Hi everyone. Not sure if this is the right place to be asking this question, but I've looked through the various communities and I couldn't see anything in the way of bringing together engineers who are either serving or who have left the forces. I've been out the army ten years now, but when I look back on it there was very little instilled in the way of professional development during my time in the forces. I think the army I served in was very backwards in that respect, and it would be interesting to know how or if it had changed, and I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks that this is the sort of community that would add value to the IET. I think if I'd had better opportunities for guidance in a professional sense I'd have really benefitted.
Speaking only for the RAF, I give a brief to newly promoted JNCO, SNCO and Commissioned Officers on initial eng trg the benefits and routes to Professional Registration. The IET has geared the RAF route to EngTech, Cpl and above, IEng, FS/2nd tour Flt Lt and above and CEng, Sqn Ldr+. I constantly preach that they should not think that they can only achieve their goals based on the rank they hold however, they will need to actively seek out the opportunities to fulfil the UKSpec. The Standard Route is more expensive but as the Armed Forces pay their membership/registration fees then it is negligible. In the past 12 months there has also been a huge uptake due to a financial incentive for personnel to become registered. It would be hard to find an engineer/technician in the RAF who doesn’t have registration or going through the process.
Thanks for the comments guys. Interesting to see the Navy and Air Force perspectives. It would be interesting to see how the Army is comparing. My last posting was on an RAF camp and I dealt with the RAF a lot during my resettlement and I think it’s safe to say we had very different experiences of the transition process. It would be good to know how things have changed. I know I missed out on the free degree program by literally a few weeks!
It might be good to know what the bigger picture is to know what sort of things would be beneficial- I’ll put the feelers out in LinkedIn, that might be a good place to start.
When I signed up as a Sapper my civilian role was that of a Technician, although by then I held an HNC and Certificate in Industrial Management. Plenty of meat for abuse by the training NCOs as a "potential wupert”. It could have been worse, I could have been six foot five, black and tagged by the N word, with F thrown in - although he did win the prize for best recruit! Everybody got it for something, it was just part of the “break them down and build them back up” process, we were all “STABs” after all! Shortly afterwards, I transferred in my civilian life from the equivalent of non-commissioned to commissioned.
I enjoyed my experience of service life, but wouldn’t have aspired to a career in which your life and even family situation was so defined by rank, which was all pervasive. I didn’t seek a commission or promotion particularly, as I had more than enough responsibility in my civilian career by then. However, when they made me a SNCO, I remember being b*****d by my (Ex RMP) Sgt Major, for socialising with lower ranks. i.e. going into Gutersloh for a beer or two. I also on another occasion recall meeting someone who had been demoted for a misdemeanour, so it was out of one mess and back into the other, complete with wife and children. Military life can be a kind of closed and highly structured community, which creates strengths but also potential problems.
I won’t pursue it at length here, but I think that Professional registration is a good thing and have engaged in it myself for 30+ years. UK-SPEC was developed to recognise three “types” of professional. At that time there was a strong strand within Engineering Council that positioned these three types as “different but equally valuable”. This for me is a simple statement of respect, but the idea of equality was widely resented by those who felt that they deserved enhanced status, spun into “different but the same”, defenestrated and replaced by a hierarchy in which some are “higher” and others “lower”. This obviously fits a rank system rather well. The effect is self-evident in the numbers who subscribe to each category, relative to those who practice.
There are many situations where, there clearly is potential for progressive transfer between our three categories by various means, although in a properly operated “competence based” system, that requires someone to have the opportunity to demonstrate consistent performance in an appropriate role. The categories are also benchmarked to represent different levels of “learnedness” , although a focus on academic qualifications can distort that perspective and create another type of “rank” system. We have a long tradition of undervaluing vocational learning relative to academic qualifications. Graham gave a good perspective.
When jointly developing special schemes, rank was used as a form of shorthand simplification or “pre-mapping”, designed to reduce any “barriers” to professional registration for a service person. Momentum was initially provided from more senior levels, as might be expected in any organisation. So for example, the RAF scheme in its first iteration was “commissioned only”, although their apprenticeships were already approved. That was circa 10 years ago.
Looking at the issue more widely, between ourselves and our sister major professional bodies, we benefit from significant engagement by members of the Armed Services and at least in my direct experience, a desire to serve all professionals well under the IET strapline “professional home for life”. I would be delighted and supportive of any practical initiative (perhaps jointly with IMechE and ICE?), to improve the value derived by professional engineers and technicians in the armed services from their engagement. There are difficulties, including safeguarding personal and national security, but it should be something for careful consideration. Perhaps there is common ground in management and leadership by technical professionals? Ideally we want something “inclusive” not “divisive”, to borrow from modern equality language a “safe space” for common interests?
I would just like to echo Roy's comments below - "Looking at the issue more widely, between ourselves and our sister major professional bodies, we benefit from significant engagement by members of the Armed Services and at least in my direct experience, a desire to serve all professionals well under the IET strapline “professional home for life”. I would be delighted and supportive of any practical initiative (perhaps jointly with IMechE and ICE?), to improve the value derived by professional engineers and technicians in the armed services from their engagement." By way of introduction, I work as the IET MOD Development Manager so am very much on the ‘front end’ of candidates within the MOD (Armed Forces and Civil Service) who are looking at membership and/or professioal registration, and I also manage the general relationship between our MOD partners and our various agreements.
We are seeing a consistently more joined up approach across the Armed Forces and between ourselves and other institutions when it comes to active encouragement of personnel (both currently serving and service leavers) to professionalise and join their body of choice. This is partly to do with the 'Defence Engineer Professionalisation Strategy' which has been produced and is headed up by the Joint PEI Steering Group and PEI Defence Committee. The SG is made up of representatives from across the single services and across the PEIs, within which professional development and registration (aligned with the PEIs) is actively encouraged. A large piece of work on CPD and how personnel can be encouraged to carry out and record CPD in a consistent, cohesive way across the services and institutions is currently underway. The ‘Engineering Professional Recognition Award (EPRA)’ which incentivises candidates to achieve professional registration has also meant we’ve seen a large increase in applications, especially at the junior ranks.
Specifically as the IET, we actively encourage any eligible personnel (regardless of rank) to apply for professional registration through regular visits to Armed Forces sites. Though I do brief on the 'Special Registration Agreements' that are available - which are based on rank - I do make it very clear that personnel who can demonstrate the relevant competence can apply via the standard/individual route.
As an example of activity we currently carry out, myself and the IMechE jointly brief every Class One course that goes through the REME school at MOD Lyneham. We do briefs across almost every site which has Armed Forces (and/or civil service) engineers/technicians (e.g. RAF bases, RSME, Royal Navy dockyards, Abbey Wood etc), at least annually, if not more regularly. The briefs outline benefits of Membership, the benefits and requirements for professional registration with the Engineering Council and initial guidance on and run onsite workshops where required for applicants to complete their applications or gain advice on their application forms. A lot of sites prefer this to be a joint activity, sometimes with multiple institutions present and providing briefs (IMechE, BCS, RAeS for example).
In regards to Service Leavers, we offer discounts on membership and professional registration applications in order to actively encourage those who are not yet members to utilise the integral parts of the IET for personnel at this point in their career. I attend all Employment Fairs that are run by CTP across the year and use this as an opportunity to encourage service leavers to join their relevant Local Network or Technical or Specialist Network and use other benefits (professional development opportunities, events, E&T jobs etc).
In conclusion, and in answer to the initial query, I do think that professional development is now actively pushed across all levels in the Armed Forces. Even in my 3/4 years in post, I’ve seen a large positive shift change in attitudes and encouragement of personnel, at all ranks, to achieve professional recognition and utilise all membership benefits available. There is already a large community of people in the Armed Forces who are professionally registered and who are trained to be advisors/industry representatives/endorsers, but I certainly think bringing together this community (and those who might be interested) could be beneficial and I’d be happy to be involved with anything you want to take forward.
