as related to different sets of skills each deserving recognition and status. An Incorporated Engineer I would expect to be knowledgeable about specific engineering products or services, processes and machinery and able to explain things about them to people within his or her engineering organisation; I would expect them to be “streetwise” and able to supervise others confidently. An engineering or ICT technician I would expect to be a proficient user of particular tools, have patience and be thoroughly knowledgeable about the operation of a particular process or machine. A Chartered Engineer should have to be able at justifying engineering decisions to anyone especially themselves, be prepared to deliberate and research, set out an argument and work confidently in unfamiliar situations.
Because the skills required are different, anyone in one category does not automatically have the skills for another. Thus movement in any direction requires the honing of unrehearsed skills or their acquisition. Progress for an individual can be in any direction! It means Incorporated Engineers are not apprentice Chartered Engineers and to see them as such is to remove an important distinction. Nevertheless we should recognise that a competent Incorporated Engineer can through education and experience gain the skills of a Chartered Engineer so being an Incorporated Engineer is not a disqualification for later registration as a Chartered Engineer. Similarly being a Chartered Engineer is not a disqualification for becoming, with appropriate skill development, an Engineering Technician.
It is the case that intellectual skills of deliberation and argumentation of a Chartered Engineer demand a longer time than the intellectual skills of an Engineering technician, however the technician has to develop “know how” for which an academic setting is not necessarily appropriate. And it is the case that there are some commonalities in the intellectual skill development of all categories but at some point they each go in a different direction to develop different portfolios.
We should be careful of the metaphors we use: words like “level” imply a hierarchy, “grade (as in “registration grade” ) implies a scale, “class” (at least for the English) implies a hierarchy, “progress” and “progressive” imply a forward movement and hence going the other way is backward!
