Good words as usual Roy, highlighting well the fact that each person and their needs are different.  This includes the fact that everybody's best way of learning is individual, ranging from those who learn best from receiving tuition, those who do so from self-study, others from doing it, and many other approaches together with combinations.


I can still vividly remember, more years ago than I care to count (oh, OK, 43 years ago!) sitting in an HNC electronics class with the lecturer trying to explain how transistor oscillators work. When he kept encountering blank faces, he ran over the maths again, and again, and I kept thinking "fine, I've seen the maths but what's actually happening?", eventually switching him off altogether and going through the text book, and the maths, thinking "if maths is only modelling the effect, then what is it modelling?", so trying to envision what the maths represented until I suddenly experienced epiphany as I realised it was an amplifier whose input was derived from its output, tending towards instability, but hitting stability at the frequency that satisfied the maths and recognising an analogy with a string of a stringed instrument. 

I spent the next break explaining this to my fellow students who all walked away with understanding they didn't get from the lecturer. 


Most importantly, I learnt more about myself in those moments than anything else.


I could have spent many hours more trying to learn from that lecturer and not achieved as much personal development as I did in 5 minutes of my own personal reflection, yet an hours based system would have assigned me far more credit for the former than the latter.


Also, let's not forget that the word is development, not just learning, and covers a myriad of facets, including soft skills, self understanding, personal impact, learning from mistakes - an endless list is possible.


I see no value in recording CPD hours at all. Everybody develops at a different speed, and even for one individual, it comes in bursts. 2 hours by one individual may achieve the same progress as another takes only 10 minutes to achieve, but also, the extent of development that is desired, appropriate or satisfying, or the goals aspired to for one individual may be different  from one individual to another, and for all, these factors may change with time, circumstances and motivation.


For me, far more interesting and useful questions are:

How often do you reflect on your own performance, your career position and progress and your satisfaction with them, the value that you offer your employer, client or other stakeholder?

How can you improve your job satisfaction and enjoyment?

How confident are you that you will be able to meet the challenges you have to meet satisfactorily (to your employer/client/stakeholder's satisfaction and your own), and what obstacles are there preventing you doing so?

How do others perceive you, and how do you feel about that? 

How do you validate any or all of the above (not forgetting that this is an often forgotten objective for registration)?

And then, what do you want to do about the answers to all of the above, and what can you realistically do?

How do you judge the success of whatever development you undertake?

And finally, most importantly of all, why do you want to develop? 

The problem with an hours or points based CPD system is that the answer to that last, potentially, is that it's simply what you've been told you should do. 

All of the above may benefit from being recorded, and that may help some individuals to exert a greater degree of self-motivation and self-discipline, but it's not essential. For the type of individual that Roy describes, and which I believe both of us are examples of, it's unnecessary, we're going to pursue or development instinctively, without the need for any externally imposed or written plan or record. I suspect this describes many others too.


In terms of demonstrating it to others, if practical, I feel a discussion along the lines above will reveal far more, and it will quickly become evident whether or not the individual has in fact given thought to, and has a grasp of their CPD needs and plans.

I realise that doing so on an ongoing basis requires time from those undertaking a review but, firstly, would it really be any more time than wading through a formally documented record, and secondly, is it reasonable for an onerous system of CPD records, or an hours or points based system that may be highly inappropriate for the individual to be imposed just because we haven't found a process, or the means to administer a process that does deliver real value?

Hi Roy,


I agree with you in principle, but the problem is: How can the EC confirm that registered engineers are achieving all this, given that at present we struggle to find the time to interview even prospective registered engineers (I've had a few complaints recently about the long wait for interviews), so we are going to really struggle to meet personally with even a sample of current registrants?


Also bearing in mind that to get away from the "old boys club" image any judgement made as to the capability (or not) of the registrant needs to be quantifiable in some way, it can't be (or be seen to be) "yes I chatted to him and he seemed like a jolly good chap"! I know that's not what you were suggesting, but without some quantification it can easily turn into it (or be perceived to).


We all seem to be pretty much in agreement that blandly "counting hours" or "counting points" can give misleading answers, so what can we do that be done without a face-to-face discussion and without putting an unacceptable extra burden on the registrant at the time they are being reviewed?


Personally, and given I have to do this sort of thing for other reasons in the day job anyway, I think a recent CV and then follow up written request for further evidence if the CV doesn't clearly show CPD itself (perhaps because of the nature of the registrants work) would be perfectly satisfactory. And the criteria here are, I would have thought, the same as competence A1 - although that is still pretty vague.


I think it's worth keeping coming back to the fact that the vast majority of engineers in the UK do not engage with professional registration, and anecdotally this seems to be because it's seen by both them and their employers as "bureaucratic" and "adding little value". As always, I believe the key is convincing employers that it adds value (and that the value outweighs the inevitable bureaucracy). Part of this surely must be that an employer knows that however long it is since a member of their staff achieved registration, that registration is still "current" and telling both them and their customers (and any legal compliance authorities) something valid. Without continuous review - even on a sampled basis - I don't see how EC and the PEIs can provide that assurance? So it's how to do that without falling foul of the "bureaucratic" hurdle?


Does anyone know what other UK professions (e.g. medicine, law, accountancy) do? (I'm sure I asked that before somewhere.)


Cheers,


Andy

Andy,

I take your point and recognise that, but I was coming from the other side of this, asking how reasonable it is to impose a requirement that is an additional burden to the individual yet, arguably, delivers them little or no value. In fact, it's exactly the point you make about registration (and the EC requirement to confirm commitment to CPD) offering little value to registrants and being unnecessarily bureaucratic isn't it? 

In terms of other institutes, I think most of the engineering institutes, certainly the ICE at least, go with the points system, and, when I have had responsibility for monitoring professional accreditation across multiple disciplines, I have definitely felt that didn't deliver the required result, in honesty, we only went with it because, as an engineering consultancy, registration was a selling point for our engineers, not because we felt it made them better engineers.

The only one I can talk of from direct personal experience is the CMI for Chartered Manager, (think you may also be able to, as I recall you're C.Mgr, but unsure if that's via the CMI) who don't use a points system, but a formally recorded version of what I've described, including requirement for 360 degree appraisals. Similar in some ways to Career Manager, and requiring resubmission every three years plus annual CPD plan submission.

I can't help but think that there's another answer that moves further towards that self-managed approach, whilst still providing validation - I feel sure it is achievable, but just needs some thought to develop it fully. I think the CV review you mention may form part of it as that is surely the ultimate demonstration, by outcomes, that the objective has been met. Perhaps a.3-yearly career/CV update post registration? Of course, if that requires review, that's a further volunteer workload, which does seem to be at the core of the problem.

I think this is one of those that has two equal sides to it, with a need to balance needs,  and probably another topic for discussion over that pint we keep talking about!

Let us decide what the EC wants out of this CPD. Is it that we have paperwork that says that each of our registered persons still has an interest in engineering, continues to think about its principles every day, is still competent to carry out some kind of engineering work, or some such similar pointless bit of paper? Perhaps it is that Britain still has a group of people willing to keep us at the forefront of technology, although they would say that this is far too vague, and anyway unless we are taught "stuff" we cannot move forward. So what does it want CPD for? The answer to this question will be interesting, because I think they will be unable to answer it in a satisfying way. My own work has discovered many interesting things, some of them patented, some of them held secret, some of them as yet without application. I have also discovered that there is an arrogance towards truth and fact amongst those who should know better, because that is the only way that they can hold their position in the pyramid of life. Even when presented with proof of their error they will not admit that they cannot explain or do not know, these two points being the most dangerous things that engineers and scientists  can do. Real engineers have a character which always wants to know the "why?" of everything, and if they don't know will work until they do, because that is how we make progress. They also discuss the problem widely, because sharing problems leads to solutions. CPD then should be the discussion of shared problems, not discussion of solutions already found, because this is what makes ones brain actually work, and become interested in progress. Surely this is the reason for CPD?


Lets try this, the electron model of electricity is clearly flawed, how does electricity really work? Perhaps you didn't even know that what you have learned is a model, and a severely imperfect one at that? Ideal CPD!

David,

I think you will find that all the EC is asking for is the PEIs to do random sampling to verify that their registered members are in fact doing CPD as per the post award requirements of UK Spec. How the PEIs do this verification is down to the individual institution. However the EC can ask the PEI to submit the evidence from their sample so they need the evidence to be able to submit it to the EC if requested.

The UK Spec requirements for CPD are as follows (with apologies for the formatting which is due to the copy/paste):

If you are not doing the above then you are no longer meeting UK Spec, and the question arises "should you retain your registration"? However, as far as I can see, everything you have discussed above can be counted as CPD and can be recorded as such.

Not doing the above doesn't mean you are no longer competent to carry out some kind of engineering work, but does call into question your commitment to engineering and therefore the validity of your registration.

Alasdair

David Stone:

Is it that we have paperwork that says that each of our registered persons still has an interest in engineering, continues to think about its principles every day, is still competent to carry out some kind of engineering work, or some such similar pointless bit of paper?

...as far as I can see, everything you have discussed above can be counted as CPD and can be recorded as such.

1. Professional registration of engineers is potentially highly valuable to society, and

• Evidence of ongoing CPD is essential for the validity of professional registration.

Hi Roy (P),


Yes . I think to all the points in your post! Particularly about the pint.


Yes I am CMgr through CMI, I really like their process and think the IET could learn a lot from it. Particularly being able to pay extra for someone to fill in your application for you - since I had an employer at the time who heavily supported me to register this was wonderful! (For those who haven't come across this, it's bit like a PRA not just giving you advice, but actually formatting and submitting your application for you.) But now the option's available I'm paying my annual subs through the IET which comes out slightly cheaper.


Cheers,


Andy