Log in to the online community

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in
How to cancel membership
Question
I'm posting this simply because there is nothing on the website, including within the members area, which gives any indication of how to do this - so this is very much a "for information" post should anyone in future find themselves in the situation of having to search the IET website to try and find the answer, like I did.

(The only place this information is published is in the membership terms and conditions apparently).

According to the membership team, contactable via the main IET switchboard, the only way to cancel your membership is in writing - either by post or by emailing assessment@theiet.org.

You'll need to include your membership number in the email/letter and state that you wish to cancel your membership.

They'd also like you to tell them why you're cancelling your membership but given the IET can't be bothered to include any information on their website about how to cancel a membership then you certainly aren't obligated to give them a reason.

Hope this is of assistance to someone.
22 Replies
My question would be why do you feel it necessary to cancel your membership. One can only assume that you are desparately short of money or there is a policy statement that you veremently disagree with. The easiest way then to cancel any membership is not to renew it. Very easy really....

Legh
Simon Barker
806 Posts
I suspect a lot of members, myself included, have auto-renewing membership on direct debit.  I could cancel the direct debit, but that wouldn't necessarily cancel the membership.

Simon Barker:
I suspect a lot of members, myself included, have auto-renewing membership on direct debit.  I could cancel the direct debit, but that wouldn't necessarily cancel the membership.

I know of no organization that will automatically renew a membership without first making contact with the member when a direct debit has been cancelled.  Or maybe I have been enrolling in he wrong societies (i before e except after c ?)

Legh

egh Richardson:

Simon Barker:
I suspect a lot of members, myself included, have auto-renewing membership on direct debit.  I could cancel the direct debit, but that wouldn't necessarily cancel the membership.

I know of no organization that will automatically renew a membership without first making contact with the member when a direct debit has been cancelled.  Or maybe I have been enrolling in he wrong societies (i before e except after c ?)

Legh

 


There is no simple way to "not renew" my membership short of calling up my bank and asking them to cancel my direct debit instruction - and cancelling a membership should not need to involve simply not paying a direct debit and waiting for the IET to contact you about it.

As for why I'm cancelling my own membership, it's because I joined the IET as a student but my career has taken me, over the past few years, into software rather than engineering and I don't see the point of paying £160 a year for membership when the IET's activities are irrelevant to my current profession and when I'm never likely to seek chartered status. Right now the only thing I get for my membership is a convoluted-to-opt-out-of subscription to a magazine that I never have time to read.
I must admit I often find it difficult to get through all the reading of various technical magazines within the day.

I do find it interesting that as a software engineer you have been unable to 'connect' with the software side of the IET's organization. I would have thought this was the purpose of the IEE linking with IIT, to provide support and new avenues through software programming of the various electrical/electronic control systems.

I supose that if you were involved with financial systems, operating systems or web development,  then the electrical/electronic side of things may not be that relavent to you.

Are there no societies/communities within the IET that are purely software driven?

Legh

Legh Richardson:
I do find it interesting that as a software engineer you have been unable to 'connect' with the software side of the IET's organization. I would have thought this was the purpose of the IEE linking with IIT, to provide support and new avenues through software programming of the various electrical/electronic control systems.

I supose that if you were involved with financial systems, operating systems or web development,  then the electrical/electronic side of things may not be that relavent to you.

Are there no societies/communities within the IET that are purely software driven?

Legh

I work as a software engineer. The software I work on is invariably either computer desktop software or web applications. If I was writing code for electronic hardware then it'd be worth staying a member of the IET but there is nothing they currently do that looks towards those working in purely digital sectors (even though much of what we do is very much engineering) and they certainly don't offer anything that helps with professional development. And the software industry is one which tends to focus far more on demonstrable work experience, skills and expertise than it does qualifications so there's nothing even remotely equivalent to chartered status and even if there was most employers wouldn't care about it.

I think that's fundamentally a shame since digital issues could very much do with the rigour of a code of ethics and an emphasis on professional development and wider social responsibility that the various engineering institutions offer - but right now there's nothing even remotely like that available and no one seems to be pushing to create it. Hence my conclusion that IET membership no longer offers any real benefit to me.

