Andy

You seem to think that it is necessary to prove ones competence continuously, and that CPD (of some kind) is the way to prove this. Fair enough, so let us assess some of the competence currently being shown by some others and therefore assess their ability to do their jobs. You may not agree with my assessments, but must be entirely evidence based if you wish to disagree.


Currently electric vehicles are being pushed very hard by all manner of people, unfortunately some of them engineers. The major reason for this is because they believe that internal combustion engines cannot be used in future because they emit exhaust products which must be eliminated from the atmosphere for various reasons, although they do not understand these reasons at any fundamental level. For example they have failed to examine the toxicology of NO2, and therefore believe that it is highly poisonous. They have not examined the so called "greenhouse effect" of CO2, or the advantages of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to plants, and because of this believe that we must eliminate fossil fuels of all kinds. They have also not considered what else may be done to replace such fuels in the more northern countries with seriously adverse climates, where human existence needs space heating. They have not considered the provision of electricity if we all have electric vehicles, because the supply is completely inadequate even at this point as coal plants are shut down, although they are the least polluting of all major fossil fuel uses; perhaps excepting gas, but that has other questions. "Renewables" is shouted, but these have the ultimate problem that the supply is completely unpredictable, and we need power at a high level at all times. Storage of grid levels of power (say 1000GWhr) is immensely dangerous, a fault could release this over a short period with the possibility of damage like many large hydrogen bombs at once.


You will see that I have used the word belief a number of times above. Engineering is never about belief, it is about hard facts, many of which are gained at great effort and expense. All of the above points are avoided by engineers for reasons which I cannot begin to understand, but which stem from politics. I am old enough not to care to be popular with people in general, but I do care about the future. The greatest risk to the developed world is failure to engineer the future to deal with whatever comes along, and to do that engineers need to understand many things fully, particularly when these form part of a belief system of others, rather than simple facts. I asked the question about electricity in my last post deliberately, because the "model" answer says more about early 20th century scientific belief than understanding. "Green" is a belief system based on supposition and poor science. So was alchemy and witchcraft. The future depends on engineers getting the answers right.


Just in case you wonder, NO2 is an irritant gas, not very poisonous, naturally occuring from lightning. It is produced in high temperature and pressure combustion in air, in small volumes. It can be virtually eliminated with suitable catalysts. The EU limit is 200 ug / m3 for air quality assessment. Such levels can easily be met with diesel engines and exhaust treatment. High levels found in some towns are due to stationary traffic having insufficient exhaust temperature to operate the catalyst, a road design defect now blamed on diesel engines! That is known as politics.

David/Andy,

I have to admit, though I have some sympathy with the generic point about bad science, David's post does appear to have meandered severely off-topic.

However, I also have a degree of agreement with the underlying point, and had been on the point of posting something along what I believe are similar lines to that point. I also recognise that, if you accept the view I outline below, which I believe is the same one that David was seeking to make, there is a parallel between the "fashionable but innacurate" nature of the environmental emissions case that he outlines (I'll take his word for it that this is in fact the case as he clearly knows more about it than I do) and what I believe is also a fashionable but not necessarily beneficial approach to CPD. Bear with me while I explain my reasoning 


Andy is right in one specific - whether we agree with it or not, UKSPEC is very specific in its requirements for CPD, and, if we are to continue to embrace the whole concept of registration, we are not allowed the luxury of picking and choosing which elements of UKSPEC we will or won't buy into - we simply have to address them all, even if we personally disagree with them. 


Of course, the question arises as to whether we do agree or not,. and if we don't, whether we want to persuade others and consider seeking a change to UKSPEC.


Personally, I do disagree with a set of requirements that, in my opinion, are framed around junior members of the profession, yet imposed on all registered engineers regardless of the length and success of their career, their track record of implementing good engineering, and it definitely has a feel of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs.


​​​​​​To me, the essential need to confirm that you continue to engage with the profession and to continue, on an ongoing basis to demonstrate competence in the profession at the required level is met far more successfully by results than by an arbitrary cycle of development process that does not, of itself, demonstrate engineering competence, it demonstrates no more than that you are going through a mechanistic process that could easily satisfy a reviewer against the prescriptive UKSPEC requirements whilst, potentially, completely failing to have relevance to the competence required to perform the individual's engineering role. Like David, personally, I do not accept that simply going through the CPD cycle, of itself, demonstrates ongoing competence. 


Don't get me wrong - it's a great process for engineers in the early stages of development, and encourages a rigour and self evaluation that is to be encouraged, and forms a strong foundation for an ongoing self-improvement approach that is essential to maintaining competence. But, as I've commented previously, for the more experienced professional (not only engineers) the whole thing becomes instinctive, and I feel it if unnecessarily onerous and, as David says, lacking in true value, to insist on recording every detail of personal development planning and decisions if continuing competence can be better demonstrated in other ways that automatically demonstrate that CPD has in fact been ongoing, even if the detailed planning and implementation has not been recorded.


In my view, by far the better means of demonstrating continuing competence is to demonstrate by results - it would, in my view, meet the fundamental need far more effectively if a regular update of ongoing achievements were to be required and provided. That is the ultimate test of a competent engineer, and if provided, implicitly demonstrates that the individual has in fact been undertaking CPD. I see no further need to demonstrate that to be the case.


So, in my personal opinion, the requirements of UKSPEC should be amended to require continuing demonstration of competence and commitment, with the first, preferred way of doing so being by regular submission and review of engineering achievements/results, and only if that is not possible (either because of lack of opportunity, or because there is a development need inhibiting production of those results) should the second choice of a CPD submission be required - effectively, the question is "do your achievements demonstrate ongoing competence and, if not, what are you doing about it?".


In my view, it is impossible to continue achieving results unless you are in fact paying attention to your CPD, although, as I say, by later stages in your career, you are probably doing it instinctively. I see absolutely no benefit to me personally, in terms of assuring my ongoing competence, in going through a formally recorded CPD process, as I'm doing it habitually on a continuous basis in order to practice as an engineer, the value is only to prove it to others, and I believe my results prove it in their own right.


For now, we have no choice but to comply, but I do feel strongly that this needs a complete change of mindset.

Hi Roy,


Many thanks for that, very clearly expressed. My view is still that what you're suggesting professional experienced engineers would expect to do (or I would say, would be expected to do) is CPD in the UKSpec framework, and can be shown to meet all the requirements except point 1 (which, as I say, I think is incorrectly worded). There's nothing in this list that says it has to be "points based", my understanding is that for most of us simply presenting - as you say - results will be adequate.


It's also worth remembering that the requirements are very light, so for most of us we are not going to need to provide every bit of evidence. I can't honestly remember what the hours criteria are at the moment, but I remember when that awful letter come out last year I did use the online CPD manager, just as a test, to record what I could very quickly remember in (iirc) something like the first three months of that year. I found I had already exceed the yearly target by 2-3 times. 


It's really not onerous for a senior engineer to gather the evidence when it's needed, and personally I think this whole issue has been blown out of proportion. 


Maybe I'm wrong and the IET will impose strict draconian measures on it's senior members. But I'll bet you that pint that I'm right and that in the end no-one is going to have to do much more than send in a brief CV of "what I did this year".


Now whether this is actually an adequate approach to improving the credibility of (particularly) CEng I am more doubtful. Simply because it is so easy to satisfy these requirements. Thinking as an independent assessor: without governance of CPD (as we effectively were a couple of years ago whatever UKSpec said) a professional registration level gained many years ago didn't tell me anything very much about the abilities of an engineer today. With this pretty low level of CPD monitoring, which people already seem to be complaining is draconian, I'm not sure it really tells me much more. OK, I'm only looking at this from one point of view, but I'd suggest it's a very important point of view - it is directly related to why those statuses are legally protected. Otherwise, for many of the other reasons for getting a professional registration level, engineers might as well get it and then resign the following year - they'll still know they met the benchmark at a point. Ideally I'd like to see a re-assessment against UKSpec every - say - three years, and as you say this could perfectly well be results based. Of course it won't happen, we don't have a fraction of the resources available to do this.


