ECUK Workshop 21 Sept 2009 Mentoring for Registration Mentoring ICE candidates for the Technical Report Option Some lessons we have learned Presented by Richard Larcombe FICE

Standard Route Mentoring Supervising Civil Engineers/Delegated Engineers support trainees registered on Approved Training schemes. A team of Membership Development Officers (who are ICE employees and mainly Chartered or Incorporated Engineers) operate throughout the Regions and offer advice to all trainees on the different options to becoming professionally qualified. ECUK has already made available a lot of good guidance on the philosophy and principles of mentoring. I do not intend to repeat this. Tammy has asked me to concentrate on Mentoring for the Technical Report option. At the ICE, Mentors that support candidates coming through our standard routes are known as Supervising or Delegated Engineers and my colleagues in the Regional Support Teams will also run briefing sessions for new SCEs. Our Membership Development Officers also give advice to trainees not on approved training schemes and will meet a number of trainees under agreement during their organisation visits. My plan today is to share with you our experience of TR mentoring over the past five years. This will not be a discussion on the finer points of mentoring; but it will reveal some of the deficiencies of mentoring that we have had to deal with. These slides focus on the key features of the TR. We shall discuss what the mentors make of them.

TR Option - Extract from ICE 3004 Through the Technical Report Option: You may demonstrate that you have compensated for any shortfall in your educational base through training and experience gained in the workplace You must show the same knowledge and understanding of scientific & engineering principles as your peers who have followed the ECUK- SPEC exemplifying academic pathways. The greater the shortfall, the greater is the need to demonstrate compensating experience IEng Indicative Experience Accredited BEng (Hons), or an engineering or cognate degree with sufficient scientific basis 7 years HND/HNC 10 years No appropriate qualifications 15 years IEng Indicative Experience Accredited HND/ HNC or equivalent 5 years ND/NC 10 years Candidates and mentors seem to understand this.

TRR – The role of the Mentor Must know the details & requirements of the Technical Report Option Must know the academic standards Must know the candidate’s strengths & weaknesses Must have: Esteem in the eyes of the candidate Good listening & interpersonal skills Personal availability & time Personal integrity Must be able to discuss and criticise the candidate’s evidence On the ICE standard route, a mentor is “nice to have”. On the TRR, a mentor is mandatory. This is because many of the early candidates were struggling to make sense of this new route. So there is a quite different role between the two sorts of mentor. In para 3.2 of our mentor guide, we discuss the differences between mentoring and related activities. Sadly, several mentors fall short of the first criterion. If they can’t get this right, then nothing else matters much.

TRR – Academic criteria for ECUK grades EngTech (level 3 in the NQF) Basic mathematical skills Basic science of materials Basic construction technology IEng (level 5 in the NQF) A sound understanding of engineering principles Application of different approaches to solving problems Development of personal responsibility & decision-making CEng (level 7 in the NQF) Study and research at the forefront of academic discipline Systematic and creative approach to complex issues Originality in tackling and solving problems The NQF has eight levels. Levels 1 & 2 are GCSE or equivalent. Level 1 is PhD. The NQF is soon to be replaced by the QCF – but these eight levels will remain. Mentors and candidates need to understand this. If you don’t know what the target is, you are unlikely to hit it. So mentors and candidates need to understand what the targets are – and then agree on which one they will choose.

Extract from ICE 3001 and ICE 3002 Attributes for EngTech, IEng and CEng Engineering Knowledge & Understanding Engineering Application Management and Leadership Independent Judgement and Responsibility Commercial Ability (IEng, CEng)/Commercial Awareness (TMICE) Health, Safety and Welfare Sustainable Development Interpersonal Skills and Communication Professional Commitment ICE 3001 outlines the standard route to IEng and CEng registration, ICE 3002 outlines the route to EngTech registration. The nine headings are common to all three grades. They are closely based on ECUK SPEC. The level of demand varies accordingly: EngTech – contribute to…. IEng – manage…. CEng – lead…. Candidates and mentors generally get the hang of this. But the technical report focuses on the first two, and this is not always understood.

Technical Report (TR) – the Stage 1 submission CV Needs to contain evidence of meeting the attributes Synopsis of Technical Report Identify engineering principles Persuade the assessors that the full TR will demonstrate that the academic standards have been met One of the hardest messages to get across is getting candidates to identify engineering principles. A lot of synopses are good non-technical descriptions of projects, with no reference to engineering principles. We have started to use a guidance sheet to give them some idea of the appropriate language for this. This is in your pack. In our candidate workshops, we often start by asking them “What is an engineering principle?” This is a useful ice-breaker. By the end of the session, each delegate will have produced examples from his/her own career, and begun to describe to colleagues how this will demonstrate that he/she has met the standards. Most of our initial Stage 1 submissions are referred for re-drafting. Only about half are eventually cleared for Stage 2.

TR – the Technical Report What is an engineering principle? A working definition might be: A scientific theory, proved in practice, that describes the behaviour of engineering materials, structures or systems Using concrete as an example: EngTech – slump tests, cube tests, curing. etc. IEng – basic RC design, temporary works, etc. CEng – complex RC design & temporary works; research on material sources, additives; alternative solutions; etc.

TR – the Stage 2 submission Experience Report Expands on CV Technical Report Expands of synopsis CPD documents Evidence of regular reviews of learning needs, CPD plans, CPD activities & records, and their evaluation The Stage 2 reports are generally up to standard. Areas of concern can be usually dealt with at the interview. But several candidates seem unable to fulfill the requirements regarding CPD documentation. And when their submissions are wanting, this makes us cross about both the candidate and the mentor. CPD practice is very variable across ICE membership – we have no guarantee that mentors themselves do it well.

TR – The Lead sponsor/mentor The lead sponsor/mentor must confirm: I have full knowledge of the current review requirements I have scrutinised the candidate’s submission I believe that the candidate is a fit and proper person for admission to membership of the ICE Judging by some of the submissions we receive, we think that some lead sponsors don’t meet these criteria….

TR – Stage 3 The presentation The Academic Interview The Professional Interview The written assignment/written test (if applicable) The presentation builds on the technical report. The academic interview allows assessment of the candidate’s engineering knowledge and application. The professional interview allows assessment of the candidate’s professional competence. The WA/WT criterion works on a sliding scale: it’s required with less than 10 years experience; not required with more than 15 years experience; and at the reviewers’ discretion between these limits. (This is not required at TMICE.) It is essential that the mentor oversees a mock presentation and mock interviews, and practice WAs/WTs if applicable. For those who proceed to Stages 2 & 3, the pass rate is at least as high as for candidates on the standard route.

TR mentoring – what have we learned? Good TR mentors make for successful candidates Mentors don’t always know the TR requirements Mentors don’t always scrutinise candidates’ submissions Mentors don’t always do very much mentoring A TR mentor may only perform this duty once in a career Getting at mentors and training them is the challenge We seek continuously to improve our guidance to candidates. We think that it leads best practice. Most Mentors do not understand the process as they are used to dealing with standard route graduates with exemplifying academic qualifications and do not appreciate the change in emphasis required for those candidates using the Technical Report option. We have held one training session just for TR mentors. This went well, and they welcomed the mentor guide. But they came from large employers, and it took a lot of effort to get them together. The candidates who need help most will be those from small organisations, or who are self-employed, and are least likely to have access to trained mentors.