(In fairness there is the British Computing Society, which is a member of the Engineering Council, but it's largely irrelevant to (and unknown by) most IT/software professionals these days.)
Andy Millar
1750 Posts

GeorgePotter:


I think that's fundamentally a shame since digital issues could very much do with the rigour of a code of ethics and an emphasis on professional development and wider social responsibility that the various engineering institutions offer - but right now there's nothing even remotely like that available and no one seems to be pushing to create it.
That's a REALLY interesting point - I hope this raises some more responses. I couldn't agree more with the first half of your sentence, I don't know enough to comment on the second half but it doesn't surprise me.

Cheers,

Andy
 
Simon Wood
6 Posts
Hi George,
I'm inclined to agree that keeping your membership serves no purpose unless you make use of the myriad of member benefits that are available or required the assistance of the charitable support network.
If you are also registered at ICTTech, EngTech, IEng or CEng I would strongly urge you to consider keeping you IET membership or transferring to the BCS. Membership alone, in my opinion, adds little value to your status, but if you have professionally registered status this is worth keeping and the only way to do this is to be a member of one of the 34 ECuk licensed institutions.
Students often get signed up for free and are told little about the benefits of membership and registration outside their university studies. This gap is then left to industry and other professionals to fill when people like yourself feel neglected having been left hanging with a membership they don't really know much about.
Again in my opinion you should look at becoming professionally registered through the IET or BCS  given you have stated that you are a software engineer.

Kind Regards
Simon Wood
Andy Millar
1750 Posts

Simon Wood:
...but if you have professionally registered status this is worth keeping and the only way to do this is to be a member of one of the 34 ECuk licensed institutions.

I'm going to play Devil's advocate here (given that I'm a huge fan of professional registration) - I think we need to be clearer as to why this is worth keeping. In my own professional field that's easy to answer, (we have to be able to show third party auditors and our clients independent evidence that our engineers work professionally). But it's very clear that software engineers such as George don't consider it adds value - the proportion of unregistered software engineers speaks for itself. So we have an argument that needs making here. And, I suspect it's not actually an argument that needs making to individual engineers so much as to major software houses - they are the ones who need to drive the need, by demanding CEng from their engineers so they can show the world that they are more credible companies than their rivals.  

This should be possible, a software house relies on the professionalism of its engineers for its reputation. But it's going to be an upward battle. One worth fighting though - I would much rather that software I used was written by an engineer who worked according to the standards of UKSpec than by one who didn't. 

I suspect there are plenty of engineering sectors (including, and maybe especially, software) where CEng is seen as a hindrance rather than a help - where the old-fashioned idea of a Chartered Engineer as a pompous arrogant bore who tries to stop any innovation still holds sway. 

Incidentally, there are "pure" software sectors where holding CEng (or IEng) definitely does add value, I'll be visiting an organisation in one of those sectors (broadly speaking defence) soon to run a professional registration day. But I am sure the majority of commercial software houses believe they can internally regulate the quality and professionalism of their staff, and they may or may not be right.

Cheers,

Andy

Simon Wood:
I'm inclined to agree that keeping your membership serves no purpose unless you make use of the myriad of member benefits that are available or required the assistance of the charitable support network.
If you are also registered at ICTTech, EngTech, IEng or CEng I would strongly urge you to consider keeping you IET membership or transferring to the BCS. Membership alone, in my opinion, adds little value to your status, but if you have professionally registered status this is worth keeping and the only way to do this is to be a member of one of the 34 ECuk licensed institutions.
...
Again in my opinion you should look at becoming professionally registered through the IET or BCS  given you have stated that you are a software engineer.

That's very much it. I don't make use of the member benefits and I'm not registered at any level - primarily because, having left uni, there has never been a point where the effort and cost of getting registered has seemed worthwhile given that none of my employers have cared about it

I will consider joining the BCS at some point and I will probably try to seek professionally registered status at some point, but the problem is that I doubt any of my colleagues (or my managers) are even aware that professionally registered status even exists for software developers, let alone consider it to have any value to one's ability to be a good developer. To the extent that most think of the BCS at all I imagine it's assumed to be equivalent to the British Interplanetary Society (that is as a body for enthusiasts rather than anything relevant to industry). And, given that the IET is, at least on the face of it, all about electronic and electrical engineering, I doubt anyone I've ever worked with would consider professionally registered status with them to be relevant to my profession.

So, whilst I probably will seek professionally registered status with the BCS at some point for its own sake, I can't ever see it as ever being directly beneficial to my career barring some substantive change which makes CITP (Chartered IT Professional) actually desirable to employers.

Andy Millar:

This should be possible, a software house relies on the professionalism of its engineers for its reputation. But it's going to be an upward battle. One worth fighting though - I would much rather that software I used was written by an engineer who worked according to the standards of UKSpec than by one who didn't. 

This is the problem in a nutshell though. The kind of things that matter to employers (and indirectly to customers) is a very different type of professionalism to that outlined in UKSpec, Professionalism matters (currently) in the sense of being au fait with Agile methodologies and DevOps and keeping up with other industry management and process practices. It matters even more in the sense of writing readable, properly documented and maintainable code. It matters in the sense of being able to follow in-house code styles and patterns and it matters in the sense of being able to work well at translating requirements into practical solutions and of being able to work collaboratively with fellow developers and testers. And it definitely matters in the sense of being adaptable and able to switch to or adopt new technologies, tools and programming languages when necessary.

But none of those things can really be measured sufficiently well by UKSpec to the extent that chartered status would be a good benchmark as to whether a developer is up to scratch or not. All of the competencies could be demonstrated by an experienced developer but the requirements don't require demonstration to enough depth that it'll be a useful indicator of whether someone is the right kind of developer for an employer's needs or not. Meanwhile there are other competencies that UKSpec doesn't really touch upon. Consequentially employers will always have to have their own ways of measuring professionalism and standards, and if you already have those then chartered status doesn't really present you with anything new or useful from a pure business perspective. At least unless, or until, standards of ethical and professional conduct become commercially desirable.

In some ways, in fact, I think software operates far more like a trade than a profession. If you're an employer looking to hire a new plumber or car mechanic you would almost certainly get them to demonstrate their skills as part of the hiring process so that you can see whether they're up to scratch or not - whereas for a profession you probably look primarily at someone's qualifications and documentable project experience. Yet most interviews for software developers involve a skill demonstration but very much skip over paper qualifications as being nice-to-have but not key to determining someone's ability to do the job or not.

I'd wager that it is that, plus the relative newness of the industry, which explains why engineering professionalism has never really made great inroads into the pure software industry.
Andy Millar
1750 Posts
Hi George,

Many thanks, that's a really interesting response. The issues you raise are very true, however they aren't software specific - it's a problem with applying UKSpec to any area of engineering. And it's inevitable - engineering is so broad as a profession that UKSpec can't be written to specify what level of proficiency is required in which skill / technique / ability as relevant to every (or indeed any) potential field.

However it does (or at least can) actually still work - provided the right level of expertise is available on the assessment team. The important thing I've seen with it is to use it far less as a measure of specific technical competence, and far more as a measure of wider competence or appreciation of the role of an engineer. Frankly the technical side is the less useful part - a mid-career engineer's technical ability is much better shown (as I think you suggest) by their CV and by recommendations from their colleagues. However, a very common area where engineering projects go disastrously wrong is where engineers are highly competent technically but hopeless in areas such as communication, teamwork, understanding the business needs of their company, or - sometimes - understanding their ethical responsibilities. Or, ex-engineers turned project managers are really good at the commercial side, and wining and dining clients, but take technical decisions which they really should not be taking. It's these much more generic areas which (to my mind at least) professional registration is trying to help us all address.

To explain more fully where I come from on this point, my day job is assessing projects to decide whether they can "go live" - and the type of projects I'm looking at have very high financial and safety implications if we all get it wrong (for most of them we're talking hundreds of people being killed in a single incident). Typically they involve a wide range of engineering disciplines on the design side - mechanical, electronics, maybe civils, embedded software, and quite often non-embedded software. Now, it's extremely unusual for me to question the technical competence of any of the staff involved in this (even if I had the expertise to do it outside my own field of electronics) - the organisations that employ them are very good at doing that themselves. But what I want to know is: Are they working well as a team? Do the engineers understand the importance of complete and correct documentation? Is each engineer truly taking responsibility for their own work, including making sure others are implementing it correctly? Would they whistleblow if they saw a serious problem that is being hidden? And that's basically why I'm interested in EngTech, IEng or CEng in the CVs of key staff - of course it's not 100% guarantee that they will work like that, but it all helps create a comfortable feeling that they project will be both technically and professionally excellent.

Your point about code documentation and maintainable code is a really good example, I would hope a good professional registration review panel would be looking at this in any application from a software engineer - this is what makes the difference between an engineer who can solve a problem, and an engineer who can solve a problem that won't land their company in a mess in five years time. In fact, I would expect that all the general points in your first paragraph would be picked up in the application review - having managed software development myself for some years they are certainly the points I would be interested in. UKSpec just provides a framework that allows these specialist technical areas to be explored.

