This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question 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.


  • Fortunately the IET are well ahead of the game on this one, and made this requirement mandatory from January last year (2017). For 3 years previous to this, any member could opt-in to a voluntary version of the scheme, and these years of planning ahead has paid off with good engagement by the members.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Moshe Waserman:
    Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement



    Published: 01/11/2018

    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.




    That's like saying British citizens who are actively employed will be required to pay their taxes or risk removal of their citizenship. Which that would imply that retired and unemployed citizens - receiving benefits - will not be affected.


    Given the current fiasco with trying to obtain a Brexit deal with the EU, those in the EC - who came up with the above statement - should be recruited onto the UK government negotiating team. The level of BS would be highly appreciated by the PM. wink


    Getting back to the EU statement, registrants who are not actively engaged in a technical role, such as management, administrative related, or are retired, simply have to notify the IET of this and their registration will be safe. The EC only wants to punish those who are in technical roles. smiley

  • Mehmood,

    What I'm about to say in response to your analogy does not necessarily reflect my reaction to the EC statement, but I don't think your analogy is particularly good.

     

    Firstly, the obligation to pay taxes on income, both legally and morally, is unquestionable, whereas there could be some who might argue this is not as clear cut for CPD. I'm not saying I would necessarily agree with them, but I think there are many shades of grey, and people in many different circumstances where the recording, at least, of CPD, could be seen to have questionable value.


    Secondly, citizenship is a fundamental human right for all, including tax evaders. Yes, they may suffer legal sanctions or penalties, but it would be a breach of human rights to strip them of their citizenship, nor is there, or should there be any test to pass to be  entitled to citizenship - it's automatically inferred by birth. Yes, the US (and maybe other states for all I know) do have their ideological brainwashing test for immigrants applying for citizenship, and the UK has requirements for immigrants to obtain citizenship, even if they are less obviously ideology based, but all such applicants still carry their original, birth-based citizenship, and to take that away would breach human rights.


    Conversely, registration has no rights attached to it at all, other than those of fairness and inclusivity - there is not, and cannot be any automatic right to registration, it has to be earned or justified, and the general concept that you can be stripped of it if you no longer meet the professional competencies required of it, in principle, has to exist as a sanction against unprofessional conduct.


    As for non-active registrants, that becomes far more fuzzy, and again, the analogy doesn't hold. Of course those who don't obtain sufficient income should not
     pay tax, and even if tax evasion could, reasonably lead to removal of citizenship, it wouldn't be right to apply that to those not receiving sufficient income to pay tax (though I have been in a position where my resident's visa was revoked because of my inability to continue working for health reasons, so was forced to return to the UK from Abu Dhabi)


    As for retired registrants and those whose work is less technical/more managerial, there are clearly divided views - the engineering world, the EC and PEIs don't see either as a reason to take registration away. Conversely, for the CMI at least, Chartered Manager can no longer be held unless you're actively undertaking management. I fell victim to that. Despite being one of the 50 Pioneer Chartered Managers, despite the fact that I was massively instrumental in helping the definition of the process and field testing it - despite all of those contributions, when I suffered my enforced absence from the workplace due to my ill health for 6 years, I lost my Chartered Manager status. When I returned to work, I would have had to go through the whole registration process all over again. Bear in mind it is far more onerous than the C.Eng application process.  Had I lost my prowess in management just because I'd been physically incapable of working? Of course I hadn't! I could have accepted the need for some form of revalidation, but no. As you can imagine, I had no appetite to go through that all over again, and I feel it's incredibly short sighted of the CMI, as they lose the tremendous voluntary activity that I had previously contributed, akin to that I currently undertake for the IET. As you can imagine, I feel fairly bitter about that.


    I feel we engineers have it right in that respect. I feel there are three categories of retired registrants, and it probably also applies to those in less technical, managerial roles:

    Those who provide a massive contribution through volunteering, without whom we couldn't en sustain a registration system. Whilst still working, but volunteering myself, I know that we simply couldn't maintain the system without the retirees.

    Those who maintain membership and registration simply because they are interested in keeping touch with the profession, with latest developments, etc.

    Those who don't engage wth the Institute much, if at all. Presumably, the only reason they would continue to pay annual subscription is because continuing to hold mentioned and registration gives them a warm glow, a reminder of their status while they were still working. 

    Hopefully, nobody would question the first category. For the other two categories, even for the third, inactive one, if they are prepared to keep paying their subscription in return for the sense of belonging and status it brings, why should they not be allowed to? If they're not actively carrying out engineering, what harm can they bring and why would we assume that they have immediately lost their prowess? Whereas, if actively practicing engineering, a lack of CPD could definitely be the cause of a bad engineering decision.


    I've gone on long enough for now, so will try to summarise my views on CPD, and in particular CPD records - if I have the time, or think that my views will be of any value to anybody, I'll come back later to elaborate, but suffice it to say that I really hate the prescriptive view held by much of the profession, especially certain other PEIs, about what constitutes CPD, what is sufficient and how it should be recorded. I also hate Career Manager - I can see how it might help those who are still finding their way on CPD, and that's great, it's there to help them understand their needs, to plan their CPD, and keep track of it. 

    ​​​​​​

    But for most of us who've been around a while, CPD is something that we simply do instinctively on a regular ongoing basis, and we have no need for such planning tools as our CPD needs emerge naturally from our work, or, for those of us who volunteer, in our volunteering activity. I find that the needs emerge naturally and rarely coincide wth anything that I previously identified as part of some mechanistic approach fundamentally aimed at producing a record rather than a benefit.


    I had a go at career manager - I found it incredibly onerous, and I'd far rather use my time actually doing my work and undertaking my CPD. I would strongly resist any compulsion to use as demanding a process as career manager or anything approaching it. At any given moment, I know exactly what CPD I have planned, why I have it planned, and know exactly what I have undertaken, and why. For me to continue doing so effectively, I have no need to write it down at all, but if I have to evidence it to anybody, I could do so, at any time, by simply sitting down and writing down what's in my head in one or two short paragraphs. 


    I don't believe you even have to get to my advanced years to be in that situation - I would suggest that, for most registrants, they have already reached that point by the time they achieve registration. Bear in mind that each applicant's outlook and understanding for CPD will always be probed at interview, and if they demonstrate a sound understanding and commitment at that interview, then I find it difficult to believe they won't continue to pursue it with sufficient vigour thereafther


    Admittedly, there may be a small number who obtain registration then "coast". If they take on roles that require knowledge and skills they don't hold, then that's potentially a problem. However, many of these may do so simply because they hold the skills and knowledge required for their role, and are equally happy to "coast" career wise and continue to carry out that role fur which they require no further development. But my view, these are few in number.


    If there is a need for monitoring, it should be as simple as possible. There's always the opportunity to request elaboration if what's provided in the first instance of unconvincing.

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    What the hell is 'prowess in management'. I know people with MBAs, degrees in Business Management or Industrial Management who wouldn't know how to manage the proverbial visit to the local brewery. Managers are born, not trained.


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    So, let me get this right. 


    I pay the IET £250 in January for the pleasure of my having to keep a diary of my professional development.


    That doesn't sound like value for money to me.
  • David,

    I'm going to have to disagree strongly with you about that. It's this myth that managers are born that has led, over many years, to organizations being 'managed' by people who really don't have a clue. This has been demonstrated in well documented and validated studies and was identified as a major factor holding back British organisations back in the 1990s, leading to the development of the Management Charter Initiative, the first documented specification of performance criteria for management. I can't remember the exact number of competemcies as I don't have my copy with me currently, but there are somewhere in the order of 15 competency areas, divided into five (it might be six - I'm going from memory) groupings - managing operations, managing finance, managing people, managing product, and managing communications.  It is a very similar structure to UKSPEC. 


    I have seen so many 'managers' who believe they are born to be managers stumbling around making bad decisions, mismanaging people, and failing to ensure that their service/product delivery is of an appropriate standard because they don't meet those performance criteria. 


    There are people who do have a flair for certain aspects of management, whether it be a natural affinity with people skills, communication skills, financial accuity, etc. just as there are people who have a flair for certain aspects of engineering, but it's no more true that this makes them competent managers than in the engineering analogy..


    The improvement in performance of organisations that focus on appointing - or developing - managers who have been suitably trained, and assessed against these performance criteria has been measured and demonstrated repeatedly. 


    I repeat, the idea that anybody is born with natural management skills/ability is a massive and dangerous myth, no more true than it is for engineering. Let's not confuse entrepreneurial ability with management ability  I can accept (but don't take it as a given) that there may be born entrepreneurs, but there are many instances, some quite famous, of entrepreneurs whose businesses have completely nose dived because they've not been competent managers, indeed, there is strong evidence to indicate that the two are almost mutually incompatible - the wise entrepreneur either studies/develops management skills or appoints others to perform the function, the latter being a proven success formula.
  • A number of important issues arise here, including the tendency of some engineers and technicians to become good managers and some not. Many organisations have sought to offer equal career paths for technical specialists, but many leaders of our profession moved swiftly into management, having “bagged” CEng.  Roy P’s response to Dave’s challenge is a good one and I’ll also attempt to address his annual threat to resign, in my usual long-winded and pompous manner in the hope that by the time he has read it he we will forget to cancel the direct debitwink.   


