DOES IET MAINTAIN ITS 2006 OBJECTIVES FOR ALL

John,
The key word is - CEng is an international engineering qualification.
I would argue the opposite from your point - The Engineering Council regulates professional engineering titles in the UK. With more than 180,000 registrants from many countries, designation as a Chartered Engineer is one of the most recognizable international engineering qualifications. And it being such is also a contribution from non UK CEng's.

The CEng are not license to practice Engineering, In Canada or USA the PE is a license.

An example is a CEng who is working in another country in a major high tech company.

That CEng is a successful Engineer who represents his registration with honor. What does it to the promotion of UK Engineering?  BTW it can be international company with divisions in UK, US and other countries.

In reality if you are CEng, then in US or Canada its not a license like PE.

You will have to take exams and apply for license and provide Washington Accord degree or similar.

Another point is that if foreign Engineer is a CEng but is not UK Citizen then they can't work in UK leagaly, so there is no harm to UK Engineers.

 

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.

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.

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.

Does the EC-UK fulfil its function
An open question (4)to IET.

All UK Professional Engineers PEs should be registered for assurance and safety / security reasons. Most UK PEs are not EC^UK registered. There must be a good reason for this.

Should there be one national UK PE registration authority?
Why was the UK ENGINEERING 2016 Report commissioned?

In the IIE PEI, one of our aims was to amalgamate as many as possible or all PEIs into one PEI. The stalwart, Luddite PEIs refused to negotiate (IME, ICE) (We didn’t even contact the minority PEIs).

Should there be an umbrella PEI that has 50 or more chapters for all existing PEIs and for the future PEIs in new technologies – 3D printing, Drones, Automatic cars, materials, etc?

The UK needs to join the 21^st century, we need Europe, We do not need neo-liberalism and out of date politics.

This week there was an election in France, France is already secular, republican and fully democratic, it has called for a change in technical education, apprenticeships and an effort for industry and agriculture to lead the economic revival.
The UK has turned its back on the future and has no plans to lead us into a new era of economy and technology, just cut and run policies. The whole political structure in France exploded this week-end. A new era has begun.

I am British, a craft apprentice –engineer, I have pioneered all my life.
I am an engineer, I make things that work and things that work, work better. I use my ingenuity and knowledge to advance technology for profit or research.
I am CEng refused 5 times; I was IEng by default, I am proud to have been part of IET.

Why be CEng EC^UK; because jobs are written for CEng by CEng and call for CEng only in recruiting. To be recruited you must be CEng, to be CEng you must pass a subjective Peer review by someone who is certainly not you peer. You must pass a subjective test.

The EC^UK needs to be changed or another organisation created to register all those PEs that are not PEI members.

PE registration need only be based on qualifications, work experience shown in a CV and Work certificates. These can be audited by universities and HR consultants. Being economic with the truth on a qualification or a CV is a penal offence.

 
PEIs should be concerned about qualifying all those PEs who have not come through university, but have taken the long hard route to professional expertise. That was one of their first tasks.

Engineers need to be registered but not by PEIs,
Engineers need to be correctly assured for their responsibilities.

J Gowman , MIET. 

Does the EC-UK fulfil its function
An open question (4)to IET.

All UK Professional Engineers PEs should be registered for assurance and safety / security reasons. Most UK PEs are not EC^UK registered. There must be a good reason for this.

Should there be one national UK PE registration authority?
Why was the UK ENGINEERING 2016 Report commissioned?

In the IIE PEI, one of our aims was to amalgamate as many as possible or all PEIs into one PEI. The stalwart, Luddite PEIs refused to negotiate (IME, ICE) (We didn’t even contact the minority PEIs).

Should there be an umbrella PEI that has 50 or more chapters for all existing PEIs and for the future PEIs in new technologies – 3D printing, Drones, Automatic cars, materials, etc?

The UK needs to join the 21^st century, we need Europe, We do not need neo-liberalism and out of date politics.

This week there was an election in France, France is already secular, republican and fully democratic, it has called for a change in technical education, apprenticeships and an effort for industry and agriculture to lead the economic revival.
The UK has turned its back on the future and has no plans to lead us into a new era of economy and technology, just cut and run policies. The whole political structure in France exploded this week-end. A new era has begun.

I am British, a craft apprentice –engineer, I have pioneered all my life.
I am an engineer, I make things that work and things that work, work better. I use my ingenuity and knowledge to advance technology for profit or research.
I am CEng refused 5 times; I was IEng by default, I am proud to have been part of IET.

Why be CEng EC^UK; because jobs are written for CEng by CEng and call for CEng only in recruiting. To be recruited you must be CEng, to be CEng you must pass a subjective Peer review by someone who is certainly not you peer. You must pass a subjective test.

The EC^UK needs to be changed or another organisation created to register all those PEs that are not PEI members.

PE registration need only be based on qualifications, work experience shown in a CV and Work certificates. These can be audited by universities and HR consultants. Being economic with the truth on a qualification or a CV is a penal offence.

 
PEIs should be concerned about qualifying all those PEs who have not come through university, but have taken the long hard route to professional expertise. That was one of their first tasks.

Engineers need to be registered but not by PEIs,
Engineers need to be correctly assured for their responsibilities.

J Gowman , MIET. 

Does the EC-UK fulfil its function
An open question (4)to IET.

All UK Professional Engineers PEs should be registered for assurance and safety / security reasons. Most UK PEs are not EC^UK registered. There must be a good reason for this.

Should there be one national UK PE registration authority?
Why was the UK ENGINEERING 2016 Report commissioned?

In the IIE PEI, one of our aims was to amalgamate as many as possible or all PEIs into one PEI. The stalwart, Luddite PEIs refused to negotiate (IME, ICE) (We didn’t even contact the minority PEIs).

Should there be an umbrella PEI that has 50 or more chapters for all existing PEIs and for the future PEIs in new technologies – 3D printing, Drones, Automatic cars, materials, etc?

The UK needs to join the 21^st century, we need Europe, We do not need neo-liberalism and out of date politics.

This week there was an election in France, France is already secular, republican and fully democratic, it has called for a change in technical education, apprenticeships and an effort for industry and agriculture to lead the economic revival.
The UK has turned its back on the future and has no plans to lead us into a new era of economy and technology, just cut and run policies. The whole political structure in France exploded this week-end. A new era has begun.

I am British, a craft apprentice –engineer, I have pioneered all my life.
I am an engineer, I make things that work and things that work, work better. I use my ingenuity and knowledge to advance technology for profit or research.
I am CEng refused 5 times; I was IEng by default, I am proud to have been part of IET.

Why be CEng EC^UK; because jobs are written for CEng by CEng and call for CEng only in recruiting. To be recruited you must be CEng, to be CEng you must pass a subjective Peer review by someone who is certainly not you peer. You must pass a subjective test.

The EC^UK needs to be changed or another organisation created to register all those PEs that are not PEI members.

PE registration need only be based on qualifications, work experience shown in a CV and Work certificates. These can be audited by universities and HR consultants. Being economic with the truth on a qualification or a CV is a penal offence.

 
PEIs should be concerned about qualifying all those PEs who have not come through university, but have taken the long hard route to professional expertise. That was one of their first tasks.

Engineers need to be registered but not by PEIs,
Engineers need to be correctly assured for their responsibilities.

J Gowman , MIET. 

Roy has summed up some of my reasons for my signalling this discontentment with the UK PE Registration system and IET as a UK PEI.
I have no personal gain or merit to gain from my calling for a professional review of our Professional Engineering UK registration and our reasons and objectives for out of date Professional Engineering Institutions.
Those MIET abroad have a broader view of national and international engineering and engineering licensing. The UK seems to be blind to the new evolution in Technology and its participants. What are you going to do to face up to BREXIT?
There are people who benefit from ECUK registration. There are those that want it to be restrictive for economic reasons.
There are many who fraudulently use their ECUK titles for personal gain.
There are many more that have not seen the need to be ECUK PE registered, and many such as myself that have been mistreated without any legal form of complaint.
Now is the time :

• To make a true UK Engineers’ Register for all PEs.

