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 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.
 28 September 2013 04:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

The question is will Employers even notice any changes to the UK Spec? Does anybody bother to check?
Employers (some) see the whole thing as "The king is naked" .
 29 September 2013 12:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

pmiller,

"A2: 'Establish users' requirements for Improvement' replaced by 'Implement solutions to meet users' requirements' clearly diminishes the scope of IEng.
B2: The addition of 'Work within the constraints and boundaries of current technology' substantially reduces the whole concept/need for CPD in respect of incorporated engineers. Should incorporated engineers keep up to date with the latest/emerging technologies? This implies it is not important.
C2. 'Manage the planning, budgeting and organisation of tasks, people and resources' changed to 'Manage the organisation of tasks, people and resources to existing plans and budgets'. A major element of project management is identifying and estimating project costs. The other major element being developing a project plan. The new wording clearly implies these are exclusively CEng level competencies."

Surely if we are diminishing and reducing and changing things so they are exclusively CEng, but were not before, then we are requiring less? If this is the case then unless it is replaced by something equivalent and to the same standard it must therefore become easier to attain? It would seem logical.

The other point is this, and thinking forwards, if IEng is seen to then have less value then it's likely the numbers will drop and so what exactly do you think the IET will likely do? I predict that more people with 'experience' will be awarded IEng and so it will become more the domain of those with experience and less of a domain for those with BEng etc. Because if something loses its value or appeal and you cannot change its structure, so to speak, then you either offer it at lower cost or make it easier to achieve or else launch a marketing campaign. But hey you need to have something to market and also need the funds to do it!

These are just my opinions of course.

Regards.
 29 September 2013 07:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



TomG

Posts: 27
Joined: 13 March 2013

I personally like the changes as I don't feel you should have to devise budgets etc and that should be something reserved to chartered engineers, if any engineers. I've never understood this obsessive integration of business management techniques within UK engineering.

I can see why existing IEngs are annoyed by these proposals, becaus eit clearly reduces the criteria of IEng. They could have achieved the desired gap between IEng and CEng by making CEng harder to obtain, rather than slashing IEng. You only have to look at how many CEngs that are being churned out all the time now to realise that it has watered-down meaning.

-------------------------
LCGI EngTech MIMechE MSOE MBES
 29 September 2013 08:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: TomG
I personally like the changes as I don't feel you should have to devise budgets etc and that should be something reserved to chartered engineers, if any engineers.

Let's be honest most people do budgeting all the time in order to run their households and lives etc., and so understand the basic principles.
I've never understood this obsessive integration of business management techniques within UK engineering.

Engineering exists within society and within the business context and hence engineers, particularly those in supervisory and management positions, need to be able to prepare and run budgets. It's not obsessive but rather it is something which now goes along with the job.

Anyway Tom, you are one person who is happy with the changes so that's a positive and it's good to hear a supporting comment as well.

Regards.
 29 September 2013 08:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
Maybe easier to obtain but of any value to the holder:-) ?... Even if the company are paying the registration/membership fees, unless there is a value/status attached to it, there will be no take up


Which sort of comes back to your points about current low take up!

Regards.
 30 September 2013 11:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

It appears that the new changes are closer aligned with three tier system of

1. Engineering Technician

2. Technician Engineer (Engineering Technologist) IEng - NOT Failed CEng

3. Chartered Engineer

Each one is progression, all are respected members of Engineering team and are registered Engineers.
I think the degree and education with experience will play a greater role.

Sr Technologist vs Junior Technologist the same for Technicians. There can be overlap.
Same for Engineers.

BEng IEng vs NHD IEng same for BEng CEng vs MEng CEng or PhD CEng.
EngTEch vs HNC EngTEch etc.

