Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 92 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 6750 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Value in IEng Registration

Allan Rowan
Afternoon all, just sitting behind a laptop screen pondering and found myself plotting course for my career progression and seemingly unlikely professional registration for CEng.


My current employer has encouraged that I achieve CEng registration (easier said than done) and any promotion to the next grade would be subject to attaining CEng. I'm wary of submitting my application for CEng due to not having an adequate level of education (I have a Bachelors degree only)  and at my age there's little chance of me returning to university for further study. I'm employed as a senior engineer and acting principal engineer within a project I'm currently commissioned. I appreciate that working at a principal engineer level does not necessarily provide the evidence required to prove that my understanding and knowledge is at a MEng level.


Rewind a few years, I was reasonably proud of successful registration and to achieve IEng, however, to date I'm of the opinion that it has done little else other than measurement / benchmark of my competence and identify area's in which I need to strengthen. My employer (at the time of registration) did not professionally recognise IEng registration and from my own observations nor do other employers (that I've noticed). A cursory glance of job listings on LinkedIn, shall normally state a requirement for applicants to hold CEng registration or working towards CEng with no mention of IEng. There's an immense pressure to achieve Chartership and with failure to do so could be possibly observed as I'm either inadequate or not quite cutting the grade by a prospective or current employer.


Is there any value to the IEng registration other than a personal achievement and worth maintaining? I imagine the nervousness and apprehension about navigating the CEng route and the fear of failure that I'm not unique in this respect and other's may have a similar story? Not sure what I would wish to hear, but knowing of others that succeeded with a similar background and level of education would provide some encouragement.


Regards,

Allan. 

  • 0
    Hi,


    I think the qualification issue really is a bit of a red herring - we know well that few (very few?) candidates who successfully register for CEng have Masters' degrees, and many don't have a degree at all.


    And we also know that more (far more?) engineers work in IEng roles than in CEng roles.


    So, as many here have heard me go on about before, what I find interesting is why industry is not more interested in IEng. Ok, we can argue that the EC hasn't "pushed" it enough, but I don't think that's really the point - industry isn't "pulling" it either. As always, my feeling is that it's because if you are in an IEng type role employers are perfectly happy (rightly or wrongly) to judge you on your CV, they don't feel they need an engineering institution to do that judging for them. And once you're in position, well your position speaks for itself.


    Whereas with CEng roles, where the employer is basically having to totally rely on that person's judgement to keep them out of jail / bankruptcy (there's a potted alternative definition of the CEng criteria!) then being able to prove to anyone who might ask why that person was considered competent becomes more of an issue. So being able to say "it wasn't just us that considered them competent, the EC did as well" has for very many years been seen as valuable - particularly in high risk or high profile industries.


    Let's be clear that IEng roles themselves are most definitely not undervalued. As has been discussed here many times before, those who meet the IEng criteria can easily find themselves earning very comfortably more than those in CEng roles. In fact, some companies very successfully dispense with CEng roles altogether and contract them in when they need them*, which makes perfect sense - after all it's finding the work, winning it, making it happen, getting it out of the door, and getting the cash in that makes the company money. Having somebody take responsibility for the technical risk in the innovation in that work is, for most delivery organisations, just a necessary evil which doesn't appear to be directly contributing to the bottom line. Which is why I do get frustrated (oh dear. I probably shouldn't post at midnight ?)  with the idea that "people with IEngs are looked down on". No they're absolutely not. It's the IEng registration status itself that hasn't quite found it's place yet, not the person holding it.


    And breathe...


    So do we actually need EngTech and IEng? IMHO yes we do, even if this isn't realised widely yet in industry. Maybe the first step is for employers to swallow their pride a bit and realise that actually UKSpec is really a very good piece of guidance. Then rather than employers all making up their own competence management systems, they might appreciate that using the PEIs to help them, by accrediting all their engineering staff, will save them money and give them a better result. Having audited a fair few company competence management systems now I don't remember seeing one yet which really covers the C, D and E competences well...but again this shows that we have an uphill battle to make companies realise that these competences really do directly affect their bottom line.


    Which I suppose  is going back to the EC and PEIs "pushing" IEng and EngTech more....


    Final thought...it's almost become a template response for me in many draft CEng applications I've seen recently to say "this is a really good IEng application, but it needs more in A2 and B2 for CEng". What has been good is that I've started seeing noticeably more candidates replying "no problem, I'll apply for IEng then". (Of course if I think they should be applying for CEng, and it's just that the form itself needs more work, then I'll tell them!) And I suspect several of these may never in fact find themselves responsible for "innovation, creativity and change and/or [...] technical accountability for complex systems with significant levels of risk". But, because they're actually bringing in the dough, they may well end up with considerably higher "status" and pay than I or most other CEngs have.


    Thanks,


    Andy



    * As a consultant, I have to say this is a jolly good idea too ?
  • 0
    Andy

    That was well put and interesting for me.

    I am new to the civil service as an engineer. My grade is senior executive officer.

    I do not have a degree, I have a Full Tech Cert as my highest qualification. I work in operational engineering, intelligent client function.

    I was recruited (much to my surprise at 58) for my experience. Most at my grade (probably all) are graduates. As I have mentioned, I am pursuing I Eng.

    As you have stated, the (silent?) majority operate at I Eng and Eng Tech level in the real world.

    I think the EC and Co really need to get a grip with some of the unrealistic and patronising approaches they take.

    As a volunteer, doing the Eng Tech and Electrician Eng Tech work , I am seeing an extremely high standard of candidate for Eng Tech, that to be blunt, could manage and innovate until the cows come home.

    The baby and the bath water springs to mind!


    Colin
  • 0
    Andy,
    There is much in what you say that I agree with. I think we also share similar aims and principles.    

    We cannot change the past, which carries a lot of cultural “baggage” through issues such as inequality of opportunity, relative status or social class-based snobbery and inverted snobbery. It is however simply a fact that being IEng is to be excluded from control of “the profession” and to be widely regarded as “sub-standard” or “part-qualified”.  Chartered Engineer is the “admission ticket” required.

    The legacy of the IIE, makes The IET more respectful towards IEng, than most other parts of the “Engineering Establishment”.  Nevertheless, only my inside knowledge of the IET would allow me to identify the only IEng in a senior management role and the numbers of new IEng fellows has dwindled to a handful since 2006.   

      
    Simply put, the world of professional engineering institutions affiliated to Engineering Council and the other stakeholder organisations, such as The Royal Academy of Engineering, Engineering Professors Council, Et Al, are run by and for Chartered Engineers. Some professional Institutions offer two subsidiary categories of professional recognition. In some cases, as equal “members”.

    Research reports suggest than only a minority of those potentially eligible for Chartered Engineer choose to participate, with very low engagement in the subsidiary categories. The age profile of participants is also generally high, with the average age around 60 on the last figures I saw.

    I would differentiate this rarefied world of “high status engineers”, from the rational actions of employers or customers, who have needs for someone with appropriate skills at a reasonable cost for the value added.

    Some sectors of employment have senior influencers who are sympathetic towards, or even active within the “engineering establishment”. Others are indifferent, unconvinced or even actively hostile.  It is rare in my experience to find somewhere that IEng is valued, unless the more senior people are CEng.  There was a time when some sectors had senior leaders who were IEng and many more where senior leaders were former apprentices rather than university graduates, but most recognised correctly that being IEng just “didn’t cut it”. 

    HR is often blamed, but they mostly derive their understanding from senior engineers and/or engineering professional bodies.

    The IET has certainly made progress in competence assessment, without diminishing the value of university degrees. However, we cannot change the world in which such qualifications are seen as the primary currency for “Professional Engineers” and that benchmark being a 4-year “scientific” degree. This or something very similar is likely to remain as the main pathway to CEng.  I won’t pursue the detail as it isn’t relevant to IEng.    

       
    The situation is confused by having another type of professional in some countries called a “Technologist” (IEng in the UK), who is also a university graduate with a slightly shorter or more “applied” degree.
    Except in situations where access to experience or further learning is restricted by virtue of the type of degree, all the evidence that I have seen is that the capabilities overlap to a large extent. A more academic/scientific preparation might optimise someone better for R&D/academia and more “applied” for implementation? So simply put, the binary distinction is artificial for most “mainstream” types of work.

    I referred in my earlier post to graduates not wanting IEng and I have referred in this one to more senior people not wanting it either.  In fact, in every situation where a person can compare themselves reasonably equally with a CEng (without self-delusion), then why accept the inferior status?

    The typical threshold of CEng is a 4-year degree, 2 years training and 2 further years supervised experience.  So why would an engineer with a combination of 8 years training experience and education, typically perhaps via an apprenticeship, who may be performing more effectively than the former full-time student, mark themselves as second best?  The same applies at any subsequent age depending on the opportunities for learning, either experiential and /or in formal environments.

    One of the widely held beliefs is that a CEng is a specialised expert consultant and this is true in many cases. However, there are many other types of roles being carried out from Technician to Strategic Management. Many “bank” CEng early in career as the “admission ticket”, before moving on and it is widely used as an honorific.  I don’t personally find this objectionable in the slightest. Why should someone lose something that they earned, unless they abuse it?

    A last point about the few places where IEng is strong. There are nearly all situations where responsibility is delegated and constrained relatively rigidly.

    So, for example in the Armed Forces a SNCO or Junior Commissioned Officer, may not have the opportunity to exercise sufficient responsibility. It was also the case until very recently that a non-commissioned officer would not be allowed to become CEng, because such status was “reserved” for higher ranking commissioned officers. This ceiling has been broken by a few SNCOs. But we could not reasonably expect a higher-ranking officer to accept the lower status of IEng.  

    There are also some civilian sectors, seen by PEIs as “operational” rather than “design” led, where there is a perception that the type of work isn’t technically demanding enough to warrant CEng. So, to repeat the advice of a PEI to one of my reports, “you won’t get CEng working for a contractor move to a consultancy”.  

    To summarise

    The current infrastructure is designed for and run by Chartered Engineers. The value of the subsidiary IEng category is whatever they choose to make it.

    The IEng standard itself represents a capable professional engineer, who does not require supervision by a Chartered Engineer. It is similar to other types of chartered professionals, but must be presented as “sub-standard” to avoid “confusion” with CEng.

    IEng was probably going to be renamed “Chartered Engineering Technologist” 20 years ago, but this annoyed some IEng who considered themselves “Engineers”. Furthermore, the distinction between an “Engineer and Technologist”, just seems like semantics to most practitioners in the UK and means nothing to the less informed. Chartered Engineers would also have endlessly banged-on about how they were “superior” to a Technologist.  

    The current value of IEng is limited and its primary distinguishing feature is actually a negative characteristic i.e. “not CEng”.

    I think that there is merit in a benchmark short of CEng, but only if a requirement for everyone to pass through the same gate with structured progression in-career. Academic sorting pre-career just doesn’t work, but if academics hold sway then it is the only way that they can do it.

    Nothing that we do should be about “dumbing down”. Our purpose is to raise standards. I strongly support academic institution/employer partnerships such as Degree Apprenticeships, which should provide the most optimum pathway to technical and managerial leadership for engineers.


    I also have seen many Technicians perform to a high standard in Masters Degree programmes that reflect real engineering practice and offer admission to "mature students" based on career learning.       


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi Guys


    I read with interest the last few missives on this subject and agree with most of what is written, especially by Roy who has to be an acknowledged authority on the subject but, and it is a big but for me, there are many IEngs who never had the opportunity to aspire to the exalted ranks of the CEngs mainly due to the lack of academic qualifications and the glass ceiling put in place by the likes of the IEE and others in the dim distant past. 


    I have no issue with there being a stepping stone position towards CEng but it cannot be IEng as it stands - unless you give the existing cohort of IEngs the rite of passage to registration as CEng - it should be semi-automatic if a candidate wishes to change (not upgrade I hasten to add) their registration status.


    I remain very proud to be an IEng on the basis of how I attained the original registration way back in 1979 and just as proud to be a Fellow for the same reasons but I am disheartened by the way the grade is portrayed as being less that CEng and more and more used as a stepping stone. This is my only gripe on this subject. Okay, I know it won’t be long until we all shuffle off this mortal coil and history won't give a damn - but it is annoying.

    Regards Jim W



  • 0
    Jim,

    As you say, history won't give a damn, but it would be nice if people (i.e. those with IEng) could be given the recognition they deserve. I personally don't have an issue with IEng being a stepping stone to CEng but I am not sure about the semi-automatic change in status - it should be properly assessed, but it is also tempting to say that those with CEng should also have to demonstrate that they could have achieved IEng and I suspect that there would be a higher failure rate among CEng trying to also get IEng than for IEng trying to get CEng.
  • 0
    Jim, Alasdair & Andy are all better Engineers than I am. I was a reasonably good IEng 25+ years ago. I never sought or deserved CEng, because other potential pathways opened up, which I was able to pursue to masters level, chartered recognition and reasonably senior management in an “engineering” business.

    Jim is unfortunate is occupying a generation that missed out on CEng for similar achievement to their immediate predecessors, and didn’t have the access to higher education of their successors. However, I have to sympathise even more with the current generation forced into debt for degrees, that often don’t secure a good career.

    Jim also had little reason to pursue CEng until relatively recently, a respected Fellow of his professional institution “different but equally valuable” to a CEng according to Engineering Council. However, the “rug was pulled” when Engineering Council (with IIE no longer on the scene) decided to “downgrade” IEng.  

    Many would argue that they just “clarified” and removed a “false” equality.  I don’t think that they should have automatically transferred every IEng to CEng, but the whole issue was very badly handled. A proper user-friendly process should have been put in place and should always be in place for transfers.  Many have transferred from IEng to CEng under UK-SPEC, but the pathway is not clearly marked and I have seen plenty of trips and falls, often undeserved.

    The last I knew a senior IET representative was trying to unpick some of the more pernicious consequences, but the politics is “difficult” and in some quarters fairly hostile.

    I honestly don’t think that IEng, is ever going to break out of the pockets where it has survived (mostly MOD sphere of influence).  Some degree apprenticeships linked to IEng, may provide a short-term boost, but without a clear pathway to CEng frustration and anger will grow amongst younger up and coming engineers, who can easily compare themselves with age group peers getting CEng.    

    I have long accepted that CEng is “the main show in town”. However, I’m happy to encourage anyone to be IEng or Eng Tech with their eyes open, because it will offer some benefits.  

    A reformed system could be developed that was “value neutral” i.e. disentangled status from competence, but the current infrastructure can’t do that.  In any case human nature is what it is, competition will occur whenever we divide and any parent that favours a dominant sibling, will lose the respect of the others.

  • 0
    Hello everyone,
    I’ve been reading this thread with a lot of interest.  I’ve been doing PRA work for around 10 years – first as the Industry Rep for the company for which I worked; then as PRA in my own right following retirement.  I’ve lost count of the number of applicants I have helped through the registration process, at EngTech, IEng and CEng – and by the way, Fellowship too.

    One of the key issues I find with CEng applicants is getting them to distinguish their application from what is effectively a very good IEng application; both in terms of Underpinning Knowledge and Understanding (UK&U) and competence.  I try to make this very clear to all CEng applicants I advise at the outset.