    I have advocated creating a situation where, everyone beginning a professional engineering career such as an advanced/higher/degree apprenticeship, or preparatory course of education, or other career starting point, is enrolled into our professional community. The normal expectation within this community, should be to seek periodic professional review. Such reviews should be voluntary and nurturing, not compulsory and punitive.


    We add very little value acting as a self-important, nanny-state, bureaucratic policeman. We can add value to our members and society by nurturing and nourishing those who engage with us.  If we do this well,  then it will become apparent in the generally superior performance of those who choose to engage, relative to those who don’t. If we can demonstrate that we deliver such benefits, then we will be highly valued in the eyes of employers and others. However, if our primary concern seems to be that of a “club”, which apportions relative status to its different types of members, making claims, with dubious evidential support, about the superior performance of some of them relative to others, then our value-proposition is much less and may even be negative to existing or prospective members.     


    During the early career phase, there are usually regular assessments and examinations leading to forms of certification.  Our current solution is to accredit the Apprenticeship, or Degree and subsequent Graduate Initial Professional Development Scheme (IPD). A sister institution expects quarterly progress reports during an IPD scheme (typically over 4 years). At the end of this a professional review is conducted leading to registration, which with an accredited degree and IPD scheme will be as a Chartered Engineer.  Other forms of registration are available, but are not as commonly taken up or equally valued within our community. These options of Technician or Incorporated Engineer are potentially achievable at a slightly earlier age, especially since a Chartered Engineer degree typically requires 4 years of full-time university attendance before starting work, whereas an apprenticeship would typically combine work-based and formal learning over a similar timespan.


    Some in our community have promoted these other forms of registration as “stepping stones” towards chartered, but there are no clear pathways (like an IPD) scheme to enable such transitions, which aren’t particularly welcome anyway in many quarters. Therefore, any advice and support offered can be vague, contradictory, confusing and even negative. Perhaps the nearest thing to clarity in my experience has been the “Gateways” Professional Engineering degree programmes, which I keenly supported, but  have remained a very small niche. As discussed elsewhere in the forum thread “university in need of repair”, perhaps hampered by high university fees no longer seeming to offer a positive return on investment for a practising professional or their employer. This is disappointing because people who undertake work-relevant, or work-based learning orientated, part-time masters programmes “in-career”, typically perform very strongly. Unfortunately even that isn’t enough and we get people who have “jumped over every hoop” only to face rejection. I’m currently trying to help someone with a 25 year career and gateways MSc in this situation.  


    What we currently have is “IPD” presumed to follow an accredited university course and “CPD” presumed to follow registration (usually CEng). For the majority of engineers and technicians who didn’t find themselves on this “golden pathway” to  CEng , our proposition looks like a jungle, with bogs and swamps. Some friendly guides can be found if you are lucky, but there are some pretty unfriendly natives too, who don’t want you on their patch at the other side.  I have also used the term “minefield” because some people are “blown-up” due to some mis-step or other and feel humiliated or insulted by our actions.  For example in this context, is a perfectly capable engineer still doing “IPD” up to the age of 37 (when on average they consider registration) or is most of it “CPD”, carried out since they became a competent engineer in the eyes of their employer?


    Under the current circumstances and the Engineering Council Policy about CPD, I think that the IET is trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. Roy P offers “customer feedback” about some of this and I can empathise with it.  I was a pilot participant in the CPD monitoring initiative a few years ago. However, following the IEng downgrade, one of several actions I took was to withdraw my cooperation in protest.  Ceasing to use the post-nominal was another.        


    What hasn’t been mentioned in the thread that the IET has introduced a process called “Regulation 7”. This means that someone who allows their registration to lapse beyond a year is required to; provide evidence of CPD for the six to twelve months prior to the lapse along with a development plan for future CPD and an up-to-date CV. A lapse of more than three years continues to result in removal from the register as before, with a full re-assessment required  to re-establish.  So far, the process for evaluating submissions hasn’t been applied too onerously. However, some members have discovered, perhaps to their surprise, that the IET is taking the issue seriously and won’t be “fobbed off” for financial reasons. Some have also still been using CEng when suspended from the register and therefore not entitled.


    Given the diversity of the IET, I think that we should guide, rather than prescribe. But I also think that it is entirely proper for us to expect our registered members to demonstrate professional commitment, which should just be a given. Purely personally, I would be delighted to set time aside to explore my career and development choices with someone who might offer additional value in return.  I would probably be resistant to something that seemed more like a “box-ticking” or “form-filling” exercise seemingly for someone else’s benefit.  I appreciate that this may be a reflection of my personality preferences and learning style.


    My initial proposition is intended to raise standards, not to be a “soft-touch”, but a “critical friend”.  


  • Just to add two'pennorth into this. I'm about to have a minor operation. I'd really like to be confident that the consultant has been keeping up to date with procedures, and indeed has been practising (in all senses) for the last few years. And equally I think it's quite reasonable that my clients should expect the same from me in my field. I strongly disagree with any idea that professional registration can be a snapshot, I think it is absolutely right that the IET should be held to account to explain how it knows that CEngs it first registered 20 years ago (in my case) are still considered competent. It is not a qualification, it is an ongoing registration.


    That said, for most of us proving CPD is actually pretty easy, and I do wish the IET and EC would make it much clearer how easy it actually is. Several of us have written elsewhere on these forums how most, if not all, of us who are working as engineers will automatically be gaining CPD. And, afaik, it's completely up to us how we "record" it. If I was asked tomorrow to give a CPD record I would simply list the projects I've worked on over the last year, with various bit of evidence (project documents) from each project. Ok, maybe I'm a bit lucky (actually it's deliberate on my part) that I work in a job where every project is quite different from the last, but I reckon if I had to I could help most practising engineers construct a perfectly defendable CPD record pretty quickly. And if someone really can't show they've learned anything at all new about any engineering technology, processes or methods over the last year (or whatever period) isn't that a bit of a worry? Would you want them on your team?


    I come across this all the time working in the rail industry where it has not been unknown for people to claim expertise based on 30 year old experience. Now, I'd never suggest that that experience is completely irrelevant, but it's only relevant with an understanding of how that relates to the up-to-date context. And it can be simply understanding that context that is the CPD. The laws of physics don't change, but engineering is all about applying the laws of physics to real world situations. And the real world - technology, societal expectations, laws etc - is changing all the time.


    By the way, I would very much support any move to introduce a "CEng/IEng/EngTech Retd" status for those who want it. Again this was extensively discussed elsewhere on these forums.


    Bottom line: If we want to be treated as professionals we must expect the same scrutiny we would expect to be given to other professionals. But it only has to be difficult if we make it difficult.


    I'm going to try not get drawn into the management debate, other than to say I totally agree that managers who don't keep their skills up to date are not going to be effective managers, so CPD is equally important there. And often the problem is that a manager gets an MBA and has the attitude "that's it, I know it all now", which is precisely as bad as an engineer getting an MEng and thinking exactly the same!


    Cheers,


    Andy
  • There seems to me to be a problem here, which is that CPD points mean something! CPD is something that anyone who works in some specific engineering area has to do automatically, otherwise one simply cannot do the job properly anymore. CPD was invented by academics who wanted to find more people to train, and then get the obvious monietry reward for doing so. Unfortunately, and at the same time, they wanted to reduce student standards for education in general. I have interviewed many graduates (with BSc MEng, PhD or whatever) for a number of companies. Almost all of them have been essentially disappointing in their ability to deal with an interview, in that they could not relate to anything which was not in their immediate knowledge base. Particularly asking new graduates about their degree projects leads to a blank wall of silence, and has resulted in one of these asking my secretary "where did he come from, I didn't even understand the questions"? It was not that the questions were difficult, they simply asked about the fundamentals of the project rather than the implementation, about areas which the student had not thought about. Interestingly when being interviewed myself, many interviewers have not understood the answers they were given to the question, because it went far beyond what they expected and they asked for simplification!


    CPD needs to keep people thinking and aware that no one knows all the answers. It needs to be a seminar where marks are given, it needs to be very relevant to the area of interest, and needs to be led by an enquiring mind who will admit that he doesn't know it all. Why has our training been dumbed down to the point of extinction? Attending meetings is not proper CPD, inventing new things probably is. It is the pushing of boundaries that is needed to excel, which needs to be encouraged.
  • I think you've picked up there that there's two rather different interpretations of "CPD": One is CPD points on a certificate which say that you attended a lecture / seminar / conference (even if you slept through it). I totally agree with you that this is of very limited value. If someone says "I attended this conference and now I see how xxx applies to our industry, we ought to look at doing yyy" than that's different of course, that's genuine CPD.


    Then the other is what I would 100% agree with you is "real" CPD which is developing new knowledge / skills or honing / updating that which you already have in any way that suits. My understanding is that the EC is perfectly happy to accept this as CPD (it would be very daft if they didn't).


    Personally I very strongly wish IET events weren't advertised as "this will gain you x CPD points", I think it sends completely the wrong message in so many ways - both as to what CPD is and why it's worth attending IET events.


    Good points!


    Cheers,


    Andy