Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Panel urges professional review overhaul

Grads08.edit.ice.plate cropped

The ICE must urgently review its professional accreditation process to ensure engineers’ skills are fit for purpose throughout their careers and work with employers to ensure adequate auditing of skills compliance, an influential new review has said.

The call comes as the ICE ballots members on making continuing professional development (CPD) compulsory – members currently complete it on a voluntary basis – in line with recommendations from the Engineering Council. The proposals mean members will have to record CPD and this is set to be audited from January next year.

However, the ICE must go further to ensure this is more than a “tick in the box” exercise, according to the ICE Professional Skills review published today.

“The ICE’s qualification process is broadly fit for purpose,” says the review. “But the notion that a qualification, once achieved, is for life – is untenable.

“In our view, the ICE’s current voluntary CPD model is not an adequate means of assurance,” it added.

“We were very conscious that there were already a lot of people already looking at the issue of CPD,” review chair Ed McCann explained. McCann is ICE learned society president and a senior director at consultant Expedition Engineering. “But we really need to be answering the question of what is adequate with major employers for it to be meaningful.”

In addition to being compulsory, CPD should also be “related closely” to individuals’ required job skills and audited, the review added, a sentiment that echoes calls for more scrutiny of CPD procedures by ICE past president Peter Hansford following the Grenfell disaster.

“We welcome this move [to compulsory CPD], but our concerns are not merely about whether CPD is voluntary or compulsory,” the report continues. “If the purpose is to ensure that civil engineers remain competent in their jobs, then the content of the CPD must also be relevant to the engineer’s job. A more robust check of relevance should therefore be the next step for the engineering profession.”

One key issue highlighted by the review, is the misleading perception that civil engineering is almost entirely concerned with the design and construction of new – and often large scale – infrastructure. Meanwhile, qualification and requirements for practicing engineers fail to properly account for the skills of the vast number of civil engineers deployed in operating and maintaining, renewing and adapting, and decommissioning of existing infrastructure.

While stopping short of making specific demands on what the changes should be, McCann said it was vital that the ICE works with employers on the next steps.

“The ICE really needs to be answering the question [on how to change CPD procedures] with the major civil engineering employers,” said McCann. He added that the ICE could also do more to influence qualification through undergraduate and postgraduate programmes by convening more formal meetings at a national level between academic institutions and employers.

ICE membership director Seán Harris said: “We must move towards greater regulation and that is always a challenge.

“The agility required to meet industry’s needs would necessitate a prescriptive skillset, assessment, and qualification as well as assurance through some form of periodic revalidation or re-assessment. This would have to be imposed rather than taken up on a voluntary basis. The introduction of a more prescriptive CPD regime would have to be led by the Engineering Council.”

Read the review here.

Readers' comments (3)

  • Michael Paul

    It is obviously in the interest of employers that their employees have the necessary skills to do their Jobs properly. Therefore all modifications to the CPD process should be carefully discussed with representatives of the employers side, to ensure that the proposals go in the right directon and are acceptable for all concerned.

    Mike Paul
    Stuttgart, Germany

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Any systems is only good as those using it and those checking it. While I may share the sentiments of the report that Engineers should do relevant CPD. The likelihood of the ICE of being able to employ a wide enough range of auditors to be able to scrutinise in the level of detail suggested is unachievable. For someone external to be able to understand the role I or any of us do is unrealistic. After all CPD is anything that develops us based on the current professional development guidance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sounds as if the premise of this article was that Engineers become more stupid with time, when reality clearly shows the opposite.
    Anyone (whether Engineer or any other worker) should have a desire to keep learning and achieving further goals in life. Companies, clients, or colleagues DO recognise these individuals.
    Those not investing in themselves are naturally relegated to less relevant positions and all of us see it on a daily basis.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.