You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion
Need PRA Advise for C Eng - Mechanical ( Workshop Manager- Plant, Machinery & Vehicle)
Former Community Member
Hi,
I'm in second stage of the registration process and my application has undergone a Pre-Interview Assessment.
Following this assessment, it was considered that my application would be strengthened through additional evidence of competence and Underpinning Knowledge and Understanding (UK&U).
Using up to 1000 words, I have to describe a situation where I was responsible for significant innovation and creativity. I should clearly describe the application of technical knowledge and understanding and any research or investigations that I undertook. How I applied and use resources such as manpower, finance, and managed implementation should be clearly explained.
I'm working in the central workshop as workshop manager in a mega construction company and handling 3500+ fleet. A lots of innovative things I do during during discharging my regular duties. Specially for cost control of workshop and during application of equipment at projects specially Tower and mobile cranes.
I'm seeking PRA advise and guide to support me in order to prepare the statement of evidence. PRA from same filed will be desirable.
The IET reply is essentially saying that you have (accidentally) down played your 'innovative' contributions of your work in your initial application. They are suggesting that you take a fresh look at what you do.
You mention you are in a mega [construction] company. It's your application not theirs, so concentrate of what you have done locally, i.e. things that were within your control, rather than the corporate mega projects passed down from on high. Beware of the "lots of innovative things I do" where you haven't selected the one or two particular, high quality examples of your innovation/competences to use in your thousand words. (lots and lots and lots, is still none explained or described;-).
Do make sure that you are able to show the engineering content of the 'innovation' (theory & practice) and do make sure you include appropriate grounded facts to properly give context ('large' and 'small' are not facts!). This helps the reviewers and interviewers frame their questions.
Your signature indicates a BEng (post 1999?) so you will want to make sure you indicate how you have developed your technical knowledge and understanding to the MEng equivalent (i.e. a bit of the theory behind the innovations) and CPD.
Also avoid corporate waffle, you are talking with fellow engineers about your engineering - they are interested in you and your work!
The advice I always give as a PRA is that every paragraph begins with "I", doing it is better than being responsible for it (we've all worked for people who are "responsible" for it); this is especially important in Competences A, B & E- C is slightly different but still it is what you are doing. The application is not a CV - on one will be offering you a job in this situation.
Once you've got that sorted and you are offered the interview, make sure your presentation is on a subject that covers A&B if possible, you should know it inside out and back to front - there will be questions. I suggest you get a colleague who can quiz you on it to do just that and you may find you want to make changes.
The interviewers will ask all sorts of questions - their roll is to confirm that you possess all of the 17 competences set out in the Engineering Council's UK Spec Ed 3. The matrix at the back of this is a pretty good guide as to what is being looked for. The whole process being a peer review involves around eight volunteers most of whom will have been selected as coming from your background. - three for the initial assessment, two interviewers and finally three more in the post interview panel to ensure all is fair and reasonable and the ratify the interviewers recommendation. The IET staff support the process at every stage and make sure that all works well. I trust this gives a little bit of useful advice/information - Good Luck
I appreciate your reply and advise. One thing is still not clear to me whether I have to proof any new product or process development or engineering solution with the help of all the documents (some of which are controlled documents and can not be revealed) or step by step explanation of that particular development or solution through 1000 word is enough.
May I have to cover all the 5 major attributes in 1000 words point by point?
As I'm not in research or development field that's why it's not 100% clear to me what is being asked exactly. I mean up to what extend I have to explain? Detail procedure of that particular development or only engineering aspects involved in it.
A really important point is to remember the following from UKSpec (my highlight):
Chartered Engineers develop solutions to engineering problems using new or existing technologies, through innovation, creativity and change and/or they may have technical accountability for complex systems with significant levels of risk.
This "or" is hugely important, and it has being emphasised to assessors and interviewers over the past couple of years. And of course it makes sense - we know that a very high percentage of CEngs are not working in R&D, they are working in significant roles in implementation projects in infrastructure, military, transportation etc engineering.
You can show responsibility as an alternative to innovation, BUT that must be for "complex systems with significant levels of risk". The way several of us have described it over the years is that you can't be just "doing it by the book", you need to show that you are taking a significant level of personal responsibility for an engineering solution, which would cause considerable loss if your judgement was wrong.
How to do this in a few words rather than a 1000? "I hold final responsibility for the technical authorisation into service for new build 2.6GW power station. Specifically I approve the following documents and processes..." Nothing commercially confidential or complicated to explain in there, but it's clear this is at the appropriate level. The "specifically..." sentence is important, a government minister could claim (and they do!) that they authorised a power station to enter service, but it's usually not difficult to show in a couple of sentences what you actually had to take responsibility for, and that you must have had the appropriate knowledge to take that responsibility.