    In this thread, I see quite a lot of references to UK-SPEC in terms of competencies and one or two mentions of the education requirements.  As Andy has pointed out, the IET doesn’t mention Masters in their documentation, which in some ways is good – but not always.  We know that a Masters qualification is not a requirement, but proving that your knowledge and understanding is at this level is, and this is where issues creep in.

    During the first stage of the assessment process, the application is peer-reviewed, both for UK&U and competence evidence.  For those having accredited MEng (or in most cases, non-accredited too) or equivalents, the UK&U requirements are effectively met.  The challenges I tend to find are with those who do not possess an exemplifying qualification.  Proving that your UK&U is at the exemplifying level if you hold a significantly lower qualification can be tough.

    A practical example here – a “mature” engineer, around 40 years of experience in Engineering, much of it a mix of design and hands-on; working as the Director of a reasonably-sized company.  Loads of competence experience, plenty of leadership and accountability; no problem at all with meeting “proficient” or “expert” level in an IPD assessment.  But here’s the problem…

    So far as UK&U is concerned, their highest formal qualification is an HNC, gained in the mid-70s.  So, if we look at UK-SPEC, they almost certainly pass on competence; but if we look at UK&U, it’s a very different story.  Most of their experience is with routine 7671-type calculations, use of software tools, fault level and discrimination work and similar – and lots of it – but that’s not really evidence of Masters level UK&U in itself.  [Some facts changed to protect any individual’s identity, by the way, but it equates to a real case!]

    In this case, UK&U for IEng would likely be satisfied with the pre-1999 HNC and with their competence library, IEng would be no issue.  But what about their CEng application?  Clearly, they don’t have an exemplifying qualification or anything near. If we look at their further learning, loads of on-the-job training but little further learning, formal or otherwise in terms of taking their technical knowledge and understanding forward.

    These are the tough ones to deal with from the PRA’s perspective.  We want people to achieve their ambitions and goals.  On the other hand, we need to manage expectations – which is also mentioned in the PRA guidance.  Having read and re-read the thread, I don’t see this issue mentioned very much and felt I needed to add some depth into this aspect.  Having seen CEng applicants, effectively being “railroaded” into making an application by their employers, then having problems with UK&U evidence – IMHO this is an understated problem.

    As a PRA, if I am advising a CEng candidate without an exemplifying qualification, one of the first “challenges” I give them before they embark on a lengthy application is “try to think about how you are going to satisfy the UK-SPEC education/further learning requirements.”  Some candidates come up with extensive workplace learning, but others – like the example above don’t.  In the light of what has been written so far, I'm interested in everyone’s views on this.
  • 0
    "We know that a Masters qualification is not a requirement, but proving that your knowledge and understanding is at this level is, and this is where issues creep in."


    Oh gosh yes, having helped quite a number of borderline IEng / CEng applicants recently I couldn't agree more that this is a challenge. You have someone who is taking final approval on systems where, if they've made the wrong technical judgement, hundreds of people will be killed or millions of pound lost, but how do you show they had the required "master's level" knowledge to make that judgement?


    Frankly, very often my personal opinion (but not necessarily that of the assessment panels!) is that if they work for a large responsible body then actually that judgement will have already been made - they wouldn't be allowed to be in that position if they weren't seen to be having a good, structured, thoughtful approach to their work with an up to date knowledge of the specific technical fields required. Which is why I always emphasise that candidates must emphasise their level of personal responsibility - the difference between advising on a technical approach, and being the person who says "we are doing this, and I will take full responsibility for the technical risk".


    The biggest problem I tend to find is finding technical judgements that such candidates have made, the irony is that the more senior the applicant, the more it can often seem that they're not doing any actual engineering. It's important that they can show examples that demonstrate they are not just rubber-stamping their teams' work. The mental test I always have in my head is that if everything went wrong and this person was in the dock defending their company they could say "I made this decision, and the reason I believed this to be the right decision was because of these technical arguments...". NOT  "I believe this was the right decision because I employed competent staff to make it, and I am prepared to stand by them" - that's still a perfectly reasonable defence, but it's a defence presented by an IEng rather than a CEng. (But Andy, surely there are cases where an IEng could also make the first defence? Yes, in which case it's probably time they started their CEng application!)


    Where I find big challenges is where the applicant is the senior technical member of a small organisation, or sometimes a remote outpost of a large organisation, or may be in a largely non-technical organisation (e.g. as head of facilities). They may be there because of their Masters' level knowledge, or they may be there because life happened to take them that way - plenty of engineers have had the chance to grow and develop because they had a straightforward EngTech role in a small organisation, and as the organisation mushroomed so did their role. This gets very interesting, because this is where I feel we can add real value - at all registration levels - because the organisation they work for simply doesn't have the competence to know what a good engineer looks like, it's not their expertise. So we can help both the engineer and the organisation. BUT I must admit I find these types of cases quite challenging: possibly 90% of the time the candidate is doing "business as usual" work, but 10% of the time the ball is totally in their court to make significant decisions, e.g. when moving to another site or adding an additional facility. I tend to advise them to literally use the techniques I was taught in my Master's -  show you've evaluated a range of options, show the rationale for choosing the option you chose, and show that you made sure you had evidence for everything. And also make clear what the consequences would have been if you'd made the wrong technical judgement.


    But on such cases, like Richard, I'm sure any other advice posted here would be appreciated by candidates (and me!).



    On the other sub-thread - my feeling on the progression question is that it should be another red herring, if through their career an IEng has gained the experience and judgement that allows them to fulfil the CEng A2 / B2 criteria then I'd hope they can just apply and get it if they want it. (And indeed EngTech to IEng or Ceng). I definitely don't believe it should be automatic, they're different accreditations, and indeed I feel like I've spent a lot of my career trying to persuade experienced engineers to take significant technical responsibility for technical systems with a significant level of risk (because I've considered them perfectly competent to do so) which they have determinedly refused to do! Whilst at the same time we probably all know engineers who happily sign things off at a leadership level (or indeed refuse to sign things off) based on their past experience without also considering whether the world and technology have moved on. I do feel very strongly that none of the registration levels should be a long service badge, if they are going to be taken seriously they must reflect the attributes of that person against the standard. But of course experience is a great teacher (if treated thoughtfully) and a great confidence builder towards being able to make such judgement calls, and I absolutely wouldn't knock it.



    Absolutely strictly speaking I can imagine a world where people move in all directions between all three registration levels, and that would be absolutely fine, but I appreciate I may be in a minority of one there! The human brain does seem to love to make hierarchies, and can only cope with the idea of "upward" movement through them, whatever the reality is. I used to have great fun working with an ex-RN Commander and an ex-RN Chief Petty Officer. It was hilarious. The ex-Commander insisted that he must be treated with due respect at all times and in all matters by the ex-CPO, which I'm delighted to say the ex-CPO completely refused to do! Although the ex-chief did openly respect his colleague's engineering skills. But if the Commander wanted a new pack of Post-It notes he could bloomin' well get them himself ?



    This is a really good discussion!!!!!


    Thanks,


    Andy



     

  • 0
    Andy

    I assume that Navy anecdote is quite old!!

    I would hope the ex- Commander is long fossilised (no offence obviously!!)

    I am an SEO (C1 in MOD land) = Commander RN

    I reached the dizzy heights of Junior Technician in the RAF (just below a leading hand in RN speak)

    I would be having some deep and meaningful chats I am sure!!!


    Colin
  • 0
    Yes, scarily old now, both are now retired from industry as well and sadly the ex-chief has been no longer with us for several years.


    Anyway, we digress, sorry my fault again...

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines