pay tax, and even if tax evasion could, reasonably lead to removal of citizenship, it wouldn't be right to apply that to those not receiving sufficient income to pay tax (though I have been in a position where my resident's visa was revoked because of my inability to continue working for health reasons, so was forced to return to the UK from Abu Dhabi)


As for retired registrants and those whose work is less technical/more managerial, there are clearly divided views - the engineering world, the EC and PEIs don't see either as a reason to take registration away. Conversely, for the CMI at least, Chartered Manager can no longer be held unless you're actively undertaking management. I fell victim to that. Despite being one of the 50 Pioneer Chartered Managers, despite the fact that I was massively instrumental in helping the definition of the process and field testing it - despite all of those contributions, when I suffered my enforced absence from the workplace due to my ill health for 6 years, I lost my Chartered Manager status. When I returned to work, I would have had to go through the whole registration process all over again. Bear in mind it is far more onerous than the C.Eng application process.  Had I lost my prowess in management just because I'd been physically incapable of working? Of course I hadn't! I could have accepted the need for some form of revalidation, but no. As you can imagine, I had no appetite to go through that all over again, and I feel it's incredibly short sighted of the CMI, as they lose the tremendous voluntary activity that I had previously contributed, akin to that I currently undertake for the IET. As you can imagine, I feel fairly bitter about that.


I feel we engineers have it right in that respect. I feel there are three categories of retired registrants, and it probably also applies to those in less technical, managerial roles:

Those who provide a massive contribution through volunteering, without whom we couldn't en sustain a registration system. Whilst still working, but volunteering myself, I know that we simply couldn't maintain the system without the retirees.

Those who maintain membership and registration simply because they are interested in keeping touch with the profession, with latest developments, etc.

Those who don't engage wth the Institute much, if at all. Presumably, the only reason they would continue to pay annual subscription is because continuing to hold mentioned and registration gives them a warm glow, a reminder of their status while they were still working. 

Hopefully, nobody would question the first category. For the other two categories, even for the third, inactive one, if they are prepared to keep paying their subscription in return for the sense of belonging and status it brings, why should they not be allowed to? If they're not actively carrying out engineering, what harm can they bring and why would we assume that they have immediately lost their prowess? Whereas, if actively practicing engineering, a lack of CPD could definitely be the cause of a bad engineering decision.


I've gone on long enough for now, so will try to summarise my views on CPD, and in particular CPD records - if I have the time, or think that my views will be of any value to anybody, I'll come back later to elaborate, but suffice it to say that I really hate the prescriptive view held by much of the profession, especially certain other PEIs, about what constitutes CPD, what is sufficient and how it should be recorded. I also hate Career Manager - I can see how it might help those who are still finding their way on CPD, and that's great, it's there to help them understand their needs, to plan their CPD, and keep track of it. 

​​​​​​

But for most of us who've been around a while, CPD is something that we simply do instinctively on a regular ongoing basis, and we have no need for such planning tools as our CPD needs emerge naturally from our work, or, for those of us who volunteer, in our volunteering activity. I find that the needs emerge naturally and rarely coincide wth anything that I previously identified as part of some mechanistic approach fundamentally aimed at producing a record rather than a benefit.


I had a go at career manager - I found it incredibly onerous, and I'd far rather use my time actually doing my work and undertaking my CPD. I would strongly resist any compulsion to use as demanding a process as career manager or anything approaching it. At any given moment, I know exactly what CPD I have planned, why I have it planned, and know exactly what I have undertaken, and why. For me to continue doing so effectively, I have no need to write it down at all, but if I have to evidence it to anybody, I could do so, at any time, by simply sitting down and writing down what's in my head in one or two short paragraphs. 


I don't believe you even have to get to my advanced years to be in that situation - I would suggest that, for most registrants, they have already reached that point by the time they achieve registration. Bear in mind that each applicant's outlook and understanding for CPD will always be probed at interview, and if they demonstrate a sound understanding and commitment at that interview, then I find it difficult to believe they won't continue to pursue it with sufficient vigour thereafther


Admittedly, there may be a small number who obtain registration then "coast". If they take on roles that require knowledge and skills they don't hold, then that's potentially a problem. However, many of these may do so simply because they hold the skills and knowledge required for their role, and are equally happy to "coast" career wise and continue to carry out that role fur which they require no further development. But my view, these are few in number.


If there is a need for monitoring, it should be as simple as possible. There's always the opportunity to request elaboration if what's provided in the first instance of unconvincing.

 pay tax, and even if tax evasion could, reasonably lead to removal of citizenship, it wouldn't be right to apply that to those not receiving sufficient income to pay tax (though I have been in a position where my resident's visa was revoked because of my inability to continue working for health reasons, so was forced to return to the UK from Abu Dhabi)


As for retired registrants and those whose work is less technical/more managerial, there are clearly divided views - the engineering world, the EC and PEIs don't see either as a reason to take registration away. Conversely, for the CMI at least, Chartered Manager can no longer be held unless you're actively undertaking management. I fell victim to that. Despite being one of the 50 Pioneer Chartered Managers, despite the fact that I was massively instrumental in helping the definition of the process and field testing it - despite all of those contributions, when I suffered my enforced absence from the workplace due to my ill health for 6 years, I lost my Chartered Manager status. When I returned to work, I would have had to go through the whole registration process all over again. Bear in mind it is far more onerous than the C.Eng application process.  Had I lost my prowess in management just because I'd been physically incapable of working? Of course I hadn't! I could have accepted the need for some form of revalidation, but no. As you can imagine, I had no appetite to go through that all over again, and I feel it's incredibly short sighted of the CMI, as they lose the tremendous voluntary activity that I had previously contributed, akin to that I currently undertake for the IET. As you can imagine, I feel fairly bitter about that.


I feel we engineers have it right in that respect. I feel there are three categories of retired registrants, and it probably also applies to those in less technical, managerial roles:

Those who provide a massive contribution through volunteering, without whom we couldn't en sustain a registration system. Whilst still working, but volunteering myself, I know that we simply couldn't maintain the system without the retirees.

Those who maintain membership and registration simply because they are interested in keeping touch with the profession, with latest developments, etc.

Those who don't engage wth the Institute much, if at all. Presumably, the only reason they would continue to pay annual subscription is because continuing to hold mentioned and registration gives them a warm glow, a reminder of their status while they were still working. 

Hopefully, nobody would question the first category. For the other two categories, even for the third, inactive one, if they are prepared to keep paying their subscription in return for the sense of belonging and status it brings, why should they not be allowed to? If they're not actively carrying out engineering, what harm can they bring and why would we assume that they have immediately lost their prowess? Whereas, if actively practicing engineering, a lack of CPD could definitely be the cause of a bad engineering decision.


I've gone on long enough for now, so will try to summarise my views on CPD, and in particular CPD records - if I have the time, or think that my views will be of any value to anybody, I'll come back later to elaborate, but suffice it to say that I really hate the prescriptive view held by much of the profession, especially certain other PEIs, about what constitutes CPD, what is sufficient and how it should be recorded. I also hate Career Manager - I can see how it might help those who are still finding their way on CPD, and that's great, it's there to help them understand their needs, to plan their CPD, and keep track of it. 

​​​​​​

But for most of us who've been around a while, CPD is something that we simply do instinctively on a regular ongoing basis, and we have no need for such planning tools as our CPD needs emerge naturally from our work, or, for those of us who volunteer, in our volunteering activity. I find that the needs emerge naturally and rarely coincide wth anything that I previously identified as part of some mechanistic approach fundamentally aimed at producing a record rather than a benefit.


I had a go at career manager - I found it incredibly onerous, and I'd far rather use my time actually doing my work and undertaking my CPD. I would strongly resist any compulsion to use as demanding a process as career manager or anything approaching it. At any given moment, I know exactly what CPD I have planned, why I have it planned, and know exactly what I have undertaken, and why. For me to continue doing so effectively, I have no need to write it down at all, but if I have to evidence it to anybody, I could do so, at any time, by simply sitting down and writing down what's in my head in one or two short paragraphs. 


I don't believe you even have to get to my advanced years to be in that situation - I would suggest that, for most registrants, they have already reached that point by the time they achieve registration. Bear in mind that each applicant's outlook and understanding for CPD will always be probed at interview, and if they demonstrate a sound understanding and commitment at that interview, then I find it difficult to believe they won't continue to pursue it with sufficient vigour thereafther


Admittedly, there may be a small number who obtain registration then "coast". If they take on roles that require knowledge and skills they don't hold, then that's potentially a problem. However, many of these may do so simply because they hold the skills and knowledge required for their role, and are equally happy to "coast" career wise and continue to carry out that role fur which they require no further development. But my view, these are few in number.


If there is a need for monitoring, it should be as simple as possible. There's always the opportunity to request elaboration if what's provided in the first instance of unconvincing.