IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Poll for the IEng chartered status
Topic Summary:
Created On: 09 July 2010 11:11 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 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.
 09 July 2010 11:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rar

Posts: 642
Joined: 30 August 2005

Poll for the IEng chartered status

I'm asking to vote for it
 09 July 2010 11:30 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Yes.
 09 July 2010 12:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 529
Joined: 17 September 2001

No

If you want to call yourself "chartered", apply for CEng. Don't apply for IEng then moan that it isn't chartered.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 09 July 2010 01:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

YES ! And the why is that those coming from the CHARTERED Institution of Incorporated Engineers ( IIE) should be worth of this adjective,too !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...Incorporated_Engineers

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 09 July 2010 01:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Ectophile,

If you are registered as a CEng, what is their to fear then, if IEng's obtain a Chartered title.
Which I don't think will happen, as the EC has settled the position of IEng's as in between the Technicians and CEng's, just like the rest of the world, who mostly call them Technologists. The difference is that the IEng requirements appear to be set at a higher standard than those required for the Technologist designation elsewhere.
 09 July 2010 02:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ArthurHall

Posts: 735
Joined: 25 July 2008

I still cant work out why anyone bothers with IEng, other than personel satisfaction. I have been an EngTech for many years with no benefit, I am sure I could make IEng but I just dont see any advantage. I have never been asked if I was a member of the IET never mind if I was registered. I am a contractor going from site to site commissoning HV control and protection working on grid sites and windfarms. I dont think I have ever come across any of my peers who are even MIET.
Untill the IET generates a requirement for IENG I dont see any reason why I should part with my money
 10 July 2010 12:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

"Trying to market 2 products (because that is what they are) where one is clearly inferior to the other is impossible."

The ironic thing is that one is inferior in the way it is perceived in the business world, and by the public, and yet the differences between what is required to achieve them both is not that significant in many respects.

Regards.
 11 July 2010 01:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

Here in Italy , according to the standard of their technical education, we have FOUR types of engineers,that are :

a) The Industrial Perito ( Industrial Expert ) educated at the Secondary Education Standard ( HNC/HND level )

b The Graduate Industrial Perito. educated at the three-year Degree Standard but with a Technology approach..( (Higher Technician )

c) The Junior Engineer, educated at the three.-year Degree Standard, but with an Engineering approach,and ( Incorporated
Engineer ), and at last,

d) The Doctor Engineer ( Dott. Ingegnere ) ,educated at the five-year Degree Standard with a full Engineerimng approach.( Chartered
Engineer )

Bu whilst the first two are the most required by the local Indutry because their practical approach to problems, the third one is instead seen as a second-class Engineer ( nothwithstanding he can also call himself ' Doctor ') with respect the higher one, that is the one
belonging to the category (d).

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco

Edited: 11 July 2010 at 01:39 PM by sunnyboy
 11 July 2010 02:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

I worked for and with an Italian company for 7 years and the ironic thing is that in many many cases there were people without any such qualifications doing the work of 'engineers'. Italy has a system that looks great on paper but in practice it is flawed.

Those that receive the appropriate training are well educated but the way things are done is very poor in the workplace.

Regards.
 12 July 2010 08:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 529
Joined: 17 September 2001

Originally posted by: danielscott

Ectophile,



If you are registered as a CEng, what is their to fear then, if IEng's obtain a Chartered title.

Which I don't think will happen, as the EC has settled the position of IEng's as in between the Technicians and CEng's, just like the rest of the world, who mostly call them Technologists. The difference is that the IEng requirements appear to be set at a higher standard than those required for the Technologist designation elsewhere.


At the moment, I'm neither CEng nor IEng, just MIET. When I can get the motivation back again, I am planning on applying for IEng.

The only real difference I can see between IEng and CEng is that CEngs must have some kind of management experience, while IEngs provide input to management. Other than that, the requirements are pretty much identical.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 12 July 2010 09:53 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: ectophile
The only real difference I can see between IEng and CEng is that CEngs must have some kind of management experience, while IEngs provide input to management. Other than that, the requirements are pretty much identical.