Of course working in the safety critical field it's easy for me to say that all this stuff is relevant, because it is in my world. However, even if badly developed software isn't going to kill anyone, the financial and credibility loss can, of course, be huge. 


I'm really hoping someone else (maybe another PRA / PRI) will join in on this as well 😊 I think you're making really good and very important points, and there may well be a need for the IET to, firstly, ensure that the review panels for professional registration can be demonstrated to have credibility in the field of modern software development and, secondly, be far more proactive in selling professional registration to software employers. Not necessarily so much as a measure of technical competence, but as a measure of professional competence. (Note before someone shouts at me: I am not suggesting that the PRIs are not competent to consider the candidates in the way George suggests, but I can thoroughly believe that there is a question over whether they are seen by the wider software industry to have that competence.)

Please don't cancel your membership - it's people who can make the arguments exactly as you have just made them that the IET needs!!!!!!

Cheers,

Andy
Andy Millar
1750 Posts

GeorgePotter:

 

I'd wager that it is that, plus the relative newness of the industry, which explains why engineering professionalism has never really made great inroads into the pure software industry.

That's an interesting topic in itself - I suspect there's a whole PhD thesis in why the software industry is where it is compared to other fields of engineering. But I will say that actually professional registration hasn't made great inroads into any area of engineering innovation and development (which is very much my background), and having seen this from both sides of the fence I do feel rather passionately that it should!

Years ago I used to work in a very "CEng unfriendly" industry, and technically our products were very innovative and not badly engineered. For several years we were without doubt the world leaders in our field. But in hindsight would that company have performed better in the longer term if more of the engineers - particularly at senior levels - had worked according to the aims of UKSpec? I would say it would - and maybe they wouldn't have lost so many engineers.

Cheers,

Andy

 
Hi Andy,

Thanks, there's a lot of very thought-provoking stuff in what you've written - I can tell I'm going to be mulling this over for a while.

I think perhaps the nub of the problem can be exemplified by the Software Developer vs Software Engineer confusion. Both titles are used completely interchangeably in industry yet most discussions of this confusion acknowledge that there is an important distinction between the two. Both software developers and engineers are different roles from, and more complex than, being a glorified code-monkey. Both involve, to at least a certain extent, an element of having to analyse a problem, create a solution for it and then implementing that solution. But a software engineer approaches things from fundamental engineering principles, applying them to the problem and considering more than just the immediate context in order to design a solution. Meanwhile a developer approaches things from a less structured/rigorous perspective and typically focuses more on using practical knowledge to work on the problem and find a fix for it in context they have specifically been given rather than considering the wider context or approaching things from a design perspective.

(I'm sure you're familiar with all this but I'm describing it in detail partly for my own benefit in terms of thinking things through and partly for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the industry.)

To me that distinction is at the heart of this conundrum. I studied electronic engineering and was taught fundamental engineering principles and I like to think I still approach things from that perspective - so having a professional registration to demonstrate that would be very useful to me if employers were to recognise what it meant and value the distinction between software developer and engineer.

However, in practice industry uses the two terms interchangeably. The distinction that they use instead is between junior, mid and senior roles. A junior in practice starts out as not much more than a glorified code-monkey - they basically just implement detailed specifications that someone else has come up with for them or fix bugs which are very specific and are about coding errors rather than design errors. After a while they become a mid-level developer who takes a step further back from a problem and starts to take a more abstract, module-wide perspective. They start implementing things from looser, more general specifications, typically working on significant feature improvements and dealing with far more complex bugs that require the ability to understand a wider context of how the software works.

Then, eventually a mid-level developer becomes a senior-level developer who takes an abstract, system-wide perspective and can design a solution based on a very loose requirement or need thanks to the fact that they now understand the wider context of customer and business needs, that they know the system and that they have the skill and experience to come up with something that is well-engineered and fits into the exiting software without causing problems.

If you were to try to compare the junior/mid/senior pathway with conventional engineering then you'd say that a junior just starting out is basically the equivalent of a technician and, somewhere along the path from being a junior to being a senior, they learn how to be an engineer, and by the time they reach a senior level they are broadly equivalent to a CEng. Employers understand the distinction in skills and mindset that differentiate a junior from a senior, but very, very few make the distinction between software development and engineering.

Therefore I can absolutely see a need for, and value in, incorporated and chartered status in ensuring that people working in software use, and understand, engineering principles and adhere to standards of professionalism. The problem is that the statuses available typically don't have any currency with employers and, given the cost of acquiring and maintaining a professional registration, the end result is that there's very little career benefit to acquiring them - especially when there is no support from employers for obtaining them.

Here's a practical example:

If I want CEng (or IEng) status, as someone working in software, I have two routes available: the IET or the BCS.

If I go down the IET route then I have to pay around £260 in fees, plus a membership fee of £160 per annum. I also have to produce my own professional development plan as well as detailed documentation showing how I meet the five general competencies. And I have to do this based on a web page that is big on the general idea of things but very short on specifics of what the documentation should look like (https://www.theiet.org/career/professional-registration/chartered-engineer/am-i-eligible/). I also need to get time off work to attend an interview, plus regular (IET recognised) training for professional development purposes. What I really need to help me navigate this is a mentor or guide. The IET has PRAs available but, given that the IET focuses on electronic engineering rather than software, there's nothing there to indicate to me, as a software professional, that the resources available will be of any use to me in navigating this system. Plus there is a pretty heavy emphasis on having experience in leadership positions which is far less common to come by for a software professional than it is for a conventional engineer (who can end up at the very least leading a team of technicians at a relatively early stage in one's career).

In any event, the entire IET system is obviously designed around and for traditional engineers so if I were to embark on this process then there's nothing at the outset to reassure me that I'll even be able to meet the criteria given that all the benchmarks/examples are designed around conventional engineering. 

And all of this with almost zero likelihood that my current or future employers will value chartered status, especially when it comes via an Institute which, on the face of it, doesn't involve itself with the software or digital industries.

Alternatively, I could take the BCS route. This, at least, is more clearly defined (https://www.bcs.org/get-qualified/become-chartered/chartered-engineer-ceng/).

For IEng status I need an accredited bachelor's degree in engineering or technology. For CEng I need an accredited master's degree or an accredited bachelor's plus professional experience/qualifications equivalent to a master's. In both cases I'd need to provide my CV and go through an online interview/assessment to prove my fulfilment of the competencies. In both cases I'd also have to pay around £200 in fees plus a BCS membership fee of £146 per annum. The BCS route at least has the advantage of having more hand-holding and clearer information about the process than the IET route, as well as being far more obviously relevant to my profession as an institution, but other than those the same issues exist as with the IET route.

Alternatively, I could become a Chartered IT Professional (CITP). I won't detail the process for becoming one but it has its own, BCS-written, set of criteria that essentially omit what I would consider to be the most valuable parts of the CEng requirements (https://www.bcs.org/media/1062/chartered-it-professional-standard.pdf). Its meaning is also even less well known in the industry than CEng and the main route to take it is to pay expensive fees for a qualification from a very limited number of providers as a prerequisite to being able to apply for CITP status.

Now if I had oodles of money, or an employer who valued professional registration and who was willing to support me in obtaining it, then going for IEng then CEng would be pretty easy. 

Andy Millar:
Please don't cancel your membership - it's people who can make the arguments exactly as you have just made them that the IET needs!!!!!!

But unfortunately that's not the situation I'm in. I do value, from a professionalism perspective, the work that the IET does and the virtues of professionally registered status, but I work in an industry that doesn't. The cost-benefit analysis comes out against pursuing registration because the time and financial commitment is so high and the rewards are so low. From a personal development perspective it would be nice to have but there are other, cheaper ways to develop myself which are far more likely to be recognised by an employer.

And if, as I hope to do at some point, I get to the point where I can afford the time and effort to become professionally registered it would make more sense for me to do so through the BCS as they make the requirements much clearer to understand and are at least focused on my industry - as opposed to the IET where I feel my entire sector is very much treated as an afterthought at best.

Now if I had the time I could perhaps focus some effort on staying an IET member and pushing from within to make the arguments you talk about and to try to persuade it to make itself and professional registration more relevant to software professionals (given that the BCS has very much dropped the ball on this front), but the fact is I just don't have that fee time - especially when there's no guarantee of success.

