UK-Spec: How do I use STAR here?

This is not the best way to use STAR. Instead, STAR can be used to describe solutions/problem solving etc. IT is possible to use STAR to describe personal technical problem solving/RCA projects etc and incorporate in evidence of several competencies and commitments. 3 or 4 examples should allow you to demonstrate the majority of commitments and competencies and then add some sentences to cover off any missing competencies. 

can I also suggest to consider consulting a PRA? These are volunteers trained to help applicants to prepare applications.  pra.theiet.org/search-advisor

Hi, absolutely as Gerald says, but also:

THE SELF ASSESSMENT IS NOT THE APPLICATION!!!!

The page limit refers to the Employment History (and the information pages around that), which is where your application goes, the self assessment is for your own use to check that you feel ready to submit. Yes, this is confusing!

So take Gerald's advice, but in the Employment History section. For each role talk through the projects you did, using STAR if you want, to bring out how you've shown the competences. You don't have to use STAR, but some applicants find it useful. 

P.S. I assume you are using Career Manager? If you click on the information [i] button near the top of the Employment History page you'll find guidance there on how to use STAR, as well as more general guidance on filling in this section.  

Thanks,

Andy

Thank you Andy for the clarification, I really got confused in this part.  

Thank you Gerard, 
I would look for a PRA after having UK Specs completed then we could discuss better about something that I would need to improve.

Hi Paulo,

Actually I would strongly suggest contacting one right now - otherwise you could spend a lot of time writing things against the competences that you don't need to. You don't need to have anything to show a PRA, I think you will find a first conversation will be a great help to make the whole process easier.

When candidates approach me as a PRA with a list of competences which they have spent hours working on they sometimes get very upset when I have explain that a lot of what they have written is not relevant to their application! We'd much rather be approached early on so we can get you on the right path to begin with.

(P.S. Apologies, but don't approach me as I'm not taking on any more applicants.) 

Wishing you all the best for a successful application,

Andy

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.

People rather overthink this and try and make it more about a rigid structure (S... T.... A.... R) .... But it's really about setting briefly a context, explaing what YOU specifically did and then outlining the result

I feel its less a case of overthinking and more that some people benefit from structure. If STAR (or another similar approach) doesn't work for you then its ok. But I know of people that struggle with open ended questions and taking a structured approach often helps them.

I think you're right Mark, there is a big problem that (if they are applying correctly) they are faced with a blank sheet to fill in. It's no surprise that they go for the self-assessment form instead which is much more structured, but unfortunately isn't what's wanted.

However, I think rather than STAR it would be better to define a structured approach that is fitted more closely to what's needed. Something like (and I've just made all these acronyms up very quickly so far from perfect!):

For each Employment History:

• B: Business, what is your employer's business 
• O: Objective, what is the purpose of your role
• R: Responsibility, overall what are you personally responsible for
• E: Examples, for current / recent employment give two or three example projects

And then for each of these example projects:

• P: Problem, what was the problem you had to solve
• R: Root cause, how you got to the root cause of the issue
• I: Investigation, how you developed solutions
• S: Selection, how you selected the preferred solution
• M: Manufacture, how you got the preferred solution into practice
• S: Service, how you ensured the solution worked in service

And for each of these project steps consider:

• W: Who, who did you work with
• I: Inform, how did you Inform them and how did they inform you (how did you get feedback)
• R: Responsibility, what were you personally responsible for at this stage
• E: Economics (and Environment), what cost constraints, time constraints, environmental constraints (if applicable) did you have to work within, and how did you manage these
• S: Standards, what standards and legal requirements did you have to work within, and how did you manage these