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 11 replies
  • Subscribers 8 subscribers
  • Views 1537 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Additional Evidence of Underpinning Knowledge & Understanding

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
I have received the following questions to provide the additional evidence of underpinning knowledge & understanding.
1. Describe the situation in which you were allocated responsibility for technical/ engineering decisions

2. Describe how you presented technical information e.g. plans and diagrams for review by other engineers in your field

3. Explain how you carried out a technical investigation, including the gathering of data, identification of sources; and  explain the results of the investigation and how you ensured the quality of data that was used

4. Describe how you derived and presented the results of your investigations: for instance, describe how you used calculations, simulations, prototypes and/or engineering software to guide your technical/ engineering decisions. Explain the limitations of the techniques you used

5. Give a brief reasoned justification for your technical/ engineering decisions

6. Summarise the outcome of the project(s) and indicate how technological changes would affect your methods and/or decisions


Now my confusion is...

a.  I am working as Central Workshop Manager in a construction company, I'm in a dilemma to prepare the evidence as it is not clear to me whether asking about a particular incident related to a equipment in a construction project or the engineering involved during planning, execution, estimation, installation, maintenance and management of total equipment in a construction project. 

b. Question number 3 to 6 is very close to a incident/accident investigation for a particular equipment


If I provide the evidence in (b) way, it will be very specific but a very little scope of engineering. Whether in (a) way I can provide an comprehensive engineering evidence since equipment planning, selection, installation, maintenance and management in a construction project.


Please advise. 

  • 0
    Hello


    Two things are essential:
    1. Get a PRA.

    • Do not confuse UKU evidence with UK-SPEC competency evidence, this often happens


    For UKU they are looking for a design process or possibly a root cause analysis (which would include accident/incident investigation), it's not about managing a process or a project and it must be your personal work, not the work of a team that you supervised.


    Q1 - brief statement of the task at hand

    Q2 - how did you present information? Spreadsheets, schematics, powerpoint, CAD drawings etc. Technical information not project based so schedule info isnt much use here.

    Q3 - what analytical techniques did you use (calculations, software tools etc)? How did you gather data, how did you analyse data?

    Q4 - how did you get to the answer? This is key.

    Q5 - what were your justifications - test/experiment, simulation/modelling, experience perhaps.

    Q6 - what happened in the end. Would you do it differently now (assuming the example is not recent)


    UKU statements can be tough to do, the place to start is your A2, B2, B3 and possibly C4 competency evidence. You only need describe one good example; lots of poor examples will not help you.


    Tim


Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines