DOES IET MAINTAIN ITS 2006 OBJECTIVES FOR ALL

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

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

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

For 1908s read 1980s! Sorry, comes of posting quickly in tea breaks...

For 1908s read 1980s! Sorry, comes of posting quickly in tea breaks...

For 1908s read 1980s! Sorry, comes of posting quickly in tea breaks...

"Andy Millar,

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. "


There can be a school of thought that demonstration of innovation has to be shown as working at the leading edge of technology. From my experience as a PR Interviewer this is definitely not the case. Introducing improvement to an existing system or process can be innovation in terms of improving efficiency and reliability.


When considering what evidence can demonstrate the  appropriate level of competence for CEng, a degree of lateral thinking is required around what has been achieved in a career to date. For those more senior, It is well be worth looking at earlier career stages as there could be good examples of innovation to draw upon.


Ron McMurtrie

"Andy Millar,

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. "


There can be a school of thought that demonstration of innovation has to be shown as working at the leading edge of technology. From my experience as a PR Interviewer this is definitely not the case. Introducing improvement to an existing system or process can be innovation in terms of improving efficiency and reliability.


When considering what evidence can demonstrate the  appropriate level of competence for CEng, a degree of lateral thinking is required around what has been achieved in a career to date. For those more senior, It is well be worth looking at earlier career stages as there could be good examples of innovation to draw upon.


Ron McMurtrie

"Andy Millar,

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. "


There can be a school of thought that demonstration of innovation has to be shown as working at the leading edge of technology. From my experience as a PR Interviewer this is definitely not the case. Introducing improvement to an existing system or process can be innovation in terms of improving efficiency and reliability.


When considering what evidence can demonstrate the  appropriate level of competence for CEng, a degree of lateral thinking is required around what has been achieved in a career to date. For those more senior, It is well be worth looking at earlier career stages as there could be good examples of innovation to draw upon.


Ron McMurtrie

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?