Over the last decade the number of people registering as Incorporated Engineers has fallen significantly. During 1996 there were 1579 new IEng registrants, but in 2006 the figure was down to just 498. In contrast, the intake of newly registered Chartered Engineers reached 5486 in 1996, while last year it totalled 5563. It was against this background of declining IEng numbers that ECUK embarked on a full review of the title earlier this year.

The first question considered by the review working group was whether there was actually still a place for the Incorporated Engineer award or if it would make more sense to simply have a single grade of engineer registration – viz, CEng – plus the existing technician qualification (EngTech). The group concluded that there remains a need for both Chartered and Incorporated Engineers, with their different competences and responsibilities – a finding that has been broadly supported by the engineering institutions. It was also thought that a single category would undermine the status of the award and – in a world where two levels are the norm – create problems with international recognition.

It was further proposed that, unless consultation with employers and their representatives should indicate a need for change, the current distinction between CEng and IEng should be maintained. Broadly speaking, the competences required for the former are of the type associated with level 7 of the National Qualifications Framework in England and for the latter levels 5 to 6. Crucially, however, the review report does suggest a repositioning of IEng so it is no longer presented in isolation from other awards but rather as part of a professional development pathway, which for many will lead to CEng registration. There is general support for this idea from the institutions, though more consultation will be necessary.

Many believe that the drop in IEng registrations is attributable to the fact that applicants are now generally expected to be educated to bachelor’s degree level, whereas previously the exemplifying academic qualification was an HNC or HND. While there may be some truth in this, the working group felt it would be a mistake to revert to the lower standard. They argued it would leave too big a gap between the educational requirements for IEng and CEng, as well as necessitating some amendment of competence demands. And such a move would be inconsistent with the proposal to project IEng and CEng as part of a continuum.

The review report also stresses that those with higher nationals and foundation degrees need to be given clearer guidance over the different ways they can acquire the additional knowledge and understanding required for IEng registration - and that opportunities for achieving professional recognition through work-based learning must be fully exploited.

Another recommendation to come out of the review is that the title itself should be changed. As a name, Incorporated Engineer has never found much favour and is regarded by many as meaningless. However, a previous proposal to change the title to Chartered Engineering Technologist – which does have its merits – met with widespread opposition from IEng registrants, who thought it devalued their skills. Alternatives currently being considered are Registered Engineer, Licensed Engineer and Validated Engineer. All are titles that fit with the concept of a progressive registration pathway.

Of course, a simple name change will not in itself make a big difference to registration numbers. A re-titled IEng will need to gain the widespread brand recognition enjoyed by CEng and – as the review report points out – this will demand a targeted marketing campaign. Promoting the award is likely to be made easier by the proposed re-positioning.

ECUK’s registration standards committee will now work with the review working group to formulate a plan of action.

The first group of aspiring Chartered Engineers has just embarked on a brand new route to registration that integrates education and supervised work-based professional development. Called the MSc in Professional Engineering, it is an innovative collaborative venture involving ECUK, higher education, industry and a number of engineering institutions.

Affordability is at the heart of the new MSc programme, one aim of which is to widen accessibility to the profession. Four universities are piloting the project – Kingston, Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumbria. Initially they will work with three of ECUK’s licensed engineering institutions – IET (Institution of Engineering & Technology), IMechE (Institution of Mechanical Engineers) and RAeS (Royal Aeronautical Society). Industrial partners range from steelmaker Corus to SMEs such as independent statutory inspection company Ashdale Engineering.

The MSc Professional Engineering is being offered in a range of disciplines, which initially include 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.

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, a time when they learn to apply their knowledge, understanding and judgement. Those completing an MSc Professional Engineering programme, which will take three to four years on average, will be able to satisfy both of these key requirements. They may even be able to complete the final stage of the registration process – the professional review interview – immediately after their MSc viva voce (oral) examination.

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.

It is envisaged that in three years time the MSc Professional Engineering will be offered by at least ten universities and will involve most of ECUK’s licensed institutions. ECUK has already met with the three currently involved to discuss accrediting the programme.

Those wishing to learn more about this new route to CEng registration should contact Paul Bailey at pbailey@engc.org.uk.

No fewer than 21 institutions were represented at ECUK’s two summer seminars on interviewing would-be registrants, a reflection of the keen interest in this vital area of the registration process. Among a wide range of topics to be tackled were interviewer suitability, the presence of mentors in interviews and the significance of pass rates.

Interviewer suitability was discussed in the context of both the professional review interview and the technical report option, though the main focus was on the latter. The report option has been available since 2004 but it is only in the last year that significant numbers have been applying via this route. During the seminars, ECUK stressed that interviews must concentrate on confirming the underpinning knowledge and understanding of such candidates. It seems that in reality they can sometimes stray into areas that are not relevant. Selecting suitably qualified interviewers, which generally means individuals with an academic background, is therefore crucial.

As to whether mentors should be allowed to attend the professional review or technical report interviews of those they have been mentoring, the majority of institutions were firmly against, though some do allow it. While the practice is not supported by ECUK, the UK-SPEC standard provides no grounds for stopping it. However, it was generally agreed that there was a training benefit to mentors from sitting in on interviews, provided the applicants were not people they were supporting.

On the issue of the pass/fail ratio, ECUK sees this as an accurate indicator of whether the process is working correctly. It believes the optimum pass rate is 90-95%. A figure much lower than this, or a total absence of failures, would suggest a need to re-evaluate procedures.

It was made crystal clear during the seminars that ECUK remains fully committed to the professional review interview. It regards the PRI as absolutely central to the maintenance of standards and there is no question of it being dropped.

Another seminar on interviewing will take place later this year.

Recent growth in the numbers registering with ECUK as Engineering Technicians is set to accelerate following the award of EngTech licences to a further group of engineering institutions.

In July, ECUK granted licences to both the Institution of Royal Engineers (InstRE) and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE), enabling the two organisations to assess applications from those of their members who wish to gain the EngTech title. An Engineering Technician licence was awarded to the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) earlier in the year. There are now 31 engineering institutions and societies who are entitled to put forward the names of members who they judge have met the requirements for EngTech registration.

Both IMechE and IStructE already hold licences for the other two registration categories: Chartered Engineer (CEng) and Incorporated Engineer (IEng). However, the Institution of Royal Engineers is a new addition to the list of ECUK licensed member institutions, though it had previously been a professional affiliate. InstRE was established in 1875 and was granted a Royal Charter in 1923. Its present aims are to promote and advance the science of military engineering and to further the military efficiency of the Corps of Royal Engineers.

EngTech numbers have been increasing for the last three years. This reflects the high demand from many branches of industry for men and women with the knowledge, skills and experience that are the hallmarks of the registered Engineering Technician. From 2004 to 2006 some 3300 new registrants were added to the roll.

ECUK’s Quality Assurance Committee has also recently approved a CEng licence for the Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers (IHIE) and an IEng licence for the Institute of the Motor Industry (IMI). In addition it has accepted INCOSE UK (International Council on Systems Engineering) as a professional affiliate. Acceptance as an affiliate is recognition of an organisation's credentials as a learned body and its desire to promote the science and practice of engineering. INCOSE becomes one of 14 institutions and societies that are members of the scheme.

Contact details for all of ECUK 's licensed members and professional affiliates, including links to their websites, can be found at www.engc.org.uk

Engineering Technician ranks will hopefully be boosted by a pilot project, started last month, to promote registration in the further education sector. ECUK is closely involved with the scheme, which is being funded by the Engineering & Technology Board (ETB) and managed by the National Forum of Engineering Centres (NFEC). Its principal aim is to encourage FE learners to become institution members with a view to setting them on the road to EngTech registration.

The project was preceded by a survey of learners and lecturers at a number of FE colleges and private training providers to find out more about their awareness of engineering institutions and get a better idea of what motivated those who had become members and deterred those who had not. It also sought to identify the willingness of lecturers to support efforts to encourage student membership. Though small-scale, the survey suggests that institutions need to build a higher profile in this sector and to convince FE learners of the real and practical benefits of joining – including the opportunity to work towards professional registration.

The pilot will endeavour to achieve these aims through a largely face-to-face approach with level 3 learners and advanced apprentices. A total of 11 FE centres are involved - in the NW, NE, Midlands, SW and London/SE - and it is intended that the message will be spread to more than 500 potential EngTechs. Over ten engineering institutions are participating in the project.

A project report, with recommendations for sustaining institution student membership and increasing EngTech registrations, will be published in September 08.

Following objections raised by ECUK and others, the Qualifications & Curriculum Authority has made the teaching of ‘systems and control’ a mandatory element of the programme of study for Design & Technology at key stage 3 (ages 11–14).

Under the now completed review of the secondary national curriculum, it had been proposed that schools need only offer three of four D&T study areas, none of which would actually be compulsory. They would select from food, textiles, resistant materials and systems and control. This would have meant that a school opting to drop the latter would have deprived their 11-14 age group of applied learning in electronics, mechanics and pneumatics. This could well have prevented many young people from subsequently pursuing a career in engineering.

Fortunately, the published programme of study says that the syllabus must include resistant materials and systems and control, as well food or textiles technology. Ideally, all four subject areas should have been made mandatory in order to ensure a foundation in design that is as broad as possible. However, D&T departments may yet find ways of including both food and textiles (as the D&T Association is urging).

Overall, the results of the secondary curriculum review have been very positive. In particular, they have produced programmes of study that provide a less prescriptive and more flexible framework for teaching. As a consequence there is more scope to tailor the curriculum to the needs of each student and address local priorities and interests.

As engineers’ credentials go, the pre-nominal EUR ING is certainly among the more impressive-looking. Yet, it is no mere adornment for beefing up a business card or letterhead. As a recent ECUK survey has shown, it is a title of genuine substance that can be of real value to the holder.

The EUR ING (European Engineer) award was created twenty years ago by FEANI – the European Federation of National Engineering Associations. To qualify for the title it is necessary to be registered with a FEANI member – which in this country is ECUK – and have academic qualifications and work experience very similar to those required for CEng registration. In fact, there are over 12,000 Chartered Engineers who currently hold the EUR ING title, which is getting on for half the total number.

ECUK sent a questionnaire to 600 of them, of whom 40% responded. This found that around 60% work regularly or occasionally in mainland Europe and a further 25% think they may do in the future. A clear majority stated that their EUR ING registration had proved of value, with 30% saying it was very useful. Many cited the professional recognition that the title brought, some mentioning that it had helped when working outside Europe, including in the Middle East. Interestingly, most knew nothing about the various EU directives and initiatives relating to mobility, which supports the view that for the EUR ING holder this is not a problem.

Fewer than 2% said they were unlikely to renew their registration, which is required every 5 years. This statistic comes as no surprise to ECUK, which believes that the £35 fee (equating to just £7 per year) represents excellent value.

For further information on the EUR ING award contact ECUK’s Head of International Recognition, Jim Birch: jbirch@engc.org.uk.

The USA’s recent accession to the Sydney and Dublin Accords – initially as a provisional member - has strengthened the credibility of these two important international agreements, both of which relate to recognition of engineering qualifications. ABET, the US organisation that accredits college and university programmes in engineering, technology, applied science and computing, is the signatory body. It should have no difficulty in achieving full membership of the two accords, probably within two years.

The Sydney Accord – whose full members comprise ECUK and its equivalent organisations in Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand – is a mechanism for mutual recognition of the processes used by these nations to accredit academic programmes for ‘technologists’. By extension this provides mutual recognition of the qualifications themselves, which in the case of the UK means the academic awards typically held by Incorporated Engineers. In the USA it will be the country’s 4-year technology degrees. Already part of the Washington Accord – which effectively bestows international approval on its accredited 4-year engineering degrees – the US is clearly in strong position to become a full signatory of Sydney.

Full membership of the Dublin Accord – which is concerned with Engineering Technician level qualifications - is currently held by ECUK and the national engineering bodies of Canada, Ireland and South Africa. These signatory nations have agreed to recognise each other’s relevant national qualifications, having first assessed them for equivalence against their own. The US award that will be evaluated is the 2-year associate degree.

The Washington Accord is expanding as well. Earlier this year it acquired Russia, Sri Lanka and India as provisional members. Now, South Korea and Chinese Taipei (formerly Taiwan) have attained full signatory status alongside ECUK and nine other countries. Also, Singapore and Sri Lanka have recently been accepted into the EMF, the group that set up the International Register of Professional Engineers and the associated ‘IntPE’ title. There are now over 2000 names on the register, including a growing number of Chartered Engineers.

Find out more about ECUK’s international activities at: www.engc.org.uk/international

ECUK recently hosted the inaugural gathering of the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) – an organisation previously known (somewhat confusingly) as the International Engineers’ Meeting (IEM). As well as changing its name, this major grouping of national engineering bodies has also now acquired a professional secretariat, putting it on a much firmer footing to carry out its mission of benchmarking and promoting world-class standards for engineering qualifications.

The IEA is an umbrella organisation for various global accords (Washington, Sydney and Dublin) and engineer registers (EMF, ETMF and APEC). Its newly formed governing group comprises representatives from each of these and is chaired by David Long, who is also chairman of ECUK’s international advisory panel. Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) was awarded a two-year contract to provide the alliance’s secretariat.

The first meeting of the IEA, held in August at ECUK’s London offices, achieved its primary objective of agreeing a new organisational and management structure. It also provided an opportunity for the group members to share their views and ideas on engineer education, qualifications, registration and the all-important issue of mobility.

Due to admit its first students in September next year, Saudi Arabia’s Alfaisal University in Riyadh is keen to ensure that its engineering programmes will meet the standards necessary for ECUK-accreditation. In fact, it has even asked for a pre-qualification review of these courses, a request that is unprecedented.

Alfaisal is a private, not-for-profit institution that is being modelled on leading research universities. Both Cambridge University and MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) are helping its College of Engineering to develop graduate and undergraduate programs in electrical, mechanical, chemical, aerospace, computer and materials engineering.

The proposed review of the course curricula is likely to be organised by the Engineering Accreditation Board (EAB), which comprises all 21 of the engineering institutions that are licensed by ECUK to accredit degrees. Though a review will not guarantee subsequent accreditation, it should avoid the need for programmes to be changed after their introduction.

A growing number of foreign universities are seeking ECUK-accreditation of their engineering degrees and the international recognition that it brings.