Andy,

I take your point and recognise that, but I was coming from the other side of this, asking how reasonable it is to impose a requirement that is an additional burden to the individual yet, arguably, delivers them little or no value. In fact, it's exactly the point you make about registration (and the EC requirement to confirm commitment to CPD) offering little value to registrants and being unnecessarily bureaucratic isn't it? 

In terms of other institutes, I think most of the engineering institutes, certainly the ICE at least, go with the points system, and, when I have had responsibility for monitoring professional accreditation across multiple disciplines, I have definitely felt that didn't deliver the required result, in honesty, we only went with it because, as an engineering consultancy, registration was a selling point for our engineers, not because we felt it made them better engineers.

The only one I can talk of from direct personal experience is the CMI for Chartered Manager, (think you may also be able to, as I recall you're C.Mgr, but unsure if that's via the CMI) who don't use a points system, but a formally recorded version of what I've described, including requirement for 360 degree appraisals. Similar in some ways to Career Manager, and requiring resubmission every three years plus annual CPD plan submission.

I can't help but think that there's another answer that moves further towards that self-managed approach, whilst still providing validation - I feel sure it is achievable, but just needs some thought to develop it fully. I think the CV review you mention may form part of it as that is surely the ultimate demonstration, by outcomes, that the objective has been met. Perhaps a.3-yearly career/CV update post registration? Of course, if that requires review, that's a further volunteer workload, which does seem to be at the core of the problem.

I think this is one of those that has two equal sides to it, with a need to balance needs,  and probably another topic for discussion over that pint we keep talking about!

Andy,

I take your point and recognise that, but I was coming from the other side of this, asking how reasonable it is to impose a requirement that is an additional burden to the individual yet, arguably, delivers them little or no value. In fact, it's exactly the point you make about registration (and the EC requirement to confirm commitment to CPD) offering little value to registrants and being unnecessarily bureaucratic isn't it? 

In terms of other institutes, I think most of the engineering institutes, certainly the ICE at least, go with the points system, and, when I have had responsibility for monitoring professional accreditation across multiple disciplines, I have definitely felt that didn't deliver the required result, in honesty, we only went with it because, as an engineering consultancy, registration was a selling point for our engineers, not because we felt it made them better engineers.

The only one I can talk of from direct personal experience is the CMI for Chartered Manager, (think you may also be able to, as I recall you're C.Mgr, but unsure if that's via the CMI) who don't use a points system, but a formally recorded version of what I've described, including requirement for 360 degree appraisals. Similar in some ways to Career Manager, and requiring resubmission every three years plus annual CPD plan submission.

I can't help but think that there's another answer that moves further towards that self-managed approach, whilst still providing validation - I feel sure it is achievable, but just needs some thought to develop it fully. I think the CV review you mention may form part of it as that is surely the ultimate demonstration, by outcomes, that the objective has been met. Perhaps a.3-yearly career/CV update post registration? Of course, if that requires review, that's a further volunteer workload, which does seem to be at the core of the problem.

I think this is one of those that has two equal sides to it, with a need to balance needs,  and probably another topic for discussion over that pint we keep talking about!