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 over 6 years ago

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 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

Simon your point is a fair one, but as I said in my earlier post, in practice the experience of Eng Tech and IEng registrants is very different to that of CEng.

Although in theory each category is treated as if it is a “terminal destination”, in practice they are commonly considered subsidiary and treated as “starter” and “part-qualified” respectively. A significant number of PEI’s have no interest in these categories, or classify them as “associate” rather than “full” members. They will seek to block anything that threatens the “elite status”, that they crave and claim.

Using my own example (for simplicity, not self-absorption), I qualified and registered IEng 30+ years ago. I kept up registration because I had ongoing involvement and interest in engineering, although my core role became managerial rather than as an “engineer”. I didn’t ask for CEng because I hadn’t met the “academic requirements” and didn’t have any need of it. In 2011, I became involved in supporting Engineering Council’s “Proud to be IEng” campaign, only to realise that their overriding priority was actually to downgrade the category. I subsequently found myself downgraded and considered resigning from the register, but on reflection decided that I might be able to give a bit more “with rather than without”. I would be delighted to receive a threat to remove my registration for lack of CPD, since this would afford me the opportunity to tell them where to stick it!

I opposed suggestions by some experienced IEng that they should be transferred to CEng without assessment, since this would be grievously unfair to the many who worked hard and in some cases literally “battled” to make that transfer before them. My overriding concern, as someone who came into engineering via an apprenticeship and led a precursor to the recent degree apprenticeship model, is to see fair treatment of those who travel that pathway.

I cannot predict the future success of government attempts to revitalise apprenticeships. But if they do become once again a “normal” pathway , these engineers and technicians will not “know their place” like (Ronnie Corbett in the famous class sketch). I have proposed an alternative “fair progression” approach intended to minimise disruption, which embeds the principle of continuous professional development. I expect the realpolitik will result in a continuation of placing people into silos at the age of 18 to create an elite fraction of engineers, with “the rest” offered patronising platitudes and some trickle through during career.

The consequences of removing from the register all those CEng, who might if subjected to the same assessment as a new entrant, “trip up” would be catastrophic for some PEIs and other bodies. I used the phrase “trip up” intentionally because that is what happens to many seeking registration, they are proven experienced professionals, but didn’t do the right degree years ago, or aren’t “creative and innovative” in their work (a code for using calculus?). We would therefore being taking a sledgehammer to crack the very tiny nut of occasional poor practice by a registered CEng. A modest risk exists among early career CEng due to the academic emphasis of their preparation and lack of practical experience, but our CPD proposition doesn’t affect this. In their current form the other two categories offer some recognition, but are presented as having limited autonomous capability by promoters of CEng. Since some are in contact with poorly-informed customers such as members of the public, government intervention has intended to focus there, with “competent person schemes” etc. designed to drive out “cowboys” and “rogue traders”.

Having read Andy’s post just before I was going to post. I tend to focus on the Eng Tech/IEng/Apprenticeship perspective. However where we are, is that CEng is more or less “the only show in town”, so in practice most of what I do is trying to help IET members gain that recognition if they can meet the standard. This being our primary flagship standard, I see it as essential that it clearly demonstrates fair access on the basis of standards of performance.

Academic qualifications offer some indication of performance and future potential typically at around the age of 21-22, but for those of graduate standard, they are not a reliable basis on which to divide engineers into two categories over the following years. For convenience and influenced by sociological factors, we value certain types of academic currency more highly than others. Engineering as actually practiced, takes place along a continuum from very theoretically/scientifically informed to more practical “know how” led. At each end this continuum but not an engineer, is the scientist and the craftsperson. I suppose that my description is a “hypothesis”, but I’m not aware that anyone has disproved it, just like I am unaware of research that correlates the superiority of MEng Engineers over BEng or BSc ones. I would expect a positive correlation at the “scientist end” but not in the middle or towards the “more practical end”. Assuming that one end of this spectrum is superior (perhaps using bloom’s taxonomy as a justification) is the same as assuming that “a scientist is better than an engineer”. Is that OK with everybody?

