Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 54 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 2989 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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.


  • 0
    Andy,

    Good point, but then this gets back to Roy B's point about making it add value - if it adds value then it is easier to persuade employers and legal compliance bodies that registration is essential.

    As you say, another excellent post from Roy B. Having just passed a significant birthday, it is time for me to go and get my Argyle sweater and pastel coloured slacks.

    Alasdair
  • 0
    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!devil


    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 themfrown. 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)devil. 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!angel 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”wink 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 upcool. 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! surprise                          

  • 0
    Roy,

    Many thanks for your kind words. However to take up your earlier comment about academic qualifications indicating future potential at 21-22, in my case at that age I had an OND and was getting my hands oily, with the result that now I am all for looking beyond qualifications to see a persons capabilities as they are, regardless of the route to the present position. It didn't hold me back in the long term (though I did subsequently do a degree at university) but it gave me insight into the value of apprenticeships and working on the shop floor (or in my case, the ship floor, being in the merchant navy).

    Alasdair
  • 0
    Alasdair, my ship was a bit bigger, bolted down and I went home at the end of each shift.


    Your experience should give you a good view about, which elements were of practical use. My experience and observation is that for many engineers a really solid grasp of ONC/OND material is most if not all of what they need. If you pick up an academic textbook, it assumes fluency in advanced mathematics and uses that as the medium of explanation. Although we covered some calculus at ONC and built on this a little for HNC, I didn’t need anything that couldn’t be explained using ONC level material. Although I did some more advanced statistics in and industrial management course post-HNC.  


    My memory is a little rusty, but I think that you posted an excellent practitioners guide simplifying fault level calculations which hit a good spot with me, had I still been anywhere near that sort of thing.  If I’m honest I just became bored with maths beyond a certain point and rather lost interest, especially when the logistic challenges of a part-time engineering degree at the time were onerous and the syllabus looked of dubious relevance.  It later became much clearer to me through those who I managed, that to miss or fail to understand some crucial step in the logic of maths can fatally undermine further progress. With the right teaching, time to go back to the “derailment” pick it back up, again and some focussed effort, most succeed.  The most obviously different attribute that I observe in those with a university education is the ability to use scientific method to construct and better communication skills to set out, a quality proposition.


    If the hypothesis that I set out needs challenging, then I would welcome that. Setting aside the “IEng problem” and any politics that surround it. We all want future Chartered Engineers that we can be proud of. I’m certainly not trying to undermine more academic forms of preparation for some engineers, but I’m better equipped to comment on the mainstream of engineering as practiced in those sectors that I’m more familiar with.

    It was Hamish Bell who first put the continuum argument to me and having followed the evidence I’m persuaded. My practical solution is to propose that all of graduate calibre should attain the same “level playing field” benchmark, before advancing in whatever direction is appropriate to the opportunities that arise, to reach with reasonable opportunities and motivation, chartered recognition. I have been close to the Work-based MSc programmes (eg Gateways) where there are good examples of high achievement by those who weren’t “stars” at 18. Unfortunately the costs of mid-career degrees have spiralled out of proportion, so something like this can’t become a “requirement”. It seems that the “mature student” market is in serious decline?     

Community Rules & Guidelines