Hi Mark,

Very good question, a few thoughts:

UKSPEC can be more than a point in time measurements tool, it can also be an excellent forward looking competence framework. The IMechE's MPDS scheme for example is, if used correctly, a really good way of using the UKSPEC framework to guide engineers in their development almost irrespective of registration. ("Why are you promoting another institute's scheme?" "Because it's a good one! If the IET had a similar one I'd promote that...")

BUT it's the "if used correctly" part: too many organisations use UKSPEC to guide new entrants experience to get the right ticks in boxes to gain registration, rather than the important thing being to reach that level of development after which registration will come as an automatic bonus. E.g., and very typically, "we'll get you to do the project management on this minor project because then you can tick the box for your C competence" rather than "let's check UK spec for competences that would be valuable to you and to us...ahh yes, project management, we need to find ways that you can develop your skills in that because then you'll be a better all round engineer".

There are a range of specific technical competence schemes I've come across, however these tend to be to assure competence for public protection rather than helping career development. That said, they do tend to help career development as a side benefit. One I regularly come across in my work is IRSE licensing for railway signalling competences.

I think the big gap in engineering is competence frameworks in management development. We have too many "accidental managers", engineers who are promoted or moved sideways into management without any development support, or who want to move into management and are not sure how to gain this support to allow them entry. The CMI have some tools for this, although they tend to be based around qualifications rather than a framework.

Does anyone know of any good competency frameworks for management?

(I'd say not CMgr...nothing against CMgr, I am one and it's a good certification I'd recommend, but again it's an assessment at a point in time rather than a chart of how to get there.) 

The sideways move question is fascinating. I've taken a number of sideways moves in my career and it's really really difficult knowing how to manage competences such that you are attractive to employ in another role - I have on occasion spent several years trying to move sideways, it can be really hard. I've certainly found that luck (and the gift of the gab!) has played far more of a part in my sideways moves than it ideally should. Very often the challenge is that industries focus on specific industry competences rather than underlying competences - would you rather employ a careless engineer who thoroughly understands your industry, or a careful engineer who needs to learn your industry? The only framework I know of that helps with this is UKSPEC, but that is often far to broad to be of much help. Any other thoughts?

The fact that I spent this morning reviewing a client's competency management system made this all quite timely as I was already thinking about this stuff 

Cheers,

Andy

Hi Mark,

Very good question, a few thoughts:

UKSPEC can be more than a point in time measurements tool, it can also be an excellent forward looking competence framework. The IMechE's MPDS scheme for example is, if used correctly, a really good way of using the UKSPEC framework to guide engineers in their development almost irrespective of registration. ("Why are you promoting another institute's scheme?" "Because it's a good one! If the IET had a similar one I'd promote that...")

BUT it's the "if used correctly" part: too many organisations use UKSPEC to guide new entrants experience to get the right ticks in boxes to gain registration, rather than the important thing being to reach that level of development after which registration will come as an automatic bonus. E.g., and very typically, "we'll get you to do the project management on this minor project because then you can tick the box for your C competence" rather than "let's check UK spec for competences that would be valuable to you and to us...ahh yes, project management, we need to find ways that you can develop your skills in that because then you'll be a better all round engineer".

There are a range of specific technical competence schemes I've come across, however these tend to be to assure competence for public protection rather than helping career development. That said, they do tend to help career development as a side benefit. One I regularly come across in my work is IRSE licensing for railway signalling competences.

I think the big gap in engineering is competence frameworks in management development. We have too many "accidental managers", engineers who are promoted or moved sideways into management without any development support, or who want to move into management and are not sure how to gain this support to allow them entry. The CMI have some tools for this, although they tend to be based around qualifications rather than a framework.

Does anyone know of any good competency frameworks for management?

(I'd say not CMgr...nothing against CMgr, I am one and it's a good certification I'd recommend, but again it's an assessment at a point in time rather than a chart of how to get there.) 

The sideways move question is fascinating. I've taken a number of sideways moves in my career and it's really really difficult knowing how to manage competences such that you are attractive to employ in another role - I have on occasion spent several years trying to move sideways, it can be really hard. I've certainly found that luck (and the gift of the gab!) has played far more of a part in my sideways moves than it ideally should. Very often the challenge is that industries focus on specific industry competences rather than underlying competences - would you rather employ a careless engineer who thoroughly understands your industry, or a careful engineer who needs to learn your industry? The only framework I know of that helps with this is UKSPEC, but that is often far to broad to be of much help. Any other thoughts?

The fact that I spent this morning reviewing a client's competency management system made this all quite timely as I was already thinking about this stuff 

Cheers,

Andy

Andy Millar said:

- would you rather employ a careless engineer who thoroughly understands your industry, or a careful engineer who needs to learn your industry?

Cannot agree more. Put another way, this is "recruit for attitude not skills, you can teach skills". So much emphasis seems to be on ticking boxes these days, far beyond the use of "don't forget this thing". Perhaps that is why there is no easy answer to the original question.

Andy Millar said:

We have too many "accidental managers", engineers who are promoted or moved sideways into management

But we know one reason for this - engineers are generally undervalued and to get the big bucks you need to become a manager and a "boss".  Again no easy answer...

Thanks Andy,

I had not really considered UK-SPEC in quite that way. Part of that is because I consider (rightly or wrongly) UK-SPEC as something for early career.  Generally most people should be able to achieve CEng within 5-10 years if they desired it.

However, what would happen if you already had your CEng and were trying to identify those competencies to develop further with your career? I don't feel UK-SPEC is all that helpful in that case because it doesn't really have descriptions that suit a senior leader (whether that be people or technical leadership).

The INCOSE competence framework (and SFIA) is a bit more balanced in this case, having descriptions starting from a relatively basic level up to expert.  But it's not perfect either.

I feel sideways moves are more common then people might realise. It's not always a role change, sometimes it's just performing the same role in a different industry. As a Systems Engineer, the profession is so broad that it would be easy to specialise in one specific area. Therefore sometimes the development is by moving sideway across the Vee.  Essentially a rotational graduate training scheme is a whole set of organised sideways moves to broaden knowledge.

Ultimately my aim is to answer the question; how do I assist an engineer at any level that wants to identify their development and can a competency framework assist? My expectation is that a range of approaches is required, but identifying those approaches will be the challenge.

Out of interest, has anyone seen any published material in this area. I'm aware of books and papers for general development concepts and have a few referenced papers (primarily from INCOSE conferences) discuss aspects of development within organisations, but not seen that much on engineering competence frameworks.

Thanks,

Mark