I see no significant benefit in removing registration unless it has been abandoned by loss of commitment (symbolized by not paying) or misused; i.e treating it like a "qualification". But I have argued for voluntary periodic review, which offers the opportunity for Engineers to engage in a two-way dialogue with their professional body, resulting in a (preferably agreed) report. Where appropriate, any employer of other relevant stakeholder could simply ask “how did your latest review go”. I think that the idea of “full-review” was discussed at Engineering Council at some time in the past and one PEI suggested that “they could do it for £500”. Our current model keeps costs very low by harnessing volunteer effort , so whatever we do has to financially viable and value for money.

To fully support Andy’s point a “service to society” rather than “self-serving” attitude will enhance all of our status. I’m sure that attempts to present what we do as “definitely not oily rag” only contribute to an agenda of division between us and feeds snobbery. This persists in our need to divide experienced professionals using grounds that we can’t ourselves agree on, or implement consistently. Is it really so important whether someone gets A* or B in their maths A level, or applies “creativity and innovation” (whatever that means) twenty years later? We should all just be progressing in whatever direction opportunities take us. Is it really appropriate for us to diminish good experienced professional engineers in order to aggrandise academic high-flyers? As a club perhaps it is, but as a charity for social purpose, this seems unnecessary and quite risky.

David, its good to see IET leading the way! We need to be conscious that only just over a quarter of our members are CEng. For IMechE it is around one-third, with ICE a little higher. The fourth largest (it used to be IIE) IChemE has only about a quarter of its members CEng, although it is a leader in respect of IEng & Eng Tech, with approximately 0.001% of its members registered in those categories. The IET brings up the rear in this “premier league of exclusion table” with around 9%. The much smaller Society of Operations Engineers actually has two IEng for every CEng, giving it a higher proportion of IEng than the IET at circa 16%. Note also that registrants tend to be older, with an average age of late 50s for engineers.

Alasdair, I have seen some of your responses to technical questions in the forums and your handicap is clearly well below the threshold and perhaps even scratch. I don’t like to see golfers dressed for football, but if they have a talent, then we can polish them up. When I used to go to company golf society days, one of the guys “off the tools” always seemed to get the better of us “office bound” types!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

Simon your point is a fair one, but as I said in my earlier post, in practice the experience of Eng Tech and IEng registrants is very different to that of CEng.

Although in theory each category is treated as if it is a “terminal destination”, in practice they are commonly considered subsidiary and treated as “starter” and “part-qualified” respectively. A significant number of PEI’s have no interest in these categories, or classify them as “associate” rather than “full” members. They will seek to block anything that threatens the “elite status”, that they crave and claim.

Using my own example (for simplicity, not self-absorption), I qualified and registered IEng 30+ years ago. I kept up registration because I had ongoing involvement and interest in engineering, although my core role became managerial rather than as an “engineer”. I didn’t ask for CEng because I hadn’t met the “academic requirements” and didn’t have any need of it. In 2011, I became involved in supporting Engineering Council’s “Proud to be IEng” campaign, only to realise that their overriding priority was actually to downgrade the category. I subsequently found myself downgraded and considered resigning from the register, but on reflection decided that I might be able to give a bit more “with rather than without”. I would be delighted to receive a threat to remove my registration for lack of CPD, since this would afford me the opportunity to tell them where to stick it!

I opposed suggestions by some experienced IEng that they should be transferred to CEng without assessment, since this would be grievously unfair to the many who worked hard and in some cases literally “battled” to make that transfer before them. My overriding concern, as someone who came into engineering via an apprenticeship and led a precursor to the recent degree apprenticeship model, is to see fair treatment of those who travel that pathway.

I cannot predict the future success of government attempts to revitalise apprenticeships. But if they do become once again a “normal” pathway , these engineers and technicians will not “know their place” like (Ronnie Corbett in the famous class sketch). I have proposed an alternative “fair progression” approach intended to minimise disruption, which embeds the principle of continuous professional development. I expect the realpolitik will result in a continuation of placing people into silos at the age of 18 to create an elite fraction of engineers, with “the rest” offered patronising platitudes and some trickle through during career.

