DOES IET MAINTAIN ITS 2006 OBJECTIVES FOR ALL

These forums can be an outlet for malcontents, but also other forms of contribution, including questions, advice, praise and expression of ideas. Amongst the most active grievances, I recall that a petition was circulated a couple of years ago. That was extensively (and at times robustly) debated in these forums and that a special general meeting was held at considerable expense. I wasn’t clear at the time what exactly the grievances were or what the alternative proposition was, although I tried to understand them, because they must have had some merit to attract the support of some thoroughly decent members. The institutions decision to take a “remain” perspective on the EU referendum also attracted a “lively” criticism and debate. Disillusion and sometimes even bitter recrimination from some Incorporated Engineers been a recurring theme, both those of long-standing and those newly adjudged as such.


John’s question is  a legitimate one which also deserves proper discussion. I know that the injustices John feels were perpetuated against him, were not a the hands of The IET. However as an IET member who was instrumental in the foundation of one of our predecessor institutions, he has a valid perspective, on what I think most people accept is a professional community with  problems. However, I prefer to direct my attention towards Engineering Council, because although The IET is an influential constituant, it is at the strategic level that change needs to occur. Professor Uff’s report is addressed at this level. Also as a servant of the institution it would be inappropriate for me to criticise the institution in these forums, albeit I do not speak here on its behalf.


To deny there is a problem or to dismiss some of the fundamental problems as whinging by a few malcontents isn’t a way forward.  If we examine the numbers, and diversity (using various measures) of the Engineering Council registered community there are some really serious problems that need to be addressed. For example the numbers of registered IEng have halved in the 30 years since I first registered, whereas the number of CEng is down by only 11%. The change in ratio being from circa 3:1, passing 4:1 around the time of the creation of the IET, to be around 6:1 now. However only 40% of IET members are registrants, so perhaps it is the Engineering Council registration proposition that has become less relevant. It is at this point that I have to differ from John, because outside some relatively narrow circumstances, registration conveys limited benefits in UK employment. CEng is a potentialy significant advantage, especially in design and expert consultant type roles , IEng is rarely expected outside the MOD sphere of influence and Eng Tech is mostly a “nice to have” in places that it is understood and valued ( a number of large employers encourage it, for example).


The “average” registrant is 50+ with 25% over 65. Gender diversity is circa 6% CEng, 2% IEng, 3 % Eng Tech for all registrants. For new entries in 2016 the figures are circa 16% CEng, 6% IEng ,6% Eng Tech, which suggests some progress especially in the CEng category. Given the social trend of females overtaking males in University across all subject areas generally, it seems likely that this trend will continue at the more academic end of the spectrum.


The overall numbers of new female IEng in particular are very small with most institutions in single figures for the last decade. The recent statistics are led by by ICE and IMechE who are now promoting the category as a “stepping stone” or de-facto "CEng lite". The IET has just passed 100 IEng female registrants since 2006, but has slipped away relative to the other two “majors” and been stuck in single figures per annum for several years. I hypothesise but don’t have the data , that IET may have different competence expectations, since a typical new IET IEng is a mid-career highly responsible managing engineer developed from a Technician background, whereas the other two may be targeting early career graduates with better academic credit, but more limited career achievement. However, in the common ground where direct comparison is possible which is mainly Armed Forces candidates aged 30-40 standards seem similar, although from the commissioned officer group many are close to CEng by the time of IEng recognition.


Looking at those Institutions with extremely poor track records of female IEng registration, SOE for example which is mainly focussed on Eng Tech/IEng has managed 1 female IEng this decade and IChemE mainly focussed on CEng has manged 4.  


John criticises the process and use of peer review, I think in part because of his own negative experiences. However I would defend the IET process which evaluates IETs members as fairly as  is practicable to UK-SPEC standards in accordance with Engineering Council Regulations. The process is heavily audited and has recently been highly praised following an Engineering Council Audit. Nevertheless there are significant difficulties in ensuring consistency across the enormous range of circumstances in which IET members practice. Our IEE heritage makes us pre-eminent in Electrical & Electronic areas but some of the other traditions, such as for example manufacturing, mechanical engineering and construction which drew from other predecessor institutions may feel less highly valued. This was exacerbated by an Engineering Council rule change downgrading the contribution of experienced IEng subject matter experts to registration assessments. In order to ensure fairness we have to be very alert to the snobbery, protectionism and elitism that are widely acknowledged to exist within the engineering community.  This doesn’t make peer review the wrong method, but it needs to be carefully managed.


John focusses some of his fire on the link between institution membership and professional registration. This is a potential source of great strength, but also a potential weaknesses.  At its best the current system works well, offering an affordable and credible process for registration assessment and at least in theory ongoing engagement.  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. I would therefore prefer to focus on how an improved Engineering Council (or an alternative strategic body) can enable a better system for the rest.  The IET can be a major force for good in this if it chooses to.  


Hindsight is always a wonderful thing but it seems to me that , two strategic  decsions were made which created much difficulty; firstly the inflation of CEng to Masters Level, positioning CEng as “elite” and IEng as the “mainstream”; Secondly reversing the proposition that each type of registrant was “different but equally valuable” into a “progressive structure” or three-rank hierarchy of value, based mainly on academic attainment.  The creation of The IET and UK-SPEC came between these two decisions. The background was a rapid growth in university participation after a sharp decline in employer’s training.  The first decision sought to create a dichotomy between different graduate level practitioners that in many workplaces was largely false, hence the need to qualify it with “overlapping in practice”. Since many new CEng registrants did not to have masters qualifications either, “overlapping in academic qualifications and practice” would be fairer.UK-SPEC adopted “creativity and innovation” in design as a differentiator, yet many Chartered Engineers didn’t particularly illustrate such attributes, especially in more safety critical and highly codified areas of employment, so it became necessary to dance on the head of a pin about what was and wasn’t intellectually innovative, in order to divide IEng & CEng.


Since it was impossible to create a reliable and valid distinction across the range of mainstream experienced practitioners, attempts were made to “create clear water” by tweaking UK-SPEC to lower IEng and adjusting messaging to ensure that it was made clear that CEng was 1st Class, IEng 2nd Class and Eng Tech 3rd Class, or “higher and lower”, or “Gold, Silver and Bronze”. So we now have a situation where more some Engineers complain that too many “Technologists” and “Technicians” are allowed to call themselves “Engineers” and other Engineers have either lost interest in joining the community, or complain of snobbery and stitch-up when they do. To the uncommited professional it is confusing and unedifying. The public of course are certainly not interested in internecine squabbles between different flavours of “engineers”. Will Brexit make a difference? Since I believe that most Eur Ing are UK CEng and with impeccable timing Engineering Council has decided to stop blocking UK IEng who meet the requirements. 


As Mark Curtis drew to our attention Engineering Council has launched a new strategic plan. A key priority is  “Ensure that no barriers exist for anyone appropriately qualified to become professionally registered”. This requires agreement about “what is a barrier”, “what is appropriately qualified” and “what does professionally registered mean”. We need barriers to maintain standards, we have to have “qualifications” to measure certain forms of attainment consistently and we have to have something that is an attractive and valuable recognition at the end.

 

My personal (not on behalf of IET) proposition would be something like;

 

Barriers to expressing a commitment should be minimal and if possible “normalised” for all those entering an engineering or technology career, either in the workplace or educational preparation on an equal basis. Commitment is mutual and involves sharing, monitoring and nurturing. This should allow the professional community to invite an individual to recommit, typically after 4-5 years as a practicing Engineering Professional. The next milestone could be “Registered Engineer” or possibly “Registered Technician”, but only if the latter is clearly “different but equally valuable”.  Embodied within the commitment to registration is an expectation of ongoing peer review, at intervals based on the individual’s circumstances. For those that develop significant technical leadership and/or engineering management responsibility Chartered Engineer recognition should become possible from circa 7-8 years after first commitment. The threshold for chartered professions is set at graduate level by Privy Council. The principle of periodic review should continue. I can’t think of a reason why any form of recognition should be rescinded except for loss of commitment or malpractice, but any interested party could ask for the short narrative summary produced following each review. For those coming to registration later, direct assessment for “Registered Engineer” should be available, with an appropriate minimum period of monitored commitment required before CEng could be considered. Existing IEng would be entitled to “Registered Engineer” and to use their historic title if they prefer.