Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 11 replies
  • Subscribers 8 subscribers
  • Views 1536 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Additional Evidence of Underpinning Knowledge & Understanding

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
I have received the following questions to provide the additional evidence of underpinning knowledge & understanding.
1. Describe the situation in which you were allocated responsibility for technical/ engineering decisions

2. Describe how you presented technical information e.g. plans and diagrams for review by other engineers in your field

3. Explain how you carried out a technical investigation, including the gathering of data, identification of sources; and  explain the results of the investigation and how you ensured the quality of data that was used

4. Describe how you derived and presented the results of your investigations: for instance, describe how you used calculations, simulations, prototypes and/or engineering software to guide your technical/ engineering decisions. Explain the limitations of the techniques you used

5. Give a brief reasoned justification for your technical/ engineering decisions

6. Summarise the outcome of the project(s) and indicate how technological changes would affect your methods and/or decisions


Now my confusion is...

a.  I am working as Central Workshop Manager in a construction company, I'm in a dilemma to prepare the evidence as it is not clear to me whether asking about a particular incident related to a equipment in a construction project or the engineering involved during planning, execution, estimation, installation, maintenance and management of total equipment in a construction project. 

b. Question number 3 to 6 is very close to a incident/accident investigation for a particular equipment


If I provide the evidence in (b) way, it will be very specific but a very little scope of engineering. Whether in (a) way I can provide an comprehensive engineering evidence since equipment planning, selection, installation, maintenance and management in a construction project.


Please advise. 

Parents
  • 0
    Tushar ,

    The question has been asked to allow you the opportunity to illustrate your engineering knowledge and understanding. It isn’t normally asked of someone with good academic evidence.
    However, sometimes engineers might gain a deeply technical/scientific/mathematical degree only to make little use of that knowledge in their work for years, so assessors might suspect that key elements have been forgotten? They will usually give the benefit of the doubt if you hold a fully accredited degree.

    In the eyes of some IET assessors, the type of work that you are describing might be better aligned with the IEng standard. Did you discuss this with an advisor? The assessors might consider that you are organising fairly standardised and well-understood equipment to support mostly routine construction activities. This type of activity can potentially be carried out without the deeper level of technical thinking that they expect of a Chartered Engineer.

    You need to identify a set of circumstances that best illustrate how you deployed engineering expertise. The six questions are very loosely based on the attributes one might expect to see in an MEng graduate.

    Do a bit of internet research comparing “scientific method” with the “engineering design process”. Many engineers are quite “operational” rather than “design”, but they often use good rigorous methods to achieve optimal results, not just create an engineered artefact or system.

Reply
  • 0
    Tushar ,

    The question has been asked to allow you the opportunity to illustrate your engineering knowledge and understanding. It isn’t normally asked of someone with good academic evidence.
    However, sometimes engineers might gain a deeply technical/scientific/mathematical degree only to make little use of that knowledge in their work for years, so assessors might suspect that key elements have been forgotten? They will usually give the benefit of the doubt if you hold a fully accredited degree.

    In the eyes of some IET assessors, the type of work that you are describing might be better aligned with the IEng standard. Did you discuss this with an advisor? The assessors might consider that you are organising fairly standardised and well-understood equipment to support mostly routine construction activities. This type of activity can potentially be carried out without the deeper level of technical thinking that they expect of a Chartered Engineer.

    You need to identify a set of circumstances that best illustrate how you deployed engineering expertise. The six questions are very loosely based on the attributes one might expect to see in an MEng graduate.

    Do a bit of internet research comparing “scientific method” with the “engineering design process”. Many engineers are quite “operational” rather than “design”, but they often use good rigorous methods to achieve optimal results, not just create an engineered artefact or system.

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines