Effective Training For Civil Engineers

Dynamic mentoring for civil engineers
Dynamic mentoring for

civil engineers
H. Macdonald Steels
Published by Thomas Telford Publishing, Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay,
London E14 4JD. URL http://www.thomastelford.com
Distributors for Thomas Telford books are
USA: ASCE Press, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400, USA
Japan: Maruzen Co. Ltd, Book Department, 3–10 Nihonbashi 2-chome,
Chuo-ku, Tokyo 103
Australia: DA Books and Journals, 648 Whitehorse Road, Mitcham 3132,
Victoria
First published 2001
Also published by Thomas Telford
Effective Training for Civil Engineers. H Macdonald Steels. ISBN 0 7277 2709 5
Successful Professional Reviews for Civil Engineers. H Macdonald Steels. ISBN
0 7277 2613 7
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 0 7277 3003 7
© H Macdonald Steels and Thomas Telford Limited, 2001
All rights, including translation, reserved. Except as permitted by the Copy-
right, Designs and Patents Act 1988, no part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the Publishing Director, Thomas Telford Publishing,
Thomas Telford Ltd, 1 Heron Quay, London E14 4JD.
This book is published on the understanding that the author is solely
responsible for the statements made and opinions expressed in it and that its
publication does not necessarily imply that such statements and/or opinions
are or reflect the views or opinions of the publishers. While every effort has
been made to ensure that the statements made and the opinions expressed
in this publication provide a safe and accurate guide, no liability or responsi-
bility can be accepted in this respect by the author or publishers.
Typeset by Ian Kingston Editorial Services, Nottingham, UK.
Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin, Cornwall.
Acknowledgements
For Lynne, who first pointed out that, ‘The most important
book of the trilogy is missing’.
My sincere thanks are due to the many friends and colleagues
who have encouraged me to develop these ideas and to offer
them through this book, and in particular:
– My elder son Duncan, for his inspirational insights into
modern management;
– Lindsey, whose faith in my ability to write the book never
wavered;
– Tony, whose personal circumstances offered time to be more
helpful than I could ever reasonably have expected.
I do hope that the result fulfils their high expectations.
v
Acknowledgements
Disclaimer
It is a sad commentary on our increasingly blame-seeking and
litigious society that I am advised to state that:
Whilst I have made every effort to ensure that the guidance
given throughout this book is correct, the views expressed
and the material provided are based on my personal experi-
ence and are offered in good faith but without prejudice. The
opinions are neither intended to be taken as specific advice
on a particular issue, nor to represent definitive Institution
policy. No person should act, or refrain from acting in any
particular matter without taking appropriate advice before
doing so. The author expressly disclaims liability in respect of
anything done, or not done, in reliance in whole or in part on
any information in this book.
vi
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
The Rock (1934) Part 1 – T. S. Eliot
Common sense, in an uncommon degree, is what the world

calls wisdom.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834)
vii
Contents
Chapter One Introduction 1

Using this book 3
The format 4
Chapter Two Management of change 7

Change management through people 8
Change and trainees 9
Change management through a training programme 11
Specific business objectives of training 13
ICE training programme as an integral part of change
management 14
Speedier processes, including training and
development 15
Pride in the workforce 16
Balanced workforce 16
Chapter Three Operational factors influencing

the business objectives of training 18
Speedier delivery 18
Information technology 19
External criticism 20
Public perception 22
The move towards sustainability 23
Chapter Four Influences of personnel recruitment on

the business objectives of training 26
Incoming trainees 26
Loss of experience ‘off the top’ 29
Technological advance 30
Training for change 31
Flatter management structure 32
ix
Contents
Chapter Five How ICE qualifying and training

criteria fit the business objectives 34
Moving goalposts 34
Detailed alterations for Incorporated and
Chartered Members 35
Comparison of management and leadership 38
Changes in 1998 (SARTOR’97 changes) 39
The Technician Member 40
‘Developing today’s professionals for tomorrow’s
challenges’ (2000) 42
Simplifying the system 42
Widening the membership 44
The revised 2000 series documents (2002) 45
Earlier qualification 46
Chapter Six The Institution of Civil Engineers’

Training Scheme 47
Initial Professional Development 47
The Training Objectives 49
Transfer from old to new Objectives 50
Flexibility across the three classes of membership 51
Flexibility across the engineering professions 52
Specific Objectives 52
Equivalent objectives 54
The target 55
Chapter Seven Preparing a training scheme 57

Why train to ICE standards? 57
The Scheme – introductory statement 59
Introduction to the organisation 59
Primary objectives 60
Key personnel 61
Quarterly Review 64
Placements 65
Chapter Eight Training Agreements for the ICE’s

Training System 66
Previous experience 67
x
Contents
Registration of Agreement 69
Target class of membership 69
Length of Agreement 70
Transfer of Agreement 71
Termination of Agreement 72
Training without an Agreement 74
Chapter Nine The mechanics of the ICE’s

Training Scheme 75
The procedures 75
Supervising Civil Engineer 75
Delegated Engineer 78
Annual Appraisal 79
Preparation for an Annual Appraisal 80
Training Review for Completion 81
Academic assessment 83
Summary 83
Chapter Ten Recruitment of trainees 85

Tradition 85
Definition of graduate 86
Recruitment strategy 86
Chapter Eleven Mentoring – the theory 90

Historical background 91
Experience of mentors 91
Mentoring is individual 93
Mentoring for change 94
The purposes of mentoring 95
The art of mentoring 95
Adapting to change 98
Why is mentoring important? 98
Chapter Twelve Mentoring in practice 100

Context of ICE training 100
The prime objective of mentoring 102
Encouraging self-development 104
Problems with the system 104
The system in practice 105
xi
Contents
Chapter Thirteen Quarterly Reports 107

Purposes of Quarterly Reports 108
Trigger the training process 108
Personal library of experience 109
Ability to review 109
Ability to report 110
Learning from experience 111
Backlog of reports 113
Common misunderstandings 114
Chapter Fourteen Mentor response to Quarterly

Reports 115
Comments on Quarterly Reports 115
Questions, not answers 116
Examples of mentoring dialogue 118
The structure of Quarterly Reports 120
The content 121
Planning 121
The format 122
Should reports be handwritten? 123
Summary 124
Worked examples of Quarterly Report responses 125
Chapter Fifteen Monitoring progress 129

Progress towards the target 129
Progress against objectives 130
Brief details under each Objective 132
Objective review of target 133
Chapter Sixteen ICE Professional Review 135

Roles of sponsors 135
Eligibility to sponsor a candidate 135
Overview 136
Sponsors’ declaration 139
Chapter Seventeen Sponsors’ scrutiny of submission

documents 141
What must be ‘scrutinised’? 141
xii
Contents
The forms 143

Experience report 144
Project report 145
General notes on reports 148
Chapter Eighteen Preparation for Review 150

The presentation – visual aids 150
The presentation – content 151
Preparation for the interview 153
The Written Assignment 153
Chapter Nineteen The aftermath of failure 156

Appeals procedure 158
Retaking the review 160
Chapter Twenty The Reviewers 163

Reviewers’ approach to the Review 164
The Review schedule 165
Choosing potential reviewers 165
Training new Reviewers 166
Updating existing Reviewers 167
Availability of Reviewers 168
Appendix Critique of Quarterly Report extracts 170
Index 178
xiii
Chapter One
Introduction
I have been told by many younger engineers that my two

previous books, Effective Training and Successful Professional
Reviews for civil engineers, have assisted them to train, then
become professionally qualified, not only through the Institu-
tion of Civil Engineers’ procedures, but also those of several
other engineering and construction institutions. More recently,
however, I have come to realise that the real key to successful
training is the organisation itself; more specifically, those
persons in the organisation charged with training new entrants
to the profession.
Visiting over 300 organisations on behalf of the Institution, and
as a tutor for Thomas Telford Training, I have concluded that
many of the misunderstandings of the modern processes of
training and review, as well as many of the causes of undue
delays and unacceptably high failure rates, emanate from those
older persons guiding trainees, not from the trainees them-
selves. My fundamental reasoning is straightforward: all gradu-
ates come to this industry wanting to succeed, hoping to
develop and build a career, wishing to make the system work
for them. If that motivation is lost, or their expectations are not
realised, then who, fundamentally, is to blame? These contin-
uing misconceptions and misunderstandings persist because:
o training is rarely seen as an integral and vital part of business
development;
1
Introduction
o employers are seldom recruiting the right mix of people for

their business;
o young trainees are being required to do tasks for which they
have not been adequately prepared or which pose inappro-
priate challenges;
o employers have either not realised the range of degrees
being phased in from 1999 or have not often related this
choice to their business needs;
o the range of university courses and intake standards has been
very wide, all (until recently) ostensibly producing Honours
graduates, every one of whom had the continuing (some-
times unrealistic) expectation of ‘becoming Chartered’.
In the Thomas Telford training courses for Supervising Civil
Engineers and their support trainers (which have to date been
attended by almost 1000 delegates), we received one very
consistent and positive feedback. This was that, while the dele-
gates now had a clear idea of what needed to be done, they still
needed help in actually doing it. The ideas and guidance in this
book fulfil that need. Much of the material has already been
tested by the delegates on the successor course for Thomas
Telford Training. I am grateful to Thomas Telford for that
opportunity.
I have deliberately avoided referring, as far as possible, to the
detail of the rules and guidance published by the Institution of
Civil Engineers, for two reasons. The first is rather obvious and
straightforward:
o the published rules will inevitably change from time to time
and confusion might result from differences between those
referred to in the book and the revised rules.
The second reason is much more important for the main thrust
behind this book:
o efforts to ensure compliance with the rules (whether real or
perceived) too often obscure the true purpose of training,
which is the efficient and effective development of
2
Introduction
professional civil engineers, able to make a significant contri-

bution to the business.
If the fundamental concept in the second point is accepted,
then it really does not matter whether the details of the rules
change. The fundamental qualities should be able to be devel-
oped and demonstrated. I hope that by concentrating almost
exclusively on this vision, this book puts the rules into their
proper context and does not allow them to become dominant.
Some of my statements and opinions are contentious; I make
no apology for this. Controversy, confrontation and being a
devil’s advocate are useful weapons in the arsenal of any
mentor, challenging those who are being mentored to produce
counter-arguments, crystallise their own thoughts and ideas
and develop their own attitudes and methods. One of the basic
truths about people is that everyone is different; there can never
be one system which can work universally. While there may be a
commonality of purpose and techniques throughout
mentoring, their application must always be an individual
thing. Every mentor will develop their own unique methods,
and these will change subtly, not only for each trainee, but also
for any one trainee as they develop.
I believe the profession of civil engineering is at the threshold of
one of the most exciting and challenging periods in its entire
history, but if we are to deliver solutions to the global environ-
mental problems which are just beginning to be universally
acknowledged, then we must change our entire way of
thinking and methods of operating. There are optimistic signs
that the industry can react positively to this enormous chal-
lenge. Staff development and organisational culture, the
subjects of this book, are important constituents of this change.
Using this book

This book is written in the order in which any engineer would
tackle a problem – identify the problem, consider the resources
3
Introduction
available, choose the most appropriate solution and implement

it. It could be read ‘from cover to cover’, but it is confidently
presumed that the chapters relating to immediate problems
will be read first – Quarterly Reports, Training Scheme Objec-
tives and the Institution’s Review criteria. Every engineer
involved with training and staff development is already busy
earning a living, so few will have the time to sit down and read
for several hours.
What I believe is needed by the profession is a ready guide to
offer help in solving any problems with training as and when
they arise. Therefore each chapter has been written to ‘stand
alone’, to be dipped into whenever there is a need for support
on a particular matter. This has resulted in some repetition, but
if that serves to reinforce the message, then it is worthwhile. A
comprehensive index is also provided to minimise search time.
The book is therefore, first and foremost, a handbook providing
practical suggestions for the resolution of problems. But it is
hoped that specific needs will lead to curiosity, an interest in
understanding the wider context, leading to an eventual
reading of the entire book and hopefully, a dissemination of
best practice throughout your organisation, and thence the
construction industry. In that aim, it is not unlike training,
which should lead from the specific role of the trainee to a much
wider understanding of the construction business of which they
are a part.
The format
Chapter Two asserts that change is ongoing and endemic
throughout the entire civil engineering spectrum. If organisa-
tions fail to adapt to change, let alone take advantage of the chal-
lenges it offers, they are doomed. Training is an intrinsic, vital
and integral part of the management of change, not an ancillary.
Chapters Three and Four draw attention to the main trends,
both in the civil engineering business and in the people
4
Introduction
involved, which must be taken into account when deciding a

business strategy to accommodate change. Most readers will,
to some extent, have experienced most of the situations
discussed, but perhaps have not had the time to step off the
day-to-day treadmill of survival and consider the wider implica-
tions.
Chapter Five discusses how the Institution’s qualifying criteria
have adapted, and continue to adapt, to the changing needs of
the business. This ongoing modification, while based on exten-
sive consultation throughout the industry, is still perceived by
many as a continuous changing of the rules. In fact, it is merely
a recognition of the changing needs of the profession, which
must remain organic if it is to contribute positively to any
successful business in a changing market.
Chapters Six to Nine describe in detail the framework within
which training can be organised. This is now a minimalist
system, with few ‘rules’, which must explode the widespread
myths of the specific experience thought to be needed either to
comply with detailed training requirements or to pass the
Reviews; myths which seem to creep insidiously into the system
however often they are denied.
The remainder of the book explains the best practice and ideas
which are enabling some businesses to manage change much
more readily and successfully than others. The entire industry,
rather than discrete and small parts of it, needs to consider
rapidly how best to adjust and adapt in a changing world,
otherwise much of it will die. So Chapters Ten and Eleven deal
with how to choose persons to mentor the new staff and what
qualities and skills they need to succeed in achieving the busi-
ness objectives.
Chapters Twelve to Fifteen explain how to put those attitudes
and skills into practice, to encourage and respond to regular
reports and monitor the progress of professional development.
The many practical examples of how this might be done,
utilising the Quarterly Report system and Training Objectives,
5
Introduction
are all taken from ‘real life’ situations to disseminate best prac-
tice.
Chapters Sixteen and Seventeen address the professional
responsibilities undertaken by sponsors for candidates for the
Professional Reviews and how these should be discharged. If
sponsors make informed decisions, knowing what the classes of
membership require, then the failure rate at the Professional
Reviews should be much lower than it currently is. This is an
area where the Institution has, relatively recently, placed much
greater emphasis, and it is not unknown for members to be
called to account where they have sponsored candidates who
have been found by the Reviewers to be ill-prepared.
Chapter Eighteen explains how a candidate’s mentors can help
them to prepare for the actual day of the Review. Chapter Nine-
teen gives ideas on helping the occasional, but inevitable,
unsuccessful candidate to cope with their failure, pick them-
selves up and have another attempt.
Chapter Twenty explains how the Reviewers are chosen, trained
and kept up to date. This chapter has been included for three
reasons:
(a) candidates should understand how the Reviewers view the
submitted documents, set the written assignment and
approach the interview;
(b) candidates should be aware of the efforts which are made
by the Institution
o to prepare Reviewers for the Professional Review,
o to achieve consistency of interpretation of the require-
ments;
(c) I hope that some mentors reading this book will consider
satisfying their obligations under our Rules for Professional
Conduct by becoming Reviewers themselves.
Finally, the Appendix offers some thoughts and opinions on the
sort of mentor responses which could be useful for the example
extracts from reports in Chapter Fourteen.
6
Chapter Two
Management of change
The construction industry went through a period of rapid change in

the last decade of the twentieth century. This has continued into
the early part of the twenty-first century, but there still remains
much which needs to change. The only way to drive change is to
develop a culture of continuous questioning and exchange of ideas
and experience and to promote initiative. Our industry, as a whole,
has never been good at this. There are understandable, but unpar-
donable, reasons for this continuing conservatism; old habits and
comfortable attitudes die hard. This is particularly true in a tradi-
tional and conservative business like our own.
However, almost every aspect of the construction industry has
changed substantially since the major recession after 1989, and
training for the profession is no exception. Many of those who
found it difficult to accept, even resisted, the changes in the
workplace in the 1990s were retired in one way or another.
Those that remain are so busy ‘baling the boat’ that they seldom
have time to look for the leaks.
Continual changes, including the trends identified in Chapters
Three and Four of this book, are forcing organisations to rethink
their entire management strategy, from the place of their busi-
ness in the market-place to the recruitment, retention and
retraining of staff. All are trying to change their whole company
ethos, structure and culture, some successfully; most continue
to struggle. For some, the changing work environment
7
prompts a defensive, piecemeal reorganisation driven by crises,

for others it offers the challenge of taking advantage of huge
opportunities to expand into new markets. For all, it means the
successful, integrated management of ongoing and rapid
changes in direction if the organisation is to survive.
Most organisations do see the need to positively manage
change if it is not to overwhelm their organisation, but still I
come across many organisations which do not appear to see
training as part of their plans. Rather, it is some kind of extra, a
‘good thing’, to be afforded if possible, but certainly not an
intrinsic part of the business strategy. In this chapter, I argue
that training is not only an integral part of change manage-
ment, but is vital to success.
People in our industry, not just at the younger end, are insecure,
not least about training and professional development. Change
is now endemic, inevitably bringing with it doubt and uncer-
tainty. Part of this change is the imperative need for continuous
training, to change people’s knowledge, attitudes and under-
standing to cater for and cope with this continuing and largely
unpredictable change in workload and practices. I believe
strongly, on the basis of watching nearly 300 disparate organi-
sations cope with change, that training, far from being some-
thing which is nice to do if there are enough resources left over
from running the business, is a vital and intrinsic part of the very
survival of the business.
Change management through people

The key to dynamic change is people, ensuring their continuing
motivation and commitment. It follows therefore that change
cannot be successful unless the people are managed properly. The
training of people by dynamic, positive mentoring is the principle
and an intrinsic part of the effective management of change.
There is some recognition, visible through mission statements,
that ‘people are our most important asset’ and that ‘learning is
8
essential for future success’, but little tangible to show for these
ideals. Low expectations, long hours, poor work conditions,
demotivated staff belie these published sentiments. Even
training is still seen by many as an expense with no tangible
return on investment – an ‘overhead’, unless it is to comply with
the law (e.g. health and safety), or to enable the trainee to do a
necessary task (e.g. using new software).
Yet, if the word training is given a much wider interpretation
which covers such things as changing attitudes and abilities,
giving people the confidence to take more responsibility earlier,
allowing people the space to be innovative thinkers and to chal-
lenge the status quo, then training is intrinsic to market change
and flexibility. In today’s market, that equates with survival and
advancement.
In chaos theory, ‘the edge’ is the border between order and
uncertainty, between knowing comfortably what we are about
and being lost. It is the place where the human mind can be
most creative. This concept reflects and crystallises the trends
outlined in the next two chapters, as well as describing those
few organisations driving themselves into a whole new phase of
engineering management. In today’s uncertain world, leading
engineers at ‘the edge’ are required to be flexible, adaptable,
innovative and inspirational, as well as technically and manage-
rially capable. These attributes can best be developed from a
deep sense of personal and collective security, which is not the
same as comfort. Training through mentoring is the way this
culture can be developed; it is a continuous and ongoing task,
since the market is constantly altering and demands on people
are changing. Training must therefore be an essential part of
any modern management strategy.
Change and trainees

For trainees, change is the name of the game, whether it be self-
imposed by ambition, demanded by their job or required by
9
the standards of the profession. Most trainees come into our

business ill-equipped for the challenges they will face.
Managing change takes place in a constantly shifting personal
and organisational environment, not just at work, but beyond.
Change is affecting every aspect of their lives; some of the
biggest decisions they will ever face confront them in the next
few years – choice of partner, accommodation, when to start a
family, to mention a few. There is bound to be a sense of loss
when giving up familiar and comfortable beliefs, behaviour and
relationships. Students have spent many years in the relatively
secure environment of education, usually with great success,
although they may often belittle their own achievements (there
is always someone who has done better, with whom they
compare themselves). Just occasionally, it is good for it to be
pointed out to them just how they compare with the average
for their age range.
When the business is undergoing significant change, so too are
the individuals within it. I have watched so many organisations
trying to adapt to change, some successfully, most just coping,
and some disastrously. People usually need five things to adapt
successfully:
(a) a vision of how things around them will be when the
change has been successfully implemented;
(b) time to absorb the new vision before the move to change
commences;
(c) time to adjust their behaviour during the change;
(d) coping mechanisms to manage the stress of change;
(e) time to ponder the meaning of the change – to ‘take
ownership’ of the change.
In management jargon, context shifting is the key to this
process. It is equally applicable to everyday change as it is to
training; in fact the two are virtually synonymous.
If each person affected can see how they will fit into, and
contribute, both towards and after, the desired change, then
10
they will begin voluntarily to do things which move them

towards the goal. This mental adjustment needs to be imagined
in positive terms and takes time. Quick change cannot be
expected. In reality, quick change can be so stressful that
people resist, even backslide and become alienated and unpro-
ductive. All too often, I see the dread, insecurity and doubt
created when change is imposed abruptly, without a vision.
Then every step of change is resisted, and any progress is pain-
fully slow. Helping trainees to shift their mental context from
today’s problems to tomorrow’s successes can be very produc-
tive.
To succeed, change must be structured, with clear end targets
carefully explained. This is not easy, because those driving the
change are required to see the need for change well before it is
imposed out of necessity, in order to create the time needed.
Crisis change rarely works, and is never efficient. Implementa-
tion too, should be gradual and sustained, allowing people to
adapt and to see how their own future is going to fit into the
whole. This applies to the business just as it does to enabling
young recruits to adapt to the workplace and to their personal
training. In Chapter Eight, I offer some thoughts on the time-
scales for introducing training to new recruits.
Change management through a training

programme
Training is just another part of the management of change, so
the techniques, fundamental approaches and strategies must
be the same as for any other project, whether it be change
management or constructing a large tunnel, developing a
motorway management system or redeveloping old industrial
premises.
Generally, a project has a definite start and end, where the
intention is to deliver a specific output, such as a construction, a
service or a working process, whether or not there is a specified
11
deadline. Where there is a vision of the end state, but no clearly

defined path to get there, no deadline to meet but a perceived,
often urgent, need to change, then the managerial process is
better referred to as a programme, rather than a project. This is
the term which better suits training where, although there is a
defined target (the Professional Review), there is no definite end
to the process, but only a defining moment.
A programme is a vehicle for implementing change, consisting of
a set of controlled and coordinated activities designed to achieve
business objectives and benefits, frequently in an uncertain and
changing environment. Any programme must be designed to
deliver a specific, measurable business objective using appro-
priate delivery mechanisms such that the programme can be
successfully monitored and managed. The design must reinforce
the reasons why the programme is essential, and must include
actions to ensure that everyone affected and involved under-
stands the reasons, the process and the target outcome.
This description fits a training programme exactly. But many
organisations do not appear to approach training with the same
business rigour as they approach the management of other
aspects of their business.
The planning and execution of every programme broadly
divides into four stages:
(a) define the specific business objectives, strategy and vision;
(b) outline a programme designed to achieve the objectives;
(c) implement and manage the programme, including variations;
(d) deliver the benefits to achieve the vision.
Few organisations define the business objectives of training, let
alone develop a strategy and vision. Vague mission statements
like ‘We will develop the potential of all our staff’ lack relevance
because they cannot be articulated in measurable terms. Even
where there is a defined mission, there seem to be few attempts
to bring together the pieces of daily operation, strategy and
performance management, all of which should be combining
12
to deliver the desired result. Most organisations just have a

vague idea that training might make some kind of contribution
to technical staffing levels. I believe this lack of fundamental
business focus is why the implementation and management of
training is too often piecemeal, and why much of the training in
the construction industry is slow, inefficient and ineffective.
Specific business objectives of training

Training in many organisations has been, for many years, epito-
mised by statements such as
‘showing them how to do the jobs we need’
‘telling them how things are done round here’
or even, the worst, but unfortunately the most frequent,
‘a necessary set of imposed procedures to get them profes-
sionally qualified’.
What short term views! They show a total misunderstanding of
what professional engineering training is all about, and appar-
ently divorce training from any other business objectives. It is
vital for every organisation to define:
(a) what the training programme is intended to deliver in
terms of future operational capability;
(b) the business benefits anticipated as a result;
(c) how the training programme fits within the corporate
mission and goals.
I cannot define the above, which will vary considerably from
organisation to organisation, but Chapters Three and Four draw
attention to most of the factors which will affect the reasoning
needed to deliver the answers.
From a general perspective, what training should do is create
personal and corporate attitudes, from which stem the cultural
13
flexibility to cope with change. Good professional engineering

training is holistic, looking well beyond a particular skill or end-
product, to develop the courage, understanding, freedom and
personal and collective security needed to look at problems
afresh and to ask the difficult questions.
Training must encourage and develop a whole host of personal
attributes of inestimable benefit to the business, where every
individual feels valued. Much of this book looks at the ways in
which these powerful forces can be unleashed through the
positive and dynamic use of the Institution of Civil Engineers’
qualifying procedures.
ICE training programme as an integral part

of change management
Members of the Institution of Civil Engineers are required by
their Royal Charter to apply
‘knowledge and judgement in the use of scarce resources,
care for the environment and in the interests of public health
and safety’.
This is our mission statement, too often obscured by the day-to-day
problems we all face. It is important that we all frequently remind
ourselves of the ultimate goal of all our endeavours. It is the great
responsibility of those charged with training incoming personnel to
fire them with this enthusiasm, so that they are able to drive their
business, and this industry, into a new era. A spin-off will be a
young, dynamic profession with a much higher public profile.
To succeed, the industry needs to
(a) speed up its processes, of which training is an intrinsic part,
o disseminate wisdom
(b) be transparently proud of its workforce,

o achieve better productivity, more quickly
o become even more adaptable, flexible and versatile
14
(c) achieve a balanced engineering workforce recruited to fulfil

the needs of the future market.
In every one of these aims, training as the dissemination of
wisdom (or mentoring) is an intrinsic part.
Speedier processes, including training and development

The industry cannot afford to allow new engineers to learn from
their own experience, since this is laborious and time-
consuming. Much of the experience my generation has is based
on hindsight – knowledge, gained from making painful
mistakes that we would never make again. What we need to
inculcate into new engineers is foresight, the ability not to make
those, or similar, mistakes in the first place.
I once told a group of senior engineers that I had set out a multi-
span bridge in the wrong place, but did not realise my error
until construction was some 25 m above the ground. In
explaining how this happened, three others around the table
confessed to having made similar errors during their early
careers. But not one of our trainees had subsequently made a
similar mistake, because we had all told every one of them
about what had been one of our worst moments! They had the
benefit of foresight, derived from the wisdom we had gained
from hindsight.
However, we must find a better way of disseminating such
wisdom more widely than can be achieved by personal
contacts. In this way the industry will gain from ‘right first time’
efficiency, avoiding the expense, time and misuse of resources
in rectifying mistakes. When I was a site engineer in the mid
1960s, a senior director told us at the start of a course that
setting-out errors cost the company over £1 million per year –
at least ten times that at today’s prices! Removing such costs
has a dramatic impact on efficiency, and that was why we were
on the course – to benefit by gaining wisdom from other
people’s hindsight. There was also an efficiency gain for the
organisation from the increased confidence of their young
15
engineers to tackle increasingly complex problems, which inev-

itably derives from the experience and satisfaction of ‘getting it
right’ – nothing succeeds like success.
Pride in the workforce

The whole profession and the industry must positively promote
to the public
o our concern with whole-life efficiency of infrastructure;
o that we really do care for the environment;
o that we are striving for sustainability.
Then we shall attract the high-flying, altruistic, highly intelligent
people for every role which civil engineering needs to drive the
industry forward. It is all too easy to forget the true role of our
profession in the constant rush to meet deadlines and targets.
We need both to remind ourselves of it, and proudly broadcast
it to the public at every opportunity.
Chapter Four shows how the Institution of Civil Engineers, with
three qualifying classes of membership, has modified its
processes and professional qualification criteria to reflect these
aims. It is up to the industry to utilise the processes and
encourage the range of professional qualification to achieve
success for its business.
Balanced workforce
Any organisation which does not achieve the right balance
between the three classes of member is unlikely to function to
best effect. Every organisation needs both systematic and effi-
cient ‘doers’ and some visionary ‘innovators’, together with
specialist operators. The future will require more innovators
than hitherto. The balance is shifting towards more visionary
innovation as our industry moves further into defining and
resolving problems, with less implementation of new works.
However, a strategy epitomised by ‘We shall only recruit the
16
best (i.e. MEng) graduates’ may not be the ‘best’ thing for the
business. Every organisation will always need good ‘doers’.
Historically, the majority of universities have produced gradu-
ates biased more towards ‘doing’, certainly in the more recent
past. Such persons will continue to provide the backbone of
civil engineering. But at the same time, some young recruits
have always exhibited the characteristics of a leader, even if the
educational system neither encouraged nor developed them.
These high flyers are the ones who should be attracted by, and
recruited to, the new four-year MEng and hence will make rapid
progress into key roles in the new businesses.
Whether the universities will be able, or willing, or allowed, to
distinguish between the two at the age of 18 is uncertain, so the
system of training must be flexible enough to enable everyone
to achieve their true potential. For some, this will be evident
early; others will develop leadership characteristics over time
and transfer from one class to another, both during Initial
Professional Development and later, through the Senior Route,
which has therefore been simplified to allow ready recognition
of this transition.
17
Chapter Three
Operational factors influencing

the business objectives of training
There are several trends, each of which is, in itself, a significant

challenge, but taken together, mean that the construction
industry has been re-evaluating its whole attitude to its
changing business. Decisions have had to be taken, often unfor-
tunately piecemeal and hasty, about each organisation’s posi-
tion in the market-place, and how to ensure as far as possible
the survival, continuing profitability and, hopefully, expansion
of the business. These decisions not only affect the people
already working in civil engineering, but also the people
entering the industry and, particularly, how they ought to be
trained and developed. An essential part of this book must
therefore be a discussion of the main trends and their effects,
particularly as they affect recruitment and training.
Speedier delivery
The days of relatively leisurely procurement, where much
design work was won on reputation, and where the client was
prepared to pay for perceived excellence, often through a fixed
percentage of the out-turn cost of the project, have long gone.
Work is still being won on reputation, but a very different set of
standards is being applied – efficiency, fast delivery on time
within a pre-defined budget, and cooperation throughout the
18
Factors influencing the business objectives of training
whole life of the project. Clients do not wish to be involved in,

nor to pay for, the confrontational, aggressive and inevitably
self-defeating sectarian attitudes of the past.
Private funding is looking for a swift return on capital invest-
ment. Funders are not prepared to wait while their project is
laboriously designed down to the last detail before implemen-
tation commences. They need quick, cost-effective delivery of a
solution, which takes full cognisance of efficient maintenance to
ensure a good revenue return. So they seek a ‘one-stop shop’
rather than the fragmented approach of feasibility, design,
construction, maintenance – each as a virtually separate entity.
These trends of speed, cooperation and whole-life cycle respon-
sibility have resulted in the many diverse forms of partnering
agreement. Still in their infancy, and with a myriad of names
and descriptions, these are causing every organisation to
rethink its procedures, philosophy and operational culture. The
problems for staff of overcoming past prejudices and familiar
confrontation patterns are now exposed; many of the older key
personnel are finding it difficult to change their modus operandi.
Everyone is comfortable with familiarity, but the comfort zone is
a thing of the past. ‘Adapt or retire’ has become a reality for
everyone.
Information technology
The rapid and continuing advance into IT has far-reaching
consequences for this industry. There are still so many anoma-
lies – for instance, many still cling to traditional paper methods
of information transfer for most contracts, yet utilise global
resources, via the Internet, for analytical design.
Much of this analytical work used to be done manually but is
now completed by computer. This powerful and rigorous anal-
ysis tool has enabled the industry to design some outstanding
and innovative structures. It is also allowing us to model,
analyse and refine the usage of existing infrastructure networks
19
to improve their capacity and performance, and has revolution-

ised the processes of procurement and planning.
More importantly for the purposes behind this book, IT has
resulted in many activities, which once used to be the province
of newly recruited graduate engineers, becoming specialisms in
their own right. For example, much setting-out has become a
sophisticated, highly skilled operation utilising expensive equip-
ment to deliver accuracies and profiles which, in my day, were
just not achievable. Drawing production and detailing is
another area where highly skilled operatives use sophisticated
equipment with an output unimaginable in terms of quantity
and complexity even a few years ago. Yet many organisations
still use recent university graduates to man the equipment – is
this the best use of that resource? The Institution, through its
qualifying classes, certainly recognises and offers membership
to the people who use this technology, seeing them as a vital
component of the procurement team, but does not expect
them to have the same academic base as a potential profes-
sional engineer.
External criticism
The Government’s Latham report Rethinking construction in
1998 states, under the heading ‘Drivers of change and commit-
ment to people’ that
‘much of construction does not yet recognise that its people
are its greatest asset ... construction cannot afford not to get
the best from the people who create value for clients and
profits for companies’.
The Construction Industry Council, the Construction Industry
Board, the Construction Industry Training Board, amongst
others, are all promoting ‘people based’ initiatives, encour-
aging the industry to value its people more obviously and to
encourage diversity. Hopefully, all construction bodies will
come together to promote a concerted effort to promote best
20
practice and drive our industry into a new age. At present, there
are plenty of fine words and mission statements, but the over-
long hours, working conditions, salaries and low expectations
of many employers tell a different story, lending continuing
credence to Latham’s statement. Until we are perceived to
value our workforce, the best graduates will simply not make
themselves available. We are not just talking of ‘high-flyers’
doing MEng at university, but the best people for every level of
skill needed by the industry, reflected in the ICE’s several classes
of membership
Clients have been given the impression by Government reports
such as Latham’s and Egan’s that our industry is highly ineffi-
cient – not without some justification. They therefore expect,
sometimes irrationally, big savings and reduced costs from
increased efficiency. However, the reaction of our industry
has too often been to retrench and retract, squeeze margins
and cut overheads. Recruitment and training have been just
two of the victims of this short-sighted attitude to remaining
in business. The industry is reaping the consequences of this
short-sightedness, with a shortage of good middle managers
becoming apparent in most sectors. If we can make
recruits more cost-effective, more quickly, then substantial
savings can be made and the industry would become more
competitive.
Clients now seek a single team which can deliver their total
requirements to a predetermined budget with no time or cost
overruns. They are no longer prepared to countenance the
prolongation of contracts by adversarial confrontation, which
became endemic in our industry, significantly delaying delivery
and leaving the final out-turn costs uncertain. Neither are they
prepared to fund repair of substandard works. Some high
profile maintenance has required virtually a total rebuild well
within the purported design life. So, increasingly, we are
getting ‘whole-life’ contracts lasting 30 or more years, where
the industry must shoulder a greater share of the long-term risks
than hitherto. The industry is developing a new philosophy and
attitudes to procurement to offer this total team package
21
where, ever more frequently, the team members are not all
employees of the main party to the contract.
Clients are not prepared to rely solely on the reputation of the
company. CVs and details of the proposed team form an
increasingly important part of the bid assessment. One of the
client’s measures of the competence of the individuals making
up the team is their professional qualifications; an external audit
of their capability. This has caused a significant increase in the
number of more senior engineers, over the age of 35, coming
to the Institution for review, many of whom mistakenly thought
that professional qualifications would not be needed for their
career. Many also previously considered themselves to be ineli-
gible due to lack of specific kinds of experience, a legacy from
the days where much of the requirement for experience was
prescribed.
Public perception
University entries into civil engineering and related courses
have reduced significantly over the past decade or so. While this
trend can, in part, be traced to political restructuring of the fees
for overseas students, it is clear that civil engineering as a
university subject is no longer as attractive as it once was. The
courses are seen as crammed, difficult and burdensome, leaving
little time to enjoy, and benefit from, the wider growing experi-
ences of university life.
Yet at the same time, never has there been an upcoming gener-
ation so concerned about the environment. Most young people
I meet have genuine and positive environmental concerns, and
some basic understanding, unheard of even 20 years ago.
Whilst, undoubtedly, some of their opinions may be prejudiced
by unrealistic pressure groups, they really do care. Yet they do
not see civil engineering as the profession through which they
could best offer balanced solutions to the great environmental
and ecological problems faced by the world.
22
The majority of the population just does not see our industry as
the mechanism best able to react to environmental concerns.
Civil engineers are seen as desecrators of the environment, not
custodians of it. This attitude must be countered, by the profes-
sion explaining more effectively the difficult balances which it is
required to achieve, and how it attempts to make them. Too
often, civil engineers find themselves implementing unsatisfac-
tory solutions dictated by society through the political
processes, without having provided any guidance from a
balanced perspective, as an integral part of the decision-making
process. I feel sure that if we do become deeply involved earlier,
then the population could readily be motivated to oppose some
of the bad practices which remain from the past, giving us the
support to move into a more enlightened era and away from
powerful vested interests.
The move towards sustainability

For many years, engineers were quite happy to go along with
predicting demand for infrastructure and then attempting to
provide solutions to satisfy the estimated requirement. The
process was driven by desirability and selfishness rather than
necessity – wants rather than needs. There is now a growing
public awareness that this ‘predict and provide’ approach,
fuelled by the greed of ever-more affluent populations
throughout the world, does not solve problems; indeed, it can
be construed as creating even bigger ones.
The most prominent manifestation of this has been the world-
wide movement – admittedly at this early stage taking its
faltering first steps – towards what has become known as
sustainability: meeting today's needs without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their needs. This is the
latest catchphrase trying to encapsulate a growing concern for
the environment. Everything civil engineers do affects the envi-
ronment, from the smallest patch repair to the largest dam. So
we must be at the forefront of achieving sustainability, acting
23
decisively to deliver an ideal balance between the spiralling

aspirations of global society, the conservation of scarce
resources and protection of the environment. For the first time,
our profession is actually moving towards managing demand on
a significant scale, beginning to confront the public’s insatiable
appetite for expansion by informing people of the conse-
quences. This is particularly true of the transportation field, but
will extend to every engineering endeavour.
Civil engineers can no longer shelter behind the decisions of
others, using established best practice in codes and standards,
comfortably using familiar methods of piecemeal procurement
to deliver traditional construction works and merely addressing
the practicalities of the proposal. There must always be some
civil engineers who specialise in this essentially technical role,
but many more of our profession must move to the forefront of
the decision-making process, and this requires us to change
attitudes, not only our own, but those of politicians, business
and the public. There is a vital need for innovation, initiative,
leadership and a strong will to succeed against huge odds if civil
engineers are to deliver the practical sustainability for which
there is a growing, and worldwide, groundswell of demand.
We are now moving largely into the business of managing and
maintaining the existing infrastructure, not just in the UK, but
worldwide. The aim is to achieve much greater efficiency of use;
building, modifying and extending only as necessary, rather
than as desirable. Indeed, sometimes we are actually reducing
the traditional construction workload by resisting further
expansion of infrastructure. Demand management, whether as
client management at one end of the spectrum, or educating
public perceptions at the other, requires better communication
skills and wider perception than most engineers have found
necessary hitherto.
The real challenge is no longer to provide new infrastructure,
but to manage, modify and maintain the existing at maximum
efficiency – asset management. This is where the real benefits
for sustainability will be realised. Members of the Institution of
24
Civil Engineers are required by their Royal Charter to use ‘judge-

ment in the use of scarce resources, care for the environment
and in the interests of public health and safety’. We must never
lose sight of this onerous responsibility.
Faced with what appear to many to be insurmountable prob-
lems, if any progress is to be made on sustainability, civil engi-
neers need the personality, drive and knowledge to solve
problems and make decisions in a fast-moving and fluid
industry whose structure has changed out of all recognition in
the past few years. What is so exciting is the progress which
parts of the industry have made already. So many initiatives are
now being implemented – partnering, private finance, the
provision and maintenance of infrastructure from conception to
demolition, innovative solutions to long-standing problems –
all signifying cooperation on a scale hitherto unknown,
providing whole-life, best value solutions, often of enormous
complexity.
This new and somewhat frightening work environment, which
many do find daunting, offers wonderful opportunities and
considerable job satisfaction – but only to those who are totally
committed and are prepared to take responsibility, work hard,
be flexible and, most importantly, enjoy themselves. It is the
role, and great responsibility, of those charged with training
incoming personnel to fire them with this enthusiasm, so that
they are able to drive their business, and this industry, into a
new era.
25
Chapter Four
Influences of personnel
recruitment on the business
objectives of training
It is not just the business which is having to continually readjust

to a changing market-place, but the people being recruited
into, and those already working in, the business are also being
required to change. The trends which are forcing this change
are just as crucial to an understanding of the need for training as
the business context, because they affect the way training and
development must be approached, if it is to be dynamic, truly
effective and efficient.
Incoming trainees
One fundamental issue is that graduates of the 2000s are
different from the graduates of the 1980s and very different
from those who graduated earlier. All reliable university staff
confidentially recognise this and so do most employers, if only
because they perceive an inconsistency in the outputs from
various sources. The reasons are historic, based on the funda-
mental concept that education should be available to all and
that elitism (disguised as selection) should be avoided, since it is
discriminatory. If these social aims are to be realised, then stan-
dards at every stage of the education system must be set at a
26
Influences of recruitment on the objectives of training
level which is achievable by the majority. These standards, as far

as the development of civil engineers is concerned, are at a
lower level than in the past. It is important to realise that, even
when recruiting a 16-year old, our profession’s minimum stan-
dard was regularly four or five ‘O’ levels – well above the
national average for school-leavers at that age.
As a consequence of political and social aims, primary educa-
tion became less structured. While this may have social benefits,
it is certainly less efficient in imparting knowledge, so secondary
education starts from a lower median base. It is interesting, and
heartening, to see recent governments trying to reverse that
trend.
GCSEs are not the same as GCE ‘O’ levels. They have a different
emphasis and are designed to enable every reasonably capable
youngster to leave school at 16 with documentary proof of their
achievements. GCEs were largely designed for the old grammar
schools, where selection at eleven had provided a cohort of
academically orientated pupils. A plethora of vocational qualifi-
cations, such as City and Guilds and National Certificates, for
everyone else, were always considered second best. GCSEs
therefore cover a broader band of abilities and are perhaps less
socially divisive.
Young people are being encouraged to stay on at school after
the minimum leaving age of 16, so the A level spectrum of
achievement must have widened. At the time of writing (2001),
the Government is producing a broader range of Advanced
qualifications in an attempt to reflect the wide range of abilities
now studying at that level. This trend is causing some problems
for our profession; for example, universities can now have
people joining courses in civil engineering with, for example,
good A level mathematics results, but who have never studied
calculus, the bedrock of engineering modelling and prediction.
In terms of engineering, the well-documented decline in the
study and standards of those subjects requiring high intellectual
rigour and discipline, such as mathematics and pure sciences, is
to be deprecated.
27
The problems with university graduates are not, of course, of

their own making and they are no more and no less intelligent
than they ever were, and just as capable. What is certain is that
the range of achievement and of ability, let alone potential,
must be much wider than it was 20 or more years ago. There is a
broad spectrum of ability, not properly reflected in the few
types of degree on offer. This is the reason why many employers
tended to be selective about the universities from which they
recruit. Hopefully, as the new standards imposed by the Engi-
neering Council, and a broader range of degrees, take effect,
there will be a greater consistency and reliability in each type of
degree, wherever it has been studied.
For those graduates who are good, one of their problems is that
they have seldom been fully challenged intellectually. Neither
have they had any opportunities to discuss and question the
underlying principles of the vocational knowledge being trans-
mitted. I have even had some graduates confess that they delib-
erately under-achieved, because they felt (whether justified or
not) that they would be singled out for sarcasm and ridicule if
they worked to their full potential.
Information is being packaged in semester-sized chunks, which
require less personal time management by the students and
which tends to isolate, rather than correlate, different subjects.
More coursework and continuous assessment is reducing the
perceived ‘unfair’ pressure of examinations, which is making
graduates less prepared for coping with the normal and contin-
uous pressures and crises endemic in today’s workplace. The
exceptions, those young people who drive themselves and their
ICE committees, organise in-house support groups, and have
infectious enthusiasm, are noticeable by their comparative
rarity.
The distribution of development costs between the education
system and workplace training for professional civil engineers
has changed. Employers now bear some of the costs which
were previously borne by the Government through the educa-
tion system. An obvious example is that some employers are
28
now paying the costs for bringing their graduates up to an

acceptable standard in their use of the English language; those
that do not are bearing the concealed costs and delays resulting
from frequently having to rewrite reports, letters and studies
before they can be sent to the recipient.
If the gap between formal education and the requirements of
the profession has increased, then there is more training
needed in the workplace. This will take longer and be more
costly, unless the industry can train much more effectively and
efficiently. The new Engineering Council degrees being intro-
duced from 1999 will perhaps be more relevant to the modern
needs of the profession.
Loss of experience ‘off the top’

It has been reported that the construction industry lost half a
million employees in the six years after the serious recession in
1989. How many of those were professional engineers it is hard
to ascertain, but the age profile of our profession is noticeably
younger than it was – the profile of membership classes in the
Institution is one evidence of that, where the definition of retire-
ment has had to be revised to avoid a significant loss of revenue.
I estimate that the median age has dropped by around 15 years,
because so many people over 50 were removed from the
industry by various means. These senior, experienced managers
took with them vast amounts of experience which they never
had the time to disseminate, as the whole industry speeded up
to deliver on time and to budget; dictated by pressing commer-
cial criteria rather than engineering excellence.
Everyone who has been involved since the major upheavals
after 1990 realises only too well just how much experience was
‘lost’ as senior colleagues were pensioned-off. How many of
them had to be invited back as part-time, even full-time, self-
employed consultants, because their experience was vital? The
industry must take steps to ensure that such experience is not
29
lost ‘off the top’ in the future. Any loss of experience causes
mistakes to reoccur, and wheels to be reinvented, before the
new generation regain that lost experience. This is painful, inef-
ficient and expensive. It may also lose the goodwill and reputa-
tion of the organisation in the market-place. The industry must
become much more efficient at the effective dissemination of
experience and best practice if it is to achieve anything like the
improvements in efficiency being asked of it.
Technological advance
Information technology, particularly analytical software, should
enable young engineers to release their time, previously spent
on the arithmetical chore of manual calculations, to consider
options, look at alternatives and develop that wonderful ability
called ‘feel’, but somehow this opportunity has largely been
lost. Undergraduates still appear to be developing analytical
skills rather than design skills, with too much detailed knowl-
edge of the processes and not enough understanding of the
principles. Many graduates seem unaware of the overall process
of design and procurement. Hopefully, these problems will be
addressed by the new degree courses being developed and
introduced, so they should become less prominent.
What is clear is that young professional civil engineers no longer
need the same comprehensive analytical, mathematical skills of
the past. They do need
(a) a thorough understanding of how infrastructure (be it
sewers, buildings, roads, structures etc.) behaves;
(b) the ability to choose appropriate software; and
(c) quick design methods to verify the answers which the soft-
ware produces.
How the education system and the workplace can best deliver
these has not yet become clear. Most universities continue to
teach advanced analysis techniques and most employers leave
30
graduates to spend months, even years, using software, in the

vague hope that somehow they will develop understanding
and ‘feel’. It doesn’t always work, but must always be ineffi-
cient! There are other people, perhaps better suited to
computer technology, who would fulfil these roles more cost
effectively. Other professions, such as accountancy and city
business, realised this a long time ago.
Training for change

The handing down of experience has always been necessary –
how else can newcomers to the profession learn, other than by
their own experimentation, with the inevitable inefficiencies
and mistakes which this must entail? In the past, many mature,
senior engineers took favoured recruits ‘under their wing’ and
spent time and effort, sometimes subconsciously, on their
development. More frequently, it was a rudimentary, some-
what haphazard attempt at succession management or an
effort to ensure that people whom the mentor had personally
identified as talented, stayed with the firm. To others, it often
looked as though the senior mentor had some sort of magic
wand, to provide a wide variety of experience through special
assignments with a high profile, a situation which could easily
provoke envy, antagonism and reduced motivation among
those not so favoured. In most organisations this has led to a
lack of recognition of, even scorn for, the contribution which
could be made by highly competent staff who did not have a
university degree. Thus, Incorporated and Technician Member
have rarely been seen as worthwhile routes to professional
recognition and promotion. Now that the benchmark for the
Incorporated Member is also a degree, this mistaken perception
will be changed.
What the old-style training system did undoubtedly succeed
in doing, was to create a next generation of lookalikes,
deeply imbued with the prevailing corporate culture, upon
which the reputation of household names, particularly among
31
consultants, then depended. Anyone who did not ‘fit the

mould’ was likely to leave to realise their potential elsewhere.
The industry must beware of producing cloned dinosaurs,
trained for yesterday’s workload, not tomorrow’s challenges!
Those days of a relatively leisurely introduction to the business,
with time for informal discussions and paternal kindness, where
much work was won on reputation, and where the client was
prepared to pay for perceived excellence, have gone. Work is
being won on reputation, but a very different set of standards is
being applied – efficiency, delivery on time, within budget, and
cooperation throughout the whole life of the project. It is for
this scenario that we must train our incoming staff.
Flatter management structure

The combined result of the trends outlined above is that respon-
sibility is being driven down a ‘flatter’ management chain, with
young engineers being required to take on more responsibility
earlier than, in general, the industry has traditionally become
used to. Yet it is still taking seven or eight years for most main-
stream graduates to develop the minimum attributes identified
to satisfy the criteria of the professional reviews. As explained in
Chapter Five, these correlate with, and are a reflection of, the
skills which the industry claimed to need in the workplace. This
delay means that it is taking seven or eight years for the majority
of the professional workforce to gain the minimum skills to be
properly effective contributors to the business. This delay is unac-
ceptable in today’s fast moving market-place.
The Institution’s Training Schemes recognise the need for
greater efficiency of development. The two stages after gradua-
tion, formerly Structured Training and Responsible Experience,
have been combined into Initial Professional Development. So
thorough completion of a Training Scheme after three or four
years ought now to herald an application for Professional
Review.
32
There are many factors beyond the workplace, such as the

freedom of having an income for the first time, or the creation
of family units, with associated housing and transport costs,
which might be contributory causes, but there is still a culture of
expecting specialist, routine work to be done by traditional
‘graduates in transit’, rather than by persons specifically
recruited for these roles (who, of course, are now also gradu-
ates). Until the industry recruits suitable staff commensurate
with business needs, and puts an end to the culture epitomised
by ‘need labour, recruit (traditional) graduates’, a long delay is
the inevitable outcome.
33
Chapter Five
How ICE qualifying and training

criteria fit the business objectives
Moving goalposts
There is a widely held belief that the Institution of Civil Engi-
neers keeps ‘moving the goalposts’, i.e. keeps changing the
rules. Since just about everything else around us is in a state of
perpetual change, there is nothing intrinsically different or
wrong in the Institution doing the same. Yet, having been
closely involved in training civil engineers for over 35 years, I
cannot endorse this opinion. Certainly, there have been various
changes of detail and emphasis in the criteria and the method
of reviewing candidates, but I firmly believe that the essential
characteristics being sought remain unchanged. What I do
believe is that, without constant vigilance, standards do tend to
drop over time. Some alterations which did appear to be
changes were in fact, little more than recovering and reiterating
slipping standards.
The Institution has been attempting to remove people’s
misconceptions, based on old or traditional, certainly
outmoded, concepts of ‘how to get your civils’, and to reflect
the nuances of emphasis on the different criteria necessary as
the roles shift with the market-place. It seems strange that, in a
continuously changing world, many people appear to expect
the Institution to stand still and not to evolve with the changes.
34
How ICE criteria fit the business objectives
The problem is that, rather like management, the qualities of a

professional engineer are elusive and difficult to define
precisely, so there will always be repeated efforts to make the
system more transparent and to define more clearly what is
required. If there were precise and universal definitions of either
engineering or management, which could stand the test of
time, then so many authors would have long since ceased to
write books and run seminars about them!
To substantiate my opinion, let us look briefly at what has
happened since the merger with the Society of Civil Engi-
neering Technicians in 1989 when, for the first time in its
history, the Institution of Civil Engineers was constituted of
several different classes of qualifying membership
Detailed alterations for Incorporated and

Chartered Members
Compare the old (1990) paragraph 5.4 in ICE101 ‘Routes to
Membership – Chartered Engineer’ with paragraph 14.2.1 in
ICE2001 ‘Routes to Membership – Member’ (1998). Similarly,
compare the old paragraph 4.4 in ICE102 ‘Routes to Member-
ship – Incorporated Engineer’ with the same paragraph 14.2.1
in ICE2002 ‘Routes to Membership – Associate Member’.
The first point which must be made is that the criteria for both
Chartered Member and Incorporated Member have been very
similar since 1990, yet a large part of the industry has never real-
ised this; that is that for over ten years the Institution had consid-
ered the two types of engineer as being of equal value but
differing competences. Because this had never been properly
understood in the industry, there was, understandably, some
resistance to making them both Members of the Institution
(MICE) when the idea was first proposed in 2000. That resistance
was based on a fundamental misunderstanding that an Incorpo-
rated Engineer was synonymous with ‘Technician’, not, as the
Institution saw it, a highly competent specialist engineer.
35
Since 1990, there have been the following shifts in emphasis in

the qualifying criteria for both engineering classes of member.
(a) ‘Commercial’ increased in importance from an ‘understand-
ing’ to ‘developed and proved’, reflecting the increasing
emphasis on the effective use of money as a resource in a
business environment which places great emphasis on
profitability and best value. It is not sufficient for trainees
merely to control cash flow or build up an estimate as an
exercise; they must have proven competence in the work-
place.
(b) ‘Communication’, always tacitly there, but never actually
stated, was spelt out as ‘developed and proved’ in the work-
place (not just at Review). This is a vital requirement as our
sphere of influence increasingly extends well beyond
communicating with other engineers and construction
professionals.
(c) ‘Statutory’ matters were upgraded to somewhere between
‘understanding’ and ‘developed and proved’, to ‘a working
knowledge’, reflecting the growing legal framework and
accountability within which we are required to take more
personal responsibility. To this category was added ‘con-
tractual’, reflecting the increasingly varied contractual rela-
tionships within which the business now operates.
(d) CPD was raised in importance through a Development
Action Plan and a Personal Development Record. It is vital in
today's increasingly polemic society that each one of us has
written evidence to prove updated and continuing compe-
tence. In an increasingly litigious society, where authorities
such as the Health and Safety Executive have stated that
they are targeting individuals, all of us may need to prove at
any time, by hard evidence, our current competence. A
well-kept Development Action Plan accompanied by a
completed Personal Development Record provides an
auditable trail of each individual’s continuing efforts to
maintain and increase personal competence.
36
Added to the changes in emphasis were some words which

expanded on what the Reviewers have in fact been seeking for
many years (again for both classes of membership); they were
always implicit, now they became explicit:
‘able to work with others, observant, articulate and clear-
thinking and can inspire confidence’
– nothing that a good employer would not normally expect.
However, it does require candidates to approach the review
with self-belief and to ‘inspire’ the Reviewers. This is not the self-
confidence often associated with marketing, but an inner deter-
mination that, whatever the problems, we feel capable of
battling through to a solution – self-belief.
A further shift of emphasis meant that it was no longer good
enough to demonstrate the ability to apply familiar technology
and techniques; candidates had to demonstrate that they were:
‘aware of progress and change’.
This means staying abreast of developments in a given field,
looking forward, seeking new ways of achieving best value.
Lastly, for Chartered Member only, two new criteria were intro-
duced:
‘vision and leadership’.
These two words caused considerable anguish when first intro-
duced, so it is worth looking at what they mean in greater detail.
The Leadership Trust defines leadership as ‘using one’s own
personal power to win the hearts and minds of people to
achieve a common purpose’.
Leadership is having a vision of where you want to go, manage-
ment is the execution of that vision. Vision is what distinguishes
a leader from a manager; perhaps what, in essence, distin-
guishes a Chartered Member from an Incorporated Member.
There was an outcry, when these criteria were introduced, that
the Institution had delayed possible Chartered Membership,
37
since it would be several years, and graduates would probably

be well into their thirties before they were promoted into posi-
tions of leadership. This indicated a fundamental misunder-
standing. Leadership is not a function of position, but a desire to
persuade people of the validity of a proposed course of action.
Leadership is about personality, self-belief and a willingness to
take calculated risks. You can see the qualities exhibited in any
school playground; there is always one person who stands out
and who the others follow.
Comparison of management and leadership

Management is the achievement of a predetermined plan, and
involves
(a) the identification and clarification of objectives,
(b) indicating how these can be achieved, and
(c) offering rewards or penalties for their achievement or
otherwise.
Leaders are concerned with articulating a vision and developing
a plan which excites and encourages the team:
(i) developing trust, respect, and confidence;
(ii) questioning the status quo, challenging old ways, continu-
ously innovating, even at the peak of success;
(iii) energising people to cooperate and contribute their best.
The ideal professional employee straddles both management and
leadership, but there is undoubtedly a clear difference of person-
ality and effective zones of influence between the two, and this is
reflected in the criteria for the two classes of member. Neither is
exclusive, but there is a distinct bias for each. One tends towards
orderliness, the other towards disruptiveness – challenging the
status quo. Both are vital, and the Institution recognises this in
agreeing to make them both Corporate Members.
38
Changes in 1998 (SARTOR’97 changes)

The analysis in the previous paragraphs shows that the changes
introduced in the Autumn of 1998 by the implementation of
the Institution of Civil Engineers’ Future Framework Commis-
sion’s recommendations the previous year, were not a step
change, but a consolidation, reflecting the way the construc-
tion industry had changed and continues to change and the
altered roles of our profession which were emerging. The
changes were the result of extensive consultation over many
years and pre-empted, but were largely compatible with, the
changes introduced by the Engineering Council’s Standards
and Routes to Registration (SARTOR’97) document.
The changes were aimed at better defining the attributes neces-
sary to fulfil the roles of the three classes of membership as
defined by Council of the Institution in September 1998.
Technician Members are involved in the application of proven
techniques and procedures to the solution of practical prob-
lems. They work under the guidance of Associate Members
or Members in carrying out many of the skilled tasks on
which delivery of a project or service depends, and which, in
the absence of further training many AMICE and MICE would
not be competent to do.
Technician Members have the appropriate ability and experi-
ence to allow them to make their significant contribution to
the civil engineering team.
Associate (now Incorporated) Members typically have a high
level of working experience and knowledge of a particular
field, backed by a general understanding of engineering
principles and techniques. Effective overall performance will
often call for commercial awareness and acumen, backed by
organisational and communication skills.
(Chartered) Member is the normal level at which responsi-
bility lies for the exercise of judgement, for innovation,
creativity and resourcefulness. Members may lead teams, or
39
may practice in their own names. A Member will typically

have an understanding of many different areas of civil engi-
neering, with a particular mastery of some of them.
Members may pioneer new design concepts, engineering
services and management methods; they may be involved in
the management and direction of high-risk and resource
intensive projects. Members must be able to confront any
issue, while being aware of the limits of their professional
competence.
To carry such responsibilities, a Member will need strength of
character; to carry out the role effectively calls for technical
ability, communication skills and powers of leadership.
The historical mainstream member of our profession is best
matched by the description of the new Incorporated Member.
This is why there are moves to designate both Chartered
Members and Incorporated Members MICE (CEng or IEng). But
the emphasis of the business is moving further towards vision,
innovation, creativity and change, the hallmarks of a Chartered
Member, so the balance between the two may not shift quite as
much as some people have predicted.
The Technician Member

If the two classes of engineer outlined above are to move into
their defined roles shortly after leaving their degree courses,
then there is a gap in the competence chain. Formerly filled by
what I have termed ‘graduates in transit’, these specialist tech-
nician skills are now best carried out by people chosen specifi-
cally for those talents and whose skills have been developed
accordingly.
The traditional ‘technician’ is best matched by the Institution’s
description of Technician Member – key players such as
foremen, clerks of works and inspectors, as well as key
personnel such as CAD operators and site engineers. This is an
area, sadly undervalued and neglected by the Profession, where
40
a shortfall is beginning to develop. Traditionally, much of their

work has been done by university graduates, ostensibly as part
of their training. The reality is that few organisations have
looked beyond the recruitment of university graduates, and
have been using people ill-suited to the tasks – a frequent cause
of disillusionment amongst graduates.
The Institution is currently (in 2001) piloting the use of NVQs to
provide the academic base for Technician Member, to add to
the long list of suitable BTEC and City & Guild craft qualifica-
tions already accredited. This approach reflects the reality that
many of the people best able to fulfil these specialist roles may
well have left the educational system early, with few paper qual-
ifications, and have worked themselves up into skilled specialist
roles by workplace experience.
The requirements for a Technician Member, as defined by the
Institution, include (paraphrased):
o technical, communication and commercial competence;
o working knowledge of statutory and contract procedures;
o application of engineering science and knowledge;
o understanding of safety and environmental considerations;
o being involved with the progress of technology;
o possessing a continuing commitment to their develop-
ment.
Few persons in our profession appear to realise what is expected
of a Technician Member. If anything, the above requirements
are probably in excess of what most people have always
thought of as an Incorporated Engineer, and whom most called
a technician anyway. Anyone who still thinks that an Incorpo-
rated Member is a ‘technician’ is very much out-of-date. They
are, without doubt, very competent engineers. The merging of
the two classes as Corporate Members, both vital members of
every engineering team, is designed to break this longstanding
mental block.
41
‘Developing today’s professionals for

tomorrow’s challenges’ (2000)
May 2000 saw another attempt by the Institution to destroy the
myths endemic in the entire industry about what was needed to
become a member. The visionary document ‘Developing
today’s professionals for tomorrow’s challenges’ had a number
of stated aims, which included:
o simplifying the system;
o widening the membership;
o introducing earlier qualification;
o offering an accessible mid-career Senior Route;
o complying with the Engineering Council.
I would like to enlarge on the first two of these in more detail.
The next two are broadly covered elsewhere and the last is
beyond the scope of this book.
Simplifying the system

There was a widespread belief that the system had become
unduly onerous and complicated. I am sure that this had arisen
from two basic sources.
(a) The desire shared by a great many people within the
industry for ‘rules’ or a ‘specification’, obviating the need
for independent judgements and personal responsibility.
Even where there was no stated specification, people invented
one. This is where the perception of a ‘need’ for twelve months
on a construction site, or conversely, twelve months in a design
office arose. Design was not seen as environmental, construc-
tional or infrastructure problem solving, utilising a sound
understanding of civil engineering principles, but as technical
analysis, requiring pages of detailed calculations, which then
had to be an essential part of the submitted documentation for
42
Review. It became an assumption that the need for an under-

standing of financial and commercial considerations could be
demonstrated by compiling a bill of quantities and laboriously
working through a rate build-up. All that these functions
demonstrated was that the candidate could follow an estab-
lished system, without necessarily understanding what they
were doing.
The fundamental problem with rules is that they are exclusive,
ruling out other options which might be just as successful, as
well as denying the flexibility so necessary to coping with
change. However, they do offer security and, for some, this is
important for their peace of mind. Unfortunately, the Institu-
tion did react to this pressure and inadvertently became the
source of a second complication:
(b) Misguided but well-meaning attempts to provide
increasing amounts of advice and guidance in writing,
dealing with every conceivable eventuality.
Such guidance inevitably became ‘rules’ and therefore the rules
had to be complied with for success. Out of this arose stereo-
typed training and development programmes, which, in some
organisations, reached the dizzy heights of a standard list of
secondments, for a specified few months or weeks, to every
department related to civil engineering, with fixed attendance
on prescribed courses to satisfy the ‘30 days of CPD’ rule. Any
evening meeting attended had to be recorded by a 500-word
report to count for CPD. These detailed systems lost sight of,
even obscured, the fundamental objective, and led to many
trainees believing that because they had ‘jumped through the
hoops’, they must inevitably have become professional engi-
neers. Much the same criticism can be made of early systems for
Quality Assurance and for compliance with the Construction
(Design and Management) Regulations although, gradually,
pragmatism has overruled the worst excesses in both these
cases.
Perhaps ‘Developing today’s professionals for tomorrow’s chal-
lenges’ attempted to drive this pragmatism too fast, because its
43
publication met with fierce resistance and even outright denial.

Removing rules was perceived by many as tantamount to
diluting standards and certainly caused doubt and uncertainty
among those who needed the security of ‘rules’. But, as was
said at the time,
‘If we (the Institution) are telling people what it is they have
to demonstrate to become a member, why then do we go to
inordinate lengths to tell them how to do it? Surely they
ought to be able to decide for themselves?’
That approach in principle, with which I identify, is epitomised
by the introduction of a minimal system for the Senior Route,
where very little guidance is given with regard to what to
submit. For the ‘usual’ routes, I believe guidance is needed, but
it must be minimal and inclusive, not exclusive (see next para-
graph). There should be as few rules as possible, and even those
rules should be applied sensibly.
Widening the membership

The creation of systems, based on perceptions that certain
experience was a pre-requisite of obtaining membership, gave
the strong impression (wrongly) that the Institution did not
recognise anyone who worked outside those restrictions. The
results of the Reviews showed otherwise, because when these
engineers were persuaded that they could satisfy the criteria,
they were successful and became recognised as members of the
Institution. But many more were dissuaded by their preconcep-
tions from even trying and the Institution’s attempts to reverse
that perception were not successful.
‘Developing today’s professionals for tomorrow’s challenges’
states that
‘today’s civil engineering profession is one of boundless
diversity pervading all walks of life everywhere around the
world’.
44
The diversity of our profession’s influence grows by the day; we

are truly the
‘profession creating the infrastructure of civilisation itself:
transport, sanitation, energy, safety, health and habitation –
the life support systems of the modern community’.
It went on to assert that
‘Our qualification processes accommodate this diversity of
special skills and indeed a recognition of the multidisciplinary
approach’,
but still there are many staid engineers in the profession who,
by their entrenched beliefs, confound this philosophy. There
are still people who tell me that all their staff will become Char-
tered, there are still people who believe that twelve months’ site
experience is mandatory. What it will take to destroy these
deep-seated, insidious and counterproductive attitudes is a
supreme effort of communication by the Institution.
‘Developing today’s professionals for tomorrow’s challenges’
was a genuine attempt to break down prejudices which, for a
variety of reasons, was not particularly successful. Its achieve-
ment was to energise a debate about the fundamental purpose
of the training and Review systems, out of which development
and rationalisation did come.
The revised 2000 series documents (2002)

The most obvious change in these documents was the consoli-
dation of the three qualifying routes to membership into one
document. The aim was to have as few rules as possible and to
encourage development and qualification in as wide a range of
differing involvements in the increasingly diverse industry as
possible. Any rules had to be inclusive, not exclusive, to cater for
the diversity of civil engineering described in ‘Developing
today’s professionals for tomorrow’s challenges’. Whilst again
there are differences of emphasis, I can see nothing which
45
changes the key elements outlined at the beginning of this

chapter. The emphasis is now very clearly on the outcome of
training; the ICE training process is recommended as being
tried and tested over many years, but variations and alternatives
are not excluded, provided the target is entirely compatible
with the Institution’s targets.
Earlier qualification
To make training fast, effective and productive, for all types of
competence in all three classes of membership, there is a basic
need for people around the trainees who exhibit qualities of
vision and leadership – people who are referred to in the
context of this book as mentors. But, before moving on to
mentoring, the Institution of Civil Engineers’ framework for
training should be considered – training to Objectives, prefer-
ably under a Training Agreement, where the training scheme
sets out clearly the specific business objectives of training listed
in Chapter Two.
46
Chapter Six
The Institution of Civil Engineers’

Training Scheme
Initial Professional Development

The Institution of Civil Engineers offers a set of controlled and
coordinated activities designed as a training programme, which
ought to become a vital constituent of any organisation’s
strategy to attain its business objectives (see Chapter Two). This
is not, unfortunately, how most organisations have used it in
the past but, as I argued earlier, I believe such coordination is
vital for the future.
Traditionally, the training programme only commenced once
the academic base had been completed and the person had
graduated. Graduation, in this context and as defined by the
Institution, is the attainment of the academic base for any of
the three classes of qualifying professional membership.
Increasingly, graduates will arrive in the workplace with
evidence of some training, in the form of partially completed
Objectives or National Vocational Qualifications. At long last
the three stages of development of a professional civil engineer
are becoming contiguous, rather than discrete, leading to the
‘seamless continuity’ of development long sought by the Engi-
neering Council.
47
The Institution of Civil Engineers’ Training Scheme
No longer can university graduates be used viably for routine

technical work; all three groups of trainees must take on the
responsibilities defined by the Institution, for the appropriate
class of membership, as quickly as possible. This statement
applies not just to four-year MEng graduates qualified to move
quickly to Chartered Membership, but equally to those who are
progressing towards Incorporated or Technician Membership.
One has only to read the Institution’s description of the tasks
and responsibilities of either an Incorporated Member or a
Technician Member (reproduced in Chapter Five), to realise
that both groups form crucial ingredients in any successful
project team. For years, the industry has filled most of these
positions either by default, or with what might be described as
‘engineers in transit’. Neither method made effective use of
scarce resources, delayed people contributing to their full
potential, and, too frequently, promoted disillusion and discon-
tent in many graduates.
Until recently, Technician Member positions were permanently
filled by persons who were not recognised as professionals,
rarely even considering that they could achieve professional
recognition through the Institution. Yet in many instances they
were the lifeblood of the industry. Such people as clerks of
works, general foremen, inspectors and many agency staff,
employed for their specialist skills, spring to mind. These, too,
are now caught up in the changes, with much of their work
increasingly based on sophisticated technology, requiring
greatly increased skills and highly knowledgeable use. Another
very good reason why it is inadvisable to utilise ‘engineers in
transit’ is that they are unlikely to wish to stay long enough to
become fully proficient.
Following graduation from Academic Education, the two,
formerly discrete, stages of Structured Training followed by
Responsible Experience have long since merged under pres-
sures of workload. The revised training system, introduced in
autumn 1998, reacted to the increasing pace of change by
combining the two stages of progression, after achieving
the academic base, into Initial Professional Development.
48
Thus, successful completion of the new Training Schemes,

designed to cover both structured training and responsible
experience, ought to coincide with achieving the personal
attributes sought at Professional Review. This is why the Core
Objectives (M) go further than the former Objectives for
Member class, and were initially perceived, erroneously, as
more difficult for all three classes. They were designed to take
young engineers further towards qualification, i.e. they cover
more of the development of a total professional through
what used to be termed ‘Responsible Experience’. That is why
there is no longer any requirement for further experience
beyond the period of formalised training; there is still a residual
misunderstanding that you need to wait twelve months. An
intrinsic part of the Training Review and issue of a Completion
Certificate should be, therefore, a check on the preparedness of
the trainee to be a Review candidate and on the material they
have available to use in the Project Report to demonstrate their
capability as a professional engineer, at whatever class is most
appropriate.
The Training Objectives

The Objectives introduced in 1998 embraced all the ten-year
old CEng Objectives, but were written in a form which did not
(subconsciously by categorisation) prescribe the work needed,
but the performance expected. They are therefore capable of
even wider interpretation than previously, to cater for the
expansion of the civil engineer's role. The concept of training to
Objectives was also expanded in 1998 to replace the former
Sectors and Activities inherited from the Society of Civil Engi-
neering Technicians, which had outlived their usefulness, being
based on traditional fragmentation of the procurement process,
and had, as a result, become too restrictive. Given the roles and
responsibilities defined by the Institution, it was found that
nearly all the Objectives were transferable between the three
49
classes; only the ranges and levels of achievement varied to

reflect the differing roles.
The other, and most important, change was the alterations to
the categories of objectives. As long ago as 1992, the Institution
had renumbered the original Core Objectives from 1 to 28, to
remove the categorisation into Professional and General,
Problem Solving and Implementation. But still there was a
widespread interpretation that ‘Problem Solving’ meant
‘design’ and ‘Implementation’ meant work on a construction
site. Admittedly, for many civil engineers, that was probably the
optimum route, but there was certainly no requirement for such
experience, and more and more young civil engineers could,
can and do, develop and demonstrate the attributes sought at
Professional Review without such experience.
So now, to cater for the increasing breadth of involvement of
civil engineers, the Objectives are divided into Professional and
General, Engineering and Commercial and Managerial.
Perhaps, finally, the Institution has laid to rest the long-held
belief that twelve months of site construction and twelve
months of design analysis are prerequisite minima? I hope so!
This is not to suggest for one moment that such experience is
not extremely beneficial, merely that it is certainly not the only
way by which the requisite breadth of understanding may be
achieved.
Transfer from old to new Objectives

There was no requirement for trainees who started out on an
old system to transfer to the new system from the old, but it
seemed sensible for trainees to do some sort of matrix compar-
ison and identify and fill any gaps – there were in fact, very few.
Opposite is such a matrix, in which there is no direct correla-
tion, but which does identify the Objectives which were
enhanced in the new system. Not surprisingly, given my
comments in the preceding paragraphs, the gaps are all in the
Management and Commercial category.
50
Comparison of old (ICE180) with new (ICE2000 series)

2000 100 2000 100 2000 100
P1 1, 2 E1 10, 11 M1 26
P2 3, 4 E2 11, 12, 15 M2 12
P3 5 E3 13, 14, M3 23, 28
16, 17
P4 6 E4 19 M4 24
P5 7 E5 22 M5 15
P6 8, 9 E6 25 M6 18
P7 20, 21 E7 27 M7 26
M8 24
M9 ?
The table shows clearly that there was no direct correlation

between the two groups of Objectives, and that the M Objec-
tives increased in standard to cater for the fact that Initial Profes-
sional Development now included Responsible Experience as
well as the Structured Training of the 100 series Objectives. The
only completely new Objective (M9) reflected the increasing
importance, due to a more litigious society, of properly under-
standing an engineer’s longer term responsibilities. The key
words which must appear under this heading are ‘residual liabil-
ities’; the fact that, for example, a designer cannot relinquish all
responsibility for the design once it starts to be built and
utilised.
Flexibility across the three classes of membership

To gain maximum flexibility in the use of the new Objectives,
many organisations produce a combined scheme for two or
even all three classes of membership. This enables individual
development to be monitored and trends to become apparent
much earlier. Such a system delays the final choice of most
appropriate class of membership, a choice which can then be
made on reliable, objective evidence. The Training Agreement
51
form leaves the organisation to decide on the target end-

product, and the time it might reasonably take to achieve it;
putting more onus on the Supervising Civil Engineer and on
those recruiting trainees for them. By leaving the desired class
of membership blank, the onus transfers to each trainee, who
must then be seen to be performing to achieve their own target
(for which their academic base prepared them). Personally, I
believe that any programme should have targets for both the
end-product and a realistic time in which to achieve it; open-
ended programmes always seem to drift.
The comparability and compatibility of the Objectives for the
three classes enables the ready transfer from one to another
where the reality of development is found to differ from the
original potential as suggested by the educational base. Care is
needed to ensure that the individual's academic qualifications
comply with the benchmark requirements for the class found to
be most appropriate but, again, the Institution’s requirements
are extremely flexible as to how this might be achieved. There
are no prescriptions.
Flexibility across the engineering professions

Because the Objectives are designed to develop a set of skills,
abilities and understanding, enlightened organisations quickly
realised that the same system could be applied readily, not only
to other disciplines of engineer, but also to related professions.
So generic schemes have been produced which embrace as
many as nine professions (although four or five is more usual),
including the Institutions of Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical,
Production, Mining & Metallurgy and Civil Engineering
Surveyors, as well as the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
and Chartered Accountants.
Specific Objectives
The Institution suggests that the Core Objectives should be
supplemented, as necessary, by Specific Objectives, outlining
52
skills, understanding and attitudes needed by a civil engineer to

be most effective in that particular organisation. As stated
earlier, the system now promoted by the Institution is so flexible
that it is unlikely that many will be necessary. Most of the
schemes which have been approved have two or three at most.
Specific Objectives can be used to fulfil a variety of purposes;
they may
(a) amplify a Core Objective;
(b) identify a business need;
(c) develop a specialist skill.
To amplify a Core Objective is, in effect, to indicate in a general
sense (‘flesh out’) the core to indicate how each broad Objec-
tive might be achieved in that particular working environment.
Since the new Objectives are more comprehensive than the old
ones, many organisations are doing this by adding a supple-
mentary Specific Range to the broad one given by the Institu-
tion for each Objective, rather than adding further Specific
Objectives. These Specific Ranges, which can readily be inserted
beneath the Range in the formatted system offered by the Insti-
tution, should spell out in greater detail how that Objective is
likely to be achieved in that organisation’s particular work envi-
ronment. What must be avoided is too detailed a specification,
which restricts the type of work which could be used to gain the
experience needed.
There is a tendency to specify tasks rather than objectives, still
prevalent in many draft schemes. The desire to specify such
things as ‘Be able to design retaining walls’ must be resisted.
Such objectives are evidence of a misunderstanding of the
purpose of the Training Scheme, which is not to accumulate
specific knowledge and techniques, but to develop transferable
skills, understanding and attitudes.
For example, under P7 it might be useful to list, as part of a
Specific Range, the procedural handbooks in use in that partic-
ular organisation.
53
Identifying a business need involves highlighting the skills and

understanding necessary to fulfil a role in a given work environ-
ment.
For example, in local government, a knowledge of committee
procedures and standing orders is necessary; in consultancies,
how to engage the expertise available in the rest of the group
may be needed; in contracting, how to assess and engage sub-
contractors is a common requirement. For many of these, an
amplification of the relevant Core Objective is often sufficient.
The development of specific skills and knowledge would apply
where the individual has been recruited to fulfil a specialist role
within the organisation, for example, hydrologists, geologists
and economists.
Such specialist Objectives are more likely to appear in a Training
Scheme leading towards Incorporated Member, the Class most
suited to highly skilled specialist engineers. But, particularly
here, it is vital to avoid becoming knowledge prescriptive,
rather than specifying overall capability.
The less detail involved in any specific objectives and specific
ranges, the greater the freedom to adapt to the ever-changing
workload of the organisation. Too rigid a specification can too
readily stifle creative minds, inducing a ‘ticking boxes’ attitude,
while flexible objectives and ranges can be moulded to each
individual's and department's needs and to the anticipated
future workload as it unfolds. Good Training Schemes have few,
well-targeted specific objectives. If the number is becoming
large, it is likely that the objectives are becoming prescriptive
and knowledge based (to suit present needs) rather than aimed
at developing an understanding (for the future).
Equivalent objectives
Contrary to widespread belief, there is no ‘requirement’ to use
the Institution’s Core Objectives. Some (usually international)
organisations have developed Management Development
54
Programmes of five or six years’ duration, to develop technical

staff to fulfil the organisation’s business objectives. During that
period, membership of an appropriate professional body is
achieved, almost as a by-product. All the schemes which I have
seen can readily be shown to be developing the same skills,
attributes and abilities which the Institution’s Objectives are
designed to achieve. The Institution recognises this similarity of
outcome by merely asking candidates to correlate their profes-
sional development scheme to the ICE Objectives, something
which can readily be presented as a simple matrix, not unlike
that shown earlier in this chapter. It is the outcome which is
important, not the system designed to achieve it.
The target
Objectives are a means to an end – the development of transfer-
able skills, attitudes and understanding – not an end in them-
selves. It is therefore imperative that every Training Scheme
specifies the mission – the business strategy in which this devel-
opment is an intrinsic part. Far too many schemes in the past
concentrated solely on the system, and inadvertently lost sight
of the goal. This can easily develop a ‘ticking the boxes’ atti-
tude, where the Objectives are seen as a series of hoops to be
jumped through, a syllabus, rather than rungs on the ladder of
personal development. The Professional Review, as a key stage
in an ongoing, lifelong process, is a review of what the candi-
date has become, not of what they have done. The system is
somewhat analogous to the Highway Code – you cannot be
prosecuted for breaking the code but if, in the event of an acci-
dent, it can be shown that you were contravening any part of
the code, then that may be used in evidence against you.
The Institution’s definitions of the responsibilities of the three
classes of member, and the specification of what each is
required to demonstrate at the Professional Review, must be an
intrinsic and clearly stated objective of every scheme, constantly
referred to throughout the training period as the target end
55
result for each individual trainee. It ought to be clear from the

Training Scheme how attainment of this end result will
contribute towards the organisation’s business objectives, so
that every trainee can clearly see a future career progression for
them within the organisation.
56
Chapter Seven
Preparing a training scheme
Why train to ICE standards?

There are a number of reasons why it has become even more
important to train new engineering entrants to your organisa-
tion, beyond the business objective of planning for progression
management for the projected market. These are detailed
below.
(a) For the continuing competitiveness of your organisation
o in recruitment, when discerning graduates will increas-
ingly choose businesses with a proven record of dynamic
and successful training and progression. Such graduates
are likely to be more capable, ambitious and motivated;
o in utilisation, where staff are stretched and challenged,
working to their full potential in appropriate roles;
o in retention, because staff feel valued, with a clear future
in a vibrant business which has defined goals and ambi-
tions;
o in bidding for work, where output per head will be
higher from well-motivated staff and where creative
dynamism will encourage the clever solutions, the break-
through in ideas which is often the difference between
success and failure in a bid;
o in flexibility, where innovation and creativity will enable
your organisation to take better advantage of the rapid
and frequent changes in demand for your services.
57
(b) There is an increasing need for a definitive and widely

recognised external competence audit
o to maximise the marketability of skilled individuals in a
team assembled to fulfil the client’s brief;
o to satisfy professional indemnity insurers, who are
increasingly asking the question, ‘What qualifies this
person as competent to make the decisions we are
insuring?’; and
o to gain credibility (even acceptability) for witness state-
ments, evidence and court litigation.
(c) It is necessary to determine staff requirements and to recruit
accordingly from the new streams of academic qualifica-
tion. Misalignment will inexorably lead to disenchantment,
disillusion, discontent, low morale and expensive and
disruptive staff turnover.
The Institution’s documentation offers clear and unambiguous
descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of all your profes-
sional staff and the academic bases from which they might be
recruited. By comparing these with the organisation’s job
descriptions, it is possible to highlight and then publicise
possible career progressions, not yet visible, for, in particular,
Incorporated and Technician Members.
(d) The high standards of the Institution's membership classes
are recognised worldwide. This may not be relevant to your
business yet, but it will be as our industry becomes increas-
ingly global. Even some traditional local government
services are now provided by foreign-based companies,
while worldwide takeovers, mergers and amalgamations
continue apace.
The Institution consulted widely for a number of years with the
construction industry before 1998, when it clearly defined the
roles and responsibilities to which new entrants should aspire. It
also developed its already proven system of training to objec-
tives, which offers an effective framework to release personal
potential quickly. Utilising this to the full will not only make your
recruits guarantee the future of your business, but will also
58
enable them to play an increasingly important part in the

present.
The Scheme – introductory statement

The keywords behind making the system work are ‘interest’ and
‘commitment’, and these must start from the top, where the
Board must recognise the value of graduates and be visibly
supportive of their career advancement. It is therefore sensible
to have an introductory letter or statement at the start of a
Training Scheme, in which the leader of the organisation, the
Chief Executive or Managing Director, welcomes the trainee
and explains the need for successful achievement of the targets
set in the scheme, both to satisfy the business objectives and for
the confidence and competence of the individual. For
maximum effect, this statement should not be delegated to the
civil engineering departmental head, but should be a tangible
statement of commitment from the very top of the organisa-
tion. It seems to work to best effect when in the form of a
personal letter.
The introductory statement can be well reinforced by a repre-
sentative of the top management having a visible and vocal
presence during the induction process.
Introduction to the organisation

An overview of the whole organisation and its aspirations, often
available from the promotional material published by the
organisation, and the more specific role of the sector to which
the trainee has been recruited in the achievement of those aspi-
rations, gives trainees an indication of the opportunities which
could be available to them, if they tackle their training with
dynamism and vigour. The introduction might usefully include
indications of size, numbers of employees and range of work,
but care needs to be taken to leave the summary unspecific
59
enough to avoid frequent rewriting as the organisation

changes.
Primary objectives
In the past, the purpose, the intended outcome of training or
the ‘mission statement’, has been conspicuous by its absence in
most schemes. The system appeared to be paramount, with the
required outcome inadvertently ignored. Such an omission
compounded the problem of trainees thinking that training was
a series of ‘hoops’ through which they had to jump in order to
be successful. Surely the purpose of training through the
Training Scheme must be stated? The prime objective must
surely be to efficiently and effectively develop professional engi-
neers capable and confident to drive the organisation forward
and realise the organisation’s business aspirations. The organi-
sation’s strategic expectations of the trainee must be spelled
out; high expectations, provided they are realistic, do seem to
engender higher levels of achievement.
Out of this prime objective will emerge the necessary
qualities for the trainees to be successful at the Institution’s
Professional Review, thus enabling each of them to be able to
provide tangible external proof of the capability of the organisa-
tion’s engineering staff. Whilst attaining membership is
undoubtedly an achievement, it is not the sole, or even the
primary, aim.
I consider that a vital part of every Training Scheme is the
description of the professional engineers which it is intended to
develop. The succinct ones are those ratified by the Council of
the Institution in 1998 (see Chapter Five). To these could
usefully be added the abbreviated Engineering Council descrip-
tions, as well as the expectations of the Reviewers as stated in
the Institution’s current booklets.
Training Schemes are a means to an end, not an end in them-
selves, and this should be apparent right at the outset.
60
Key personnel
The arrangements which the organisation has put in place by
the nomination of Supervising Civil Engineers (SCEs) and their
appointment by the Institution and, where necessary, a
network of Delegated Engineers (DEs), must be carefully
outlined. If there is a supporting administrative role for a
Training or Personnel Department then this, too, should be
explained. However, it must be clear that the primary business
and professional thrust will properly come from the professional
commitment of SCEs and DEs. I do not think it is helpful to list
the duties of either the SCE or the DEs, as is often done, because
the trainees, for whom the scheme has been written, do not
need to know such details. What they do need to be told is the
relationship which it is intended that they build up with the
other parties to the Agreement, and an indication of how they
will be helped to achieve this.
The supporting role of any Institution personnel, particularly
the Regional Liaison Officers (RLOs), has changed over the
years. They do still have a role as auditors of the effectiveness of
training, through the proper implementation of the Training
Scheme. Any reliance on the RLO, as a kind of surrogate SCE, to
assist directly in the supervision of the training process, is
misplaced; their primary role as far as the organisation is
concerned is to support the SCE(s) and their DEs, to use their
wider experience to solve problems which cannot be resolved
in-house and to offer best practice from the experience of the
entire RLO network.
The focus of all this effort is, of course, the trainee. It is they
who must, as their signature on the Training Agreement makes
clear, ‘take advantage of the opportunities provided’. They
need comprehensive advice and guidance on how to do this.
This advice cannot be adequately provided by telling them
only what they must write in their Quarterly Reports. This is just
the ‘mechanics’ of training, the means by which the correct
attitudes can be created and fostered, and should be put in
61
that context. Most graduates do not know how to train them-

selves and find the whole prospect somewhat daunting; they
have become used to being told what to do and to receiving
considerable support in doing it. Understandably, but unfortu-
nately, they expect similar, comprehensive support in the work-
place.
For example, the Objectives are performance based, and do not
specify what must be done to achieve them. This is very discon-
certing to a young person who has spent many years in a struc-
tured system of syllabuses and predominately knowledge-
based examinations. I, and many SCEs, are frequently asked by
trainees, ‘But what do I actually have to do to satisfy this Objec-
tive?’. The answer must always be, ‘I don’t know, but I do know
what capabilities you must develop as a result’. But the SCE (or
the DE) should be able to go further and say, ‘I can suggest
opportunities which might become available in the near future’
and offer guidance on how to take full advantage of them.
Each individual will require differing amounts of exposure to
various types of experience; there is no one system which will
suit all. The desire to control the process by having a standard
uniform system applied to all must be resisted. The system
must be flexible enough to cater for every individual’s needs.
The aim is to develop the range of attributes required by a
professional civil engineer to at least an ‘adequate’ level. Some
trainees will already be good, which is presumably why they
were recruited, and should be developed as far as possible to
maximise their contribution to the business. Others, perhaps
neglected so far, will need bringing up to the level of adequacy.
Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate the sort of development which
should take place.
There cannot be, therefore, a universal training ‘system’ of peri-
odic secondments, training courses, etc. applicable to all. Too
many schemes still insist on specifying set periods of experience
in a variety of environments, in the forlorn hope that somehow,
this will guarantee an adequate breadth of understanding. Each
individual starts from a different base of education, home
62
Attributes identified
at recruitment
Adequate
standard
Attributes needing Attributes to be
training developed
Fig. 1. Start of Initial Professional Development
background and innate abilities and therefore has individual

needs, which must be identified against the professional profile
defined by the Institution and fulfilled in whatever way is
considered most appropriate. For some, secondments will inev-
itably be required, but others will readily develop under-
standing by other means. This flexibility is much more difficult
to administer, and is reliant on the judgement of the Super-
vising Civil Engineer and the mentoring team.
Young graduates are being asked to monitor their development
as a person, as a civil engineer, rather than the standard they
have generally been used to, by how much knowledge they
could acquire. They require positive help and support from
within the organisation to make this transition. The criteria now
being applied are very different to those with which they have
become familiar during their long education.
63
above required standard

Several attributes well
Holistic standard
(well above adequacy)
All attributes
adequate
Adequate standard
Fig. 2. End of Initial Professional Development
Quarterly Review
The mechanism on which training is founded is a three-
monthly review of progress. This is triggered by the submission
of a Quarterly Report, the irregularity of which is the bane of
every SCE’s life! In Chapter Thirteen, I indicate why I believe this
problem arises and what can be done to remove it. In your
Training Scheme, it is vital that you explain the purposes and
content of a trainee’s report, otherwise they will not have any
real idea of how to write one.
It must also be explained that the submission of a report will
commence a cycle of discussion to enable them to maximise
the value of any opportunities which have come their way in the
past, enabling them to spot, and take better advantage of,
opportunities in the future.
64
Placements
There is no requirement for secondments, nor any prescription
for the type of work necessary to fulfil the Objectives (i.e. no
‘site’ or ‘design’ requirements). Experience must be tailored to
eradicate each individual's weaknesses, identified against the
defined end-product. The trainees will wish to ‘play to their
strengths’ – we all do and, indeed, every organisation needs
that to fulfil its short term goals of efficient work production. As
always, a balanced judgement is required between day-to-day
demands and longer term desires. Trainees must also be
encouraged to identify their weaknesses and plan to overcome
them by moving out of their developing ‘comfort zone’. Often
this can be accomplished by changing the nature of their work,
but it may sometimes require a temporary transfer to another
work environment. This must surely be a last resort, since it is
inherently inefficient for the business.
Some organisations do consider experience in a related work
environment very necessary for their business, in which case I
would recommend that secondment is done sooner rather than
later, well before the trainee has become a key contributor to
the effectiveness of the organisation. It is frequently postponed
for four, five and even six years, with the excuse that the trainee
cannot be spared. Surely that situation can only get worse?
65
Chapter Eight
Training Agreements for the

ICE’s Training System
There is little doubt that most recruits will be seeking a formal

Training Agreement. With good graduates likely to remain at a
premium, any organisation wishing to recruit the best will need
to be able to offer training under Agreement. The graduates will
have been told whilst undergraduates that this is the way
forward, and will want the greater security which they believe
they will gain from being under Agreement. They will also
expect to be put under Agreement straight away, but I do not
think this is a good idea for two main reasons.
(a) The transition from education to the workplace is pretty
traumatic for most trainees. As one graduate succinctly put
it, ‘I honestly thought I worked hard for my degree, but I
now know I actually only worked for six weeks!’ They will
feel insecure and perhaps even frightened by what is
expected of them. Induction and getting to know their
colleagues and the systems is sufficient. They will also
quickly realise that the civil engineering business encom-
passes far more than their civil engineering degree. To add
formal training at the start of employment is perhaps too
much.
(b) No selection process is perfect – this is why most organisa-
tions have a probationary period, usually six months, to
find out whether the recruit is likely to live up to
66
Training Agreements for the ICE’s Training System
expectations. In the odd case where this seems unlikely, it

does not help to have to unravel a Training Agreement as
well.
The Institution allows a Training Agreement to be backdated up
to six months, so I recommend that the Agreement be offered
as the probationary period is successfully completed, backdated
to commencement of employment. A few employers introduce
the concept of quarterly reporting during formal induction, and
only offer a Training Agreement to those who have submitted
two reports during their six months’ probation. Incidentally,
most induction courses give the trainees much of the material
they will need to comply with at least one of the Professional
Objectives.
One idea which helps considerably with routine administration
of training is to start all Agreements at the most convenient date
in a three-month schedule, say end of March, June, September
(when most Agreements are received by the Institution) and
December. Then the whole organisation knows when reports
are due, DEs and SCEs can block out time for reading and
discussion in their diaries, and trainees benefit from peer group
pressure to deliver.
Previous experience
Many graduates will have been introduced to the Training
Objectives during their course, and a partially completed set
may well be included in their job application portfolio. Your
organisation may also recruit people with some previous experi-
ence, either as sandwich or vacation work, or employment since
graduation or even before going to university or college. All this
experience is valid as part of their development; after all, none
of us can discard or lose experience – it is what fashions us.
So how can this experience be taken into account? Essentially,
there are two differing approaches. The first is for the
individual trainee to present written evidence to demonstrate
67
how they have made progress against each of the Objectives.

