Mbirdi - welcome to the Chartered Incorporated Engineer Technologist (CIET) thread your last post did not materialise could you input again.
Regards.

As somebody who is currently in the process of preparing for the I Eng interview process I hope you would forgive me for being maybe a little demorilised by this and some of the similar threads. But this is not the case as my academic background, B Eng Mining Electrical Engineer, just a mere ordinary degree only ever allowed me to aspire to this level of competency without additional study. Furthermore I remember, previous to completion of my studies, when lesser academic qualifications and a EC examination and not long out of studying you could be a C Eng (granted this was in the mining institute, but I am sure this is well regarded).
In my valued opinion a I Eng (Engineering Technologist would be my preferred choice) should be a valuble qualification within industry and people who seem to portray it in a negative manner ( are these mostly C Engs?!) should have the knowledge to clearly understand this and exploit this skills in a positive manner.

From my perspective it seems strange how the EC see the creation of the 'Technician Council' as a wholly positive thing for the profession. UKSpec defines IEng as a professional engineer so does it make sense for incorporated engineers to be included in an initiative to promote technician registration where aramsey admits we were peripheral to technician discussions. Has IEng been included to provide a progression route for higher technicians in improve the standing of technicians and make it a more attractive proposition? If so, we should grasp the initiative and try to open a dialogue directly with the new chairman of the technician council to ensure the benefit of our combined knowledge and experience are utilised to bring about positive change. Shall we jointly write a letter to Steve Holliday?

Ask some of your mates in the other institution to work on it for you.....

You made some good points so something worked.

Regards.

There are always those for and those against so what really matters is what value something has to you.

Regards.

OK I will start.

Regards.

Dear Steve,

Moving to the final point I have no problem making a decision when I have committed to some further reading and understanding.

Questions I would like answered:

What are the figures relating to C Eng, I Eng, EngTech within this institute or the proportions? If there is a shortage Engineers and Technicians where are the shortages and in what industry sectors? Maybe another thread.

Is the technician council a means of drawing in lots of Eng Tech and potentially I Eng before breaking up the skills and knowledge elements in various areas and then embarking on the dumbing down procedure akin to the "electrician/plumber in four weeks" scenario?

My view is that a well promoted technician council, proportionally, would bring in significantly more numbers to the institutes improving not only their revenue streams but benefit more EngTechs by bringing them into these communities.
I would agree that the I Eng topic was correctly added to the EngTech council debate as that is the logical progression. As is the progression from I Eng to C Eng, if people so desire.
I will restate that it is in my view that any professional status within this organisation is important and of note and that those of a higher professional status should be looking to promote the benefits of progression without degrading any levels below them.

It would be a good starting point if Steve Holliday of the technician council read all the discussion forums raised by the IET members concerning the current IEng title.

--------------------------------------------------
Basil Wallace PgDip EngTech MIET

Near 40000 IEngs are members of the IET.
What is the opinion of the governance of the IET about?
May be accepted,passively,that the IEng MIET,a professional engineer, be reclassified as a technician?

rar, the number of IEngs is nearer 35,000.

If, as it seems likely, incorporated engineers come under the authority of the Technician Council surely the registration fees that are currently paid to the EC should now be paid to the Technician Council instead. With funds of approximately £850k pa and the lack of a competing perspective in respect of CEng I'm sure the new body will provide value for money in terms of promotion and marketing.

While EC wanting to promote and market IEng internationally, the inclusion of IEng, if so happen, to come under Technician Council will certainly put many potential registrants off. Don't get me wrong as I view registered EngTech as qualified people but the value should be created 'upwards'. By giving the benefits/recognition to IEng, potential and current holders, I hope it will remain under EC umbrella. Consideration should be given to those outside UK, who are paying fees as well for their qualifications, experience and knowledge formally assessed and wished to be recognised and valued. Voting as a way of democracy should be deployed before implementation hopefully.

-------------------------
Kah-King MSc. MIET

What is the opinion of the IET about?
So far no word about!!!

The Technician Education Council (for runner to the BTEC) was introduced (by the Tory Government) in the late 70s as replacement for the ordinary national and higher national qualifications run by the Joint National Committee (IEE, IMechE, ICE). These new qualifications were designed to be more flexible in subject choice and able to meet the demands of industry for skilled Technicians and Technician Engineers.

It's somewhat of an irony that 30 years later the UK government have come full circle with the introduction of the Technician Council because of low numbers of highly skilled Technicians in the UK. I wouldn't be too excited about this one. Give it some years and it will all fall back into dereliction.

Edited: 21 April 2010 at 06:47 PM by mbirdi

Some confusion seems to have crept into the discussion about the relationship of IEng to the Technician Council. The Technician Council is intended to promote and raise the status of professional technicians. Registration for Engineering Technicians will continue to be through a licensed professional engineering institution - IET being one of these.

Incorporated Engineers are not technicians. The discussions surrounding the creation of the Technician Council have included the need to show that technicians are able to progress to higher professional status: in the case of engineering there are many examples of technicians who have reached IEng and CEng status.

Regarding IEng promotion, we are well into a marketing programme, which has commenced with a workshop with interested institutions, proceeded to creation of a working group to progress conclusions, and followed up with a fairly large-scale survey of IEng reactions and suggestions. Money has been budgeted to implement the findings. The Engineering Council is working closely with IET and others to try to achieve maximum impact with the forthcoming campaign.

-------------------------
aramsay

Presumably no one will take any notice of the outcome just like last time.

Money well spent.

I am more confused than ever !!.

The EC website states " The Engineering Council welcomes proposals by Lord Sainsbury's Technician Working Group for the creation of a Technician Council to promote registration of Engineering Technicians (EngTech) and Incorporated Engineers (IEng) - and their equivalents in science, health and ICT."

It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma ......

Makes you wonder if persons on these working groups just show up to get a few days away from their other businesses and get a few free lunches and dinners.

-------------------------
Daniel Scott GCGI IEng MIET

It has been 2 years since the IEng review which recommended marketing and promotion, in that time nothing has happened apart from a shift to a 3 level progressive registration model. It seems there is a problem understanding how such a model can be made to work when basically you are trying to sell IEng as a failed CEng.

Intelligent people are already confused which says a lot about the new TC and its launch message!

In about another 10 years there will be another 'pet project'.

Sums the problem up very well I think.

And those, in the EC, who originally allowed the marketing material wording which gave this impression think they are competent to sort things out!....lol lol lol lol lol.

Regards.