Harry H:


I briefly want to mention the designation of engineer that’s cited in the research introduction. I think it's disgraceful that the title of ‘Engineer’ isn't protected in the UK; it's so often misused, which waters down the hard work of those who are true engineers. I see many people using the title, which misleads the public into a false sense of security, in turn, devaluing engineers! Many other countries protect the title for this very reason, so why not the UK? We have a legacy from the past of being a great country for engineering; can we claim this anymore. I believe the Engineering Council could do better to lobby this protection; I’d think it’d be in their interest, so how do we engage the IET to pressure them?

UK Laws will only be introduced if there is a clear public interest in doing so. They will most certainly not be introduced to allow one profession to have a market advantage!


There is no public interest to be served by saying that only a protected title "Engineer" can design a piece of games software, or a chair, or computer mouse. If it fails and harms someone then the company that produces it is liable in law, so there is already adequate legal protection. Ok, so what about if an engineer takes personal responsibility for a risk? Well, if it's a common risk such as electrical wiring, gas installation, various aviation roles, railway signalling inspection etc then those engineering roles are protected in law - despite a degree in electrical engineering I cannot (quite rightly) fit an electrical installation in my bathroom. If it's an uncommon risk, such as those I get involved in assessing on the day job, then there are various regulatory bodies (UKAS in my case) that regulate the competence of the engineers involved, and will typically be looking for evidence of CEng, which is a protected title.


I'm not saying this is necessarily sufficient to protect the public interest,  and the law does change and develop (for example through the introduction of Part P and GasSafe), but in the 40 years I've been in the profession - and this question has always been raised during that - no-one has yet come up with a convincing argument for why it is in the public interest for all engineering roles to be regulated. And there is a good argument (if you're into market economics) to say it is against the public interest, by potentially putting up the cost of engineering services. You might not like that argument, but that's free market economics for you.


Anyway, how many school / university leavers become architects, compared to how many go into management, finance, marketing, and other industries with completely unprotected titles and with large earning capacity?


There's a reason the IET and other PEIs don't lobby to protect the title "Engineer", it's because it won't get anywhere and there's not seen to be any real public benefit. If you want to see the official answer it's here and well worth reading: https://www.engc.org.uk/glossary-faqs/frequently-asked-questions/status-of-engineers/


Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant, it's an effect of seeing the same discussion many many times! It is a really important point to discuss and understand, the whole question of legal liability in particular is hugely important. 


Thanks,


Andy

Andy Millar:

There's a reason the IET and other PEIs don't lobby to protect the title "Engineer", it's because [...] there's not seen to be any real public benefit. 

P.S. Always remembering that the IET and PEIs are not trade unions, they have no remit to gain advantages for engineers unless this provides an overall public benefit.

Andy Millar:

Harry H:


I briefly want to mention the designation of engineer that’s cited in the research introduction. I think it's disgraceful that the title of ‘Engineer’ isn't protected in the UK; it's so often misused, which waters down the hard work of those who are true engineers. I see many people using the title, which misleads the public into a false sense of security, in turn, devaluing engineers! Many other countries protect the title for this very reason, so why not the UK? We have a legacy from the past of being a great country for engineering; can we claim this anymore. I believe the Engineering Council could do better to lobby this protection; I’d think it’d be in their interest, so how do we engage the IET to pressure them?

UK Laws will only be introduced if there is a clear public interest in doing so. They will most certainly not be introduced to allow one profession to have a market advantage!


There is no public interest to be served by saying that only a protected title "Engineer" can design a piece of games software, or a chair, or computer mouse. If it fails and harms someone then the company that produces it is liable in law, so there is already adequate legal protection. Ok, so what about if an engineer takes personal responsibility for a risk? Well, if it's a common risk such as electrical wiring, gas installation, various aviation roles, railway signalling inspection etc then those engineering roles are protected in law - despite a degree in electrical engineering I cannot (quite rightly) fit an electrical installation in my bathroom. If it's an uncommon risk, such as those I get involved in assessing on the day job, then there are various regulatory bodies (UKAS in my case) that regulate the competence of the engineers involved, and will typically be looking for evidence of CEng, which is a protected title.


I'm not saying this is necessarily sufficient to protect the public interest,  and the law does change and develop (for example through the introduction of Part P and GasSafe), but in the 40 years I've been in the profession - and this question has always been raised during that - no-one has yet come up with a convincing argument for why it is in the public interest for all engineering roles to be regulated. And there is a good argument (if you're into market economics) to say it is against the public interest, by potentially putting up the cost of engineering services. You might not like that argument, but that's free market economics for you.


Anyway, how many school / university leavers become architects, compared to how many go into management, finance, marketing, and other industries with completely unprotected titles and with large earning capacity?


There's a reason the IET and other PEIs don't lobby to protect the title "Engineer", it's because it won't get anywhere and there's not seen to be any real public benefit. If you want to see the official answer it's here and well worth reading: https://www.engc.org.uk/glossary-faqs/frequently-asked-questions/status-of-engineers/


Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant, it's an effect of seeing the same discussion many many times! It is a really important point to discuss and understand, the whole question of legal liability in particular is hugely important. 


Thanks,


Andy

Hi Andy,


Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. 


I didn't intend to insinuate that we should protect the word 'Engineer' to create market advantage or anything else detrimental; I believe its function would be to demonstrate competency, but I appreciate that protecting the word might be difficult. I note that you suggest professional registration as the route forward; I agree, but many people don't seem to know what IEng or CEng means or apply value to it (in my experience). The overall feeling I have towards this subject is ensuring we have competent people in the right jobs; measuring competency against the UK-SPEC is great. As per your example, a Gaming Engineer needs to be competent at their job; professional registration helps ensure a company is employing someone who isn't going to cost them in a court of law. It's a bit pseudoscience, but look up the 'Peter Principle; it's the theory that everyone eventually reaches their level of incompetence. How do we protect against this - professional registration and Continuing Professional Development, in my opinion.


In summary, after some consideration, I believe protecting the word Engineer might not be the best way forward; promoting professional registration and adequate education/experience is.


I welcome your feedback as always.


Harry

Harry H:

I didn't intend to insinuate that we should protect the word 'Engineer' to create market advantage or anything else detrimental;

[...]

In summary, after some consideration, I believe protecting the word Engineer might not be the best way forward; promoting professional registration and adequate education/experience is.

Hi Harry, 


Yes, my error, because posts on this are usually "the title engineer should be protected so I can earn more money" (usually disguised by the word "status") I did head off on that path rather quickly! Sorry about that.


On your other point I've pulled out, absolutely - this is why I volunteer on the professional registration side of the IET. And to be honest, I think it's less important whether engineers become formally registered, the more important part is the journey of benchmarking themselves against UKSpec.


The games designer example is an interesting one, before I moved into the development (and now assurance) of safety critical equipment for the rail industry my first career was designing very very expensive recording studio equipment. A hugely successful and creative company, still revered in its industry many years later, but when I joined (originally as a test engineer) I was the only electronics graduate - not one of the design team had a degree in electronics, let alone any professional registration. Now, with hindsight there are undoubtedly things we could have done better if more of us had followed all the provisions of UKSpec, but in terms of proportionate actions to manage risk it's more difficult whether they they would have gained real benefit against cost by pushing registration. (If the Chartered Manager standard had been around in those days, however, that may have made a big difference! Writing as CMgr as well as a CEng). Now, I do totally agree with you, and raise at every point I can, that we should be promoting UKSpec beyond just the usual utilities / safety critical industries / military. However, there needs to be a meeting of minds on this. The registration assessment process needs to appreciate that different industries have different ways that "professionalism" is presented, at present someone working in a fast moving, innovative, and low societal risk industry may feel (rightly or wrongly) they do not have a meeting of minds with a CEng assessment panel. It's not a failing (imho) of UKSpec, personally I'd have no problem now applying UKSpec to my past life (wish it had been there at the time!), but there's lots of nuances in how it's interpreted. I see this as very chicken and egg: unless we get more assessors in from these types of industries then professional registration won't be seen as relevant by them, but we won't get more assessors in unless it's seen as relevant. Make no mistake that in many industries (and even sectors of their core industries) the PEIs are often seen as out of touch "old boy's clubs". Any ideas as how to break this welcomed...


In the end, most engineering companies believe that they are perfectly competent to manage the competence of their engineering staff themselves, and have no need for third party accreditation. Where they are likely to need to justify in court that a particular engineer's judgement  can be relied on then they do use CEng. As has been discussed on many threads here, personally I believe this is why take up of IEng and EngTech is so low, for people in those roles it is far less likely that they will be making personal judgements on which the company relies to keep itself out of court - and if they are then they should probably be applying for CEng! So that's the other side of this discussion, the industry itself is not seeing that third party accreditation will do a better job then their own internal recruitment, promotion review etc process...and to be honest often they are probably right, we see one 5 page submission by an applicant for registration, and talk to them for 45 minutes, whereas their employer sees them day in and day out. (Incidentally, I was wondering what you were thinking of in your earlier post about "streamlining" the process? It already is just that, a 5 page job history (albeit carefully worded to demonstrate competences) and a short presentation.)


The Peter Principle is a book I know well and love, but unfortunately the effect is that if an an employer has reached their level of incompetence they won't realise, or accept, that they need third party help to assess their staff, whereas if they haven't reached their level of incompetence they don't need it!


But coming back up again (I'm well aware that was all a bit "down"), we're obviously both in agreement that wider application of professional registration (or at the very least benchmarking of engineers against UKSpec) would be of huge service to all practicing engineers and their employers. So how to make it happen.


Here's a radical idea: maybe we need a new PEI. One that encompasses engineers, of any discipline, who do not work in utilities / safety critical industries / military. Still applying UKSpec and working under EC remit, but providing a clearly welcoming home to those who work in the more creative and innovative, and less regulated and lower risk industries. 


Any more thoughts?


Cheers,


Andy

Here's a radical idea: maybe we need a new PEI. One that encompasses engineers, of any discipline, who do not work in utilities / safety critical industries / military. Still applying UKSpec and working under EC remit, but providing a clearly welcoming home to those who work in the more creative and innovative, and less regulated and lower risk industries. 

Hi Andy,


I strongly support your idea of a PEI that incorporates other industries; like yourself, I have worked in the creative industry designing automation systems for touring shows. It would be possible for someone in the automation engineering team to gain professional registration; however, it might be no easy feat and much harder for other departments within that business. I believe the IET might be open to people from such sectors, but as you say, it all depends on the PRI interviewers knowledge of these niche markets! A few of my current engineering colleagues don't see any value in professional registration or membership of any PEI; from my understanding, this is due to your remark about them being "old boy's clubs".When I referred to making professional registration more streamlined, I would say this statement was a factor. I also agree that the process of reading an application and attending a short interview may not be the most accurate measure; however, I feel that the effort I went to in my application and the support of my referee to confirm my competence was a good starting point. The only problem with the latter is the IET has to take it at face value; I felt it would have been relatively easy to use anyone as a false valid reference, so maybe there's room for improvement. 


I agree with you regarding the benchmark of competency against the UK-SPEC; I encourage colleagues and friends to become registered with a PEI (IET); it's good for the individual and the industry. I'm very much swung in your direction on this occasion; the implications of legally protecting a title almost seem a bit silly now. For example, an Architect is protected, but to become an Architect, they have to meet the requirements of their PEI (RIBA). It would be illegal for someone to design a structure without being competent; however, as you've said, this is true of any job, namely due to the Health and Safety at Work Act (designed to punish). The only problem is someone who designs something that leads to a serious incident where they falsified their competencies to a client; I think the average person doesn't always know what credentials/competencies someone should have, i.e. I want a house designing, so I'll use 'Bodge it and Scarper Ltd' as they had the best price. I would hope my example isn't true, but I'm not that naive! In the case of my example, it's down to RIBA to educate the public; however, educating engineering companies and the like could be just as difficult. Sure, when it comes down to a company taking responsibility for those they employ, it's on their head, but I always tend to apply the Peter Principle in such instances. Ultimately, a company producing poor products or demonstrates a bad safety record is unlikely to survive anyway, so maybe it's not something to be concerned over; however, there will be those who will receive poor quality products and potentially get placed in a position of danger, so it all comes back to competency.


I don't think I've solved many problems with my response; maybe it's not possible to solve these issues?


Harry