Hi everyone. Not sure if this is the right place to be asking this question, but I've looked through the various communities and I couldn't see anything in the way of bringing together engineers who are either serving or who have left the forces. I've been out the army ten years now, but when I look back on it there was very little instilled in the way of professional development during my time in the forces. I think the army I served in was very backwards in that respect, and it would be interesting to know how or if it had changed, and I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks that this is the sort of community that would add value to the IET. I think if I'd had better opportunities for guidance in a professional sense I'd have really benefitted.
When I signed up as a Sapper my civilian role was that of a Technician, although by then I held an HNC and Certificate in Industrial Management. Plenty of meat for abuse by the training NCOs as a "potential wupert”. It could have been worse, I could have been six foot five, black and tagged by the N word, with F thrown in - although he did win the prize for best recruit! Everybody got it for something, it was just part of the “break them down and build them back up” process, we were all “STABs” after all! Shortly afterwards, I transferred in my civilian life from the equivalent of non-commissioned to commissioned.
I enjoyed my experience of service life, but wouldn’t have aspired to a career in which your life and even family situation was so defined by rank, which was all pervasive. I didn’t seek a commission or promotion particularly, as I had more than enough responsibility in my civilian career by then. However, when they made me a SNCO, I remember being b*****d by my (Ex RMP) Sgt Major, for socialising with lower ranks. i.e. going into Gutersloh for a beer or two. I also on another occasion recall meeting someone who had been demoted for a misdemeanour, so it was out of one mess and back into the other, complete with wife and children. Military life can be a kind of closed and highly structured community, which creates strengths but also potential problems.
I won’t pursue it at length here, but I think that Professional registration is a good thing and have engaged in it myself for 30+ years. UK-SPEC was developed to recognise three “types” of professional. At that time there was a strong strand within Engineering Council that positioned these three types as “different but equally valuable”. This for me is a simple statement of respect, but the idea of equality was widely resented by those who felt that they deserved enhanced status, spun into “different but the same”, defenestrated and replaced by a hierarchy in which some are “higher” and others “lower”. This obviously fits a rank system rather well. The effect is self-evident in the numbers who subscribe to each category, relative to those who practice.
There are many situations where, there clearly is potential for progressive transfer between our three categories by various means, although in a properly operated “competence based” system, that requires someone to have the opportunity to demonstrate consistent performance in an appropriate role. The categories are also benchmarked to represent different levels of “learnedness” , although a focus on academic qualifications can distort that perspective and create another type of “rank” system. We have a long tradition of undervaluing vocational learning relative to academic qualifications. Graham gave a good perspective.
When jointly developing special schemes, rank was used as a form of shorthand simplification or “pre-mapping”, designed to reduce any “barriers” to professional registration for a service person. Momentum was initially provided from more senior levels, as might be expected in any organisation. So for example, the RAF scheme in its first iteration was “commissioned only”, although their apprenticeships were already approved. That was circa 10 years ago.
Looking at the issue more widely, between ourselves and our sister major professional bodies, we benefit from significant engagement by members of the Armed Services and at least in my direct experience, a desire to serve all professionals well under the IET strapline “professional home for life”. I would be delighted and supportive of any practical initiative (perhaps jointly with IMechE and ICE?), to improve the value derived by professional engineers and technicians in the armed services from their engagement. There are difficulties, including safeguarding personal and national security, but it should be something for careful consideration. Perhaps there is common ground in management and leadership by technical professionals? Ideally we want something “inclusive” not “divisive”, to borrow from modern equality language a “safe space” for common interests?
When I signed up as a Sapper my civilian role was that of a Technician, although by then I held an HNC and Certificate in Industrial Management. Plenty of meat for abuse by the training NCOs as a "potential wupert”. It could have been worse, I could have been six foot five, black and tagged by the N word, with F thrown in - although he did win the prize for best recruit! Everybody got it for something, it was just part of the “break them down and build them back up” process, we were all “STABs” after all! Shortly afterwards, I transferred in my civilian life from the equivalent of non-commissioned to commissioned.
I enjoyed my experience of service life, but wouldn’t have aspired to a career in which your life and even family situation was so defined by rank, which was all pervasive. I didn’t seek a commission or promotion particularly, as I had more than enough responsibility in my civilian career by then. However, when they made me a SNCO, I remember being b*****d by my (Ex RMP) Sgt Major, for socialising with lower ranks. i.e. going into Gutersloh for a beer or two. I also on another occasion recall meeting someone who had been demoted for a misdemeanour, so it was out of one mess and back into the other, complete with wife and children. Military life can be a kind of closed and highly structured community, which creates strengths but also potential problems.
I won’t pursue it at length here, but I think that Professional registration is a good thing and have engaged in it myself for 30+ years. UK-SPEC was developed to recognise three “types” of professional. At that time there was a strong strand within Engineering Council that positioned these three types as “different but equally valuable”. This for me is a simple statement of respect, but the idea of equality was widely resented by those who felt that they deserved enhanced status, spun into “different but the same”, defenestrated and replaced by a hierarchy in which some are “higher” and others “lower”. This obviously fits a rank system rather well. The effect is self-evident in the numbers who subscribe to each category, relative to those who practice.
There are many situations where, there clearly is potential for progressive transfer between our three categories by various means, although in a properly operated “competence based” system, that requires someone to have the opportunity to demonstrate consistent performance in an appropriate role. The categories are also benchmarked to represent different levels of “learnedness” , although a focus on academic qualifications can distort that perspective and create another type of “rank” system. We have a long tradition of undervaluing vocational learning relative to academic qualifications. Graham gave a good perspective.
When jointly developing special schemes, rank was used as a form of shorthand simplification or “pre-mapping”, designed to reduce any “barriers” to professional registration for a service person. Momentum was initially provided from more senior levels, as might be expected in any organisation. So for example, the RAF scheme in its first iteration was “commissioned only”, although their apprenticeships were already approved. That was circa 10 years ago.
Looking at the issue more widely, between ourselves and our sister major professional bodies, we benefit from significant engagement by members of the Armed Services and at least in my direct experience, a desire to serve all professionals well under the IET strapline “professional home for life”. I would be delighted and supportive of any practical initiative (perhaps jointly with IMechE and ICE?), to improve the value derived by professional engineers and technicians in the armed services from their engagement. There are difficulties, including safeguarding personal and national security, but it should be something for careful consideration. Perhaps there is common ground in management and leadership by technical professionals? Ideally we want something “inclusive” not “divisive”, to borrow from modern equality language a “safe space” for common interests?
