This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EC UK Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement

Former Community Member over 5 years ago

Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement

Published: 01/11/2018

All Engineering Council registrants are committed to maintaining and enhancing their competence, which means undertaking Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

From 1 January 2019, licensed members will be required to sample their registrants’ CPD and sampling activity will become part of the licence review process.
Professionally active registrants who persistently do not respond to or engage with requests for CPD records from their institution risk removal from the Engineering Council Register.

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 5 years ago

A number of important issues arise here, including the tendency of some engineers and technicians to become good managers and some not. Many organisations have sought to offer equal career paths for technical specialists, but many leaders of our profession moved swiftly into management, having “bagged” CEng. Roy P’s response to Dave’s challenge is a good one and I’ll also attempt to address his annual threat to resign, in my usual long-winded and pompous manner in the hope that by the time he has read it he we will forget to cancel the direct debit.

I have advocated creating a situation where, everyone beginning a professional engineering career such as an advanced/higher/degree apprenticeship, or preparatory course of education, or other career starting point, is enrolled into our professional community. The normal expectation within this community, should be to seek periodic professional review. Such reviews should be voluntary and nurturing, not compulsory and punitive.

We add very little value acting as a self-important, nanny-state, bureaucratic policeman. We can add value to our members and society by nurturing and nourishing those who engage with us. If we do this well, then it will become apparent in the generally superior performance of those who choose to engage, relative to those who don’t. If we can demonstrate that we deliver such benefits, then we will be highly valued in the eyes of employers and others. However, if our primary concern seems to be that of a “club”, which apportions relative status to its different types of members, making claims, with dubious evidential support, about the superior performance of some of them relative to others, then our value-proposition is much less and may even be negative to existing or prospective members.

During the early career phase, there are usually regular assessments and examinations leading to forms of certification. Our current solution is to accredit the Apprenticeship, or Degree and subsequent Graduate Initial Professional Development Scheme (IPD). A sister institution expects quarterly progress reports during an IPD scheme (typically over 4 years). At the end of this a professional review is conducted leading to registration, which with an accredited degree and IPD scheme will be as a Chartered Engineer. Other forms of registration are available, but are not as commonly taken up or equally valued within our community. These options of Technician or Incorporated Engineer are potentially achievable at a slightly earlier age, especially since a Chartered Engineer degree typically requires 4 years of full-time university attendance before starting work, whereas an apprenticeship would typically combine work-based and formal learning over a similar timespan.

Some in our community have promoted these other forms of registration as “stepping stones” towards chartered, but there are no clear pathways (like an IPD) scheme to enable such transitions, which aren’t particularly welcome anyway in many quarters. Therefore, any advice and support offered can be vague, contradictory, confusing and even negative. Perhaps the nearest thing to clarity in my experience has been the “Gateways” Professional Engineering degree programmes, which I keenly supported, but have remained a very small niche. As discussed elsewhere in the forum thread “university in need of repair”, perhaps hampered by high university fees no longer seeming to offer a positive return on investment for a practising professional or their employer. This is disappointing because people who undertake work-relevant, or work-based learning orientated, part-time masters programmes “in-career”, typically perform very strongly. Unfortunately even that isn’t enough and we get people who have “jumped over every hoop” only to face rejection. I’m currently trying to help someone with a 25 year career and gateways MSc in this situation.

What we currently have is “IPD” presumed to follow an accredited university course and “CPD” presumed to follow registration (usually CEng). For the majority of engineers and technicians who didn’t find themselves on this “golden pathway” to CEng , our proposition looks like a jungle, with bogs and swamps. Some friendly guides can be found if you are lucky, but there are some pretty unfriendly natives too, who don’t want you on their patch at the other side. I have also used the term “minefield” because some people are “blown-up” due to some mis-step or other and feel humiliated or insulted by our actions. For example in this context, is a perfectly capable engineer still doing “IPD” up to the age of 37 (when on average they consider registration) or is most of it “CPD”, carried out since they became a competent engineer in the eyes of their employer?

Under the current circumstances and the Engineering Council Policy about CPD, I think that the IET is trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. Roy P offers “customer feedback” about some of this and I can empathise with it. I was a pilot participant in the CPD monitoring initiative a few years ago. However, following the IEng downgrade, one of several actions I took was to withdraw my cooperation in protest. Ceasing to use the post-nominal was another.

What hasn’t been mentioned in the thread that the IET has introduced a process called “Regulation 7”. This means that someone who allows their registration to lapse beyond a year is required to; provide evidence of CPD for the six to twelve months prior to the lapse along with a development plan for future CPD and an up-to-date CV. A lapse of more than three years continues to result in removal from the register as before, with a full re-assessment required to re-establish. So far, the process for evaluating submissions hasn’t been applied too onerously. However, some members have discovered, perhaps to their surprise, that the IET is taking the issue seriously and won’t be “fobbed off” for financial reasons. Some have also still been using CEng when suspended from the register and therefore not entitled.

Given the diversity of the IET, I think that we should guide, rather than prescribe. But I also think that it is entirely proper for us to expect our registered members to demonstrate professional commitment, which should just be a given. Purely personally, I would be delighted to set time aside to explore my career and development choices with someone who might offer additional value in return. I would probably be resistant to something that seemed more like a “box-ticking” or “form-filling” exercise seemingly for someone else’s benefit. I appreciate that this may be a reflection of my personality preferences and learning style.

My initial proposition is intended to raise standards, not to be a “soft-touch”, but a “critical friend”.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 5 years ago

A number of important issues arise here, including the tendency of some engineers and technicians to become good managers and some not. Many organisations have sought to offer equal career paths for technical specialists, but many leaders of our profession moved swiftly into management, having “bagged” CEng. Roy P’s response to Dave’s challenge is a good one and I’ll also attempt to address his annual threat to resign, in my usual long-winded and pompous manner in the hope that by the time he has read it he we will forget to cancel the direct debit.

I have advocated creating a situation where, everyone beginning a professional engineering career such as an advanced/higher/degree apprenticeship, or preparatory course of education, or other career starting point, is enrolled into our professional community. The normal expectation within this community, should be to seek periodic professional review. Such reviews should be voluntary and nurturing, not compulsory and punitive.

We add very little value acting as a self-important, nanny-state, bureaucratic policeman. We can add value to our members and society by nurturing and nourishing those who engage with us. If we do this well, then it will become apparent in the generally superior performance of those who choose to engage, relative to those who don’t. If we can demonstrate that we deliver such benefits, then we will be highly valued in the eyes of employers and others. However, if our primary concern seems to be that of a “club”, which apportions relative status to its different types of members, making claims, with dubious evidential support, about the superior performance of some of them relative to others, then our value-proposition is much less and may even be negative to existing or prospective members.

During the early career phase, there are usually regular assessments and examinations leading to forms of certification. Our current solution is to accredit the Apprenticeship, or Degree and subsequent Graduate Initial Professional Development Scheme (IPD). A sister institution expects quarterly progress reports during an IPD scheme (typically over 4 years). At the end of this a professional review is conducted leading to registration, which with an accredited degree and IPD scheme will be as a Chartered Engineer. Other forms of registration are available, but are not as commonly taken up or equally valued within our community. These options of Technician or Incorporated Engineer are potentially achievable at a slightly earlier age, especially since a Chartered Engineer degree typically requires 4 years of full-time university attendance before starting work, whereas an apprenticeship would typically combine work-based and formal learning over a similar timespan.

Some in our community have promoted these other forms of registration as “stepping stones” towards chartered, but there are no clear pathways (like an IPD) scheme to enable such transitions, which aren’t particularly welcome anyway in many quarters. Therefore, any advice and support offered can be vague, contradictory, confusing and even negative. Perhaps the nearest thing to clarity in my experience has been the “Gateways” Professional Engineering degree programmes, which I keenly supported, but have remained a very small niche. As discussed elsewhere in the forum thread “university in need of repair”, perhaps hampered by high university fees no longer seeming to offer a positive return on investment for a practising professional or their employer. This is disappointing because people who undertake work-relevant, or work-based learning orientated, part-time masters programmes “in-career”, typically perform very strongly. Unfortunately even that isn’t enough and we get people who have “jumped over every hoop” only to face rejection. I’m currently trying to help someone with a 25 year career and gateways MSc in this situation.

What we currently have is “IPD” presumed to follow an accredited university course and “CPD” presumed to follow registration (usually CEng). For the majority of engineers and technicians who didn’t find themselves on this “golden pathway” to CEng , our proposition looks like a jungle, with bogs and swamps. Some friendly guides can be found if you are lucky, but there are some pretty unfriendly natives too, who don’t want you on their patch at the other side. I have also used the term “minefield” because some people are “blown-up” due to some mis-step or other and feel humiliated or insulted by our actions. For example in this context, is a perfectly capable engineer still doing “IPD” up to the age of 37 (when on average they consider registration) or is most of it “CPD”, carried out since they became a competent engineer in the eyes of their employer?

Under the current circumstances and the Engineering Council Policy about CPD, I think that the IET is trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. Roy P offers “customer feedback” about some of this and I can empathise with it. I was a pilot participant in the CPD monitoring initiative a few years ago. However, following the IEng downgrade, one of several actions I took was to withdraw my cooperation in protest. Ceasing to use the post-nominal was another.

What hasn’t been mentioned in the thread that the IET has introduced a process called “Regulation 7”. This means that someone who allows their registration to lapse beyond a year is required to; provide evidence of CPD for the six to twelve months prior to the lapse along with a development plan for future CPD and an up-to-date CV. A lapse of more than three years continues to result in removal from the register as before, with a full re-assessment required to re-establish. So far, the process for evaluating submissions hasn’t been applied too onerously. However, some members have discovered, perhaps to their surprise, that the IET is taking the issue seriously and won’t be “fobbed off” for financial reasons. Some have also still been using CEng when suspended from the register and therefore not entitled.

Given the diversity of the IET, I think that we should guide, rather than prescribe. But I also think that it is entirely proper for us to expect our registered members to demonstrate professional commitment, which should just be a given. Purely personally, I would be delighted to set time aside to explore my career and development choices with someone who might offer additional value in return. I would probably be resistant to something that seemed more like a “box-ticking” or “form-filling” exercise seemingly for someone else’s benefit. I appreciate that this may be a reflection of my personality preferences and learning style.

My initial proposition is intended to raise standards, not to be a “soft-touch”, but a “critical friend”.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

EC UK Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement

Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines