My interpretation is that there is no distinction apart from the IEng competency descriptors being weaker than the CEng. If IEng were geared to operational roles and CEng to design I would understand, but that is not the case.

Why would CEng degrees be appropriate for applications engineering courses in that case?

I wouldn't use the word "weaker", rather I'd say "different". Engineers who use their knowledge to apply existing and emerging technology are just as valuable as those who use their knowledge to optimise it. The first is IEng, the second CEng - (just one example).

-------------------------
David Parr BSc.CEng MIET
PRA

There is the problem, what is the difference between apply and optimise? Is it purely an abstract concept and would one expect an incorporated engineer to provide a sub-optimal solution to an engineering problem.

My understanding is that is pretty much the case (although innovation would perhaps be a better word than design), David has (as ever) described it very neatly here.

Looking at UKSpec I think this is reasonably clear, CEng is described as "Chartered Engineers are characterised by their ability to develop appropriate solutions to engineering problems, using new or existing technologies, through innovation, creativity and change." (my emphasis)

IEng is "Incorporated Engineers maintain and manage applications of current and developing technology, and may undertake engineering design, development, manufacture, construction and operation."

I don't see a suggestion there that IEng is a trainee CEng.

I've just thought of a nice example. When we produce a new safety-critical product there are two distinct process going on: design and validation. Design (in our case) tends to be quite a "blue sky" process, we are coming up with completely new innovative solutions to solve new problems. Validation is carrying out a highly rigourous and professional evaluation of the design. Both activities are carried out at the same engineering "level": the Validation Lead Engineer is at the same level (and has to be at the same level) as the Design Lead Engineer. The design team will be CEngs (or would be if they could be bothered to apply), the validation team will be IEngs (or would be if they could be bothered to apply). It's only one example of how we divide the work up, but probably the clearest one.

Beyond that, best thing is to study Belbin team roles which explains nicely why you need different skills sets in a well-rounded team.

Meanwhile I will carry on being perfectly comfortable in being good at creative thinking and less good at methodical implementation. And thoroughly enjoying forming effective teams with others with complementary skills. (Apologies for the dreadful mangement speak sentence but haven't got time right now to put it more nicely like.)

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

Do you think an engineer could be doing both IEng and CEng type roles at the same time, in a sufficient quantity and quality, such that they can hold both status's at the same time?

I tend to think if IEng and CEng are closely aligned then that is possible but the more distinctive they become the more difficult it is.

Regards.

Yes I do, but in the real world I'm not sure why they'd bother. If IEng became more widely recognised it could be appropriate; but since at the moment CEng seems to be the only one anyone cares about, and even then not that much, I think you would have to be pretty determined to collect lettuce after your name to bother.

PERSONALLY, as I suggested above, I think engineers typically fit better into the IEng "mindset" or the CEng, but I'm sure many others would disagree and say we should all be able to anything equally well if we are professional engineers. (Again personally, this thought scares me rigid, since I think a mark of professionalism is knowing where your weaknesses are as well as your strengths.)

As I've mentioned before, I used to be IEng, which, frankly I did use as a steppign stone to CEng (although I don't know if it actually helped). But I think it is more useful to see them as identifying different skills and approaches, and my understanding is that is the EC's aim.

At the end of all this, neither CEng or IEng qualify you to do anything, neither tell you more than your CV does, it's really just a validation mark on your CV. I think most of us would just say that it does give us a warm feeling that our peers think we're doing a good job. I think the best thing is not to get too hung up about it, the rather more important thing for most of us these days is whether anyone wants to employ us

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

IEng is not a professional qualification, but a professional title similar to OBE or honorary Degree.

IEng does not have anything to do with success or failure. An employer may look for entirely different set of competence requirements than the IET.

The only reason why you should feel IEng represents failure compared to CEng is because you are impressed more by CEng than IEng. And it says something about you more than the IEng title.

As I said before I was paid the same salary as a colleague of mine who is a CEng. As you know I am not registered with the EC.

At the end of the day, it's not about getting CEng, IEng or nothing at all, but it's all to do with having the ability to do the job. Most companies don't give a monkeys about your registration.

Try and think independently to the views of the IET and EC. They are not really incharge of deciding who is a professional engineer and who isn't. Only the individual through their ability can decide that for themselves.

That's fair enough, but I would then reply to such question with: We can provide you with staff who have or can obtain professional registration, provided the employer's prepared to pay the IET and EC registration costs. After all if you require professionally registered engineers, you're going to have to pay for it, or pay higher wages.

Does no harm to reflect again, what happen to the name change for incorporated Engineer? "Registered Engineer" Unfortunately the Royal Academy of Engineering
Immediately made it clear that it would not favour a title which had REng

http://www.engc.org.uk/ecukdoc...orated%20Engineer.pdf

Regards
jcm

Yes, that's why my company pays my fees. (And my CMI fees as well.)

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

I'd be much to polite to say that


Well, actually I'd say the employers make that judgement But I know what you mean.

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

Ouch, Mr Birdi owes me a beer next time I see him!

