Pros
Comprehensive and well-structured training program that supports early career development.
Cons
I’ve taken time before writing this review to reflect on my experience. I was one of approximately 350 employees made redundant during the COVID-19 period. While the individual delivering the news attempted to express empathy, the manner in which it was communicated felt impersonal and lacked genuine reassurance. Market challenges such as Brexit, COVID-19, and delays to major infrastructure projects like HS2 were cited as reasons for workforce reductions. However, from my perspective, these seemed to be used more as justifications for downsizing rather than genuine strategic constraints. The culture, while outwardly polished and high-profile, often lacked depth and authenticity. In some cases, this contributed to a sense of inflated egos and an environment that prioritized image over collaboration and humility. Advancement seemed heavily dependent on formal accreditation. To progress to a senior engineering position, achieving Chartered Engineer (CEng) status was mandatory—regardless of experience, capability, or contribution. This created a rigid career progression path that didn’t always recognise practical expertise. There appeared to be inefficiencies and internal competition across regional offices, with different teams bidding for the same projects—occasionally even with different architects. This sometimes led to confusion and duplication of effort, rather than a unified approach.