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.


  • 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!         



  • Mehmood Birdi:

    ...though trying to base the human on one of the Red Dwarf characters. 




    Missed that, I can see it now smiley



    Roy Pemberton:

    I think what confuses me is that I don't believe we do have a points or hours based system mandated, yet every event or activity we engage in, we get told "don't forget, you can claim x points or hours for this". Frankly, I can't remember which it is because I consider it so worthless that I pay no attention to it, but it does make me wonder if it means the Institute thinks we should be using points or hours?



    From members that have spoken to me (including many at the D&C LN AGM) this is exactly what's causing much of the confusion. I think they are trying to be helpful, to make CPD seem easier to get (and of course to attract members to events!) but I think it's backfiring.

     



    Roy Bowdler:

    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. 


    Difficult. Totally agree that what is clearly upsetting the more experienced members is this idea that somehow the IET is fit to judge them, but the problem is that with the IET being the manager of registration statuses we're a bit stuck with that situation. (And I'm certainly one of those that was furious at the way CPD was communicated out last year - which is why I dove in to find what the situation actually was.) As you suggest, it's all about handling this sensitively. Alasdair, myself and many others of us who work in independent assurance have to do this all the time in our day jobs, assessing and passing judgements on engineers and engineering projects when those involved may have far more technical knowledge of their field than we do, plus we actually spend very little time with them, and yet our word is (to some extent) law. It absolutely can and does work, but it has to be done sensitively. As you say, it is a peer review, when I was a school governor the phrase was "critical friend", but there must be an element of censure as absolute last resort to retain credibility of the status. And I don't think the balance is right yet.


    David - really useful posts and insight, thank you!


    Cheers,


    Andy

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I don't understand why the EC doesn't have a discussion forum, setup on its network, specifically for registrants to discuss matters about registration, promoting CEng, IEng, EngTech and ICTTech, CPD and subscription fees, amongst other things? That way, more IEngs could participate in a collective manner, rather than being segragated from each other into different PEIs. The collective thoughts of IEngs from all the PEIs could make a world of difference if they could engage with each other and with senior staff working at the EC. Perhaps, results could then be achieved much quicker.


    There is something clearly wrong with the way the EC is preventing this from happening. Addressing this failing is far more important than worrying about doing one's CPD, because it's giving the impression the EC is a non-transparent organisation. You have to go through a PEI to communicate with the EC.
  • I'd like to make it clear that none of the CPD assessors are there to judge anyone. Yes, as engineers, we make a judgement (to the best of our ability) as to whether we believe the CPD is the best the individual candidate could do, and then try to provide helpful suggestions where we think it could be better reported or reflected. In my experience it is reflection that appears to be where most people might be able to improve. It is a skill like anything else and, I believe, a valuable one.

    It is well worth making that CPD declaration, even without being asked.
  • 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! :)
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Roy P,

    I expect the EC will have information on the number of IEng members against each PEI.
  • I’m supportive of David Parr’s comments. The IET is trying to do the right thing. Did I read somewhere that the IET expects CPD of all members, I’m unsure if this is being monitored? I interpreted this thread to concern Engineering Council registrants. Therefore, my criticism is mainly aimed at this strategic level, which is a collective “parliament” of PEIs.


    I’m not interested in "blame-games" and "witch-hunts", because it is easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight. However, the primary concern of the majority of PEI’s has been to create a hierarchy of value in which CEng is held to be “elite” with the other two types of registrant being, subsidiary, “junior” or de-facto excluded.  The model perhaps fits well with those Golf Clubs that have Artisan Sections. Scratch the surface and from a sociological perspective the comparison has some validity.


    Private clubs should quite reasonably have freedom within the law and some good may come from it. For example Muirfield Golf Course is excellent, but the franchise for holding the Open Championship, was under threat of withdrawal because of its sexist policies. To pursue the analogy a little further, I understand that anyone with a handicap of 18 or better is eligible to play there.  As a golfer who hasn’t maintained “CPD” over recent years, that would rule me out just now. However for interest, I sought a statistical distribution curve of golf handicaps and the one that I found (USGA) placed approximately 66% of the total at 18 or better, which is this particular interpretation of a “good golfer”; or should it be a “competent one”, with higher handicappers dismissed as “hackers”? Some clubs have a (good natured) “rabbits” section for them to compete amongst each other, rather than just be potential “bandits” in the monthly medal.


    I appreciate that Golf is a greatly simplified and imperfect metaphor for our enormously varied profession, but if members of the artisan’s section aren’t allowed on the practice ground and have their handicap restricted, then it isn’t a fair game. It seems that only those with a particular type of swing approved by the committee can have their score counted as valid. Only certain people teach that swing and the committee has no, or only token representation from the Artisan Section.   


