How does IET define Innovation to meet CEng Standards

Hi Shijo,

to put a couple of things straight,  you won't have been rejected by a PRI prior to interview, it will be a pre- interview assessor,  PRIs only conduct interviews and the purpose of the pre- interview assessment is to ensure that,  pre- interview, there is a prima facie case in your written application to indicate that you may meet the requirements and should therefore proceed to interview.  The one item which is already confirmed during that process is knowledge and understanding and the interviewers' role in that respect is purely to validate the k&u claimed as being real and your own understanding.

All remaining competencies lie completely with the interviewers to determine at interview, but the prior assessment is to avoid wasting everybody's time if you don't appear to demonstrate that prima facie case on paper. 


Alasdair has covered the point well that both assessors and interviewers can only judge on what's presented to them,  though assessors will usually come back to you to indicate areas where additional evidence is required if they feel there's any room for doubt,  plus will, for areas in which they are less certain,  recommend took the interviewers areas that particularly need probing. 

Furthermore,  interviewers are trained and judged competent to probe and draw from you,  so far as they can,  evidence if it exists in areas they feel may not have been adequately addressed so far.  If we feel, during the interview,  that there's an area of competence that hasn't yet been adequately demonstrated,  we will do our level best to draw that out and help you to present yourself in the best light. 

Alasdair has also touched on the drawbacks of criteria that are too precise,  the judgement this affords to the interviewers generally working in your favour for exactly the reasons you outline.

Having said that,  I mentioned the upcoming reissue of UKSPEC and,  as I said,  the issues you mention do appear to have been taken very fully on board,  the advance briefing detail very specifically mentions clarifying guidance and examples of managing complexity, for instance,  though from memory I think it also mentioned the same for innovation. 

No,  people in your situation are not uncommon at all and I,  for one,  have worked in construction as well as design,  maintenance and project management.  This has also been true for most PRIs I have met/ interviewed with,  so we understand the situation and appreciate the areas in which you have opportunity to manage either innovation or complexity or both,  so would usually draw that out.

I obviously can't comment on why the assessor in your case didn't feel there was that prima facie case for progressing you to interview and I believe (though can't guarantee I'm right) that you could ask for detailed feedback on what evidence is felt to be lacking - you shouldn't consider this as failure as such,  it's only an indication that the assessor has not yet seen the evidence required, thus I believe you have the opportunity to provide further evidence that may address that.  I've certainly had applications reach me as interviewer where that has happened. 

If,  having gone though that you still have a decline that your PRA feels is unjustified,  you may be justified to wonder whether your PRA is right or providing the right guidance on whether your presentation is suitably convincing.  I can't know if that's the case or not in your case,  but you've seen how Alasdair would deal with this,  so that's at least one PRA who would proactively help you to hone your presentation in your application,  and I know this would be what most PRAs I know would do.  It could be worth asking for a different PRA, not necessarily because yours is wrong,  but because it would give you a second opinion.

I'm not entirely sure how the allocation of assessors works,  but I think that,  if you reapplied, the chances are you'd get a different assessor which may change the outcome if the problem was of the assessor not really understanding the relevance of your evidence.  But ultimately,  as Alasdair says,  it's much better if you can very clearly demonstrate the needs you had identified for which your tool provided the solution and the process by which you came up with the tool so that the assessor can see it readily.  That's where,  as Alasdair said,  your PRA should be able to guide you. 

I hope this helps you to get a clear plan of action and wish you more success on this occasion.

Hi Shijo,

to put a couple of things straight,  you won't have been rejected by a PRI prior to interview, it will be a pre- interview assessor,  PRIs only conduct interviews and the purpose of the pre- interview assessment is to ensure that,  pre- interview, there is a prima facie case in your written application to indicate that you may meet the requirements and should therefore proceed to interview.  The one item which is already confirmed during that process is knowledge and understanding and the interviewers' role in that respect is purely to validate the k&u claimed as being real and your own understanding.

All remaining competencies lie completely with the interviewers to determine at interview, but the prior assessment is to avoid wasting everybody's time if you don't appear to demonstrate that prima facie case on paper. 


Alasdair has covered the point well that both assessors and interviewers can only judge on what's presented to them,  though assessors will usually come back to you to indicate areas where additional evidence is required if they feel there's any room for doubt,  plus will, for areas in which they are less certain,  recommend took the interviewers areas that particularly need probing. 

Furthermore,  interviewers are trained and judged competent to probe and draw from you,  so far as they can,  evidence if it exists in areas they feel may not have been adequately addressed so far.  If we feel, during the interview,  that there's an area of competence that hasn't yet been adequately demonstrated,  we will do our level best to draw that out and help you to present yourself in the best light. 

Alasdair has also touched on the drawbacks of criteria that are too precise,  the judgement this affords to the interviewers generally working in your favour for exactly the reasons you outline.

Having said that,  I mentioned the upcoming reissue of UKSPEC and,  as I said,  the issues you mention do appear to have been taken very fully on board,  the advance briefing detail very specifically mentions clarifying guidance and examples of managing complexity, for instance,  though from memory I think it also mentioned the same for innovation. 

No,  people in your situation are not uncommon at all and I,  for one,  have worked in construction as well as design,  maintenance and project management.  This has also been true for most PRIs I have met/ interviewed with,  so we understand the situation and appreciate the areas in which you have opportunity to manage either innovation or complexity or both,  so would usually draw that out.

I obviously can't comment on why the assessor in your case didn't feel there was that prima facie case for progressing you to interview and I believe (though can't guarantee I'm right) that you could ask for detailed feedback on what evidence is felt to be lacking - you shouldn't consider this as failure as such,  it's only an indication that the assessor has not yet seen the evidence required, thus I believe you have the opportunity to provide further evidence that may address that.  I've certainly had applications reach me as interviewer where that has happened. 

If,  having gone though that you still have a decline that your PRA feels is unjustified,  you may be justified to wonder whether your PRA is right or providing the right guidance on whether your presentation is suitably convincing.  I can't know if that's the case or not in your case,  but you've seen how Alasdair would deal with this,  so that's at least one PRA who would proactively help you to hone your presentation in your application,  and I know this would be what most PRAs I know would do.  It could be worth asking for a different PRA, not necessarily because yours is wrong,  but because it would give you a second opinion.

I'm not entirely sure how the allocation of assessors works,  but I think that,  if you reapplied, the chances are you'd get a different assessor which may change the outcome if the problem was of the assessor not really understanding the relevance of your evidence.  But ultimately,  as Alasdair says,  it's much better if you can very clearly demonstrate the needs you had identified for which your tool provided the solution and the process by which you came up with the tool so that the assessor can see it readily.  That's where,  as Alasdair said,  your PRA should be able to guide you. 

I hope this helps you to get a clear plan of action and wish you more success on this occasion.