Debate 6 - Paper 3

Passing Knowledge Across Barriers… The Passing Knowledge Across Barriers… The Good Institution(s)

Peter Rogers MICE, Director Stanhope Properties

Engineering, in the industrial age, began in Britain. It was incorporated into the state in a characteristically amateur way, in Smeaton ’s prescient remark (1771) “that it would be well, if some sort of an occasional meeting, in a friendly way, was to be held…that thus the sharp edges of their minds might be rubbed off, as it were, by a close communication of ideas, no ways naturally hostile; might promote the true end of public business upon which they should happen to meet in the course of their employment.” A proliferation of engineering institutions has been the outgrowth of this. They have been remarkably resilient and have served Britain well. The question is, will they continue to serve Britain well into the next century. Or, to put it another way, how do we expect the good institution to behave?

Institutions exist for members. They direct the secretariat but leave the day to day management to them. There is an analogy here with government and citizens. Clearly a good government listens to the people, balances their various needs and takes responsibility for creating a culture in which they can thrive, promoting best practice, chiding the worst and operating a laissez-faire approach to the majority.

The Good Institution fosters members whose practice and work reflect well on ambitions for the profession and consequently the prestige of the Institution. As is the case with the good citizen, there is no need for the majority to become involved with the management of the Institution - and it would be unworkable if they did. The good Institution will act as a forum for its members, to discuss and promote their particular interests. The Institution must act as a catalyst for people to come together. In this sense the good Institution will seek to embrace as broad a spectrum of the profession as it can, in order to harness as many influences as possible and create an enabling environment.

To be effective, institutions need to create strong identities for themselves and the professions they represent: it is by this means that they attract members and revenue. There is a downside, however, to this cap-badge loyalty: it creates boundaries between professions and barriers between professionals.

This is increasingly at odds with the market. Construction/engineering and selling the resultant product is a multi-disciplinary process. We work in teams, and while we have grown used to, and can tolerate the fact that these real world teams are not reflected in the structure of our institutions, the fact that this can inhibit the active exchange of information across the barriers is becoming increasingly difficult to stomach.

At the heart of this problem lies the accreditation process — the means by which the institutions enshrine their values. There is a terrifying culture attached to this: specialization which begins at 16 with the choice of A levels. It leads through to prescriptive degrees and to a process of pseudo-apprenticeship. This culture has now been extended beyond attaining chartered status in a manner reminiscent of a nanny state. Meanwhile a vast number of people who might be of great use to the industry are disenfranchised, their skills and contribution unrecognized. In spite of this, a number of these dispossessed people are succeeding and receiving recognition within the industry. This process leads many people to question the value and relevance of institution membership.

This problem is also one of the old guard mentality. Today’s guardians of engineering’s standards, practice, accreditation and the knowledge base are yesterday’s heroes. In their favour, they have the networks, the wisdom and the necessary sense of noblesse oblige. The downside is that they are removed from the cutting edge. Our area is highly, highly technical (and a reason why cpd is so important for my institution) and it is developing very quickly. With increasing computerisation, one can only expect this situation to expand.

With the engineering accreditation and learned society industry run almost entirely on voluntary effort, we cannot really expect the situation to change spontaneously. But it can perhaps be improved with a greater exchange of information across the barriers. The systematic exchange of information and joint working can not only correct much of the insular approach pursued by much of the institutional publishing effort, it can also work as a healthy corrective to the cultures and values fostered by inward looking and reactionary institutions.

Many of our grander institutions are increasingly perceived as acquiring all the characteristics of a gentlemen’s club. This is not meant to be flattering, but perhaps it should be. A re-worked club has the values we are trying to foster: open access, multi-layered networks, and collective knowledge. Such clubs are already springing up in the ‘creative’ and design worlds. We need them for engineering. There is a place for neutral areas in which people of different backgrounds can meet each other and meet clients too, and where the intention is maximise the range of influences and enthusiasm. The danger for institutions is not that they are becoming like clubs, but that they might be overtaken by them — perhaps Smeaton’s original ideal.