IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: IEng carries similar status to CEng
Topic Summary: Latest Register News from EC.
Created On: 12 March 2010 06:19 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 16 March 2010 05:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

A quacking good story Mehmood.

Maybe that's what happens to the EC staff members each year. They only come out in the Spring time with suggestions for another study.

 17 March 2010 09:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
what is the difference between manage and lead.... if you lead are you able to manage? and if you manage and are you unable to lead

A Chartered Engineer is like the Conductor of an Orcastra. They lead the entire Department/Division/Group in precise harmony with the company's ethos.

An Incorporated Engineer is like the Head of the Violin section. They manage their team in harmony with other sections so that the department appears as one entity.

The problem is that the majority of CEngs I've come across never fitted this ideology, possibly because they achieved CEng too early in their careers and never full filed the ultimate vision of what a CEng is supposed to be.

These are only my views. If I stay on this forum for much longer, I'll start to get visions of Ducks!
 17 March 2010 09:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

The fact is that in recent years IEng has been devalued to relation to CEng, it used to considered equal but different.... now it is clearly the similar but inferior ...... ukspec clearly defines it as such (what is the difference between manage and lead.... if you lead are you able to manage? and if you manage and are you unable to lead) ....Now the only incentive for becoming IEng is the potential of gaining CEng at a later date.

In the absence of a clear message confusion takes hold. I think those who write these specifications are taking lessons from politicians in using words/sentences which are open to all manner of interpretations.....so that no one can tie them down to something they could be held responsible for. How often these days do we get "no actually it did not mean that it means bla bla bla instead".

Regards.
 17 March 2010 09:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mbirdi

These are only my views. If I stay on this forum for much longer, I'll start to get visions of Ducks!


I have just one thing to say to the ECUK:

Duckoff! lol

Regards.
 18 March 2010 11:28 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Maybe when Andrew Ramsey , CEO Engineering Council, retires this summer, the attitude towards IEng's may change. After all, he is also a CEng and "a leader", of the EC, you could easily point a finger at for this mess.

He was planted there in that position after they removed Malcolm Shirley about 9 years ago. And Malcolm Shirley had a much better mind-set towards IEng's.

I remember.

Daniel
 18 March 2010 11:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

I'll leave the barbed humour to others in a better position, but on the more serious points.

I don't think the "equal but different" argument was ever widely understood or accepted. However the two competence standards only differ clearly in respect of technical capability and decision making ability. For practising engineers trying to calibrate distinctions between "management" and "leadership" is an area fraught with difficulty and inconsistency. I sympathise with the argument about interpretation and "spin" but application of the law is the same, especially in commercial and contract law.

I fully accept the argument that IEng has been in decline and needs some TLC. However I see it as the duty of the IET to do something positive about it.

I also agree with the argument that professional registration becomes irrelevant if employers, regulators and people who are competent and eligible do not value it.

The danger if we lost the current system is that the only standards being applied would be in situations where "licensing" was deemed essential for public protection.

If we set aside the "social status" arguments humorously explored in a previous post and look at the IEng standard what do we find.

. A very strong standard representing a typical practising engineer able to produce results from the application of available technology.
. An achievable benchmark standard for people at a relatively early stage of their career, or as a measure of later professional development to a certain level.
. Of value in itself but also the engineering underpinning of many management commercial or educational roles and with further technical development CEng.

In my opinion this is a decent set of benefits for which I have personally been willing to "put my hand in my pocket" for close to a quarter century.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 18 March 2010 01:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: roybowdler
. Of value in itself but also the engineering underpinning of many management commercial or educational roles and with further technical development CEng.

This is the crucial point (the other two points are all very well but are basically paying someone to validate your CV).

What do you mean by "engineering underpinning"? Do you mean the IEng itself provides that underpinning, in which case I think this needs more clarification as to what this means? Or do you mean the engineer's knowledge and experience provides that underpinning, in which case, once again, the IEng is not telling you any more than you could gain from their CV?

The danger if we lost the current system is that the only standards being applied would be in situations where "licensing" was deemed essential for public protection.

Well yes...that generally is why professions are licensed. If you are saying that most potential IEngs (and, indeed CEngs) don't fall into this category - which I would agree - then I really think we have to have some better reasons for why these designations are useful. And basically this has to come down to employers valuing them, which clearly they don't - I base that statement on how few job adverts specify IEng (or, indeed, CEng) unless they are in safety-critical roles.

What you need as an argument is "if IEng (or CEng) didn't exist then x, y or z would fail". I haven't seen anyone on these forums, or elsewhere, identify what x, y and z would be, or even if they exist. If we scrapped IEng* tomorrow would it affect the engineering industry at all?

*or CEng?

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

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

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert

Edited: 18 March 2010 at 02:38 PM by amillar
 19 March 2010 10:18 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

The real issue is that the industries/organisations in which IEng/CEng are seen to have some value are mostly not that highly valued by the public nowadays in comparison with say 50 years ago.

Also if we look at teaching which still has some value, but not the same as say 30 years ago, tutors generally list their qualifications at the start of the class....and their organisational memberships. If we are lucky the odd one may explain their PhD or MSc subject area but I have yet to hear even 1 explain their CEng, FIET, etc., or even make a case for obtaining them. One of my past tutors had IEng and did not even bother to list it by his MSc until I advised him to. I am not against the IET 'cosying' up to the teaching profession but maybe they need to ask their 'members' to start making the case for 'joining up', especially as they teach tomorrows engineers.

The values are also being eroded from within!

Regards.
 19 March 2010 11:03 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: westonpa
I am not against the IET 'cosying' up to the teaching profession but maybe they need to ask their 'members' to start making the case for 'joining up', especially as they teach tomorrows engineers.


To be fair, the IET have probably done more in the last few months than ever before (or at least in the 18 years since I've been a member) to send materials out to members to help persuade other engineers to join.

Unfortunately I don't think these materials have been very good in providing a solid case for membership or registration. Lots of good words, but when you actually start analysing "what will I actually get out of this" (or "what will the engineering profession get out of this") I don't feel that there's not much there.

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

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

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 19 March 2010 11:22 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Fair point Andy.

It's not just the IET either, my IOSH member tutors are just as bad. I think many, not all, tutors get their memberships/status and then forget their responsibilites to at least forward the case for their institutions to the future skilled workers.

I do not think it would be too much to ask tutors to explain their qualifications and memberships, and why they went for them, for say 30 minutes at the start of the first class....it's not much but it would be a start.

Regards.
 19 March 2010 11:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

Agreed that as an employer I hire someone for their track record and/or potential,
Professional registration, academic qualifications or any other achievements help to paint a part of the picture. An existing employee may feel more motivated to develop their capability if an external recognition is involved and it may improve my reputation in the market place.

Also agreed that at the heart of the issue within a voluntary system is - what value does registration add over and above a CV or employer specific measures if any?

To a large extent this is in the eye of the beholder be they individual, employer or regulator. The current situation is quite mixed, based on my own experience most employers would see it as nice to have, some as extremely valuable and others would be hostile. Most of the hostility I have encountered is from people who see the professional institutions as unwelcoming, or out of touch with "industrial reality".
Some may prefer much more specific measures for their own sector, to the more general "professional titles" awarded by Engineering Council.

Employer's commitment to CEng is easily demonstrated by the huge number of Initial Professional Development Schemes accredited by the IET and other Institutions.
Commitment to IEng registration as opposed to "IEng level skills" is weaker because the perceived added value of registration is less. However accreditation for IEng as well as CEng is asked for by employers. Many apprenticeship and other training schemes are also approved by the IET at the employers request. We are currently working with a major employer who wants to recognise all its employees in a particular role with IEng, the right level is already in the job specification. Also the Armed Services have increased their support for registration.

The value in mid-career is interesting and pmiller's observations in his last paragraph are reasonable. Most careers have a steep learning curve at the front end with each milestone passed being potentially valuable. In a technical job role this growth will inevitably flatten out or "plateau". With fresh challenges and CPD we keep learning but we should by now have achieved professional competence and be judged on our "track record". Most step changes in mid-career are into management and leadership roles or "side-shifts" into a second career. In some cases achieving IEng would recognise this change e.g. Supervisor to Engineer. The theory of "Career Path Appreciation" (Stamp Jaques et al) explores this area.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 22 March 2010 02:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
You could imagine the BCS taking a view that with CITP being outside the EC remit that IEng is not as relevant as a specific IT practioner award may be.

But then CITP isn't an engineering qualification.

It would be interesting to know how many CITPs there are on the BCS register?

As far as IEng is concerned, I don't think there is anything more the IET and EC can do to promote it. We now live in the internet world and it's up to IEng members to promote their status to a wider audience.

What was done with the IEng lobby group can be done again on a larger scale. The new group would be able to communicate directly with Universities and Colleges, with industry and media and also directly with Government and MPs to promote engineering and technology and IEng status.

For a start I think IEng members should put themselves forward for election to the BoT and the Council. The more IEng members there are in places of influence the more they can effect change.

Edited: 22 March 2010 at 04:13 PM by mbirdi
 22 March 2010 05:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
Lots of the IEng degrees are technology based rather than engineering based perhaps we should reopen the chartered technologist dabate again?

Technology based employment can be just as demanding, stressful and rewarding as engineering jobs and deserve recognition equal to engineers. Do you want to change you status to CTech or remain as IEng?

What I am saying is that modern automotive maintenance (IMI) is engineering based and they don't see benefit in pursuing EC registration.

Somebody should contact them to find out precisely why they pulled out of EC registration?

Good idea regarding more lobbying although I'm not sure if my message would be the same as the EC!

Well that's the whole point of having a separate IEng lobby group or Association, if you want to make it formal. Once you achieve MIET and IEng status the rest is up to you how your sell yourself.

Do I hear any takers for "Association of Incorporated Engineers"?

Edited: 22 March 2010 at 08:13 PM by mbirdi
 22 March 2010 07:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kasese

Posts: 183
Joined: 31 March 2006

Funny,
I alway thought that the IEng's function was to put right cock ups by made CEng's



Tim Guy
 23 March 2010 11:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

A reminder :

Two pre-existing historically renowned engineering professional bodies,that
were The Institution of Incorporated Engineers IE(Chartered ) and
the Society of Engineers( Incorporated ) were dissolved in the nil-that is their own
identities dead for ever !

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 23 March 2010 12:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1945
Joined: 01 April 2006

The source of this is from wikipedia, with my comment below the web site.

Engineers with "chartered" titles awarded by professional institutions (such as Chartered Electrical Engineer, awarded by the Institution of Electrical Engineers prior to 2002) are only entitled to call themselves chartered engineers and use the CEng suffix if they are registered accordingly with Engineering Council UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Engineer_(UK)

Looks like Charted Electrical Engineer did not make the grade for CEng with the EC. The IET could have changed this institutional award to Chartered Incorporated Engineer. Like the CITP award I beleive it would have captured a lot more below Masters qualified engineers. than I Eng.

The latest on the future of Engineering in the UK is below.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/societ...irs/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

J Moore I Eng MIET
 23 March 2010 12:38 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

When Chartered Engineering Technologists was put forward by the EC some years ago, many IEng members rejected it. This is why the CCEng proposal came about. Perhaps the EC could introduce CET (or CETech or CTech) in addition to IEng. That way IEng Members wanting a change of status could transfer across to CET and others remain as IEng.

The only problem which might occur would be the raising of academic qualification for CET to a Masters degree as this now seems to be the norm for Chartered status.

Edited: 23 March 2010 at 12:47 PM by mbirdi
 24 March 2010 09:55 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Could someone explain to me what an "engineering technologist" is?

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

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

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 24 March 2010 01:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

No (despite the fact that I used to be one).

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

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

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 24 March 2010 01:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



tickner

Posts: 1229
Joined: 30 September 2001

can anyone really explain what a "chartered engineer" is?

-------------------------
Mark Tickner CEng MIET
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.