That shouldn't be the case - my understanding is that you should be able to have a CEng engineer reporting to an IEng manager or director.

There are good sumnmaries on the professional registration pages on this website as follows:

CEng:
Do you:
develop new or existing technology?
problem solve?
make a key contribution to your business' success, through innovation, creativity and change?
promote advanced designs or design methods?
develop better production techniques, marketing or construction concepts?
pioneer technology or engineering services and management methods?


IEng:
Do you:
maintain and manage applications of current and developing technology?
apply existing and emerging technology in your work?
problem solve?
contribute to continuous improvement in your business processes?
manage the planning, budgeting and organisation of tasks, people and resources?
have involvement in design, development, manufacture, construction and operation?


Of course the lines are blurred, but my understanding is that the difference is between developing new solutions and implementing existing solutions. Not about seniority and certainly not about management - in fact it is IEng where managing "tasks, people and resources" is mentioned.

-------------------------
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
 12 July 2010 01:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 529
Joined: 17 September 2001

I was going by the requirements of UK-SPEC. Particularly requirements C1 to C4 for IEng and CEng.

That said, the wording is often a bit woolly, and the competence/standard in the left column does not always match the guidance in the right column.

I get the feeling that the way people market CEng and IEng bears little relationship to what it actually says the requirements are in UK-SPEC.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 12 July 2010 07:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

If IEng "have involvement in design, development" then they "develop new or existing technology".

"maintain and manage applications of current and developing technology?"

How exactly does one manage developing technology without also being part of its development?

"contribute to continuous improvement in your business processes?"

How does one do this and not "make a key contribution to your business' success, through innovation, creativity and change?"

The IET/ECUK spec is the biggest load of twaddle I have seen which makes some feable attempt to suggest there are differences where there are no significant difference....and I have seen some twaddle in my time.

I come back to a point I made a long time ago in that MSc is required for CEng, if we speak about qualifications, and yet the difference between BSc (Hons) and MSc is that at masters level you have to be able to 'critically analyse'. However critical analysis is only about 30% of each MSc module and therefore it is very possible to be able to pass an MSc and be useless when it comes to the 'critical analysis' part which is supposed to be the difference. Thus there is no significant difference unless the critical analysis part has to be also passed on it's own.

Unless the IET/EC can show a significant difference between IEng and CEng then they are both the same....in my opinion.

Regards.
 13 July 2010 12:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

Of course the lines are blurred, but my understanding is that the difference is between developing new solutions and implementing existing solutions. Not about seniority and certainly not about management - in fact it is IEng where managing "tasks, people and resources" is mentioned


Although the exclusive CMI course offering gives out a completely different message!


It does indeed, and it would be good if the IET considered that. Looking around me, it is my colleagues working in IEng roles who are looking at moving up the management tree, those in CEng roles are happy keeping their heads down! (Ok, I moved into management, but we all make mistakes...)

-------------------------
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
 13 July 2010 10:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

I don't think having Chartered Incorporated Engineer is going to work. As soon as the excitement dies down, we'll come back to the same problem when it is realised that nobody has heard of the title and pointless efforts being made in promoting it being equal to but different to CEng, and confusing industry even more.

The next item on the 10 year agenda will then be "Well why don't they get rid of Incorporated Engineer and just have Chartered Engineer? After all we're all the same now".

If the IIE had separated from the EC and gone independent, it could have created something like CCEng. But it chose to be governed by the EC and everyone knows there isn't room to swing two cats in the same room.

The only options are to move up to CEng by application; remain as IEng and do the best you can or resign your post.

In actual fact registration qualifications don't really mean much in the real world. The world is changing as such a rapid pace that a CEng or IEng standing still will get succumbed in a sea of change.

Did anyone see the story of Concorde on TV last night? Can't remember what channel it was on, but towards the end Sir Terrance Conrad gave a moving account of being on the last flight to the UK with Sir David frost. He told of the tears in both their eyes at the knowledge of this being the last flight ever. In fact it move Sir Terrance so much he broke down in tears telling the story. It nearly moved me, but then I thought, well what about the engineers who worked on the project? What about remembering them?

