UK-Spec: How do I use STAR here?

You will find that there are competencies that STAR doesn't work very well for - some of the E competencies in particular can be challenging to use that technique if you don't actually have any practical examples (which not everyone does). I believe STAR is actually a recommendation rather than an absolute mandatory aspect.

One thing I was told a number of years ago, STAR can be a useful technique to structure aspects of your achievements and competencies. However, when you transfer the STAR to whatever document you are using it with, you don't always transfer the entire STAR. The example given to me is that you might only want to use A and R for a CV.

The same holds for competencies, the S can be useful to give context, but its not always needed. The A is always needed because you need to detail what you dd. You might only use R where you need to show impact.

But, every situation is unique and I don't think anyone can specify exactly what will work each time. The advice I often give is to think of the reviewers, they don't want to be reading excess material, and they do want something that's concise.

However, i would recommend maintaining the full STAR analysis somewhere. Even after you complete your professional registration, it can be useful for CV's, corporate promotions and similar uses.

I'd absolutely agree: in terms of the weighting of the different parts of STAR the professional registration applicant needs to be careful, as Mark says most of the application needs to have "I" statements in it, i.e. it's about the applicant, not the project. So to expand on Mark's post:

• Situation - the situation you had to deal with
  VERY brief, that's not about you, so just enough to give background.
• Task - the task you were given to do
  VERY brief again. And concentrate on the responsibility you were given.
• Action - the action you took
  This where most of the information goes. Focus on the word "you". "I investigated the problem, using my knowledge of..." "I identified that the root cause was..." "I identified three possible solutions which were (describe solutions VERY briefly)." "From these I proposed solution X because (again VERY briefly)" "I followed up to confirm that the solution worked by..."
• Result - what happened as a result of your action and what you learned from the experience
  Keep this short, it's nice to show that projects are successful but that's not the main thing you are trying to show. The what you learned / what you did next is more relevant to the application.

I've tried to avoid saying it in this thread, but personally I don't find STAR useful at all in registration applications. (Hence my careful wording above "some applicants find it useful"!)  I sometimes spend ages trying to explain to applicants that your application should really be all about the A, while S and T particularly are background. Often applicants love explaining S and T (because they're interesting) - but most of it doesn't tell you anything about the applicant's competence.

What I find far more useful than STAR is to get the applicant to tell the story of their roles (actions!) through the life of example projects, as I've briefly done under Action above. Do this for a couple of projects and they will have probably already shown 80%-90% of the competences (assuming they meet them!), the applicant and their PRA can then review the application against UK SPEC to check for any missing competences, usually the Es.

That all said, I can see why STAR was recommended under the Employment History, we don't want applicants to just write "2019-2025, Bloggs Exploding Equipment Case Company, employed as Design Engineer", we do want to know what they actually did in that time, which is what STAR is trying to get at. But it can lead to the wrong balance of information if it's not used in the way Mark and myself have covered.

I'd absolutely agree: in terms of the weighting of the different parts of STAR the professional registration applicant needs to be careful, as Mark says most of the application needs to have "I" statements in it, i.e. it's about the applicant, not the project. So to expand on Mark's post:

• Situation - the situation you had to deal with
  VERY brief, that's not about you, so just enough to give background.
• Task - the task you were given to do
  VERY brief again. And concentrate on the responsibility you were given.
• Action - the action you took
  This where most of the information goes. Focus on the word "you". "I investigated the problem, using my knowledge of..." "I identified that the root cause was..." "I identified three possible solutions which were (describe solutions VERY briefly)." "From these I proposed solution X because (again VERY briefly)" "I followed up to confirm that the solution worked by..."
• Result - what happened as a result of your action and what you learned from the experience
  Keep this short, it's nice to show that projects are successful but that's not the main thing you are trying to show. The what you learned / what you did next is more relevant to the application.

I've tried to avoid saying it in this thread, but personally I don't find STAR useful at all in registration applications. (Hence my careful wording above "some applicants find it useful"!)  I sometimes spend ages trying to explain to applicants that your application should really be all about the A, while S and T particularly are background. Often applicants love explaining S and T (because they're interesting) - but most of it doesn't tell you anything about the applicant's competence.

What I find far more useful than STAR is to get the applicant to tell the story of their roles (actions!) through the life of example projects, as I've briefly done under Action above. Do this for a couple of projects and they will have probably already shown 80%-90% of the competences (assuming they meet them!), the applicant and their PRA can then review the application against UK SPEC to check for any missing competences, usually the Es.

That all said, I can see why STAR was recommended under the Employment History, we don't want applicants to just write "2019-2025, Bloggs Exploding Equipment Case Company, employed as Design Engineer", we do want to know what they actually did in that time, which is what STAR is trying to get at. But it can lead to the wrong balance of information if it's not used in the way Mark and myself have covered.