IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: New IEng registrants
Topic Summary: The level of new IEng registrants appears to be declining
Created On: 14 December 2012 09:36 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 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.
 04 January 2013 08:25 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

Originally posted by: mbirdi

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

My point is that professional qualifications should be indicative of your capability. Everyone understands what a chartered accountant or a chartered quantity surveyor does. Incorporated Engineer could mean anything!


That's only half true. The job titles and professional titles of accountants and surveyors match exactly. For example, an accountant has a chartered status and also works as a chartered accountant.



There are no chartered or incorporated engineer job titles in industry, only CEng or IEng titles awarded by the EC. Job titles range from Technician to company director.
This statement isn't true either, in that most employers won't give Chartered QS and Chartered Accountants a job title of "Chartered xxx", in the same way as they don't in Engineering.

Incidentally, I list my occupation as "Chartered Engineer" on things like insurance statements of particulars, and other "official" forms, which in fact has made things easier, as my various job titles in the past were not descriptive enough for many insurance companies, and had to be translated into something else that didn't really match the jobs I had.

Not sure if this would work well listing "Incorporated Engineer" - I'll ask some friends of mine who are IEng if this works or not, unless someone on the Forum has this experience?

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 04 January 2013 11:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

It has been some time ago but when I was "IEng only" when asked to act in official capacity, such as confirming a passport application or certifying an electrical installation, or acting as an academic or vocational assessor, declaring as an Incorporated Engineer was quite satisfactory.

An IEng acting within their competence (In accordance with the IET code and the terms of Engineering Council registration) has to my knowledge no lesser standing in law than a CEng and may often have a higher standard of expertise in respect of a particular range of activities. The IET draws from IEng, CEng and Technician professionally registered members in developing, setting or assessing standards, including professional registration. I'm aware that IEng designation is recognised explicitly by regulatory instructions concerned with airworthiness and lift/escalator safety and is implicitly included by most regulatory regimes.

The practice of requiring "CEng only" was picked up and replicated by administrators who were ignorant of IEng and extended well beyond the situations where this would be best practice (of which there are some). For example it became common practice for companies being asked to tender for installation and maintenance work to be asked for the numbers of Chartered Engineers employed, when the actual work required Incorporated Engineer management and Technician practice. The intent was good, but lobbying by "chartered engineer only" institutions had skewed the question.

Touching on Accountants and Surveyors my experience was that accountants were designated according to their area of work. Becoming a Chartered Accountant involved a long (ish) process of passing the professional exams and was largely regarded as a personal development issue. The last one I recall completing joined the company with a degree in PE and studied in his own time for the exams. Senior leaders might be expected to be Chartered.

For many Quantity Surveyors employed in construction, becoming Chartered via RICS was seen as irrelevant and elitist, for example a popular degree course which attracted mid-career professionals folded when RICS accreditation was sought as they weren't allowed to admit people who didn't have a high UCAS tariff.

Others may have had a different perspective ?

Clearly in situations where a business model involves selling a consultancy or knowledge based service, the marketing benefit of demonstrating that this is provided by "chartered" professionals is strong. However I would advocate that any business identifies the requirements for and benefits of "professional" practice throughout. In most engineering activities managing HS&E and related commercial risks makes this an essential requirement to at least a minimum standard. Professional registration (of any flavour) becomes therefore a "nice to have". Clearly very great numbers of individuals and employers are sufficiently motivated to register or support registration. Unfortunately we haven't yet gained the same support for IEng and Technician registration as we have for CEng. The "inclusive" nature of the IET is relatively new, so it is a work in progress!

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 04 January 2013 11:39 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
My point is that professional qualifications should be indicative of your capability. Everyone understands what a chartered accountant or a chartered quantity surveyor does. Incorporated Engineer could mean anything!

As could Chartered Engineer. What the title indicates is the level and style of professionalism you show, it says nothing about your individual skill set. Your degree and subsequent experience show what your role is, your professional designation should show the level of seniority and responsibility you can take in that role. OK, we could go back to Chartered Electrical Engineer, or Incorporated Mechanical Engineer, but it gets incredibly difficult to define modern engineering roles like that, and in any case to anyone who needs to know they can read your CV. The Chartered/Incorporated title shows that your level in your chosen field has been peer assessed, which can be hard to show in any other way.