Nobody in the real world cares about Chartered Engineers or incorporated Engineers. When they recall great historic moments, they just refer to engineers working on the project. We are faceless people in this world. Somebody needs to put this shame to right, but it seems nobody in the IET and EC has the talent to offer any solution to engineer recognition. The IET should be doing something to get those retired engineers who worked on the Concorde project and other major projects public recognition in the same way that the press do to get retired soldiers recognition.

As for the ECUK-Spec, I concur with westonpa's earlier comments. It's a load of bolx for geeks to waste their time over.

Wake up BoT! Stop wasting time in mundane work like opening a branch in HK or inviting some boring official from overseas to lunch at Savoy Pl or amending bylaws allowing virgins and hippies to be elected onto the board. Mind you that could be seen as an improvement.

Edited: 13 July 2010 at 10:54 PM by mbirdi
 14 July 2010 11:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ADB

Posts: 5
Joined: 15 July 2003

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

IEng has been seriously devalued in recent years with the move away from the 'different but equal' view. It is now purely an intermediate qualification which is appropriate for engineers at the beginning of their careers but totally irrelevant for anyone from mid career onwards.


This is where I don't get it... or maybe my memory is playing tricks...

When I graduated 20+ years ago, IEng was viewed as a (part-qualified) stepping stone, gained with AMIEE, part-way through your graduate training scheme, with CEng MIEE as the goal at the end of the program.

Maybe former members of the IIE saw things differently...

Obviously this changed with the breaking of the link between MIEE and CEng, and with changes to the entry criteria. But I know of no-one who has considered IEng as anything other than a lower-rank. And certainly NOT equivalent or equal to CEng.
 14 July 2010 12:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

ADB,

When I completed the HNC in 1965 you couldn't even join one of the senior institutions with Higher National. The minimum requirement was an ordinary degree and now just to be interested in engineering you can join an institution, but obviously not necessarily be granted a designation.

In 1995 when they raised the academic standards to Masters level for CEng and an Ordinary Degree for IEng the EC(UK) back then, introduced descriptions that described IEng's and CEng's as equal but different., but somehow all this has been washed under the carpet and hence much of the confusion. IEng's are classified in the U.K. as engineers. even those who have gained an Honours Degree, yet elswhere in the world IEngs are recognised as Technologists.

Come to Canada with an Honours Degree and after a given time and the proper requirements you will probably be granted PEng.

Things do change and obviously they have, but causing confusion about it all shouldn't be included with change.

Just read the articles above and see how the members are comparing the IEng and CEng descriptions taken from the UKSPEC.

Regards,

Daniel
 14 July 2010 01:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

That is the same also here in Italy : The Italian equivalent of the British Incorporated Engineer , that is , the ' Doctor Junior Engineer -Dottor
Ingegnere iunior ' is seen one of lower rank than the five-year one , that is, the Dottor Ingegnere Senior ).

Here we have, at the moment , only 5,000 first-level engineers, and they perhaps run the risk to disappear in the next future (falling
down in the Higher Technicians ' area ! ).

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 14 July 2010 03:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: ADB
This is where I don't get it... or maybe my memory is playing tricks...

When I graduated 20+ years ago, IEng was viewed as a (part-qualified) stepping stone, gained with AMIEE, part-way through your graduate training scheme, with CEng MIEE as the goal at the end of the program.

I'm afraid your memory has played tricks on you. AMIEE was awarded to graduates who met the academic requirements for CEng registration. Once the necessary experience was achieved they applied for CEng. It had nothing to do with IEng (or TEng) registration, which was available to engineers who qualified through the HNC route.
 14 July 2010 03:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



myluckykk

Posts: 18
Joined: 03 April 2010

Originally posted by: danielscott

IEng's are classified in the U.K. as engineers. even those who have gained an Honours Degree, yet elswhere in the world IEngs are recognised as Technologists.



...The fact that IEng was recognised under Sydney Accord and that makes it equal as Engineering Technologist elsewhere but UK.

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

See Also:



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