This evidence may have been produced during the normal
course of their work; alternatively the SCE may require a special
report. Discussion of either will then reveal the benefit the indi-
vidual has gained from the experience. The documenting of
experience by reports is particularly pertinent for organisations
which recruit political refugees, who are very unlikely to be able
to get any documents or information from their previous
country.
If and when the SCE is satisfied that the Objectives can be
endorsed accordingly to an agreed level, with a clear
conscience, then what remains to be done becomes clear. It is
then possible to estimate what experience, and for how
long, is likely to be needed to complete the objective. Where
the previous experience has been ratified by an SCE at univer-
sity or in the workplace, then the new SCE ought to be able
to rely on their judgement, since it has probably been
audited by the Regional Liaison Officers. In either case, the
outstanding length for any Training Agreement would be regis-
tered accordingly, with the proviso that it is administratively
cumbersome to have an Agreement of less than twelve months’
duration.
The second alternative is to put the onus firmly on the trainee.
While recognising that they have had previous experience, a full
term Agreement is offered, with the proviso that the trainee
should convince the SCE of the benefit gained from any
previous experience against achievement of the Objectives of
the organisation’s Training Scheme, and thus complete earlier
than the estimated completion date.
The choice of the most appropriate course of action is
dependent on individual circumstances and should be made to
maximise motivation. Generally, if the previous experience is
substantial, then taking account of it will maintain momentum
and minimise delay. It is most important that this option is
clearly offered to the trainee, otherwise the prospect of another
three years under Agreement can be demoralising.
68
Registration of Agreement
The printed Registration form for a Training Agreement no
longer specifies either the target class of membership or the
time span of the Agreement. These are left to the SCE to decide
for each trainee. In my opinion, it is never wise to have an open-
ended programme for any activity, since it encourages a laissez-
faire approach and a lack of urgency. It is always better to set
tight, but realistic, targets and review them regularly. This is
particularly appropriate for training, where it is vital to achieve
good productivity quickly. So, if both length of, and target for,
each Training Agreement must be specified by the SCE, what
criteria are there for these decisions?
Target class of membership

The target class of membership is relatively straightforward. It
will reflect the business strategy and be one of the ‘succession
management’ reasons why the person was recruited in the first
place. In general, but not exclusively, it will also be related
to the academic achievement of the trainee recruited. For
example, one exception is that for many years some interna-
tional companies recruited a certain type of BEng(Hons) grad-
uate on to an Incorporated Member training scheme. In theory,
with a greater range of degree courses from which to choose,
this cross-boundary recruitment will be less likely in the future,
but it will take some time for the new academic systems, intro-
duced in 1998, to bed down. Until then, there are bound to be
some discrepancies. So great emphasis will be placed at recruit-
ment on the person’s personal qualities, as well as their first
degree.
As training progresses, the measured achievement of the Objec-
tives may indicate a bias towards a different class of member-
ship. This should prompt a sensitive discussion as to what might
be most appropriate for the individual as soon as it is apparent.
It will take time for the person to adjust their thinking to a
different objective and early identification allows this. A late
69
imposition, for example at the Completion Certificate stage, is

likely to provoke resentment and a loss of momentum.
Length of Agreement
In the past, this was straightforward – three years. Now it is
rather more complicated and, yet again, places greater
emphasis on the judgement of the SCE.
Throughout the European Union, it has been agreed that the
formation of a civil engineer shall take seven years from a prede-
termined academic base (in the UK, the benchmark is A Level).
This formation takes three parts – academic education, struc-
tured training and responsible experience. The latter two now
overlap completely and have been designated Initial Profes-
sional Development, so completion of a new Training Scheme
should herald an imminent application for a Professional
Review. At commencement of training, the university degrees
introduced in 1999 should begin to overlap structured training
into academic education, manifested by trainees arriving from
the education system with partially completed Objectives. This
is the ‘seamless continuity’ of development sought by the Engi-
neering Council.
So the SCE must now make a judgement, based on the quality of
the trainee at intake, the work likely to be undertaken, and the
anticipated speed of development of the characteristics of a
professional engineer, for that individual. If ‘formation’ is gener-
ally considered to take seven years, this suggests that, as a guide,
a Training Agreement for fast-track development to a Chartered
Member (commencing from a benchmark four-year degree)
should be three years, and that for an Incorporated Member
(starting from a three-year benchmark degree), four years, giving
a target professional qualifying age of 25 years old for both.
I can almost hear the sharp intakes of breath at these figures,
but they are already being achieved by a pioneering few. I know
engineers in their mid-twenties who are holding down senior
management roles in multi-million pound projects and
70
processes. As one company Director explained, of a twenty-six

year old Project Manager, grappling with the coordination of
29 subcontractors in a fast-track factory construction, ‘All he
lacks is experience, and we can provide that!’ It is sometimes
the only expertise which we older engineers can contribute!
Our main task is to develop, release and harness the capabilities
of the younger generation.
Good young engineers rapidly develop sufficient engineering
understanding and already possess boundless enthusiasm,
energy, courage, optimism and, very often, the communication
skills needed. This is readily demonstrated by the fact that many
older engineers are now employed as consultants when deemed
necessary, bringing in their experience only when called upon.
Our industry must learn to release these young, capable people
sooner. ‘All they lack is experience’; sometimes that may even be
a positive asset, as they can approach problems in a different
way, inspiring innovation and change. I meet graduates every
week who feel themselves under-utilised. What an indictment of
our industry – that we cannot fully utilise this great resource.
Transfer of Agreement
There will be occasions when trainees will, for a variety of
reasons, seek opportunities in ‘pastures new’. Because your
organisation will have invested heavily in their development,
this will be seen as a ‘slap in the face’. The immediate reaction
will be to try to recoup some of that investment, perhaps by
making it difficult for the trainee to effect a transfer or by
requiring them to pay back any outlay on courses. Personally, I
cannot see the point in trying to make them stay, once their
mind is made up; it is certainly too late for remedial actions.
I think the priority is to find out why they have made their deci-
sion and, if they have been influenced by something which has
gone wrong within the organisation, to try to change things so
that it is unlikely to happen again. It may be that the
71
organisation has not lived up to the expectations of the trainee,

in which case the recruiting procedures need to be re-examined
to see whether their expectations had been unduly inflated or
were a misinterpretation. The problem could be as simple as
incompatibility, but again recruitment procedures need recon-
sidering. Maybe there is nothing fundamentally wrong, but
breakdowns are rarely one-sided. Occasionally, change is
forced on young trainees by circumstances outside the work
environment, and such reasons must surely be respected.
Before the trainee leaves, it is necessary to relinquish the
Training Agreement, by completing the Certificate of Transfer,
usually on the reverse of the Agreement form. It is also neces-
sary to provide a Partial Certificate of Completion, where any
outstanding matters related to the Core Objectives should be
drawn to the attention of the receiving organisation. This Partial
Certificate should be registered with the Institution so that they
can keep their records correct by recording that the trainee has
left your organisation.
The receiving organisation must then sign the Certificate of
Transfer to state that they accept the transferred Agreement and
register this Certificate of Transfer with the Institution. In due
course, when the new SCE is satisfied that the trainee has devel-
oped the attributes expected and fulfilled the terms of the Agree-
ment, they will sign a full Completion Certificate to signify that
training is complete (not another Partial Certificate – two or more
Partial Certificates cannot make a whole Completion Certificate).
Where a trainee is going to take a sabbatical, perhaps to travel
or undertake voluntary work, you may prefer to place the
Agreement on hold. In this situation, a letter informing the Insti-
tution of the situation keeps everyone’s records correct.
Termination of Agreement
Where the terms of the Agreement are not, or cannot be, met,
there is only one solution – to terminate it. If the necessary
72
‘opportunities for experience’ cannot be made available due to

changed circumstances in the organisation’s workload, then
the trainee should be released honourably to go elsewhere. If,
as is much more likely, the trainee is defaulting on ‘making the
best use of the opportunities’, then the decision has to be
made, after due warning, that the Agreement is unlikely to be
fulfilled. Such a decision can only be taken after an examination
of the support and guidance which the trainee has been offered
as to how to ‘make best use’ of the opportunities. Has every
reasonable effort been made to explain how to benefit from the
opportunities provided? Few trainees actually have the experi-
ence, the understanding or have been given the prior advice, to
know how to do it by themselves.
In my experience, there is a tendency to allow things to drift for
too long, in the forlorn hope that somehow there will be a
sudden and dramatic change of attitude. There rarely is! I do
wonder sometimes if this wavering is the result of a subcon-
scious feeling that perhaps the difficulty is not entirely the
trainee’s fault. However, like all problems, unless addressed
properly and decisively, the problems of training just get worse.
Any difficulty should be identified early, corrective action taken
as quickly as possible, and, if the problem persists, decisive
moves must then be made to terminate.
It is important to keep the Institution informed of these deci-
sions, with a brief indication of the background to them. At
some stage in the future, the trainee will have to explain to the
Institution’s Reviewers why their Agreement was never
completed, and such an explanatory letter, setting out all the
facts professionally, can be of considerable benefit at that time.
One candidate, who got off to a dreadful start, was actually
congratulated by his Reviewers on the professional attitude he
had taken in getting his training back on track. He had written,
as part of his Training Record, ‘It took me some time to realise
what becoming a professional engineer actually entailed, but
when I did ...’ and then went on to explain how he had
captured his past experience and regained lost time.
73
Training without an Agreement

Since training and individual development are intrinsic parts of
the continuing change and development of the business itself,
then the attitudes and mentoring inherent in the Institution’s
programme are transferable and applicable to everyone,
whether new employees training under Agreement, or more
experienced staff continuing their professional development.
These attitudes ought indeed to be an integral part of the
organisation’s culture.
For new staff, for whom a formal Training Agreement is either
inappropriate or unavailable, then the only decision to be made
is how much of the procedures and system should be adhered
to. Since anyone submitting for a Professional Review is recom-
mended to submit a completed set of Core Objectives, then this
is one obvious constituent. If people accept my reasoning for
Quarterly Reports, then these, too, would be extremely useful,
provided that someone was prepared to discuss the content of
them with the writer. Since all of us are charged by our Rules for
Professional Conduct to assist the development of new
members or potential members, then we cannot reasonably
refuse to assist in this way. The conclusion must be, based on
these arguments, that there cannot really be any substantial
differentiation between those with, and those without, a
Training Agreement. Perhaps the only difference would be the
priorities if only limited opportunities for appropriate experi-
ence were available, when those complying with the terms of
their Agreement would deserve precedence.
74
Chapter Nine
The mechanics of the ICE’s

Training Scheme
The procedures
The key to making training as efficient and effective as possible,
thereby releasing the maximum potential of each individual for the
overall benefit of the business, is the Supervising Civil Engineer
(SCE).
The key attitudes needed to make the system work are ‘interest’
and ‘commitment’. These must start from the top, where the
Board must recognise the value of all their staff and be visibly
supportive of their career advancement. This senior commitment
must be active and ‘visible’, not passive and ‘assumed’. Hitherto,
many organisations thought that this commitment could be
demonstrated by making a director the SCE. Too often, this
avuncular approach was a sinecure. In my opinion, such a senior
SCE is usually unsatisfactory, because the trainees perceive them-
selves as too remote from their SCE; communication falters or is
lost altogether (if indeed it ever really existed) and any training
becomes merely a matter of going through the motions.
Supervising Civil Engineer

The Institution of Civil Engineers requires each organisation to
nominate, from within its staff if at all possible (although there
75
The mechanics of the ICE’s Training Scheme
may be other possibilities, such as a peripatetic consultant), a

Supervising Civil Engineer (SCE), responsible to the Institution
for the professional development of each trainee. That selection
will be ratified by the appropriate Regional Liaison Officer
(RLO), who will satisfy themselves that the SCE has:
o commitment to training;
o appropriate knowledge of the ICE training system and
Review standards;
o adequate understanding of the processes;
o sufficient authority to ensure that the necessary opportuni-
ties can be provided;
o a Training Scheme in place and a delegated team appro-
priate for the number and types of trainees envisaged.
One of the criteria which will be used to assist the RLO in
making this judgement will be the SCE’s own commitment to
their Continuing Professional Development, as evidenced by
their Personal Development Record. After all, they are going to
insist that their trainees fulfil the minimum CPD requirements,
so a good example ought to be set. The meeting with the RLO,
to discuss how the SCE is going to make the system work effec-
tively will, of course, form an important piece of that record.
It is important that SCEs understand that, while they have been
nominated by their organisation, they are appointed by the
Institution. This makes them responsible to their profession, not
the organisation, whilst acting as an SCE.
The criteria for selection of an SCE include being an appropriate
grade of member of the Institution, if at all possible, so that the
SCE is implicitly responsible to the Institution for
(a) knowing the aims of training for the profession, by being
familiar with the Review criteria;
(b) fulfilling the requirements of the organisation’s approved
Training Scheme, particularly knowing how the Objectives
are likely to be achieved within that organisation;
76
(c) accrediting the validity of Continuing Professional Develop-

ment (CPD), which requires an assessment of the benefit
gained, not merely certifying attendance.
In today’s international market-place, there are not always suit-
able members of the Institution available to undertake this role.
In such cases, it is acceptable to utilise members of other profes-
sional engineering bodies. They probably have similar profes-
sional responsibilities for the development of younger staff, but
obviously need to be fully acquainted with the ICE’s targets and
processes. The RLO network can be useful in providing this
understanding.
An SCE must also be in such a position of responsibility that they
are able
(i) to direct the trainee’s experience, for example by relocation
or change of function, as the need is identified during
routine monitoring of the progression of each individual;
(ii) to ensure sufficient resources, explicitly for ‘off-the-job’
training, implicitly by allocating adequate time for any
Delegated Engineers to fulfil their roles.
All these criteria will conflict with the immediate needs of the
workload and require adequate corporate power, either by
position or by delegation, if they are to be met.
The SCE’s role is thus to establish the training framework – the
‘learning environment’. All other aspects may, if desired, be
delegated to other staff. The keyword is ‘delegation’ not ‘abdi-
cation’. The SCE remains professionally accountable to the Insti-
tution for ensuring that the system operates with maximum
benefit to the trainee, and hence ultimately to the organisation.
This requires thorough briefing and continual monitoring of the
relationship of every Delegated Engineer with each trainee.
The SCE must be genuinely interested, accessible and
approachable. A passive attitude epitomised by the remark, ‘My
door is always open’ is not good enough. Every SCE will find
that they are regarded with something approaching awe, if not
77
outright fear, by their trainees, until they themselves take steps

to demonstrate that attitude is not necessary at all. To start
with, many trainees will not even see their SCE as a role model,
but more as an unachievable target.
The SCE is the key to a balance between the needs of the
trainees and the demands of the workload. The ability to take
maximum advantage of the enthusiasm of each individual by
continuously challenging them to achieve more, whilst
ensuring cost effective use of their existing skills; the ability to
see or create opportunities which are mutually beneficial and
rewarding, the ability to make trainees feel secure in tackling
new, demanding roles by providing adequate support, are rare.
Most trainees feel themselves under-utilised, so, even allowing
for a little over-optimism on their part, it must be presumed that
the expectations of most SCEs are too low.
Delegated Engineer
Where the day-to-day duties are delegated, which does not
require formal notification to the ICE, the Delegated Engineer
(DE) becomes the cornerstone of successful training. These key
people should be chosen for their ability to mentor and need
not be members of the Institution. Fulfilling a true mentoring
role, they should be trusted and respected, personally
committed and, above all, must genuinely like the trainee and
want them to succeed. A good and effective partnership is
mutually beneficial and does give a DE a profound sense of
satisfaction. The fundamental aim is to encourage the trainees
to develop an adequate breadth of understanding by ‘taking
the blinkers off’.
Delegated Engineers seem to be most effective when they are
not the trainee's line manager and should aim to develop a long
term relationship – at least for the duration of Initial Professional
Development, i.e. through to the Professional Review. I know
that some organisations change the DE for each different work
78
environment to which the trainee is subjected and this, too,

can work, although I am personally not so keen on this arrange-
ment. The important thing is that, whatever arrangements
are decided upon, they must be effective. Mentoring is a
highly personal affair and, with the best will in the world, not
everybody likes everybody. If, for any reason, any one relation-
ship is not working, then it must be identified early on and
changed.
There is no requirement for the SCE to inform the Institution of
the arrangements which have been made for mentoring,
although it may be helpful to harness the expertise and experi-
ence of Institution staff to train the team for their role. The
professional responsibility for the effective training and devel-
opment of trainees remains with the SCE, who is accountable to
the Institution through the Annual Appraisal.
Annual Appraisal
Once a year, on the anniversary of the Training Agreement,
Supervising Civil Engineers are required to make a short, formal
statement of the progress of each registered trainee to the Insti-
tution. In today’s fast moving scenario, this annual timetable
may well be too infrequent and should be seen as an absolute
minimum. Although there is no need to formally report inter-
mediate assessments to the Institution, the assistance of the
Regional Liaison Officer should be sought to overcome any
emerging difficulties; they have a great deal of experience avail-
able to them and have probably seen the same problems allevi-
ated elsewhere. Much can go awry in a year unless a problem is
spotted early and put right.
These reviews should, as well as assessing the progress of the
trainee, encompass an assessment of the effectiveness of the
mentoring relationship. It is important that ineffective relation-
ships, whatever the reason for the failure, are terminated, and a
better personal understanding developed with someone else.
79
The positive purposes of these appraisals are:

(a) to develop specific talents;
(b) to address and rectify weaknesses;
(c) to maximise the trainee’s future contribution to your busi-
ness; and incidentally
(d) to monitor progress towards the Professional Review.
These are not the same purposes as for a staff annual appraisal,
where performance in the job and immediate promotion into
other roles are the primary concerns. There should be some
commonality between the two, since the Institution’s criteria
were developed after a long consultation period with the
industry but, in general, the Training Review looks further
ahead than a staff review, considering potential rather than
performance.
The criteria for measurement of performance are embodied in
your organisation’s Training Scheme, particularly the Objec-
tives, in the context of the eventual target, as given by the
descriptions offered by the Institution and discussed in detail in
Chapter Five.
Preparation for an Annual Appraisal

Whether your organisation has formal documentation or not, it
is vital to establish the broad thrust of the discussion, enabling
the Supervising Civil Engineer to anticipate the areas in which
the trainee probably has doubts. To do this, it is necessary to
discuss each trainee’s development with their line manager(s)
and with their mentor beforehand if, indeed, there is not an
informal network of communication doing this all the time.
Any plan for the meeting must only be a framework; the very
nature of the discussion necessitates flexibility. Points may not
be covered in the order envisaged beforehand and some may
not have been anticipated at all. Uninterrupted time needs to
be set aside; this cannot be a hasty process, interrupted by
80
phone calls and ‘heads popping round the door’. Young

trainees need the security of personal interest, support and
discussion. Most trainees are only too well aware of their short-
comings and do not need to be reminded of them. What they
need is help in overcoming them, and the methods by which
this can be achieved are covered in other chapters.
Training Review for Completion

The last Annual Appraisal is a review of the entire period of
training. The target date will have been estimated when the
Training Agreement was signed, but there is no requirement for
this to remain sacrosanct. I still see trainees who tell me that
their Training Agreement ran out six months ago. It did not, but
merely required what, in contractual terms, would be called an
extension of time. Nor does the Agreement have to run its full
estimated term; early completion does send out a very clear
signal about commitment (of both parties).
The Training Review should take place just as soon as the
trainee, their mentor(s) and anyone else involved, feels that the
mission has been accomplished, i.e. that the trainee has
(a) developed the necessary competencies and professional
skills;
(b) successfully completed the organisation’s Core and Specific
Objectives;
(c) adequate accumulated evidence in the form of reports and
supporting documents; and
(d) recorded at least the minimum required number of days of
relevant Continuing Professional Development.
One point needs to be reinforced here. There is no requirement
for a complete set of Quarterly Reports. If there have been gaps,
it is up to the SCE to make a judgement as to whether all the
relevant experience has been captured sufficiently well, and to
81
advise the trainee on what needs to be done if there is a defi-

ciency (see end of Chapter Thirteen).
The Training Review has a variety of forms, depending on the
circumstances. Where an SCE knows the trainee well, it can be
little more than a final Annual Appraisal to check that every-
thing is in order. At the other extreme, it amounts to a mock
review (sometimes undertaken by an ‘alien’ SCE from the same
organisation), complete with formal submitted documents and
a presentation and, in a few cases, actually involves a Written
Assignment completed under time constraints. This format is
used positively by many SCEs to identify any weaknesses which
need to be addressed before the Professional Review.
Similarly, the ‘collaboration’ of the Regional Liaison Officer
varies between ensuring, by their own interview with the
trainee, that the SCE has a clear understanding of the abilities
required by the Institution, to participating in a formal interview
as a mock co-Reviewer. Essentially, the RLO network must
establish a common national standard upon which the
Reviewers can rely, and will visit organisations as frequently as
possible to achieve this. But they are also valuable sources of
solutions to problems, since they are involved full-time in
training and development, exposed to a wide variety of experi-
ence and work environments.
Success at this stage should mean that the trainee is almost
ready to attempt the Professional Review. The interview should
be used to assess development of the required attributes and to
identify which, if any, need specific attention. For potential
Chartered Members, the review must make a positive assess-
ment of the trainee's potential to promote innovation and
change through their vision and foresight, and whether they
are beginning to demonstrate the characteristics of leadership.
In some instances, it may be mutually agreed that development
of the attributes of the target class of membership is not as rapid
as anticipated, and that it is preferable to divert towards the
Incorporated Professional Review (IPR), at least in the imme-
diate future. For many young engineers, it takes time to gather
82
the self-belief to exert a significant influence on the progression

of work. In such cases, a diversion to IPR could be appropriate.
The compatibility of the new suite of Training Schemes facili-
tates this comparison and any transfer, and should have identi-
fied this trend well before the Completion interview.
On the other hand, an outstanding trainee progressing fast on
an Incorporated training scheme could be considered for
transfer to the Chartered Professional Review. It will be neces-
sary to check that their academic base can be or has been
adjusted by prior submission for a Career Appraisal.
Academic assessment
If any trainee does not have the academic qualifications
required as the basis for the class of membership being identi-
fied during training as the most appropriate, then it is necessary
for them to submit their qualifications for an academic appraisal
by a specially convened panel of the Institution. It is important
to give the panel every assistance by providing full details of all
the subjects studied and the syllabuses followed through every
year of each qualification, and not merely to submit the applica-
tion forms. Particular emphasis should be placed on the
numeracy of any subject, since the intellectual rigour of
numeracy is often perceived as an area of inadequacy. Any
project work should include a brief synopsis outlining the
nature of the study and the main findings.
Summary
The prime driver of training must be the trainees – it is their
personal ambition which is the key. Trainees need to be encour-
aged to take early ownership of their personal development and
acquire the vital skills of ‘lifelong learning’, to be best able to
cope with constant change throughout their careers.
83
A clear plan of progress is essential, but it must be performance

managed, with frequent alteration to suit the individual speed
of development and the opportunities available. There is no
‘time serving’ – time is no measure of outcome or achievement.
Thus, frequent and regular monitoring of progress is essential;
the Quarterly Report ought to be the trigger for that. The
annual review is too infrequent – much can go wrong in a year
unless problems are identified and dealt with very quickly after
they surface.
84
Chapter Ten
Recruitment of trainees
Tradition
The civil engineering industry has always been conservative and
traditional in most aspects of its business, with the notable
exception of some outstanding technical innovation. Old atti-
tudes die hard, but today’s changed and changing business
requires flexibility of thought and the continual questioning of
long-established methods and routines. Nowhere is this more
vital than in recruitment. Before any organisation can even
consider their training needs, it must determine what raw mate-
rial it requires if it is to fulfil its business strategy.
For a very long time, there has been an attitude, endemic
throughout the greater part of this industry, which can perhaps
best be summed up by the phrase, ‘Need engineering labour,
so recruit graduates’. For far too long, too many routine tech-
nical roles have been traditionally filled by what might be
termed ‘graduates in transit’. Recruitment was based more on
the management’s perception of what they thought were the
immediate needs of the workload, than on the future manage-
ment needs of the company. In the course of time, some gradu-
ates would hopefully rise beyond this and fill management
roles, but the whole process was random and slow and, to those
who had soaring ambition, intensely frustrating. This is one
reason why high-flying civil engineering graduates, with
boundless aspirations, have often opted for other professions,
85
where this mistaken emphasis on extensive periods of basic

experience has long been abandoned. It is also the reason why
many traditional graduates, stuck in routine technical roles
because that is what the business needs, become disenchanted
and demotivated.
Definition of graduate
Until 2000, the term ‘graduate’ referred to one standard only,
with slight variations between three- and four-year degree courses
and the course content and title. This comfortable tradition has
now been exploded, with several different types of degree on
offer, providing the academic base for two differing classes of
membership. There is an important third class of membership, for
which there is an entire range of academic possibilities, from craft
skills to National Vocational Qualifications.
The term ‘graduate’ is now an expression which covers a wide
spectrum of abilities, reflected broadly in the three classes of
membership offered by the Institution of Civil Engineers,
embracing two kinds of professional engineer and specialist
technicians. So, at the very least, organisations now need to ask
the question, ‘Which type of graduate?’.
Recruitment strategy
A few companies did recruit directly from schools, but even
here the often unstated, but nevertheless intrinsic, aim was to
progress them via part-time education towards ‘becoming
Chartered’. Until 1989, this was a laudable objective, since this
was then the only qualifying grade of membership of the Insti-
tution. However, things have changed and only a handful of
organisations appear to have recognised the change.
Since 1989, after the amalgamation with the Society of
Civil Engineering Technicians, the Institution offered three
86
qualifying classes of membership - Technician Member

(TMICE), Associate Member (AMICE) and Member (MICE). For
the majority, but not all, these automatically also entitled the
member, through the umbrella organisation, the Engineering
Council, to be called a Technician Engineer (EngTech), Incorpo-
rated Engineer (IEng) and Chartered Engineer (CEng) respec-
tively. The detailed descriptions of their respective places in the
team, as defined by the Engineering Council and redefined by
the Council of the Institution as recently as 1998, do not seem
to have ever been widely known or understood. There is still,
after ten years, a widespread belief throughout the industry,
that an Incorporated Engineer is a technician.
Unfortunately, in the years subsequent to 1989, every attempt
to properly explain and promote these differing classes of
membership was met by the industry with implacable indiffer-
ence. The result was that, for years, all graduates believed that
they would eventually become Chartered, and the few that did
not would forever remain underrated and hence ‘second class’,
under the all-embracing name of technician. There are still
organisations which profess proudly that they will only recruit
the best, so ‘All our people will become Chartered!’. I wonder if
they will be able to stay in business?
To avoid this common scenario for the future requires most
organisations to rethink their entire recruitment strategy, to
move away from any long-standing tradition of ‘Need labour,
recruit graduates’. From now on, most graduates (as conven-
tionally thought of, i.e. those en route to becoming Chartered,
for whom the benchmark qualification is now a four-year
MEng), will bypass many technical roles, which will be filled by
persons better suited, and therefore more efficient, at under-
taking them.
Some of these more specialist roles will be filled by those with a
new benchmark BSc degree, perhaps more ‘hands-on’ or tech-
nically orientated, but with a strong sense of identity within the
team and well equipped to manage their own input to a
project. They will have sufficient technical intellect to be able
87
not only to use software systems and processes, but to interro-

gate them intelligently. These important people must be
adequately recognised and rewarded if they are to have a
fulfilling career. Salary bars and job titles based on outdated
concepts of qualification need to be removed, often by the
simple expedient of replacing ‘Chartered Engineer’ with
‘Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers’.
Career structures need to be put in place, and widely publi-
cised, which enable all classes of membership to have the
potential for career development within the organisation. One
consultant’s Personnel Director established a career pattern by
comparing company job descriptions with ICE descriptions.
The resulting profile took Incorporated Members up to, and
including, Technical Director on the main board, while Techni-
cian Member embraced Head of IT Department. I think most
organisations would find the same if they undertook the same
exercise. Publishing such data gives huge impetus to people
who, at present, can see little or no future career development,
because there are no current role models in the hierarchy, with
a consequential improvement in overall team morale and
performance.
Many international, mainly process companies have done this
for years, because they are very aware of, and recognise the
benefits to their business of, the professional systems in other
countries. Throughout the European Union, of which the UK is a
member, there are two readily recognisable and differing types
of engineer (Group 1 and Group 2), equally valued as vital
members of the team. John Major, when Prime Minister, signed
us up to the European General Professional Directive, under
which these two types have been defined, and British organisa-
tions must now respond.
These changes in employment patterns are already occurring,
but perhaps people have not realised that the use of agency
staff for land surveying, construction setting out and computer-
aided design and drafting (to name a few) is an implicit recogni-
tion of the fact that specialists are better for the business than
88
transitory graduates. I have even had senior engineers tell me

that ‘Graduates are cheaper than CAD operators, and that is
why we employ them’. I suggest that people with such
outmoded attitudes need to look seriously at comparing
productivity, intake graduate quality and subsequent staff turn-
over, before making such superficial comments. One who did
so found that they had an 85% graduate turnover in the first
three years of employment – and rapidly changed their recruit-
ment policy.
Every organisation must now recruit a mix of people, designed
to satisfy the extrapolated needs of the business. Of course, this
is not an exact science and the balance will never be perfect, but
the Institution’s training system demonstrates that flexibility is
possible, indeed vital, to cater for inevitable mismatches.
89
Chapter Eleven
Mentoring – the theory
This chapter and the next are rather different from the rest. So
far this book has established
o the overriding need for a mission statement;
o a business strategy to achieve that mission;
o a training programme as an intrinsic component of the
strategy; and
o a management structure for the training programme.
Engineers will generally feel comfortable with these techniques
and systems, which are part and parcel of the management of
every civil engineering project, indeed the management of any
enterprise.
However, none of these will work, and the mission will remain a
dream, unless the individual people charged with delivering the
programme develop appropriate training attitudes and
personal understanding. In my experience, many civil engi-
neers feel less comfortable when discussing these ‘soft skills’. As
explained earlier, most of us simply expect to be able to apply
them, just as we expect to be able to move into ‘management’.
But, like management, some theory put behind the practice is
always helpful, so these two chapters discuss the principles and
attitudes required for successful mentoring. For those who
become really interested, there is a plethora of books on the
90
subject, most of which are very theoretical. I have concentrated

my notes only on the basic theory as applied to our system,
which I believe civil engineers need if they are to be fully effec-
tive in their role as mentors.
What follows perhaps sets out an ideal, which few of us can live
up to, but towards which we must all strive. I have been a
mentor for some 40 years, effectively full time since 1988, but
still I make mistakes and errors of judgement. None of us can
ever be perfect in human relationships. I well remember one
dreadful error, which plagued me all the way home down the
motorway. Once back in the office, I rang the SCE, who said
that he had heard about what had happened, but that, ‘Both
she and I know that it was said with the best of intentions’.
Surely this is what really matters – developing the trust that we,
as mentors, are perceived to be striving to assist, even if we do
not always get it quite right?
Historical background
The term ‘mentor’ comes from Greek mythology: Mentor was
the friend to whom Ulysses entrusted the education of his son
Telemachus before embarking on his odyssey to fight the
Trojan Wars.
When Telemachus later set off to search for his father, who by
that time had spent ten years trying to get back home, he was
accompanied by Athena, Goddess of War, who took the form of
Mentor. This illustrates that we are unlikely to stick with the
same mentor for all situations, but that anyone helping us in
this way will take on the mantle of mentor.
Experience of mentors
Most of us have had significant figures in our lives who have
been a long term and positive influence on our development;
91
individuals who had the unusual ability to maintain a genuine

interest in how we developed as a human being, not just as
working engineers. For example, I remember with affection and
gratitude a teacher who, in one memorable school year,
inspired me to a lifetime’s love of the english language. And I
have grateful memories of my first engineering mentor who,
completely unconsciously, picked me up after a devastating
experience at university and inspired me to go on to qualify as a
civil engineer. He saw and nurtured a potential which I no
longer believed I had.
Teachers or lecturers who dispense information under contract,
or lawyers who tender wise counsel for a fee, are merely doing
their job. Mentoring is more than doing a job – it is guidance
that goes beyond obligatory relationships. Teachers can be
mentors (so can lawyers); the difference between a teacher and
a great and memorable teacher is often due to the extra
mentoring component that they offer. Most of us have known
good, competent teachers who had style and enthusiasm. But
the lucky few among us also encountered teachers who lit a
spark in us, who opened up new avenues and extended our
horizons, who touched us deeply and awakened and encour-
aged our previously undreamed of potential.
As a senior engineer, you might take a younger person, fresh from
education, under your wing. You might teach the novice the
ropes of our profession and the workplace, set high standards of
performance, call the trainee to meet the exacting professional
codes of conduct and provide encouragement and comfort
during the initial difficult period of getting their feet on the ground
in the organisation. That is good, sound competent training.
Mentoring goes above and beyond this. It is a relationship in
which an engineer with greater experience, expertise and
wisdom counsels, advises, guides and helps another engineer
to develop, not just professionally, but personally. Mentoring is
often the extra inspirational ingredient which makes the differ-
ence between a good trainee and a real asset to the business
and the profession.
92
Mentoring is individual
Sound mentoring respects the uniqueness of the individual
trainee, striving to enhance their special strengths, whilst at the
same time working to develop their weaknesses to at least a
minimum level of competence (see Figure 2 in Chapter Seven).
Mentors need to be able to explain to a trainee what needs to
be done, leaving them to think through and decide how best to
do it. Some trainees may expect to be told what and how they
should perform. You need to make them realise that they are
now expected to think for themselves and take responsibility for
what they do. Good trainees should not want to be told what
they should do or how they should do it, but an idea or a bit of
information offered by you in a neutral way becomes some-
thing they can identify and use. The art of mentoring is in
listening, allowing the trainee to develop their own thoughts
and ideas, with gentle nudging to get them to realise wider
issues or alternative avenues of thought. A word of caution,
however: before the trainee actually sets about the task, they
should discuss and confirm their thoughts and decisions, other-
wise costly time and resources may be wasted.
A trainee may choose to do something their own way and not do
what you, their mentor, expected. Your instant reaction may well
be surprise, even annoyance, but it is important to consider
whether their method is equally (perhaps even more) valid than
your established one. The desire to ‘do it my way’ is critical to a
trainee’s self belief, because it respects the trainee’s uniqueness.
Doing something the mentor’s way lessens the trainee’s involve-
ment, perhaps by the avoidance of thought or abdication of
responsibility. It may even prove to be an uncomfortable method
for the trainee to follow. Trainees should be encouraged to adapt
the mentor’s help to their own situation and style, thus enabling
them to wrestle with the details, try different approaches and
discover their own strengths and talents. An effective mentor lets
go, being careful not to control or direct the trainee; a helping
relationship is a freeing relationship.
93
The best mentors are themselves in a lifelong process of self-

development. In previous generations, it seems that older
people could develop a certain level of sophistication and
wisdom and almost by instinct, pass it on to those younger and
less experienced. But they perhaps had that most precious of
today’s commodities – time. Each day, our world changes and
the pace of change is accelerating – time is at a premium. Now
mentoring has to be a consciously applied skill requiring
conscious learning if it is to be truly effective.
Mentoring for change

It is no good trying to create engineers who are mirror images
of ourselves; we too, are having to adapt to an ever-changing
world. We need to mentor these incomers so that they are able
and equipped to deal with tomorrow’s problems, whatever
they may be. To do this, it is necessary to focus on fundamental
truths and basic principles, which are the only things which
remain constant in a sea of change. Mentoring is not, however,
a static activity; it requires us to keep abreast of new develop-
ments and their implications. It is interesting to work with the
tutors who provide courses of preparation for the Written
Assignment. They have to continually update their thinking
(and notes), almost every time they present the course (often
within a month of the last one), such is the pace of change!
Perhaps SCEs and DEs need to perform a similar exercise to keep
abreast of developments?
Applying fundamental truths and basic principles to new chal-
lenges requires continual reassessment, discussion and even
argument, until new wisdom is forged. High Court judges are
an example of this, continually creating detailed case law based
on a combination of the fundamental principles of the legal
system and constantly shifting public attitudes. But the legal
processes are far too ponderous and cumbersome for a
fast moving profession such as ours. Civil engineers need to re-
evaluate the situation for almost every new project. The
94
management of change needs dynamic mentoring, which

means that the mentor’s own task of self-development,
learning and mastery is never finished.
The purposes of mentoring

Helping someone to grow as a person is far from straightfor-
ward or simple. Each trainee has their own life, has a variety of
demands from a variety of sources and is changing daily in a
multitude of ways. No matter how little any of us seem to
change, remaining the same is impossible – we grow older,
meet new people, encounter new problems and challenges and
suffer from defects. The changes are frequently imperceptible,
even during daily contact. Hence the need for mentors to be in
frequent personal contact, looking for subtle indicators of atti-
tude – body language, general interest beyond work, changes
in output – because a primary purpose of mentoring is dealing
with small, embryonic problems to keep them from becoming
large ones (as they surely will – problems never go away, no
matter how much we wish it).
Another prime role of a mentor is to provide genuine confidence-
building insights and experiences. This can be done by listening
to, but not evaluating, the trainee’s discouraging self-doubts and
fears, giving the trainee a chance to vent any negative doubts
and feelings, providing (only if asked) ideas for remedies. Only as
a last resort should the mentor offer definitive help, and only if
the trainee needs it because they are unable to think it through
for themselves. An imposed solution, even with the ready accep-
tance of the trainee, can never be as effective as one which they
think they have thought out for themselves.
The art of mentoring

Each trainee has their own general needs and thoughts
which they probably share with others of similar background
95
and situation. Note how many trainees keep in touch with a

small, carefully but subconsciously selected group of alumni.
Each has their own unique agenda and their own values,
perceived limitations and aspirations, which they test against
those of their selected peer group. A good mentor can
quietly, almost surreptitiously, lock into that subconscious and
can then more effectively contribute to the trainee’s advance-
ment.
A mentor needs to master the following arts.
o Coaching skills, helping trainees to help themselves; not
telling them what to do, but making suggestions on how
they might overcome the problem for themselves; devel-
oping their own problem-solving skills.
o Effective confrontation and new methods of resolving
conflict. Mentors must like to philosophise, discuss,
question long-held methods and attitudes and argue inter-
esting points. Disagreement (acting as a devil’s advocate)
will force the trainee to argue their case, find any flaws in
it and perhaps re-consider their point of view. I hope
you, too, will be going through this process as you read this
book.
o Active listening, sometimes just being there to listen, comfort
and offer friendship but, at the same time, trying to inject
more optimistic suggestions which send the trainee off on a
rather more positive train of thought. I, like many engineers,
find this especially hard to do. I have to consciously resist the
strong temptation to jump in with a solution, based on my
far greater experience.
o Developing a personal relationship, well beyond a mere
working relationship, based on trust and mutual respect.
Although today’s young entrants may seem rather brash and
self-confident to the older generations, their external
attitudes do not truly reflect their inner anxiety. For most,
there is fear of the unknown, sometimes fear of failure, even
when such feelings are wilfully concealed. Surprisingly,
96
perhaps, there is even anxiety when success is achieved,

because they fear that they may not measure up to the expecta-
tions of others, and sometimes even their own. Mentors need
to be wary of misinterpreting a superficial aura. Expressions
such as ‘Don’t worry about it!’, ‘It cannot be that bad!’ or the
cheery ‘I’m sure it will turn out all right!’ are singularly
unhelpful. They suggest strongly that you, their mentor, are
not taking the trainee’s problem, or indeed, the trainee, seri-
ously.
How trainees respond to problems almost always reflects either
their personal feelings about themselves at that specific time, or
their general perception of themselves. Research has shown
that two-thirds of the population underestimate themselves
and suffer low self-esteem. This focus on deficiencies makes it
difficult for anyone to generate the energy and motivation to
make significant changes. Thoughts are frequently negative,
focusing on problems, shortcomings and perceived failures.
The British, in particular, still suffer from a culture where we feel
we should deprecate our achievements rather than revel in
them. I still find it embarrassing to watch a footballer, whose job
it is to score goals, celebrate by hurling himself into the arms of
colleagues whenever he does his job. Just imagine the office if
we did that every time we did our job and solved an engi-
neering problem! But surely we could be just a little more
demonstrative? Perhaps then our achievements would be
rather more obvious and the public might better appreciate our
abilities?
Because engineers are solvers of problems, we immediately
forget a problem once it has been overcome and move on to
the next one. As a manager, I found it difficult to remember
that, if there was no problem on a job, it was probably because
someone else had solved it. I had to consciously remind myself
to thank the person involved. Mentors need to do something
similar – praise properly given is a great motivator. But beware
of false praise; young people know whether they deserve it or
not, and will value it accordingly.
97
Adapting to change
Many trainees come into our business ill-equipped in the range
of knowledge, fundamental understanding, attitudes and
learning skills. All these must be changed, and better skills
developed, if they are to succeed. Managing this change takes
place in a constantly shifting personal and organisational envi-
ronment, not just at work, but beyond. Change is affecting
every aspect of the trainees’ lives; some of the biggest decisions
they will ever face confront them in the next few years – choice
of partner, accommodation, when and if to start a family, to
mention a few.
There is bound to be a sense of loss when giving up familiar and
comfortable beliefs, behaviour and relationships. They have
spent many years in the relatively secure environment of educa-
tion, usually with great success, although they may not believe
it. There is always someone who has done better, with whom
they compare themselves. Just occasionally, it is good for it to
be pointed out to them just how they compare with the
average for their age range. The change management consider-
ations discussed in Chapter Two are just as relevant to trainees
as they are to the business.
Why is mentoring important?

Mentoring is the intrinsic key to the Institution of Civil Engi-
neers’ Training Schemes, although nowhere in the documenta-
tion is it given the prominence it deserves. There is information
about the role and responsibilities of Supervising Civil Engineers
and Delegated Engineers, and a brief mention of the desirability
of getting a mentor if you are a trainee who does not have a
formal Training Agreement. But nowhere does the Institution
explain that all these people are in reality, mentors, or what this
difficult process entails. Rather like parenting, we are supposed
to just know instinctively how to do it. Most of us, either as
parents or mentors, manage to muddle through rather well
98
(although most of us would, I suspect, do rather better the

second time around). But such a method of trial and error must
be inherently inefficient. In today’s rapidly altering workplace, a
better managed, more reliable system is needed if organisations
are going to ‘hand down wisdom’ as effectively as possible.
Organisations embroiled in today’s engineering market-place
face difficulties enough coping with technological, economic
and legislative change, so are understandably reluctant to
embark on unproductive use of time (as most staff perceive it),
which offers vague promises of benefits derived from hearsay
from other organisations. There must be evidence of a need
within the organisation and tangible measurement of success. I
believe earlier chapters of this book will enable organisations to
identify that need and later chapters offer ideas and guidance as
to how it can be addressed. The Institution offers a tailor-made
system of monitoring success.
Mentoring can be defined as having a significant, beneficial
effect on the life and style of another person as a result of
personal, one-to-one contact. A mentor offers knowledge,
insight, perspective and wisdom which can be drawn on by
another person. Whether or not a person becomes involved in a
formal mentoring role, as a designated Delegated Engineer for
the organisation through their Training Scheme, or voluntarily
through an approach from a trainee, there are many opportuni-
ties for all of us to practice spontaneous and informal
mentoring, not just during working hours, but in recreational
and social activities as well. Mentoring can be done by anyone,
at any time and in almost any place; it can be a one-off interven-
tion or a lifelong relationship.
99
Chapter Twelve
Mentoring in practice
Context of ICE training

In the Institution’s training system, mentoring has traditionally
been thought of as a formal process, laid down by the Institu-
tion’s Training Scheme(s), whereby an older, more experienced
person helps and guides a younger person in ‘learning the
ropes’ in the organisation and getting to know how to ‘do their
job’. At best, mentoring described those activities of a senior
person in preparing a junior for a particular job or position,
career guidance or perhaps encouraging high standards of
performance. This traditional career orientation of mentoring,
whilst still important, is now far too limiting.
Formal mentoring within the Institution of Civil Engineers’
framework is largely the art of getting the trainee to make the
most of a given situation. There is still, unfortunately, a
distressing view that trainees need a cookbook approach to
their development; they want to know exactly what they are
supposed to do, how to do it and when to do it, and organisa-
tions have pandered to this by developing ‘training by rote’, not
least because it is easier to administer.
From the examples given in the previous chapter and, no
doubt, your own experiences, it is clear that mentoring is a rela-
tionship rather than an activity. Like management, mentoring is
a function, not a title; the label is earned by deeds. Traditionally,
100
mentoring was the relationship between master and appren-

tice, but today the most common use seems to be in the devel-
opment of professional staff, and this is the use assumed in this
book.
Virtually every mentor is going to be recruited from manage-
ment; it is therefore easy for mentors to muddle the two roles.
However, there are significant differences between manage-
ment and mentoring, not least that one tends towards fulfilling
the short-term needs of the organisation, the other the longer
term needs of the trainee; these might be compared by
drawing up a table.
Manager Mentor
Sets objectives Agrees goals
Identifies performance problems Identifies development
opportunities
Achieves tasks today Aims for better job tomorrow
Concerned with standards, Concerned with career
deadlines, budgets aspirations and needs
Monitors for control Monitors for progress
Grabs opportunities Creates opportunities
Obviously, the divisions in practice are not as clear-cut as these,

but there is a distinctly different emphasis. The conflict between
the two broad aims must first be recognised by all involved with
training, and then managed by the organisation. There needs
to be proper recognition of the value of mentoring, by allowing
adequate time, even by such mundane things as it being a func-
tion on time sheets. Too many staff tell me that ‘If only they had
time, they would do so much better’. And yet it is the organisa-
tions which have high workloads, fast throughput and minimal
overheads (flat management) which appear to make the time
for quality mentoring. In other words, good mentoring is an
intrinsic, dynamic contributor to the vibrancy of an organisa-
tion, not an overhead – an inherent attitude, not an imposed
system.
101
The prime objective of mentoring

When introducing mentoring through a Training Scheme,
whether formally through an Agreement or not, the first step
must be to consider the main objective. This objective may
seem, at first thought, rather obvious - to aid the development
of inexperienced engineers. But in reality priorities do differ
considerably between organisations, even between similar
persons in the same organisation, mainly because, I fear, most
have never really thought it through and are merely following
their instincts.
There has always been something intrinsically ‘good’ about
having training schemes, if only to attract graduate recruits, but
frequently this was as far as it went. Yet it is vital to be clear about
the primary purpose, because only then can decisions be taken on:
o whether mentors should be within or beyond the working
group;
o what criteria are needed to select them;
o the level of support they need;
o the type of relationships to be fostered.
With today’s constantly shifting workload, one goal could be to
contribute towards a programme of culture change within the
organisation, where mentoring is helping to change funda-
mental behaviour and attitudes – often referred to as the
company culture. This goal is a virtually continuous require-
ment in the modern civil engineering industry, to cater for
continual movement in the market-place. It is also a necessary
goal for most graduates who, emerging from current academic
courses, are not best prepared for the flexible working and
breadth of application so necessary in the workplace. Hopefully,
this situation will change as the new degree courses, first intro-
duced in the autumn of 1999, become better matched to the
needs of the industry. But the requirement to continuously
review and, where necessary, to change current culture
102
throughout whole organisations is intrinsic if they are to survive,

let alone prosper, in today’s fast moving and volatile markets.
The traditional, perhaps even subconscious, goal has been to
improve trainees’ performance in the workplace. This is a short-
term and limited aim which should, if successful, produce cost-
effective members of staff for the current workload, but which
does not develop staff capable of the flexibility to cope with
challenging, and almost inevitable, changes in workload, or to
fill the management roles needed in the future. This was a
failure intrinsic in the old, paternalistic approach, and we must
beware of producing a new generation of cloned dinosaurs!
Most graduates want to make progress and have at least a rough
idea of where they want to get to, certainly in the medium term. If
that aim is frustrated, by an often unconscious emphasis on using
unsuitable graduates to achieve the requisite output of routine tech-
nical work, then organisations cannot truly be surprised if they find
they have a high staff turnover. Far too many once enthusiastic grad-
uates have had their hopes dashed and their enthusiasm destroyed
by being stuck in inadequately challenging roles for far too long. One
organisation with whom I discussed this thought their graduate turn-
over was ‘reasonable’ at ‘around 50%’; on further detailed investiga-
tion, it was nearer 85%! Not at all cost-effective, I would suggest. The
situation was in fact even worse, since the rumour had crept out into
the universities that they were ‘lousy employers’. This reputation was,
unknown to them, severely restricting their choice of able recruits,
thus producing a vicious circle. They had, in fact, complained to me
about the quality of graduate being turned out by the universities,
not realising that their sample was unfavourably biased! This was an
organisation which desperately needed to reassess its whole recruit-
ment strategy (see Chapter Ten).
I believe that the true goal of mentoring is, in effect, an amalgam
of the preceding ones. Mentoring should be aimed at developing
skills and attitudes to maximise each individual’s career develop-
ment. This long-term aim will offer, almost as a side effect, the
prospect of realising the short-term aim of cost-effective compe-
tence for today’s problems, while developing attitudes and skills
103
which can readily be transferred to those different problems of

tomorrow and hence satisfy the business objectives. There is the
not insignificant bonus of encouraging and satisfying the aspira-
tions of most incoming trainees, thus gaining their commitment
and loyalty. The achievement of this aim is utterly dependent on
the careful matching of recruitment to the anticipated needs of
the business – different people for different roles.
The criteria offered by the Institution’s 2000 series of qualifica-
tion documents are aimed at achieving this long-term goal. It is
most important that potential systems for training, and all the
personnel to be involved in them, recognise and fully under-
stand this distinction. Candidates are still being unsuccessful at
the professional reviews, having been sponsored by senior engi-
neers who, in mistaken good faith, measured their trainee’s
competence against current workplace performance and not
the professional criteria set down by the Institution.
Encouraging self-development
Trainees sign the Institution of Civil Engineers’ Training Agree-
ment to say that they will make best use of the opportunities
provided by the employer. For those not under Agreement, the
onus is also on them to seek out and find the opportunities.
There is thus no doubt that the responsibility for making use of
any development opportunities is the trainees’. Anything which
encourages this attitude of self-reliance must therefore be of
benefit to the process. The aim must be to ensure that new
recruits are proactive, self-confident, enthusiastic and optimistic.
Problems with the system

Most graduates see Core Objectives and Continuing Professional
Development as tests/courses/point-scoring items, because this is
what they have come to expect throughout their education. For
the same reason, they also see Quarterly Reports as coursework,
104
frequently their only previous experience of report writing. To

avoid these difficulties, it is important that the emphasis is placed
on the process of self-development, rather than, however subcon-
sciously, the system. Trainees will be seeking a syllabus, a system,
because that is what they are used to and comfortable with, so
mentors should not unwittingly service this misplaced desire.
We know that Quarterly Reports are not very onerous if they are
done properly. The emphasis must be on the value of the content,
not the quality of the presentation. Even so, if they reveal an inade-
quate standard of written communication, then this needs speedy
remedial action because it will take time to overcome. We also
know that Quarterly Reports are one of the most effective ways of
progressing quickly. Most graduates I speak to do not find them
too much of a chore once they fully understand the purposes. I
have not found a single 'signed-off' graduate who, with self-
conscious hindsight, actually regrets doing them. Indeed, most
express regret that they did not use them more routinely and
effectively. However, new entrants do not have the benefit of this
hindsight, unless their mentors offer it to them.
Mentoring can occasionally be counter-productive, unless it is well
handled and explained. Senior staff mentors who take talented
young people under their wing and protect, teach and promote
these protégés, can all too easily provoke negative feelings of
favouritism and exclusion elsewhere. This was particularly true of
the discrepancy between the extensive resources perceived,
sometimes with good reason, to be put into development towards
Chartered status, as compared to those committed to other
classes of membership – Incorporated and Technician status. Any
such discrepancy, whether perceived or real, is now not justifiable,
since all three classes are vital to overall team performance.
The system in practice

