Today I jump started my car for the first time ever. Could this constitute CPD?
I mean, okay, it's fairly straightforward, but I did have to check how to do it, and it does involve a small amount of knowledge about batteries and electricity.
Most modern vehicles cannot be “maintained” at home except for simple tasks. Ownership propositions have also changed with many people paying a monthly fee to use their vehicle including servicing, which may only be required twice during the period they keep it.
I recall “messing around” with cars and motorbikes from around the age of 11 including driving and riding off road. This stimulated a modest interest in technical things. I then got for my 17th birthday “The AA book of the car” and for the first three vehicles I owned, a Haynes Manual was the first accessory that I bought. Like many of that time, knowledge and skills were gained through tinkering with cars, sharing knowledge and developing a community of friends helping, sharing tools etc. For example, I was a member of the MG Owners Club for some years, although I preferred the “social element” to “petrol head” stuff.
I recently spent a short time with Formula 1 in Schools colleagues, who are supported by the IET and work alongside our own efforts. My next door neighbour’s 15 year old son also recently did a work experience placement with a motor racing team , although he competes at weekends (taking after his father), he has developed an interest in the technology. So vehicles of various kinds remain an important vector for stimulating interest in and learning about technology.
Roy Pemberton emphasises an important point, that to develop others is to develop yourself, perhaps in ways that you didn’t initially intend. So for example a trip “back to the floor” for a senior manager, or a spell “on the tools” for an academically developed engineer can be excellent development, building a more empathetic understanding of other’s work. Popular pranks (no longer allowed) of years gone by sometimes involved Swarfega for example, which was unknown to some “academic engineers”.
I have on my desk a certificate signed by Chris Crane of the IIExE (now FIET) certifying that I carried out 100 hours of CPD in 1994 and also had to submit my CPD to CIPD when I was interviewed for Fellowship. I joined the initial IET CPD recording trial as a symbol of my support, but as a symbol of protest over the disrespectful treatment of experienced Incorporated Engineers have not submitted recently.
I would actually prefer that we normalised the expectation that; every professional sought some form of peer review at intervals of their choosing, which would include explaining the rationale for and benefits of development. One of the problems I see is that we often try to bureaucratise and standardise everything, when the experience of professionals engaged somehow in engineering and technology is incredibly varied. I have in the past sat in meetings where whether something should be categorised as “IPD” or “CPD” was debated at length and anything with a “smell of management” condemned as “not engineering”. I guess there are just a lot of people who like to prescribe what others should do?
I am sure that many experienced professionals would gain more from discussing their development with others, rather than counting hours. In general I’m referring to what might be termed “action learning”. I’m also suggesting a “nudge theory” approach to “normalising development”, rather than “policing CPD”. For example the threat exists of someone’s registration being removed for non-compliance ,which has its merits. However, an educated market could also ask registrants “when was your last review and can I see the summary report please”. This approach could also build confidence and reduce the fear of failure for those coming to professional registration. "Carrot & stick" in old money I suppose
Most modern vehicles cannot be “maintained” at home except for simple tasks. Ownership propositions have also changed with many people paying a monthly fee to use their vehicle including servicing, which may only be required twice during the period they keep it.
I recall “messing around” with cars and motorbikes from around the age of 11 including driving and riding off road. This stimulated a modest interest in technical things. I then got for my 17th birthday “The AA book of the car” and for the first three vehicles I owned, a Haynes Manual was the first accessory that I bought. Like many of that time, knowledge and skills were gained through tinkering with cars, sharing knowledge and developing a community of friends helping, sharing tools etc. For example, I was a member of the MG Owners Club for some years, although I preferred the “social element” to “petrol head” stuff.
I recently spent a short time with Formula 1 in Schools colleagues, who are supported by the IET and work alongside our own efforts. My next door neighbour’s 15 year old son also recently did a work experience placement with a motor racing team , although he competes at weekends (taking after his father), he has developed an interest in the technology. So vehicles of various kinds remain an important vector for stimulating interest in and learning about technology.
Roy Pemberton emphasises an important point, that to develop others is to develop yourself, perhaps in ways that you didn’t initially intend. So for example a trip “back to the floor” for a senior manager, or a spell “on the tools” for an academically developed engineer can be excellent development, building a more empathetic understanding of other’s work. Popular pranks (no longer allowed) of years gone by sometimes involved Swarfega for example, which was unknown to some “academic engineers”.
I have on my desk a certificate signed by Chris Crane of the IIExE (now FIET) certifying that I carried out 100 hours of CPD in 1994 and also had to submit my CPD to CIPD when I was interviewed for Fellowship. I joined the initial IET CPD recording trial as a symbol of my support, but as a symbol of protest over the disrespectful treatment of experienced Incorporated Engineers have not submitted recently.
I would actually prefer that we normalised the expectation that; every professional sought some form of peer review at intervals of their choosing, which would include explaining the rationale for and benefits of development. One of the problems I see is that we often try to bureaucratise and standardise everything, when the experience of professionals engaged somehow in engineering and technology is incredibly varied. I have in the past sat in meetings where whether something should be categorised as “IPD” or “CPD” was debated at length and anything with a “smell of management” condemned as “not engineering”. I guess there are just a lot of people who like to prescribe what others should do?
I am sure that many experienced professionals would gain more from discussing their development with others, rather than counting hours. In general I’m referring to what might be termed “action learning”. I’m also suggesting a “nudge theory” approach to “normalising development”, rather than “policing CPD”. For example the threat exists of someone’s registration being removed for non-compliance ,which has its merits. However, an educated market could also ask registrants “when was your last review and can I see the summary report please”. This approach could also build confidence and reduce the fear of failure for those coming to professional registration. "Carrot & stick" in old money I suppose