So, whilst I'm open to being persuaded that there might be personal benefits to rejoining the IET at a later date (as opposed to the BCS) and to obtaining professionally registered status, I honestly can't see any advantage to myself in it right now. If I retained my membership it would only be out of a sense of interest in the industry, and its improvement as a whole, and frankly that interest isn't worth £160 a year to me at a point in my life where I really don't have the time to even keep abreast of the IET's proceedings or to skim the magazine, and especially when the IET really doesn't take much interest of my profession.

If the IET were to take more of an interest in the digital and software industries (or even to pay lip service to them) then at least there'd be some sort of direct relevance to my professional life but right now there's not even that. And I'm not sure the struggle to get the IET to do that is mine to take on, sadly.
Hi George, please take a read of this: https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/795/27391 the IET is a home for those in software, and are working at making it more so although it may not be clear yet.  
Gideon
9 Posts
I'm finding some of the above a bit confusing. Isn't the applicability and availability of C.Eng quite limited? Sometime in the 90s, as a degree qualified senior software engineer, very much in the engineering industry, not "computing", and leading a small team of software engineers in a mid-sized business, I asked about C.Eng. But I was told quite clearly at interview I needed to show budgetary responsibility.
Which in my experience of UK industry pitches it at department head or project manager level. Obviously different if self-employed as a consultant. At least until I retired in 2016, any control of money, as against time, staff or technology was definitely held in the upper grades of staff who were largely detached from actual engineering, although, clearly set overall direction. I think typically companies had about one level of staff who made both truly technical and financial decisions, I was one level down. Which I'm not complaining of, it suited me better.
There couldn't be a question of requiring a recruited employee senior engineer, team or technical lead, to have C.Eng, because in those roles, they won't have it, unless they're retiring from management or were previously perhaps working in very small organisations.
I can only comment on roles as an employee of engineering companies from 20+ engineers. Of course, as a retired engineer, I might find lack of C.Eng a problem if I wanted to join a golf club :), but fortunately, I don't.
So what is the breakdown of what C.Eng folk do - you're not "cutting code", surely?
 
Gideon

A very strange set of comments! Why would a golf club require a CEng registration to join? You only need a lot of money and the right contacts if it's that high brow! (You're right I don't play golf).

There are no, and have never been, limits or "availability" for CEng or any other registration category; in fact the IET set targets for the number registrants processed each year. The requirements have always been to meet a set of competence criteria which, until the EC issuing the UK Spec in 2003 (I believe - apologies if I've got the date wrong) was left with the various Institutions how they recognised the various levels. The old IEE would not recognise or register the IEng (previously Technician Engineer) hence the forming of the IEEIE formed in 1990 and eventually merging with the IEE to form the IET in 2006, as you know open to all qualifying Engineers not just the Electricals (in all forms).

The requirement for CEng as well as IEng, EngTech etc is controlled and awarded by the EC  based on the UK Spec Edition 3 (4 is being implemented later this year - maybe). This details the requirements and with a very useful matrix at the back of the document detailing the 17 competences in 5 categories for each Registration class. The various Institutions are licenced to act on the EC behalf and, of course, interpret the the Spec in slightly different ways - but in the end compliance with the Spec is what counts.

Monetary or Budget responsibility appears in all Registration Classes as does the Academic levels required, that does not mean a degree in any form but having one just makes it a little easier to show your level of technical ability. Providing the candidate approaches the application process thinking widely across the board and takes advice from a PRA they should be able to achieve their goal. The process is not onerous, just time consuming and diligent. The initial Panel, the Interview Panel and the Post Interview Panel are made up of volunteers and the the IET staff do their upmost to ensure that they have understanding and wherever possible experience of the that field of engineering of the candidate so that the process is fair.

"Leading a small team of software engineers in a mid-sized business" surely included budgetary responsibility - time spent on projects, achieving programme dates etc. These are all related to money?

As a volunteer in all sections of the process as well as acting as a PRA I undertake training, as do all volunteers involved with registration, in all sections of the process to ensure the candidates are treated fairly and equally across the board.

Size of the company makes no difference - it's what the candidate does and how they do it that is important; included those who are self employed in all its various forms. If you can demonstrate you satisfy the 17 competences in the category you apply for, you will achieve registration.   

Regards Jim W                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Gideon
9 Posts
Hi Jim, Well, it was 25ish years ago, maybe things changed a bit. I was a bit surprised, it did seem to need to be money, a "budget" in terms of staff & time wasn't what was wanted. I though it was a manifestation of wanting to see more responsibility than a small development team lead, which is fair enough. Of course, back then there wasn't a web to ask around on, and I wasn't aware of any colleagues with it or any advisory network. I didn't pursue it as I'd realised a management career wasn't for me.
Andy Millar
1750 Posts
Just to be clear, when I got my CEng slightly less than 25 years ago I had zero (0) budgetry responsibility and zero (0) staff working for me. Now, as a PRA, I regularly help applicants successfully achieve CEng who have the same level of budgetry responsibility and staff working for them. Some of them are even (whisper it quietly) software engineers!

CMgr is a management certification, CEng is an engineering certification, and there's a good reason why the IET offers both!

Cheers,
Andy CEng CMgr
Hi Andy

Yes! but you needed the right degree from the right university back then or there wasn't any point in picking up the phone (remember doing that? - picking it up!!). For me CEng was just a pipe dream - no degree, a wife, three kids, a mortgage and a job that wanted me seven days a week and twice on Sundays most of the time. I joined what became the IEEIE in '79 and registered as a Technician Engineer. My then boss (in Local Government) had the same paper qualifications as me but had got his IEE CEng back in the late '60s/early '70s just before they pulled the ladder up. It worked out I was four years too young (same issue with National Service).Ha! Ha!

I was elected to Fellow in '91 mainly due the level of responsibility I held with the Building Services Consulting Engineers I was working with - they had appointed me Group Principal Engineer covering seven offices spread around the country and eventually Project Managed the largest internal refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster since it was built (they're doing the outside bits now). My budget was between £6-£10million per year with a Summer recess spend of around £3.5m and I ran a team of Electrical, Mechanical and Structural Engineers (the Structure guys were all CEngs) and had seconded specialist Heritage Architects and QSs on my team. But CEng for me in the '90s (I retired from that post in 2001) was just a no no - no degree? forget it!

Now, I would walk it with that level of technical and monetary responsibility, but I didn't have the time to write a dissertation which was required as an alternative to a degree back then. Ah! history - thank god it's a a lot fairer today. As a volunteer doing IEng Assessments and interviews and acting as a PRA for all categories I take great pleasure in helping all that I can ("Software Engineers"?)

As for cancelling membership (that was the subject matter?) a straight forward letter resigning your membership and stopping the direct debit should do the trick.

Stay safe - regards Jim W
Andy Millar
1750 Posts
Hi Jim,

True BUT the key message from my post is: jolly good if you do have millions in your budgetry responsibility, but it's absolutely not needed. The problem is that threads like this, if not jumped on, can help support the constant drip of misinformation in the profession that you need management responsibility for CEng (or indeed IEng or EngTech). So I think it's really important that we keep saying loud and clear "no you don't"!

P.S. I didn't comment on the original question given the dates of the OP, unfortunately a bit of necromancy happened here...


Hi Gideon,
 
So what is the breakdown of what C.Eng folk do - you're not "cutting code", surely?
Quite possibly, yes. Why wouldn't we? When I got my CEng I was "just" a design engineer. My perspective is that the main point of CEng is to indicate those who have the experience, knowledge, and judgement to act as final signatories to significant, complex, and high risk or high innovation systems. (By a strange coincidence this is pretty much what UKSpec says as well!) So in a small organisation they could well be doing all layers of the engineering task. Which really emphasises the point that it's not about management hierarchy, it's about technical authority hierarchy. So the MD, and president of the golf club, could be EngTech; the Operations Director, and honoured member of the golf club, could be IEng; while the Engineering Manager who actually signs of the new system as safe to go into service is CEng - but can't afford the golf club fees and anyway "they're not quite our sort of chap".

The critical point is: what level of technical responsibility do you take.

(P.S. Living where I do substitute "yacht club" for "golf club"!)

Cheers,

Andy

 
Which really emphasises the point that it's not about management hierarchy, it's about technical authority hierarchy. 
 

I'm not intending to hijack this thread, but this comment did remind me of something which might be of interest to others, so I hope the OP won't mind me mentioning it. If it's not about management hierarchy, why, during the CEng application process, are candidates asked for an organisational chart showing two or three levels above and below them. It's not asking for a description of "technical authority hierarchy" but an org chart. Also I changed jobs between application and interview and although of course I informed the IET of this change, one of the interviewers mentioned that they hadn't received a new org chart relating to my new position, so my impression (hopefully incorrect) is that the management hierarchy is of importance. 

Share:

Log in

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in