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
  • Mehmood,

    In honesty, I'd be interested to know how many I.Eng are actually members of other PEI's.  Some, at least, of the PEI's are extremely C.Eng focused almost to the point of ignoring I.Eng - ICE for sure (yes, I know I do keep picking on ICE, but that's simply because it's the one I've had maximum exposure to which exhibits the symptoms that I feel gets PEI's and registration a bad name).  Furthermore, with the IET being an amalgam of the IEE and the IIE, the latter being the original natural home of the I.Eng, I think that, however disappointing we may find take-up within our institute, it's most likely still better than some or all of the others.  I'd be delighted to be corrected and find there are significant numbers in other PEI's, but I have my strong doubts. 


    Alasdair,

    I think you may have been confusing somebody else's post (Alex?) with mine as I don't record in retrospect - in fact, my rather contentious position is that I don't feel the need, from the perspective of benefit to me, as opposed to providing evidence to others, to record at all!  My reason being that I know I'm doing it, I believe I'm doing way more than the minimum requirement, and am doing it habitually, constantly, don't ever see it as a periodic activity, but a continuous activity, I know exactly what I'm doing, what I want to do, and never fail to reflect.  In fairness, I acknowledge that following the periodic process in a more prescriptive way in the earlier stages of my career is exactly what has schooled me into this habitual approach, but I honestly don't think there's a single week goes by (other than when on holiday!) that I don't a) give thought to what development I need b) undertake some development activity c) reflect on what I've done.  Even this evening, whilst sitting in my car waiting for somebody to join me, I grabbed my Kindle and continued with my self-study book preparing me for Cisco CCNA. And the reflection is taking place on a continuous basis rather than on an artificially imposed schedule.  My position is that I believe that most senior/experienced engineers do very similar, and need to in order to achieve the results that they do in their work - I know I need to, and that those results, in that circumstance, are the evidence that CPD has taken place, because it would be impossible to achieve those outcomes without it, and that I would therefore like that fact to be accepted, as spending time recording delivers me no personal or professional benefit. I believe that the more prescriptive cyclic approach is essential for less experienced professionals in order to school them into the virtuous circle that is true continuous development, but once that approach becomes habitual, providing a record of achievements is the better way, because it also demonstrates that the development has actively been used as part of our engineering practice. 


    Alex,

    Please take this as constructive advice, rather than criticism - I'm hoping you gain something from it, but I'm going to have to say that I feel you have missed the point, and I suspect that it may be your post that Alasdair was disagreeing with (sorry if I have that wrong Alasdair).  I agree that any professional (not only engineer) who does not undertake CPD has lost interest in the vocation - indeed, it's not even a vocation, it's simply a job.  The question I believe we have been mostly debating is not about whether or not you are doing it, but whether you are recording it, or how you evidence it, in order to affirm continued compliance with EC requirements, particularly as identified in UKSPEC for registration (and, by extension, for continued registration) and furthermore, whether you are getting value out of it. 


    What you describe definitely comes over to me as being a matter of just going through the mechanics of attending seminars, courses, etc. and recording them in retrospect as a 'tick in the box'.  That may not be the case, it's just the way it sounds to me, and I don't need or wish you to answer or justify that to me, firstly because it's not intended as an accusation or judgement, only as an observation of what your words appear to describe, and if they do, to try to persuade you that you could do with changing approach, but secondly and far more importantly because the person you have to justify it to is yourself, not me or anybody else participating in this forum. 


    Reflection is the most important component of CPD, and whilst, as David and others have said, obtaining a peer review is worthwhile, and may provide good support and guidance, the only person who should ultimately be considering whether what you have done is either sufficient or of value is yourself, and that's the purpose of reflection. Furthermore, sufficient is a judgement you have to make based on what you personally need in order to be the engineer that you want to be. So if you really are not undertaking reflection, then, by definition, it isn't continuing personal (or professional to take Roy B's point) development at all, it is ongoing sporadic, untargeted development - a subtle but important distinction. The reflection is the component that turns it continuous because it is where you ensure that what you do is targeted on your needs, rather than simply what is available, and where you identify "what next?" or "how do I need to change in my approach to development?". Furthermore (and this relates to the "habitual" approach I describe that I believe is a characteristic in more senior/experienced professionals) circumstances and needs are subject to constant change, hence the reflection needs repeating frequently to ensure it's still relevant.  


    Finally, your reference to the courses that your employer sends you on suggests that you are allowing yourself to simply be a participant in a process designed or imposed by your employer, whereas you, and only you, should be the one determining your development needs, and you should be trying your hardest to focus completely on that development that you have identified as necessary.  Yes, you should obtain employer input as to what they believe your development needs are - it is important to gain an external perspective, especially that of the person or body to whom you are providing your engineering services - and yes, I understand that it can sometimes be difficult to convince an employer to support the development activity that you have identified, but, at the very least, you should be trying to be the one that identifies and controls the process. Frankly, in my own case, if and when I felt I wasn't obtaining support for the development needs I had identified, I moved on, because, for me, shaping myself as a professional was both my right and my duty to myself, hence completely at the heart of job satisfaction. I have passionately and insistently worked to persuade companies in which I held a senior position that periodic reviews should be both focussed on development needs rather than judgemental performance critique, performance only being considered as a means of informing development needs, but most importantly, should be centred and led by the person being reviewed rather than the other way around.  I've been fortunate enough to be in positions where I was able to bring about that change of emphasis, and I've watched staff blossom and grow as a result. 


    I repeat, if any of the above does not accurately describe your situation, I apologise, but I'm simply going on my interpretation of your words, which may be flawed. Most of all, I hope that you will find what I've said useful, and in particular, that you will now realise and embrace the essential importance of reflection. Apologies if I'm sounding sanctimonious! :)
Reply
  • Mehmood,

    In honesty, I'd be interested to know how many I.Eng are actually members of other PEI's.  Some, at least, of the PEI's are extremely C.Eng focused almost to the point of ignoring I.Eng - ICE for sure (yes, I know I do keep picking on ICE, but that's simply because it's the one I've had maximum exposure to which exhibits the symptoms that I feel gets PEI's and registration a bad name).  Furthermore, with the IET being an amalgam of the IEE and the IIE, the latter being the original natural home of the I.Eng, I think that, however disappointing we may find take-up within our institute, it's most likely still better than some or all of the others.  I'd be delighted to be corrected and find there are significant numbers in other PEI's, but I have my strong doubts. 


    Alasdair,

    I think you may have been confusing somebody else's post (Alex?) with mine as I don't record in retrospect - in fact, my rather contentious position is that I don't feel the need, from the perspective of benefit to me, as opposed to providing evidence to others, to record at all!  My reason being that I know I'm doing it, I believe I'm doing way more than the minimum requirement, and am doing it habitually, constantly, don't ever see it as a periodic activity, but a continuous activity, I know exactly what I'm doing, what I want to do, and never fail to reflect.  In fairness, I acknowledge that following the periodic process in a more prescriptive way in the earlier stages of my career is exactly what has schooled me into this habitual approach, but I honestly don't think there's a single week goes by (other than when on holiday!) that I don't a) give thought to what development I need b) undertake some development activity c) reflect on what I've done.  Even this evening, whilst sitting in my car waiting for somebody to join me, I grabbed my Kindle and continued with my self-study book preparing me for Cisco CCNA. And the reflection is taking place on a continuous basis rather than on an artificially imposed schedule.  My position is that I believe that most senior/experienced engineers do very similar, and need to in order to achieve the results that they do in their work - I know I need to, and that those results, in that circumstance, are the evidence that CPD has taken place, because it would be impossible to achieve those outcomes without it, and that I would therefore like that fact to be accepted, as spending time recording delivers me no personal or professional benefit. I believe that the more prescriptive cyclic approach is essential for less experienced professionals in order to school them into the virtuous circle that is true continuous development, but once that approach becomes habitual, providing a record of achievements is the better way, because it also demonstrates that the development has actively been used as part of our engineering practice. 


    Alex,

    Please take this as constructive advice, rather than criticism - I'm hoping you gain something from it, but I'm going to have to say that I feel you have missed the point, and I suspect that it may be your post that Alasdair was disagreeing with (sorry if I have that wrong Alasdair).  I agree that any professional (not only engineer) who does not undertake CPD has lost interest in the vocation - indeed, it's not even a vocation, it's simply a job.  The question I believe we have been mostly debating is not about whether or not you are doing it, but whether you are recording it, or how you evidence it, in order to affirm continued compliance with EC requirements, particularly as identified in UKSPEC for registration (and, by extension, for continued registration) and furthermore, whether you are getting value out of it. 


    What you describe definitely comes over to me as being a matter of just going through the mechanics of attending seminars, courses, etc. and recording them in retrospect as a 'tick in the box'.  That may not be the case, it's just the way it sounds to me, and I don't need or wish you to answer or justify that to me, firstly because it's not intended as an accusation or judgement, only as an observation of what your words appear to describe, and if they do, to try to persuade you that you could do with changing approach, but secondly and far more importantly because the person you have to justify it to is yourself, not me or anybody else participating in this forum. 


    Reflection is the most important component of CPD, and whilst, as David and others have said, obtaining a peer review is worthwhile, and may provide good support and guidance, the only person who should ultimately be considering whether what you have done is either sufficient or of value is yourself, and that's the purpose of reflection. Furthermore, sufficient is a judgement you have to make based on what you personally need in order to be the engineer that you want to be. So if you really are not undertaking reflection, then, by definition, it isn't continuing personal (or professional to take Roy B's point) development at all, it is ongoing sporadic, untargeted development - a subtle but important distinction. The reflection is the component that turns it continuous because it is where you ensure that what you do is targeted on your needs, rather than simply what is available, and where you identify "what next?" or "how do I need to change in my approach to development?". Furthermore (and this relates to the "habitual" approach I describe that I believe is a characteristic in more senior/experienced professionals) circumstances and needs are subject to constant change, hence the reflection needs repeating frequently to ensure it's still relevant.  


    Finally, your reference to the courses that your employer sends you on suggests that you are allowing yourself to simply be a participant in a process designed or imposed by your employer, whereas you, and only you, should be the one determining your development needs, and you should be trying your hardest to focus completely on that development that you have identified as necessary.  Yes, you should obtain employer input as to what they believe your development needs are - it is important to gain an external perspective, especially that of the person or body to whom you are providing your engineering services - and yes, I understand that it can sometimes be difficult to convince an employer to support the development activity that you have identified, but, at the very least, you should be trying to be the one that identifies and controls the process. Frankly, in my own case, if and when I felt I wasn't obtaining support for the development needs I had identified, I moved on, because, for me, shaping myself as a professional was both my right and my duty to myself, hence completely at the heart of job satisfaction. I have passionately and insistently worked to persuade companies in which I held a senior position that periodic reviews should be both focussed on development needs rather than judgemental performance critique, performance only being considered as a means of informing development needs, but most importantly, should be centred and led by the person being reviewed rather than the other way around.  I've been fortunate enough to be in positions where I was able to bring about that change of emphasis, and I've watched staff blossom and grow as a result. 


    I repeat, if any of the above does not accurately describe your situation, I apologise, but I'm simply going on my interpretation of your words, which may be flawed. Most of all, I hope that you will find what I've said useful, and in particular, that you will now realise and embrace the essential importance of reflection. Apologies if I'm sounding sanctimonious! :)
Children
No Data