when dos don't

ENGINEERS ANONYMOUS attempts to improve the profession and its relationship with society.

Many thanks to those who helped create, share and compile the survey. Further thanks to those whohelped to prepare this report.

Tagxedo was used to create the Word Art on the cover and within the report

9814508000805

ID: 12582808www.lulu.com

ContentsIntroductionWho we are talking aboutToday’s DOs: Confusing and LaboriousOne for all and all for one?Welcome to the InternetAttributes? What Attributes?Could do better. Probably a lot better.Clarity. Clarity. Clarity.Conclusion

Results

2345678910

2

IntroductionInspired by accounts of malcontent regarding the Development Objectives and the Institute of Civil Engineer’s Routes to Membership in general, a group of young civil engineers have come together to establish if there are particular aspects that reduce the effectiveness of the process.The current process involves completing a set of task-orientated Development Objectives before setting out evidence of your professional character in in the form of the Attributes. The process concludes with a Review that consists of an interview and an essay.There have been reports that engineers, not just young engineers, struggle to fully grasp what each DO require and how each of the key aspects (DOs, Attributes and Review) relate to each other. These reports have been put to the ICE and following some deliberation we decided to gather the opinions of ICE members who have an interest in the subject. In November 2011, a short survey was created using the website SurveyMonkey for engineers to express their views on the DOs. The majority (26) were unchartered, 10 were chartered and the remaining were waiting for the results of their Professional Review. This report illustrates the results of the survey.It should be noted that the sample size is very small and therefore the results are not definitive but simply indicative of current opinion.The key recommendation is that another, much wider survey is carried out as this survey suggests that there are issues with the current presentation and content of the DOs in addition to the use of the Attributes.

3

Who we are talking aboutThe survey respondents can be broken down into three groups; the chartered, the unchartered and those who were waiting for the Results of their review.

Are you chartered with the ICE?

Typically there are two types of respondents: chartered and unchartered. However, due to the timing of the survey during the Professional Review period, several respondents were awaiting the result of their Review when they completed the survey. As expected, the majority (26) of the perticipants were still using the Development Objectives. A further 10 were chartered with the ICE while the remaining 9 were awaiting the results of their Review. Three respondents knew of the DOs but did not currently use them. For purposes of this survey it is assumed that they were sufficiently aware of the DOs to answer the questions accurately.

…and what we are talking aboutThe UK-SPEC describes the requirement necessary to achieve professional registration with the Engineering Council.The Development Objectives (DOs) are “an essential tool for planning and recording your learning and development en route to completing your Initial Professional Development.” These are strongly influenced by the UK-SPEC.“At any Professional Review you must have had responsible and relevant experience at a level such that you can demonstrate the Attributes for the respective membership grade.” (ICE) The relationship between the DOs and the Attributes is not explicitly stated but there are many common aspects. However “additional characteristics” are mentioned when describing the Attributes (ICE-3005A).

4

Today’s DOs: Confusing and LaboriousToday’s DOs are widely considered to be Laborious and Confusing. If you are Chartered you will likely also consider them Relevant; otherwise you will probably find them Obscure.

Which of these words would you use to describe the presentation of the DOs?

While most respondents were willing to describe the current DOs as Laborious and Confusing there is a clear difference in opinion on how relevant they are. The difference may be due to how often an engineer uses the DOs and therefore the level of any confusion. Those who use them on a regular basis struggle to understand the process and this confusion clouds how the DOs can be relevant to what they do. Conversely, chartered members do not use the DOs on a regular basis and are more likely to see the benefits after they have completed the process.

5

One for all and all for one?Widely favoured by unchartered responders, more specific descriptions and examples were seen as harmful or irrelevant by chartered members.

Would it improve the DOs if the descriptions and examples were specific to your field of civil engineering?

It is hard to explain this wide difference in opinion. One possibility is that the chartered group tended to believe that the change would be to the DOs themselves while others understood that the changes would be only to the descriptions and examples. Regardless, this clearly shows that current users would like to relate the DOs specifically to their day-to-day jobs.

Unchartered FocusUnchartered users focus on what they need to do at work to sign off objectives. Generalised descriptions that cover all engineering fields fail to provide the direction that an inexperienced engineer seeks. Further confusion is created when different supervisors within the same engineering field require different depths of experience to sign off objectives.

Chartered FocusA chartered member focuses on bringing general civil engineering skills to a wide range of engineering problems. They understand that though having specific skills is important, the real value of their work is the mindset that can be applied to a problem rather than the specific tasks needed to solve it. Therefore, a professional engineer is required to do more than a set of tasks related to a single branch of engineering.

6

Welcome to the InternetUnlike their more experienced colleagues, unchartered respondents strongly favoured (85%) use of the internet.

Would it be helpful to be able to record and share your progress online?

The strength of support from those currently using the DOs is not surprising. As members of Generations Y and Z they are much more likely to not only expect to use the internet but operate naturally in the digital world. Increasingly, they are ‘Digital Natives’ and are no longer the people the DOs were originally designed to help1.

1 Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Marc Prensky 2001

Western GenerationsBaby Boomers (1946-1964) were characterised as rejecting many aspects of their parents’ generation. They are a hugely influential generation, controlling the vast majority of personal financial assets in addition to many high level corporate and institutional posts.Generation X (~1965-1980) are the first generation to be familiar with mass technology though typically in terms of hardware rather than software and the internet.Generation Y (~1980-2000) is marked by an increased use and familiarity with communication, media, and digital technologies to the point that it is accepted as standard.Generation Z (~1990-) is highly connected earning them the nickname “Digital Natives”. Unlike Gen Y, Gen Z simply does not remember life before mass technology.

Yes

No

Keep paper option

7

Attributes? What Attributes?Even those who have recently completed the process find it confusing to have both Attributes and DOsWhereas 60% of chartered respondents did not find it confusing to have both DOs and Attributes, a staggering 94% of the remaining respondents either found it confusing, did not know the difference or were unaware of the Attributes altogether. This cannot be explained by user-error alone. Obviously the meaning and importance of the Attributes are not made clear to an applicant when they begin the process and it is reasonable to assume that some Delegate and Supervising Civil Engineers are also unsure.The need for two separate sets of targets and how they are inter-related is not explicitly stated. On one hand the DOs are expected to help show that an applicant possesses the Attributes for Membership, but it is also stated that some Attributes are “additional characteristics.” Furthermore, the importance of Attributes 3 to 9 depends on the field of civil engineering which creates further confusion. Interestingly this includes Sustainability, something that is explicitly included within the Code of Professional Conduct. The Engineering Council’s UK-SPEC includes the Competence and Commitment Standards that form the basis for all engineers and technicians in the UK. As the DOs are the ICE’s translation of the UK-SPEC to civil engineering there is little reason to deviate greatly from what the DOs require. Therefore, with little alteration of the DOs the need for the Attributes could be removed.

Is it confusing to have Development Objectives and Attributes?

8

Could do better. Probably a lot better.In line with other results, uncharterd respondents were noticeably less positive about the existing DOs than their chartered counterparts.

How would you rate the current presentation of the Development Objectives?

In general, the participants felt that the DOs could be improved and typically gave a score of 3 out of 5 for its presentation. However, the average score from the unchartered respondents (2.27) was noticeably less than the average chartered score (3.33). Interestingly, though two respondents felt the DOs could not be improved, no-one gave a score of 5 which represented the best (and not perfection). As opinions vary significantly each group’s opinion should be assessed separately. It is recommended that the opinions of current users should be given extra weight as they also best represent the opinion of future users.

Comparison with Membership SatisfactionInterestingly, it appears that as a member’s viewpoint on the DO improves with time, their satisfaction with the ICE decreases.

Maybe, as a chartered engineer stops using the DOs other aspects begin to frustrate them more.

9

Clarity. Clarity. Clarity.The overwhelming tone of the comments was that important aspects of the DOs and their use are poorly communicated

This is consistent with the survey responses. If the process was more clearly explained it would be less laborious and confusing. If the DOs were described in the specific language of their job role then engineers would be more likely to understand why what they are doing is important. And if only one set of targets were used then people could more easily connect what they do at the beginning of the process with what they must do at the end.

Suggestions

A set of DOs with descriptions for each field

An Online Forum for all participants to ask questions and improve understanding

An area for storing and sharing progress online to improve interaction between all parties.

A mobile application to record evidence while on the move.

Unclear as to why the Attributes are separate from DOs

Further clarification…

…easy to get overawed and confused…

…difficult to directly relate the DOs to my actual experience…

Unclear what is required…

The examples are often misleading…

RAI

LRO

ADWAT

ER

GE

O

10

ConclusionThis survey was inspired by accounts of engineers not content with the ICE’s Development Objectives. It discovered that the discontent was real and possibly substantial.In general, respondents described the DOs negatively as Laborious and Confusing were the most popular choices. However, chartered respondents were more positive.Unchartered respondents were typically in favour of describing the DOs in terms relevant to their field of engineering. In contrast, the majority of chartered respondents thought that this would be detrimental to an engineer’s development.In what may be a sign of differences in generational thinking, unchartered respondents, who we assume to be the youngest group, supported the idea of using the internet for managing their development whereas older respondents were typically less keen. As the current users best represent the incoming ‘digital natives’ it is proposed that the current system is not suitable for future users.The purpose, content and even existence of the Attributes is confusing for many of the respondents. A great deal of work will be required for the Attributes to be consider relevant once more and it is recommended here that they are retired when upgrading the DOs.Converse to members’ satisfaction with the ICE, younger members are less satisfied with the DOs that more experienced engineers. From the given comments it is the lack of clarity that causes much of the discontent.

Recommendations These results are based on a small sample size. To clarify the magnitude of the discontent and the reasons for it, it is recommended that a larger survey is carried out with the support of employers.When considering the effectiveness of the DOs, the opinions of chartered members cannot be considered to be as relevant as those of current users as this survey found that chartered respondents often had very different opinions. To recognise the importance of changes in behavior between generations it is recommended that the views of current users are given greater weighting as they will not only best represent today’s users but are more likely to represent the opinions of future users.

Results1. Are you chartered with the ICE?

2. Are you aware of the Development Objectives?

3. Which of the following words would you use to describe the presentation of the DOs?

Total Chartered Waiting In progress

Laborious 27 5 5 17

Confusing 22 3 4 15

Relevant 15 7 4 4

Obscure 12 1 0 11

Accessible 11 3 2 6

Traditional 11 2 4 5

Helpful 8 2 4 2

Clear 7 3 1 3

Out of Date

4 1 0 3

Innovative 0 0 0 0

4. Would it improve the DOs if the descriptions and given examples were specific to your field of civil engineering?

2

5. Would it be helpful to be able to record and share your progress online?

6. Is it confusing to have Development Objectives and Attributes?

7. In your opinion, could the Development Objectives be improves?

8. How would you rate the current presentation of the Development Objectives?

ResponsesQuestions

1 Are you Chartered with the ICE?2 Are you are aware of the Development Objectives?3 Which of the following words would you use to describe the presentation of the Development Objectives?4 Would it improve the Development Objectives if the descriptions and given examples were specific to your

field of civil engineering?5 Would it be helpful to be able to record and share your progress online?6 Is it confusing to have Development Objectives and Attributes?7 In your opinion, could the Development Objectives be improved?8 Having considered the previous questions, how would you rate the current presentation of the Development

Objectives?

2

QuestionsResponse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1

Yes Yes, I use / have used them to help me towards chartership

Confusing, Laborious, Relevant

No, it would make things worse

Yes, though I would like to keep the paper option

No Could be a bit better

3

2

Not yet - I've taken the CPR but am awaiting results

Yes, I use / have used them to help me towards chartership


Yes, it would be a small improvement


Yes Could be a lot better

2

3

Not yet - I'm working through the Development Objectives


Confusing, Obscure, Laborious

It would not make any difference

Yes, that would be a great improvement


1

4



Laborious, Relevant

Yes, it would be a significant improvement

No, I think the current system would work better

What are the Attributes?

Could be a bit better

3

5



Traditional Yes, it would be a significant improvement


Yes Could be a bit better

3

6



Obscure Yes, it would be a small improvement




3

7








1

3

Response Questions1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8


Yes, I've heard of them but don't current use them

Accessible, Clear, Laborious





3

9



Accessible, Confusing, Helpful, Laborious, Relevant





3

10



Accessible, Confusing, Laborious



I don't know the difference


3

11



Clear, Helpful, Laborious, Relevant, Traditional




4

12



Accessible, Confusing, Helpful




4

13



Laborious Yes, it would be a significant improvement



Could be a lot better

3

14







2

4


15



Laborious No, it would make things worse



2

16



Confusing, Obscure





1

17



Confusing, Laborious, Traditional




2

18



Accessible, Out of Date, Traditional




3

19



Accessible, Confusing, Obscure, Laborious





3

20


Accessible, Clear, Relevant



No 4

21



Confusing, Obscure, Laborious, Out of Date




1

5


22







3

23



Accessible, Confusing, Helpful





4

24



Helpful, Laborious, Relevant, Traditional



Yes 3

25



Confusing, Relevant, Traditional




3

26



Confusing, Obscure, Laborious,Out of Date



Yes 0

27


Accessible, Relevant, Traditional




3

28


Confusing, Helpful, Relevant




3

6


29



Obscure, Traditional




3

30



Confusing, Laborious



I don’t know the difference


2

31


Accessible, Clear,Helpful, Relevant



No 4

32






4

33



Clear Yes, it would be a significant improvement




3

34


Laborious Yes, it would be a small improvement


No

35







2

7


36



Confusing, Obscure




1

37



Accessible, Clear, Laborious, Traditional





3

38



Helpful, Relevant




4

39



Traditional Yes, it would be a significant improvement



1

40






1

41


Laborious,Out of date




4

42


Obscure, Laborious, Relevant





3

8


43


Confusing, Laborious




2

44



Confusing No, it would make things worse



3

45


Clear, Relevant, Traditional




4

9

Response Have you any further comments?

2 I personally don't like the 'moving the goalposts' between the DOs and the Attributes. One or the other would be helpful. Also I found some of the financial DOs confusing - the examples given are identical even though they are for different DOs.

3 It is difficult to distinguish between many of the objectives- and there is clear overlap. Perhaps reduce to around 10 in total. Unclear as to why attributes are separate to DO's.

4 More examples would help with targeting the Development Objectives which we have hardly been exposed to.

8

Further clarification to the extent of what would be required e.g. fulfilling a DO to level E is highly subjective, and so a range of standards is likely to be accepted for this. Online forms would be good, so that Objectives maybe signed off easily by multiple senior engineers without relying upon one signature sheet. Paperless is the way forward, DO's should be no different. (If attributes = attained are the 4 achievement levels then please change answer 6. This may be just a matter of nomenclature only)

11 I think the DOs are reasonably clear, good to aim for and the AKEB system is useful to helping you to see your progress over the first few years.

12

I think the development objectives are in essence very good, and are used as the foundation to the attributes to be demonstrated at CPR. As I am an engineer I have two concerns: 1) because the ICE encompasses so many different types of engineer it is easy to get overawed and confused about what is actually need to sign off a DO, the wording has to be vague as it represents so many types of engineer and this breeds confusion (some DE are then much more demanding than others as they attempt to read into what the DO means). 2) Whilst not intended, when you finish your DOs there is a huge sigh of relief and these are pushed to one side and then the attributes are looked at. This creates a two stage system (development and being a chartered engineer), when I think the ICE is aiming for one consistent process. Ideally there should be more consistency between DOs and Attributes.

13DO are too generic, allowing different Des/SCEs to interpret them however they want - resulting in a great disparity of experience for graduates. If they were more specific, with clear targets and required number of days of working practice to achieve them (almost like a syllabus) they would be a lot easier to use, forcing DE/SCE to provide training / work experience to graduates.

14 There is too much focus on soft skills and not enough on becoming a technically competant and knowledgeable engineer.

16 The questions need to be less vague

21 Glad someone else thinks the objectives need improving. The IStructE DOs should be followed as a template. They are quite clear.

23 As a technician i found it difficult to directly relate the development objectives to my actual experience and job role. i think examples of how this can be done not only for an engineer but also a technician would be extremely helpful!

24 They are not perfectly applicable to all fields, and the coexistence of DO and Attributes is not great.

10

Response Have you any further comments?

28

I would suggest a set of guidance notes for each question, with particular examples. They are currently quite subjective, and you need to think very carefully about what some of them actually mean - which can be difficult when you have limited experience of certain aspects in the first place. Overall, I feel that they are good in that they encompass a generalised civil engineering profession, rather than specialist areas - which I feel important for a long term career where you need to have a broad appreciation of all aspects of the industry

31 I am a Supervising Civil Engineer and Reviewer for the ICE. I consider the current format of the DO's to be adequate and relevant (when integrated with the rest of the 3000 series documents and MGNs)

35 A lot of the DOs seam vague and similar, A1, B1, B2, and B3 are not clearly different from each other.

37 Unclear exactly what is required to achieve each objective as the description and examples are often very vague and irrelevant.

38Q6 - it's not confusing having DO's and Attributes, but it would be more clear if it was shown how these are interlinked. Also, the importance of Attributes should be emphasised to candidates at an earlier stage rather than something you only really consider towards the completion of DOs

39 The development objectives can be easily manipulated.

40 Completing the DOs is a box-ticking exercise and depends hugely on the subjectivity of Delegated Engineers. Their usefulness is significantly reduced by the amount of time required to complete them - they are unnecessarily daunting. They are not user-friendly.

43It is unclear how to satisfy some of the current development objectives. The objectives attempt to cover to many educational/ career backgrounds. And it appears that, in order to achieve this, the objectives have gradually been altered over time rather than starting a fresh. There is a lack of focus on technical ability and practical experience.

44

The examples given are often misleading; the point is to sign off the objective, not to tick the box of having done each of the example activities which is sometimes what it seems to be!. It would help if the actual definition of the objective was clearer such that there wasn't the need for examples, but possibly also have a separate document or some guidance (like that provided for CPD) which includes within it further explanation and some examples of how each objective is achieved.

45 While Evolution is a good thing, this evolution should be organic and should relevant [sic] to the functions of the ICE. The maintenance of the current ICE DO and Attributes is useful to allow consistency in the achieved skill level across those under review.

ENGINEERS ANONYMOUS attempts to improve the profession and its relationship with society.

Many thanks to those who helped create, share and compile the survey. Further thanks to those whohelped to prepare this report.

Tagxedo was used to create the Word Art on the cover and within the report

9814508000805

ID: 12582808www.lulu.com

when dos don't

Documents

development objectives

aboutthe survey respondents

wider survey

short survey

young engineers

abouttodays dos

professional review

key aspects dos