IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: UKSpec
Topic Summary: Will the proposed changes to UKSpec be detrimental to the standing to IEng
Created On: 13 September 2013 06:36 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 4 5 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.
 14 September 2013 10:20 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Your link is broken, when we update the post it puts % etc., in the link and so you have to clear and remake the link.

Regards.

http://www.engc.org.uk/profess...tion/standards/uk-spec
 14 September 2013 02:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



MAWilson

Posts: 48
Joined: 22 February 2006

Thanks for the link pmiller2006 & westonpa

Reviewed the new competencies and they seem very strange to me. The A & B competencies seem to suggest they're trying to aim IEng to Maintenance or Project Engineering principally but the C and E competency seems to undermine these roles when it comes to IEng competencies. Are the EC really trying to say that Maintenance & Project Engineers have smaller roles in Health & Safety Legislation & budgeting responsibilities? It seems to me they're almost implying that you cannot be a Principal Engineer at IEng level and must work directly under someone of CEng status. If you're a Manufacturing/Systems Engineer like myself who may not entirely directly fit in line with either competency model, don't know where that leaves me to be honest.

Being a voluntary system which requires a lot of personal time to enable registration, plus the fee to keep the registration the same as CEng, they seem to be turning the IEng into a tick in the box on your way to CEng. I might be a cynic but that reasoning seems money driven to me where they can offer you IEng on assessment and tell you to come back in a few years for CEng.
 14 September 2013 05:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

As usual I bring politics to the table.

CEng doesn't need another Engineer registration to compete with so to say. In USA PE's via NSPE rejected that Engineering Technologists and Engineering technicians had license or state registration.

So they threw down a bone, they formed NIET - were one with Bachelors degree in Technology can become certified not t he same as licensed. Certifications exists for technicians and Technologists.
In medical professions nurses are licensed in US and also Veterinary Technicians etc.

Now IEng's who don't like the new proposed IEng UK Spec can bring this up on the upcoming IET meeting, start a petition etc.
Also create Society of IEngs withing IET.
IEEE has many societies, I belonged to Engineering management and Compute Society withing IEEE.

Dedicated group united may add value in effort to increase recognition and status of IEng.

Also on the EngC web site IEng's can influance the changs:

Stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on the suggested amendments by completing a short survey here. This should take no more than 15 minutes to complete once you have looked at the documents. The deadline for responses is Wednesday 16 October 2013.

Please contact: Deborah Seddon, Head of Policy and Standards at the Engineering Council dseddon@engc.org.uk with any queries.
 18 September 2013 04:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

Why do I get a feeling that employers for most of the part could care less?
Maybe I'm wrong but why should employers even care what EngC does in this area of registering Engineers.

Employers hire indiscriminately Engineers who are unregistered. To me its an indicator that they don't want privileged groups exist, its usually translated to higher pay.

I be glad to be proven wrong. I believe Engineers should register and like EngC way.
Only last week I had a discussion with a manager from BT.
HE told me that all he cares about is that a person is the right kind, i'e team player, hard worker who get things done on time with good quality.

I know one manager is far from being an indicator.
 18 September 2013 10:23 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
If these changes are implemented I think the Engineering Council (in its regulatory capacity) should formally contact every incorporated engineer and employer of incorporated engineers to ensure that they are still considered competent to undertake the professional work they undertake to do, particularly if they not supervised by a chartered engineer.

And surely CEng to if they strengthening CEng competencies. But this will NOT happen, the same as mandatory CPD and/or periodic reviews is not gojng to happen anytime soon, and really that is the 'error/weakness' of the so called standards. Yes of course Roy will come here and write long posts defending the system on behalf of the IET/EC, and some other people who are registered will defend it too. There is NO proper check on competency through a career, as there are in some other institutions. The IET/EC can change things more or less as they want and simply write the waffle which supports it. When they inflated the quals required for IEng and CEng did they go check if old IEng/CEng had them?

If we had, for example, manadory CPD, then if standards were upgraded it would not matter because in following proper CPD an engineer is keeping up to date as he/she goes through their career, regardless of what happens to the IEng/CEng spec.

It does not matter if the changes are deterimental or otherwise because the EC have already decided they are going to be made and unless someone points out a major flaw which they missed they will be going ahead. If they are not wise enough to see that we should have mandatory CPD and/or periodic checks on competency then they are not going to be too concerned about a trivial thing such as a little bit of tinkering with some semantics in the UKSpec.

Regards.
 18 September 2013 10:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: MosheW
Why do I get a feeling that employers for most of the part could care less?

Those with whom the IET works obviously care as do those who require engineers to have a professional status. But maybe for others it is not relevant to their business and if it's their business it is their choice.
Employers hire indiscriminately Engineers who are unregistered.

But so what. Let me ask you a question,if you were competent 1 second after you were awarded CEng was you not competent 1 second before? Having a professional status is just an additional assessment of your competency, it is NOT the only assessment and not being registered does not mean those engineers are not competent. Probably 99.9% of engineers are not registered, do we see businesses failing on mass due to poor standards of engineering?, do we see equipment failing or blowing up on mass due to poor standards of engineering?, do we see a lack of progress with regards to developing processes and equipment due to poor standards of engineering?. No, I think on the whole employers are doing quite well and professional registration is a good thing to have but it is not a must in order to deliver good standards of engineering.
To me its an indicator that they don't want privileged groups exist, its usually translated to higher pay.

Surely being an engineer is being in a privileged group, compared to say a cleaner or production operator? Usually the engineers wages are significantly higher.
I be glad to be proven wrong. I believe Engineers should register and like EngC way.
Why, you are not even told to maintain CPD so how exactly do we know you are competent in say 5 years time? We could ask your employer of course, but then surely that would be your employer deciding on your competency and so who really needs the IET/EC. You have your opinion and that is fair enough and I agree to be registered is a good thing and I support it, but I do not see it as the holy grail.
Only last week I had a discussion with a manager from BT. HE told me that all he cares about is that a person is the right kind, i'e team player, hard worker who get things done on time with good quality. I know one manager is far from being an indicator.

Well he is an indicator for BT.

Professional registration is one good method of establishing competency but it is not the only method.

You make some good points though!

Regards.
 18 September 2013 12:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kasese

Posts: 183
Joined: 31 March 2006

I have never been supervised by a CEng for the last 20 years -but have supervised CEng's.

Tim Guy
MSc MBA HND(Engineering) IEng MIET.
Strange world

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

Also on the EngC web site IEng's can influance the changs:



Stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on the suggested amendments by completing a short survey here. This should take no more than 15 minutes to complete once you have looked at the documents. The deadline for responses is Wednesday 16 October 2013.




Hi MosheW, the consultation does not appear to be aimed at individual incorporated engineers (although you would expect them to be considered stakeholders).



If these changes are implemented I think the Engineering Council (in its regulatory capacity) should formally contact every incorporated engineer and employer of incorporated engineers to ensure that they are still considered competent to undertake the professional work they undertake to do, particularly if they not supervised by a chartered engineer.
 19 September 2013 09:25 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: westonpa




And surely CEng to if they strengthening CEng competencies. But this will NOT happen, the same as mandatory CPD and/or periodic reviews is not gojng to happen anytime soon, and really that is the 'error/weakness' of the so called standards. Yes of course Roy will come here and write long posts defending the system on behalf of the IET/EC

Regards.


I don't agree with the changes as currently proposed which are not what Incorporated Engineers were hoping for. I would like to see regular review and re-validation, perhaps following a career transition or every 5-10 years. I don't favour bureaucracy or compulsion.

Comments not posted in defence of anyone

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 19 September 2013 11:01 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Roy, as your posts contain the 'IET Registration and Standards' are you speaking personally or are you representing the IET or should we assusme that 'I' is personal and 'we' is IET?

I would have thought, for example, that if a large institution such as the IET did not agree with the proposed changes then that would be very significant and something which the EC would need to take into account.

Regards.
 19 September 2013 01:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

I have made clear in the past that my opinion is personal. Advice offered is on the basis of "a best effort to explain". The IET contributes formally to EC decisions through representatives on committees working parties etc. I have contributed in this capacity to an EC advisory working party dealing with IEng. Although I make every effort to voice the interests of IEng members of the IET present and future. I have a duty to serve all IET members impartially and in this context irrespective of category of professional registration. If members wish to bring pressure to bear on the IET to take a particular position, then they should direct these views to the executive leadership or member representatives. I have some concerns that IEng members have not engaged sufficiently strongly in voluntary activism.
It is possible for any IEng MIET who has a useful contribution to give, to involve themselves in IET professional registration activities.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 19 September 2013 02:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: roybowdler I have some concerns that IEng members have not engaged sufficiently strongly in voluntary activism.


I think with most people they are not given to apply pressure until such time as it really effects thier own lives and in a very significant way. For the most part most people are quite tolerant. I doubt too many IEng are concerned about the changes as they do not see it affecting them that much at all. Even in politics we now see governments and leaders elected based on ever decreasing turn outs.

I think people are in need of some inspiration and leadership to get involved. Go for it Roy, I am behind you all the way!

Regards.
 20 September 2013 10:30 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 1090
Joined: 04 November 2004

Originally posted by: roybowdler

I have made clear in the past that my opinion is personal. Advice offered is on the basis of "a best effort to explain". The IET contributes formally to EC decisions through representatives on committees working parties etc. I have contributed in this capacity to an EC advisory working party dealing with IEng. Although I make every effort to voice the interests of IEng members of the IET present and future. I have a duty to serve all IET members impartially and in this context irrespective of category of professional registration. If members wish to bring pressure to bear on the IET to take a particular position, then they should direct these views to the executive leadership or member representatives. I have some concerns that IEng members have not engaged sufficiently strongly in voluntary activism.

It is possible for any IEng MIET who has a useful contribution to give, to involve themselves in IET professional registration activities.


I've just completed the EC survey on the proposals and forwarded the link to other IEngs I know. I also plan to write to the IET and voice my concerns regarding the proposed changes to IEng.

Regards

Regards
 23 September 2013 07:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

I must admit I haven't read the competency details, simply because I cannot be bothered to. However having looked at the flow-chart, it's interesting to see they have adopted the same old out-of-date ideas about routes to CEng and IEng.

Anyone notice they've left out what happens to the HND/FD chap who gains a Master's degree: which route do they take to CEng? Surely not via the BEng route. And what about the poor HNC chap? Seems they have no future in this profession. Yet surprisingly, the CEng manager is probably going to rely on the HNC engineer more than anyone else for delivering results for the team.

This flow chart tells me the usual bunch at the EngC and IET (BSc CEng level losers) haven't got a clue what they're doing. They're totally out of touch with reality. And what's really fustrating is that these losers are reaping in millions from membership subscriptions year-in, year-out. Total rip-off.

As for the general discussion about status through registration, I think the whole thing is out-of-date with reality. CEng, IEng and EngTech don't have real status, because they are, on the whole, company based employees (whether worker of management).

Real status comes from reputation and not letters and distinctions after ones name. And reputation comes from having your name linked with an invention, product, or solving a longstanding engineering problem.

I have never come across any CEng (never mind IEng) who has a reputation as an engineer either at national or international level. So the notion of CEng having any form of status is quite absurd.

The only engineer who can ever have any form of status, through reputation, is the entrepreneur inventor engineer. One who owns the company, the patent(s), the lot.

As for the employee based engineer, whether at worker level or manager level, they can forget about status, because they work together as part of teams, so share the spoils of success as a group.

For somebody to be an engineer, team-leader, or manager to then claim status through CEng or IEng is living on cloud cookoo land. Everybody in the team is deserving of equal recognition and not just the CEng or IEng member in the team. They're all cut from the same cloth.

Edited: 23 September 2013 at 07:33 PM by mbirdi
 23 September 2013 11:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mbirdi
Real status comes from reputation and not letters and distinctions after ones name. And reputation comes from having your name linked with an invention, product, or solving a longstanding engineering problem.

Not really. Any status is real by the fact it is a status and CEng is probably recognised by more people than most inventors of products, for example. An inventor is linked with the product someone who holds CEng is linked with a list of competencies and ethical and professional code of conduct etc. I'm not defending either or say you need CEng but real status is not as you suggest. I agree reputation can come from the things you say but also it can come from always giving good advice, always maintaining things well, always working professionally, always paying attention to detail, etc., i.e., it can come from a lot more things than you suggest.

"The only engineer who can ever have any form of status, through reputation, is the entrepreneur inventor engineer. One who owns the company, the patent(s), the lot."

Not really, you see you are not generally the one who decides who has the status and it is for those who decide to award and recognise the status to decide which engineers can have it and what form it shall be.

"As for the employee based engineer, whether at worker level or manager level, they can forget about status, because they work together as part of teams, so share the spoils of success as a group."

It does not mean you cannot be recognised for your work in that team. In a football team the team wins, but when the goalkeeper saves a penalty they do not say 'well the whole team saved that penalty'. Team wins the game but different people have different roles to play and work to carry out.

"For somebody to be an engineer, team-leader, or manager to then claim status through CEng or IEng is living on cloud cookoo land. Everybody in the team is deserving of equal recognition and not just the CEng or IEng member in the team. They're all cut from the same cloth."

Maybe, but if the remainder of the team want to do the extra study and go through the appraisal they can, they have a choice.

Regards.
 24 September 2013 10:55 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
The Engineering Council are saying the proposed amendments to UKSpec have not changed the standard. However this is not the case for IEng.

If the proposed changes do not change the standard then they are not required. However, it's a technical fact that if we change the wording then it changes the standard, no matter how small the change is. What they may be referring to is, for example, it does not change the value/level of the standard but the issue with IEng is that it does need to be changed to find it's proper place.

Regards.
 25 September 2013 01:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Do not worry about it pmiller, if you have to educate the EC about fundamental things then in reality it is not IEng which needs fixing and instead it is the EC management which needs fixing.

IEng and CEng are too close to each other in some ways but in the way which relates to their standing both nationally and internationally they are worlds apart, and this is not because of the engineers who hold these status's. This is not going to change anytime soon.

Regards.
 27 September 2013 06:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



iie609881

Posts: 9
Joined: 25 July 2008

Indeed Peter,

Some Competences are consistent right across EngTech, IEng and CEng: for example E2, about managing safe systems of work.

My concern, from a societal perspective is in D3, where the Steering Group design a heirachy of effort/competence in promoting diversity.

I am unable to locate any EC Diversity policy.

Why does the EC think it's right to grade action on Diversity between EngTech - no requirement whatsoever - to IEng "being aware" and to CEng "encourage and sustain" ?

As far as I can see the proposed D3 seeks to overrule our fundamental societal and human duties to each other. I fail to understand why encouraging and sustaining Diversity should be any different to managing safe systems of work, because the ethical duties in terms of preventing harm to others are no different for an EngTech, IEng or CEng.

To me the proposed D3 on Diversity is the strangest perpetuation of the heirachy and I hope the EC realises its mistake.

Chris Jones
 27 September 2013 04:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

 28 September 2013 06:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



iie609881

Posts: 9
Joined: 25 July 2008

I agree the commitment to act is in the Concordat - which would surely lead to a diversity policy that guided implementation such as -

1. communicate commitment to equality and inclusion principles and practices;
2. take action to increase diversity amongst those in professional engineering membership and registration;
3. monitor and measure progress.

Regards
 28 September 2013 11:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

But then it will become easier to attain IEng and so theoretically more engineers will sign up for it.

In reality it is just semantics, the EC's main impact on engineering comes from the fact they are a group of engineers with an institution and who thus are able to interface with those who make laws and standards etc., and so have some influence.....and that is not a bad thing. With regards to professional status that really has a very minor direct impact at the 'coalface' because most engineers do not have a professional status and even those who do are not made competent by the status.

No institution will get all the wording correct and which represents every engineers job, with regards to the relevant status, because there are too many variables involved. Therefore it has to be a best fit approach and that is much harder to achieve when IEng and CEng are so close to each other.

Regards.
IET » CEng, IEng, EngTech and other professional registration matters » UKSpec

1 2 3 4 5 Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



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