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

  • State Suggested Helpful Answer
  • Replies 15 replies
  • Answers 2 answers
  • Subscribers 16 subscribers
  • Views 5356 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in

CEng Additional Evidence Required

Ahmed Taha

Hi everyone, 

I wanted to have your with the ongoing review process of my application with the IET.

I submitted my application in May 2023, verified by three supporters. In August, I received a request for Further Evidence, specifically related to competencies A and B in the self-assessment section. In response, I submitted five new case studies, each tailored to address competencies A1, A2, B1, B2, and B3.

Recently, I received another communication from the IET, which posed several detailed questions seeking additional insights into my skills and knowledge. I have prepared my responses, but I find these queries somewhat repetitive, considering the comprehensive details about my professional roles are outlined in my CV, which has been shared with them.

The questions are as follows:

  1. Have you cited as a principal contractor role, and if so, can you explain about this specific role and who signed off your work?  
  2. As you have acted as a main contractor, have you done any detailed design for a contractor to the build against it, or is the design work you do conceptual? (i.e. the contractor works up the detailed design, and if so who signs off your work?)  
  3. Have you done conceptual design on behalf of a client, and if so, who signed off your work?  
  4. Can you provide a detailed short circuit and load flow analysis and generator sizing calculations? Did you do any protection settings as well as an earthing study?

Note: I have not worked as a principal contractor. However, I functioned as the main designer representing the principal contractor. And this was clearly indicated in my CV and my originally submitted application.

I have prepared a detailed response that I can share with anyone willing to review to ensure it adequately addresses the IET's queries.

Moreover, if you have any general recommendations that could be beneficial at this stage, I would appreciate to discuss them further.

Regards,

Ahmed

Parents
  • 0

    Ahmed,

    Looking at those questions, they really ask about 'technical leadership' and ''Judgement'. The reason you are being asked for FE in A&B is because your application does not make clear what is the level of your technical involvement, how key, or what influence you had on significant technical decision and how you drove the execution.

    As Andy said, a PRA should be able to help walk you through the UK Spec A1, A2, B1, B2 & B3 so you understand what is needed and can then make it clear

  • 0 in reply to Graham Prebble

    And there's perhaps a useful general point for all applicants to add to Graham's excellent answer, which applies to interviews as much as to requests for further information, and which I've often seen candidates get wrong.

    Where the assessors or interviewers are struggling to see clear evidence of one of the competences (particularly if they think the applicant has the competence but hasn't expressed it yet), they will often try to help the applicant by asking for specific evidence which they think the candidate must have, rather than asking generally about that competence. So (to make up a random but realistic example) rather than asking "do you have evidence for competence C3?" or "do you have evidence that you have led a team?" they may ask specifically "in your role as lead designer on this project did you (or how did you) make sure that the installation and test team followed your designs correctly?" This is trying to be helpful, they are actually giving you clues as to where in your work you might show leadership even if you don't have direct reports. However, too often candidates answer the question literally, just saying "I didn't, it wasn't my responsibility". Correct and true but unhelpful to anyone.

    When asked questions like this it's important to think, as Graham mentions, "which of the competences are they trying to get me to show?" Then the candidate can say, for example, "I wasn't in a position to take that responsibility on this project, however on this other project I took technical leadership by..."

    (Incidentally, in that case the candidate would need to give a good reason as to why they weren't taking that responsibility on the project in question. The point of the competences is that they are a full set of behaviours and attitudes which the EC expects professional engineers to show - so if we're not taking responsibility for one or more of them ourselves on any particular project we need to be showing that we're truly confident that someone else is. Just saying "it's not my responsibility" or "it's not my job" is not good enough.)

    I know some (unsuccessful) candidates have complained that the assessors / interviewers have "asked the wrong question". It's vital to understand that all they are interested in is whether you show the competences or not. So if they've asked a question from an angle that's not relevant to your work, think - and if necessary ask - which competence they are looking for, then you can answer the underlying question. 

    Now it could be asked "why don't they just ask directly for evidence of (say) C3?" And in the first round of clarification, if needed, that is exactly what is asked for. After that the assessors and interviewers will take it that that approach clearly isn't working, so they will give the applicant a second chance by using a different approach by asking these types of specific question.

    As long as they are asking questions they are trying to help you succeed. 

    Thanks,

    Andy

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Graham Prebble

    And there's perhaps a useful general point for all applicants to add to Graham's excellent answer, which applies to interviews as much as to requests for further information, and which I've often seen candidates get wrong.

    Where the assessors or interviewers are struggling to see clear evidence of one of the competences (particularly if they think the applicant has the competence but hasn't expressed it yet), they will often try to help the applicant by asking for specific evidence which they think the candidate must have, rather than asking generally about that competence. So (to make up a random but realistic example) rather than asking "do you have evidence for competence C3?" or "do you have evidence that you have led a team?" they may ask specifically "in your role as lead designer on this project did you (or how did you) make sure that the installation and test team followed your designs correctly?" This is trying to be helpful, they are actually giving you clues as to where in your work you might show leadership even if you don't have direct reports. However, too often candidates answer the question literally, just saying "I didn't, it wasn't my responsibility". Correct and true but unhelpful to anyone.

    When asked questions like this it's important to think, as Graham mentions, "which of the competences are they trying to get me to show?" Then the candidate can say, for example, "I wasn't in a position to take that responsibility on this project, however on this other project I took technical leadership by..."

    (Incidentally, in that case the candidate would need to give a good reason as to why they weren't taking that responsibility on the project in question. The point of the competences is that they are a full set of behaviours and attitudes which the EC expects professional engineers to show - so if we're not taking responsibility for one or more of them ourselves on any particular project we need to be showing that we're truly confident that someone else is. Just saying "it's not my responsibility" or "it's not my job" is not good enough.)

    I know some (unsuccessful) candidates have complained that the assessors / interviewers have "asked the wrong question". It's vital to understand that all they are interested in is whether you show the competences or not. So if they've asked a question from an angle that's not relevant to your work, think - and if necessary ask - which competence they are looking for, then you can answer the underlying question. 

    Now it could be asked "why don't they just ask directly for evidence of (say) C3?" And in the first round of clarification, if needed, that is exactly what is asked for. After that the assessors and interviewers will take it that that approach clearly isn't working, so they will give the applicant a second chance by using a different approach by asking these types of specific question.

    As long as they are asking questions they are trying to help you succeed. 

    Thanks,

    Andy

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