• To bring in Technicians

• To bring in Technologists

• To respect and register women.

• To redefine CEng (change of name first) as an expert consultant or engineer in a specific domain.

• To create a PE management grade for MBA or Professional managers in engineering domains.

 
It is not by marketing that you will bring in women, technicians and BSc PEs into IET or to be ECUK registered.
The problem is a long standing UK society problem, by addressing this at all levels, - communication, demonstration, reporting of these peoples activities and by politics, you will perhaps turn the tables.
Reform by us of our system has to be recognised, called for and acted upon by us or else others will do it for us.
I am retiring, I have signalled the dysfunction, you can cancel the alarm or sort out the breakdown.

John Gowman MIE

Roy has summed up some of my reasons for my signalling this discontentment with the UK PE Registration system and IET as a UK PEI.
I have no personal gain or merit to gain from my calling for a professional review of our Professional Engineering UK registration and our reasons and objectives for out of date Professional Engineering Institutions.
Those MIET abroad have a broader view of national and international engineering and engineering licensing. The UK seems to be blind to the new evolution in Technology and its participants. What are you going to do to face up to BREXIT?
There are people who benefit from ECUK registration. There are those that want it to be restrictive for economic reasons.
There are many who fraudulently use their ECUK titles for personal gain.
There are many more that have not seen the need to be ECUK PE registered, and many such as myself that have been mistreated without any legal form of complaint.
Now is the time :

• To make a true UK Engineers’ Register for all PEs.

• To bring in Technicians

• To bring in Technologists

• To respect and register women.

• To redefine CEng (change of name first) as an expert consultant or engineer in a specific domain.

• To create a PE management grade for MBA or Professional managers in engineering domains.

 
It is not by marketing that you will bring in women, technicians and BSc PEs into IET or to be ECUK registered.
The problem is a long standing UK society problem, by addressing this at all levels, - communication, demonstration, reporting of these peoples activities and by politics, you will perhaps turn the tables.
Reform by us of our system has to be recognised, called for and acted upon by us or else others will do it for us.
I am retiring, I have signalled the dysfunction, you can cancel the alarm or sort out the breakdown.

John Gowman MIE

Roy has summed up some of my reasons for my signalling this discontentment with the UK PE Registration system and IET as a UK PEI.
I have no personal gain or merit to gain from my calling for a professional review of our Professional Engineering UK registration and our reasons and objectives for out of date Professional Engineering Institutions.
Those MIET abroad have a broader view of national and international engineering and engineering licensing. The UK seems to be blind to the new evolution in Technology and its participants. What are you going to do to face up to BREXIT?
There are people who benefit from ECUK registration. There are those that want it to be restrictive for economic reasons.
There are many who fraudulently use their ECUK titles for personal gain.
There are many more that have not seen the need to be ECUK PE registered, and many such as myself that have been mistreated without any legal form of complaint.
Now is the time :

• To make a true UK Engineers’ Register for all PEs.

• To bring in Technicians

• To bring in Technologists

• To respect and register women.

• To redefine CEng (change of name first) as an expert consultant or engineer in a specific domain.

• To create a PE management grade for MBA or Professional managers in engineering domains.

 
It is not by marketing that you will bring in women, technicians and BSc PEs into IET or to be ECUK registered.
The problem is a long standing UK society problem, by addressing this at all levels, - communication, demonstration, reporting of these peoples activities and by politics, you will perhaps turn the tables.
Reform by us of our system has to be recognised, called for and acted upon by us or else others will do it for us.
I am retiring, I have signalled the dysfunction, you can cancel the alarm or sort out the breakdown.

John Gowman MIE