Which status is which?

I received an email recently in my Junk email box recently. It was:

“One last try”.,, Hmmm.   First rule of unsolicited email: NEVER CLICK THE LINK!

Second rule… see first rule!  Perhaps this was a phishing email after all? Could be??

Whilst I try not to be rude or dismissive of anyone, this email did get my attention – not in a good way.   I don’t seek out recruitment agencies and as (I assume) with many of us with 20+ years in industry, we receive many such attempts at contact – usually with “If you aren’t interested, do you know someone who is” as an ending. Some even offer a small “finder’s fee”, however I don’t know anyone who has actually ever received such, even when passing in to a contact who was later recruited.  I am not saying that they don’t, just that I have not personally known anyone who did.  The above email is similar to the many I receive that seem to be a result of a word search or similar rather than something actually researched or targeted.  As such, most are simply deleted without opening… but still they keep coming.

It does prompt the question around recruitment, finding a job, etc. Whilst it is hard not to respond with sarcasm to people who cold-contact me with job offers that are for 5 to 7 years experienced engineers (with according remuneration), and that they obviously haven’t read anything about me nor understand what FIChemE means (some could say many of us wonder what FIChemE actually means), I try not to.  I believe it is best in life to treat others as you would want to be treated yourself.  Like many Engineers, I’d expect that most recruitment agents (or “recruitment consultants” – as some call themselves) are just trying to make a living and have a career.  Being polite and courteous costs nothing.

Leaving aside any debate as to the value of being chartered, or in my case Fellowed… One of the problems is that there is no consistency in engineering grades. What is a “senior engineer”… am I a “principal engineer” rather than a senior one?  When does a Senior become a Principal and a Principal a Lead?  IChemE guidance on such and on CPD isn’t overly clear to me and I have always challenged what someone with 25+ years’ experience is actually supposed to do to show CPD (Continual Professional Development) if choosing to remain in Engineering? Due to forces beyond our control – such as Covid19, recessions, industry downturns, mergers and acquisitions, etc. etc.  many of us can find ourselves in completely different roles, industries and functions – often that isn’t progressive, rather is a necessity to remain employed.

Often there is no choice but to play the cards dealt to us. As with so many previously in the oil and gas industry (myself included), it ended up being a busted flush.  I fear that once the Covid19 dust settles that such will be the case in other industries as well – if it is not already so.  Bills don’t pay themselves, so sometimes one has to follow paid work rather than career progression.  Not sure the IChemE appreciates that?

It is anyone’s guess what the safest industry will be once 2021 is upon us – perhaps it will be more a case of the least “un-safe” industry with respect to continuity of employment.  What I believe 2021 has in store for many of us engineers is:

1. Companies driving “work from home” given this shifts the costs of maintaining an “office” onto the individual rather than the company.  Offices are likely to become meeting hubs and IT Severs rather than work centres.
2. Further move to shift engineering work to “high-value” centres, i.e. low labour cost places with client interfacing and project management from local office.
3. Further migration of engineering and technical resources from the energy sector and manufacturing.
4. Further downwards pressure on EPC contractor rates.   

The above is probably no surprise to most as we are seeing this now.  With Shell recently announcing the start of significant job losses, no doubt other operators will follow as oil and gas prices continue their slump.  What is left to cut?  Should these workers look to pre-empt such a future and look to move sector sooner rather than later? That decision is up to the individual.  

Having moved industry and country previously – sometimes by choice – sometimes not, what I would say from experience is that industry bias runs deep and transferable skills not always appreciated as much as they should.

Shell’s cuts are somewhat understandable – less so that at a time when the premier league clubs have just spent £1.218 billion (yes, that’s £1,280,000,000 assuming the US definition of “billion”) on player transfers this window closed, that we are seeing the same football clubs make staff redundancies.  

When I graduated from University back in the early 1990s, I embarked upon a career in the Australian Wine Industry expecting to find that a Chemical Engineer with an interest in wine and willingness to work for well under the average graduate wage would be welcomed.  

What I found was that I was treated somewhat with suspicion (contempt is too strong a word – but it felt like that) and was often ignored when seeking to become involved with production and process related issues that I believed I could add real value to given (at the time) most local winemaking qualifications went about as far into “Engineering concepts” as the Bernoulli equation and basic NPSH calculation.

Most Chemical Engineers should be able to run a winemaking process as it isn’t all that complex.  Making great wine is somewhat more of an art form and a skill/talent some have more than others.  Here in is the art that is the domain of few and I’d never claim to be a wine maker – just someone who could make wine.  

I didn’t have an interest in returning to education for a winemaking qualification so soon after completing Chemical engineering; however, without one I was destined to be mostly tasked with pulling pumps and hoses around a winery and spending many an hour in the site laboratory doing analytical chemistry.  The subtle difference between “Assistant Winemaker” and “Winemaker’s Assistant” became clear and so I left to pursue a career in the Food / biotechnology sector that eventually led me to the UK Pharmaceutical industry in 1997.

I have mixed feelings about leaving the wine industry given there is much to like about the lifestyle associated with working in the wine industry.  I was fortunate to have met some really talented winemakers like Shayne Cunningham who could do magical things with bunches of grapes and were also open to listening to what I had to say from the perspective of being an engineer.  

Alas, I found people like Shayne were rare, and I’d suspect that in Shayne’s case it was more to do with his UC Davis (California) degree (that has large Science and Engineering component) and latent Engineering talents (If he wasn’t such a talented winemaker then I’d say he was wasted and should have been an engineer!!) that allowed him to appreciate that Engineers really could be useful in the wine industry.  Times have of course changed – as with many industries – and they are now much more populated with engineers.

It does however highlight that it isn’t always apparent to those outside our sphere what value engineers can bring and how we can transcend core tasks and industries.  I put such things behind me as I forged out a career in the Pharmaceuticals industry.  

It wasn’t until opportunities in the Oil and Gas industry came beckoning in 2005 that I once again found myself in another industry sector.  Whilst a pump is a pump and a tank a tank, there were a few things that took extensive self-education in order to come up to speed with, especially as I was considered a “Senior Engineer”.

Whilst I was soon able to gain enough knowledge and experience to establish myself in the Aberdeen Oil and Gas sector, there were those who maintained the view that over ten previous years of experience in other industries actually counted for nothing.  I don’t agree with that, however I often found people questioning that I didn’t have enough experience to be an offshore Process Technical Authority, and later a discipline manager within this sector. I believe that it isn’t just the time you do something; it is the “somethings” you do in this time that is important.

I was fortunate to work with some amazing people on some challenging projects across Offshore Oil Rigs, Pipeline Projects, Sub-Sea commissioning and decommissioning, Refineries and Oil and Gas fields in the Canada, Middle East, North Africa, California and South America.  I’d like to think that doing such a varied and diverse range of work well was one of the reason’s AMEC recruited me to become their Chief Process Engineer for Oil and Gas.

Curious that this background became a serious liability when the industry hit a sustained downturn and I found myself looking for work within the Oil and Gas sector – and not being able to buy a job anywhere or with anyone.  Seems no one wanted a “Pharmaceuticals Person” when there were plenty of long-serving oil and gas people also looking for work.  Here it seemed that “time doing something” was actually the key criteria with recruitment people who mostly didn’t look beyond that.

Even when I sought an internal transfer within AMEC (now AMEC-FW) at a less senior role than Chief Process Engineer, such returned “Not Considered” as I apparently didn’t have enough relevant experience (time actually rather than experience– it would seem) to be a Principal or Lead Process Engineer, least a discipline manager (despite actually holding such roles within the Oil and Gas sector previously). So, when it came to recruitment, my belief is those reviewing applicants look little beyond key words and time/duration against such words. “Must have 20 years…” seems more important than what was done within this time.

From my perspective, I don’t see how doing something for 20+ years makes someone more of an expert than someone with less time against such a task?  There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone liking what they are doing and wishing to remain doing such – but do they gain expertise in doing such? Surely at some point it is just repetition?  Part of the problem here is how “specialist” or “expert” is defined – or isn’t defined – as I suspect?!

If Engineering in itself is poorly defined in both functionally and in grade (seniority), then how could it be expected that those working in recruitment have any idea?  It is a shame that anyone can call themselves an “Engineer” in the UK and Ireland – and that no one need qualify that “title”.  Whilst it is true that a University degree doesn’t make one an “Engineer” by default, it is of course the start of the process to becoming one. It is also not the only path and I am a big believer in other routs being available to those who didn’t of couldn’t undertake the university route.

I have worked alongside some talented people who I’d consider “Engineers” who hadn’t gone to University, as well as ones who had gone to University but whom I wouldn’t consider competent engineers.  Such lack of definition was made clear when I was working in a major EPC contractor’s office and an email went around notifying all that one or the washrooms was closed due to a toilet blockage and that an Engineer had been called to attend to it.  You could shear the scoffs ripple around the office as people opened and read that email. Irony is that much of what many of us do/have done for a career isn’t along a dissimilar line – metaphorically speaking!!! :-O

So, with what defines “an engineer” being a fuzzy topic to some, I’d generally define grades (seniority) as being aligned with:

• Graduate Engineer 1-3 years’ experience
• Engineer < 5 years’ experience
• Senior Engineer 5 to 10 years – Look for Chartered Status, or at least in the process of becoming chartered.
• Principal Engineer 10+ years, Chartered
• Lead Process Engineer 15+ Engineer, most likely Chartered or Fellowed.

None of the above however is a basis to knowing whether or not such an engineer is any good as this again reverts back to the “time” criteria that I’d challenge as being a poor basis.  Time certainly isn’t the best criteria… So, what is? The above is no yardstick of ability nor competence; and the approach for the UK and Ireland is somewhat different to that in the USA and Canada with respects to PEng Status. In my opinion, it is somewhat of a shame that Chartered and Fellowed status seem so readily given and now quite common.

Whilst I’d happily defend my FIChemE status, I don’t believe that CPD is a reasonable nor fair way of maintaining professional status.  I am not aware that it has happened, however to (in theory) strip an Engineer of their Chartered or Fellowed status as a result of the economic conditions that has resulted in a lack of CPD (or even regression) seems unreasonable. Sadly, in my case, losing FIChemE status would be somewhat inconsequential given I don’t see that it has ever been of any personal or professional benefit.

Likewise, “Chartered” has mostly served to differentiate what I do from the person called to fix the plumbing (as per the above-mentioned EPC office).  Main difference is that the plumber’s bank probably lists what they do as a “profession” whereas mine don’t even recognise “Engineer” as such.