The thread seems to have ranged across a range of well-rehearsed arguments from some familiar friends. Welcome back all after the "summer recess"

If the basic argument is that IEng needs to be more clearly distinctive then I agree.

We have chosen to create three categories of professional registration to encompass the thousands of different activities being carried out. Many other professions have far less variety (e.g. GPs). UK-SPEC can never be perfect as is it impossible to define the boundaries between categories precisely. Academic qualifications can provide an illusion of certainty, but the extent to which a practising engineer's professional capability (or competence) correlates with their formal qualification varies greatly. If there is an argument for two categories, then we would have to reallocate the majority of current IEng registrants to CEng.

I don't recall Engineering Council referring to IEng as "failed CEng" except to emphasise what IEng wasn't. But if someone edits down this comment they will claim that I said it next IEng was certainly described as "equal but different" at one time, but these are just sound-bites and slogans. If IEng had become "Chartered Technologist" some years ago (before the REng idea) I wonder if we would we be having the same debate?

If we look at the current situation for IEng, new registrations have returned to a healthier level. I can only speak for the IET but the quality of new IEng registrants is very high. There is no evidence that the decision to include all CEng degrees as IEng accredited is a significant factor, since the average age has been 30+. Perhaps this suggestion is based on the presumption that everyone entering the profession does so via a full-time university course?

The suggestion that the a named major business doesn't support IEng is at best outdated, if it were ever thus, although I certainly wouldn't deny that IEng has been undervalued at times. However I find nothing wrong in any business focussing on CEng capabilities were these add most value to a particular business model.

My view of how we advance the profession is by encouraging all those who can demonstrate competence (Technician is a high standard) to voluntarily participate in the professional community. As part of their career journey professionals will illustrate development and competent practice in one or more of the registration categories (Technician, IEng or CEng). Many CEng and IEng registrants are quite proud of their journey (often from apprentice) and if they want to demonstrate this by retaining one registration when gaining another then why not? There has for many years been a sub-culture in one jurisdiction of engineers to seeking CEng assessment by several institutions to enhance their CV.

If at some stage in the future regular reviews were introduced, then engineers might transfer between sections of the register based on their most recent practice. If this ever came to pass, someone could for example retain the CEng recognition they had earned at an earlier time, but add IEng based on the latest review, or vice-versa. Unfortunately in the current mind-set, language like "downgrade" would be used, which only illustrates a philosophy based on "badge snobbery" rather than professional competence.

I listened to a discussion on the radio this morning in which Teachers were talking about becoming a "higher-status" profession. Unsurprisingly this "enhanced status" was to be attained by requiring a higher educational standard of entrants to the profession. Engineering has often followed a similar path. In my opinion, a profession which is united, mutually respectful of its different manifestations and focussed on adding value to the society it serves, is something to be proud of. Business and society more generally actually values what engineers do, but doesn't always offer the recognition we crave. There is no interest in professional rivalries and arguments over the relative status of different qualifications. Worse still if a practising professional wants to board the Engineers recognition train, they might still find some wassock telling them that they are only allowed in the open-top wagons at the back - we are in the 21st century now

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards

Sorry guys. I didn't mean to put pmiller2006 down. Just trying to point out he was feeling negative about having IEng. I've experienced negative thoughts myself and look at my achievements and capabilities more positively then I used to and wanted to encourage pmiller2006 to do the same.

My smiley was because I have been fighting myself not to not say what you said but perhaps hoping someone else would

Not sure what that says about my level of professionalism!!

Anyway, can I join you both in a ? Far more useful...

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

P.S. Does the title of this thread refer to pistols at dawn for IEng vs CEng?

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

The point i was making was that the engineering council originally decided that CEng accredited degrees would not be accepted for IEng to provide assurance that IEng was distinctive, so why change it later.



And no evidence that it isn't a factor.

It is strange that the age of new IEng registrants is so high, in fact the average age last year was 44.5 which is 8 years older than the average age of a newly registered chartered engineer (doesn't really back up the progressive registration concept).



I must admit I am negative about IEng, ... in the same way I am negative about my mortgage endowment policy, both seemed great ideas at the time

I'm certainly not negative about my own achievements, I've travelled the world on business, earned considerably more than the average chartered engineer and my last company car was a porsche I just sail my yacht now!!

I think that sums it up neatly as to the real point. I loath travelling on business and so avoid it like the plague, can't be bothered to do jobs just to earn money, and have never had a company car. And my yacht's a 12 foot dinghy (which I thoroughly enjoy sailing when it ever stops raining ). It all depends what you want out of life - what used to drive me in my career was an interest in creative engineering, hence the CEng made sense. Nowadays I suppose I tend to feel that people are more interesting than lumps of electronics...

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

I suspect it is either
a) closely related to the age at which "IEng level" engineers find it harder to get jobs, or
b) closely related to the age at which "IEng level" engineers feel they ought to be getting promoted, or
c) both

It would be also interesting to know what percentage of IEng registrants have a degree? If it is low that would support the above even more.

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy