Is Car Maintenance CPD?

Edited for the fact that my laptop deleted a part of what I had originally typed!


Andy,

As so often, full agreement with you on all points.  I would add a little more though. It is damned hard work keeping up the online system - it is hugely demanding.  I did have a valiant attempt to engage with it at the end of last year and early this year, however, it was such hard work, so time consuming, that I stalled.  I think it's also worth noting that, to a large extent, much of what I did was retrospective for what my CPD activity had been, rather than forward planning (I did do a little of that, but little is the operative word).  


Having said that, dealing firstly with your point that, for the IET to truly demonstrate that it is keeping up engineering standards, there should be a form of demonstration that engineers are at least maintaining their competence, or furthering it, and if there is no record, how can they do that? Taking that in combination with my point about the retrospective nature of what I did, then maybe that could be an optional approach available - a simple log of CPD undertaken, rather than the rest of the "paraphernalia" inherent in the online system?  And yes, for that, I would frankly prefer to simply log it either in a spreadsheet, or just in my calendar and provide a summary at regular intervals of what I've entered in my calendar.


However, I think that is all well and good for a well established engineer of middle to advanced years (I'm in the latter category).  This is where Andy's previous post does touch on the issues - it certainly does become easier as you get older, and the reason for that is that you already have a wide spectrum of skills and experience which, providing you keep using them, are automatically maintained, so new CPD very much revolves around keeping pace with changing technology, or changing approaches to old problems, or simply the things that occur whilst in the midst of doing your job.  Andy is also right that it also embraces activities with others from which you learn - my role as PRI very much falls into that category as I learn from those who come for interview, but also, I have found that putting thought into how well somebody else does their job often prompts some inward reflection on how well you are doing your job - I've often found that a useful tool for self appraisal. On a similar note, I also find that teaching/presenting/advising others on engineering issues causes you to think carefully about what you are telling them and often causes a review of your own understanding as a necessary precursor. I have often found the "penny dropping" on something I thought I understood fully, but suddenly realise a new level of understanding from the very act of preparing it for presentation to others. 


So, the point of all this is that CPD tends to arise naturally, as Andy rightly pointed out, in the course of your day to day life, either in your job or in volunteering or professional support activity. As an example, taking another point made previously by (I think) Andy (though it could have been Roy Bowdler) in the more "senior" segment of my practice, I undertake a role that is usually expected to be broad and shallow rather than narrow and deep.  So, I had developed a fairly good understanding at high level of the most obvious technological development relevant to me - IP technology.  But then I discovered that I ended up between two different interfacing designers who were disagreeing with each other about the right approach and needed to give consideration to which one was "right" (by which I mean the best solution).  Furthermore, when the organisation that performs network integration came to do the work, day after day they came back with a lack of success - "we have not been able to bring it under management" - and each time raised a tweak required to overcome it.  My reaction - why on earth didn't I know this previously?! I got so frustrated with this that I decided it was no longer sufficient to be broad and shallow, that I needed deep too - hence I am now self-studying for CCNA, the Cisco basic accreditation.  I know I've posted this previously, as Mehmood responded about it, but in this context, my point is that issues arising at work drove the decision to do this.  I didn't get to it from an annual (or other interval) reflection of my development needs. My reflection is as simple as "do I have the understanding to do the work I have to do". 


So, for me and others in my position (which clearly includes Andy, and probably many others of you) recording what I've done (not forgetting the many quite small things that Andy mentioned arise during the natural course of your engineering activity) would be sufficient, and providing a summary of this to the IET would demonstrate what needs demonstrating. 


However, where I think the online system - or something else that achieves the same thing - comes in is at earlier stages in your career where development is a much more operative word.  You may have already attained a basic level (which you presumably have if you're a member, and most definitely have if you are registered at any level), but this is where Mehmood's comment about improving earnings comes in - if you are at that earlier career stage, you want to aim to progress.  This doesn't necessarily arise naturally out of the work that you do - it may do, but there's no certainty of it.  And unless you force yourself into a process where you do review where you are, what you've achieved, what you want to achieve and consciously think about what you need to do to achieve it, then you can end up drifting around, or not making any progress at all - or at the very least, not as much as you owe to yourself. In this situation, having a regular process which focuses you on doing this review and making a specific plan for your CPD is a useful discipline for self-improvement.  Some may manage this naturally without needing such a process (and that will be because they are doing it unconsciously all of the time anyway) but I don't believe that's true of many, and there is a risk of lacking focus, in which case a system that forces that discipline is very useful.  


For many employees, this takes place already jointly with their employers in the form of annual reviews/one to ones, etc.  It doesn't generally happen for those who work as contractors. But even even those who do this as part of their employers' systems, some employers do it better than others.  If they do it well, it is not enforced by the employer, it is simply the employer facilitating the employee to develop their own needs, goals and plan for action.  However, too many either only give this lip service, or they use it as an opportunity to inflict their preconceived plan on the individual - and it isn't necessarily the best plan for the individual. Worse still, in some cases, it is no more than a mechanism for controlling salary reviews! 


So, after all of this, for those who are at this stage in their career, I think the question has to be "is there already a workable and acceptable regular review system in place which meets their individual needs?" If the answer is yes, it should be sufficient to submit the record of that process.  If not, then the individual needs another mechanism, and they may be able to implement their own - but need to do a little reading to identify the key components - "where am I now?" What have I done well, what not so well?  Where do I want to go next?  What do I need to do to do so?  This is where the IET online tool could come in.   It's there as a service to members, they can use it, or they can look at it, understand the process, and implement their own system based on that process.

