1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Technical Report (TR) – the Stage 1 submissionCV
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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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….

11. 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.

12. 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.