I would like to see a rigid implementation of CPD to ensure IEng and CEng maintain their competencies and with an assessment every 5 years.....not a full blown IEng/CEng assessment but rather an assessment that the CPD has been properly maintained. This would give an advantage over a degree for which there is no requirement to maintain the comptencies gained whilst studying for it. It would also then inform employers that the person is still at the standard, so far as is reasonably practicable. With this type of message we could start to build a standard which has a value which is different to a degree but which would have value to both the holder and prospective employer......in my opinion.

Regards.

Both the previous contributions seem to offer something worthy of further consideration in my opinion.

Implemented with care I would support a periodic review of CPD but there are cost and "red tape" implications, even if much voluntary effort could be harnessed. I can't see how a process of carrying out an "admin check" based on counting hours or similar, would show value added?

Taking it further I think it would be impractical to move away from the current point in time assessment and award system, to a "renewal of licence" approach. This is really only appropriate to activities of a tightly constrained scope and would need costly policing.

Each type of professional registration has to be "distinctive" and strongly valued in itself if we expect people to engage voluntarily. The alternative would be for the professional engineering community to consist only of relatively small "elites" with the rest being on the "outside" or the "waiting list".

The IET embraces all categories of professional registrants across a range of disciplines and is working to ensure their active engagement. In my opinion this actually increases the standing of Chartered Engineers and the overall reputation of the institution.

As part of revitalising IEng we have to address any (often inadvertent) negative stereotyping where we find it, as well as promoting a positive distinctive position. There is certainly a role for marketing which we are doing in a targeted way, but the best advert is the quality of the people who have become IEng through the IET.

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

The IET can set the standards for the evidence required to prove CPD. Certain types of information may only require an admin check whereas other types may require a different type of check. Look at the existing model for assessing and awarding IEng in that if a person has appropriate qualifications they form part of the competency requirements and are 'easier' to check whereas work experience may required more indepth checks. The current system is not perfect but we accept it as good enough overall to be able to award professional status. I do not suggest that the CPD system would be perfect but it would be a step in the correct direction. If person has a 20 year old degree whilst it has value there is nothing to suggest the person is still at that level whereas if they have IEng with a checked CPD the employer would have at least some more assurance the person remains at that level.....not perfect but something 'distinctive' from formal qualifications. IOSH require senior status's to maintain CPD so it can be done.

Regards.

This might have been true in the past, but not in these modern times. One of the reasons the IEE changed it's name to the IET was in recognition of the changing pace of science, engineering and technology. This means that engineers now have to adapt to changing areas of skills, methods and practice on a regular basis as well as taking on additional management responsibility.

I've seen an example of an engineer registered at a senior level with the EC, transferred over to a new organisational structure in his company, doing much the same role he's done over the last 20 years? and on the same pay grade. In other words he appears never to have been promoted, even though he is in a responsible role and a valued member of staff.

Within the same organisation, other members (not registered with the EC or any membership) doing slightly different roles have been promoted in a short space of time (5 years?) and crept ahead of the registered engineer by as much as one or two pay grades. How did they do it?

We'll they decided to take on more responsibility by applying for senior advertised roles. They filled out the application forms, took the test papers, gave the interview presentations and the interviews, before landing the new jobs.

In other words, organisations are now adopting ECUK-Spec like assessments on candidates for new job applications. Promotions are also assessed on the same basis. Therefore ambitious staff can leap frog ahead of others by submitting themselves to rigorous assessments to win promotion.

For registered engineers to win promotion, they will have to follow the same process and take on more responsibility.

Therefore registration with the ECUK will eventually become irrelevant as it's only a once in a lifetime evaluation and not done on a regular basis.

Edited: 16 April 2012 at 09:01 PM by mbirdi

I am very impressed with the quality of new IEng registrants, but I don't think the profile of the typical new IEng fits the strategy being adopted by the Engineering Council, who see the continuum of Eng Tech, IEng, CEng as being all important. The average age of a new IEng last year was 45, against 37 for a CEng, so it seems the EC strategy is at odds with the real world.

What is your primary concern, age or numbers? If the average age is 45 then that suggests that on average the IEng have a lot of work experience. If the average age was say 25 then it would suggest significantly less work experience. I think we should be more concerned about the quality instead of just trying to make up the numbers, because from a high quality foundations we can build a high quality status. I think it is relatively 'easier' for people to have experience which meets the competency requirements of IEng but less so for CEng, and hence more older and experienced engineers at IEng status, but I do not see this as a problem.

Regards.

As with most statistics there are various interpretations. It is very pleasing that IEng is appealing to experienced professionals and in particular their employers. The current high age profile also counters any argument of lowering of standards. I hesitate to predict the future but I think that the average age of new registrants will fall, which would be desirable. In trying to revitalise IEng we need experienced exemplars, role models and mentors who often could have registered earlier. There will always be those who reach the standard in mid or late career, but many should be able to do so within ten years rather than twenty plus.

There are differences in emphasis between Engineering Council licensed bodies. The IET wishes to be an inclusive body and offers equal respect to all categories of professional registrant. Some other institutions mainly or only value chartered professionals and see Technician or IEng as "associates" or as a "progression".
Provided that the standard is not compromised, the existence of some variety and therefore choice seems healthy to me.

A recent IET members working party emphasised the importance of viewing IEng as a distinctive and valuable career path in its own right. However some people who achieve IEng will pursue a career path that enables them to demonstrate CEng competence at a later stage and should be fully supported in doing so.

At present most new IEng and Technician registrants come to registration when they are well above the threshold standard. Many will have comfortably reached the threshold in their twenties. Looking at Engineering Council statistics for new registrants in 2011, there is encouragement. The most represented ages for a new IEng were 28,29 & 30 with 26 &27 in the top ten. The overall age profile rose because of a strong cohort of mid-career professionals. There is an element of "catch-up" as well as some sector specific factors.

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

Why do engineers take so long to achieve IEng and CEng registration when medical Doctors (who spend 7 years qualifying) achieve registration in their 20s?

I'm sorry, but are we saying that engineers need to be like boeing 747 pilots? Sort of need to be flying for 30 years before getting to be captain of a 747? And is the pay and status of registered engineers worth it after all the effort? Most engineers retire in their 50s.

I'm sorry but some engineers are living in cloud cuckoo land.

This is what happens when you let old guys (and I'm not exempt from it) run an engineering organisation. They've turned it into an elite and un-attractive place for young talented engineers to want to join.

The problem is that CEng and IEng are much woollier than the other professions. All the other respected professions I can think of have a structured training programme, consisting of on-the-job training and examinations. If at the end you pass the exams then you are qualified.

However, the BEng and MEng degrees don't contain enough practical work, so it requires post-graduate employment to make that up. Plus the engineering institutions allow you to apply with an alternative degree and a longer period of experience.

It's as if a nurse could upgrade to a doctor because they have a nursing qualification and they have worked in a senior position at a hospital for 10 years.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET

Whilst its great to see all the talk about IEng and CEng. What about Eng Tech. I would like to become an IEng but trying to get guidance and a clear path is like trying to find hend teeth. I am self employed (not through choice) and cant afford course and time off, i work all the hours i can get. There does not seem to be any consideration for those want to take the next step. It would be nice to go to a registration meeting, but time, distance and cost do not seem to be factors in the IET. Some of us live in the real world were we would like a hand not have the hand taken out of us. We seem to be the forgotten and only remeberd went the fees become due each year. I am giving serious consideration as to weather it is worth it anymore as there seems to be very little (almost nothing) in it for me.

Gazzer, can I ask where you live?

There are regular registration clinics held by IET local groups all over the country, and the ones I am involved with treat EngTech as equally important as CEng or IEng.

If these are not an option to you, drop me a PM and I will be glad to help you in my capacity as a PRA.

Best Regards,

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

To be a registered IEng or CEng professional engineer is well worth it in my opinion and I would encourage it.

In regards to pay & status I think they both would improve if engineers had to be registered with the UK engineering council.

For example
just look at job web sites in countries like USA & Aus where a professional registered engineers salary is much higher by far than UK.


I think problem is that registration is optional in the UK and therefore allows anyone to call themselves engineers.

Brian

My concern is the Engineering Council's strategy for IEng which I believe not be successful in the longer term. Roy is correct that IEng is seen as a 'professional' level qualification by the IET, but other PEI's see it more as an associate award. I believe this vagueness in what IEng really means is a real problem in terms of marketing the qualification. Notwithstanding the fact there has been a slight increase in new IEng registrations, the overall numbers are in steep decline and the demographic trend means that there could be less than 10,000 incorporated engineers in 5 years time.

Legitimate concerns both. Good overall numbers are important but competence and commitment (a familiar slogan) is more so. The value of IEng in future will be what holders make it and there has been a very healthy increase in new registrants who can potentially take on the challenge.

Engineering Council regulates the standard but can't prescribe how professional bodies market it. I note that the CIOB (outside Engineering Council regulation) now also use the term "Incorporated". There is actually much more variety in the types of people using the designation "Chartered", but this is rarely raised as a "vagueness" problem. The IET and now also I understand the IMechE (nearly 50% of total registrants) treat IEng as full professional members.

My main concern about alternative "progressive" type approaches is that the holders of IEng may value it less. However why shouldn't an IEng be ambitious and become a CEng, or otherwise Chartered if this is the path they choose. It has been suggested by some that IEng could be retained by those who currently transfer to CEng rather than subsumed. I understand that it is technically possible to be in different sections of the register at the same time. Perhaps also some subtle changes to the IEng standard could emphasise the distinctive "practicality" of IEng registrants, which might make it desirable to those with a more academic background. This would be reinforced if more employers also valued the IEng distinctive contribution. We already have Incorporated Engineers (and Technicians) with good degrees including masters. Why should they be seen by some as "under achievers" when they are enjoying successful careers?

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

Sometimes I smile at your questions because you ask them and yet know the answers before you ask them....such a tease you are.
A doctor has to be registered to practice as a doctor and so the system is set up that way. An engineer does not require IEng or CEng to practice as an engineer. If the engineer did require this then the system would be set up to accomodate it and they would all have to obtain the status in their early 20's, or thereabouts.

No because a 747 pilot is a pilot and an engineer is an engineer, assuming of course that one is not doing both jobs.

And where are the cuckoo's living?

Maybe they could do something along the lines of IOSH and introduce Grad Eng.

Regards.

But this sends again the message that IEng is below CEng which means IEng holders may value it less. Sorry but I do not see CEng as the pinnacle but rather I see it as a status which is aligned with a persons chosen career. IEng and EngTech are also aligned with a persons chosen career. People may get different salaries and carry out different work tasks but all are required for a successful business and quite often if the 'top' person leaves it does not have anywhere the same effect as if the EngTech leaves, because the EngTech persons skills and experience are not so easily replaced.

But if they already have successful careers, and good degrees, then why do they require IEng? What does it add? Answer that and then use it for the marketing campaign. I think it will be better for IEng to stand out as something distinctive and stop trying to be all things to all people.

For me IEng is an engineer who incorporates the high level of practical and technical competencies required to deliver a professional and world class standard of engineering and which is underpinned by ethical standards and academic acheivement. An incorporated engineer also maintains their level of competency by continued professional development which is regularly reviewed by their institution. Bla bla bla.

Regards.

How do you think it should be marketed then, in order that it is less vague?

Regards.

Reminds me of Dick Emery in one of his sketches, dressed in drag: Oh! you are awful.....But I like you. Followed by the hand bag routine.

The CIOB have "Incorporated Builder" who are 'non corporate' members of the institute, i.e. cannot vote or participate in decision making processes of the institute, so are not full professional members.
Clearly the CIOB chose the term 'incorporated' because of the association with the incorporated engineer. The vagueness problem is related to whether or not the term 'incorporated' relates to a profession level qualification or a junior or associate level. Of course the designation 'chartered' refers to a variety of people but all are viewed as 'professionals'.