DOES IET MAINTAIN ITS 2006 OBJECTIVES FOR ALL

Ronald 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

Ronald 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

Ronald 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

Roy Bowdler:

Hi Roy, 


As usual I basically agree with your entire post! Couple of thoughts:

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.

Which I think basically echoes Ronald's point as well. The way I look at "innovation" is making your engineering "better", and this can take many, many forms. Where I see the crucial CEng / IEng difference is in not following the rules (standards, processes) but identifying oppurtunites to extend and improve them, and indeed invent them where they don't exist - and then being prepared and able to justify why that was the right thing to do. I do find a challenge sometimes helping candidates find the line between "business" process improvement and "engineering" process improvement. "Lean" is a good example, some of it is about business efficiency, but equally some of it is (or should be) about improving the quality of products or services being supplied. When I applied for CMgr I happened to be working on a lean introduction programme, and if I'd have been applying for CEng at the same time then definitely some aspects would have applied to one, some to the other, and some to both as examples of innovation in that field.


It's interesting for me having moved from R&D to safety assurance - innovative safety engineers use exactly the same thought processes as R&D engineers. Equally there are some safety engineers, just as there are some "technical" engineers, who are fine when "doing it by the book" but either freeze or make scary decisions when "the book" doesn't cover their problem. 


It will be interesting to see over time how the candidates who I help with their CEng applications based on innovations in processes get on in their applications... 

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?

That would be fun...I'd particularly like to include the engineering manager I met once who would only recruit PhD graduates, so we could see if he could actually spot the difference 10 years later! In my experience this works both ways, I've worked with people where I have been absolutely staggered to find that they had an engineering degree - it is perfectly possible to get an engineering degree (including to Masters level) whilst having no interest in engineering, and then basically give up thinking about the subject when you leave academia.


Which, in the end, is why I'm a huge supporter of the IET's approach to CEng. Show what you've actually done, and show how you've made sure you've had the knowledge to do it.


Cheers, Andy

Roy Bowdler:

Hi Roy, 


As usual I basically agree with your entire post! Couple of thoughts:

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.

Which I think basically echoes Ronald's point as well. The way I look at "innovation" is making your engineering "better", and this can take many, many forms. Where I see the crucial CEng / IEng difference is in not following the rules (standards, processes) but identifying oppurtunites to extend and improve them, and indeed invent them where they don't exist - and then being prepared and able to justify why that was the right thing to do. I do find a challenge sometimes helping candidates find the line between "business" process improvement and "engineering" process improvement. "Lean" is a good example, some of it is about business efficiency, but equally some of it is (or should be) about improving the quality of products or services being supplied. When I applied for CMgr I happened to be working on a lean introduction programme, and if I'd have been applying for CEng at the same time then definitely some aspects would have applied to one, some to the other, and some to both as examples of innovation in that field.


It's interesting for me having moved from R&D to safety assurance - innovative safety engineers use exactly the same thought processes as R&D engineers. Equally there are some safety engineers, just as there are some "technical" engineers, who are fine when "doing it by the book" but either freeze or make scary decisions when "the book" doesn't cover their problem. 


It will be interesting to see over time how the candidates who I help with their CEng applications based on innovations in processes get on in their applications... 

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?

That would be fun...I'd particularly like to include the engineering manager I met once who would only recruit PhD graduates, so we could see if he could actually spot the difference 10 years later! In my experience this works both ways, I've worked with people where I have been absolutely staggered to find that they had an engineering degree - it is perfectly possible to get an engineering degree (including to Masters level) whilst having no interest in engineering, and then basically give up thinking about the subject when you leave academia.


Which, in the end, is why I'm a huge supporter of the IET's approach to CEng. Show what you've actually done, and show how you've made sure you've had the knowledge to do it.


Cheers, Andy

Roy Bowdler:

Hi Roy, 


As usual I basically agree with your entire post! Couple of thoughts:

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.

Which I think basically echoes Ronald's point as well. The way I look at "innovation" is making your engineering "better", and this can take many, many forms. Where I see the crucial CEng / IEng difference is in not following the rules (standards, processes) but identifying oppurtunites to extend and improve them, and indeed invent them where they don't exist - and then being prepared and able to justify why that was the right thing to do. I do find a challenge sometimes helping candidates find the line between "business" process improvement and "engineering" process improvement. "Lean" is a good example, some of it is about business efficiency, but equally some of it is (or should be) about improving the quality of products or services being supplied. When I applied for CMgr I happened to be working on a lean introduction programme, and if I'd have been applying for CEng at the same time then definitely some aspects would have applied to one, some to the other, and some to both as examples of innovation in that field.


It's interesting for me having moved from R&D to safety assurance - innovative safety engineers use exactly the same thought processes as R&D engineers. Equally there are some safety engineers, just as there are some "technical" engineers, who are fine when "doing it by the book" but either freeze or make scary decisions when "the book" doesn't cover their problem. 


It will be interesting to see over time how the candidates who I help with their CEng applications based on innovations in processes get on in their applications... 

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?

That would be fun...I'd particularly like to include the engineering manager I met once who would only recruit PhD graduates, so we could see if he could actually spot the difference 10 years later! In my experience this works both ways, I've worked with people where I have been absolutely staggered to find that they had an engineering degree - it is perfectly possible to get an engineering degree (including to Masters level) whilst having no interest in engineering, and then basically give up thinking about the subject when you leave academia.


Which, in the end, is why I'm a huge supporter of the IET's approach to CEng. Show what you've actually done, and show how you've made sure you've had the knowledge to do it.


Cheers, Andy