-------------------------
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
 05 January 2013 09:48 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for DavidParr.
DavidParr

Posts: 242
Joined: 19 April 2002

People with IEng are every bit as professional as those with CEng. They certainly may display different competences, but registration is their professional "badge".

Best Regards,

-------------------------
David Parr BSc.CEng MIET
PRA
 05 January 2013 10:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
IEng indicates an intermediate level of professionalism, subordinate to CEng.


Totally disagree. As I've mentioned (probably too many times) before, both my Directors would be eligible for IEng but not for CEng (and never will be). I think they'd be a bit upset if I suggested that I, as their subordinate, was more professional than they were! Hence I included the words "styles of professionalism".

I also can't find any reference on the EC website to IEng being a "stepping stone" to CEng, everything I can see there supports the "equal but different" idea. But there may be something I missed, if you've got any links to EC material that does show the "stepping stone" view it would be helpful to post them.

Thanks,

Andy

-------------------------
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
 05 January 2013 12:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: amillar
Totally disagree. As I've mentioned (probably too many times) before, both my Directors would be eligible for IEng but not for CEng (and never will be).

I guess that just goes to show that neither IEng or CEng are required in order to be successful in industry and/or to prove competency or professionalism. If your directors go to another company they will still be seen as directors and will not require the IET stamp of approval because they have businesses stamp of approval. Therefore if we now come back to what CEng and IEng represent then CEng is the higher status and the notion that the two are equal but different is nonsense. I could write words to suggest I am equal to the queen but I am not and so it is not the words which really matter but rather it is what the 'population' thinks which actually matters. The 'population' thinks CEng is the higher status and if you wish to disagree then carry out a survey. CEng has brand recognition and IEng does not. I do not see this as completely the fault of the EC and co because I think this has a lot to do with our past 'class' system and that we come from a past where there were clearly different levels in all walks of life, be it banking, engineering, work in general or society, etc.

pmiller is 100% correct and a little bit of weak but well intentioned defence here by those who hold CEng does not change the fact that he is correct. Mr Parr wanted CEng and you could see that in his past writings in these forums and he wanted it because he saw that as satisfying his need and due to the fact he saw that as the pinnacle. If the IET had told him you are only eligible for IEng and that is it he would not have been satisfied. It's easy for him to now suggest that IEng are equal to him because he now holds the higher status. Not that I am against Mr Parr because he does a great job these days.

With regards to the evidence which you said you may have missed then take a look at http://www.engc.org.uk/ecukdoc...0to%20registration.pdf and explain why the broken line arrow does not also go from CEng to IEng then. Whomever put that flowchart together did not and does not 100% believe without any doubt that IEng and CEng are equal but different and instead they believe that you can progress from IEng to CEng but progression the other way round in not the norm. I ask you this question, how many IEng have gone on to CEng and how many CEng have gone on to IEng......get those stats from the IET and EC and then let's take a look and then yourself, Roy and Mr Parr can get real. I think we can already guess what the % will be. Your directors are higher that you but they may well be very reasonable people and tell everyone we are all equal but different.


Regards.
 05 January 2013 04:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

1. I think I know a bit more about engineering than the Queen does. I'm being serious in that point: I may have rather less tangible assets than she has but she is pretty unlikely to be asked to sign a safety case off. CEng does not mean the public (or anyone else) should bow down and worship you, it just means you have passed a milestone in a particular field.

2. Who is this "population"? If you are recruiting a methods engineer, manufacturing engineer, project engineer, maintenance management engineer, test systems engineer, quality engineer, etc etc etc you do not need CEng and employers know that. Project engineer is a particularly strong example: the IEng manager of a 10m pound project is going to be given considerably more respect (i.e. authority, pay) than a CEng with one assistant doing a bit of development on that project: most of us will have seen this many a time. Yes, in terms of engineering innovation CEng will be more highly rated, but surely that's the point of it?

CEng is certainly more recognised, I've covered the reasons why very fully above; fundamentally I believe it's because there is occasionally a commercial need to demonstrate that one is a responsible innovator, but there are a vanishingly small number of times when there is a commercial need to prove that one is a responsible implementer. I'd suggest that most people who qualify for IEng status find their CVs fully adequate to demonstrate this, and don't need to pay an extra £200 a year for the privilege.

But to suggest that CEngs are all superior godlike human beings and that IEngs are their unwashed underclass servants I find completely unacceptable.

Re the dotted line on the engc website: yes, that is correct, but the important thing is that it is dotted. Some engineers will travel through those designations (I went from IEng to CEng). Some won't, doesn't mean they won't progress up the seniority ladder within their particular designation, and this could take them as for as they like. No reason why a future Queen shouldn't be IEng: or CEng if she's an innovation manager.

-------------------------
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
 06 January 2013 02:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: amillar
2. Who is this "population"? If you are recruiting a methods engineer, manufacturing engineer, project engineer, maintenance management engineer, test systems engineer, quality engineer, etc etc etc you do not need CEng and employers know that. Project engineer is a particularly strong example: the IEng manager of a 10m pound project is going to be given considerably more respect (i.e. authority, pay) than a CEng with one assistant doing a bit of development on that project: most of us will have seen this many a time. Yes, in terms of engineering innovation CEng will be more highly rated, but surely that's the point of it?

We live in a society and every part of that society influences every other part of that society.....try to think a bit wider. The population is the worlds population, for example, or do you actually think that when doing our job we are not and have not been influenced by the general opinions of the population? You continually pick out jobs here and there and offer them as examples without seeing the wider picture. Society as a whole does NOT recognise or know of IEng whereas they have more of an idea about Chartered. IEng does NOT have a brand which is public or distictive enough to sell it and therefore it has limited value in comparison to CEng.
But to suggest that CEngs are all superior godlike human beings and that IEngs are their unwashed underclass servants I find completely unacceptable.

Even in the past class system skilled tradesman were not seen as 'unwashed underclass servants' and the managers as 'superior godlike human beings'. And with regards to servants even the Queen is a servant and so I do not see the negative.
Re the dotted line on the engc website: yes, that is correct, but the important thing is that it is dotted. Some engineers will travel through those designations (I went from IEng to CEng).

No, the important thing is that it only points in one direction and that is the wider point. You went from IEng to CEng but I very much doubt very few CEng go to IEng, if any.

Regards.
 07 January 2013 08:20 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for DavidParr.
DavidParr

Posts: 242
Joined: 19 April 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

There was not one mention of IEng in the 40 page report, which I think indicates that IEng is not considered relevant even by the IET or Royal Academy of Engineering.


I am in no doubt that the IET considers IEng to be both relevant and important, and they are putting a lot of effort and resource into it. Please read again what Roy has written earlier in this thread.

If anyone is thinking about IEng, but is unsure, look out for the next Registration Clinic running in your area, and talk to a PRA about this. (I'll be at the Liverpool one on 24th January! )

Regards,

-------------------------
David Parr BSc.CEng MIET
PRA
 08 January 2013 08:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

It's good to see a lively debate rather than apathy and for what it's worth I am quite comfortable with CEng being promoted as the "premium brand" of engineering recognition. However when we refer to "recognition" the recognition has to come from fellow professionals using agreed and open standards. If we chose to promote something enough then public recognition could be achieved for anything, with little understanding of what it meant.

Some years ago following comments by a government minister, Plumbers became "flavour of the month", apprenticeships were contested for a time like medical degree places and people were switching mid-career. It has gone a bit quiet lately, but the Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering (CIPHE) got a short term PR boost. CIPHE is one of the smaller bodies licensed by Engineering Council, registering circa 1000 Eng Tech, 100 IEng and 0 CEng members. The members of this body have every right to be members of the broader professional engineering community, in addition to having their own system to register skilled plumbers.

Over many years we have developed a system in which engineering professionals can be recognised by three types of formal peer recognition, via voluntary membership of a professional body i.e. Technician, Chartered Engineer and Incorporated Engineer. The extent of voluntary engagement by potentially eligible people can be estimated and the relative attractiveness of the different categories measured. The first factor should be our focus not the second, if our purpose is to promote professionalism.

In the year that I became IEng, I don't know what proportion of the potentially eligible market the ten thousand new Engineering Council registrants represented, but I do know that the ratio of new CEng to new IEng was 2:1. By the mid-noughties this ratio peaked at around 11:1. Therefore either the nature of employment changed radically, the profession failed to gain the engagement potential IEng registrants, or a similar standard of professional practice led to a different registration outcome. In 2011 the CEng/IEng ratio was 5:1 with growth in all registration categories, so this has to illustrate positive progress.

Whatever the reasons "professional recognition" became synonymous with "Chartership" and by extension Chartered Engineer. Incorporated Engineer and Technician are also forms of "Chartership" (ie awarded under the Engineering Council Charter according to UK-SPEC) but have different titles to avoid confusion with Chartered Engineer. Attempts to apply a chartered title to IEng (e.g. CET) floundered some years ago despite its equivalence to many other "chartered" professional designations. Unfortunately these semantic issues cause strong feelings (as sometimes illustrated in these forums) but I personally don't see a need to tinker with the title in order to rebuild Incorporated as something to be proud of. Quite understandably Chartered Engineers don't want something that may confuse or seem to diminish their achievement. I agree and respect their achievement, but I also expect the same respect in return for IEng.

I don't think anyone could dispute that IEng was driven to a low point, through no fault of most IEng registrants themselves. We can't reverse twenty years of misinformation and negative prejudice from a minority overnight, but we can strongly support the standard of professionalism that IEng represents and encourage engineers to seek recognition as an IEng. If any IEng MIET reading this encounters negative prejudice then please challenge it politely but firmly, we shouldn't accept it.

PS The "Engineering Values in IT" report was produced in 2009. Perhaps the attitude of the three contributing parties to IEng at the time is reflected in the 2008 numbers of new IEng registrations ie BCS 6, IET 92, Royal Academy 0 (not a licensed body). I would claim no more than an appreciation of IT, but at a quick read it seems like a useful discussion of the issues and some good points are made. However a leap is then made (perhaps unsurprisingly!) to the conclusion that CEng or CITP is the solution. I wasn't involved but the usual justification of the time would have been that IEng was implicitly included (as part of CEng) and that to explain the different types of engineer to the unitiated would only overcomplicate and confuse the issue. I note that quite a number of people hold both IEng & CITP which seems logical when you examine the standards. I would infer however that most BCS members find the CITP award more attractive than IEng.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 10 January 2013 10:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: DavidParr
I am in no doubt that the IET considers IEng to be both relevant and important, and they are putting a lot of effort and resource into it. Please read again what Roy has written earlier in this thread.

That's fair enough but Lady Gaga has more influence than the IET so maybe we need a change of track!

I think EngTech and CEng have a good brand but IEng is not distinctive enough. In your own words how does an IEng differ from a CEng but still remains equal?

Regards.
 11 January 2013 05:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

Re Lady Gaga

That's a bit of a "curved ball"! I had to ask a younger member who she was. He asked his daughter and apparently she's a style icon, so if we are competing with her I'll take it as a compliment.

The IET certainly puts a lot of effort enthusiasm and resources (most of it volunteer time) into professional registration activities, which are at the heart of our mission as a professional institution.

In any "market" it is relatively easy to identify either end of the continuum. However professional registration isn't typical of most conventional markets for goods and services. For example maintaining IEng costs almost the same as CEng (quite a few IEng actually pay more) and yet (perhaps like a Scottish banknote) some people are reluctant to accept the currency, or insist that it is of lower value. Unfortunately there aren't as many IEng in circulation as a few years ago, so we have to expect an element of misunderstanding. Like our banknote example, when presented it in the right place to a well-informed person, it's worth just the same and some might even think it even more beautiful.

I agree that IEng would benefit from some easily described distinctive attractions, "practicality" has traditionally been a key area as an IEng without a good apprenticeship is unusual. The changes from 1999 made IEng difficult to get via the apprenticeship route and potentially much easier for bachelors graduates, but unfortunately most of them didn't actually want it.

We now have some political will behind "higher apprenticeships" and perhaps the time is right to tweak the standard to bias IEng in favour of this type of route. If we did, the potentially excellent engineers coming through won't stand for being branded "second class" because they will actually be superior in 80% of engineering and management roles at any time the right side of 30, if not for life, to full-time engineering students. They would also be more productive at an earlier age, rewarded to reflect this, debt free and imbued with a strong work ethic!

IEng the new "super engineer"? I actually don't mind what title they choose, but I hope they are successful dynamic professionals with a commitment to self-regulation and service to society (i.e. in The IET or something similar).

Re Royal Academy

The Royal Academy will move with the times if what I suggest comes to pass. For the moment I don't think it's necessary for every comment to have to include IEng in a form of "political correctness", CEng is well understood as a standard of excellence, IEng is something quite similar which is less well known, but part of the same framework. If any of the Royal Academicians who browse these forums occasionally want to take up the issue, they can do. They held a Technician Council recently and there have been a number of government statements recently strongly supporting Higher Apprenticeships, so "the wind is in the right direction"!

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

Edited: 11 January 2013 at 05:57 PM by roybowdler
 12 January 2013 01:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: roybowdler
For the moment I don't think it's necessary for every comment to have to include IEng in a form of "political correctness", CEng is well understood as a standard of excellence, IEng is something quite similar which is less well known, but part of the same framework.


How do you make the connection that giving equal representation to a status which is equal is political correctness? The RA use CEng because it has a clear and better recognised brand and that just makes pmiller's point. I do not see it as the IET's fault that IEng does not have a clear and disctinctive brand because there are many reasons for it, but the IET could lead the way by redefining it.

Regards.
 07 February 2013 10:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Simon750

Posts: 111
Joined: 25 April 2007

Originally posted by: mayfaces

Originally posted by: amillar



If we compare to CEng, there are two situations where I have seen CEng add value. One is for consultants, who are likely to need to demonstrate a level of personal credibility. The other is for those taking personal responsiblity within a company for signing off systems / projects / products for safety / quality. In both cases it's for those situations where you are basically saying "you are going to have to trust my judgement on this".







I do that all the time, as an IEng! ;-)


I do that all the time and not registered as any form of engineer, merely a manager

-------------------------
Simon Long CMgr FCMI FInstLM
 07 February 2013 05:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

Managers making engineering decisions rely on expert advice, indemnified by the vicarious liability of their employer. If they chose to eschew such advice they risk dismissal or possibly personal prosecution.

Unfortunately a myth has been propagated by some that IEng advice is "inferior" to CEng advice. There are some circumstances where this may be true, but many when it won't. If we are dealing with aspects of the same issue then a CEng might understand concepts more, an IEng might give better practical advice or manage implementation and a technician might best understand how to carry out or supervise a task. Even these are very simplistic generalisations with much potential overlap.

A diligent manager will understand the limits of their own knowledge and the appropriateness of the different types of expert advice which registered engineers and technicians might offer. They should also understand the types of engineering activity that they may be delegating and what level of autonomy is appropriate.

Those who chose to join a professional body agree via a code of conduct to act within their competence. In the UK engineering registration is voluntary and there are many "outside the tent" who are absolutely first class experts and practical engineers, but some aren't.

Professional Institutions have to make their case for voluntary engagement at a cost. The IET has certainly has some measure of success, as around a third of the quarter million UK professional registrants call IET home. IEng members of the IET are the fourth largest constituency of Engineering Council registrants.

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

Edited: 07 February 2013 at 06:14 PM by roybowdler
 13 February 2013 05:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Simon750

Posts: 111
Joined: 25 April 2007

Roy,

I have to disagree with your first sentence - "managers making engineering decisions rely on expert advice". Are you saying that as I am not registered with EC as IEng or CEng, I do not possess the technical knowledge to make an engineering decision?

The reason that I am not registered as either IEng or CEng is as follows.

IEng is not (it seems even within the honourable ranks of the IET) perceived as anything other than a stepping stone to CEng. I know there are some vehement supporters of IEng, of which you are one, but there are far too many dissenting voices.

CEng, to be honest, the hoops that I would have to jump through to follow the alternative route (no exemplifying qualification), even though I have full control of my projects (in terms of engineering design, value engineering, budget, labour etc etc) and work at the same level as some already registered CEng's, and have CEng's reporting to me, does"t fill me with excitement and vigour.

If the EC is more than happy to take someone with their MEng and make them CEng by their mid 20's, good for them. Personally, I prefer engineers (registered or not), who have the experience and can do the job in the real world, not on a competence sheet.

-------------------------
Simon Long CMgr FCMI FInstLM
 13 February 2013 07:37 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 164
Joined: 24 November 2002

Originally posted by: Simon750CEng, to be honest, the hoops that I would have to jump through to follow the alternative route (no exemplifying qualification), even though I have full control of my projects (in terms of engineering design, value engineering, budget, labour etc etc) and work at the same level as some already registered CEng's, and have CEng's reporting to me, does"t fill me with excitement and vigour.


Five years ago it was the same for me, those 'hoops' were more like an SAS assault course, but then the requirements were relaxed (I would say finally recognised the relative value of experience) and I gained CEng, I don't have exemplifying qualifications, I have a 30 year old HND.

I now mentor registration applicants at my company (CEng and IEng, the company recognises the value of both). Yesterday I had my first meeting with a young MEng engineer, he recognises his limitations after looking at the UK SPEC and understands that it will take some time to gain the necessary competency. He thinks about nine years; I believe with assistance he will manage in a much shorter time, probably about 5 years (based on the nature of the company projects), when he will be about 28.

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET
 13 February 2013 04:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

Simon

Many excellent engineers are unregistered and you may be one of them. You have set out your reasons in the rest of your argument. These describe a common perception although Andy's response illustrates that things have moved on in the IET (although not in every institution).

An example comes to mind of a major business with a technology leadership position where only a handful of the engineers were registered. These were mostly CEng and in the lower to mid-range roles. Because they "met the academic requirement" and had followed a graduate trainee scheme for 4-5 years they "ticked the boxes". Most of the engineering leaders were unregistered because they typically had HNC/HND. They could have gained IEng but because of the negative perceptions you describe they just didn't bother. This was probably just as well, because nothing could have more clearly illustrated the illogical proposition that was being promoted by Engineering Council and the Professional Institutions (and is still perpetuated by a few)

Following discussions with the business it was easy to identify that some of the engineering leaders were world class experts (others were just excellent engineers) and all this group are now CEng registered following IET assessment.

This returns to my point about the employers responsibility. Previously the employer's reputation was enough and there was no valid external benchmark, so the main benefit in offering support for professional registration was to attract graduate trainees. However once the possibility existed, the company understood the benefits of external recognition. One business benefit is that customers, regulators and liability insurers can see how risk is managed by competent people, signed up to a code of conduct.

This group led the development of ground breaking, high risk and high value technology. The main competence required for this type of work is CEng. If the type of work had been managing the installation, operation and maintenance of more established or "off the shelf" technology, then IEng registration would have been much more appropriate for the engineering leaders. This leads to a rational argument about the value added by IEng registration if the technical risk to be managed is less and the perception of "prestige" lower. However many leading employers value all types of registration as an illustration of professionalism to external stakeholders. There are also internal benefits of recognising all Engineers & Technicians, not just a select few technology leaders.

It is possible and not uncommon for people to transfer from Technician to IEng, or IEng to CEng, depending on their career path but it is ridiculous to suggest that every professional should be "progressing to CEng". I personally would ideally favour the possibility of holding that/those standard (s) that you illustrate following a five yearly review, if it were done in the right way, but that is another argument.

We are making progress on rebuilding new IEng registrants , although we need to get the average age down because the average age of a new IEng is currently higher than a new CEng.

In the end, the only defence to the silly myths that some people attach to IEng is meeting the real thing. Unfortunately like many Engineers they can be unassuming and take their achievement for granted. I would like them to be more assertive.

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

Edited: 14 February 2013 at 09:05 AM by roybowdler
 16 February 2013 01:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: roybowdler
Those who chose to join a professional body agree via a code of conduct to act within their competence.

How does the IET measure/monitor their competence after registration then?

How many professional engineers have been 'struck off' for failing to maintain the required standards?

The IET systems with regards to validating and maintaining competence are weak and even to this day there is no requirement to maintain CPD.

IEng members of the IET are the fourth largest constituency of Engineering Council registrants.


Size does not = professional competence.

Regards.
 16 February 2013 01:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: AndyTaylor
Five years ago it was the same for me, those 'hoops' were more like an SAS assault course, but then the requirements were relaxed (I would say finally recognised the relative value of experience) and I gained CEng, I don't have exemplifying qualifications, I have a 30 year old HND.


No, it was in order to get more members. We can still recognise the relative value of experience by requiring that as well as the degree, that would raise standards not lower them.

Regards.
Statistics

See Also:



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