How does IET define Innovation to meet CEng Standards

Hi Guys - just to clear up one or two issues (having read everybody's responces) - it isn't a single person doing the Pre PRI assessment it is two qualified Assessors and a Moderator/Registrar that undertake these assessments. The IET staff do their upmost to ensure that the Panel is drawn from Engineers that are familiar with your discipline. Often where things are unclear in an application the Panel can ask for: - further information on a set category or a few or a full competence statement across the board. They can pose a Targeted Question which they will compose and usually set a word limit - 500/1000 words.


In my experience on PRI Panels, discussions will have taken place using the RPS system and where an application is lacking there is usually a lot more discussion as to how they should proceed. Where an application is declined the staff will usually give details of what was lacking as advised by the Panel. To be honest more time is spent on an application that is declined.


As a PRA I always offer these basic tips - every paragraph starts with "I" and doing it is better than being responsible for it (especially in A & B) (we've all worked for those who are responsible for it!) Check against the UK Spec schedules at the back of the book and ensure that all 17 competence are covered in the application. Ensure CPD and Ethics are covered and include a Development Action Plan and an organisation diagram that is clear and doesn't show the entire organistaion - one or two levels above and all those that report directly and indirectly (don't forget contractors). 


Once you get through this lot then your presentation should be a subject that you know inside out and back to front and be prepared to get all sorts of questions from the PRI panel (usually two engineers again within your field of expertise). I always suggest that you try it out on a colleague who can challenge you on it - that may bring about further editing. When I have interviewed there have been occasions where the entire interview revolves around the presentation - which can be good - if we can get the answers we need to complete the PRI report which is done immediately following the interview.


Then another Panel, again 3 volunteers same make up as before but different personnel, go through the application again and the interview report to enable them to ratify the Interview Panel's recommendation. So you see that if you include your PRA some nine volunteers are involved in your application so very little is left to chance.


If you have a security problem in describing any element I suggest you seek advice from your superiors and I will say that all assessors will not discuss anything that is revealed that may have a security element if advised, including commercial and military details. Anyway best of luck with your reapplication.

Couple of (for me) last points directed at different contributors:


Firstly, Simon,  yes,  I did guess that having exchanged views previously,  but I felt it important to clarify it for Shijo's benefit and others in his position


Secondly,  James,  excellent deeper detail on the pre interview assessment process,  I'd not previously been sure of that detail. 


But finally,  and most importantly,  for Shijo,  I think that James ' information underlines a big part of what I'm trying to convey to you - we do all work really hard between us to give everybody every opportunity to present their evidence of competence,  helping to draw it out when it isn't immediately apparent and with cross checks to avoid the possibility of individual bias or lack of appreciation of your situation.  In fairness,  though we are always allocated to you to be from your industry and discipline,  subtleties such as design v construction are not always reflected,  but,  as I said previously,  most of us have a broad brush experience.  Believe me,  however much you may feel otherwise,  we're all rooting for you and the checks and balances usually minimise the possibility of a bad decision.  


Whilst I don't want to diminish your suitability one jot,  I simply don't have the detail to do so and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so on here,  even if I did,  I'm pretty convinced that,  regardless of what your PRA thought,  for the assessors to not progress you to interview,  there must have been some evidence they felt was missing.  It almost certainly won't be that they don't understand the innovative nature of the processes or tool that you developed, or that developing and implementing a tool to optimise the construction process isn't considered innovative,  they will almost certainly have felt there was inadequate evidence.  As I said previously,  we can all only go on the evidence provided,  much as we may try our best to tease it out,  and I'm afraid,  ultimately,  however much we all want to help you,  presenting your evidence is ultimately down to you.  Sorry if that sounds harsh,  but it's the reality. After all,  presenting compelling cases is part of the communication competencies required by UKSPEC, and moreover, importantly a crucial part of professional engineering. 


I must also stress that, though. PRAs are there to help you as they can,  they cannot be considered to be part of a prequalification stage,  nor can they be considered an arbiter when you don't get the result both of you thought likely.  


Regarding your repeated point about feeling that the requirements should be more prescriptive,  Alasdair explained the down side of that,  too prescriptive and our hands are tied.  As i mentioned,  i understand that the forthcoming update to UKSPEC does seek to improve the clarity,  but we - and I assure you that includes you - don't want it too prescriptive or our hands will be tied and we'll have to make decisions that may well be highly unpopular as we will be denied that judgement that allows us to deal with the less black and white cases. 


After all,  let's compare it to what we deal with as engineers every day.  We have standards - company standards,  British Standards,  European Standards,  International Standards,  and legislation.  They are very rarely prescriptive,  they are written to define essential parameters and requirements but provide freedom,  within the confines of minimum levels of quality, safety,  etc. for us to make engineering judgements- if they didn't,  our hands would be tied and anybody who could read would be able to do our job.  It's no different when it comes to the standard for a Chartered or Incorporated Engineer.  We need the ability to form a judgement or applications could be dealt with by an algorithm. 


So I suggest you give some critical thought to why the innovative nature of what you did failed to be apparent to your assessors and maybe hold on to see what the forthcoming new issue of UKSPEC comes out with, though I believe that,  as you said,  between us I think we've given you some strong pointers. 


I wish you the best next time round.