David,

partial agreement. Yes, that's the current scenario, but we have to remember the key distinction between membership requirements and registration requirements. Currently, if I understand it correctly, only the former is addressed. Maybe it needs to stay that way. Maybe, to meet EC requirements, it's sufficient for a PEI to confirm that a registrant meets the CPD requirements for membership of the PEI. 

​​​​​​But this dialogue, unless I'm mistaken, was about how to evidence EC CPD requirements for registration, and therefore meet not only IET membership requirements but EC (UKSPEC) requirements. Unless that was a right turn introduced later that I missed. The title would suggest otherwise.


I think the point was made that no regular ongoing check on registrants is currently undertaken to confirm continued compliance with UKSPEC, whether that be for CPD alone or anything wider, but it was suggested that the key component of doing so would be to regularly review CPD. Personally, I don't agree, I believe the best ongoing measure would be results/achievements with an acknowledgement that, by definition, such achievements can only emerge if CPD is successfully taking place. Note the word successfully - that entails the key component reflection.


But the question raised is whether, if EC decided to carry out a sample audit of the IETs registration process, would that be considered adequate against UKSPEC? Is there a need for monitoring CPD with a registration focus, or will meeting IET CPD policy be sufficient? I think it's worth remembering that, unless I'm much mistaken, there are still PEIs out there that tie membership and registration requirements together, as the IEE used to - membership automatically qualifies you for registration, providing you pay the EC registration fee. And those PEIs generally have far more prescriptive (and frankly, in my view, often worthless) CPD requirements, hence the concern about points or hours based systems, which is the trend in those PEIs, if the IET went down the same route. I'll also confess that I'm unsure whether (recorded) CPD is a mandatory requirement for non -registered members of the IET.


I think what confuses me is that I don't believe we do have a points or hours based system mandated, yet every event or activity we engage in, we get told "don't forget, you can claim x points or hours for this". Frankly, I can't remember which it is because I consider it so worthless that I pay no attention to it, but it does make me wonder if it means the Institute thinks we should be using points or hours?


My key point is that, if registrants are to be reviewed regularly for fitness to continue being registered, and I definitely agree that, but for the additional workload involved, it would be highly desirable to do so - the CMI does for Chartered Manager - the focus should be on continued performance rather than CPD, as performance is the definitive demonstration of successful CPD and much more - of value as an engineer.


To reiterate, I know, with utter certainty, that I carry out considerable CPD, more than many I believe, but, I reiterate, it's the recording I have an issue with as I don't need to in order to maintain my CPD, only to demonstrate it to others.


You refer to 5 minutes per week, David:


Firstly, I don't believe that would be true for me - I reflected, briefly on the last two weeks alone and identified at least 10 different CPD activities in those two weeks alone! As I've said, I do them habitually as part of my ongoing engineering practice. 


But secondly, as Andy recognised, as a Railway engineer, I spend a huge percentage of my time formally recording every tiny detail of everything I do in my work for audit purposes, to get projects that I work on independently audited and obtain ORR authorisation for their entry into service, plus ensuring we have proof to defend commercial claims of preference engineering, to ensure that, as client side, we comply with our CDM duties whilst not taking those that belong with our contractors off their shoulders, that we have robust ability to handover assets to asset managers  and for mandatory requirements emerging from my client bring a public body - the list goes on and on, and even if it were only five minutes per week, this is just one more administrative task that I can do without and which brings me no personal benefit, and which, as a freelancer, should be done in my own time. It's one more factor, the straw to break the camel's back, with the potential to erode the life-work balance.  (Admittedly, participating in these forums is also guilty of that particular crime, and I really ought to resist the urge far more than I do!). I'd have no problem if I thought it necessary, but consider the results far more persuasive evidence.


I do feel that some of the focus on CPD process and records rather than results/ achievements arises because of the large number of volunteers, Fellows and EC participants being retired or at least semi retired, and it is completely understandable that, for them, with reduced opportunity to demonstrate their continued fitness for registration through results or achievements, recorded CPD becomes the only effective way to demonstrate that.


I think this is where a salutory lesson about the outcome of inflexibility can be learnt from the CMI for their C.Mgr process - though I feel there is much we can learn from what is good in their system, this is a lesson of what's not so good and should, in my view, be avoided. For them, unless you are actively practicing as a manager, and can demonstrate that from results, you can't continue to be a C.Mgr. 


Despite having been one of the 50 pioneer  Chartered Managers, when I encountered health problems that caused me to be unable to work for 6 years, I automatically lost my C.Mgr registration, unlike my C.Eng. There was no opportunity, when I returned to work, to go for any form of simplified re-registration that acknowledged that I had previously achieved registration and had completed at least one 3-year cycle to demonstrate that I remained competent, or that I returned to work with my competence intact, and immediately took up managerial responsibility again. The only option was to start all over again wth registration as if I'd never done so previously. As you can imagine, I didn't bother. Clearly, retirees suffer the same fate, which, to me, is a massive loss to the community.


I'm very glad, and proud, to be part of what I consider to be the most progressive PEI, the IET, and one which seeks to be flexible so far as is practicable. If retired members wish to remain active, it is to the benefit of all, both for their availability for volunteering, and for providing support and mentoring to less experienced members that they do so, so I recognise the value of a formally recorded CPD system for them to demonstrate their ongoing fitness to remain registered. But for practicing engineers, for the reasons I've outlined, I believe it's very different.


I feel sure that, with the flexible, pragmatic collective mindset of the IET, there would be no real issue with making it horses for courses, but the question remains, would that satisfy scrutiny by EC, and if not, does the Institute need to push for change in EC requirements - a less prescriptive UKSPEC in this respect?

