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 78 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 5785 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

UKSpec 4th Edition

Peter Miller
The latest edition of UKSpec has been published. Downgrading of IEng competencies as promised. 

  • 0
    I am going to follow Roy's post with some comments and a plea.


    I am almost in complete agreement with what Roy and Andy have said in the last few posts. Where I would, perhaps, not completely agree is the issue of the link between qualification, value and salary where I am not as convinced as Roy that it leads to improved positions, as I think it is even more complicated than even Roy suggests. The evident exception is where an engineer is at the top of the tree in their company and then achieves registration, since there is no obviously improved position available, but I also think that many engineers who gain registration and then achieve an improved position would in fact have achieved a measure of improvement even without the registration. If they can demonstrate to their peers that they are suitable for registration they can generally demonstrate to their employers that they are suitable for a promotion/salary increase. This does not mean that I do not value registration but on the contrary feel its value is under-rated by the majority (and not just IEng but CEng and EngTech also - the survey Peter references does not give a breakdown but it is probably fair to assume that most of the respondents are just considering CEng as opposed to all three).


    Now my plea - this thread is supposed to be about UK-SPEC Edition 4 and there is a separate thread dealing with the recognition (or not) and value of IEng. Can we please use this thread to discuss the changes to UK-SPEC.


    My feeling is that the changes do possibly make things a bit clearer but the majority of people reading it at present are those who are intimately familiar with the last (and previous) issue and therefore have a good understanding of what is needed. The acid test will be when candidates start to read it and we see how many fail to understand the intention. I can see advantages to the revised layout for computer rather than book form, and the inclusion of hyperlinks certainly makes the cross references easier, though being an old stick-in-the-mud (as far as books/e-books are concerned at least) I prefer the old format.


    Regards,


    Alasdair
  • 0
    Fair comment, Alasdair, regarding your plea.  It's why my first post in this thread was deliberately brief (especially for me!) and purely responded to a point about the changes to the I.Eng specification.  However,  it grew wings and I didn't feel I could leave some of the things said unchallenged. 


    So,  on that basis,  this will,  hopefully,  be my last post on the topic that has grown so big (though frankly, most of us are more or less on the same page), and only does so to respond to some of the things you've raised yourself. 


    Overall,  I agree with you and we're both saying that it's all far more complex than the original assertion suggests. 


    I particularly want to take up your very interesting point about the impact when you're at the top of the tree in your company when you achieve registration since is no obvious improved position available, as that was precisely my position when I attained I.Eng.  In practice,  my company did make something of it,  including it in a company newsletter and suggesting it was something to celebrate,  which was quite enlightened of them, but that hinged very much on the facts that a) in contrast to civil engineers,  where C.Eng was almost obligatory to gain recognition,   it was not the norm for telecoms engineers to seek/ gain registration at any grade,  let alone C.Eng and b) I didn't have a degree,  which at that time,  the only possible routes to C.Eng were by degree or Mature Candidate route,  so I was put forward as a role model for why neither of those things have to prevent registration of some kind. I also received a (very) modest bonus from my appraisal. 


    However,  I think,  of more importance to the point,  it almost certainly sealed the deal for a move to a larger and more prestigious international consultancy,  to be a (slightly) smaller fish in a bigger sea.  I didn't get,  or seek any increase financially in the move,  that wasn't my motivation,  it was to be promoted from the second division to the first,  and to open up exactly the new avenues for advancement that were lacking in my previous position.  


    In fairness,  I had made (unexpected) advancement within the first company from the time I first applied to having success and this included leading an intense,  highly academically based study for one of our clients which provided the vehicle to prepare a technical paper for submission under the mature candidate route to C.Eng , the only alternative to a degree at the time,  which remained my only blocker,  leading to me upgrading to C.Eng much sooner than I had anticipated.  

    But most importantly of all,  the move to the new company seriously opened up the opportunities so that,  within 2 years,  I had become regional head of business for the Middle East,  led some of the most prestigious infrastructure projects in the world at that time and had virtually doubled my total remuneration package.  This was all highly unexpectedly faster than I could have anticipated and the financial improvement was almost an accidental by- product of pursuing what I had a passion for. 


    The reason I go into such a detailed tale is to illustrate my point that,  though the link between registration and improvement in personal reward (whether financial or otherwise) may be more organic than direct,  immediate or immediately apparent,  I believe it's always available providing you couple it with your drive to self- improve,  or just to do things you have a passion for.  I certainly don't suggest that advancement or salary increase is an automatic outcome of registration - it's no good sitting back on your laurels, but I remain convinced that,  coupled with a desire to meet more and better challenges,  it's an inevitable outcome.  Of course,  Andy's point about it being a great opportunity to see how well rounded you are and take action to improve on that is also a big part of the mix. 


    It's this complex,  organic nature of the beast that I refer to when I  say I'm convinced it improves your prospects.  Whether you take advantage of those prospects lies entirely in the individual's hands. 


    Ok, enough of that,  onto your point about the survey,  firstly I'm sure your right, it's almost certain that the majority of respondents will be thinking only of C.Eng, secondly,  I've never been a respondent for this or any similar survey,  so I have to wonder how representative it is,  I suspect that those who feel disgruntled are more likely to respond than those who are happy,  or, frankly, too damned busy drawing on the opportunities I mention regarding improved prospects to respond. 


    But mostly,  on that topic,  I'd point out that it's only a survey of people's perception,  not of the actual reality,  and for all the foregoing reasons, I think the responses almost certainly fail to take into account the holistic,  organic nature of the beast that I've described,  or simply don't have accurate facts on which to form their judgement and  probably allow a sizeable chip on shoulder to influence their perception. 


    My final response to you (I promise to try not to enter this topic on here again) is re your point that those who are able to demonstrate their suitability for registration to their peers can almost certainly also demonstrate their suitability for promotion/ salary increase to their employers.  Firstly,  the pursuit of registration is a clear demonstration of commitment to developing their professionalism and therefore a key pointer for an employer in determining that fitness,  so,  without registration,  that component is potentially missing.  Timothy Coker mentioned the MOD stance on registration which is a great example of this at play.


    This is especially true when your employer needs to promote your worth to potential clients, if your employer needs to demonstrate to somebody like Andy that they have taken all suitable measures to ensure their team had what it takes to deliver safely,  sustainably and other similar critical performance criteria,  or if you're self employed and have to promote your own worth to a potential client., 


    So now my own plea, or suggestion to all is to not focus on the financial return,  but on personal attainment,  work environment and job satisfaction - look after those and I forecast that financial return will come as a natural side effect. 
  • 0
    Roy Pemberton:
    (I promise to try not to enter this topic on here again). 


    No, please do!


  • 0

    Roy Pemberton:



    I can also confirm that,  as he says,  there is no way a junior engineer would succeed in an application for I.Eng.


    I will reiterate what I've previously said on many occasions,  an I.Eng is most definitely not a junior engineer,  even with the new,  clearer specification set out in the 4th edition.  Frankly,  the bulk of those carrying out a solid,  professional engineering job, even at very senior level,  fit the I.Eng profile, and that is a healthy proportional situation for any profession. It may be a stepping stone to C.Eng, but it may be as far as many people want to (or should) go.

    IEng is commonly being aligned as an output for degree apprenticeships. There are lots of examples, but here is one:-

    https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/civil-engineer-degree/

    "Level



    This is a Level 6 Apprenticeship.  On completion the apprentice will have fully satisfied the requirements for registration as an Incorporated Engineer by the relevant professional engineering institution."



    I would assume some will finish a degree apprentice aged 22 or 23. I'm no way denigrating the abilities or competencies of those finishing these apprenticeships but I'm of the opinion they are probably still going into business at a Junior Engineer level.


    Similarly in the 4th Edition of UKSpec in relation to project management:- 


    IEng

    3. Contribution to project and financial planning and management together with some responsibility for leading and developing other professional staff


    CEng

    3. Responsibility for financial and planning aspects of projects, sub- projects or tasks

    4. Leading and developing other professional staff through management, mentoring or coaching.


    'Contribution to project and financial planning and management' would probably not be a project manager whereas 'Responsibility for financial and planning aspects of projects, sub- projects or tasks' would be.




       




  • 0
    Alasdair Anderson:

    Now my plea - this thread is supposed to be about UK-SPEC Edition 4 and there is a separate thread dealing with the recognition (or not) and value of IEng. Can we please use this thread to discuss the changes to UK-SPEC.

     


    Well we can try, but I think so far pretty much most views seem to agree with yours that it sort of looks ok but it's difficult to tell and we'll need to see how it works in practice, except for Peter whose views are expressed in his original post. 


    Funnily enough I was just thinking about the new layout, because I've been asked to give an internal presentation on it at work, and the new layout is actually much easier for that. And in 3rd edition I most often found myself using the "three side by side section" which of course was landscape already. 


    My feeling is still very much that it's gentle evolution rather than revolution, absolutely the litmus test will be when panels start applying it...but I do think the examples are a bit better now, the old examples (for all grades) sometimes felt like they only applied to the technical director of ICI!


    Cheers,


    Andy


  • 0
    Some excellent debate and welcome back to this subject Roy Pemberton.

    I’m glad I didn’t post this earlier having written it without reading the flurry of contributions. Some cynics will say that the debate involves only a few people, but the same could be said about governance!

    I liked you latest post Peter, it shows that you are marshalling a strong evidence-based argument, behind your usual pithy short posts. The current state of my understanding is that a “degree apprenticeship end point assessment” falls somewhat short of IEng registration, but not far, so your basic point is valid. The CEng standard is squarely aimed at mid-20s graduates. See my later comments about leadership.  

    My initial reaction was that the new revision is quite clearly presented.

    For disclosure, I made an individual submission as part of the consultation. I have no idea about whether that had any influence or not. Nevertheless, I felt a duty having been close to the issue for over a decade and involved for much longer, to offer a critique and some constructive suggestions.

    I’m sure that others who contributed from a different perspective, also did so in good faith.  What else is Engineering Council supposed to do, except consult stakeholders and update the standard? If it continues to fulfil its primary role as “the Chartered Engineer’s Council” without excessive cost or offending powerful stakeholders, then there will be little appetite for change.  

    Furthermore, the international consensus (of academics in the International Engineering Alliance) offers three divisions of, Engineer, Technologist and Technician. 

    I haven’t conducted a systematic study, but there seems a limited appetite in most jurisdictions for recognising a “slightly less qualified type of engineer” designated “Technologist”. Huge numbers of excellent technical professionals are employed to carry out responsible technical work, but for most of them public recognition via some system of registration seems unnecessary, or in a UK context unattractive/poor value.  

    My understanding is that UK-SPEC was originally developed to describe three types of “different but equally valuable” professional. At the time these were intended to have become, Engineering Technician, Chartered Engineering Technologist (IEng) and Chartered Engineer. However, IEng never got its charter, although other professions offer chartered recognition for no more.
    It lost any clarity of purpose, distinctive attributes and value, which it had once enjoyed in the 1980s. By 2007 new IEng registrations were pitifully low.   

          
    It was therefore decided by the executive board of Engineering Council that a “progressive policy” should be adopted. Subsequent tweaks, have embedded the principle that CEng supersedes and subsumes the other categories. Applying this principle means that UK-SPEC is not a set of competence standards, but an academic or status-based hierarchy. Some broad generic and indicative “competencies” are used. But to make the hierarchy work from the top down, the characterisations used for each category are progressively more restricted. Peter (I think) has described this as “watering down”.

    In practice the competence descriptors are used in two ways, for early and mid-career practitioners.  
    1.  For a recent graduate working towards CEng (a few may seek IEng) they offer a template for training and employer monitored experience. Once they have experience across the range and sufficient responsibility (typically around 4-5 years) they usually succeed in gaining CEng.  Timing might vary, especially if the employer prefers registration to be contingent on a grade or rank. However, in doing so the employer is inflating the standard a little. There is no reason why a newly qualified CEng has to have leadership seniority, they just need some leadership skills when required.                                                                                                             This is the traditional primary pathway to CEng.  More recently with a modest revival of apprenticeships (long overdue and still a long way to go in my view) there are some pathways, to IEng in particular, combining part-time undergraduate study with work experience. There are also traditional graduate schemes for CEng being re-badged to gain government apprenticeship funding i.e. a “post-graduate apprenticeship”. 

