David/Andy,

I have to admit, though I have some sympathy with the generic point about bad science, David's post does appear to have meandered severely off-topic.

However, I also have a degree of agreement with the underlying point, and had been on the point of posting something along what I believe are similar lines to that point. I also recognise that, if you accept the view I outline below, which I believe is the same one that David was seeking to make, there is a parallel between the "fashionable but innacurate" nature of the environmental emissions case that he outlines (I'll take his word for it that this is in fact the case as he clearly knows more about it than I do) and what I believe is also a fashionable but not necessarily beneficial approach to CPD. Bear with me while I explain my reasoning 


Andy is right in one specific - whether we agree with it or not, UKSPEC is very specific in its requirements for CPD, and, if we are to continue to embrace the whole concept of registration, we are not allowed the luxury of picking and choosing which elements of UKSPEC we will or won't buy into - we simply have to address them all, even if we personally disagree with them. 


Of course, the question arises as to whether we do agree or not,. and if we don't, whether we want to persuade others and consider seeking a change to UKSPEC.


Personally, I do disagree with a set of requirements that, in my opinion, are framed around junior members of the profession, yet imposed on all registered engineers regardless of the length and success of their career, their track record of implementing good engineering, and it definitely has a feel of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.


​​​​​​To me, the essential need to confirm that you continue to engage with the profession and to continue, on an ongoing basis to demonstrate competence in the profession at the required level is met far more successfully by results than by an arbitrary cycle of development process that does not, of itself, demonstrate engineering competence, it demonstrates no more than that you are going through a mechanistic process that could easily satisfy a reviewer against the prescriptive UKSPEC requirements whilst, potentially, completely failing to have relevance to the competence required to perform the individual's engineering role. Like David, personally, I do not accept that simply going through the CPD cycle, of itself, demonstrates ongoing competence. 


Don't get me wrong - it's a great process for engineers in the early stages of development, and encourages a rigour and self evaluation that is to be encouraged, and forms a strong foundation for an ongoing self-improvement approach that is essential to maintaining competence. But, as I've commented previously, for the more experienced professional (not only engineers) the whole thing becomes instinctive, and I feel it if unnecessarily onerous and, as David says, lacking in true value, to insist on recording every detail of personal development planning and decisions if continuing competence can be better demonstrated in other ways that automatically demonstrate that CPD has in fact been ongoing, even if the detailed planning and implementation has not been recorded.


In my view, by far the better means of demonstrating continuing competence is to demonstrate by results - it would, in my view, meet the fundamental need far more effectively if a regular update of ongoing achievements were to be required and provided. That is the ultimate test of a competent engineer, and if provided, implicitly demonstrates that the individual has in fact been undertaking CPD. I see no further need to demonstrate that to be the case.


So, in my personal opinion, the requirements of UKSPEC should be amended to require continuing demonstration of competence and commitment, with the first, preferred way of doing so being by regular submission and review of engineering achievements/results, and only if that is not possible (either because of lack of opportunity, or because there is a development need inhibiting production of those results) should the second choice of a CPD submission be required - effectively, the question is "do your achievements demonstrate ongoing competence and, if not, what are you doing about it?".


In my view, it is impossible to continue achieving results unless you are in fact paying attention to your CPD, although, as I say, by later stages in your career, you are probably doing it instinctively. I see absolutely no benefit to me personally, in terms of assuring my ongoing competence, in going through a formally recorded CPD process, as I'm doing it habitually on a continuous basis in order to practice as an engineer, the value is only to prove it to others, and I believe my results prove it in their own right.


For now, we have no choice but to comply, but I do feel strongly that this needs a complete change of mindset.

David/Andy,

I have to admit, though I have some sympathy with the generic point about bad science, David's post does appear to have meandered severely off-topic.

However, I also have a degree of agreement with the underlying point, and had been on the point of posting something along what I believe are similar lines to that point. I also recognise that, if you accept the view I outline below, which I believe is the same one that David was seeking to make, there is a parallel between the "fashionable but innacurate" nature of the environmental emissions case that he outlines (I'll take his word for it that this is in fact the case as he clearly knows more about it than I do) and what I believe is also a fashionable but not necessarily beneficial approach to CPD. Bear with me while I explain my reasoning 


Andy is right in one specific - whether we agree with it or not, UKSPEC is very specific in its requirements for CPD, and, if we are to continue to embrace the whole concept of registration, we are not allowed the luxury of picking and choosing which elements of UKSPEC we will or won't buy into - we simply have to address them all, even if we personally disagree with them. 


Of course, the question arises as to whether we do agree or not,. and if we don't, whether we want to persuade others and consider seeking a change to UKSPEC.


Personally, I do disagree with a set of requirements that, in my opinion, are framed around junior members of the profession, yet imposed on all registered engineers regardless of the length and success of their career, their track record of implementing good engineering, and it definitely has a feel of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.


​​​​​​To me, the essential need to confirm that you continue to engage with the profession and to continue, on an ongoing basis to demonstrate competence in the profession at the required level is met far more successfully by results than by an arbitrary cycle of development process that does not, of itself, demonstrate engineering competence, it demonstrates no more than that you are going through a mechanistic process that could easily satisfy a reviewer against the prescriptive UKSPEC requirements whilst, potentially, completely failing to have relevance to the competence required to perform the individual's engineering role. Like David, personally, I do not accept that simply going through the CPD cycle, of itself, demonstrates ongoing competence. 


Don't get me wrong - it's a great process for engineers in the early stages of development, and encourages a rigour and self evaluation that is to be encouraged, and forms a strong foundation for an ongoing self-improvement approach that is essential to maintaining competence. But, as I've commented previously, for the more experienced professional (not only engineers) the whole thing becomes instinctive, and I feel it if unnecessarily onerous and, as David says, lacking in true value, to insist on recording every detail of personal development planning and decisions if continuing competence can be better demonstrated in other ways that automatically demonstrate that CPD has in fact been ongoing, even if the detailed planning and implementation has not been recorded.


In my view, by far the better means of demonstrating continuing competence is to demonstrate by results - it would, in my view, meet the fundamental need far more effectively if a regular update of ongoing achievements were to be required and provided. That is the ultimate test of a competent engineer, and if provided, implicitly demonstrates that the individual has in fact been undertaking CPD. I see no further need to demonstrate that to be the case.


So, in my personal opinion, the requirements of UKSPEC should be amended to require continuing demonstration of competence and commitment, with the first, preferred way of doing so being by regular submission and review of engineering achievements/results, and only if that is not possible (either because of lack of opportunity, or because there is a development need inhibiting production of those results) should the second choice of a CPD submission be required - effectively, the question is "do your achievements demonstrate ongoing competence and, if not, what are you doing about it?".


In my view, it is impossible to continue achieving results unless you are in fact paying attention to your CPD, although, as I say, by later stages in your career, you are probably doing it instinctively. I see absolutely no benefit to me personally, in terms of assuring my ongoing competence, in going through a formally recorded CPD process, as I'm doing it habitually on a continuous basis in order to practice as an engineer, the value is only to prove it to others, and I believe my results prove it in their own right.


For now, we have no choice but to comply, but I do feel strongly that this needs a complete change of mindset.