Just to add two'pennorth into this. I'm about to have a minor operation. I'd really like to be confident that the consultant has been keeping up to date with procedures, and indeed has been practising (in all senses) for the last few years. And equally I think it's quite reasonable that my clients should expect the same from me in my field. I strongly disagree with any idea that professional registration can be a snapshot, I think it is absolutely right that the IET should be held to account to explain how it knows that CEngs it first registered 20 years ago (in my case) are still considered competent. It is not a qualification, it is an ongoing registration.


That said, for most of us proving CPD is actually pretty easy, and I do wish the IET and EC would make it much clearer how easy it actually is. Several of us have written elsewhere on these forums how most, if not all, of us who are working as engineers will automatically be gaining CPD. And, afaik, it's completely up to us how we "record" it. If I was asked tomorrow to give a CPD record I would simply list the projects I've worked on over the last year, with various bit of evidence (project documents) from each project. Ok, maybe I'm a bit lucky (actually it's deliberate on my part) that I work in a job where every project is quite different from the last, but I reckon if I had to I could help most practising engineers construct a perfectly defendable CPD record pretty quickly. And if someone really can't show they've learned anything at all new about any engineering technology, processes or methods over the last year (or whatever period) isn't that a bit of a worry? Would you want them on your team?


I come across this all the time working in the rail industry where it has not been unknown for people to claim expertise based on 30 year old experience. Now, I'd never suggest that that experience is completely irrelevant, but it's only relevant with an understanding of how that relates to the up-to-date context. And it can be simply understanding that context that is the CPD. The laws of physics don't change, but engineering is all about applying the laws of physics to real world situations. And the real world - technology, societal expectations, laws etc - is changing all the time.


By the way, I would very much support any move to introduce a "CEng/IEng/EngTech Retd" status for those who want it. Again this was extensively discussed elsewhere on these forums.


Bottom line: If we want to be treated as professionals we must expect the same scrutiny we would expect to be given to other professionals. But it only has to be difficult if we make it difficult.


I'm going to try not get drawn into the management debate, other than to say I totally agree that managers who don't keep their skills up to date are not going to be effective managers, so CPD is equally important there. And often the problem is that a manager gets an MBA and has the attitude "that's it, I know it all now", which is precisely as bad as an engineer getting an MEng and thinking exactly the same!


Cheers,


Andy

Just to add two'pennorth into this. I'm about to have a minor operation. I'd really like to be confident that the consultant has been keeping up to date with procedures, and indeed has been practising (in all senses) for the last few years. And equally I think it's quite reasonable that my clients should expect the same from me in my field. I strongly disagree with any idea that professional registration can be a snapshot, I think it is absolutely right that the IET should be held to account to explain how it knows that CEngs it first registered 20 years ago (in my case) are still considered competent. It is not a qualification, it is an ongoing registration.


That said, for most of us proving CPD is actually pretty easy, and I do wish the IET and EC would make it much clearer how easy it actually is. Several of us have written elsewhere on these forums how most, if not all, of us who are working as engineers will automatically be gaining CPD. And, afaik, it's completely up to us how we "record" it. If I was asked tomorrow to give a CPD record I would simply list the projects I've worked on over the last year, with various bit of evidence (project documents) from each project. Ok, maybe I'm a bit lucky (actually it's deliberate on my part) that I work in a job where every project is quite different from the last, but I reckon if I had to I could help most practising engineers construct a perfectly defendable CPD record pretty quickly. And if someone really can't show they've learned anything at all new about any engineering technology, processes or methods over the last year (or whatever period) isn't that a bit of a worry? Would you want them on your team?


I come across this all the time working in the rail industry where it has not been unknown for people to claim expertise based on 30 year old experience. Now, I'd never suggest that that experience is completely irrelevant, but it's only relevant with an understanding of how that relates to the up-to-date context. And it can be simply understanding that context that is the CPD. The laws of physics don't change, but engineering is all about applying the laws of physics to real world situations. And the real world - technology, societal expectations, laws etc - is changing all the time.


By the way, I would very much support any move to introduce a "CEng/IEng/EngTech Retd" status for those who want it. Again this was extensively discussed elsewhere on these forums.


Bottom line: If we want to be treated as professionals we must expect the same scrutiny we would expect to be given to other professionals. But it only has to be difficult if we make it difficult.


I'm going to try not get drawn into the management debate, other than to say I totally agree that managers who don't keep their skills up to date are not going to be effective managers, so CPD is equally important there. And often the problem is that a manager gets an MBA and has the attitude "that's it, I know it all now", which is precisely as bad as an engineer getting an MEng and thinking exactly the same!


Cheers,


Andy