This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Forces/Ex-forces community

Hi everyone. Not sure if this is the right place to be asking this question, but I've looked through the various communities and I couldn't see anything in the way of bringing together engineers who are either serving or who have left the forces. I've been out the army ten years now, but when I look back on it there was very little instilled in the way of professional development during my time in the forces. I think the army I served in was very backwards in that respect, and it would be interesting to know how or if it had changed, and I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks that this is the sort of community that would add value to the IET. I think if I'd had better opportunities for guidance in a professional sense I'd have really benefitted.
  • Jon,


    The issue merits at least some further discussion in my opinion.


    My own direct experience goes back considerably further and I served in Royal Engineers Specialist Teams TA (now reserve). This recruited civilian specialists nationally and required a minimum commitment of 19 days per annum. I could not therefore expect too much “career development” from the military, although there was a clear promotion structure, including in my case time at RSME Chatham and Clerk of Works Boards. I contributed more than the minimum in most of my 12 years of service, but unlike many later successors I didn’t get “called up” for front-line service.


    Probably more relevant is my more recent involvement in some of the Armed Forces Special Registration Agreements, which can be found on the IET website and interaction with a wide variety of serving and ex-service people as an IET advisor.  https://www.theiet.org/membership/becoming-a-member/join-the-iet/armed-forces-membership/   


    In general terms, I would observe that the attitude of the armed services seems to have evolved from one in which service people were developed primarily to meet the needs of their own service, to one in which it is acknowledged that they should wherever possible have the opportunity to acquire, readily transferable skills, civilian qualifications and other forms of portable recognition (like professional registration).  Other trends are also clear, such as increasing numbers of non-commissioned personnel gaining higher qualifications such as degrees, the delegation of responsibility further down the rank structure and changes in the assumptions around commissioned and non-commissioned roles. It has become possible for example for SNCOs to become Chartered in some cases.  


    Each service and division within has slightly different traditions and like in the civilian world, superficially similar individuals may have significant differences in experience.  A difference that I have noticed in the past, is that many civilian employers have come to place strong ownership for development with the employee, whereas service career progression is often highly structured and tied to being selected for “promotion” courses.


    There are probably more effective mechanisms for networking by service and ex-service technical personnel, but I would expect the IET to be open-minded and in principle supportive of their careers, during and after service. The IET is very fortunate to have good engagement from the more senior rank levels, are there gaps and “tricks that are being missed”, for all types of technical people?  Does anyone have any other ideas or disagree with my perspective?        



  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Although not an engineer in the forces I am very interested in this,  I am a disaster management graduate from Coventry University and am head of research and technical development for the Joint Civil Aid Corps, a national Civil Defence Charity.  One of the arms of the cold war civil defence was the scientific and reconnaissance section and I have been tasked with trying to recreate a similar organisation to support the emergency services.  My current interest is in remotely operated vehicles and remote sensing, particularly with respect to wildfires.  Many of our senior staff are ex forces and I would invite you to look at our website (jcac.org.UK) to see what we are about.
  • Interesting reading of your experiences Roy.


    I agree with what you say about personal development being very structured in the forces. It took me a long time to realise that civilian life wasn't like that, and nobody was mapping out your career path in front of you. At the same time, there will no doubt still be people in the forces who never get on because their face doesn't fit, and as such maybe promoting the benefits of an institution like the IET at an early stage of their career would be an advantage to their long term career. Obviously you're going to be capped at EngTech unless you're in a position of some seniority, but would people be more inclined to look at topping up to an HNC, HND, or degree if there was an active community of like-minded people?


    I see there's a forces structure in the IET, thanks for the link, but how proactive is it? Is it showing people the benefits of being in the IET, or is it just fishing for people who already know? I see quite a few people from my old cap badge with EngTech qualifications from the InstRE, but that was unheard of when I was serving. It would be interesting to know how much of that is a box-ticking exercise because it's mapped against the career stream.


    Would all-ranks engagement in any sort of community work or would there be too much of an 'us and them' barrier? Are the forces still stuck in the trap of thinking that the best soldiers/sailors/airmen are automatically the best engineers, and not developing people in the right way? It would be interesting to hear thoughts on that.

  • "....Obviously you're going to be capped at EngTech unless you're in a position of some seniority"


    I do not completely agree with this statement. Whilst it is very true that for the most part many of the section C competencies are unlikely to be met, and in many cases the A & B are limited by structure for jnr NCO's (Corps, Sgt, Chief Tech etc), it does happen,. The UK-Spec system is on demonstrable competence and not on rank.


    One of my proudest PRA's was getting a newly promoted WO2 without a degree through a technical report route to becoming CEng (now a Chief Engineer outside the REME).


    It is also the influence that the individual can demonstrate. Technical competence is not, nor should it be, defined solely by rank. Earlier in the year at interview I saw one of the poorest engineers at senior rank (above the equiv of captain - not saying which service.. just in case). A terrible engineer and yet the week before the equivalent of a sergeant was pretty borderline CEng had he applied.....


    Ranks should play little part in all of the application process. Yes, in reality it does rather define on the whole, but there are very string individuals out there
  • Graham, the UK-Spec isn't done on rank but you aren't going to be in a position to demonstrate those competences without the rank. It may not be capped per se, but in any practical sense it is. Whilst you could argue that having the appropriate level of seniority is applicable in any career and not just the forces, the career structure is much more linear and defined. You aren't going to find yourself in a much more senior position out of the blue because someone recognises your talents and takes a chance on you, for example.
  • "..the UK-Spec isn't done on rank" - Which is what I said !


    "but you aren't going to be in a position to demonstrate those competences without the rank" -  as I said, for the most part correct, but stars do shine. The real point is to look beyond the perception that rank alone defines .... as I have done on several occasions and found very solid and competent engineers

  • Whilst I don't disagree with what you're saying, I think it's a bit of a tangent to the original post- it wasn't my intention to debate the merits of individual engineers, it was whether the IET actively promoted the benefits of personal development and competence building to serving personell or service leavers. In my own personal experience, it wasn't instilled in you at junior level at all. I didn't even really know what an engineering institution did until I started a degree many years after leaving- it gets drilled into graduates, yet as you've said yourself being a graduate is far from the only route. I was curious whether my experience was common, a thing of the past, or of little consequence in the opinion of others.
  • I realise that Jon... but the important thing to to recognise 'engineering excellence', not rank, not diversity, not anything else. As soon as people start pigeon holing areas we create a barrier, an expectation. The only barrier we should review and recognise is UK-Spec and encourage as many as possible from whatever workplace to assess themselves and apply.


    Enough from me ... I do think I get why you raised this thread ...
  • I think you've hit the nail on the head there though, even though we may have gone slightly round the houses to get there haha!

    Is that environment present in the forces in 2019, should it be, and should the IET be active in its promotion?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Jon, though not ex-forces I do work with serving and former submariners. It does appear that, at least in the submarine service, the option to work towards IEng is available. I assume that the option to aim higher is also available.

    However, it seems that many leaving the service haven't taken the opportunity and find that gaining the qualification post service is harder. Again I am not in a position to know if that is because they weren't aware of the opportunity or the benefits of taking it. 

    On a parting note, I think that an IET community for serving and former service personnel is a great idea.