The consequences of removing from the register all those CEng, who might if subjected to the same assessment as a new entrant, “trip up” would be catastrophic for some PEIs and other bodies. I used the phrase “trip up” intentionally because that is what happens to many seeking registration, they are proven experienced professionals, but didn’t do the right degree years ago, or aren’t “creative and innovative” in their work (a code for using calculus?). We would therefore being taking a sledgehammer to crack the very tiny nut of occasional poor practice by a registered CEng. A modest risk exists among early career CEng due to the academic emphasis of their preparation and lack of practical experience, but our CPD proposition doesn’t affect this. In their current form the other two categories offer some recognition, but are presented as having limited autonomous capability by promoters of CEng. Since some are in contact with poorly-informed customers such as members of the public, government intervention has intended to focus there, with “competent person schemes” etc. designed to drive out “cowboys” and “rogue traders”.

Having read Andy’s post just before I was going to post. I tend to focus on the Eng Tech/IEng/Apprenticeship perspective. However where we are, is that CEng is more or less “the only show in town”, so in practice most of what I do is trying to help IET members gain that recognition if they can meet the standard. This being our primary flagship standard, I see it as essential that it clearly demonstrates fair access on the basis of standards of performance.

Academic qualifications offer some indication of performance and future potential typically at around the age of 21-22, but for those of graduate standard, they are not a reliable basis on which to divide engineers into two categories over the following years. For convenience and influenced by sociological factors, we value certain types of academic currency more highly than others. Engineering as actually practiced, takes place along a continuum from very theoretically/scientifically informed to more practical “know how” led. At each end this continuum but not an engineer, is the scientist and the craftsperson. I suppose that my description is a “hypothesis”, but I’m not aware that anyone has disproved it, just like I am unaware of research that correlates the superiority of MEng Engineers over BEng or BSc ones. I would expect a positive correlation at the “scientist end” but not in the middle or towards the “more practical end”. Assuming that one end of this spectrum is superior (perhaps using bloom’s taxonomy as a justification) is the same as assuming that “a scientist is better than an engineer”. Is that OK with everybody?

I see no significant benefit in removing registration unless it has been abandoned by loss of commitment (symbolized by not paying) or misused; i.e treating it like a "qualification". But I have argued for voluntary periodic review, which offers the opportunity for Engineers to engage in a two-way dialogue with their professional body, resulting in a (preferably agreed) report. Where appropriate, any employer of other relevant stakeholder could simply ask “how did your latest review go”. I think that the idea of “full-review” was discussed at Engineering Council at some time in the past and one PEI suggested that “they could do it for £500”. Our current model keeps costs very low by harnessing volunteer effort , so whatever we do has to financially viable and value for money.

To fully support Andy’s point a “service to society” rather than “self-serving” attitude will enhance all of our status. I’m sure that attempts to present what we do as “definitely not oily rag” only contribute to an agenda of division between us and feeds snobbery. This persists in our need to divide experienced professionals using grounds that we can’t ourselves agree on, or implement consistently. Is it really so important whether someone gets A* or B in their maths A level, or applies “creativity and innovation” (whatever that means) twenty years later? We should all just be progressing in whatever direction opportunities take us. Is it really appropriate for us to diminish good experienced professional engineers in order to aggrandise academic high-flyers? As a club perhaps it is, but as a charity for social purpose, this seems unnecessary and quite risky.

David, its good to see IET leading the way! We need to be conscious that only just over a quarter of our members are CEng. For IMechE it is around one-third, with ICE a little higher. The fourth largest (it used to be IIE) IChemE has only about a quarter of its members CEng, although it is a leader in respect of IEng & Eng Tech, with approximately 0.001% of its members registered in those categories. The IET brings up the rear in this “premier league of exclusion table” with around 9%. The much smaller Society of Operations Engineers actually has two IEng for every CEng, giving it a higher proportion of IEng than the IET at circa 16%. Note also that registrants tend to be older, with an average age of late 50s for engineers.

Alasdair, I have seen some of your responses to technical questions in the forums and your handicap is clearly well below the threshold and perhaps even scratch. I don’t like to see golfers dressed for football, but if they have a talent, then we can polish them up. When I used to go to company golf society days, one of the guys “off the tools” always seemed to get the better of us “office bound” types!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

EC UK Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement

Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement

Community Rules & Guidelines