DOES IET MAINTAIN ITS 2006 OBJECTIVES FOR ALL

Hi Andy,

 

By “at its best” I mean from the perspective of the person seeking it and I'm talking about across the Engineering Council franchise, not just IET. 


The IET has made great efforts to evolve a fair and robust assessment process that doesn't exclude those who have demonstrated competence (as defined by UK-SPEC) on the basis of academic attainment. However, as recently as 2009 not meeting “The Academic Requirement” would often result in having to produce a long dissertation illustrating “maths and science understanding” (Maxwell’s equations were given as an example). Many Professional Engineering Institutions continue to regard the competences as merely supplemental to having first met the “Academic Requirement” and many smaller ones just could not reliably operate an IET  type process. Therefore being “Standard Route” with exemplifying qualifications is almost essential. There are a good proportion of our own members who might prefer us to “row back”, especially those who met the academic requirements in force at the time themselves and many are active as volunteer assessors. Fortunately, we have been able to balance opportunity with caution about standards, but it is a delicate balance.  On the other hand, there are members who feel unfairly denied by our volunteer assessor’s judgements around UK-SPEC, especially where they sense that their specialism might be undervalued. Throw into the mix the deterrent effect of any “mythology”, which often has at least some basis in historic fact and you are definitely better off with ticks in all the right boxes.   

 

A sister institution has made a virtue of engineers in development submitting quarterly reports, so rather than “hanging around” they are being monitored. It therefore becomes quite natural to become registered at an appropriate point in time, rather than a having a “cliff edge” to be faced with trepidation, or “kicked into the long grass”. I don’t have the detailed data, but its seems possible that the other institution may be more successful in registering engineers at an optimum time, when they pass the threshold rather than perhaps 8-10 years later. By that time many have become more managerial and generalist, rather than narrowly technically specialised or “innovative”. We then have to apply a further interpretation around taking responsibility for complexity and risk, or as Ron suggests re-winding to a more optimal time.  A significant amount of interpretation or as Ron describes "lateral thinking" is often required in making such decisions.


The system is working to the extent that the IET has followed a structured process and offered a collective professional opinion about whether someone has met a  particular standard or "not yet".  Even just within the IET is is impossible for such a system to be 100% precise and consistent, the most important thing is that it is fairly operated.  In this context an analogous question might be - which is better coursework, an end of term exam or a combination of "formative" and "summative" assessment? I'm arguing for the latter.


I'm also I'm afraid questioning the validity and value of separating engineers in the way that we do. I'm arguing that everyone should start at the same point and progress, apprentice, undergraduate, former policeman etc.  As many as possible should progress via demonstrable performance to "registered engineer". As they continue to develop, some  will achieve distinction in research and development or academia, others in design consultancy, project delivery or engineering management, others may follow one or more specialisms, become generalists or senior managers. All of these career paths will result in valuable economic contributions and  offer service to society.  To effectively exclude from the profession, as we in effect are, those who are not "technically innovative" often making enemies of them in the process, seems dysfunctional to me.  It would in my opinion, be much more constructive that those who remain committed to engineering values and standards, should be equally eligible for CEng.  As an aside, Technician and perhaps "Master Technician" could be useful with a bridge to Engineer when appropriate on a "different but equally valuable" basis.


Much of what I have just described, is what has actually happened, except that everyone doesn't all start at the same point, at an age between 10 & 16 selections occur that persist long into career, irrespective of  subsequent performance so that ten or twenty years later mechanisms for separation still have to be found. The IET has denied CEng to exemplifying qualified members for "lack of innovation", but not often. In another major institution two people with identical achievement would be separated into IEng & CEng  purely on an academic qualification basis.  In a great many if not most engineering activities it is impossible to distinguish reliably on the basis of workplace performance between people with HNC, Bachelors or Masters Degrees. As was suggested to me recently by a CEng acquaintance who is very familiar with graduate development, perhaps we should run some double blind trials?


PS Perfectly reasonable observations about structural change, 90% of the decent Apprenticeships where I grew up were with a "Board" (Electricity, Gas, Rail, Coal, PO Telecom, Water, MOD etc) these were all highly structured with their own high quality training establishments. They were also highly unionised up to senior levels with the Power Engineers for example having a union and professional body partly combined, with John Lyons on Engineering Council.  However, those older than me will no doubt confirm that at the peak of innovation and British technological leadership many of the "greats" would be probably be classified IEng now?