Too many potential candidates for registration through the Technical Report Option route lose interest early on because the guidance they receive lacks clarity and is overly complex. This was among the findings of two ECUK workshops on this relatively new pathway to becoming a Chartered or Incorporated Engineer.

The importance of involving individuals with an academic background in the initial assessment of candidates’ knowledge and understanding was another strong message to emerge. It was also felt that the Technical Report Option would only generate significant numbers of registrants if greater use were made of existing reports, which applicants had prepared as part of their work.

The two, one-day workshops were attended by a total of 36 representatives from 22 institutions and were generally regarded as very worthwhile. There were presentations from four institutions – IMarEST, RAeS, ICE and IMechE – all of the speakers having considerable experience of TRO. IMarEST made a joint presentation with Portsmouth University, with whom it is currently collaborating in order to bring engineering academics into the process.

The events provided the first formal opportunity for ECUK’s licensed institutions to discuss and exchange experiences of the Technical Report Option, which was introduced in 2004 (when UK-SPEC came into force) and is open to those who lack the exemplifying academic qualifications. Numbers taking this route have not been high, though they have been gradually growing.

They would grow even more, it was felt, if the application process was made less daunting. It seems that many candidates never bother to read the guidelines they are given, finding them too long and complicated. Guidance has tended to be very detailed because of the desire of the institutions to ensure that the requirements of UK-SPEC are met in full – a motive that can only be applauded. Nevertheless, simplification should be possible without compromising standards.

The process could also be simplified for many candidates if they were allowed to include company reports as part of their submissions. As long as they are accompanied by a commentary explaining how the work described has contributed to an applicant’s formation as an engineer, such reports will often provide a sound basis for demonstrating UK-SPEC competences – and one that is less onerous in terms of time and effort than having to write a full report of several thousand words completely from scratch. If more potential registrants were offered this alternative, it is logical to assume that more would apply.

Other issues covered by the workshops included training of assessors, the use of non-registrants as technical experts on assessment/review panels and the need for some form of moderation to achieve a consistent approach by all institutions. They also provided a valuable reminder that the Technical Report Option does not lend itself to a tick-box form of assessment but instead relies heavily on personal judgement. Additionally, the report and technical review interview should only concern themselves with an applicant’s engineering knowledge and understanding and how these are applied to solving problems. The other UK-SPEC competences should be left for the subsequent professional review interview (PRI).

A detailed report on the workshops, together with presentations, institution feedback and examples of actual technical reports, have been posted on the ECUK extranet. Click here to view.

A further workshop on the Technical Report Option will be held in July.

 

On discovering that engineering professionals were not among those whose signatures could be accepted for certifying documents relating to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), ECUK immediately contacted the Environment Agency to request that this omission be corrected. Its representations were successful, with the result that Chartered Engineers have now joined bank managers, solicitors, doctors and Chartered Accountants on the select list of approved certifiers.

The EU ETS is one of a range of policies introduced across the European Union to help meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol. Those participating in the scheme have to open a trading registry account, which holds their carbon dioxide allowances. The individuals (authorised representatives) that are nominated to operate such accounts are required to provide prove of identity - and all copy documents supplied for ID checking must be certified. Where the individual concerned is from the UK, this task that can now be performed by a Chartered Engineer.

In making the case for accepting Chartered Engineers as having the necessary standing to act as certifiers, ECUK put particular emphasis on the stringent requirements that are applied to the award and retention of the CEng title and the professional codes of conduct that registrants must adhere to.

At the time of writing the Environment Agency website had not been updated to reflect the change. However, the EU ETS registry manager has sent ECUK written confirmation that documents certified by Chartered Engineers are now being accepted.

 

In engineering the answers to most questions fall into two categories – those that are right and those that are wrong. But when engineers are faced with making decisions that have an ethical dimension, they often find that absolute certainties and clear-cut solutions are much more elusive.

The complex nature and increased prominence of ethics in engineering led the Engineering Council UK (ECUK), the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) and the Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) to hold a one-day workshop that looked at how the subject could be incorporated into degree programmes and how accreditation processes could accommodate it. The event, which took place last month, attracted over 50 delegates – most of them academics and staff from professional engineering institutions.

The workshop opened with scene-setting presentations from Professor Ernest Shannon - who gave an account of the history of professional codes and the evolution of the recently published ECUK/RAEng ‘Statement of Ethical Principles’ – and Sheffield University’s Professor Ian Howard, who introduced the RAEng/EPC engineering curriculum map that has been developed as a guide for academics.

In the group sessions that followed, delegates from similar engineering disciplines discussed a wide range of ethical topics that might be included in undergraduate curricula – such as confidentiality, bribery, loyalty, conflicts of interest and shared responsibility. It was generally agreed that there are many grey areas where there is no right or wrong and doubt exists over what constitutes a whistle-blowing issue. This poses a particular challenge for engineering students, who are used to seeking a right answer.

There was a consensus that the curriculum map was helpful and that ethics should be embedded in the curriculum, rather than stand alone. Opportunities should be sought to cover ethical issues within other topics such as health and safety, design and sustainability. Where topics are covered by legal requirements, as is the case with discrimination, it was felt there was less of a problem. The tensions between business and professional ethics were viewed as a particular area of difficulty for aspiring engineers.

The message that it is better to embed than add on was re-iterated by Prof Neal Juster of Glasgow University when he opened the afternoon session on accreditation of the ethics content of degrees. The subsequent group discussions resulted in a good practice wish list. Suggestions included specifying ethical dimensions in module descriptors, having an ethical checklist for project work and site visits and ensuring ethics is assessed and so cannot be opted out of – as well as embedding good ethical practice within universities themselves. In a lively plenary session, there were those who questioned whether it was right for accrediting institutions to ask students if they had covered ethics, as some of those questioned might well not recognise that they had.

Though there were some strong proponents of the idea that all students should be required to pass ethics, the mood of the meeting was against it. It was argued that the ethical competence of students does not fully manifest itself until they have graduated and are in the workplace.

That ECUK and the engineering institutions are giving more attention to ethics was welcomed, though whether it is sufficient to have only two mentions of ethics in the 30 learning outcomes for BEng accreditation was questioned.

A full report of the workshop is available from the Royal Academy of Engineering: http://www.raeng.org.uk/policy/ethics/events.htm.

 

The phased introduction of the UK’s new points-based immigration system is finally underway. One of the main aims of the scheme, which has been four years in the making, is to ensure that those who come to work here from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) have the talents and skills that the country needs. Eager that the engineering profession should have its say in these matters, ECUK has been holding discussions with the government agency that is implementing the system.

The new system will replace more than 80 separate work and study entry routes with a five-tiered framework. Those wishing to work in the UK will now have to amass a certain number of points, awarded on the basis of aptitude, experience, age and demand for their particular skills.

The five tiers are: 1) highly skilled individuals who will contribute to growth and productivity; 2) skilled workers with a job offer who will fill gaps in the UK labour force; 3) low-skilled workers to fill temporary shortages; 4) students; 5) youth mobility and temporary workers. Roll-out of the system, which began with tier 1, is scheduled to be completed next spring – though there is no date for the introduction of tier 3, which has been indefinitely suspended.

The type of individuals that engineering companies are normally looking to recruit from overseas – viz, those with degrees and up to five years’ experience – are unlikely to accumulate sufficient points to gain entry under tier 1. Thus most engineers will be applying under tier 2 – which is due to go live in the autumn. This will not only require that they have a job offer but also that their prospective employer is licensed as a migrant sponsor by the UK Border Agency. The onus is on employers to apply for inclusion on the sponsor register.

An independent body – the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) – will advise government on shortage occupations, which will be used in the assessment of tier 2 applicants. The committee is due to make its first recommendations in June and there is still time for interested parties to respond to its invitation to submit occupations for possible inclusion on the shortage list. Composed mainly of economists, the MAC will itself be advised by a stakeholders’ panel and occasional meetings of a stakeholders’ forum.

ECUK will be represented at the first forum, in May, and is currently talking to MAC and the UK Border Agency about appointing a representative from the engineering profession as a member of the stakeholders’ panel. In addition, it is pressing for extra points to be allocated to applicants who are ECUK registrants. It has also been looking into the important matter of establishing equivalence between foreign and UK engineering qualifications and has had useful discussions with UK NARIC (the national agency responsible for providing information and expert opinion on international qualifications), its aim being to ensure consistency in this area.

For more on the new points-based immigration system go to: www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/managingborders/managingmigration/apointsbasedsystem/

A form for submissions to the shortage list can be found here: www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/workingwithus/mac/macreports/

 

More universities are poised to introduce the recently launched MSc in Professional Engineering, an innovative qualification that has opened a new route to Chartered Engineer registration. Developed jointly by ECUK and a number of higher education and engineering institutions, it provides a work-based approach to gaining both the master’s level learning and competences needed to achieve CEng status. ECUK is confident that it will hit or better its target of having ten universities offering the new degree by the end of this year; at present there are four. Twenty five individuals have embarked on the programme since its launch last autumn.

