EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Do We Need a New Gang?

Do we need a New Gang?, or any Gang at all?

Common sense dictates that in any proposed new venture, a number of logical steps must be followed to avoid the pitfalls that cause good ideas to come to nothing. Opinion is fairly polarised on the validity or viability of existing representation for those employed within the "biomedical" community. Let's conduct an exercise to ascertain possible solutions. Some will have strong views, some will have no views at all, some will complain (but be unwilling to try to change things). I hope that forum members give consideration to the issues and concerns, and more to the point provide possible solutions..

Regards
Sean Fearon

If the response is underwhelming, any further complaints from those who disagree with the current process, must be deemed as minority viewpoints, as everyone else must be satisfied!
(Yes, I do have a sense of humour).


THEORY
A plan covers what you intend to do with your new venture and how it will be done. The process of writing down what is involved in bringing your idea to reality requires dealing with the why, what, who, how, where, when, and how much of your idea. Writing a business plan forces you to take a deep look at your idea and how you will turn it into a reality. Doing so helps you recognize areas that need rethinking or support. A business plan will typically include the following.

Business description
What do you plan to do, why are you starting the venture?
Look at alternative representation for Biomeds, from within, or external to existing organisations, namely VRCT, IPEM, IEE etc.

Market analysis
Who will be your customers, what do they want from you?
Biomeds employed in the public and private sector who are either ineligible, or unwilling to register with existing bodies. They are therefore without representation. The level of support, determines the viability of the venture.

Competitor assessment
Who will you compete against, what do these competitors offer?
The Voluntary Register For Clinical Technologists offer representation for Biomeds with certain qualifications and experience, and offer limited entry to new applicants without an accredited degree. Other bodies may offer an Associate position or status to those who work in the Biomed field without an accredited degree.

Marketing plan
How will you reach your customers or colleagues?
To be determined by consultation with interested parties.

Operating plan
How do you plan to implement your idea?
To be determined by consultation with interested parties

Financial plan
How much money will it cost, and where will you get the necessary funds?
????????????????????????????????

Executive Summary
To provide a significant proportion of Biomeds employed within the UK who lack formal recognition with existing bodies, with representation or a voice (should they need it).

I gave my own position earlier today, Sean.

Meanwhile, perhaps we need to be careful about what is being discussed here:-

1) Recognition
2) Representation
3) Registration

Personally, I can't get too worked up about any of those. My own interests remain limited to promoting the idea of, and supporting, (what was described to me in a private communication recently as) the "noble technician".

It has also been pointed out to me that many biomeds these days simply regard the whole scene as "just a job". This is in contrast to the way that many of us felt about it all "back in my day".

OK ... so the world (and the biomed tech's place in it) has moved on. And that's why I doubt that you'll find yourself too overwhelmed there, Sean.

So that's me out of the Gang, even before I joined! I'll be getting my coat, then.

Recognition, by whom? What surely is important is that Biomed’s are seen to embrace an ethos of promoting safe working practices in a consistent and conscientious manner. Doing a good job, should be reward enough.

Representation should also be at a local level, (back to basics) before any grandiose delusions appear. By that I mean, that representation must cover your existing workforce structure, from the old sweats, to the trainee's, not just a proportion of staff who by time served, and gate closure, make the nominal benchmark for entry.

Registration, why do we need registration? As can be seen the efforts to obtain HPC registration have been, and are likely to be unsuccessful for a section of the Biomedical community.

Underwhelmed or not, it is important for me, via this forum to offer opinion or debate the issues pertinent to the existing stagnation and lack of direction exhibited so far.

The rest, I am sure will take care of itself Geoff.
I value your input, but it might be interesting to hear from others, either publicly or privately by PM.

"By their peers" (if that) used to be enough, but that's no longer the case these days, it would seem. Surely you can't have missed all the posts we've seen on here in the past of the:- "we don't get no respect. Boo, hoo" type, Sean.

It seems that some folk need to be "jollied along" the whole time, reminded and reassured how great they are, and all the rest. You know, the same people who apparently cast jealous glances in the direction of radiographers, lab techs, and (of course) nurses. Those biomeds are the group that you'll need to win over, I should imagine.

Meanwhile on the "shop floor" it's part of the Leader's business to keep those techs on side, as it were (in case anyone was wondering).

OK ... I'm prepared (happy, even) to yield the floor (page?) to the "fresh audience" now ... but I thought I had better respond to your question!