    • For an experienced professional coming late to registration, typically because having gained in seniority, CEng recognition comes onto their radar or seems potentially achievable. Some just never bothered despite having long ago met the requirements. For the few IEng, it is more likely that there has been a transition from a “more practical” role to “managerial”. In old fashioned terms “blue -collar to white collar”.  Some just want to join a professional community and “put something back”. 

    Experienced professionals are generally less likely to hold fully accredited qualifications and this may have been a barrier to some of them in the past. For them, the minutiae of the competencies, interpretation by the IET of their achievements and especially whether or not underpinning knowledge can be inferred, or if additional knowledge assessment is necessary, becomes very important.

    Based on my experience of this over the last decade or so, there are too many uncertainties, iniquities and injustices for my liking.  Very many excellent engineers have found a straightforward pathway to CEng. Including through collaborations with some major employers (which I had a leading role in at one time). Unfortunately, some have also suffered a bitter experience.

    Using the competence descriptors to divide between IEng and CEng on the basis of work achievement is a very inaccurate science. The range of technical professionals with significant responsibility is vast, with considerable overlap, yet they have to be placed into two categories. Furthermore, one of those categories is regrettably seen in many quarters as a “failed” or “second-class” Engineer. An attitude which some powerful/influential people and organisations have no intent of changing!  

                      
    For early career Engineers, UK-SPEC may be fairly inconsequential, since their pathway is set out via accredited academic qualifications and accredited employer’s training schemes. Apprenticeships may also perhaps be beginning to return from the “poor relation” and “low status” place, that academic and social snobbery left them in. The problem isn’t unique to Engineering, but for a profession with such a strong historical tradition, it’s a disgrace that this was allowed to happen and Engineering Council must bear some culpability.   

    For mid-career Engineers it remains to be seen whether the latest revision will smooth their experience, increase clarity and remove tripping points. This will be determined by how it is implemented.

       
    I am not optimistic because of “The IEng Problem”. I won’t pursue that here but it has been extensively and almost continuously debated in the forums over many years. Failing to address that problem, which requires an independent of Engineering Council review of the whole system, is a missed opportunity in my view. 

    Whatever happened to the Uff Report? Produced, by a distinguished Barrister who gained CEng in his mid-twenties before transitioning into a second career. I don’t think that it would have resulted in anything more than tinkering anyway?

    As I said earlier, for most people on a CEng pathway with an accredited degree under their belt and a supportive employer, UK-SPEC is a pretty minor issue, similar in purpose to a course prospectus offering some structure to your learning ahead of the “final exam”.

    As it stands those who want to develop the profession can only work with the tools that they are given, so they have to make the best of UK-SPEC.  It works reasonably well as a terminal standard for the CEng qualification, rather less well for IEng and only adds a little by way of commitment to professionalism to good Technician training. Technician being the only category where you are likely to find an actual “competence based” qualification (eg NVQ) rather than an academic one.  

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi guys


    Just to put things in to some perspective I was recently lead interviewer on an online registration interview for IEng. The candidate’s job title was “Graduate Engineer” a position he had held for six (yes 6) years! His IEng registration was tied to his promotion to “Engineer” by his employer. 


    Many years ago during a discussion on job titles/salary rise with an employer’s HR director - I said that you can call me a “Teaspoon Carrier’s Mate” if you want, as long as you pay me for what I’m doing - he gave in - gave me a substantial rise and the job title Principal Engineer. This was a very long time ago.


    When I get the time I intend to read the “4th” and join in with the comments.


    Regards - still a grumpy old IEng
  • 0
    Roy Bowdler:
    As I said earlier, for most people on a CEng pathway with an accredited degree under their belt and a supportive employer, UK-SPEC is a pretty minor issue, similar in purpose to a course prospectus offering some structure to your learning ahead of the “final exam”.

     


    Hi Roy,


    Just for once I'd have to disagree with you a bit here - my experience with applicants over the past couple of years is that you need considerably more than an accredited degree and a supportive employer to gain CEng, and although 4th edition should allow more engineers to obtain CEng (who personally I thought should have been able to obtain it under 3rd edition, but as we know the word "innovation" carried too much weight in that edition) my reading of the two is that 4th edition still squarely puts the majority of graduate engineers in the IEng camp. And that's fine.



    I've just had a careful read through of all the competences for 3rd and 4th edition for IEng and CEng. Really interesting. The IEng competences are basically completely unchanged. The CEng competences are very different. If one wanted to, one could say that IEng has stayed the same and that technical competences for CEng have been downgraded! But I'd hope they will be seen as being broadened rather than eroded - the "and/or" statements in there now are hugely important.


    What I hadn't spotted before is that the management competences for CEng have been increased. That's very very very annoying. Worth others here looking through the C competences to get their impressions. The silly thing is that the commentary recognises that in matrix organisations (which I suspect most of us work in to some extent these days) potential CEngs probably won't have direct management responsibilities, but then the competences themselves seem to require exactly that! Ah well, as per my previous post I'd better get ready to hand my CEng back since I for one don't meet these any more...actually that's really ironic that the CEng management competences are possibly now rather higher than the CMgr competences! Bother, just I was thinking this was a good standard.


    Grumpf.


    Andy


     


  • 0
    Thanks for welcoming me 'back' Roy (I was never really away,  but had determined not to post so much as the many hours spent doing so were eating seriously into my life/work balance. 

    So, with that in mind,  I'll try to be as brief as possible - but will look forward to discussing in more depth when we next meet (Covid permitting).


    As usual,  I disagree with some,  agree with much more of your meticulously evidenced contribution,  and have a generally more upbeat flavour.  One key area is that I strongly support Andy in saying that it's not sufficient to have an accredited degree and a supportive employer,  my PRI experience is that most candidates who are rejected do so because of this assumption and their 'supportive' employer usually shares the responsibility for that because of their failure to understand the requirement for either innovation or management of complexity, plus personal responsibility for technical decisions and outcomes.


    Ironically,  these are the very people who wield make excellent I.Eng candidates!


    In response to Andy's response to your post,  two key points provoke my reaction.  I haven't yet looked at 4th edition in the same detail that you have,  Andy,  and clearly need to do so,  but I suspect that,  as ever,  the devil's in the detail,  it will be the descriptors that resolve issues.  I suspect the and/ or statements need clarification in the descriptors. Without a doubt,  the topic of innovation has been a tough nugget in 3rd edition with modern working practices often making this difficult, but even the 3rd edition offered the alternative of management of complexity,  a point that,  if I'm being honest,  has even been missed by some fellow interviewers. My hope is that these and/ or statements that may,  at first,  appear as a relaxation are really and attempt to make these alternatives clearer. Let's hope they don't do the opposite!


    It does seem an odd contradiction to acknowledge the effect of matrix manageme yet increase the requirement for direct management,  but I'm hoping that this really means direct technical management.  Once again,  it's down to the descriptors.  There's a much longer discussion to be had on this,  but,  for instance,  it's the subtle distinction between managing the technical approach and outcome in an area of operation that holds a budget of xxx, and the technical performance (and professional development) of staff,  rather than actually managing that budget or holding line management responsibility for the staff. 


    I have a strong feeling that,  when  this detailed interpretation becomes available,  even you,  Andy,  will meet the requirements! ?
  • 0
    Andy Millar:

    I've just had a careful read through of all the competences for 3rd and 4th edition for IEng and CEng. Really interesting. The IEng competences are basically completely unchanged. The CEng competences are very different. If one wanted to, one could say that IEng has stayed the same and that technical competences for CEng have been downgraded!


    What I hadn't spotted before is that the management competences for CEng have been increased.




    I'd agree that the A/B competencies have been loosened, particularly A2, B1 and B2.


    I'm not convinced at all that C competencies have changed significantly. C1 and C2 are re-worded but look equivalent. C3 has been extended from just leading teams to "lead teams or technical specialisms". This I think is a positive move as the 3rd edition tended to make things difficult for the SME type of engineer.


    C4 is broadly the same although "quality" has been removed, which I think is a mistake, but ultimately not significant.


    Tim


     


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