Introduced in 1992, the Engineering Doctorate (EngD) has been something of a Cinderella qualification, its true worth never fully appreciated by the profession as a whole. This may change after a recent review of the EngD programme concluded that this work-based, post-graduate award has brought significant benefits to a wide range of companies and industrial sectors.

ECUK, whose CEO Andrew Ramsay was a member of the review panel, firmly believes that the EngD scheme offers a credible route to becoming a Chartered Engineer. It is now working with the engineering institutions to ensure that the award gains wide acceptability as a basis for CEng registration.

Developed by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the EngD offers an alternative to the traditional PhD that is more vocationally focussed and better suited to the needs of industry. EngD students – who are known as research engineers – spend around three-quarters of their time working in a sponsoring company on an industrial project designed jointly by the sponsor and a university-based ‘academic centre’. There are currently 22 such centres.

The EngD is open to articulate and highly motivated graduates with a good degree in engineering or another relevant discipline. Around 1230 individuals have gained or are working towards the qualification and more than 500 companies have been involved. The scheme has so far received over £70M of government funding.

The EngD review panel reported that the programme is indeed meeting real business needs. It found compelling evidence that many of the research engineers are having a major impact on business performance. The scheme was shown to be making a valuable contribution to UK knowledge generation and transfer into industry, while satisfying its goals in terms of scholarship and publication.

The review also demonstrated that EngD research engineers are gaining the skills necessary for future leadership roles in industry – and for registration as Chartered Engineers. The technical and commercial competences acquired on the programme, coupled with its demanding entry requirements, make it an excellent fast-track route to the CEng title. Like all CEng candidates, those holding the award will still have to undertake a Professional Review Interview, though in most cases their final year thesis will go a long way to providing the basis for this.

The review panel’s report calls for greater resources for the EngD scheme and recommends that new programmes be considered in important industrial sectors that are currently not covered. (Though there is good coverage across most key sectors, and new programmes have recently been introduced in fields such as micro/nano materials and nuclear engineering, potential opportunities still exist in areas such as civil/structural engineering, electrical power generation and transmission, transport logistics, computer science and healthcare technologies.)

Among its other recommendations, the report advises EPSRC to work with ECUK to ensure that EngD programmes are professionally accredited through the relevant engineering institutions. Currently none of them are. Accreditation would help establish a clearly visible path to CEng status.

Details of the EngD scheme can be found at: www.epsrc.ac.uk/PostgraduateTraining/EngineeringDoctorates

 

Almost unnoticed by the engineering profession, the UK government is attempting to redefine the term ‘professional engineer’ – and it is doing so in a way that will ultimately help no one, apart from this country’s international competitors.

In the eyes of the Department for Education & Skills it is now only necessary to have completed an accredited engineering degree to be regarded as a professional engineer. The DfES argues that graduates fresh out of university have earned professional status by virtue of their being able to move straight into employment following their course of study. This decidedly strange view is naturally contested by ECUK and the engineering institutions, for whom the ‘formation’ of an engineer involves a combination of academic qualifications and professional development through work experience. It makes a mockery of the regulatory framework and the painstakingly developed standards which underpin professional registration in this country.

The line taken by the DfES is seemingly motivated by a desire to help engineering graduates from UK universities to gain recognition – and thus work – in other European nations. It stems from a change made to the European Mobility Directive, whose purpose is to facilitate the movement of workers between states. This change made it possible for anyone who has undergone ‘regulated education and training’ to be assessed under the directive. The DfES argues that individuals who have completed an accredited degree of three years or more can say they have met this requirement. While ECUK may be willing to accept that an accredited degree constitutes ‘regulated education’ it completely rejects the notion that it has a ‘training’ element, which can only be acquired in the workplace.

Labelling graduates as professionals is potentially very damaging to the UK’s credibility among its European partners. ECUK has expended considerable effort convincing the rest of Europe that the generally shorter duration of engineering degree programmes on this side of the channel does not impact on the standard of those classified as professional engineers, which until the government’s recent pronouncements had been accepted by all concerned as meaning registered Chartered or Incorporated Engineers – titles that can only be gained after several years of professional development.

ECUK is also at odds with the DfES over its illogical contention that because it is not usually necessary for a person to be registered to work as an engineer in the UK, the profession is both regulated and unregulated – ie, if you are registered you work in the regulated sector, if unregistered in the unregulated one. In reality, such a division simply does not exist.

Though undoubtedly well intentioned, the DfES’s new interpretation of what it takes to become a professional engineer can only prove counter-productive. It threatens to undermine registration and devalue the status of the CEng and IEng titles, which have gained widespread international recognition and acceptance. ECUK is thus intent on challenging the position taken by the DfES and will also ask for its unequivocal support of registration, which government has always claimed to be strongly in favour of. In this it will have the backing not only of the engineering institutions but also of other professions who find themselves similarly affected.

 

Engineers carry a heavy burden of responsibility to society. As key resources dwindle and the need to tackle climate change becomes ever more pressing, this burden is growing ever greater. The publication by the Royal Academy of Engineering of a ‘Statement of Ethical Principles’ – prepared in collaboration with ECUK and its licensed engineering institutions - is thus very timely.

This concise 4-page guide goes beyond the codes of conduct laid down by individual engineering institutions and establishes a wider set of standards to which professional engineers can aspire. The principles are enumerated under four main headings: 1) accuracy and rigour; 2) honesty and integrity; 3) respect for life, law and the public good; 4) responsible leadership – listening and informing. A requirement of the latter is that individuals should ‘actively promote public awareness and understanding of the impact and benefits of engineering achievements’. The values that the principles express are applicable in all situations where engineers exercise their judgement.

Engineers’ obligations to society and the environment are recognised in UK-SPEC, the ECUK standard that is used to assess individuals for professional registration. For example, registrants are expected to have the education and experience necessary to ‘undertake engineering activities in a way that contributes to sustainable development’. Whereas UK-SPEC requires that professional engineers possess ethical ‘competence’, the new statement provides a framework within which to apply it.

In 2002, the Royal Academy published a paper on engineering ethics by the eminent barrister and engineer John Uff, who asserted that the subject should be accorded a status compatible with its public importance and that the engineering institutions must take the lead in this process. It was most important, he said, that in doing so they act together. The Statement of Ethical Principles, which has been approved by all 35 of ECUK’s licensed institutions (many of whom were represented on the steering committee), is proof that they can.

The statement is available online at: www.raeng.org.uk/policy/ethics/principles.htm

 

How much do registrants value their CEng, IEng and EngTech titles and how have they benefited from holding them? Also, why did they apply for registration in the first place and what do they think would encourage others to follow suit? These are a few of the questions being asked by ETB and ECUK in their latest survey of registrants, which also quizzes them on such matters as their employment status, earnings, institution membership and professional development. Over 10,000 of the 250,000 ECUK-registered engineers and engineering technicians have been contacted.

The survey is expected to provide a valuable insight into the circumstances and views of registrants, eliciting information that will aid the promotion of registration both to potential candidates and engineering employers. The results of the survey are due to be published in September and will be made freely available through the ETB and ECUK websites. The last such exercise was carried out in 2005.

It is generally believed that because English is so widely used around the world, there is little point in UK engineers learning other languages. In reality, a lack of linguistic skills can seriously disadvantage those looking to work on international projects or as part of multi-national teams. ECUK has become involved in a government-funded project that could lead to more of our engineers being able to converse in something other than their mother tongue.

Being co-ordinated by CiLT, the National Centre for Languages, the project will develop language and intercultural skills models to be incorporated within the curriculum of engineering and built environment degree courses. These will be contextualised to the main programme of study, unlike the extra-curricular and generalised language learning options that are presently on offer to engineering students – and which few take up.

Four universities are involved in the scheme – Loughborough, Bristol, Kingston and Salford. Each will deliver a curriculum language model through the collaboration of their language schools and particular sector faculties – which are likely to include aeronautical, civil and mechanical engineering. They will be supported and advised by employers. Members of the project steering group include ECUK, SEMTA and the HE Academy Subject Centre for Languages. It is hoped that the engineering institutions will also have an input; some may have members whose experiences working overseas could prove very valuable.

The project has funding from the DfES’s Gateways to the Professions initiative and is due to be completed next March. CiLT will disseminate its outputs and outcomes.

 

There seems to be no shortage of support for the FEANI (European Federation of National Engineering Associations) project to develop a European card for professional engineers. The ‘EngCard’ initiative has received strong backing from European Parliament members and the EU Commission, who see it as a model that could be followed by other professional groups. Judging from the results of a survey carried out by ECUK, working engineers also like the idea of such a card, which would provide a validated record of an individual’s qualifications.

ECUK canvassed the views of some 600 of the 12,000 UK engineers who hold the title of European Engineer (EUR ING). A clear majority of those that responded were in favour of the card, believing it would serve a useful purpose. Unsurprisingly there was very little support for the suggestion that it should replace the EUR ING award, which is designed to be a guarantee of competence, rather than a simple record of attainment like EngCard.

Last month, it was the subject of much positive comment at a heavily attended stakeholder seminar on professional cards. No less a figure than Pamela Brumter, the EC’s Head of Unit, Regulated Professions, was particularly effusive in her praise. However, amidst the euphoria there were some that were sounding a note of caution.

An active FEANI member, ECUK has been closely involved in the card’s development and is intent on delivering a workable product that entails a rigorous validation of engineers’ qualifications. It is concerned however that the logistics of handling and checking even modest numbers of applications is not being properly addressed. Failure to confront this issue could mean that EngCard is not worth the paper (or plastic) it is printed on.

 

The UK engineering profession’s growing international standing is leading more and more countries to seek ECUK’s advice on registration and engineering qualifications. Of late it has received delegations from Malaysia, India and Japan.

Malaysia’s Ministry of Higher Education and its Board of Engineers both mounted fact finding missions. The latter was looking to learn more about best practice in degree accreditation, in order that it can develop its processes to meet internationally recognised norms - ie, the standards laid down by the Washington Accord, of which ECUK is a member. The team from the Ministry of HE, which is responsible for the country’s polytechnics and community colleges, was interested in the requirements for membership of the Dublin Accord, another international agreement to which ECUK is a signatory. This accord provides mutual recognition of the type of qualifications held by engineering technicians. As Malaysia strives for developed nation status it is eager to improve and expand the education of its technician workforce.

The delegation from India was from the country’s Engineering Council. The principal purpose of its visit was to gain a better understanding of the Engineers’ Mobility Forum, the group of 12 national engineering organisations (including ECUK) that set up the International Register of Professional Engineers and the associated ‘IntPE’ title. ECUK was able to suggest a possible route by which India might realise its ambition to become an EMF signatory.

The issue for ECUK’s visitors from the Institute of Professional Engineers Japan was the low levels of engineer registration in their country and how they might be improved. Japanese engineers who wish to become registered normally have to sit one exam if they hold a recognised degree and two if they do not. To discover where it might be going wrong, IPEJ has also visited engineering organisations in the USA – which operates a similar system to its own – and in continental Europe, where generally a relevant degree is sufficient to achieve registration.

 

The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), the body responsible for safeguarding higher education qualification standards in England, now has a policy of minimum intervention in universities’ affairs. It has ceased carrying out routine subject reviews and extended the time between institutional audits to six years. In order that it can still identify problems and thus maintain standards, it relies more heavily on other organisations – including ECUK – that have close links with higher and further education institutions.

Earlier this year the QAA signed agreements with ECUK and a number of other groups – most of them statutory, regulatory or professional bodies – under which they were empowered to report back apparent ‘causes for concern’ within institutions offering higher education programmes and awards. A cause for concern is defined as any policy, procedure or action, implemented or omitted, which appears likely to seriously jeopardise the institutions capacity to assure the academic standards and quality of any of its HE programmes and/or awards.

In the case of ECUK, its licensed engineering institutions will generally first flag up any problems. It is they that carry out the visits to universities and colleges to assess their engineering degree programmes for inclusion on the ECUK database of accredited courses.

QAA says that its response to reported problems will be phased and proportionate – ie, it will begin with an informal enquiry and only proceed to a full investigation should this be justified by evidence gathered. The new approach to identifying and investigating concerns is intended to result in better, more streamlined regulation.

 

ECUK workshops on mentoring for registration have continued to prove popular with the engineering institutions. Since 2004 seven such events have been run, all of them well attended by institution staff and members. The two most recent were held last month.

Mentoring can prove valuable to would-be registrants at any stage in the registration process. For example, it might involve giving a helping hand with their initial application or it could entail preparing them for the Professional Review Interview. It can be particularly useful – and is strongly recommended - for those who lack the right academic qualifications and are thus taking the technical report option.

The workshops have looked at these different areas, and have also considered what makes good mentors and the procedures they should follow. Importantly they have helped facilitate a consistent approach to mentoring and mentor training among the institutions.

A set of guidelines based on the workshops are available from Adrian Bodimeade - abodimeade@engc.org.uk

 

The Institute of Highway and Incorporated Engineers (IHIE) has been granted a licence to assess those of its members who wish to register with ECUK as Chartered Engineers (CEng). IHIE already holds Incorporated Engineer (IEng) and Engineering Technician (EngTech) licences, both of which have recently been renewed for a five-year term. It is also licensed by ECUK to accredit IEng and EngTech level educational and professional development programmes.

There are now thirty-three engineering institutions that hold CEng licences. ECUK will shortly be considering several more new licence applications relating to CEng, IEng and EngTech.

IHIE members who want to attain CEng status can find out how at: www.ihie.org.uk