EngTech, IEng and CEng

Discussion in 'Sappers' started by Make_it_fit, Aug 21, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I have been looking through recent posts and can't see mention of a healthy discussion on the plans to award IEng and CEng through InstRE. We already have EngTech. How about a few questions as a starter for 10:

    Bearing in mind the majority of successful EngTechs were SNCOs/WOs is the institution pitching at the right level?

    How are we going to get around ("map") the educational requirements of IEng and CEng to established requirements? see www.engc.org.uk

    Can we justify professional awards to such a diverse range of skills? eg how can a chippie and an electrician be directly compared? for that matter a Lt Col QM and Lt Col PQE?

    Should rank be considered when assessing applicants? ECUK values experience not position? For example the rank siggested for IEng is WO1 however many MPFs and Clk Wks will be eligible in other institutions at SSgt/WO2.

    Who will decide whether an application is successful? interviews etc should be a peer review but is it likely that the decisions will be made at a level below Maj?

    No slaggings please, just an attempt to break the "best sqn bar, best barmaid, best SSM" posts!!!!!
  2. will it hold any standing in civvy strasse????

    that was the question that i asked & got a really wooly answer.

    as a sparks i think being in the IEE would hold more standing than the corps lastest scheme.

    can you really compare a coneheid to lance-jack/full-screw in terms of academic qualifications????, i don't think so. (PLEASE note i said academic qualifications)

    there is also the cost of it to be taken into account, i know a few lads that are going to do it for the first year to see if it holds any credit & obviously bin it should it sink like a stone.

    not for me i feel at present.
  3. Eng Tech is pitched at Lance Comicals and above, just that the takeup has been mostly from those who can be bothered to fill in the forms and provide proof. Most LCpls and Cpls will probably ignore it until they perceive a need for it.
    The person going over to do the mapping is my old boss and believe me he is he right person for the job, if he can justify it he will. After 50 years either in the Corps or working directly for the Corps I think he will have our best interests at heart. He has the technical knowledge, a deep understanding of all the LSNs in the Corps and their capabilities and a deep background in the politics and labyrinths of the institutions.

    From the chats I have had on a one to one with the gaffer of CPD, CEng is going to be suitable Tech WO1 and above with some mainstream Maj's (non PQE as they have CEng anyway)and above getting it.
    IEng is practicaly a given for Clk of Wks because after a couple of years most of us have got the necessary experience and tasks behind us to get it through the civil institutions anyway, so the rank you quoted for IEng is more likely for the Wombats.
    Bear in mind that on the outside IEng is for those with degrees in an engineering position with a few years experience and track record. Therefore to award it the Corps will have to map it at an equal level otherwise the Corps position as an institution would be removed.

    Rank will come into it as most of the civvy institutions require a high technical knowledge, and responsibility. As we know in the Corps, more rank = more responsibility. ECUK does value experience, however but you need to demonstrate that you have come up with solutions to problems, not reading it directly from a PAM or DIN so we need to get away from that mindset :wink:

    Chippies and Sparkies and QM's and CO's. All different but all should be able to come up with solutions to problems that they encounter in the execution of their jobs. Thats what it boils down to, the other institutions manage it with a varied range of specialisations.

    Who awards it? I would be suprised if decisions are made below the level of Maj, and the Maj making the decision will not be a wet behind the ears one either. It will have to backed up with documentation, records, drawings etc in a portfolio from the person going for the award and I suspect that it will be retained and available for scrutiny by the Engineering Council, there will be checks and balances in the process.

    The bottom line is that the Corps is pulling a blinder here and if you think that you can qualify for it you would be daft not to have a dabble.

    Hope that helps a bit. :wink:

  4. my bold, not always my friend not always.

    i know plenty of full screws filling in snco's positions & not getting any recognition for it, but i digress.
  5. Yep, dont I know it :wink: However if you have got the necessary experience and can prove it, then you should get it.

  6. This all sounds like a good idea, but I think it will take a good while to get established. The CEng, IEng and EngTech are only really as good as the institution which awards them and whilst ECUK is supposed to maintain common standards it is quite apparent that some of the engineering institutions have more rigorous requirements than others, are more prestigious and confer more weight.

    At present the InstRE / IRE (?) is not at all well known in the civilian world so would find itself grouped with some of the more obscure and less respected institutions rather than being considered the equal of (say) the IMechE.

    I did look into joining but found it very rank-bound and if anything slightly demeaning to my skills and qualifications - but then the Army always seems to have a mental struggle with well-qualified people if they are not officers. Less so in the Corps but still evident I think.
  7. Good point there Clownbasher, prime example being Class One Surveyors who are awarded graduate membership of the Institute of Civil Engineering Surveyors but would only be awarded Eng Tech from the Corps. I think the Inst RE should take a greater look at the trades to decide what the entry level should be for individual trades.
  8. We recently had a briefing on this on a CLM course in Chavham. The idea is great in theory and once InstRE becomes a little more recognised it may well become a good accolade to have as far as civvy strasse is concerned. The IEng and CEng awards are not currently being given but are 'planned' to begin shortly, the impression I got from most of the blokes who were interested was holding fire and seeing how it pans out first before committing.
  9. One thing to consider is that we have an institution trying to cover all aspects of engineering and have nothing to directly compare ourselves to in Civ Div. I think we run the risk of letting people believe that they have opportunities that are outside their capailitiy or relevance only to be dissapointed at a later date.

    If we carry on down this line then the familiar E,M and C routes should be taken so that we can at least be equated to our Civ counterpart.

    There's no doubt that the Post Noms are recognised but I think the approach should be "more haste, less speed"

    With regards interviews and peer reviews they can only be done by peers ie IEng inteview IEng candidates, CEng interview CEng candidates etc. AT this point I don't think rank should hold any sway. I'm already IEng, well on the way to CEng bu I would not be happy to be grilled by others based on rank alone. Peer reviews are just tha, as long as the interview panel are Eng TEch, IEng or CEng according to the level you apply for then fine but if you are a Capt and therefore have to be interviewed by a Maj (think OJAR at this point) then we are introducing too many constraints.

    Devils advocate I know but IMHO too little about this is being discussed at grass roots.
  10. I can't help thinking that there are two almost parallel, but distinctly separate agendas in play.

    One is the Institution trying like hell to increase membership. Why, I don't know. It's not as if they really need to increase revenue (or do they). What started as an officers club expanded (apparently reluctantly) to include WOs. Then it was further expanded to include SNCOs and now it is doing roadshows to attract JNCOs. The ability to award qualifications looks like bait to attract membership.

    The other is the Army policy of aligning itself with Civvy Strasse, placing an emphasis on amassing bits of paper with academic-sounding titles. Perhaps it's a recruitment and retention tool, attempting to create a feel-good factor within the troops. Perhaps it'll work, but perhaps civvy employers will look at the InstRE qualifications and down-grade them. Failed candidates would feed their interview experience back into the system and there'd be a backlash. (It does look easier to gain the InstRE qualifications than by going through established routes, so it wouldn't be too surprising to expect that employers would start to ask WHERE people got their qualifications, rather than WHAT qualifications they have).

    The questions that have to be answered are:
    How do these qualifications help the Army? (They may help the ex-soldier, but I can't see them helping the soldier).
    Will they be truly comparable with civvy-awarded qualifications? (Does the Army have the facilities to provide the CIVVY range of experience or the superfluous manpower to allow soldiers time out to gain this experience?
    If there's even a chance that the qualifications won't be accepted on a like-for-like basis with civvy-attained qualifications, then what is the point?
    Will this create a two tier regime within the Army, with those who want to get the qualification followed by a quick out, and those who want to stay in the Army but don't go for the qualifications? (The qualifications don't (yet) form part of military career progression, so could be considered just an added embuggerance).

    And another question to throw into the pot:
    How come the TA are excluded from these qualifications? A lot of the people in my lot would have been better placed to trial the system and provide feedback on the procedure. Perhaps I've answered my own question.

    Let's just leave it that we were subjected to the presentation (which is not short), only to be advised at the end that we couldn't play. I knew this in advance and correctly anticipated the looks of incredulity from the audience when the presenter delivered his closing words.
  11. I think the fact that the Corps has got off its arse and done this is absolutely blinding.

    I also think that all the Clks Wks who've registered as Eng Tech have done themselves and the scheme a massive dis-service as they should have registered for IEng. If you read the UK-SPEC descriptions you'll see why:
    Eng Tech:
    "Professional Engineering Technicians are
    involved in applying proven techniques and
    procedures to the solution of practical
    engineering problems. They carry supervisory
    or technical responsibility, ...are competent
    to exercise creative aptitudes and skills .... ...
    Engineering Technicians contribute to the
    design, development, manufacture,
    commissioning, operation or maintenance of
    products, equipment, processes or services
    ...Engineering Technicians are
    required to apply safe systems of work."

    "Incorporated Engineers are characterised
    by their ability to act as exponents of today’s
    technology through creativity and innovation.
    To this end, they maintain and manage
    applications of current and developing
    technology, and may undertake engineering
    design, development, manufacture,
    construction and operation.
    Engineers are variously engaged in technical
    and commercial management
    and possess
    effective interpersonal skills."

    If you disagree, take a look at the list of Clks Wks across all 3 rosters and check how many are / were Eng Tech with the IIE/IEE (now amalgamated to the IET), IMechE or CIBSE.

    The bottom line from my point of view - if you're a Clk Wks go for IEng with someone like the IET or IMechE. If you're a knocker - **** it - try anyway (with the IET). Read the competences and give it a try...what's the worst that can happen? When you're sitting down for a job interview and they have an IEng and Eng Tech sitting in front of them, who do you think is going to have the better chances?
  12. As a Clk Wks (C) I got ICIOB straight away so that's why I didn't bother with the Eng Tech as it is a level below what I've got and what every other C can have if they want. Why would you spend your money on something that you don't need?
    As has been said before I think it is a bit broad brush given that we have 20 odd trades in the Corps and trying to rope them in together under one qualification. It is great that the Corps are trying to get guys qualified with recognised civvy titles but normally the Eng Tech, IEng and CEng are in specific engineering areas where as what the Crops is awarding is very generalised. It would be best to break the trades down into the C, E, M and MPF/Plant streams and work out qualifications for individual trades/streams.
  13. As a Lcpl in this illustrious Corps i see that my pers haven't bothered with EngTech because it really holds no weight!! The years before and a few after were lucky enough to go through chatham when they handed out specific civvi quals so the need for a broad qual such as eng tech really don't help when in comparison with Graduate Member of the Institute of civil Engineering Surveyors, however now the class 2's get squat until their class 1 the one's that are getting out are having to take the Eng Tech...to me it seems as if it has been sold as a not quite near accreditation.

    The only blokes i know that have taken it are drivers, sigs and blokes that lost their trade to go knocking!
  14. I'd disagree slightly. At the same time these descriptions were formulated, there was a shift in the educational requirements and the standards expected at each level, such that the Chartered level became the "Gold Standard" rather than the default option for graduate engineers.

    You now need an accredited Masters (whether 4 year undergraduate MEng or a 1 year postgraduate MSc) to become Chartered.

    Other degrees now lead to the IEng, and whilst this level is still very much in the minority in most institutions the intention was that this would be the mainstream grade.

    I'm less certain what the aspirations were for the EngTech but it has traditionally corresponded to HND-level studies. This looks like the place for ClkWks to me, given the length of the course - at least, as an entry point pending a further review to move up to IEng with more experience.

    Without wishing to disparage the CIOB, it doesn't have the same status or more pertinently role as some of the other chartered institutions, particularly some of the engineering ones. I wouldn't say ICIOB was "superior" or "better" than EngTech - it is just different. Also depends on which institution we are talking about in the case of the EngTech.
  15. Guys, this is a very interesting discussion but can I just intervene slightly as you all appear have a good level of knowledge about this subject.

    I'm now a civilian, ex RN and work for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board. One of our(my) current work strands is to map the experience and qualifications of servicemen to the needs of our industry, we can then look to fill any gaps during resettlement by way of bespoke training or by pointing people in the right direction to complete our current training courses.

    Is there anywhere that I can find the expected qualifications of RE guys for rank and experience, the sort of projects you guys will have worked on etc? I'm currently in touch with CTP who have been fairly helpful but a little vague.

    Please feel free to pm me, I will then give you any information you need to verify that I am who I say I am.

    I'm particularly interested in 3 groups: Young craftsmen/ tradesmen(trades people) leaving and how their skills and qualifications can be transferred to the industry, SNCO's leaving at the 22 year point and how they can fit into Supervisory/ Management positions particularly Project Management/ Project Control on and offshore, Young(ish) officers leaving and looking toward Project Management or CEng positions. These 3 groups are formed from my own perception of how you may fit in and I know you have traditionally aligned yourselves with the Civil Engineering sector (which is unfortunately in a downturn whilst Engineering Construction is suffering a skills shortage), please feel free to correct me if the perception is wrong.

    Incidentally you definately need an accredited Masters to achieve CEng status in accordance with the rules, there's no way that I know of to get around that. A MEng in say Chemical Engineering can however be used (and must be recognised if accredited) for CEng in say Aeronautical Engineering with RAes or Manufacturing ENgineering with IET, IMechE etc discipline is unimportant it must however be Masters level learning.

    Thanks for any help.