David,

partial agreement. Yes, that's the current scenario, but we have to remember the key distinction between membership requirements and registration requirements. Currently, if I understand it correctly, only the former is addressed. Maybe it needs to stay that way. Maybe, to meet EC requirements, it's sufficient for a PEI to confirm that a registrant meets the CPD requirements for membership of the PEI. 

​​​​​​But this dialogue, unless I'm mistaken, was about how to evidence EC CPD requirements for registration, and therefore meet not only IET membership requirements but EC (UKSPEC) requirements. Unless that was a right turn introduced later that I missed. The title would suggest otherwise.


I think the point was made that no regular ongoing check on registrants is currently undertaken to confirm continued compliance with UKSPEC, whether that be for CPD alone or anything wider, but it was suggested that the key component of doing so would be to regularly review CPD. Personally, I don't agree, I believe the best ongoing measure would be results/achievements with an acknowledgement that, by definition, such achievements can only emerge if CPD is successfully taking place. Note the word successfully - that entails the key component reflection.


But the question raised is whether, if EC decided to carry out a sample audit of the IETs registration process, would that be considered adequate against UKSPEC? Is there a need for monitoring CPD with a registration focus, or will meeting IET CPD policy be sufficient? I think it's worth remembering that, unless I'm much mistaken, there are still PEIs out there that tie membership and registration requirements together, as the IEE used to - membership automatically qualifies you for registration, providing you pay the EC registration fee. And those PEIs generally have far more prescriptive (and frankly, in my view, often worthless) CPD requirements, hence the concern about points or hours based systems, which is the trend in those PEIs, if the IET went down the same route. I'll also confess that I'm unsure whether (recorded) CPD is a mandatory requirement for non -registered members of the IET.


I think what confuses me is that I don't believe we do have a points or hours based system mandated, yet every event or activity we engage in, we get told "don't forget, you can claim x points or hours for this". Frankly, I can't remember which it is because I consider it so worthless that I pay no attention to it, but it does make me wonder if it means the Institute thinks we should be using points or hours?


My key point is that, if registrants are to be reviewed regularly for fitness to continue being registered, and I definitely agree that, but for the additional workload involved, it would be highly desirable to do so - the CMI does for Chartered Manager - the focus should be on continued performance rather than CPD, as performance is the definitive demonstration of successful CPD and much more - of value as an engineer.


To reiterate, I know, with utter certainty, that I carry out considerable CPD, more than many I believe, but, I reiterate, it's the recording I have an issue with as I don't need to in order to maintain my CPD, only to demonstrate it to others.


You refer to 5 minutes per week, David:


Firstly, I don't believe that would be true for me - I reflected, briefly on the last two weeks alone and identified at least 10 different CPD activities in those two weeks alone! As I've said, I do them habitually as part of my ongoing engineering practice. 


But secondly, as Andy recognised, as a Railway engineer, I spend a huge percentage of my time formally recording every tiny detail of everything I do in my work for audit purposes, to get projects that I work on independently audited and obtain ORR authorisation for their entry into service, plus ensuring we have proof to defend commercial claims of preference engineering, to ensure that, as client side, we comply with our CDM duties whilst not taking those that belong with our contractors off their shoulders, that we have robust ability to handover assets to asset managers  and for mandatory requirements emerging from my client bring a public body - the list goes on and on, and even if it were only five minutes per week, this is just one more administrative task that I can do without and which brings me no personal benefit, and which, as a freelancer, should be done in my own time. It's one more factor, the straw to break the camel's back, with the potential to erode the life-work balance.  (Admittedly, participating in these forums is also guilty of that particular crime, and I really ought to resist the urge far more than I do!). I'd have no problem if I thought it necessary, but consider the results far more persuasive evidence.


I do feel that some of the focus on CPD process and records rather than results/ achievements arises because of the large number of volunteers, Fellows and EC participants being retired or at least semi retired, and it is completely understandable that, for them, with reduced opportunity to demonstrate their continued fitness for registration through results or achievements, recorded CPD becomes the only effective way to demonstrate that.


I think this is where a salutory lesson about the outcome of inflexibility can be learnt from the CMI for their C.Mgr process - though I feel there is much we can learn from what is good in their system, this is a lesson of what's not so good and should, in my view, be avoided. For them, unless you are actively practicing as a manager, and can demonstrate that from results, you can't continue to be a C.Mgr. 


Despite having been one of the 50 pioneer  Chartered Managers, when I encountered health problems that caused me to be unable to work for 6 years, I automatically lost my C.Mgr registration, unlike my C.Eng. There was no opportunity, when I returned to work, to go for any form of simplified re-registration that acknowledged that I had previously achieved registration and had completed at least one 3-year cycle to demonstrate that I remained competent, or that I returned to work with my competence intact, and immediately took up managerial responsibility again. The only option was to start all over again wth registration as if I'd never done so previously. As you can imagine, I didn't bother. Clearly, retirees suffer the same fate, which, to me, is a massive loss to the community.


I'm very glad, and proud, to be part of what I consider to be the most progressive PEI, the IET, and one which seeks to be flexible so far as is practicable. If retired members wish to remain active, it is to the benefit of all, both for their availability for volunteering, and for providing support and mentoring to less experienced members that they do so, so I recognise the value of a formally recorded CPD system for them to demonstrate their ongoing fitness to remain registered. But for practicing engineers, for the reasons I've outlined, I believe it's very different.


I feel sure that, with the flexible, pragmatic collective mindset of the IET, there would be no real issue with making it horses for courses, but the question remains, would that satisfy scrutiny by EC, and if not, does the Institute need to push for change in EC requirements - a less prescriptive UKSPEC in this respect?