With the 18-month long project to develop and pilot the MSc in Professional Engineering successfully completed, a three-year phased roll-out will now get underway. This is expected to involve many of ECUK’s licensed engineering institutions and culminate in nationwide delivery of the qualification. A work-based learning programme leading to Incorporated Engineer registration will also be introduced.

The development of the new MSc programme was funded under the government’s Gateways initiative, a key aim of which is to widen accessibility to the professions. The pilot phase involved Kingston, Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumbria Universities, working with three of ECUK’s licensed institutions – IET (Institution of Engineering & Technology), IMechE (Institution of Mechanical Engineers) and RAeS (Royal Aeronautical Society). Industrial partners have ranged from steelmaker Corus to SMEs such as independent statutory inspection company Ashdale Engineering.

The involvement of the engineering institutions has been crucial, given their role in accrediting academic programmes and assessing professional development against the competence requirements for registration.

To become a Chartered Engineer, an individual is generally expected to hold an appropriate master’s level qualification. Applicants must also have undergone a period of professional development when they learn to apply their knowledge, understanding and judgement. Those completing an MSc Professional Engineering programme will be able to satisfy both of these key requirements.

The MSc Professional Engineering is being offered in a range of disciplines, which have initially included mechanical, electrical, electronic, automotive and aerospace engineering. Each person on the programme has an individually tailored study plan that takes the form of a ‘learning contract’ with an academic supervisor and an employer organisation. The agreed schedule of work must meet a strategic development need of the employer organisation.

The new MSc is principally targeted at BEng (Hons) graduates who, probably for financial reasons, chose not to continue their studies to master’s level. They may have only recently left university or they may be more mature candidates. Some could already be working in engineering, while others might be returning to the profession. It is hoped that the programme will attract those groups that are currently under-represented in engineering, including women and ethnic minorities. From the employers’ point-of-view there is the appeal of focused knowledge transfer and the product and process developments that result.

The MSc in Professional Engineering is fully explained in a new guide to be published shortly by ECUK. Further information can also be found at: http://www.engineeringgateways.co.uk/

 

Two recent e-petitions posted on the 10 Downing Street website called on the Prime Minister to protect the title ‘engineer’. In its response to both of these, the Government states that it looks to the Engineering Council UK to regulate professional status in this area and further points out that only those on the ECUK Register are permitted to use the titles Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer or Engineering Technician (EngTech).

Both sets of petitioners want only registrants to be allowed to call themselves engineers, with one group calling for just Chartered Engineers to have that right. A parallel aim is that certain tasks, including final approval of any engineering process, should be carried out only by registered engineers. No 10 says that: “it would not be practical or appropriate for Government to introduce new legislation on this matter”, but it fails to explain why this should be so.

Statutory recognition of engineers – which would mean that no one would be allowed to practice engineering unless they were licensed or registered to do so – has been investigated more than once. However, the same intractable problem has always arisen for those looking at the issue, among whose number have been some very eminent engineers. Their dilemma has been that if the functions performed by engineers were to be controlled by statute, they would have to be clearly defined – something that has so far proved impossible (except in the case of specific occupations such as dam designer, mining engineer and certificated marine engineer).

It is also worth remembering that statutory recognition would bring an end to self-regulation of the profession, which unlike in some other sectors has worked very well. There is certainly no clamour to bring engineering under government control, a likely downside of which would be the introduction of formulaic CPD (continuing professional development), something that would not be welcomed by most registered engineers.

Concerned about what they see as a lack of respect for engineers in the UK, the petitioners point to the status enjoyed by other professionals such as doctors and lawyers and by their own counterparts on the continent. While it is true that legal protection is afforded to titles like ‘ingenier’ that are used elsewhere in Europe, this is largely because they have a different, less general meaning than the word 'engineer'. The latter has been in common use in this country for many years and is widely understood to mean anyone whose work relates to engineering - particularly manufacture or maintenance. Consequently, there seems to be no prospect of the engineering profession gaining exclusive rights to the term and thus preventing others from using it.

Interestingly, the titles doctor and lawyer are not legally protected either. Moreover, a person doesn’t have to be a doctor to carry out medical procedures, as long as he or she has the consent of the patient. Similarly, it is not necessary to be a registered lawyer – or have any form of qualification – to dispense legal advice.

It is also possible that the public perception of engineers may not be as bad as many fear. For example, recent research* showed that over 80% of those questioned believed engineering is essential for human development and is a well-respected profession. However, the same study found that there is a high degree of ignorance over what engineers actually do.

ECUK believes that its efforts are best directed towards gaining greater recognition, both legal and public, for the standing of registered engineers and engineering technicians. It works closely with the Health and Safety Executive on advice to employers on the use of registrants, and with employers' and employees' associations to promote better understanding of the value of employing them. It does seem to be having some success in this regard, since though relatively few employers require their engineers to become registered, a growing number do encourage the practice and are prepared to pay for employees’ registration fees – which is borne out by recent registrant surveys.

*Engineering UK 2007 (The ETB/ECUK annual review of the engineering and technology labour market).

 

ECUK and CNISF – the body that represents French scientists and engineers - have signed a three-year extension to their mutual cooperation agreement. The main benefit of the latter is that it facilitates rapid recognition for ECUK-registered engineers who wish to practice in France, while allowing suitably qualified French engineers unencumbered access to employment and registration in the UK.

Under the agreement, which dates back to 2004, individuals who are registered with ECUK as Chartered Engineers are deemed eligible for the title of Ingénieurs Diplômés (ID), an academic qualification that allows the holder entry onto the French ‘Répertoire’ (Register) of Engineers. Unlike in the UK it is not necessary for engineers to complete a period of professional development before being able to register.

French engineers whose names are on the CNISF Répertoire are regarded by ECUK as holding a recognised qualification, which makes it more straightforward for them to gain registration in this country.

Aside from their bi-partisan agreement, ECUK and CNISF also collaborate closely within FEANI, the European Federation of National Engineering Associations. For instance, they are both represented on the organisation’s statistics working group, through which they are pushing for the development of a single source of detailed, accurate data on labour supply and demand in the engineering field for all of Europe. The statistics currently available from the EU are seen as inadequate.

 

There is no shortage of engineers in the boardrooms of the UK’s top companies and there are plenty more who have successfully established their own businesses. Research commissioned last year by ECUK and the Royal Academy of Engineering showed that in a representative sample of FTSE 100 companies, three out of ten directors with a first degree had studied engineering, far outnumbering those who had read a science subject or economics. Moreover, there were more professionally qualified engineers than accountants, even among top executives.

Numbers may be boosted still further by the largesse of the Sainsbury Management Fellows' (SMF) Society, which has announced that it will once again be offering bursaries to talented engineers to fund one year's tuition at a top UK or international business school, where they will study for a Master’s in Business Administration (MBA). Set up by Lord Sainsbury in 1987 and administered by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the scheme awards scholarships to up to 14 outstanding young engineers each year. Over 250 have been awarded since the scheme's inception.

To be considered for one of the current SMF scholarships you must be a Chartered Engineer or well on the way to becoming one. Other criteria for candidates, and an application form, can be found at: www.smf.org.uk.

 

For an engineering degree programme to be accredited by one or more of ECUK’s licensed institutions it must now meet specific learning outcomes. These are based on generic output standards that were first set out in 2004 in the UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC). In May 2005, ECUK, the Engineering Subject Centre and the Engineering Professors’ Council established a working group to review methods of assessing learning outcomes.

On 27-28 November, the group will be running a conference in London that will offer examples of good practice in the assessment of outcomes and present new ideas and research. The event will be of interest to programme leaders and those responsible for curriculum design and development, as well as anyone involved in accreditation or quality assurance of engineering degrees. Policymakers in engineering education are also among the target audience.

The organisers have been inviting those involved in the field to submit papers detailing fresh ideas and evidence-based good practice. The deadline for abstracts is 16 May. Submission guidelines and further details of the conference can be found at: http://www.aloe.ac.uk/index.php/conference-2008/

 

ECUK has a full series of one-day workshops planned for later in the year, some of them repeats of earlier events that were oversubscribed, and others covering entirely new ground. Each will aim to disseminate good practice among the staff of ECUK’s licensed engineering institutions and/or the institution members who voluntarily give up their time to help in the registration process.

The programme of events kicks off in June with another look at self-assessment and at the mentoring of would-be registrants. The following month will see a reprise of the technical report option workshop, which proved so useful to participants on the previous two occasions it was held (as reported earlier in this issue). Later there will also be a repeat performance of the equally valuable interviewing workshop.

A further three workshops, scheduled for the autumn, will tackle areas not previously covered. One will examine further learning and how it is best acquired, a complex topic that is likely to be hotly debated. Performance metrics and reporting and the benefits to institutions of gaining ISO9001 accreditation will provide the subject matter for the other two.