A progression just like Registered Nurse , Nurse Practitioner, Medical Doctor

Remember when applying for job its not UK SPEC that one needs to satisfy but Employer SPEC.
 30 September 2013 08:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: MosheW
2. Technician Engineer (Engineering Technologist) IEng - NOT Failed CEng

Sorry but a BEng qualified engineer is not a technician. Even the EC say Incorporated Engineer.
Each one is progression, all are respected members of Engineering team and are registered Engineers.

If the EC show IEng as a stepping stone to CEng then I am not sure if they are fully respecting IEng.
BEng IEng vs NHD IEng same for BEng CEng vs MEng CEng or PhD CEng. EngTEch vs HNC EngTEch etc.

Not really sure about your meaning with all of that.
A progression just like Registered Nurse , Nurse Practitioner, Medical Doctor

As pmiller says that is not a proper progression, because doctors train to be doctors and nurses train to be nurses. You may well progress from one type of nurse or doctor to a more specialist role. But anyway as you chose both of them, you need a degree to be a nurse or doctor and work experience.
Remember when applying for job its not UK SPEC that one needs to satisfy but Employer SPEC.

This is an excellent point.

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



faramog

Posts: 444
Joined: 25 November 2002

Very entertaining and unbiased responses .. anyone would think this was a USA Senate vote !!

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Prebble CEng MIEE
 01 October 2013 01:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

In USA Nurse Practitioner hallowed to treat patients and diagnose them, and subscribe medicine. Yet she is not an MD.
When I pointing to progression, I point to ability to go back to school .

I never called BEng qualified Engineer a Technician. Isn't Technician Engineer is old name for IEng. In my IET publications from the 80's ( I still have one) there was TEng.

BEng IEng vs NHD IEng Both are IEng but one has a higher level of education.
BEng CEng vs MEng CEng or PhD CEng same here all three are CEng but all three have different level of education.

Same with Nurse - there could be Foundation degree Nurse, BSN Nurse, MSN Nurse and even Ph.D Nurse.
 01 October 2013 02:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

You did indirectly, but this is not really an issue caused by yourself of course.

'Traditionally' in the UK an engineering technician had OND, City and Guilds, NVQ3, etc., and a technician engineer had HNC and an engineer had a BEng.....or alternative equivalent qualifications around those levels. Now as the EC inflated the academic requirements for IEng to BEng they in reality lifted IEng out of the technician engineer category into the engineer category, and this is represented by 'Incorporated Engineer'. So the good old technician engineer category has been lost, albeit it's really just about semantics. EngTech and CEng are both clear and easy to market, IEng has more challenges.

So it's either EngTech, IEng and CEng or it's not, basically.

Yes I understand the Nurse situation in the USA, as I have a friend there who is a nurse, but as we are talking about UK SPEC I tend to be talking about the UK side of things. From 2013 in the UK nurses required degrees to enter the profession, but of course that is not to say they cannot have a MSc and/or PhD or several of them.....it's more about the minimum requirements required.

Regards.
 01 October 2013 08:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

That was not my comment, it was yours and hence the "", so really you are responding to your own comment as if I said it.

Regards.
 01 October 2013 08:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dufouri

Posts: 905
Joined: 18 June 2002

As a volunteer involved in Registration I have been asked to help form the IET view (with others) and I would be interested to know whether you think that IEng should be defined as an "assistant CEng" or as "a different but equally valuable engineer managing existing technology". I have to admit that the current trend is to the former, whilst I had hoped we would push it to the latter. But this is a personal view. Maybe we should embrace both views. (I realise some participants here probably don't accept a need for a distinction between IEng and CEng at all, but we're not going there in this thread).

In taking all this into account you should remember that some people will progress from EngTech to IEng and/or from IEng to CEng as their careers develop and opportunities arise. But others will happily remain at EngTech or IEng as a destination that suits their level and contribution. There is nothing wrong with either path and all should be equally respected, so it is disappointing to see another member told that he doesn't have any real status because of his Registration grade.

I have had lots of comments made to me on the proposed revisions by IEngs, so don't run away with the idea that "CEng grandees" are determining the outcome.

The IET response is likely to incorporate views posted here, and some have been valuable. The most useful are those that refer to particular competences (e.g. "B1) but the overall direction is still important - if only to help me get my own views straight.

Ian Dufour
 02 October 2013 10:20 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 884
Joined: 04 November 2004

In response to Ian's post.

I was awarded IEng earlier this year. I am a mature engineer who gained many years of experience in the field in my early career and thought IEng would be beneficial to me. I believe it is also the reason why the average age of applicants is 40 years+.

The proposed IEng changes will aim IEng towards early post graduate Engineers (as a stepping stone to CEng), with formal qualifications but who have not yet gained sufficient experience in the work place.

The changes to A2, B1, B2, B3 , C2 and D3 suggest an IEng is not capable of autonomy. I believe this is damaging to the existing IEng membership. As Pmillar stated the IEng examples http://www.engc.org.uk/profess...-engineer/case-studies will need to be replaced.

I have raised my concerns directly with the IET's MPD dept.

Regards
 02 October 2013 11:18 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



faramog

Posts: 444
Joined: 25 November 2002

"assistant CEng"... truely dreadful and demeaning ! .. Nothing wrong with Incorporated Engineers... its the boundary descriptions a key distinctions that need better clarification

If (as PRA) I have to advise someone thay are not up to CEng but can be an 'assistant' then count me out ...

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Prebble CEng MIEE
 02 October 2013 11:28 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 884
Joined: 04 November 2004

IEng was born out of TEng it is different to CEng and requires different skills.

A CEng applicant should not automatically be given IEng if they don't meet the CEng critrea.

Regards
 02 October 2013 02:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

Originally posted by: Parsley

IEng was born out of TEng it is different to CEng and requires different skills.



A CEng applicant should not automatically be given IEng if they don't meet the CEng critrea.



Regards


There is a lot in common to IEng and CEng and then there are also differences.

in Ireland they call IEng - Associate Engineer not because AEng is assistant of CEng.

As the new revise UK SPEC seems to me is that CEng can be automatically IEng , it appears to me that it is stronger in the areas but it covers IEng.
I was first an IEng and then progressed to CEng.
I can be wrong in my interpretation.
 02 October 2013 09:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: westonpa
That was not my comment, it was yours and hence the "", so really you are responding to your own comment as if I said it.

No one's perfect.
 02 October 2013 09:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: dufouri
As a volunteer involved in Registration I have been asked to help form the IET view (with others) and I would be interested to know whether you think that IEng should be defined as an "assistant CEng" or as "a different but equally valuable engineer managing existing technology".

You obviously weren't around when this exercise was conducted some years ago. The majority decision by IEng members across the entire EC register was to settle for the title of 'Chartered Certified Engineer' or CCEng. It was rejected by the working party.

I wouldn't bother with it if I were you. It will bound to fail. Any name associated with the letters CEng will be rejected. The reason being that it will always be regarded as second best to CEng.
 02 October 2013 09:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dufouri

Posts: 905
Joined: 18 June 2002

I wasn't proposing a new name - IEng is here to stay - only the concept of a destination in itself vs a step on a "progression". I think both, and I'm not alone. The EC thinks not both. The IET position is yet to be clarified and even if my view prevails, whether it can influence the EC to change its mind remains to be seen. Very possibly not. But a lot of people think it is worth a try, even if they are not posting it here.

Ian Dufour.
 02 October 2013 09:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for hamishbell.
hamishbell

Posts: 287
Joined: 11 September 2001

I have long argued that IEng, Eng Tech and CEng are all part of a SPECTRUM of jobs; all are dependent at some time or other on each other. It is not, and should not, be regarded as a hierarchy.
Regards
Hamish

-------------------------
Hamish V Bell, BSc, CEng, FIET, FCQI, CQP
2007 - 2010, Vice President and Trustee
IET » CEng, IEng, EngTech and other professional registration matters » UKSpec

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

See Also:



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