Here's a radical idea: maybe we need a new PEI. One that encompasses engineers, of any discipline, who do not work in utilities / safety critical industries / military. Still applying UKSpec and working under EC remit, but providing a clearly welcoming home to those who work in the more creative and innovative, and less regulated and lower risk industries. 

Hi Andy,


I strongly support your idea of a PEI that incorporates other industries; like yourself, I have worked in the creative industry designing automation systems for touring shows. It would be possible for someone in the automation engineering team to gain professional registration; however, it might be no easy feat and much harder for other departments within that business. I believe the IET might be open to people from such sectors, but as you say, it all depends on the PRI interviewers knowledge of these niche markets! A few of my current engineering colleagues don't see any value in professional registration or membership of any PEI; from my understanding, this is due to your remark about them being "old boy's clubs".When I referred to making professional registration more streamlined, I would say this statement was a factor. I also agree that the process of reading an application and attending a short interview may not be the most accurate measure; however, I feel that the effort I went to in my application and the support of my referee to confirm my competence was a good starting point. The only problem with the latter is the IET has to take it at face value; I felt it would have been relatively easy to use anyone as a false valid reference, so maybe there's room for improvement. 


I agree with you regarding the benchmark of competency against the UK-SPEC; I encourage colleagues and friends to become registered with a PEI (IET); it's good for the individual and the industry. I'm very much swung in your direction on this occasion; the implications of legally protecting a title almost seem a bit silly now. For example, an Architect is protected, but to become an Architect, they have to meet the requirements of their PEI (RIBA). It would be illegal for someone to design a structure without being competent; however, as you've said, this is true of any job, namely due to the Health and Safety at Work Act (designed to punish). The only problem is someone who designs something that leads to a serious incident where they falsified their competencies to a client; I think the average person doesn't always know what credentials/competencies someone should have, i.e. I want a house designing, so I'll use 'Bodge it and Scarper Ltd' as they had the best price. I would hope my example isn't true, but I'm not that naive! In the case of my example, it's down to RIBA to educate the public; however, educating engineering companies and the like could be just as difficult. Sure, when it comes down to a company taking responsibility for those they employ, it's on their head, but I always tend to apply the Peter Principle in such instances. Ultimately, a company producing poor products or demonstrates a bad safety record is unlikely to survive anyway, so maybe it's not something to be concerned over; however, there will be those who will receive poor quality products and potentially get placed in a position of danger, so it all comes back to competency.


I don't think I've solved many problems with my response; maybe it's not possible to solve these issues?


Harry

Here's a radical idea: maybe we need a new PEI. One that encompasses engineers, of any discipline, who do not work in utilities / safety critical industries / military. Still applying UKSpec and working under EC remit, but providing a clearly welcoming home to those who work in the more creative and innovative, and less regulated and lower risk industries. 

Hi Andy,


I strongly support your idea of a PEI that incorporates other industries; like yourself, I have worked in the creative industry designing automation systems for touring shows. It would be possible for someone in the automation engineering team to gain professional registration; however, it might be no easy feat and much harder for other departments within that business. I believe the IET might be open to people from such sectors, but as you say, it all depends on the PRI interviewers knowledge of these niche markets! A few of my current engineering colleagues don't see any value in professional registration or membership of any PEI; from my understanding, this is due to your remark about them being "old boy's clubs".When I referred to making professional registration more streamlined, I would say this statement was a factor. I also agree that the process of reading an application and attending a short interview may not be the most accurate measure; however, I feel that the effort I went to in my application and the support of my referee to confirm my competence was a good starting point. The only problem with the latter is the IET has to take it at face value; I felt it would have been relatively easy to use anyone as a false valid reference, so maybe there's room for improvement. 


I agree with you regarding the benchmark of competency against the UK-SPEC; I encourage colleagues and friends to become registered with a PEI (IET); it's good for the individual and the industry. I'm very much swung in your direction on this occasion; the implications of legally protecting a title almost seem a bit silly now. For example, an Architect is protected, but to become an Architect, they have to meet the requirements of their PEI (RIBA). It would be illegal for someone to design a structure without being competent; however, as you've said, this is true of any job, namely due to the Health and Safety at Work Act (designed to punish). The only problem is someone who designs something that leads to a serious incident where they falsified their competencies to a client; I think the average person doesn't always know what credentials/competencies someone should have, i.e. I want a house designing, so I'll use 'Bodge it and Scarper Ltd' as they had the best price. I would hope my example isn't true, but I'm not that naive! In the case of my example, it's down to RIBA to educate the public; however, educating engineering companies and the like could be just as difficult. Sure, when it comes down to a company taking responsibility for those they employ, it's on their head, but I always tend to apply the Peter Principle in such instances. Ultimately, a company producing poor products or demonstrates a bad safety record is unlikely to survive anyway, so maybe it's not something to be concerned over; however, there will be those who will receive poor quality products and potentially get placed in a position of danger, so it all comes back to competency.


I don't think I've solved many problems with my response; maybe it's not possible to solve these issues?


Harry