Sorry about using the word "draconian" twice - poor writing style, but it's a nice word and I'm trying to send this quickly before getting started at work!


Cheers,


Andy

Hi David,


As Roy says, I think you need to start another thread for that discussion if you want, it's very off-topic. I won't be joining in, I am an electronics and safety engineer, not an atmospheric physicist. 


Thanks,


Andy

Gentlemen


I was not really intending to go off topic, but making a serious point which I think you appreciate. However I am going to make another, in in my view a complete demonstration, of why this paperwork system does not work, and I am not making a political point but an objection on real grounds.


You are probably familiar with this system of "proof" and "total reporting" in the lower part of our education system, in the entire school system. Teachers have to provide continuous documentation of the "progress" of pupils through their courses. This takes a great deal of time and effort, and is mostly useless as the only outcome is some league table position. I have many friends who teach, and this system is seen as nothing but a bureaucratic nonsense. It has caused a severe decline in educational standards, and a great many excellent teachers to leave the profession. Examination standards are at an all time low, whatever those in charge claim, and whatever meaningless grade candidates achieve. 25-30%  first class honours degrees, you have to be joking!


You have said that this recording takes little time and is easy to show sufficient CPD time, but my question is "what is the CPD result?". Unless you can prove a positive improvement in your performance (which with most of the CPD cited is unlikely) it would be much better if you did something else. The reporting standards are likely to get more onerous as time passes, again with severely negative results. Engineering is hard enough without this extra load, and the CEng registration is of very little real value to the holder. The first step must be to show that registered engineers are better, cleverer, and more valuable to a business. This has been said for at least 30 years, but our leaders have made exactly zero progress, perhaps making it even less valuable.


Engineers expect to be judged by results, because we directly make things happen. CPD needs to show direct results, which it does not in any way that I can see. Real study of problems does show direct results, in that they end up solved. That is the real purpose of engineering. My team did not win the McRobert prize because we had neat notebooks, we won it because we worked every hour the was for years to achieve results. None of us at that time was a CEng, only a few are now. So make it worth something, and not by paperwork which proves nothing!

Andy,

my reason for describing it as onerous was my attempt to use career manager. I found it incredibly time consuming simply for recording a thought process I'd already completed, but without recording it. I felt it added nothing to the value for me, and, in my opinion, doesn't prove very much, as it's all too ready to play the system and look good on paper but without necessarily delivering or demonstrating actual engineering competence. I've definitely known a number of people who are good at that.


Furthermore, it's all framed around a single, probably annual, review/reflection/plan when, in fact, mine is a living thing that develops from week to week, meaning going back in and updating to reflect that is a regular task that I feel is onerous, and once again, pointless for anybody who deals with their development in the habitual way that i describe.


If you're right that submission for review of either an updated CV or just a record of ongoing engineering achievements over a period (and I agree that 3 years seems sensible) would be accepted as fulfilling the requirements of UKSPEC, them I'm completely happy that is the sensible approach, but my reading of UKSPEC suggests to me that this does not meet the specification, and that is because UKSPEC is very prescriptive and describes a process that is highly valuable for a professional in the early stages of their career, at it gets them into a mindset for that will eventually lead to the habitual approach i describe. So there's nothing wrong with the process, only with her it is evidenced, and that is what I believe UKSPEC is prescriptive on.

Just like to add to the general discussion here, and say that I was educated by lecturers who were all CEngs, and employed by Heads of Dept. who were also CEng registered. So I am familiar with their job roles and the levels of competences they demonstrated.


In those days, they used the old fashioned GPO telephones to make the odd call per day, and wrote the one memo per day, or even per week - or got their staff to type it up - and life was a lot stress free then compared to today.  The technical engineers hardly needed to use the phone or write up a memo. Back then, membership and registration fees were a lot cheaper , and there was no need or requirement to even contact your PEI let alone the EC (CEI). So life was considerbely stress free.


Nowadays computers run our lives more so than we would like. Many people, particularly the young are getting hooked  on games and online betting, and suffering from mental health problems and debt.


As engineers we have to question whether doing regular online CPD in addition to all other computer related work is really making us better engineers today than say 20, 30, or 40 years ago? Are we achieving  considerbally more spending power today compared to engineers of the past? - education, houses, cars, consumables, clothing, travel - are be more happy today compared to engineers in the past?


We have to question whether the integration of computers in our everyday lives today are doing the chores we were promised in programs like Tomorrows World back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, or are we now being kept busy by doing chores like CPD to justify the computers purchased by the PEIs and EC? Who's the master and who's the slave?


We can talk much more easily and quickly than we can write. So when computers eventually become more developed with AI, then we will do away with writing altogether, finally be able to produce documents; create spread sheets, and presentations, send voice activated emails, and finally send in voice activated CPDs to whoever needs to see it; and we will finally be free of the chores we were promised.

AL:Good evening John, how was your day today?
MB: It was hectic. I missed me lunch break, and I haven't had me dinner yet!
AL:I'm sorry to hear that. Would you like me to prepare you your favorite meal? It will be ready in 5 minutes?
MB: That'll be great.
AL:Would you like to add anything to your CPD to the Engineering Council?
MB: Yes tell them to get notted, set in charm mode.
AL: Of course! I will add some thought provoking text based on your automated work diary of the day. I see from your diary you attended a safety critical seminar on the new bridge construction. I shall build your CPD on the contents of that.
MB: No problem!
AL:R.P and A.M sent you replies on the discussion forum about sending regular CPDs to the EC; countering your objections to it. Would you like to hear them?
MB: Oh go on then.
AL: R.P said: blah blah blah; and A.M agreed with him by replying: blah blah blah.
AL: Would you like me to reply on your behalf?
MB: Too right! Tell them both to get notted!
AL: I have sent them, generated text based on your original objection to CPD, in the mode of charming style pre-selected.
MB: Thanks for that AL. Where would I be without you? Now what happened about me dinner?
AL: It's ready and waiting for your attention. Shall I bring it to you while you're watching your favourite TV program "Red Dwarf"?
MB: Yes and hurry up about it.


You get my drift.

Alasdair,


However equally we do need to make sure people are clear that they don't have to use Career Manager to meet UKSpec - there does seem to be considerable misunderstanding about this. I'm in the middle (as ever!), I found it ok to use when I tried as a test, but I don't actually use it. I think it's horses for courses.


The point about reflection is a good one, but then that's also a requirement of registration in the first place. So what I suspect will happen is that the forms of acceptable evidence for CPD (including reflection etc) will end up looking remarkably similar to the forms of acceptable evidence for professional registration - and, let's face it it's going to be almost certainly the same people doing the assessment!


Now that all said (from all my posts above), I suppose it is very possible (from what I remember of the IETs proposed process) that on a first review Roy and I would get our wrists slapped and told to come back in three months time with a formal plan and record. Hard to predict how that conversation would actually pan out as it would depend totally on the attitude of the person from the IET's side who is conducting it...so I don't really feel I can comment more. As you can imagine I am very very used to being audited in all sorts of ways (I'm sure Roy is as well) so this isn't a prospect I personally find terribly concerning.


BUT I do feel that the IET could do considerably more to explain to members the many and varied ways they can manage this, beyond Career Manager.


Cheers,


Andy

Alasdair,

i agree wholeheartedly - you maybe missed my earlier post which made exactly that point - that, like it or not, UKSPEC does lay down prescriptive requirements and, as a PRI, if the task fell to me to review ongoing CPD (which I agree should be done regularly, probably 3-yearly), as ongoing affirmation of continued fitness to remain registered, as opposed to simply meeting IET requirements, hence subject to UKSPEC, I would have no choice but to do so against the UKSPEC requirements, however much I disagree with them. 


I therefore advocated that, if my viewpoint is shared by others, we should be attempting to persuade EC of the need to change those requirements in favour of CPD being evidenced, by preference, by results/achievements, on the basis that they can only have been achieved by pursuing suitable and sufficient CPD. 


Andy responded by saying that he didn't see it as too onerous and felt it likely that submission of an updated CV or record of recent achievements may well be accepted as sufficient evidence. That led to my latest response, but that was all a development of my initial point which was exactly the point that you make.