Andy,

my reason for describing it as onerous was my attempt to use career manager. I found it incredibly time consuming simply for recording a thought process I'd already completed, but without recording it. I felt it added nothing to the value for me, and, in my opinion, doesn't prove very much, as it's all too ready to play the system and look good on paper but without necessarily delivering or demonstrating actual engineering competence. I've definitely known a number of people who are good at that.


Furthermore, it's all framed around a single, probably annual, review/reflection/plan when, in fact, mine is a living thing that develops from week to week, meaning going back in and updating to reflect that is a regular task that I feel is onerous, and once again, pointless for anybody who deals with their development in the habitual way that i describe.


If you're right that submission for review of either an updated CV or just a record of ongoing engineering achievements over a period (and I agree that 3 years seems sensible) would be accepted as fulfilling the requirements of UKSPEC, them I'm completely happy that is the sensible approach, but my reading of UKSPEC suggests to me that this does not meet the specification, and that is because UKSPEC is very prescriptive and describes a process that is highly valuable for a professional in the early stages of their career, at it gets them into a mindset for that will eventually lead to the habitual approach i describe. So there's nothing wrong with the process, only with her it is evidenced, and that is what I believe UKSPEC is prescriptive on.

Andy,

my reason for describing it as onerous was my attempt to use career manager. I found it incredibly time consuming simply for recording a thought process I'd already completed, but without recording it. I felt it added nothing to the value for me, and, in my opinion, doesn't prove very much, as it's all too ready to play the system and look good on paper but without necessarily delivering or demonstrating actual engineering competence. I've definitely known a number of people who are good at that.


Furthermore, it's all framed around a single, probably annual, review/reflection/plan when, in fact, mine is a living thing that develops from week to week, meaning going back in and updating to reflect that is a regular task that I feel is onerous, and once again, pointless for anybody who deals with their development in the habitual way that i describe.


If you're right that submission for review of either an updated CV or just a record of ongoing engineering achievements over a period (and I agree that 3 years seems sensible) would be accepted as fulfilling the requirements of UKSPEC, them I'm completely happy that is the sensible approach, but my reading of UKSPEC suggests to me that this does not meet the specification, and that is because UKSPEC is very prescriptive and describes a process that is highly valuable for a professional in the early stages of their career, at it gets them into a mindset for that will eventually lead to the habitual approach i describe. So there's nothing wrong with the process, only with her it is evidenced, and that is what I believe UKSPEC is prescriptive on.