Let me introduce myself......

Dear IPEM members,

My name is Anna Barnes and I am the new VP for External Relations at the IPEM. My plan is to blog after I've been to meetings so that you can get an idea what it is this VP is supposed to be doing and to allow you a space to comment on some of the issues that come up during meeting discussions. I really want this to become a place to exchange ideas. I also tweet during meetings as well @annibee70.

This first entry covers my attendance at the Dinner and Debate  RAISING THE BAR – CAN LEARNED SOCIETIES AND PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONS DO MORE TO CONTRIBUTE TO ECONOMIC GROWTH? 24th September 2013, The royal Society

Courtesy of The foundation for Science and Technology

"a forum for promoting debate between parliament, government, industry and the research community" www.foundation.org

twitter feed #fstinstitutions

Speakers against: Prof. Tim Broyd (VP-ICE), Prof. James Watson (VP-IET), Patrick Kniveton (Pres – IME), posited they were doing enough

Speakers for: Prof John Uff, posited they weren't doing nearly enough.

My opinion

What a lot of silver haired gentlemen in dark suits was my first thought, but actually some of these silver haired gentlemen had some interesting things to say.  The speakers against gave nice summaries of what their institutions were doing, and why it was great to be an engineer, but none of them addressed the question and instead gave the impression that they felt that they were doing enough. However, I have picked out some interesting bits from each of their talks, even if it doesn’t explicitly relate to the debate.

You can download an official summary and slides from here http://www.foundation.org.uk/

Highlights

Tim Broyd, gave us a history lesson, then a list of all the ICE achievements and patted himself on the back, after taking credit for an increased number of engineering undergraduates and students taking physics at A'level: General consensus from the floor was that it was probably more down to Prof Brian Cox and Dara O'Briain! Interestingly, they have taken the responsibility to archive EVERY SINGLE blueprint/set of plans for major UK public works both in the UK and abroad.

James Watson (looks a bit like Alistair Darling), was more of a smooth customer, and delivered a sales pitch of why you should be an engineer and then join the IET.  Lots of buzz words “Actionable intelligence, job-ready training, the professional home for the engineer, knowledge mapping, inspiring, informing and influencing”, but when all was said and done he also patted himself on the back and felt they too were doing enough, even though he admitted that the gender gap was disgraceful. Oh and they have a TV channel!! IET.TV http://iet.tv. One statement caught my eye/ear: “to provide expert decision support to engineers when needed”. That is they provide a mechanism whereby engineers can get in touch with other engineers to gain expert advice. This "connectivity" is something the IPEM should aspire too.

Patrick Kniveton was the most humble of the 3 and admitted that 20 years ago they were an old boys club and had nothing new to offer anyone.  They had a rethink of their strategy and purpose and decided to engage more with their members.  They started by asking their members what they were interested in rather than what they had been doing, which was telling them what they should be interested in. He felt they could offer more training in soft skills and business but already had plans to put that in to practise. While he talked about famous engineers e.g Adrian Newey OBE, Sir Jonathon Ive ....he didn’t admit to whether any of them were members of any learned society though.

Prof John Uff, while a member of both ICE and IET and is now a barrister accused all of them of not addressing the question and then stated they were all irrelevant and that the best way they could contribute to the economy was to hurry up and finish the HS2, sell their prime real estate in SW1 and head for Birmingham!!!  But joking aside I think he did represent the feelings of the audience who felt that in general the professional organisations they were members of, don't do enough for the economy and don't do enough for their members.  In fact during dinner (which was very nice by the way) the existence of some organisations were questioned and we discussed the pros and cons of lots of different smaller professional bodies vs huge ones like the IET with 20,000 members. In fact someone suggested that we should embrace social networking and then if we have Linkedin do we need societies?  Questions also included supporting science education in schools by allowing science teachers to become members and redressing the gender balance, supporting British engineering start-ups, promoting cross-discipline collaborations. This last one is interesting and probably happens more in medicine than anywhere else. For example the society for neuroscience includes medics, psychologists, mathematicians, physicists, engineers, geneticists........ not sure what the equivalent would be in nonmedical fields.  But of course if you think about it these all relate to building a workforce that can contribute to the economy.

In the end I don't think anyone changed their minds. The Professional organisations thought they were doing more than enough and the audience didn't think they were doing nearly enough. It seems that the IPEM are not the only ones who may be need to re-brand their old boys club image and question their relevance to their members as well as society .