'I support the way this issue is being taken forward. A multidisciplinary approach is nothing new for us - the higher cross institutional membership makes it easier.'
'I find this extremely difficult. This is a really serious discussion. Part of me says 'this is really radical, let's be radical', the other half says 'I don't really want to let go'. In the south east we have discussed this and the end result is cautious support for spending the money on the discussion, but not support for a radical gung-ho approach. If you steamroller something through it generally falls apart.'
'Already universities are forming multi-discipline courses for engineering, but perhaps trying to form a single body just for the built environment would be a step too far. We would need the architects as well, and that is too big a step.'
'Convince me that this action is not just reactive. Convince me that ú260,000 will be money well spent.'
'Why did it take this long? All the big projects are multi-disciplinary. Look at an issue like renewable energy - it's civil, mechanical and electrical. This should help to attract more young people into engineering.'
'My first reaction was 'how exciting'. But I have one reservation - what about our synergy with the other built environment institutions. Many of us are CIWEM members, IStructE members, but almost none of us are members of the IMechE, IEE or IiE. This is a wonderful solution if we can absorb the built environment institutions too.'
'The members might see far fewer advantages than we do.
Some of our regions are far more active than other institutions. We may be more vulnerable having the highest number of dual and triple memberships. So it's a selling job to be done.'
'My immediate reaction was that I saw no reason to merge. But I do see a huge advantage in an Institution of Engineers where the ICE and Institution of Structural Engineers have a specialism.'
'It is hard not to become excited by this idea. But excitement alone is not enough to justify it. There are hard questions to answer.
Who would be the new voice and where would the civils be in that voice? Would we be diluted? It is a big idea, but is it too big an idea? Certainly it is too big to decide on by November - but it is an opportunity that we must grasp.'
'I already see civil engineers as playing the role of integrator of disciplines, so personally I don't have a problem - but not everybody will see it this way.'
'Yes I am excited, but I have reservations. Don't underestimate the decision we being asked to make, nor how we must effectively communicate it to others. Everything has to be totally transparent.'
'The devil is in the detail. What reassurances are there that the other institutions share our vision?'
'Everybody is coming to me saying that we are selling the ICE down the river. No-one is coming to me with positives. We have to make members see we are looking far beyond the building at Great George Street and exams.'
'Here we have some radical thinking but I don't think the other institutions or ourselves yet realise how radical the change to four faculties is. If we can persuade people of the value of this, then we have something to move on.'
'Many other countries already operate this way.
Can we learn from them?'
'The strength of the ICE is in the regions - the other institutions are not so strong here.'
'The ICE's ability to influence is already being diminished but we need to quantify for members the reasons why this is a good idea.'
'Don't forget the graduates and students.'
'If we can get alongside some of the new technologies being used elsewhere in engineering we can revitalise the construction industry.'
'We must properly disseminate the process to members - if not we risk flushing away ú260,000 by falling at the first hurdle when we ask members to vote.'