    I found this newspaper article from last year

    Golf has been going through a steady and steep decline for a decade, with some arguing that the sport urgently needs to undergo a drastic reinvention to avoid a slow slide into obscurity. Membership of clubs in England has fallen from 850,000 to 652,000 in since 2006. So what’s the problem with golf? There are three, according to England Golf’s participation director Richard Flint: time, cost and perception. In other words, playing a round of golf takes forever, costs a fortune and remains, in the mind of many, a pastime enjoyed overwhelmingly by chaps over a certain age sporting Argyle sweaters and pastel-coloured slacks.


    Registration as an Engineer has suffered a similar decline for slightly different reasons, although efforts to get younger people interested have recovered Eng Tech numbers somewhat in recent years, ongoing commitment and progression into "full membership" is less clear. To touch on the question about numbers, at the last count there were circa 28 000 IEng of which the IET has circa 11000 (for CEng the numbers are 176000 and 44000). However it should be noted that close to 40% of registered Engineers and Technicians are over 60 with fewer than 10% under 35. Technicians tend on average to be younger and leave the register within 10 years. IEng and CEng tend to be of similar age at first registration (37) but on average CEng stay on for longer, currently by 5 years. I don’t have enough detailed data to quantify it accurately, but quite a number of IEng, resigned “early”, citing loss of value and disrespect over recent years.    


    Our challenge if we think registration (including CPD) is a good thing, is for it to add value.  A culture has been created over many years that CEng is a “qualification”, rather than on-going annual request to be included on a register. It would be difficult and potentially painful to change this, so we don’t want to. 


    This same culture has positioned the IEng category as being  “part-qualified”, so as I stated in an earlier post, my own CPD over the last 25+ years is now without value in the eyes of Engineering Council. Those who are Eng Tech registered are either “juniors”, or have accepted “the Artisan’s section” as being fit for their needs. Some of them are perhaps the most exposed to statutory regulation.  So most CEng are “sitting pretty” and may resent being “nagged” by their institution. Some Eng Tech and IEng are trying to “progress” but face a minefield in doing so , lacking a recognised  pathway, with even some marked paths having been mined.


    Therefore to strike a topical note, our "International Trade Deals", de-facto only cover academic qualifications and seem to have benefitted just a few migrants.  If a future government wanted to disadvantage inbound skilled migration, they could look towards Engineering Council, but both elements of this seem unlikely to me?  Some people can see clear benefits in membership, others see the whole thing as a “stich up” by elites to exclude them,  the great majority just want a benign and supportive environment in which they can conduct their careers and lives successfully.  If we want to serve that majority, then that is where we need to be.



  • Our challenge if we think registration (including CPD) is a good thing, is for it to add value.  A culture has been created over many years that CEng is a “qualification”, rather than on-going annual request to be included on a register. It would be difficult and potentially painful to change this, so we don’t want to. 



    CEng, and IEng and EngTech, are already registrations.  That's why you have to pay the yearly membership fee.  Fail to pay that fee for a year, and you are no longer a CEng (or IEng or EngTech).


    Like most professional registration schemes, there is a requirement to show that you are a fit person to stay on the scheme.  Some schemes use mandatory training and inspections.  Some use CPD.


    The EC has been pretty lax about enforcing CPD for many years.  But now they are pushing the various institutions to actually check that their members are doing it.  And it's ruffling a few feathers of people who thought that a CEng (or IEng or EngTech) was a qualification for life.
  • HI Roy (B),


    Just add my usual comment to your excellent post: unless we can persuade employers and legal compliance bodies that registration is essential - or (more practically) near-essential - for certain roles rather than being a "nice to have" (and indeed some employers actively not wanting registered engineers) then the golf club will empty. There are benefits to engineers of being registered - I wouldn't PRA if there weren't - but the primary benefit is (or should be) to society.


    If this doesn't happen then you can scrap all my comments above re CPD - if registration is only for the registered engineer's benefit then I don't think it's an appropriate use of funds for the EC and PEIs to follow up on it. But then in that case a) I don't see why we should have to pay for our registration year-on-year and b) it will be irrelevant anyway as hardly anyone will bother getting registered!


    Apologies for banging on about the same points yet again, but IMHO they are absolutely vital, and I'm still not seeing real drive anywhere to resolve this.


    Cheers, Andy
  • I'm pleased to say that the IET has recognised that CPD is a benefit to ALL members, and treat everyone the same, registered or unregistered. The Engineering Council rules only apply to registrants (of course), but the IET have taken the wider view. I don't believe that all the PEIs have been so inclusive.