Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 54 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 2992 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

EC UK Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement

Former Community Member
Former Community Member

Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement



Published: 01/11/2018

 



All Engineering Council registrants are committed to maintaining and enhancing their competence, which means undertaking Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

From 1 January 2019, licensed members will be required to sample their registrants’ CPD and sampling activity will become part of the licence review process.
Professionally active registrants who persistently do not respond to or engage with requests for CPD records from their institution risk removal from the Engineering Council Register.


Parents
  • 0
    For me it is obvious that some creative and inquisitive people will tend to find rules irritating. Their mantra will be “rules are for the guidance of wise people and the obedience of fools”. My early teenage self would have said, “rules are there to be broken” simply for the sake of rebellion, with little consideration of the consequences. My older self as a Fellow of our distinguished body, seeks good order, but without losing our important role as a “debating society” which challenges ideas, including the status quo if it is sub-optimal.  As a licensed body for the evaluation and registration of professional practitioners, regulations, codes of practice etc, are inevitable and necessary.  Even purely in our own IET terms, our reputation rests upon the quality of our processes for collecting, synthesising and disseminating knowledge.


    Arguably, when in Victorian times when we were all still learning , “self-made men” were elevated by performance. So for example, one of our “greats” from my hometown, left school at the age of 10 to become a foundry apprentice, but later became a member of all the three major institutions and was dubbed the “Edison of Europe” by his friend William Thomson, aka Lord Kelvin.  A century later when we thought we knew most of it, we prescribed what you should study, where and how, defining ourselves in those terms. As I described in an earlier post the model is; Engineering Education + IPD + Chartership + CPD.  The IET is probably the most open-minded PEI, in recognising that many possible variations may be equally valid , but we don’t control Engineering Council, which clearly still has great difficulty for example in accepting the idea that an apprenticeship is an equally valid pathway to chartership. This is why I posed this question in a different thread.   


    For the minority of us who are IEng registrants, any form of “CPD” that isn’t aimed at progression towards CEng, seems to signify an acceptance of having “maxed out” or “plateaued”. The effect is particularly magnified if UK-SPEC is used as the primary reference point to judge CPD , with its “gold, silver and bronze” categories. In we look at the unregistered, who carry out their CPD unsupervised by us. Many who would be judged Eng Tech or IEng using UK-SPEC, have long since gained distinction as senior managers or as chartered professionals in other domains. In my own example, 30+ years of significant post IEng registration CPD, finds me in a worse position than when I was first registered. Arguably, this is reasonable, since I migrated into a form of management about 5 years post-registration and perhaps should therefore have left the register of “engineers”. However, to address the elephant in the room; What would have happened if those who “bagged” CEng instead of IEng  followed that course of action? The numbers on the register would probably be halved and many of the leaders of the profession would not be called “engineers”.  There would be a furious reaction, salary surveys would look a bit different, a number of PEIs would collapse, Engineering Council and Engineering UK would also have to downsize.  I suppose the different assumptions about retaining IEng and CEng have roots in the concept of an IEng being “only part-qualified”?  I still come across an occasional "closet" IEng or Eng Tech registered Senior Manager but no-one open. Does anyone know one that they can "out" (with their permission)?  


    Our community is largely sustained by those who don’t currently demonstrate the UK-SPEC standard, as it is applied to new entrants. I don’t see this as “wrong”, because the majority of engineers and technicians who are successful in employment, haven’t been evaluated against the standard either. Some very good ones would refuse point-blank, seeing our proposition as something of a “stitch up”, with dubious value.  I have often argued for the value of a registration assessment, but for most people this is a one-off activity. For some it involved little more than completing a form, in the manner of an alumni club. I wasn’t interviewed for registration (although I can’t see what difference that would have made).  


    CPD in its current form is presumed to occur post-registration. I would wish to replace it with “Continuous Professional Development” instead. Under this different philosophy, the role of the IET and other PEIs of similar mind, is to support all our members in adding value to themselves, their employers or customers and society (not just a Chartered Engineer’s club) . In a voluntary system, we can only directly affect those who chose to engage, who will do so in the expectation of some benefit.  As it stands the IET has good influence and repute, but we have the potential to add more value.


    Our thinking tends to be “top down” addressing what people with 30+ year careers behind them, should be doing. They know better than “nanny”. Our proposition should be and I think is probably trying to be; “how can we help you”? However, an impression is given of policing a requirement and of creating a paper/data chase to do so. We offer feedback which might add value. If members would value a “peer review” and feedback process,then I have previously advocated this. They could share our comments with any interested party, if they wanted to, again potentially adding value. David mentioned his voluntarism and the old adage you “get out what you put in” applies. For many their voluntary contribution is ample  “CPD”.


    Focussing on the future, which should be from the “bottom up”. We should seek to enroll everyone that we can who is beginning an engineering career, in a workplace or academic institution.  Every so often we should ask the questions “how are you doing” and “can we help”. At the early stage, most of them will have a structure of assessment and support, with milestones and certificates coming thick and fast. Much of our efforts as they are now, would be focussed on ensuring that providers of learning and training deliver what they claim. After this initial phase, engaging in a review with their PEI might add some value and lead to professional recognition, such as registration.

    I would like to see it as just “normal” for members of our professional community to seek comment or validation from their “peers”. I wouldn’t advocate any time intervals, but any point of career transition is a sign, such as completion of training, an additional significant qualification, or a change of role. Where appropriate we could recommend registration, with some additional formalities as needed.  The feedback format should be supportive and suitable for sharing with other interested parties, such as for example an employer. No “stick” would be needed, because an educated market asking “when was your last review?” would offer a “carrot”.  As a society we long since decided to stop beating schoolchildren, but we seem rather keen on beating (or beasting) Engineers and Technicians. Perhaps it is a “macho thing” or a reflection of the modern obsession with academic competition and selection, as a proxy for classicism; but how many “rites of passage” do you have to suffer in order to gain proper respect in this game?  No wonder so many people don’t want to play!         


Reply
  • 0
    For me it is obvious that some creative and inquisitive people will tend to find rules irritating. Their mantra will be “rules are for the guidance of wise people and the obedience of fools”. My early teenage self would have said, “rules are there to be broken” simply for the sake of rebellion, with little consideration of the consequences. My older self as a Fellow of our distinguished body, seeks good order, but without losing our important role as a “debating society” which challenges ideas, including the status quo if it is sub-optimal.  As a licensed body for the evaluation and registration of professional practitioners, regulations, codes of practice etc, are inevitable and necessary.  Even purely in our own IET terms, our reputation rests upon the quality of our processes for collecting, synthesising and disseminating knowledge.


    Arguably, when in Victorian times when we were all still learning , “self-made men” were elevated by performance. So for example, one of our “greats” from my hometown, left school at the age of 10 to become a foundry apprentice, but later became a member of all the three major institutions and was dubbed the “Edison of Europe” by his friend William Thomson, aka Lord Kelvin.  A century later when we thought we knew most of it, we prescribed what you should study, where and how, defining ourselves in those terms. As I described in an earlier post the model is; Engineering Education + IPD + Chartership + CPD.  The IET is probably the most open-minded PEI, in recognising that many possible variations may be equally valid , but we don’t control Engineering Council, which clearly still has great difficulty for example in accepting the idea that an apprenticeship is an equally valid pathway to chartership. This is why I posed this question in a different thread.   


    For the minority of us who are IEng registrants, any form of “CPD” that isn’t aimed at progression towards CEng, seems to signify an acceptance of having “maxed out” or “plateaued”. The effect is particularly magnified if UK-SPEC is used as the primary reference point to judge CPD , with its “gold, silver and bronze” categories. In we look at the unregistered, who carry out their CPD unsupervised by us. Many who would be judged Eng Tech or IEng using UK-SPEC, have long since gained distinction as senior managers or as chartered professionals in other domains. In my own example, 30+ years of significant post IEng registration CPD, finds me in a worse position than when I was first registered. Arguably, this is reasonable, since I migrated into a form of management about 5 years post-registration and perhaps should therefore have left the register of “engineers”. However, to address the elephant in the room; What would have happened if those who “bagged” CEng instead of IEng  followed that course of action? The numbers on the register would probably be halved and many of the leaders of the profession would not be called “engineers”.  There would be a furious reaction, salary surveys would look a bit different, a number of PEIs would collapse, Engineering Council and Engineering UK would also have to downsize.  I suppose the different assumptions about retaining IEng and CEng have roots in the concept of an IEng being “only part-qualified”?  I still come across an occasional "closet" IEng or Eng Tech registered Senior Manager but no-one open. Does anyone know one that they can "out" (with their permission)?  


    Our community is largely sustained by those who don’t currently demonstrate the UK-SPEC standard, as it is applied to new entrants. I don’t see this as “wrong”, because the majority of engineers and technicians who are successful in employment, haven’t been evaluated against the standard either. Some very good ones would refuse point-blank, seeing our proposition as something of a “stitch up”, with dubious value.  I have often argued for the value of a registration assessment, but for most people this is a one-off activity. For some it involved little more than completing a form, in the manner of an alumni club. I wasn’t interviewed for registration (although I can’t see what difference that would have made).  


    CPD in its current form is presumed to occur post-registration. I would wish to replace it with “Continuous Professional Development” instead. Under this different philosophy, the role of the IET and other PEIs of similar mind, is to support all our members in adding value to themselves, their employers or customers and society (not just a Chartered Engineer’s club) . In a voluntary system, we can only directly affect those who chose to engage, who will do so in the expectation of some benefit.  As it stands the IET has good influence and repute, but we have the potential to add more value.


    Our thinking tends to be “top down” addressing what people with 30+ year careers behind them, should be doing. They know better than “nanny”. Our proposition should be and I think is probably trying to be; “how can we help you”? However, an impression is given of policing a requirement and of creating a paper/data chase to do so. We offer feedback which might add value. If members would value a “peer review” and feedback process,then I have previously advocated this. They could share our comments with any interested party, if they wanted to, again potentially adding value. David mentioned his voluntarism and the old adage you “get out what you put in” applies. For many their voluntary contribution is ample  “CPD”.


    Focussing on the future, which should be from the “bottom up”. We should seek to enroll everyone that we can who is beginning an engineering career, in a workplace or academic institution.  Every so often we should ask the questions “how are you doing” and “can we help”. At the early stage, most of them will have a structure of assessment and support, with milestones and certificates coming thick and fast. Much of our efforts as they are now, would be focussed on ensuring that providers of learning and training deliver what they claim. After this initial phase, engaging in a review with their PEI might add some value and lead to professional recognition, such as registration.

    I would like to see it as just “normal” for members of our professional community to seek comment or validation from their “peers”. I wouldn’t advocate any time intervals, but any point of career transition is a sign, such as completion of training, an additional significant qualification, or a change of role. Where appropriate we could recommend registration, with some additional formalities as needed.  The feedback format should be supportive and suitable for sharing with other interested parties, such as for example an employer. No “stick” would be needed, because an educated market asking “when was your last review?” would offer a “carrot”.  As a society we long since decided to stop beating schoolchildren, but we seem rather keen on beating (or beasting) Engineers and Technicians. Perhaps it is a “macho thing” or a reflection of the modern obsession with academic competition and selection, as a proxy for classicism; but how many “rites of passage” do you have to suffer in order to gain proper respect in this game?  No wonder so many people don’t want to play!         


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines