Since your post has "bumped" this back up the list (and many thanks for the nice comment ), just one more thought:
Whether or not an engineer decides to obtain professional registration, I would always recommend to every engineer (including undergraduates and apprentices) that they get hold of UKSpec and consider where they stand against the relevant parts, and what they need to develop to meet the requirements. Fundamentally UKSpec explains really well what you need, beyond pure specialist technical knowledge, to make yourself useful to employers and customers.
It's only relatively recently, since doing a large amount of PRA work, that I've really come to appreciate that a lot of what I have been looking for in 30 years of recruiting engineers and then managing their development is nicely contained and structured in UKSpec.
So the flow diagram becomes:
New engineer needs to develop a well rounded level of competence in the whole professional engineer role
-> they make sure they meet the requirements of UKSpec
-> they or their employer need to prove (to internal or external auditors or to clients etc) that an independent third party agrees they have this level of competence
New engineer needs to develop a well rounded level of competence in the whole professional engineer role
-> they make sure they meet the requirements of UKSpec
-> they or their employer need to prove (to internal or external auditors or to clients etc) that an independent third party agrees they have this level of competence
-> they achieve professional registration -> they continue to maintain and develop through Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
Andy Millar I hope you don't mind me adding another point, I may be biased in this regard ?
In my view, going CEng is a great step which demonstrates that the professional has been vetted; met certain standards in their career; and they have acquired independent assessment of their competence and commitment . It also demonstrates that the professional is guided by the Statement of Ethical Principles set out by The Engineering Council and the Royal Academy of Engineering.
I'm a Chartered Engineer and a Professional Registration Mentor with Jaguar Land Rover, based at Castle Bromwich. For me supporting and developing the next generation of engineers is the biggest benefit to the company, and I find it very rewarding.
Here our CEO is keen to encourage our Engineers to become Chartered and begin mentoring our new Apprentices, Graduates and Junior Engineers. He recently hired a dedicated Competency developer to drive our Professional Engineering Development Committee forward, of which I am an active member.
I mentor Graduates and Junior Engineers to collate their engineering competency experience against the criteria in the UK Engineering spec, and report their yearly progress via the use of a tracker. This allows us to demonstrate their development progress to date and identify areas in need of development for the following year, via personal SMART objects, with their home team management. This allows the mentee to feel supported and also gives them a path to develop their experience, in order to achieve either EngTECH, IEng or CEng accreditation.
Thank you very much for your correspondence. I really appreciate you reaching out at this moment as I am a few weeks towards my CEng interview.
It is good to hear how much drive there is in your company to get engineers professionally registered. Congratulations for playing a great role in supporting potential registrants.
I have 12yrs engineering experience in automotive industry, mainly in powertrain and felt its necessary to get my charter status.
I will be glad to be in your professional network.
Derek Wellington didn't mention me by name, but I'm the Competence Developer - Professional (Posh title eh) that JLR took on nearly 12 months ago to help drive professional registration across the business. It's been an interesting year and I truly believe my professional registration and involvement in mentoring has helped me and many others get through some very tough months.
Compered to some registered engineers I'm a late developer achieving EngTech in 2011 by virtue of Rank and Trade as I left the RAF. Then achieving IEng in 2014 with the IMechE and Fellow of the IMechE in 2017. What of it though kudos to me, but what Did JCB and now JLR get from me being registered?
A very detailed SWOT analysis of my competence as I went through the application process for IEng and Fellow
Not really applicable for my EngTech due to the Armed forces route
Perhaps a little more thought in my decisions making process, because I've got a whole load of rules and codes to abide by that a non-registered engineer might not have heard of
More to lose too if I do something wrong and get struck off the register
Report writing and reviewing skills that make day to day work easier and more efficient. The limited space on EngTech applications certainly helped develop my undergraduates' report writing skills as they completed a year in industry
My mentoring skills have improved, which in turn helps other mentors and future mentors
Access to vast amounts of research, journals, books, seminars and all other types of CPD though the IET library and numerous IET Networks
A Trusted engineer who has been independently verified against an internationally recognised specification who has to maintain their knowledge and competence
This trust in a professional Engineer is what allowed me to take a huge risk leaving a growing business to join a company which, as I signed my contract, was not doing very well
The ability for me as an Engineer or my employer to stand up in a court of law, should the worst happen, and say that they ensured the independently verified competence of the company's engineers through professional registration in the relevant category (ICTTech, EngTech, IEng or CEng)
Engineering as an industry spend huge amounts of money on training, but tying it all together in professional registration gives these separate items something to bond to like the matrix material in Carbon Fibre Re-enforced Composite providing the bond tying he threads of carbon together. The matrix doesn't provide much strength, but without it the fibres wouldn't have direction or control.
Late into this thread as I've been much less active in these forums than I used to be ad they were eating up far too much of my time, so apologies if that means I cover ground already covered.
However, prompted by Simon's list of benefits, I felt I could keep this relatively brief as I feel his list is spot on for my industry, the railway industry (in particular Rail projects) if only we could overcome the vicious chicken and egg we're currently in.
I see registration at either C.Eng or I.Eng as offering all of those benefits, and from my personal perspective, I regularly have to approve the appointment of Contractors' Responsible Engineers. Bear in mind that this is a crucially responsible role, as the title suggests, given it is their role to approve all design and construction within their discipline, a role that sits firmly with the contractor under CDM.
Whenever we encounter anybody new to us, we have a really difficult job of determining their suitability. If they have undertaken a similar role elsewhere, we can consult the "network" of other client's project engineers, but this often doesn't produce results. To have the benchmark of peer assessment provided by registration would make this far easier and more reliable.
Whether the most appropriate registration is C.Eng or I.Eng is completely dependent on the nature of the project - for many, I.Eng would be fine, but for more complex projects, especially where innovative solutions would be desirable, C.Eng would be preferred.
The problem is that chicken and egg I refer to. I would love it if we could stipulate registration as a requirement, possibly defining which level on a project by project basis, but we simply can't do that at present as the proportion of engineers who are registered is far too low. But if we did so, this would provide the motivation for our contractors to require registration for their engineers, and that would provide motivation for those engineers to seek registration. As it is, because it's not a requirement, many engineers don't see the value in seeking registration.
So, until and unless we make it a requirement, we will not get the critical mass of available registered engineers, but if we did make it a requirement, we would currently not be able to find sufficient to fill the roles, so it becomes a step that the organisation is unprepared to sanction, hence nothing changes.
I would love to see the vicious circle broken. Maybe the only answer is to put a time limit by which it will become a requirement, one that is practical for currently unregistered but potentially suitable engineers to achieve, but, to do that, there needs to be a big change in organisational readiness to embrace this.
As I've commented in previous threads, this is where I feel that an Institute driven "marketing" campaign is required to convey that such a move would be beneficial (maybe a list such as that provided by Simon would help) and that it is a realistic, achievable goal.
), just one more thought:
