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 66 replies
  • Subscribers 15 subscribers
  • Views 5009 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

DOES IET MAINTAIN ITS 2006 OBJECTIVES FOR ALL

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) is the largest multidisciplinary professional engineering institution in the world.
Does IET satisfy the aspirations of all its members and potential Professional Engineer members of both genders in the UK?

At the creation of IET in 2006, all members of IET, MIET, were considered to be equal. It was a multidisciplinary PEI for all PE grades and associates of both genders.

We have lost many IEng members.
We have lost many IIE CEng members.
We do not value and do not attract new IEng members, not to mention women and technicians (6% + 1%).
We have done very little to attract women into the Technology disciplines at any of the grades.
Technicians are not really taken into account in IET or in the UK.

This is an IET problem; it seems to be a typical UK PEI problem, or even a UK society problem.

Do the Council, the Board and IET Staff (nearly 500) uphold 2006 vales today?
Have we drifted away from our 2006 objectives?

I have my personal observations; these IET blogs show great discontent, and the UK PE & PEI statistics are deplorable.
I believe that IET has, over the last 10 years, lost its “cap”; it satisfies only a small part of IET membership.
There is perhaps a reason; to work in Technology in the UK today you need to be ECUK registered. To be ECUK registered you need to join a PEI.
IET is the only multidisciplinary PEI open to generalists and novel Technologists.

Do Professional Engineers join just to have access to Technology posts in this hard competitive world?
Do they join for the title and just ignore the objectives of IET in 2006?

Should we continue on this path or should IET change?

John Gowman – MIET 

Parents
No Data
Reply
  • 0 in reply to Zoomup
    Hi Roy,


    I was slightly surprised (and concerned) that you wrote:

    Unfortunately the system tends only to work at its best for those who follow a highly selective academic pathway, followed by accredited employer training , who seek CEng.



    This hasn't been my experience, but of course each of us only has a small range of experiences to draw on. (I have to be honest, I've never helped with any applications that have followed this "preferred" pathway, so I suppose I may not have seen the system working at its best!) I just wondered what led you to that view?


    I'd certainly agree that the marketing of the process has huge room for improvement, as I find many applicants are still unclear that an accredited Masters' and approved training are most definitely not a requirement for CEng.


    Re the later part of your post, my very strong feeling is that the IET needs to take (more) positive action to break down the myth that high academic qualification + x years experience + a bit of management = CEng. Almost that it's a long service award for hanging around the industry. In practice my experience has been (and, again, I can only go by the applications I've seen as a supporter, mentor or PRA) the system is generally working well at awarding to CEng to those who are demonstrating innovation based on sound theoretical knowledge, irrespective of how they got to that position. And equally I've come across those who are very senior and qualified but are not practicing innovation who are surprised (and sometimes quite angry) that they are considered IEng rather than CEng material - which again, while feeling sorry for them, does suggest the system is working. 


    BUT the overall process only works if the right people apply, and if industry values it as a certification; two closely interlinked points which are a problem.


    Interesting thought has just occured to me (at least, I think it's interesting). Up until the 1908s (say) engineering innovation probably was largely centred around the military, the utilities, mass transportation, big public services (e.g. the BBC) etc. All the traditional Institute Membered sectors. Then the innovation baton moved to the commercial sector: telecomms, gaming, highly portable computing etc etc. I do often feel that there are sectors of the institutes and EC that really haven't quite grasped this yet. Why does a UK Tablet design company need any of its engineers to be CEng? If we can convince them that they do we've solved all the EC / IETs problems!


    (Note: before anyone says Electrical safety or EMC certification: No - both of these a) can be outsourced and b) are control, not innovation. The solution to a certification failure may involve innovation, but that's ok (i.e. isn't a reason for employing CEng staff) because the person doing the innovation is not also doing the certification.) 


    Tea break over...


    Cheers, Andy





Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines