IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Royal Charter granted to ABE ( The Association of Building Engineers )
Topic Summary: Members and Fellows may describe themselves as Chartered Building Engineers
Created On: 22 July 2013 01:40 PM
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.
 22 July 2013 01:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

ABE is an Affiliate Institution of EC .

http://www.abe.org.uk/the-abe/royal-charter/


So what does this mean for our members?

In due course when all financial, legal and operational requirements have been completed all members of ABE will become Members of The Chartered Association of Building Engineers. MBEng will become MCABE, FBEng will become FCABE. In addition there will be two registers - the Ordinary and the Chartered. Corporate Members can choose which Register they wish to join. For the Chartered Register Members will have to agree to provide evidence annually on our website that they are meeting our requirements for CPD and there will be an annual register fee and Chartered Members will be able to describe themselves as Chartered Building Engineers and use the post nominal C. Build E. Associates will become ACABE and Graduates Grad CABE

http://www.abe.org.uk/careers-...s-a-building-engineer/

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 23 July 2013 05:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

It is already the case that many experienced IEng registrants have demonstrated chartered standard in a different specialism. I agree that IEng should be positioned as having positive distinctive characteristics. I would comment on "being viewed as sub-standard to chartered status" as follows

. "Being viewed" - i.e. in the eye of the beholder - subjective and a badge snob's charter.
. "Sub-standard" - pejorative term with a long and undistinguished history - like Brummagem ware or Welsh Rarebit.
. "Status" - a relative commodity from sociology in which to gain a higher amount, it is necessary for another person or group to be lower.

If the argument is that using Chartered Engineer as the datum and seeking to make everything else subsidiary to it is wrong, then I agree wholeheartedly. Each type of registration should be respected in its own right and championed by those who represent the engineering profession. Surely to disrespect fellow proven professionals is as passé as the casual discrimination that was considered acceptable by society in the past.

We should be comfortable that CEng represents a very high standard of technical knowledge in an area of technology, proven by personal achievement and supported by a range of other more general abilities and attributes. Other Chartered designations represent the standard of expert (usually with proven achievement) in that specialist area. In my own case, my focus on engineering was diminished as I developed a second career "string" which led to Chartered recognition in that area. My technical capability was not extended and therefore CEng not justified.

As I understand it "chartered" designation by the privy council requires a substantial majority of "graduate standard" practitioners. Engineering Council has chosen to position IEng in this space and imbue CEng with an additional technical knowledge requirement. Although attempts to find a "chartered" title for IEng have faltered over the years, it is of similar standard to many other chartered specialists.

The difficulty we have, is to precisely codify and describe the three types of practice that we recognise, on the continuum between the practical and conceptual . With the presumptions that more conceptual work leads to technical leadership and that a solid understanding of relevant technology underpins technical management. Traditionally we used academic qualifications as the almost the only measure. An approach well-suited to those who followed a particular pathway, but often irrationally exclusive towards those who followed different pathways to the same destination.

My personal view is that in an era when degrees became commonplace, CEng became too attainable, especially in areas of relatively modest technical innovation, thus partly replacing IEng in some of the "mainstream". Therefore if this balance is to be addressed, the competence requirements of CEng have to be strengthened. It is already quite common for IEng registrants to hold masters degrees. Other more radical options such as reducing the IEng standard or abolishing IEng and awarding CEng to existing IEng registrants wouldn't gain consensus.

However in conclusion I must reiterate that "Chartered" "Incorporated" and "Technician" are three different words, each is used to represent an area of professional practice. Each area of professional practice is no more or less deserving of professional respect than another. The economic gains from each type of practice overlap and there is some movement between the majority activities of any particular individual across these dimensions over time. Most commonly in the direction of leadership and management, but some prefer to seek technician practice in later career and are often fulfilled by it.

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

Edited: 23 July 2013 at 08:49 PM by roybowdler
 23 July 2013 08:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: roybowdler
I would comment on "being viewed as sub-standard to chartered status" as follows

"Being viewed" - i.e. in the eye of the beholder - subjective and a badge snob's charter.

. "Sub-standard" - pejorative term with a long and undistinguished history - like Brummagem ware or Welsh Rarebit.

. "Status" - a relative commodity from sociology in which to gain a higher amount, it is necessary for another person or group to be lower.

If people view IEng as a lower status than CEng and view that other institutions give CEng for the same as the IET gives IEng then it does not have to be for the reasons you state. It could just be that the IET have not yet got things correct and actually those people are right. In another thread we have a chartered engineer setting out in a rational and well thought out way why IEng is lower than CEng....and that is someone the IET awarded CEng to. Hardly snobbish etc. The IET just cannot accept that IEng is a lower status than CEng, despite the fact that even the qualifications required are lower. There is a really big clue there and yet the IET do not get it, that is a worry. IEng is lower because the sales pitch does not for example set IEng out as distinctively different, albeit you do accept the latter. If I have a masters engineering degree then I have a higher qualification than the someone with an engineering degree. Once the IET start trying to add work experience into the mix it gets difficult because the lines between competencies are not quite so clear with regards to positions held and that is where the difficulty lays. Either IEng has to be distinctively and clearly different from CEng or else it has to be lower. The mistake was requiring a degree for IEng, it should have been targeted at HNC and with CEng requiring the degree. The IET took the easy route when asking for degrees and then sowed the seeds for todays difficulties. Master Degrees are also becoming common place so what next PhD's......they are also relatively common place now as well.
The difficulty we have, is to precisely codify and describe the three types of practice that we recognise, on the continuum between the practical and conceptual . With the presumptions that more conceptual work leads to technical leadership and that a solid understanding of relevant technology underpins technical management.

If and when the public and businesses understand that we will have a chance, so let's all wait for a few 1000 more years to go by.

CEng, what does good look like?
IEng, what does good look like?
EngTech, what does good look like?

However in conclusion I must reiterate that "Chartered" "Incorporated" and "Technician" are three different words, each is used to represent an area of professional practice. Each area of professional practice is no more or less deserving of professional respect than another. The economic gains from each type of practice overlap and there is some movement between the majority activities of any particular individual across these dimensions over time. Most commonly in the direction of leadership and management, but some prefer to seek technician practice in later career and are often fulfilled by it.

It's easier with EngTech because you are talking level 3 education and yet CEng is at level 8, depending on which scale you use. However it is more difficult to distinguish between IEng and CEng because there is only one level of education between them. It would have been better to fit IEng closer to the middle between EngTech and CEng, not ideal but better.

Regards.
 23 July 2013 10:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

So is it bad if IEng changes to CTech?
Chartered Engineering Technologist?

Edited: 23 July 2013 at 11:36 PM by MosheW
 24 July 2013 02:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1871
Joined: 01 April 2006

Seven Science Council member bodies are piloting the new levels of registration addingRegistered Science Technician and Registered Scientist to the existing Chartered Scientistdesignation. All levels of registration require individuals to be taking responsibility for their own ongoing professional development providing employers and the public with confidence in registrants' professionalism and that they stay up to date with developments in their field.
To find out more visit the Professional Registers website.



Registered Scientist = I Eng level

Why not Registered Engineer (Reg Eng) or Registered Graduate Engineer (RegGradEng) in place of I Eng

http://www.sciencecouncil.org/...nal-technician-award.

Maybe now that IET has moved in with IMechE and they still say that the creation of a single body "remains a realistic ambition for the future," maybe they will together pilot new level of registration as well and a name change.

http://www.drivesncontrols.com...96_for_two_years.html
________________________________________
 24 July 2013 07:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

Originally posted by: jcm256

Seven Science Council member bodies are piloting the new levels of registration addingRegistered Science Technician and Registered Scientist to the existing Chartered Scientistdesignation. All levels of registration require individuals to be taking responsibility for their own ongoing professional development providing employers and the public with confidence in registrants' professionalism and that they stay up to date with developments in their field.

To find out more visit the Professional Registers website.







Registered Scientist = I Eng level



Why not Registered Engineer (Reg Eng) or Registered Graduate Engineer (RegGradEng) in place of I Eng



http://www.sciencecouncil.org/...chnician-award.



Maybe now that IET has moved in with IMechE and they still say that the creation of a single body "remains a realistic ambition for the future," maybe they will together pilot new level of registration as well and a name change.



http://www.drivesncontrols.com..._two_years.html

________________________________________


Correct

I'm a Registered Scientist with Science Council via Institute of Science and Technology.
 25 July 2013 05:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

An interesting variety of arguments, some social and some technical!

I sincerely hope that no Fellow of the IET would go around suggesting that Members were somehow "lower" than them. By the same token it would be ludicrous and anachronistic for CEng members to suggest that IEng were "lower" or for IEng members to paint Technicians as "lower". Each of these designations represent slightly different forms of achievement, recognised by professional peers at a point in time.

As I see it, CEng represents the strongest standard of technical knowledge application that can be recognised through registration. IEng represents a strong but less analytical standard of technical knowledge application. Both are combined with management. Technician represents more practical application, including supervision, supported by sufficient knowledge and understanding.

To be useful, these registrations have to be attainable by someone at a relatively early career stage. Therefore there has to be a great deal of scope beyond the threshold standard, because of the increase in capability of a very experienced practitioner.

Academic qualifications are a useful way of measuring knowledge and remain very important in the registration process. They provide simplicity and the appearance of certainty, but have also some pretty substantial limitations as indicators of professional capability - aka competence. In early career, people often gain qualifications in order to develop recognisable potential. In mid-to-late career, the rationale for and value of such qualifications is quite varied. For many years well-proven expert engineers were being registered or rejected on the basis of what qualifications they either did or didn't achieve decades earlier. I suppose that for those who instinctively want to rank everything into a hierarchy QCF has appeal, but I don't find it very helpful, or see how it values work-based learning.

I don't think the argument that IEng is similar to some "chartered" recognitions outside Engineering Council regulation, is the same as an argument that significantly different standards are being applied by licensed bodies under EC control. Although I do take the view that to evaluate "non-standard" evidence effectively requires considerable capability, which only a few institutions possess, especially outside of a very narrow remit.

I'm actually quite comfortable with IEng sitting in the middle of a "conceptual to practical" continuum, with CEng at one end and Technician at the other. Unfortunately measuring academic qualifications doesn't address this, it just reinforces the concept of a hierarchy, which doesn't actually exist in the majority of engineering practice.

As I have argued before in these forums, I see it as far more valuable to encourage engagement in professional engineering, than to focus on internecine squabbles over the relative status of those who choose to register. Past practice has discouraged very many good professionals from engaging, because they have felt unwelcome or at risk of being disparaged.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 25 July 2013 08:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: roybowdler
Each of these designations represent slightly different forms of achievement, recognised by professional peers at a point in time.

If the difference is slight then why have a difference and not just combine them all into one, i.e., CEng? Ah but then CEng would be easily achievable and so we would be back to the old problem.

For me:

EngTech = someone who is still working mainly on the tools, i.e., in a more manual/craft type job. Electrician, Maintenance Engineer, Service Engineer, Test Engineer, etc.

IEng = someone who is more designing machinery, commissioning machinery, preparing technical reports, etc.

CEng = someone who is overseeing those people and taking the senior responsibility for the work, resources, performance, etc.

Now it does not mean the CEng will never work with tools or the EngTech will never commission etc., but it is more about what is the bulk of their work and responsibility. Of course all hold responsibilities.

My argument for gaining these status's is along the following lines. Any company who employs, for example, maintenance engineers needs for legal reasons, be that statute or civil, and moral reasons to show the engineer is basically competent. It's good for the engineer because he/she are then clear about who/what they are and their responsibilities etc., and it is good for the company because they have had an independant assessment and validation of their engineers competency. Once this general competency is established then of course the other training which takes place to develop on the job skills etc., is part of CPD. It all fits and supports the normal development of an engineer. I see the same type of argument for IEng and CEng.

EngTech, IEng, CEng are more about a career choice and where a person sits at a particular time in their career. Some engineers may want to remain on the tools for their career, there is nowt wrong with that because a 55 year old experienced maintenance engineer is highly valuable.

For me putting someone through a these types of programs is a relatively inexpensive way of validating competency and in a way which is recognised by all the authorities. I recommended it to my company with regards to the 'on the tools' engineers. It remains to be seen if they go with it.

To be useful, these registrations have to be attainable by someone at a relatively early career stage.


They may be more useful if attained earlier on, but their true usefulness depends on what they provide to the individual and/or their employer.

For many years well-proven expert engineers were being registered or rejected on the basis of what qualifications they either did or didn't achieve decades earlier.


So what was the justifcation for that decades ago then?

Unfortunately measuring academic qualifications doesn't address this, it just reinforces the concept of a hierarchy, which doesn't actually exist in the majority of engineering practice.


However it does exist in most of industry and is an ingrained part of society. Enginers may talk to and respect each other as equals but the majority know which are the more senior and more junior positions. Most have no issues with it, because it is not generally associated with salary either, it's more about career choice. If there is no hierarchy and the differences between EngTech and CEng are slight, then why not award the EngTech a CEng instead? I am quite sure they will not object!

As I have argued before in these forums, I see it as far more valuable to encourage engagement in professional engineering, than to focus on internecine squabbles over the relative status of those who choose to register. Past practice has discouraged very many good professionals from engaging, because they have felt unwelcome or at risk of being disparaged.


Let's say we had squabbled a bit more before going to Iraq or else giving AAA ratings to sub prime mortgages, we may or may not have created less mess and difficulty in the world. These things have to be properly debated and we should never just paper over the cracks in order to suit those who struggle to put their arguments due to the cracks. It's a bit like saying yes I know those sub prime mortgages are really CCC packages but it would be of more value to encourage people to take them up. The IET needs to do a better job of marketing IEng, then the value will take care of itself. If many good engineers were so easily discouraged from engaging then maybe they were lacking in some respects and so maybe did not really have what it takes to meet the high standards required to achieve CEng etc. How many Olympic Gold medal winners have we heard who came through hardship and put in extreme effort to get their medals?

Regards.

Edited: 25 July 2013 at 09:02 PM by westonpa
 26 July 2013 09:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: westonpa
For me:

EngTech = someone who is still working mainly on the tools, i.e., in a more manual/craft type job. Electrician, Maintenance Engineer, Service Engineer, Test Engineer, etc.

IEng = someone who is more designing machinery, commissioning machinery, preparing technical reports, etc.

CEng = someone who is overseeing those people and taking the senior responsibility for the work, resources, performance, etc.

I don't think this fits with either my experience, the EC guidelines, or the official IET responses on these forums over the years.

There is no problem with IEngs overseeing CEngs - both my last two directors would comfortably meet IEng but would struggle to meet CEng. It's not about management position, it's about technical authority - they schedule my work, but I have final say on technical decisions.

Just for once I actually read some of E&T this month, and I noticed that someone used in a letter my favourite description of the IEng / CEng difference: when it comes to technology IEngs know how to follow the rules, CEngs invent the rules. If they're professionally doing genuinely innovative design, and leading the way, they're CEng standard.

-------------------------
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
 26 July 2013 10:04 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

Perhaps unsurprisingly, since we are interpreting the same standard the measure of disagreement is modest. From a technical perspective any minor changes to UK-SPEC (there is no consensus for major change) will I hope improve the distinctiveness of IEng. There are circumstances when someone's career journey will take then to CEng, through periods of practice in one or both of the other registration categories. Some people will meet the CEng standard relatively early in career, perhaps without being a Technician or IEng. Some others will have excellent careers without approaching CEng.

I don't deny that most organisations have a hierarchy, usually via their management structure. But experienced IEng registrants quite often sit well up this structure and for several years the average age of a newly registered IEng has been higher than a new CEng. There are significant numbers of IEng senior managers and directors, who could not by any rational measure be seen as "lower" in some hierarchy than most CEng. Their engineering ability is however most fairly reflected by IEng (the relative A&B competences and underpinning knowledge between IEng & CEng standards covers this), Andy Millar also illustrates this point.

If as some people seek to argue, there is some "cliff edge" between CEng and IEng with CEng at the top, where does this leave the well proven senior engineering manager perhaps with a more practical background? I have encountered very well respected people in top technical positions who are IEng registered, they have often found that it's better not to mention the IEng, because it may attract an irrational negative prejudice. A prejudice which was somehow allowed to grow, probably as an unintended (but sometimes deliberate) consequence of promoting CEng and academic courses intended for potential CEng.

If we consider the different scenario of an ex-apprentice, who by part time study has obtained a bachelors degree and is now working as a managing engineer, meeting the IEng standard. For the sake of this argument let's say that she has ten years work experience. Is this person "lower" than their colleague who might have less management responsibility, has spent four years doing an MEng, plus four years work experience and has now gained CEng?

I could describe numerous real life scenarios which illustrate that the presumption that an IEng is "inferior" to or "lower" than CEng is ridiculous.

If we take the people out of it (i.e. the social side - status etc.) and look at the standards objectively CEng demands something different to IEng. The difference is driven by the differences in technical knowledge application, required in different circumstances. Therefore different qualifications are used as exemplifying benchmarks for each and different job roles will offer more suitable opportunities to develop competence.

I think that CEng should continue to be seen as a major milestone of engineering achievement, very deserving of respect and recognition. This should not however, ever be at the expense of seeking to diminish other professional registrants. I agree that criticism and argument enhances the profession (or I wouldn't be writing this) but negative prejudice against fellow professionals undermines us all.

There are 1000+ new IEng MIET , since I first said in these forums that the best way to challenge myths about IEng is through the real person.

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

Edited: 26 July 2013 at 09:27 PM by roybowdler
 26 July 2013 08:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: amillar
There is no problem with IEngs overseeing CEngs - both my last two directors would comfortably meet IEng but would struggle to meet CEng. It's not about management position, it's about technical authority - they schedule my work, but I have final say on technical decisions.

When you no longer have the final say on technical decisions, i.e., have that technical authority, will you consider givng up CEng?
Just for once I actually read some of E&T this month, and I noticed that someone used in a letter my favourite description of the IEng / CEng difference: when it comes to technology IEngs know how to follow the rules, CEngs invent the rules. If they're professionally doing genuinely innovative design, and leading the way, they're CEng standard.

Please give us some examples of the rules you invented and which IEng follow, thanks.

Regards.
 27 July 2013 08:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

I respectfully disagree.

There is hierarchy and higher not only different responsibility.

EngTech < IEng < CEng

A Chartered professional is a person who has gained a level of competence in a particular field of work and as such has been awarded a formal credential by an organization in recognition. It is considered a pinnacle of professional competency,

Chartered Accountant (CA)
Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst (CAIA)
Chartered Arboriculturist/Chartered Forester (MICFor)[1]
Chartered Architect (RIBA)
Chartered Biologist (CBiol)
Chartered Builder (CIOB)
Chartered Chemist (CChem)
Chartered Colourist (CCol)
Chartered Cost Accountant (CCA)
Chartered Certified Accountant (ACCA)
Chartered Director (CDir)
Chartered Engineer (CEng)
Chartered Economic Analyst (ChEA)
Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner (CMCIEH, CFCIEH)
Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv)
Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA)
Chartered Financial Planner
Chartered Geographer (CGeog)
Chartered IT Professional (CITP)
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
Chartered Instititue of Personnel and Development (CIPD)
Chartered Insurer
Chartered Insurance Practitioner
Chartered Insurance Broker
Chartered Islamic Finance Professional (CIFP)
Chartered Legal Executive (FCILEx) and Chartered Legal Executive Advocates
Chartered Landscape Architect (CMLI)
Chartered Librarian (MCLIP)
Chartered Marketer
Chartered Linguist (CL)
Chartered Mathematician (CMath)
Chartered Mathematics Teacher (CMathTeach)
Chartered Manager (CMgr)
Chartered Meteorologist (CMet)
Chartered Physicist (CPhys)
Chartered Psychologist (CPsychol)
Chartered Quality Professional (CQP)
Chartered Radiation Protection Professional (CRadP)
Chartered Secretary (ACIS)
Chartered Scientist (CSci)
Chartered Security Professional (CSyP)
Chartered Statistician (CStat)
Chartered Surveyor (MRICS)
Chartered Tax Adviser (CTA)
 27 July 2013 10:15 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Of course you are correct MosheW, there has been and most likely always will be a hierarchy because it is in our nature. Personally I do not see anything wrong with it either. The IEng can be lower than the CEng and the EngTech can be lower than IEng but all can still respect the work, abilities and skills of each other. When a person cannot respect the other and value what they do then that is about the person and not their professional status. The relevant status's may be higher or lower than each other but that is only the status, the persons are not higher and lower than each other as persons.

There is no issue with EngTech and CEng because there is a lot of distance between them. Mr Millar gives his directors holding IEng as his examples but overall we will not find many people in those types of senior management positions holding EngTech, for example. Also we will not see many senior tutors holding EngTech, and so on. It's good to have a hierarchy, the issue only comes about when those at the top, e.g., doctors, cannot also give due respect to the people who clean the floors, toilets etc. Their professional status is higher but as people they are equal.

I work with many maintenance and service engineers who have technical authority and make final technical decisons and which have far reaching consequences and whom would never achieve IEng or CEng status based on their current competencies and qualifications. The problem comes about with IEng because it is much closer to CEng and the IET/EC have tried to market it as equal but different. It will be better to market IEng as an intermediate professional status and show the value of it as that. If I have an MSc and someone else has a BSc I hold the higher qualification and that should be respected as such, but I am not a better person. Equally the BSc should be respected for the qualification it is. In the normal sense the BSc is qualification in its own right but it is not equal but different from an MSc. There is no issue with hierarchy when each position is respected and valued for what they are and that requires a proper education of why they should be respected and valued.

IEng is to be respected and valued, not because it is equal but different but rather because it is not. It should be respected because it is different, as should EngTech.

Regards.
 27 July 2013 10:18 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: westonpa
When you no longer have the final say on technical decisions, i.e., have that technical authority, will you consider givng up CEng?

What an odd suggestion. Horses normally pull carts, not the other way around.

Please give us some examples of the rules you invented and which IEng follow, thanks.

If you can give me more confidence that this will lead to a useful discussion that will help the engineering profession then I will gladly. Unfortunately I know you like a good argument for the sake of having an argument, whereas personally I think life's too short for that.

Roy is, as ever, answering these points very well and clearly. (And has the advantage of being paid to argue! Sorry Roy )

-------------------------
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
 27 July 2013 11:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: amillar
Unfortunately I know you like a good argument for the sake of having an argument, whereas personally I think life's too short for that.


So a CEng is unable to see the value of backing up his previous statements with some examples and is unable to do so even when asked with a please. That says something about his professional standards.

Yes Roy does a decent job. We can also see he is IEng and is leading the way with innovative discussion.

Regards.
 27 July 2013 11:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: westonpa
There is no issue with EngTech and CEng because there is a lot of distance between them. Mr Millar gives his directors holding IEng as his examples but overall we will not find many people in those types of senior management positions holding EngTech, for example. Also we will not see many senior tutors holding EngTech, and so on. It's good to have a hierarchy, the issue only comes about when those at the top, e.g., doctors, cannot also give due respect to the people who clean the floors, toilets etc. Their professional status is higher but as people they are equal.

But there is no reason for someone holding EngTech not to be more senior than someone with IEng/CEng in terms of organisational or financial responsibility*. If they try to assert technical authority, however, they may find themselves on shaky ground (if the IEng/Ceng has any sense they'll tell them exactly where to go!)

Hierarchies can, and in a healthy organisation do, work in multiple directions. I can overrule my manager on technical issues, equally I can be overruled by a member of my staff on (e.g.) safety or compliance issues (and, indeed, purely technical issues if they have more expertise in that area than I do). It works absolutely fine because we work on the principle of mutual respect for each other's competencies.

I am amazed in the UK in the 21st century at the sheer level of snobbishness and class obsessiveness that this discussion always brings up - it's like going back to the 1960s (which I do - just - remember). I blame the Daily Mail (not necessarily for this particularly, I just blame it for everything). How about accepting that we are all members of the species Homo Sapiens but each with different skills and abilities that we can bring to the mix? (Yup, I did spend last weekend at a festival; I didn't actually wear a kaftan, although my daughter did. Sadly my children are much cooler than I am.) And what's wrong with giving some identification to who has which skills and abilities so that we have some idea where we are? But if anyone says to me on a technical issue - and it has happened - "I'm right because I'm CEng / IEng / EngTech / your manager" I'm afraid the response they get from me is "fine, but where's your evidence for THIS argument?" And actually (feeling really rebellious now), I'd suggest that anyone who tries pulling that stunt should be at risk of being stripped of their accreditation - part of professionalism is NOT arguing technical matters through rank. (Although arguing through technical experience can be fair enough, you have to be very careful doing this though.)

When it comes to medicine Doctors have (or should have) authority. When it comes to organising their work, senior staff who may have any or no medical qualifications but do have organisational, financial and management skills have responsibility. And yes of course there are conflicts, e.g. with expensive operations, and part of organisational life is finding least worse ways of resolving these. Ditto engineering.


* Reminds me of the story, that I've mentioned before, about my friend who owns and runs an electrical contracting business - I think my wife is finally starting to understand why they live in a huge house with a pool while we live in a 3 bed end-of-terrace, which to me was obvious: I have some level of job security, I can pretty much forget about work when I get home, and I am not always chasing the next contract. (I don't actually know if he's EngTech or IEng, but I suspect the former if anything - we find more interesting things to talk about!) Similarly as far as I am aware Alan Sugar has no professional registration at all (apologies if I am wrong) but has held rather more senior positions in the technology industry than any of us here (apologies ditto). Actually there's a FAR FAR more interesting discussion to be had - and in fact is being had all over the place - about the relevance of management qualifications and certifications to seniority. Still, I've just started applying for CMgr** to be on the safe side...

**Oh no, footnotes to footnotes, this is getting bad...anyway...it's interesting that the key requirement for Chartered Manager is change management, you can't get it by just showing you know how to keep doing what's been done before - however well - you have to show you can change your organisation. Interesting parallel.


Anyway, I'm off to do some proper hands on engineering in my workshop. Just for fun.

-------------------------
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
 27 July 2013 12:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: westonpa
So a CEng is unable to see the value of backing up his previous statements with some examples and is unable to do so even when asked with a please. That says something about his professional standards.

"Professional" means getting paid *. I am not being paid to write this, neither are you, we are free to ask and answer what we like within the rules of this forum. This is a spare time hobby for us - as I've said many, many times before it has all the professional status of a chat down the pub. Which is why you are free to hide behind an anonymous username, which would not be acceptable in a professional environment (or possibly even the pub ), so don't knock it! But there is no professional requirement on any IET member to spend their Saturday mornings, or any other time (including down the pub), having an argument for fun. I am not getting dragged into a flame war, which won't help anyone, so I will not respond further on this (i.e. this is the point in the pub where I would find someone else to chat to).

I can see the value with providing examples to someone who is trying to find their place on the ladder, and as a manager, a STEM Ambassador and an IET mentor I regularly do this. So if someone comes on this thread or PM genuinely asking for help I would be delighted to professionally (except without the money...err...that's gone wrong somewhere? Oh well, still worth it for the Cabin Pressure reference **) help them.

Actually, whilst writing my last post I did think of a couple of examples which I can quickly and safely post (because they are in the public domain and do not involve my company processes): I have been involved in the drafting of several EN standards, I recently used this to advise one of my colleagues, who was not sure if he was CEng standard, that if he would feel confident lending his professional opinion to creating a new international standard then he was probably there. Similarly, the one time I can remember a similar issue causing problems in the office was when we recently applied for a patent: although many people were involved with the work that led up to it (building, testing, evaluating), the names on the patent had to be those who had come up with the inventive steps. Again, I think it's reasonable to say that if you're inventive enough to get your name on a patent you're inventive enough for CEng (of course you may not meet other criteria). Neither are foolproof guides, but hopefully they give the idea.

But for solid advice aspiring registrants need to contact a PRA.


* Anyone else here enjoy "Cabin Pressure"?

** 3x04, "Qikiqtarjuaq" if anyone's trying to remember where the exact reference is from.

-------------------------
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
 29 July 2013 05:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

If anyone has time to spare, compare the requirements of each of the list of chartered professionals that Moshe has posted with the UK-SPEC IEng standard. I think you will find that the evidence supports my hypothesis that IEng is broadly equivalent to a number of other Chartered Professionals. In engineering the "pinnacle" has been set at "Masters level", although many experienced registered engineers, don't hold the current benchmark accredited academic qualifications. Recent registrants have to meet the "bachelors" and "masters" requirements for IEng & CEng respectively, albeit that the IET has a process to evaluate professional achievements to the benchmark standards, in addition to any evidence of academic qualifications.

I agree that there is no point in having three different recognitions, if they represent the same thing. Unfortunately however, academic qualifications don't on their own, provide a reliable differentiation. UK-SPEC is designed to be "competence based" with academic benchmarks as points of reference. There is an argument to be had about the "positioning" of IEng relative to Technician & CEng, but I don't think that one about academic qualifications, can satisfactorily resolve it, especially if it is about NQF levels. If we are debating the education and training of engineers and technicians, then there will be more or less optimal approaches to different career pathways. However the standard (a performance outcome) shouldn't prescribe the pathway, even if certain pathways provide great confidence. It is not rare for technology graduates with experience to be working as technicians and for engineers with higher national qualifications to be technical leaders of chartered standard (often in more than one domain).

Many of the organisations which award Chartered recognition define their own knowledge requirements. An example would be CITP which is now available via the IET for our members. We are also looking at the potential for other such arrangements as a service to members. Discussions are taking place with another body at present, which I can't name (but someone else mentioned in their argument). The IMechE has had a route to CEnv for some time, but we didn't feel that there was sufficient demand from IET members to do likewise.

Because I work for the IET I can justify spending a small amount of work-time in these forums, but it is not part of my job description. I explain IET policy as I understand it, but my view is personal as a member (30+ yrs). If I were to contribute to other on-line forums , then I would have to find time in the pub. Unfortunately my Nokia 6100 doesn't handle websites well and my posts would probably become increasingly incoherent or offensive. Even worse the conflict of interest between my membership of the IET and CAMRA would cause me to become "tired and emotional" - mixing Château Lafite and Bathams can get tricky.

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

Edited: 29 July 2013 at 07:39 PM by roybowdler
 29 July 2013 11:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

I liked it when IEE had their own Chartered Electrical Engineer designation.
It brings clarity.

BCS has CITP and also registered IEng, CEng , CSci and many other IT certs.

SBE - has the Chartered Building Engineer etc. We have Chartered Civil Engineers.

I think IEng may be better set at Chartered Eng Technologyst
 30 July 2013 09:24 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Simon750

Posts: 111
Joined: 25 April 2007

Reading some of the comments on this thread have actually made me chuckle.

The suggestion that senior managerial positions would not be the premise of an EngTech for example.

Really? Based on what? Perfect example of professional snobbery

My only registration with the EC is at EngTech, yet I have been involved in senior level managerial positions for many years both within the construction industry (installations of major projects) and now within consultancy

Incidentally, I actually manage a couple of CEng's within my current team. Wow, how on earth could that happen?

-------------------------
Simon Long CMgr FCMI FInstLM
Statistics

See Also:



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