This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

CEng Application Verification/Supporters Guidance

hi all,

I am in the process of submitting my CEng application via career manager. I have had my application reviewed by a PRA and they have advised it is in a suitable position to submit. 

I have forwarded my application on to two supporters and they are slightly confused with regards to their input requirements /contribution on the second screen - the textboxes related to each competency. Their view is that perhaps i should've filled in these sections for them to ‘agree/disagree’ with, but i cannot see where i would've done this in the application process on career manager.

The supporters are CEng with different Institutions so don't know the in's and out's of the IET system, and perhaps this is where the confusion stems from - I have selected these supporters  as they work with me frequently (line manager etc.) and i don't have any IET CEng colleagues whom i could call upon as a supporter.  

I was wondering if there is any formal guidance I can provide to my supporters so they can appropriately fill in their portion of the verification stages as to avoid the application being rejected. 

please can anyone advise or forward/provide a link to any guidance  so i can send to my supporters.

thank you,

Guy

  • Hi Guy,

    The CEng/IEng registration guidance notes are quite clear that the candidate completes only section 1 of the supporter form and the rest of the form is completed by the supporter. This is of course referring to the paper form and not the Career Manager online application but the section being referred to is the candidate details (name, etc.).

    I have seen comments from assessors who are very critical of supporter forms where it is obvious that the candidate has completed the contribution on behalf of the supporters and such applications are reviewed much more stringently than might otherwise be the case to prevent fraud (a candidate using different accounts to act as his/her own supporter).

    You should have a copy of the guidance notes anyway (available at www.theiet.org › ceng-and-ieng-career-manager-application-guidance-notes)

    Best wishes for success with your application.

    Alasdair

  • Hi Alasdair,

    many thanks for your prompt reply.

    Apologies, but I don't think I have explained myself very well. 

    When my supporters have received the email link to verify the application, upon opening the link they are met with 4 sections to complete. 

    The first section covers ‘my details’ which is in regards to the supporters details (name, membership number etc.). 

    The second section is ‘view application’ which shows the supporter the application form i have submitted within career manager. 

    The third section is ‘Verify’. This section asks the supporter to verify if the accountability diagram is  a true or close representation, and then lists the 5 UK-SPEC competencies (A-E) and lists the check boxes stating “not known”, “marginally accept”, “adequately accept”, “strongly accept” and provides a text box beneath - It is this portion of the process they are asking for some guidance on. 

    The reason they are asking for guidance is that they do not know what they are ‘accepting’ from the check boxes nor do they know what text is expected from them within these text boxes (as each box allows for 3000 characters of text) - they also cannot identify anywhere where it is stipulates what the supporter is expected to input i.e. are they to write a significant amount of text, provide their view on my competence against each competency, provide a short statement etc?  I have tried to attach a screenshot (provided to me by my supporter) where they have asked for some guidance of navigating the section.

     any advice as to what they should be noting/writing here would be much appreciated. 

    thanks

    Guy

    c0e4e3e430ce67c6bce14e70bd28e7eb-original-image.png
  • The third section is ‘Verify’. This section asks the supporter to verify if the accountability diagram is  a true or close representation, and then lists the 5 UK-SPEC competencies (A-E) and lists the check boxes stating “not known”, “marginally accept”, “adequately accept”, “strongly accept” and provides a text box beneath - It is this portion of the process they are asking for some guidance on.

    Hi Guy,

    When my supporter filled in these sections, they offered a good paragraph of text for each section with a reason why I met the relevant competency. The supporter is ‘supporting’ your application, so any additional wording to give examples of work is excellent, i.e. Guy showed outstanding leadership on projects x, y, z. In summary, I would ask them to provide examples of things you worked on that they were involved with that help support your competence.

    Harry

  • Yes, “accept” is a strange word, “support” would be better. But in the end exactly as Harry says it's just a matter of the supporter stating where they believe you sit against those competences with a brief justification. Some supporters will relate this back to evidence on your form, others will just give their opinion. Some will write loads, most won't.

    The best supporters come across as thoughtful, honest, and clearly professional. Those that are prepared to be honest about your flaws but state clearly why those flaws do not prevent you from showing the competences. (If they think you don't show the competences they should be advising you not to apply!) And those who are honest about any competences they have not had the opportunity to observe (for example, your management skills) and tick the “not known” box. 

    The far less useful are those supporters who tick “strongly agree” for everything and just write “fully support” in the boxes - marginally better than nothing but not much better!

    As  a PRA I (hopefully!) know the competences pretty well, and having also acted as supporter for a couple of successful applications for colleagues recently I found I could summarise my support in each of these boxes into a paragraph considerably shorter than this post - in fact probably about as long as this paragraph I'm now writing. Exactly has Harry say, which piece(s) of the candidates' work and/or role I am basing this support on, whether in my honest and confidential opinion they marginally, adequately or strongly meet the competence (I put it in words as well as ticking the box just to be clear) and perhaps briefly why if I think there are particular points to bring out, and any caveats (e.g. “based on my work with this candidate on xxx project over a yyyy month period”) and opportunities for development for the candidate.

    Not that I've been in this position for a while, but when I was supporting candidates where I wasn't also their PRA I would also bring out anything which I thought they had not made fully clear in their application. (As a PRA I'd be beating them up to get it right in their application in the first place ? ) Along the lines of “I would like to emphasise that for the last 18 months Chris has acted as my deputy for all line management activities, including all task planning and supervision for the team when I am absent.” So do tell your supporters they are free to add in any “selling points” that they know of from their direct experience that you may have missed or , in their opinion, under emphasised. But it must be honest.

    Good luck with your application!

    Cheers, Andy

  • I think that Harry's comments sum it up very well. The supporters should be confirming (or not) that the accountability diagram is correct and then for each competence (A to E) identifying whether, in their opinion, you demonstrate that competence, selecting from “Not Known”, “Marginally Accept”, “Adequately Accept” or “Strongly Accept”. They should then be providing comments which will support why they have chosen that particular check-box. Obviously selecting “Strongly Accept” for C (Leadership, Management etc.) and then just saying “He covered my management duties while I was on holiday” is not going to be sufficient, but something which actually backs up their choice will be fine.

    How much needs to be written is a bit of a moot point. They certainly don't need to use all 3000 characters but just saying “I strongly endorse Guy's management abilities” doesn't actually provide any evidence that the assessors can use. I would suggest at least a paragraph.

    Alasdair

  • GuyH: 
    I was wondering if there is any formal guidance I can provide to my supporters so they can appropriately fill in their portion of the verification stages as to avoid the application being rejected. 

    The "paper" supporters form does have a bit of guidance, in that at least it summarises what each competence is for each registration level (I'm not saying this form is up to date, but it may help):

    Took me a while to find it, I found it on the EngTech page on the main IET website. (Ignore the fact the doc title says “EngTech”, it covers all registration grades.)

    Cheers,

    Andy

  • Andy must have posted his response while I was composing mine. He has provided some very good points and I would endorse his comment that the supporters do not need to tick “Strongly Accept” for each competence. If I see a supporters comments where at least one is only “Adequately Accept” I have more confidence that the supporters understand what they are supposed to be doing - though I take the statements as the evidence anyway and not the check-box.

    Alasdair

  • Yes, as Alasdair says, if they do make particular points it needs to be clear that they are writing these to emphasise your competence (or to fill in gaps), not that they think this is all the evidence that is needed to show you are competent!