5 Key Deliverables for CEng MICE As per my Book ( How to Pass the CEng ICE Professional Review ), ), here I’m going to describe what I see as the 5 deliverables you need to hit on your way to achieving CEng MICE. I’ve called them deliverables – deliverables – call call them what you want…stage gates, milestones…it doesn’t matter – just realise that they are important and you should be aware of what is required for each, and what they release or represent when completed. Before you read any further, there are a couple of things you should know. This list assumes: 1. you have a recognised MEng degree and work for a company that has an agreed training scheme in place with the ICE 2. you are undertaking the direct route These assumptions shouldn’t rule out many applicants, as I believe the majority follow this route – I – I would call it the ‘standard route’. If it does rule you out, then you then you should consult ICE3001A and ICE3004A guidance which sets out all the variations (for example if you have a BEng degree or other educational base). But even if this isn’t the route you will take, I guarantee there will still be some useful tips that can apply to you!
1 – TRAINING TRAINING AGREEMENT This puts you on a route to CEng whereby your company and the ICE actively track your progress, normally annually or possibly more frequently. This is a good thing because it means that you are assigned a mentor at your company – company – usually usually called a Supervising Civil Engineer (SCE) – (SCE) – and and you also have meetings with the ICE which puts you on their radar. The training agreement costs your company money so it should incentivise both you and your company to develop you as an Engineer whether this is through training courses, mentoring, secondments, non-project experience or anything else. If you are not on a training agreement (but let’s say you still have the appropriate educational base I.e. MEng) then you will be required to progress through a Career Appraisal. The difference here is that because the ICE have had less visibility of your development since graduation, when the time comes that you think you are ready to apply they then need to see evidence of this via a Career Appraisal.
2 – COMPLETION COMPLETION OF OBJECTIVES When you’re part of a training agreement you should be working to demonstrate de monstrate competency against development objectives. These are defined by the ICE, and they describe the level of competence required. In my case, my company added some company specific objectives too. This process of on-going development towards Chartership is called Initial Professional Development (IPD).
The basic principle of the objectives is that when your SCE and the ICE are satisfied that you have the relevant competencies for ALL ALL objectives, you are then eligible to be ‘signed‘signed-off’. Sign-off is captured on an ICE3144a form, which must be signed by your SCE and an ICE Membership Development Officer (MDO). The generally preferred method of demonstrating your developmen t is to write quarterly reports for your SCE to review. This helps them to understand what you have been doing (your SCE probably won’t be working on the on the same project as you) and can highlight where any gaps are appearing. Importantly, your SCE will be a reasonably senior figure that can report back to upper management if there are certain opportunities you need to be given in order to tick off all objectives. objectives. Note that I’ve said quarterly reports – it it can be anything, as long as your SCE agrees to the material/evidence and frequency at which you produce it. In terms of demonstrating your readiness to be signed-off b y the ICE, you should find that if you’ve you’ve been in regular contact with an MDO and your SCE has given you sign-off, sign-off, they will be satisfied that all is in order. As I’m sure is fairly obvious, the less the ICE know of you and the less evidence you can show or have shown over recent years, the more questions they will ask when you request they sign the ICE3144a form.
3 – APPLICATION APPLICATION If you’re signed-off signed-off and ready to apply, then this is the moment where you go from being able to sit the CPR review whenever you decide, de cide, to having to sit it in around two months time. Until now you were demonstrating that you’ve achieved the specific development objectives, but from now on (in your reports) you must demonstrate de monstrate how you are competent in the nine ICE Attributes. The application is actually the easy bit. Here’s what you need to send for fo r a successful application:
Completed application form ICE3103 Evidence of education (MEng graduation certificate) Evidence of IPD completion – completion – this this is your ICE3144a your ICE3144a form signed by your SCE and MDO A synopsis of your Experience Report and Project Report (1 page each, and signed by your SCE) Payment (check ICE (check ICE Fees Page) Page) You also need to have ensured that your SCE + two other sponsors have completed their questionnaires (ICE3123 ICE3123)) and sent these direct to the ICE
The reviews take twice a year in various locations. You’ll have to choose a preferred location on your application form. The time you sit the rev iew is based on when you submit. There are specific applications windows relating to the review times:
January application for Spring CPR July application for Autumn CPR
4 – SUBMISSION If you’re at this stage, then your application was su ccessful and you’ve been sent details of your two reviewers. By now your reports should be ready to send, but you still have a little time to finalise your presentation. Remember your reports must address how you are competent in the nine ICE Attributes. Here’s what goes into your submission:
Experience Report (2000 words) Project Report (4000 words) IPD Record – this is your Continuing Professional Development (CPD) records and yearly Development Action Plans (DAPs) It’s recommended to send a covering letter and a stamped, addressed postcard (they return this to you to confirm receipt – this is optional)
Here’s a couple of things to note regarding the package you send:
There is a 1kg weight limit Don’t use a courier, use Royal Mail. This is so that if they miss the delivery the reviewer does not have an hour+ drive to the courier’s depot! You need to post your submission to arrive no later than 10 working da ys from the big day
5 – THE BIG DAY Review day. First thing to remember is that the reviewers are looking for reasons to pass you, not for reasons to fail you. The format of the day is:
Presentation and Questions (15+60 minutes) Written Exercise (120 minutes)
You’ll have minimum of 45minutes to grab lunch between the two sessions. In the presentation you’re expected to further explain your experience. Common guidance is that you should not repeat what is in your project report, but either enhance one section of it or explain something which you deliberately left out. An hour of questions sounds a long time, but believe me it goes fast – so don’t let that worry you. The reviewers will have read your reports and IPD document and have a list of questions they want to ask. They’ll also have questions relating to your presentation.
Remember in all aspects of the CEng application you are trying to demonstrate the nine Attributes. Once the reviewers have asked a question and are satisfied with the answer they will swiftly move on. However, if your fail to an swer a question satisfactorily the reviewer will likely probe deeper into that line of questioning to ensure they have a good understanding of your knowledge on that particular subject. You’ll be able to tell when the reviewer is running out of questions because they will start asking you about the ICE Code of Conduct or the ICE Royal Charter. For the written exercise it is a simple pick one question from two. You have two hours two demonstrate your ability to provide a reasoned argument and opinion on the given subject. The questions are set specifically for you once the reviewers have read your reports. The focus for CEng is less on factual knowledge and more on discussion, reasoning and understanding of wider issues. Nevertheless, including something with factual errors will not help you at all, and depending on the nature of the error and the context it could be enough to make the reviewer fail you (this would be extreme). My advice on facts is that it’s great to include them to demonstrate knowledge, but if you are unsure then it’s better to leave it out. It’s also open book which should eliminate factual errors! You have the choice to handwrite or word-process your answer. This must be decided at the application stage, and if you are word-processing this must be on your own laptop. I hope this post has given you a good overview of the main deliverables and stages which you need to pass through to achieve CEng. For the full story with more d etail, diagrams, advice and personal hints, check out my book How to Pass the CEng ICE Professional Review which is available on Amazon as an eBook or as a in print. Good luck!!
Steve Gilchrist, CE ng MI CE
ICE Attributes – Introduction In early 2015, the Institution of Civil Engineers annou nced that new trainees undergoing Initial Professional Development (IPD) would be measured under their Attributes system at all stages right up until and including the Professional Review. All reco rding of evidences and quarterly reports would also shift to an all-electronic system located in your members profiles at ice.org.uk , which also provides them the opportunity to flag up accounts with low activity or to send automatic reminders to mentors and trainees where insufficient activity occurs. This is a significant change from the traditional paper-based Development Objectives, which many mentors and senior staff at companies would have been used to. The Development Objectives were based on the UK-SPEC guidelines provided by the Engineering Council.
In addition to the IPD changes, new candidates would need to write a 5000 word “Professional Report” which replaced the two separate 3000 word Project Reports and the Experience Reports. There is a nice webinar of the changes here. We at The Structural Exam feel this is a sensible move for a few reasons: 1. Having to put candidates through a series of Development Objectives for 4 years and then doing their final assessment on a different marksheet seemed pointless. 2. Most people type up their evidences an yway, so copying and pasting into your profile takes nearly no effort. 3. The automatic reminders to your Supervising Civil Engineers or the red-flagging of accounts should either speed up the IPD process or make it known to managers that some people are not performing to the correct professional developments standard (See the ICE Code of Conduct!) 4. The Professional Experience report required for submission is one document which will be more coherent than 2 separate items. The overall word count is a little less than before, so there is a bit less typing to do. If you are still using the Development Objectives system, then you can still use these until December 2017, but it worthwhile to switch ov er to the Attributes system if you have documented less than 2 years of experience. The 9 Attributes you need to fulfil to pass a Professional Review are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Knowledge and Understanding of Engineering Technical and Practical Application of Engineering Management and Leadership Independent Judgement and Responsibility Commercial Ability Health, Safety and Welfare Sustainable Development Interpersonal Skills and Communication Professional Commitment
The next few pages are intended to give an idea of what evidences can be written up for each ICE Attribute. If you are in a position where it is difficult to gain that experience at work, then there may be some activities you can do/learn in your time away from work which would help you satisfy the Attributes.
Share this page:
ICE Attributes – 1. Knowledge and Understanding of Engineering The first of the nine Attributes for the ICE is entitled “Knowledge and Understanding of Engineering”. This Attribute is subdivided into 4 parts if you are aiming for Chartered Engineer level. A) Maintain and extend a sound theoretical approach to the application of technology in engineering practice. B) Use a sound evidence-based approach to problem solving and be able to contribute to continuous improvement. C) Maintain and extend a sound theoretical approach in enabling the introduction and exploitation of new and advancing technology. D) Engage in the creative and innovative development of engineering technology and continuous improvement systems Notice that C) is an extension of A) and that D) is an extension of B). Therefore you should only really focus on achieving the latter two. But what is the difference between them? You could essentially paraphrase them in to “Deliver something new to the industry” for C) and “Come up with and/or develop some new ideas” for D). There is not an expectation to create something totally new, but more appro priately a small amendment in how things were previously done which brings improvement for the industry or the society. For instance:
Did you amend a concrete pouring sequence to save 2% of total concrete volume, or speed up the process by 3%? Did you manage to automate via a computer script a boring but important engineering job to save time for everyone and free up resources? Did you do a bit of research behind a building design code and notice some leeway to deviate under certain situations?
If you studied for a Masters or Doctorate degree then satisfying this Attribute should be fairly straightforward, as the requirements to pass those degrees are in line with what is required here. Remember you need to show capability to do the above, so think broadly, even if your evidences are not so relevant to your daily work. For instance, you can demonstrate your eagerness to learn through attending all sorts of courses and conferences. You may have helped a friend to design an extension to his house and had to do background research. (Though this last example on its own probably would not get you through a review.)
Just remember the main things to you will need to demonstrate in your portfolio and review are:
Curiosity and self-initiative Ability to learn by yourself Why your new knowledge is beneficial to engineering How you are able to introduce your new idea/technique into industry. (Or at least a good understanding of where the difficulties may lie in the process and what you could potentially do about them)
With the above information you should be able to easily satisfy this Attribute.
ICE Attributes – 2. Technical and practical application of engineering The second of ICE’s nine Attributes is “Technical and practical application of engineering”, with its following following subdivisions. A) Identify, review and select techniques, procedures and methods to undertake technical/scientific tasks. B) Contribute to the design and development of technical/scientific solutions. C) Implement or construct design solutions and contribute to their evaluatio n. D) Conduct appropriate research, relative to design or construction and appreciate its relevance within own area of responsibility. E) Undertake the design and development of engineering solutions and evaluate their effectiveness. F) Implement or construct design solutions and evaluate their effectiveness. These should be seen as three pairs, which represent a typical engineering design cycle:
A/D – Come up ideas on how to solve an engineering problem B/E – Do the maths, analysis and iterative designs behind your ideas C/F – Deliver your ideas and see whether it worked.
Unlike many types of engineering which ma y work on smaller scale (product design, mechanical engineering, electronic engineering etc.), in civil or structural engineering you are unlikely to be able to build a “2nd version” if the first one was not so good. Even if you performed a “lessons learned” review afterwards there may be a limited number of things you can carry forward to the next project.
Therefore this attribute will be probed very deeply in your Professional Review. It is very important to demonstrate the complex technical aspects of your projects in your Career Appraisal and throughout your Professional Review Report, especially if you are in working in a role where you do not frequently perform a lot of technical aspects of engineering behind projects. Ultimately you need to demonstrate to your reviewers that you can solve a complex civil engineering problem of your specialist field. Be sure to include many photos or drawings where it would be easier to interpret than writing lengthy text. Unless you are inventing something totally radical, your designs are more likely to be an evolution of a standard design with the specific details governed by constraints in your project. If this is the case then make a side-by-side comparison to draw attention to assist your reviewers compare and contrast.
ICE Attributes – 3. Management and Leadership If you ask any engineering institution what the difference between an Incorporated and a Chartered Engineer is, most answers will come down to whether you are managing or leading the industry. What does this mean exactly? If you read the text carefully from the first two Attributes (1 here and 2 here), you will notice that half of the sub-attributes relate to whether you are driving the industry forward with your engineering research or application. A similar concept applies to this Attribute but in the context of management processes. This Attribute is divided as follows A) Plan for effective project implementation B) Manage the tasks and organisations of tasks, people and resources C) Manage teams and develop staff to meet changing technical and managerial needs D) Manage quality processes E) Plan, direct and control tasks, people and resources F) Lead teams and develop staff to meet changing technical and managerial needs G) Demonstrate continuous improvement through quality management From the wording alone, it should be obvious that the following are paired together – B/E, C/F, D/G which then leaves A as a standalone. You therefore should try to prove A, E, F, G throughout your Initial Professional Development stages. The key to achieving this attribute is to avoid succumbing to complacency. If any process, no matter how small or big, goes well it is easy to p at each other’s back and call it a job well done. But you should always record some form of after action review, whether formally or privately, and ask yourself the following questions:
What went well? What went not so well? What were the bottlenecks in the processes? How did I manage any difficulties I came across? Is it possible to get feedback from others I worked with? What could I do differently next time with knowledge I gained from this experience?
On the topic of technical and managerial needs, you are required to show how you identified opportunities to improve your colleagues’ abilities in new technologies or sk ills. For instance you may have:
Delivered seminars on the latest revisions to design codes or regulations, e. g. CDM 2015 or EN/ISO design code revisions Making adjustments to a document control or other registry tool and assisting staff with its implementation Created a computer script to automate labour-intensive tasks and gotten people to use it.
The good thing about this Attribute is that you should be able to show Chartership qualities in your working behaviour from day one, even if it takes some further time to c ollect your evidence. With the right mentality of always striving to improve ever ything, if you can keep demonstrating your application of learnings then you should be able to satisfy this attribute very quickly.
ICE Attributes – 4. Independent Judgement and Responsibility This Attribute on judgement and responsibility could almost have been written for any profession, as you are expected to juggle multiple factors and make a decision on what is the best solution given your constraints. The sub parts are: A) Identify the limits of personal knowledge and skills. B) Exercise sound independent engineering judgement and take responsibility. C) Identify the limits of a team’s skill and knowledge D) Exercise sound holistic independent judgement an d take responsibility. As should be indicative from the wording, you should aim for the latter two parts as the y are follow-ons from the first two.
There is a famous saying, the “5 Ms of management – Manpower, Money, Machinery, Material and Minutes”. Using the resources available to you, what mix of those 5 Ms would you choose in your situation? Your situation may be such that your beautifully engineered solution may be unworkable due to the unavailability of staff or equipment to build your idea. “Identifying the limits of skill and knowledge of your team”, touches upon the first M above. In this sub-attribute there is an implication you understand why h aving the right staff (and the attitude that goes with it) is important. Would your team eve r produce good results if none of them were trained in their field? Would you want your team showing up drunk, slacking or constantly performing tasks dangerously? You will therefore need to show that you are leading in some way. If you are a manager or team leader it will almost certainly be part of your job d escription to do staff appraisals or conduct feedback sessions. You should include these repo rts as part of your submission for CEng review where you will probably be asked about how you managed your team. (If you have ever had to dismiss someone or give uncomfortable feedback like underperformance, then this will be especially interesting for reviewers.) But if you are in a position where you are not the formal manager, then you can demonstrate your leadership qualities by discussing your observations or trying to gather data yourself. It could be something such as asking your colleagues to fill in questionnaires on their experience/competence in certain areas, or you might consider whether it is worth hosting a workshop on a specific skill and you are trying to gauge interest. On the other Ms you need to demonstrate through your project or other working experiences how you had to prioritise one M over the other, or how you assessed the risks behind different methods of executing your project and demonstrating how it was unacceptable to do a particular method because of the risk of losing too much time or material. A favourite question often asked by r eviewers is “what would happen if…” and then one parameter of your situation is changed. You would need to explain the impact of that single parameter changing – and they could be extensive!
“What would happen if you had double the amount of money available?” “What would happen if you were to do this project in remote Africa?” “What would happen if this specialist machinery were not a vailable?”
and so on. You entire engineering career will be judged on your ability to make the right decisions. In trying to satisfy this Attribute you may find that while you a re often dealing with conflicting parameters, trying to put it into words is harder than you might expect!
ICE Attributes – 5. Commercial Ability
In the 2013 ICE Review sessions, Commercial Ability was the most divided failure point, with 70% of Hong Kong applicants failing on this Attribute alone. Compare this to 53% of UK applicants and 47% of those from the Rest of the World. (Source: SCE Newsletter February 2014). For trainees in large companies this Attribute can sometimes be tricky to satisfy especially if you are working in a position which does not easily permit you to manage commercial aspects of projects or business. Here are the sub-Attributes: A) Prepare and control budgets B) Use sound knowledge of statutory and commercial frameworks within own area of responsibility and have an appreciation of other c ommercial arrangements. C) Demonstrate sound judgement on statutory, contractual and commercial issues in relation to your area of responsibility Part A) by itself is actually a requirement for Incorporated Engineer lev el, so this should indicate that a Chartered Engineer will need to be pretty strong in financial capabilities. This does not necessarily mean you need to be as good as a qualified accountant! Since almost every engineer will be good at mathematics, the process of learning the calculations behind budgets should not pose as a challenge. Instead, it is probably wiser to learn the business processes, legal and contractual framework behind the financial systems being used. As a minimum, you should know the answers to the ALL following:
In which jurisdiction(s) do your contracts apply? How are the contracts formed? (e.g. competitive bidding? What stipulations are required?) Who are the responsible parties in your contracts, and what are their duties? What are the consequences of non-compliance to the contract? What variations (including breakouts) are permissible in your contracts, or how can parties agree to them? What are the remedial actions permitted or stated in your contract (if any)? What are the mechanisms/processes in your business that need to b e done to arrange payment to an external party?
To demonstrate “sound judgement”, your reviewers may test your ability by asking you to discuss in significant detail the strengths and weaknesses of the contracts you deal with, or any improvements you would suggest for next time.
On business processes, perhaps if a particular item parameter were mod ified somewhere in the process, would you have a good idea of the potential consequences to the rest of the process? What amendments would be required in order to enable that modification to take place, or if it is impossible, what would the next best option be and what would its disadvantage be compared to the original method? If you have evidence of playing an influential part in the commercial aspects of your work then this is of course the best way to demonstrate your competence. Otherwise, you may h ave to draw on any other experiences such as running societies or charitable organisations outside work.
CE Attributes – 6. Health, Safety and Welfare Health and Safety is often ridiculed in many professions, often fueled by sensationalist journalism, but it is a truly serious topic in the construction industry. Falls from height is among the biggest cause of fatalities and lost time injuries, and candidates vying for registration with any professional body must show they not only understand the risks, but will do all they can to facilitate its improvement. The sub-Attributes are: A) Sound knowledge of legislation, hazards and safe systems of work. B) Manage risks C) Manage health, safety and welfare within own area of responsibility. D) Leading continuous improvement in health, safety and welfare. While health and safety is often discussed at work, relatively little attention is given to welfare. A working environment may be seen as safe, but how do the workers feel about their conditions there? How might someone working on an offshore oil platform feel about spending 4 weeks at a time away from family with the facilities around him/her? The likelihood is that your reviewers will monitor this Attribute very strictly because of h ow easy it is to become complacent. Candidates should be able to demonstrate a strong working knowledge of the following:
The applicable laws regarding Health, Safety and Welfare (HS&W)in the countries where your projects are based. Company policies on HS&W and where it might differ (for better or for worse) to local practice. Industry trends relating to HS&W in your discipline. (For instance the risks related to offshore oil and gas may differ to onshore timber co nstruction)
For many recent graduates joining companies, their CPD records will probably show a huge amount of HS&W training at the start of their career, but then the subsequent years show minimal participation. This implicitly violates sub-Attribute D) and so a continual maintenance on your CPD should be seen as a bare minimum. There are plenty of ways to show leadership in HS&W, ranging from conducting risk assessments to becoming the custodian and rewriting your compan y’s safety policies. In any case you should be able to show results on how your leadership has made improvements.
ICE Attributes – 7. Sustainable Development While there are now people making whole careers as environmental specialists, your job as a Chartered Civil Engineer will require very intricate involvement with sustainability studies, as described by these sub-parts. A) A sound knowledge of sustainable development best practice. B) Manage engineering activities that contribute to sustainable development. C) Leading continuous improvement in sustainable development. Obviously, if you are taking the lead (or at least judged to be capable of it) then you will probably need to have a sound knowledge and be c apable of managing some activities relating to sustainable development. Therefore try to focus on C) only. The IStructE has a Core Objective based on environment, though the level of capability required by ICE is higher. “Sustainability” can tackled via some of these categories, all of which are valid. They could be:
Social Economical Environmental
The hot topic of any major civil or structural engineering in the 21st century is environmental impact. Things will have been put under greater scrutiny of the recent Paris Summit in December 2015, so to stand a good chance of passing your Review you should try to demonstrate a leadership in the “Environmental” and at least one other, and a working knowledge in the last type. In many cases it should be fairly obvious whether you are doing a piece of work related to sustainability, such as:
CO2 emissions reductions calculations Disposal of products (e.g. facility decommissioning, toxic handling etc.) Improvement of industry standards / technical developments Compliance with changes in legislation
Lifetime extensions of buildings/infrastructure
This Attribute is probably a little less demanding than the others in terms of content and ability. For most people you might not be making the environmental decisions, which is expected, so it will just be a case of demonstrating that your participation in engineering brings sustainable benefits to the parties involved.
ICE Attributes – 8. Interpersonal Skills and Communication You cannot succeed in engineering, or any skilled profession, without strong communication skills. Of all the Attributes you will be reviewed against, this is p robably the easiest to fulfil and the one that has strongest transferability should you wish to consider a career change. A) Communicate well with others at all including effective use of English orally and in writing. B) Discuss ideas and plans competently and with confidence. C) Effective personal and social skills. D) Manage diversity issues. E) Communicate new concepts and ideas to technical and nontechnical colleagues including effective use of English* orally and in writing *Subject to the Welsh Language Act. Parts A)-D) are marked as Incorporated Engineer level, while o nly E) is required at Chartered Engineer level. E) should only be seen as an upgrade to A) and B). Also note that during an ICE Professional Review you will be given a Written Exercise after your interview. The Written Exercise is part of the communications aspect of this Attribute. The odd one out in the above sub-Attributes, but definitely not an y less worthy, is D), managing diversity issues. This is a recent addition to ICE’s criteria but is very important to 21st Century professionalism, as you need to demonstrate that you can work with people of any race, religion, sex, disability, sexual orientation etc. and also to i mprove inclusiveness in your workplace. All Professional Reviews will be conducted in En glish, though there is an archaic law which allows you to take your exam in Welsh instead. From what reviewer have t old me, most candidates in Wales sit their reviews in English. On the communications side, you need to be able to be explain, discuss, argue, present all sorts of details to all sorts of audience. You might find you need to describe how glass-reinforced polymers have anisotropic material properties to a bunch of schoolchildren with no material
science knowledge, or you might one day be delivering a proposal to Parliament and defending yourself against angry protestors on why putting a high speed train line through pristine countryside makes economical, environmental and technical sense. You should not worry too much about satisfying this Attribute if English is totally fluent. This Attribute is only ever a barrier for those using the European Directive or Mutual Recognition routes and hardly use English in their daily lives.
ICE Attributes – 9. Professional Commitment The last of ICE’s 9 Attributes is Professional Commitment. A) Understanding and compliance with the ICE Code of Conduct. B) Plan, carry out and record CPD and encourage others. C) Engage with ICE activities. D) Demonstration of appropriate professional standards, recognising obligations to society, the profession and the environment. E) Exercise responsibilities in an ethical manner If you read and comply with the ICE’s Code of Conduct, with the exception of C) you will actually see that all the other sub-Attributes are explicitly mentioned as individua l rules. Participating in ICE activities in the modern age h as become so much easier than ever, now that there are so many recorded lectures and online webcasts. For instance, one that ALL Professional Review candidates should watch, regardless of the grade you are applying for, is the James Rennie Medal which is awarded to the best CEng MICE candidate from the previous year. You can participate in the 2016 broadcast here. At the time of your Professional Review you will n eed to submit your CPD records, but rather than seeing this as a burden, it is remarkably easy to maintain if you spend just 5 minutes per week or fortnight. Our recommendation is to do it at the same time as you do your timesheets (if you have such a system) as you will need to look back at what you have done for the previous period anyway. It therefore takes little additional effort to get it done. There is a template .DOCX file available for use, though the ICE is encouraging everyone to do it online these days. With regards to “demonstrating appropriate professional standards”, well if you can beh ave yourself that’s a good start. You need to show you are committed, passionate and excited about the industry and profession. How can you do this? You can demonstrate this at your interview with good knowledge and opinion on latest developments in particular sectors of civil engineering, policies or environmental concerns. The list is very open ended but this provides a fantastic opportunity to prove yourself to be a good commentator in a chosen sector.
Statistically speaking this Attribute is least likely to cause failure, so you can distribute your focus and efforts to other Attributes as you see appropriate.
Interview tips The average pass rate for the Professional Review Interview is around 75%, so you should rest assured that the odds of success are highly in your favour. You will start your interview with a 15 minute presentation with a topic of your choice. You should choose this on a project where you have taken a significant or lead role through multiple stages of the design or construction. As you should be able to rehearse nearly every word of your presentation, it is important you practice it until flawless in delivery and timing. It should allow you to ease into your interview and feel ready for a lively discussion with your reviewers. You should not in any way feel the interview is there to trick you or interrogate you. It should be seen as the opposite – the reviewers are there to help you pass, and where they feel your application is weaker or lacking in detail in a specific area then it is your chance to say something to satisfy them. There will be some paper on the side should you need to sketch something to clarify a message. You might be asked to draw a bending moment diagram for something you mentioned in your presentation or report. Once again it is not there to trick you!
My CEng MICE interview day Posted on April 24, 2016 by Tim Lai in ICE Review tips // 0 Comments This post serves as a memoir of my CEng MICE interview at the Institution of Civil Engineers headquarters in London in April 2016. It may help readers in preparations for their own Reviews.
Pre-work I had submitted my Professional Report approximately 5 weeks p rior to my review date. This was 2 weeks before the deadline, which gave me some time to mentally unwind from the grind of writing my report every evening after work for 3 months. I had also done a mock interview with my Membership Development Officer during his time at the Institution of Civil Engineers prior to setting up his own consultancy. It was a very worthwhile experience to understand the style of q uestions I would be subjected to, and also the depth of knowledge required for success on the day.
The Journey and Arrival
The day prior to my review I was in The Hague in The Netherlands, to attend the induction of Edward Heerema, founder of offshore construction compan y Allseas, as a “Fellow Chartered Engineer” with the Royal Dutch Institute of Engineers (KIVI) – the Dutch equivalent of the Engineering Council in the UK. It was a big event for someone who had revolutionised the offshore industry. It left me deeply inspired! After the event it was a quick dash to Amsterdam Airport Schiphol to catch my flight.
In deciding how I would get to London it was a toss-up between arriving the night before and staying at a hotel, or arriving in the morning for my review which began at 12pm. I’m glad I went for the former as my inbound flight was delayed by nearly 1 hour due to inclement weather. If this had happened on the day then it could have been disastrous! In the morning of my review I arrived around 10:30am. This would give me enough time to head to the ICE’s cafe in the basement and cool any nerves. After seeing that m y Written Exercise would start at 2.15pm, I figured I could have relaxed brunch then, or have a brisk lunch in the 45 minutes between my interview and Written Exercise. I chose the former option, and ordered more than my usual intake as this would be the only thing I would eat until the evening.
When the time came, the candidates were all waiting outside the room. I wou ld say half of the candidates were silently going over their notes, and the other half were chatting away.
The Interview My interview started off with the usual 15 minute presentation. Approximately 10 minutes were dedicated to my main project, the decommissioning of an offshore platform, followed by one minor project for 3 minutes and a final page of “any other business” which are the interesting bits which didn’t fit anywhere in my CV, report or presentation, but were still noteworthy nonetheless. I had an observer in my review, sitting a metre to my left and out of sight. My concentration level was such that I actually forgot he was there until my interview was over! Approximately 40 minutes of my interview was spent talking abo ut fairly specific details of my main project, and 15-20 minutes on broader topics. My specialist reviewer was an FICE and was at times playing devil’s advocate, while the generalist reviewer (MICE) asked broader questions such as “ give an example of when you led continuous improvement “. The generalist reviewer did far less talking than the specialist – but I also get the impression he was testing to see if I could explain more complex details in jargon-free vocabulary (which is very difficult in offshore engineering), given that it is a requirement in the Interpersonal Skills and Communication Attribute. One thing that I noticed towards the end was that the questions started to lack any real substance – e.g. “do you feel ready to manage and lead a team?“. Were they running out of things to ask?! Also the topics of the questions were changing rapidly and with no real connection. For instance I was asked “what do you understand by sustainability in civil engineering, and how do you see yourself being ‘sustainable’ given you work in the oil and gas industry“. My answer was
probably 30 seconds long and well-reasoned, but then the next question suddenly changed to things relating to my involvement with the ICE a nd how I was the face of graduate membership.
In all, the interview felt like a nice discussion and debate with two reviewers who are interested to know your opinion in many areas. I can imagine that if you are nervous then it could be seen as a bit of a grilling. The time flew by really fast, to the extent I was surprised 1 hour had passed when they wanted to draw it to a close. I could keep talking for hours! After the interview I went to the cafe downstairs again to get another coffee during the 45 minute break. One tip that I got from another colleague: If at any point in the future you want to remember what you got asked (e.g. other colleagues wanting to know about your review day), write down the questions during these 45 minutes otherwise you will forget them forever! A coffee and a comfort break later, I headed back to the same waiting area and we were called in for our 2 hour Written Exercise.
Written Exercise It was a free choice on seating arrangement. The tables and partition panels were still in place from the interviews so most people headed to the same place where they had their interview and settled in to wait for their question papers to come. I wrote my Written Exercise by laptop – I thoroughly recommend this method if you are able to type faster than you can write. The thing to note about the Written Exercise is that the questions are specific to each candidate, such that no two candidates will get the same questions. Both of my questions were specific to my project, so I won’t post them up here, though I had hoped at least one question to be fairly broad – something like “Discuss how health and safety pla ys an integral part of a civil engineering project”. In the end I wrote what I could in the time available. A USB stick was passed around at the end and everyone uploaded their submissions onto it. One other tip I learnt from my colleague: If doing the Written Exercise by laptop, it is e asy to cut, paste, add and edit whole sentences or paragraphs at the jeopardy of the flow of the essay. This problem is not present if writing by hand b ecause it’s impossible to shift the order of the paragraphs around, so you are limited to checking for spelling and grammar only! The advice I stuck to, and I pass on here is: If you have finished your essay and there is under 20 minutes left, check your submission for minor errors only – i.e. typos, spelling and
grammar. There is simply not enough time to try and make a beautiful piece of prose, and if you start playing around with paragraphs then the time might run out halfway through amending a paragraph and you will be left with something that is incomplete. Don’t forget, the guideline for a pass is “a tidy first draft “.
Reflections of the day The Chartered Professional Review day as a whole felt like a worthwhile experience and a rite of passage for those in the civil engineering industry. It was nowhere near as scary as many people had tried to make it seem, and it was a great way to showcase everything I had done in my career to date. As the contents discussed during the Review were confidential, it was an opportunity to voice your opinion on all sorts of things which you might not have had the opportunity to do so before. Maybe you disagreed with some company or governmental policies, or you felt there were other better ways to do things which were beyond your direct influence, but you did not have the platform to voice it before. This was the perfect chance. Most of the questions were deliberately open-ended such that you had to think of a structure to your answer prior to speaking up. You should probably get lots of practice in these kinds of situations before you do your ICE review! You can ask your friends or colleagues to ask questions like “give an example of how you led sustainable development” so you can answer in 3-5 sentences. Finally, don’t be nervous! Of course the communication you get back afterwards will consist of a binary pass/fail result, but if you are not successful this time you should treat it as a “not yet” rather than “fail”. It’s all very good experience in the end! But for me, I will have to wait until 27th May for the result. I have my fingers crossed
.
The long road to CEng MIStructE Posted on September 18, 2015 by Tim Lai in Uncategorized // 0 Comments My long-term ambition has been to become a Chartered Engineer. I studied MEng Civil Engineering at the University of Bath where I was taught to dream up big funky structures, build beautiful projects with the close collaboration of architects. I graduated in 2010 with First Class honours, armed with a whole host of Eurocode knowledge and other fantastic skills.
5 years on I’ve forgotten most of what I did at university! The issue I have which most of my classmate don’t is that I am working in a client role, rather than as an engineering consultancy or contractor. This therefore means I’m not reviewing calculations or designs on a day-to-day basis, but rather, dealing with project critical paths, purchase orders and other commercial activities. That’s all nice and well…but there’s a heartwarming satisfaction about drawing new concepts, calculating bending moments and designing shear reinforcements. Hence why I have started the personal challenge to become a Chartered Structural Engineer and pass the gruelling7-hour exam from the IStructE which is notorious for its incredibly low pass rate – approximately 35%. I’m close to Chartership with the ICE though, having comp leted my company’s accredited training scheme. Should I get chartered with ICE this will allow me to go through the Mutual Recognition Agreement route with IStructE and register directly for the exam. Therefore m y schedule looks something like this: April 2016 – sit the ICE Chartered Member Professional Review June 2016 – get result from ICE. (Hopefully a successful one!) January 2017 – sit the IStructE Part 3 Chartered Member Examination. I know I’m in safe hands to help me. I’m being coached b y the most talented structural engineer I know – Ralph Pelly (CEng MIStructE). He’s the brains behind this website and we’ve k nown each other a long time – since day one of university as we studied together! Ralph passed the IStructE exam on his first attempt in 2014. So please follow this blog to see how I progress. Occasionally I’ll be adding in technical information which I’m sure will help other budding IStructE candidates to o.