Over five years ago John Stewart posted:-


I was impressed at the time (and I remain impressed now) ... and I hope that John doesn't mind me reproducing it here. But I do so in an effort to remind anyone who may have "lost the way" (so to speak) what "frontline biomed" at the hospitals is all about.

So I'm hoping that any "New Gang", feet firmly on the ground (?), not only keeps all those points in mind, but also addresses ways of ensuring that they become common practice.

Was this not why IPEM was set up?

IPEM is licensed to award professional registrations of CSci, RSci, RSciTech, CEng, IEng and EngTech.

But I feel that IPEM are being too elitist and see themselves as IPM or IPeM even. The Engineering Council should ask US what would make it better for us to join IPEM.

I fully agree that, as people that could probably kill someone in a shorter length of time than someone giving radiation doses, we should ALL be licensed at the levels given, and try and aim to reach a level where we are happy, reflecting the work we do.
If we do not meet the requirement then SMART targets (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound)are set to reach these levels.
Until we all unite, there will be this discussion and until a large number of people die, due to someone working on equipment fails to perform their professional duty, it will stay the same unless WE do something about it.
Regards
Scott Barlow (Open University T397)

Totally agree, well said that man!

@Scott: nice acronym. Quite a good set of keywords, in fact.

Pity about the scaremongering bit, though.

Has anyone come across a "large number of people dying" recently? Or have I been missing something here?

But yes ... we have been having these kind of discussions for at least the last forty years. So here's to the next ten (twenty, thirty ... whatever).

I think in the UK we have this problem with Engineers in general,
here is an extract from LICENSING AND THE UK
ENGINEERING PROFESSION from the Engineering and Technology Board.

Proposals have long been advanced for statutory control of the UK engineering profession. Jordan (1992) notes the following landmarks:
1886: Defeat of the Architects and Engineers Bill, after lobbying by the
three major engineering institutions – the Institution of Civil
Engineers, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers. The Worshipful Company of
Plumbers also initiated the voluntary Register of Plumbers.
1919/1920: The Institution of Civil Engineers promoted a Bill for a statutory
register of qualified engineers, but this was vetoed by the other
major institutions.
1926: The Institution of Civil Engineers, Electrical Engineers, and
Mechanical Engineers lobbied against an Engineers Bill designed
to create a State Register. The three Institutions argued that only
they were equipped to judge standards.
1943: The Ministry of Works was dissuaded from establishing a register
of engineers qualified to work on public contracts.
It can be seen from the above that, historically, statutory registration of
engineers has been considered largely undesirable and actively opposed by the
major UK engineering institutions. The subject was next given serious
consideration in the Finniston Report, which was published under the title
“Engineering Our Future” in January 1980.
The Government had announced in 1977 the appointment of a Committee of
Inquiry in response to a range of problems facing – and concerns within - the UK
engineering profession. The Inquiry was led by Sir Monty Finniston. The terms
of reference were extremely broad. However, one of the stated objectives was
to review “the advantages and disadvantages of statutory regulation and
licensing of engineers in the UK”.
In the body of the Report given over to the question of licensing and registration
(pp 128-140), Finniston begins by criticising the existing system of a voluntary
registration system based upon membership of one of the Institutions.
Add to this in October 2004 the Health Professions Council (HPC) agreed that the Clinical Technologist profession should be regulated.

We have a history of in-fighting, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is the world's largest technical professional society. Founded in 1884 by a handful of practitioners of the new electrical engineering discipline, these people were unable to join the Royal Institute of Mechanical Engineers.
So a few more years than you have Geoff

As for scaremongering, no, it would be the only thing that would force the issue!

New gang or new approach?

Ah yes ... the Votes of History (your comments in bold). And what makes us think we're any smarter today than those blokes were back then?

I remember Finniston. He came in with a Blaze of Glory promising to set the Engineering World alight (as it were). And what happened ... ?

To be honest, I'm not sure there is a problem at all!

In fact, I think I'll file* it away together with "Global Warming", "Agenda 21", "Under-representation of Women in the Workplace" ... and all the rest.

Or, putting it another way:- what exactly is the "problem" we're trying to solve here?

Meanwhile ... a new gang? No. Not needed (IMHO), and a probably a complete waste of time.

And a new approach (to what)? What do you suggest?

OK guys, back to work!

* Under "File 13", that is.