Edited for the fact that my laptop deleted a part of what I had originally typed!


Andy,

As so often, full agreement with you on all points.  I would add a little more though. It is damned hard work keeping up the online system - it is hugely demanding.  I did have a valiant attempt to engage with it at the end of last year and early this year, however, it was such hard work, so time consuming, that I stalled.  I think it's also worth noting that, to a large extent, much of what I did was retrospective for what my CPD activity had been, rather than forward planning (I did do a little of that, but little is the operative word).  


Having said that, dealing firstly with your point that, for the IET to truly demonstrate that it is keeping up engineering standards, there should be a form of demonstration that engineers are at least maintaining their competence, or furthering it, and if there is no record, how can they do that? Taking that in combination with my point about the retrospective nature of what I did, then maybe that could be an optional approach available - a simple log of CPD undertaken, rather than the rest of the "paraphernalia" inherent in the online system?  And yes, for that, I would frankly prefer to simply log it either in a spreadsheet, or just in my calendar and provide a summary at regular intervals of what I've entered in my calendar.


However, I think that is all well and good for a well established engineer of middle to advanced years (I'm in the latter category).  This is where Andy's previous post does touch on the issues - it certainly does become easier as you get older, and the reason for that is that you already have a wide spectrum of skills and experience which, providing you keep using them, are automatically maintained, so new CPD very much revolves around keeping pace with changing technology, or changing approaches to old problems, or simply the things that occur whilst in the midst of doing your job.  Andy is also right that it also embraces activities with others from which you learn - my role as PRI very much falls into that category as I learn from those who come for interview, but also, I have found that putting thought into how well somebody else does their job often prompts some inward reflection on how well you are doing your job - I've often found that a useful tool for self appraisal. On a similar note, I also find that teaching/presenting/advising others on engineering issues causes you to think carefully about what you are telling them and often causes a review of your own understanding as a necessary precursor. I have often found the "penny dropping" on something I thought I understood fully, but suddenly realise a new level of understanding from the very act of preparing it for presentation to others. 


So, the point of all this is that CPD tends to arise naturally, as Andy rightly pointed out, in the course of your day to day life, either in your job or in volunteering or professional support activity. As an example, taking another point made previously by (I think) Andy (though it could have been Roy Bowdler) in the more "senior" segment of my practice, I undertake a role that is usually expected to be broad and shallow rather than narrow and deep.  So, I had developed a fairly good understanding at high level of the most obvious technological development relevant to me - IP technology.  But then I discovered that I ended up between two different interfacing designers who were disagreeing with each other about the right approach and needed to give consideration to which one was "right" (by which I mean the best solution).  Furthermore, when the organisation that performs network integration came to do the work, day after day they came back with a lack of success - "we have not been able to bring it under management" - and each time raised a tweak required to overcome it.  My reaction - why on earth didn't I know this previously?! I got so frustrated with this that I decided it was no longer sufficient to be broad and shallow, that I needed deep too - hence I am now self-studying for CCNA, the Cisco basic accreditation.  I know I've posted this previously, as Mehmood responded about it, but in this context, my point is that issues arising at work drove the decision to do this.  I didn't get to it from an annual (or other interval) reflection of my development needs. My reflection is as simple as "do I have the understanding to do the work I have to do". 


So, for me and others in my position (which clearly includes Andy, and probably many others of you) recording what I've done (not forgetting the many quite small things that Andy mentioned arise during the natural course of your engineering activity) would be sufficient, and providing a summary of this to the IET would demonstrate what needs demonstrating. 


However, where I think the online system - or something else that achieves the same thing - comes in is at earlier stages in your career where development is a much more operative word.  You may have already attained a basic level (which you presumably have if you're a member, and most definitely have if you are registered at any level), but this is where Mehmood's comment about improving earnings comes in - if you are at that earlier career stage, you want to aim to progress.  This doesn't necessarily arise naturally out of the work that you do - it may do, but there's no certainty of it.  And unless you force yourself into a process where you do review where you are, what you've achieved, what you want to achieve and consciously think about what you need to do to achieve it, then you can end up drifting around, or not making any progress at all - or at the very least, not as much as you owe to yourself. In this situation, having a regular process which focuses you on doing this review and making a specific plan for your CPD is a useful discipline for self-improvement.  Some may manage this naturally without needing such a process (and that will be because they are doing it unconsciously all of the time anyway) but I don't believe that's true of many, and there is a risk of lacking focus, in which case a system that forces that discipline is very useful.  


For many employees, this takes place already jointly with their employers in the form of annual reviews/one to ones, etc.  It doesn't generally happen for those who work as contractors. But even even those who do this as part of their employers' systems, some employers do it better than others.  If they do it well, it is not enforced by the employer, it is simply the employer facilitating the employee to develop their own needs, goals and plan for action.  However, too many either only give this lip service, or they use it as an opportunity to inflict their preconceived plan on the individual - and it isn't necessarily the best plan for the individual. Worse still, in some cases, it is no more than a mechanism for controlling salary reviews! 


So, after all of this, for those who are at this stage in their career, I think the question has to be "is there already a workable and acceptable regular review system in place which meets their individual needs?" If the answer is yes, it should be sufficient to submit the record of that process.  If not, then the individual needs another mechanism, and they may be able to implement their own - but need to do a little reading to identify the key components - "where am I now?" What have I done well, what not so well?  Where do I want to go next?  What do I need to do to do so?  This is where the IET online tool could come in.   It's there as a service to members, they can use it, or they can look at it, understand the process, and implement their own system based on that process.