Mentor and trainee must work together to discover and
develop the trainee’s latent abilities, to enable the trainee to
105
gain knowledge and skills as opportunities and needs arise, and

for the mentor to serve as an effective tutor, counsellor, friend
or foil, enabling the trainee to sharpen skills and hone thinking.
In a sense, the mentor is a catalyst, taking little or no part in the
process of development, but without whom the process of self-
development would probably not happen, or possibly be very
inefficient.
Mentors should identify possible learning experiences and
bring them to the attention of their trainees. These will include
many things well beyond the immediate workload – articles,
news items, meetings, visits, manufacturers’ seminars, anything
which expands and enlightens the trainees. This process will
take place semi-formally at each quarterly review, but also
hopefully, whenever the two meet. Then mentors should help
their trainees, again as part of their quarterly reporting, to high-
light the key ideas and information which make such events
memorable and meaningful. By such means will mentors
expand the awareness, insight and perspective of their trainees.
The mechanism which encourages this interplay between
mentor and trainee, the Quarterly Report, is the subject of the
next chapter. These quarterly reviews should not be seen, by
any means, as the sole opportunities for mentoring, but the
examples I give as responses to Quarterly Reports should
suggest and develop an attitude, a technique, which could just
as usefully be applied anywhere at any time.
106
Chapter Thirteen
Quarterly Reports
By strange coincidence this thorny subject comes up in Chapter

Thirteen; for far too many trainees and SCEs, Quarterly Reports
certainly are seen as bad luck! The reason became clear to me a
long time ago; trainees just do not understand why they are so
useful and that is entirely the fault of their mentors. Most
Training Schemes refer, in their introduction, to Quarterly
Reports as a requirement, and the better schemes go on to give
some indication as to what the content should be. But very few
schemes explain why they need to be written or how trainees
should set about them.
If all engineers’ natural reluctance to do any paperwork, unless
they can see a useful purpose, is to be overcome, then it is
imperative that new engineers understand what they are
attempting to do when writing a report. It is my experience that
few do, so they fall back on the only previous experience which
seems relevant – their college or university coursework. This was
marked on knowledge content, personal involvement and
quality of presentation and had to be a finished product. The
regular production of Quarterly Reports therefore becomes a
laborious, time consuming and daunting process, for which the
purpose is unclear. Is it any wonder that trainees default?
To overcome their misperceptions, it must be explained in the
Training Scheme and subsequently verbally by their mentors,
what the purposes are and how the trainee should decide what to
107
Quarterly Reports
write about. In effect, the explanation will be advice and guidance

on workplace learning, the manifestation of which will be Quar-
terly Reports. In my book Effective Training (1994), I suggested that
this guidance should be delayed for about six months after initial
induction, to avoid information overload. This period happens to
coincide with most organisation’s probationary period. I have
seen nothing since which might cause me to change this advice. It
takes time to adjust to the world of work, and only when that has
been accomplished should trainees be encouraged to start the
challenging regime of training themselves.
Purposes of Quarterly Reports

The purposes served by writing Quarterly Reports are:
o routine triggering of the training process;
o compilation of a personal library of experience;
o developing the managerial ability to review;
o developing the managerial ability to report;
but above all,
o learning from experience
This amounts to quite a list! Which is why so much emphasis is
put on these regular reports. Not, as many people appear to
assume, as an essential part of some system of training which
the Institution will check, but as the vital mechanism by which
training towards becoming a professional engineer can be
driven forward. In fact, I would suggest that three-monthly
reports are too far apart, and that learning can take place so fast
that more frequent reports can be even more useful.
Trigger the training process

If the appropriate organisational culture has been created, then
mentoring will be a continuing process, taking place as
108
Quarterly Reports
required rather than as a routine procedure. Mentoring should

be happening not only in the workplace, but everywhere – for
example, on journeys, in sports halls and on pitches, in the local
hostelry. The assigned mentor (SCE or DE) will try to be an inte-
gral and major part of that process. But, with the best will in the
world, the pressures of earning a living, work throughput and
percentage on turnover (let alone a life beyond work!) will
squeeze the time for mentoring, where the payback is not so
immediately obvious. So the regular arrival on the desk of a
report is a useful trigger, reminding the mentor of their profes-
sional obligation to that trainee.
Personal library of experience

The compilation of a memory jogging library of useful
experience is not something which many engineers take
seriously, relying heavily on recall which, too often, proves
inadequate when tested. I did keep such a library of photos
and notes for many years and referred to them many times for
past experiences. The consortium now charged with the
maintenance of the bridges on a section of motorway recently
asked me to enhance the as-built information available to
them, knowing that I was a contractor’s engineer on those
structures. I quickly found that my memory was vague on
detail, but I could not help further because I had thrown the
documents away, 32 years after they were compiled, thinking
they would not be of any further use. So do encourage your
staff to compile and keep notes – for as long as the loft space will
support them!
Ability to review
Most of us have worked at one time or another for a manager
who always seemed to have time, coupled with an unerring,
apparently instinctive, grasp of the project. They were able to
109
Quarterly Reports
stand back from the job, avoided getting bogged down in

detail, concentrated on the crucial key decisions and were bril-
liant at delegation. I believe, having talked to many of them,
that the one thing these skilled managers have in common is
that their early training involved good mentoring.
What we should be encouraging trainees to do is to step off the
day-to-day treadmill, stand back from the routine details and
take an overview. As their skills develop, trainees should begin
to develop the ability to review the job, taking a remote, dispas-
sionate view, thinking constructively and deciding what is
important (at this stage, for their personal development). They
should be developing criteria for making choices and judge-
ments on what to include and what to discard, thinking laterally
on the wider issues and creating a knowledge bank for their
future managerial roles, not a detailed compendium of current
work. Their reports should create an overall impression, with
just sufficient detail to trigger recall.
The ability to review, identifying the key issues without getting
engrossed in detail, is vital in the future management roles for
which these young engineers are being prepared.
Ability to report
The ability to report, clearly and cogently, ‘just enough’, is a real
art, but it can be developed. When working in local government,
I was told by a wise Councillor that if I could not get my case
across in less than one page of A4 paper, I had lost the argument
– because he and his colleagues were very unlikely to read any
more! A difficult discipline, but one which stood me in good
stead for many years subsequently. We all have to report – by
phone, by fax, by letter, by email – and the response is usually
required instantly. The receiving person wants clarity and
brevity, so the art is to produce the report quickly, decisively,
incisively and precisely. These are all qualities which can be
developed by insisting on regular reports, written fast to tight
deadlines.
110
Quarterly Reports
Learning from experience

Most new trainees believe that experience can only be derived
from doing. This is a very simplistic approach and would mean
that few would gain sufficient experience to be capable of
taking senior management roles until they were at least middle
aged. My Grannie used to tell me ‘Learn from other people’s
mistakes. You won’t live long enough to make them all your-
self!’. Experience will come, not merely from the job they are
doing, but predominantly from what is going on around their
job – what others are doing.
Most trainees new to the concept will write at length about
what they have been doing. Such reports are inadequate and
unacceptable. What trainees must do is constantly ask them-
selves questions about and around their involvement. These
might usefully include such questions as:
o What were the advantages/disadvantages of doing it like
this?
o Would I have done it differently?
o Was the idea a good one?
o What are the reasons behind that decision?
o Was that good value for money?
o What are the most important things I have learnt from this?
o Why am I a better engineer after this experience?
This sort of enquiring question might well require trainees to
ask questions of those who made the decisions. This is just
another means of gaining experience. It requires a certain
amount of tact, but most engineers will respond favourably.
The trainees should be encouraged to ask and write the answers
as part of their report.
As a rather simple example: it could be that, for some reason,
the trainee has spent a large part of the last three months
helping in the print room. There would be a one sentence
111
Quarterly Reports
introduction to their report: ‘I spent a significant part of this

quarter operating a photocopier’. Then should follow a discus-
sion as to why this proved necessary, why there was such a last
minute rush to prepare the documentation, and whether the
work could better have been outsourced (including possible
costs) or whether someone from an agency could have been
brought in for that specific task. By questioning what is going
on, the trainees can then find out why their colleagues are
doing what they are and why key decisions have been taken.
Remember that it will not be long before the trainee is taking
similar decisions, and gaining experience before the responsi-
bility is shouldered should mean fewer mistakes!
It is vital that trainees understand the difference between their
‘job’ and the ‘opportunities for training’ which their employer,
certainly through a Training Agreement, is obliged to offer.
Those opportunities can be provided, in principle, merely by
employing the trainee, allowing them access to the experience
around them. However, initially they will need help to realise
what experience is, to recognise the opportunities and then to
take advantage of those opportunities.
For all their reports, I recommend a brief summary page of their
precise involvement during the period on the front. This should
indicate their actual responsibilities, not merely state what they
were doing. ‘Setting out’ for example, is a task, not the respon-
sibility, which is perhaps for positional and dimensional accu-
racy.
Training is structured experience, continuously monitored.
Trainees must reflect on what happened and why, asking them-
selves:
o What could have happened?
o What should have happened?
o What would I have done?
The answers will form useful hindsight. If they then think later-
ally on what else those circumstances could affect, they will
112
Quarterly Reports
begin to develop ideas on what to do in similar situations in

the future, thus gaining foresight and the wisdom to ‘ask
the right questions’. As they progress, trainees will get opportu-
nities to put their ideas into practice. Mentors must allow
them the scope and give them the confidence to do this (see
Chapter Twelve). They will then gain further, more personal
experience.
Backlog of reports
Trainees will, almost inevitably, fall behind on the scheduled
production of reports every three months. With a job to do, a
life to live and a hugely steep learning curve to climb, they may
mistakenly believe that reports are of less importance, some-
thing which leaves a gap which they think can readily be recti-
fied by crisis measures later. How wrong they are! Contrary to
belief but substantiated by experience, reports actually become
exponentially more difficult to write the longer they are left. The
only time a trainee recognises experience is the first time it
occurs. Subsequently it becomes ‘obvious’ because they now
know about it. So it is preferable that they record their experi-
ence as it happens.
Whenever they do not record experience as it happens, then
the one thing which I know, from long experience, is that they
are very unlikely ever to be able to catch up. Their valuable
experience has to be captured retrospectively in a more conve-
nient and productive manner. This is now unlikely to be time-
based, since experience rarely divides itself up into such conve-
nient pieces. The retrospective reports are more likely to be
project or subject-based, even Core Objective-based. I recom-
mend that where this approach is necessary, the trainee should
write to their SCE, setting out their proposals for getting up to
date and a time-scale for achievement, and include this letter
(possibly countersigned as agreed by their SCE/DE) in their
Training Record. This shows that they took control and insti-
gated remedial action. Everyone knows that things go wrong.
113
Quarterly Reports
What was done by the trainee to rectify the situation is the

important factor in demonstrating a professional attitude.
Common misunderstandings
Quarterly Reports are not
o part of the review process (compare coursework during
education)
o a diary
o a list of jobs done
o a quarterly CV.
Trainees’ reports, whether quarterly or not, are a contempora-
neous, brief and succinct record of experiences and the wisdom
which derived from them, providing the potential for foresight
to be applied in the future.
114
Chapter Fourteen
Mentor response to Quarterly

Reports
Comments on Quarterly Reports

The success of mentoring in the Institution of Civil Engineers’
training system is hugely dependent on the response to Quar-
terly Reports and the general attitudes and trust which the
process should engender. Once again, it is not only the process
of writing comments, but predominantly the dialogue which
takes place that is vital. I see far too many reports where the
mentor has merely ‘gone through the motions’; the worst
possible example is a tick and dated signature on the last page
of the report. This is mere compliance with a perceived system.
Each report submitted should trigger a discussion shortly after
delivery. Immediacy is essential, since trainees are on a very
steep learning curve and things are soon forgotten in the surge
onwards. Quarterly Reports which sit for weeks in someone’s
pending tray, and are then dealt with rather cursorily, are a
huge disincentive to a trainee, suggesting strongly that the
SCE/DE does not value them. This discussion should definitely
not be the mentor telling the trainee their understanding and
knowledge, but must rather be probing questioning, trying to
get the trainee to work things out for themselves. If the outline
questions are written on the report, and the trainee subse-
quently responds in appendices, then maximum value, and a
115
Mentor response to Quarterly Reports
training record, is assured. Time is always pressing, but doing it

this way is an efficient use of time and requires only a short
meeting subsequently.
The trainee should never rewrite a report, however much they
would sometimes like to. The only exception I could possibly
think of might be the naive revelation of a commercial or
contractual confidence. The quality of content takes enormous
precedence over the quality of presentation (unlike coursework).
These reports are merely a simple mechanism through which to
record and develop experience and personal development.
Questions, not answers

I have heard reviewers saying that they want to find out if their
candidates can ask the right questions, rather than whether
they know all the answers. I think this is absolutely correct,
because such an attitude demonstrates fundamental under-
standing. Answers are relatively easy to find, in this age of
readily available and easily accessible knowledge, but the
answer can only be searched for if the correct, fundamental
questions have been asked in the first place. Too often, the
questions are asked too late, usually as a result of unanticipated
problems which have arisen.
The quotation from T. S. Eliot in the preliminary matter of this
book was chosen with this challenge in mind. We suffer a cease-
less bombardment of information on affairs around the world,
much of it utterly irrelevant to us, and about which we can do
nothing. The amount of knowledge most of it contains is trivial.
Separating the relevant from the irrelevant is like panning for
gold, where the great majority of material has to be discarded.
Young people need help in searching for the nuggets of
wisdom, which are not always as glitteringly obvious as they
might expect. Neither must they become distracted by less rele-
vant details, a temptation which is particularly overwhelming
when surfing the Internet.
116
Even where we think we know the detail of an answer, it is

prudent to check that our memory is correct by going back to a
source. For 30 years I operated under various ICE Forms of
Contract, but always kept a heavily annotated copy handy in
my drawer, rather than attempt to remember every nuance of
the clauses. All I needed to remember was what, in essence, it
contained and approximately where it could be found.
We all must ask, as part of our everyday work:
o What questions need answers?
o What knowledge do I need to answer the questions?
o Where can I find that knowledge?
o How can I use it to provide answers?
So, fundamentally, the questions you will be asking your
trainees should be designed to ensure that trainees:
(a) really do understand what they are doing;
(b) broaden their appreciation of the context in which they are
working,
so that they too, start to develop the skill of asking the right
fundamental questions.
The words which should appear regularly in the margins of
Quarterly Reports include, most frequently ‘Why?’, followed by
‘How?’ and ‘What else?’.
To start with, most trainees will require further guidance on how
to reply, but most will quickly realise what is expected. As
trainees become familiar with the techniques of questioning,
then the mentor can help them to develop their own wisdom.
Questions such as ‘What if?’ force them to think ahead and later-
ally to tomorrow’s possible problems. The rate at which this can
be introduced is dependent on the development of the indi-
vidual and cannot be forced. Do have high expectations, but
always watch for signs of overload and offer support. Most senior
engineers have expectations which are too low; quality young
117
engineers enjoy a challenge, provided that they know that help

can be sought and is readily available if they start to flounder.
Examples of mentoring dialogue

The technique can perhaps best be exemplified by quoting the
kind of comments which ought to be made, thus explaining the
attitude which must become endemic to successful mentoring.
The sort of questions might include those detailed below.
‘You have said what was done, but there is no explanation of
why that way was chosen.’
o What were the considerations/criteria?
o What were the alternatives?
o Why were they rejected?
o what part did you have in the decisions? (There may not
have been any direct involvement, but a trainee must be
curious about why they have been told to do something.)
‘You have said very little about xxx, but it does seem to be
central to this issue.’
o This will prompt the trainee to think about the context of
their involvement.
o By broadening their outlook trainees will develop a wider
understanding of the decision-making process.
‘This political decision obviously caused a lot of engineering
problems for you.’
o Why do you think this political decision was taken?
o Surely they must have known the consequences?
o Whose duty was it to tell them?
Again, you are trying to get the trainee to think about the wider
issues, putting the immediate problem into a broader context.
118
Most young engineers just do what they are told and their
reports will be a litany of ‘what I have been doing’. Mentoring
must encourage them to ponder the wider issues and discover
why they are following a given path and most importantly, that
it is not always possible to implement the best engineering solu-
tions.
‘Do you know why this software is used in this application? Can
you think of an application where it would perhaps not be
appropriate?’
It is vital that trainees do not just use the available technology
by rote, which is, sadly, too often the reality. It is vital that they
understand the need to verify that its use is suitable. They must
always ask five key questions:
o What assumptions are inherent in the program?
– Are those assumptions valid for my problem?
o How do I make my problem fit the program?
– What reasonable assumptions/simplifications must I
make?
o What are the critical cases for the problem?
– How can I be sure they are the worst combinations?
o What sensible criteria and factors should be allowed?
And, most important of all:
o How can I be certain that the answers I am getting are real-
istic?
While these questions are most obviously applicable to tech-
nical analysis software, they have been carefully written to apply
to software for many other applications. But, for designers, it is
a fact that a significant number of candidates at Review fail to
demonstrate that they understand the technical principles
inherent in their work. It appears that there is a proportion of
engineers who can use the software adequately, but do not fully
understand what they are doing, failing to check that the
computer output is realistic. This is a dangerous situation and
119
will lead to major, inevitably costly, mistakes. So this type of

question is vital to the successful development of a civil engi-
neer.
‘This does seem to be a rather laborious and costly process.
Could it have been done a different way?’
o This will make the trainee think about the economics of what
is being done.
o This questioning is seeking the reasoning behind the chosen
process.
Note that none of the above questions is critical of the trainee.
The art is to build upon what the trainee has written through
discussion, so that they gain understanding, knowledge and
hence confidence. Outright criticism will not achieve this.
The breadth and penetration of such questions will obviously
increase with the progress of each individual trainee. Not all
progress at the same speed, none progress at a uniform speed,
and all start from different bases anyway. Initially, most will need
considerable help and support because, for many, this will be the
first time they have ever been asked to write critically. However,
the aim should be to reduce this support as quickly as possible.
The structure of Quarterly Reports

Trainees will be unclear on a number of fundamental issues, and
may well use these as an excuse for failing to start writing. They
therefore need guidance on:
(a) the choice of material;
(b) planning the content;
(c) the manner in which it is presented;
(d) the structure of the Report;
(e) the use of language.
120
The content
In the early days, it is likely that trainees will try to include every-
thing they have been involved in – perhaps rightly, because it is
all a new experience. That is why early reports are generally
long and rambling, taking weeks to produce!
However, it is vital for them to rapidly develop criteria to distin-
guish the important from the less important, if their reports are
to become concise and effective, and be written in a reasonable
time. The art of writing ‘just enough’, and not needing to spend
time refining it, is a valuable skill in the business!
Obvious criteria to assist with making the choice are the
descriptions, issued by the Institution, of what they are trying to
become, particularly the Core (and any Specific) Objectives,
which should enable them to identify (with the mentor’s assis-
tance) that experience from which they should be getting best
advantage. This is why it is recommended that trainees identify
progress towards achievement of the Core Objectives in each
report. As they progress, such a routine process should also
enable them to identify and seek out the additional experience
they need to fill any gaps becoming apparent in their develop-
ment.
Planning
Few entrants appear to be comfortable with deciding how to
arrange their reports in a logical sequence. Most rely on chro-
nology rather than material. They should first plan what they
are going to include, and then the order in which they will cover
the content, by means of lists, mind maps, spider diagrams or
whatever method they find most appropriate for them. In my
opinion, this planning should be documented as an integral
part of their report, because the mentor is then able to give
further advice and guidance. Planning of any report, taking due
account of the audience which will read it, is crucial to its
successful reception, and trainees will generally need guidance
to develop the skills necessary.
121
In the Written Assignment at the Professional Review, the plan is

integral in the ICE answer book. I have noticed that many
Reviewers, when handed an envelope containing a set of
answers for their candidates, cannot resist opening it and
having a brief look. Invariably they look first for those which
they anticipate will be good. Almost as invariably, they turn to
the planning flap at the back: ‘How did the candidate set about
answering the question?’ seems to be their first thought. Prac-
tice and guidance in this aspect throughout their initial profes-
sional development can only help to improve this important
skill.
The format
There are no ICE rules for the format; there may be a house
style, there may be preferences expressed by an SCE. In my
view, too many rules, in the form of cover sheets and detailed
formats, just form another barrier to the real purposes and
spontaneous writing of reports. Good guidance on how to
decide on content is a prerequisite of good performance,
because few trainees will have any innate understanding of how
to do it. What is important is that the trainee develops the skill,
vital in today’s business, of writing effective reports fast.
One detail which I would recommend is to get all trainees to
leave a broad margin on the right-hand side of each page. This
will encourage written comment because, since most SCEs and
DEs are right handed, they can then annotate while continuing
to read. Reaching over to a left margin means momentarily
stopping reading because the reader’s arm gets in the way.
It is a sad fact that the use of the English language is not given
sufficient attention during the education process. Most train-
ees’ vocabulary is extremely restricted, and any knowledge of
grammar and syntax has been picked up by default.
Most will need encouragement to expand their vocabulary and
understand word usage. Some may need formal teaching, and
the sooner this need is identified and addressed the better; the
122
rectification process takes considerable time, resources and

effort.
The comments written on the report should reflect the gist of
the verbal discussion – they may indeed be the prerequisite
agenda for the discussion. This will be the only record for the
trainee if they need to refresh their memory in the future, as well
as being good evidence of training for the Reviewers if any
reports are submitted to them. The comments give an indica-
tion of the level of dialogue between the mentor(s) and the
trainee and (either in subsequent reports or in addenda to the
current one) enable the trainee to demonstrate how they
valued the comments and benefited from them.
Should reports be handwritten?

Handwritten reports, while not a requirement, do encourage a
‘right first time’ approach (because of the labour of rewriting).
Using a word processor can tacitly encourage sloppy thinking
(because the trainees know that the text can easily be altered
and amended). I once worked with someone who had the
uncanny ability of writing Environmental Impact Assessments
which were almost perfect, even if we had spent months deter-
mining the content. He told me that he mastered the skill of
‘doing it once, and well’ at his boarding school where, from the
age of seven, he had to start his homework at 7 p.m. and hand
it in at 9 p.m. every night. Nearly ‘right first time’, combined
with the ease of change offered by computer, must be
extremely efficient and is what should be strived for.
The other benefit of handwritten reports is that they encourage
the trainees to write quickly and neatly, on a regular basis,. Few
will do this otherwise, because it is not a regular feature in their
day-to-day work. Yet it is a skill they will need for the Written
Assignment, until the Institution can find an equitable (and
economical) way of providing up to 60 computers at the
Review centres. As an invigilator, I see many candidates strug-
gling with aching wrists within half an hour of commencement,
123
a distraction which must affect the candidate’s thought

processes. They need the physical practice to gain sufficient
stamina.
Summary
Training is not a process or system; it is not something which is
done to people. The fundamental aim is to create an atmo-
sphere, an environment in which the trainee does not feel
inhibited in asking questions; where they realise that the best
experience can be gained from other people’s hindsight and
wisdom, and does not necessitate their direct involvement. This
can be a special difficulty in some non-Western societies, but it
must be overcome everywhere if mentoring is going to work
well. Creating this culture does require senior engineers to
accept two things:
(a) that they cannot retain a monopoly on knowledge as a
means of exerting authority;
(b) that, occasionally, their trainees will make mistakes and they
must be prepared to support them – at least the first time.
Most young entrants feel uneasy in developing personal relation-
ships with people of their parents’ age (or older!) and need posi-
tive encouragement to trust them as fellow engineers beyond
the standard working relationship of manager to staff member.
Exploiting colleagues by seeking their knowledge and culti-
vating friendships because of what they can do for them seems,
to many trainees, somehow distasteful and manipulative. We
must make them understand that it is a necessity if senior engi-
neers are to transmit wisdom efficiently and make the trainees
effective members of the team. The reason why they must make
the effort is because those of us with experience think that
much of what we do is ‘obvious’ and ‘straightforward’ – like
swimming or cycling, it is easy when you know how, very diffi-
cult when you don’t.
124
Worked examples of Quarterly Report

responses
There follow some real extracts from Quarterly Reports, although
the names have been altered to protect the guilty. I suggest you
try out your mentoring role on them. I have not given my
thoughts on the content here, but in the Appendix, at the end of
the book, so that you can gather your own ideas before being
prompted. You may not agree with what I have suggested. I
certainly do not believe that I have produced a definitive response
or have a monopoly on how mentoring should be carried out. But
what I hope to do is to prompt the kind of questioning which, I
know from my own personal experience and from participating in
mentoring in many organisations, does work.
The extracts are roughly in the order in which you may meet the
problems, with a first Quarterly Report to begin with, ending in
reports from a mature trainee with some good experience; the
stage which the trainee has reached in their experience is
important, because it will affect the sort of questions which you
would ask.
Mentoring is an inexact science, and we will all have a different
perspective. But what I hope will become apparent, as you read
these extracts, is that
Commenting on a report does not take long.
I am of the opinion that a report takes less than 20 minutes to
read and comment on, so I am unsympathetic to those who say
that they do not have the time. Quick response will generate
enthusiasm, not just for training but for work throughput, so
good mentoring does actually increase productivity.
The mentor does not need to have an in-depth knowledge of the
subject matter in order to be able to ask appropriate questions.
It is a common fallacy that the Delegated Engineer must be
someone in the same work environment. In fact, not only is it
not necessary, it can actually be a disadvantage, because the
125
reader can ‘know too much’ about a given situation and read
between the lines interposing what they understand, rather
than what the inexperienced writer understands. Where a ques-
tion has been asked, it may well be that the trainee has to seek
the answer by discussing it with their (more knowledgeable)
line manager.
The questions you are asking are the same as those which may
eventually be asked by the Reviewers.
What you will in fact be demonstrating is the ability to ‘ask the
right questions’ based on a fundamental understanding of
engineering principles, the very ability which you are trying to
inculcate into your trainees, and which Reviewers will be
seeking throughout the review process.
(1) As a graduate engineer, I benefited from an Institution of Civil
Engineers’ Training Agreement with J. Bloggs, BEng CEng FICE
MIHT, the Head of the County Engineering Division, as my
Supervising Civil Engineer. I decided to accept this new Agree-
ment because of its structured programme which would allow
me to gain experience within the various sections and depart-
ments of the County Engineer’s Department.
(2) On commencing employment with Midshire County Council
Highways Department, Design Services (Roads) Division, I was
assigned to the Major Improvements Section and gained much
experience working on several highway improvement schemes
including:
(a) designing accommodation works for the Broadwash By-
Pass and compiling the accommodation works Bill of
Quantities using the MICRORATE software;
(b) preparing vertical alignments for various by-pass
schemes;
(c) production of working drawings, schedules and contract
documents for a section of the Feetwet Ferry Southern
Primary Route Improvement Scheme. The working draw-
ings were drafted on the Computer-Aided Design system;
126
(d) designing preliminary horizontal and vertical alignments

and junction layouts, using Department of Transport
design standards and producing approximate cost esti-
mates for a proposed by-pass to Middle Town Centre;
(e) preparing cost comparisons for two alternative junction
improvement options.
For the majority of these schemes, once I had been briefed by
the Project Engineer, I was responsible for obtaining relevant
data from various sources, performing design and compiling
drawings and documents.
After about a year, the trainee will be beginning to separate out
the important parts of their experience, and will be starting to
include matters beyond their immediate involvement.
(3) I was temporarily seconded to this site as an ARE. The works at
this site were part of several ‘Advance Works’ contracts for
major improvement works to a busy road junction over and
adjacent to the London Underground. These particular works
consisted of the construction of a pedestrian/cycleway ramp
and associated retaining wall from an existing bridge over the
underground lines to an anchored sheet pile wall at the
entrance to a future subway under a road adjacent to the
works.
My job was to ensure that the works were constructed in the
correct positions and that the workmanship met the standards
set out in the Specification. This was not easy in the confined
space of the works and I gained a lot of experience, working
with the contractor to ensure that the setting-out was correct.
(4) I have been working within the profession for almost a year
now. During this time I have learnt numerous skills and gained
valuable experience which is helping me bridge the gap from a
good educational base to eventually becoming a professionally
qualified member of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
One of the most important lessons I have learned is the level of
competence and understanding of principals that is required to
127
become a Chartered Engineer. I, like most graduates, left

university believing I had a firm educational background and
just needed a couple of years’ experience within the industry
before becoming Chartered. Believe me, it is not at all like that.
On starting work, I quickly realised that I was only just begin-
ning to learn and was on a very rapid learning curve. More
importantly, I believe it is important to understand, from an
early date, that whatever position you hold within the profes-
sion, you should never stop learning and developing.
Towards the end of formal training, the trainee should be
discussing fundamental matters of principle and seeing ‘the
bigger picture’.
(5) Easter weekend saw the mainline derailment of a freight train
at Staffield. I produced the derailment plan showing the posi-
tions of the train and significant structures immediately
following the incident. I was also involved with the repairs to
the track and the weekend of work reinstating the track that
followed also proved to be another very good learning experi-
ence for me.
(6) The designer is not always the author of the contract. I was
involved in the maintenance of the sewerage system in
Englewick Green, my employer being the local Council which
carries out this work under a management contract with the
Regional Water Company. The water company required me to
use their modified ‘Minor Works Contract’ for the work, and I
found it to be very vague in places. Other Local Authorities also
use it but each placed its own interpretation on the ambigu-
ities, even when using the same contractor as I was. This
clearly led to disputes, even when there was agreement about
the work itself.
128
Chapter Fifteen
Monitoring progress
Progress towards the target

Contrary to many people’s belief, the aim of training is not to
‘have the Objectives signed off’ or ‘get a Completion Certifi-
cate’. The target is to develop the attributes, attitudes and
understanding of a professional engineer as quickly as
possible. To help in this endeavour, the Institution has offered
some Core Objectives, which in many cases will be supple-
mented by Specific Objectives written by the training organisa-
tion. Within these, some information will have been given
about the type and range of documentation and experience
which is likely to aid development in that particular work envi-
ronment.
If trainees are to gain the maximum benefit from the training
process, then it is vital that the target remains clearly in sight for
both trainee and mentor, and is not obscured by too much
emphasis on achievement of objectives. This will avoid the
temptation to see the objectives as a series of mini-targets
which, once ‘signed-off’, can then be ignored in favour of
concentrating on the outstanding ones. Concentrating on the
target will also help the mentors in trying to assess what level of
achievement can reasonably be recorded against each objec-
tive. It must be remembered that the ICE Objectives are for
Initial Professional Development, encompassing both struc-
tured training and responsible experience, and are therefore
129
Monitoring progress
designed as a framework to assist trainees’ progress towards

becoming professional engineers.
Objectives are a means to an end, not an end in themselves,
and progression should be continually measured against the
target end result. Your trainees will find this concept hard to
grasp and, if it is not properly explained to them, will become
frustrated when they think they have ‘done something which
satisfies the Objective’, but you know that they have still not
developed the understanding expected of a professional engi-
neer, and so refuse to endorse their opinion. Many people are
able to do things long before they properly understand what
they are doing, and civil engineers are no exception. Remember
that a significant cause of failure at the Professional Review is an
inability to demonstrate an ‘understanding’.
Progress against objectives

Looked at sensibly and realistically, many trainees will have
started to gain relevant experience long before they come into
your workplace. When organisations recruit, they all take cogni-
sance of a prospect’s ‘other interests’; virtually all job applica-
tion forms have a section for them. Such background
information will have a considerable bearing on whether or not
the person is offered employment. Sometimes knowingly, more
often intuitively, the recruiter is looking for early signs of the
potential to become a professional engineer. So they are
subconsciously searching for indications that the jobseeker has
already started to develop the attitudes and attributes required
by the profession, and these can be recorded against the objec-
tives of a training scheme.
I hope that increasingly, as the system becomes better under-
stood, particularly in academia, jobseekers will bring with them
the Core Objectives with some early indication of how they
have started to progress them. For example, experience from
team games, voluntary work, adventure holidays, travel in the
130
Monitoring progress
‘gap year’, even working in a fast-food chain, can all be

measured, to an extent, against the Objectives. It is such
embryonic signs that make the difference between a job offer
and a rejection, so why not record them in the system widely
used at work? I am well aware that there will still be a consider-
able way to go, and that it is not sensible to place too much
value upon them, but I see an advantage in the principle – it
gets trainees into a frame of mind, an attitude towards the
system of training, a realisation that Objectives are only a
convenient ladder towards a goal.
Some mentors may consider that I have taken the concept of
training to objectives slightly too far in going so far beyond
engineering, but they cannot deny that the real start of achieve-
ment should take place at university, particularly in any project
work. Most students, for example, begin to gain experience in
the use of some Standards and Codes of Practice (E3 and M2),
and in the transfer of information by reports, theses (P4 and E5)
and presentations (P4). As part of their professional develop-
ment module, they will cover some of the ground outlined in P1
(in fact some universities use the range statement to provide the
skeleton for their module). In larger projects, students learn
early the difficulties of creating a team from a collection of
disparate individuals and getting an effective contribution from
each team member (P4, P7 and M4).
It is my considered view that no Objective will be attained
beyond level K in the academic stage, simply because all experi-
ence at that time lacks any true engineering responsibility – the
only outcomes of the work are personal, sometimes collective,
satisfaction, and marks for a degree. Success or failure will not
affect the environment and the lives of the general public, as
every ‘real’ project must inevitably do.
There is a widespread view, particularly prevalent amongst
engineers, that in order to find out about something, you have
to have direct experience of it. This is not the case, nor did the
Institution mean it to be when the objectives were drafted. I
believe that the levels of achievement (A, K, E, B) can be divided
131
Monitoring progress
into two categories; those which need an actual involvement (E

and B) and those which may be ‘found out about’ (A and K).
‘Finding out’ does not necessarily require any involvement,
rather being inquisitive, asking questions, reading, observing
and then convincing your mentor through your reports and
dialogue that you understand. My analogy is a young child
learning to cross the road. At first they are told not to do it, with
strong explanations until they fully understand the dangers and
difficulties (A), then they do it by holding someone else’s hand,
i.e. with no personal direct responsibility (K), before eventually
doing it themselves but under observation (E) until their mentor
is satisfied that they can cope reasonably on their own with
every eventuality (B). One of the most important aspects of the
B category is the ability to ‘know when you don’t know’, and
seek help.
Perhaps the most extreme example (of which I am personally
aware) of the achievement of an ICE objective involved a
university research assistant who had absolutely no involve-
ment in the financial arrangements for the research work and,
hence, could not apparently satisfy the Core Objective M1.
However, I found out that he was Treasurer of his local church,
whose accounts had to be audited every year. This adequately
demonstrated that he knew (K – the requirement) about the
sources and management of funds, and could reasonably be
expected to be capable of administering similar processes in a
civil engineering context if required. He submitted those
audited accounts, with a brief commentary, as supporting
documents for his successful Experience Appraisal submission
(currently known as a Career Appraisal).
Brief details under each Objective

There is space, under each Objective in the Institution’s format,
for ‘brief details of the experience ... gained and to demonstrate
ability to apply knowledge, understanding and skills in
performing to the standard required’. It also states that this
132
Monitoring progress
‘does not obviate the need ... to complete Quarterly Reports ...’.
So what should be written in this space?
First, the record should show a progressive achievement, from
‘Appreciation’, which could be well before the start of any
Training Agreement, through to the standard actually
achieved, which may well be beyond the minimum required.
The commentary needs to identify more than just the workload
which enabled the objective to be addressed. It must indicate
the benefit gained in terms of understanding and skills. Remem-
bering that submission of the Quarterly Reports is no longer a
requirement of the Review, this commentary will eventually be
an opportunity to amplify the necessarily sparse outline in the
Experience Report.
So I see this space as a ‘halfway house’ between the detail of the
Quarterly Report and the outline to be written in the Experience
Report, which will offer more information to the Reviewers as to
how progressive achievement of each Objective contributed
towards the trainee becoming a professional engineer. Cross-
referencing should be simple to follow, which is why the Institu-
tion insists that any organisational Training Scheme retains the
numbering of the ICE Core Objectives. The simplest method is
to put the number of each Objective in the right-hand margin
of the Experience Report, or in brackets in the text, each time it
occurs in the chronological discourse. It may no longer be an
ICE ‘rule’, but it does seem to be a sensible and logical thing to
do anyway.
Objective review of target

Where a combined scheme is in use, covering two or more
classes of membership, then progressive monitoring of the
Objectives will highlight the bias of each individual, irrespective
of their initial academic qualifications. It may be that the class of
membership does not correlate with that presumed from the
academic achievement, e.g. BEng/BSc suggests the specialist
133
Monitoring progress
skills of IEng, but development may lead quickly to the greater

breadth of CEng characteristics. Alternatively, some MEng
graduates may feel more comfortable tackling the Incorporated
Member Review first.
As soon as this divergence becomes apparent, it is necessary to
check with the Institution whether the academic base is satisfac-
tory and, if not, what needs to be done in terms of further
academic learning or compensating work experience, to satisfy
the requirements. The earlier the trend can be identified, the
more time there will be to put things right, without delaying the
eventual outcome.
134
Chapter Sixteen
ICE Professional Review
Roles of sponsors
Eligibility to sponsor a candidate
The requirement of the Royal Charter is for four (two for Techni-
cian Member) persons of at least the equivalent class of member-
ship of the Institution of Civil Engineers to act as sponsors. This
requirement cannot be overridden, since it is imposed by the
Queen’s Privy Council. The 2000 series of documents further
stipulated that they must be ‘of at least three years’ standing’.
In the worldwide business of today, this need for four Members
may appear to be obstructive, but there are ways in which it can
be accommodated. The most extreme example, of which I am
aware, involved an African, working for a Norwegian
contractor. She knew no members of the Institution of Civil
Engineers (apart from the RLO). The solution was to meet
several Association Committee members over a meal, during
which they were able to satisfy themselves that she was a
professional engineer and ‘a fit and proper person’. Four more
of her colleagues, professionally qualified with other recognised
international bodies, vouched for her technical and professional
competence and, importantly, satisfied themselves that she
complied with the Institution’s criteria, which the RLO sent to
each of them. She therefore ended up with eight sponsors in
total.
135
The important thing, whenever the ‘rules’ have to be adjusted,

is to tell the Institution and the Reviewers what has been done
and why. For example, it is quite frequently the line manager
engineer who knows the candidate’s ability best, but who may
not be a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers. So the
candidate has five sponsors, four of whom comply with the
requirements, and one who can best give definitive statements
about their competences and potential in the workplace. If any
action taken is explained in the submission in a letter to the
Reviews Manager, and is seen to be sensible and just, then the
Institution is likely to take a pragmatic view.
The choice of sponsors by the candidate can reveal much to the
Reviewers. If all four sponsors are from the same office, does this
assist the candidate’s case as much as if the sponsors include,
say, the client and/or other contractors with whom the candi-
date has worked? The former situation could merely be ‘spon-
sorship by rote’, unless of course, the sponsors make it clear in
their forms that this certainly was not the case.
Overview
Many of the people advising and sponsoring candidates for the
Reviews do not fully understand the review process and what it
is designed to achieve. There is still a culture of ‘This is how I got
my civils’, followed by a list of what material was submitted. The
guidance on material may perhaps be adequate (although this
is unlikely), but it is the manner in which the material is used
which is vitally important.
There is, in general, far too much emphasis on a stereotypical
what to submit and far too little on the purpose. Myths still
abound, for example that candidates
o need a design;
o should include ‘site’ and ‘design’ experience;
o must submit analytical calculations, preferably structural;
136
o must have ‘a complete project’;

o even that they need to have completed a bill of quantities.
If the target is clear, then the material needed will become
apparent, and may not (and certainly need not) include any of
the above.
The Professional Review is a review of what the candidate has
become, not of what they have done. The Reviewers will focus
on the finished product, not the means by which it was
achieved. Their fundamental question will be:
‘Has the candidate become a professional engineer of the
class being sought?’
The candidate does not have to be good in every area. They
must have at least an adequate ability in all the criteria, with a
strong ability in some. In other words, the average of their abili-
ties will be somewhere well above the minimum standards, but
the strengths will vary for each individual (see the figures in
Chapter Seven). You should be certain that every trainee has
assessed themselves honestly against all available criteria:
o the 2000 series documents;
o Council’s description of the relevant member class;
o any other recent publications such as ‘Developing today’s
professionals for tomorrow’s challenges’.
This will:
(a) identify any weaknesses, enabling them to be rectified to a
point where they are at least acceptable, before submission;
(b) minimise the potential for failure;
(c) give the candidate the self-belief so essential for success.
It will also direct the candidate towards the material which will
form the basis of the submission documents, since these
descriptions are of the person the Reviewers will be expecting to
find in their review of the candidate. Each candidate must use
137
material which is part of their mainstream workload; for

example, it is unwise of a contractor’s agent to submit an
analytical design, since they are unlikely to have done many and
could not reasonably be expected to display the understanding
of a full-time designer.
The mechanism by which the attributes of a professional engi-
neer are to be demonstrated is laid down by a list of documents
to be submitted and a description of what will be done on the
day; there is no hidden agenda!
Each trainee must target every aspect of their submission
towards proving that they are a professional engineer and
detailing the experience that helped to make them one. Unfor-
tunately, far too many candidates do not aim at this target.
Common faults include:
o trying to prove that they are good at their job;
o hoping that a detailed description of their experience will
satisfy the Reviewers;
o describing in detail what they have done during their career
without explaining why;
o using job titles rather than describing their responsibilities;
o glossing over problems and their resolution;
o submitting huge amounts of material in the vain hope that
the Reviewers will find what they need somewhere.
I have counselled many failed candidates and it is a sad fact that
most of them ought to have been successful, if only they had
(i) fully understood what they were expected to demonstrate;
(ii) done themselves justice in their interview and written work;
(iii) allowed adequate time for proper preparation.
Every candidate is unique – there is no formula or prescription
for success. Your candidates must use every part of the Review
to demonstrate their ability. Remember that it is not for the
138
Reviewers to find out, but for the candidate to demonstrate,

their competence.
Sponsors’ declaration
The overriding duty of all four sponsors is to declare that
‘the candidate is a fit and proper person for admission to
membership’.
This is not a personal opinion, but an informed statement
measured against the relevant description set out by the Institu-
tion and quoted in Chapter Five, the Bye-laws and the Rules for
Professional Conduct.
The lead sponsor carries the additional responsibility of
checking that the other three sponsors have been able to
declare their total support. It is the lead sponsor who may be
called to account if the candidate proves entirely inappropriate.
Too many sponsors appear to have justified signing this state-
ment because the candidate is a useful member of their team,
‘good at their job’ or merely a ‘nice person’. Any sponsor should
read the criteria and judge the candidate against them. This
sometimes involves the difficult decision not to act as a sponsor,
a stance which can result in significant demotivation of the
candidate in their day-to-day work. In my experience, this is a
short-term problem if properly explained and is actually
covertly respected, in many instances, by other members of the
work team. In extreme cases, I have given support to sponsors
who have been referred to one of the many equality tribunals;
provided the decision is taken against specified criteria, and the
reasoning can be explained professionally, there is no case to
answer.
There are other parts to the statement, such as:
‘The candidate has the appropriate qualifications’.
Generally, candidates are graduate members, which signifies
compliance with the academic base for the class sought; this
139
does not exempt sponsors from checking. In cases of doubt, it is

always preferable to get a letter from the Institution accepting
the qualifications as equivalent to the benchmark, and for the
candidate to submit a copy with their documents. Rejection of a
submission because it is non-compliant due to an inadequate
academic base is, to say the least, frustrating and expensive.
And finally, there is a statement which is abrogated by far too
many sponsors:
‘I have scrutinised the candidate’s submission’.
This is a bold, definitive statement, which means exactly what it
says, not that you have corrected a draft, looked over the final
version or merely discussed the proposed content.
Signing this statement means that the candidate must have
almost completed preparation of their submission documents
when you sign (i.e. prior to the application, not just before
copies are sent to the Reviewers some six weeks later) and that
the documents satisfy you in every detail. The next chapter
explains how this scrutiny ought to be done.
140
Chapter Seventeen
Sponsors’ scrutiny of submission

documents
What must be ‘scrutinised’?

Primarily,
‘that the documents do effectively demonstrate the list of
requirements set out by the Institution.’
The simplest way of proving this to yourself is to list the
keywords in the descriptions on a sheet of paper and tick each
one as it is demonstrated (not suggested, intimated, implied,
self-evident or ‘obvious’) in the proposed submission docu-
ments. After all, this is precisely what the Reviewers will do on
their mark sheets.
But, in addition, there must be evidence of
‘good quality English language usage.’
It is a sad fact that the English language is not taught or used as
well as once it was, even by the English! But even for someone
for whom English is not their first language or who has difficul-
ties (such as dyslexia), it is expected that, as a potential profes-
sional engineer, they will have taken any steps necessary to
ensure that their written submission documents are of a high
standard, at least equivalent to anything published by their
employer.
141
Sponsors’ scrutiny of submission documents
Another requirement is
‘good quality of presentation.’
Again, a reasonable comparison would be a good document,
produced by their employer for public relations. The reports
should be bound tidily, using binders of the correct size, incor-
porating reasonable front and back covers. There is no need for
excessive cost or complication. Indeed, some Reviewers view
expensive, overly elaborate documents, with excessive use of
desktop publishing technology, with suspicion: ‘Surely this was
an inappropriate use of time and resources?’ I think the
keywords are neat, organised and tidy, readily followed and
easily handled. It is all about the exercise of judgement!
Supporting documents and illustrations are best inserted into
the text at the point at which they are needed. This is not always
possible, but thought must be given by the candidate to poten-
tial problems for the readers, who may be on a train or plane
when they are reading. Flicking back and forth constantly from
text to appendices is inconvenient. Do strongly discourage the
use of plastic wallets, from which documents can readily be
withdrawn, but into which they seem incapable of returning.
And do forbid contract drawings, either in their original size or
reduced; they are good for transmitting contractual informa-
tion, but little use for anything else, and certainly not for
displaying the attributes of a professional engineer.
With the advent of scanning technology, candidates sometimes
think that the addition of the company logo or the Institution’s
emblem (note: the crest is the Eddystone lighthouse only) will
improve the appearance of their documents. Since their
submission is neither a company document nor an Institution
publication, such use is, pedantically, illegal. The Reviewers will
neither be unduly bothered about the emblem nor impressed
or influenced by the company name.
The candidate must show
‘compliance with administrative requirements.’
142
There is a widespread belief that the submission documents

‘must not weigh more than one kilogram’ in total. This is not
the case. If the rules are read intelligently, there will be three
packages, one of which will weigh nowhere near a kilogram,
one of which will be just under, and one of which may exceed a
kilogram. The excess is again a matter of judgement, but I
would counsel against anything more than 1½ kg as a
maximum. Anything approaching that is likely to be insuffi-
ciently targeted and in need of condensing. If any document
does not either save words or contribute towards demon-
strating the candidate’s capabilities, it is irrelevant. Do not allow
candidates to include documents, particularly photographs,
just because they are ‘nice’ or ‘interesting’; everything must
contribute to the purpose of the submission.
Both reports must carry the signature of the lead sponsor, pref-
erably (for easy checking by the Reviews administration) on the
front covers. Credibility can be added by each sponsor signing
the reports in the margin, against those parts of the experience
about which they know, if this is appropriate. Such signatures
demonstrate that the reports really have been scrutinised.
The forms
These seem to be left to the last minute, and a surprising number
of submissions have to be returned by the Reviews Office to be
amended, or additional clarification has to be sought by phone,
before the submission may be accepted. The forms do need a bit
of thought and adequate time to be filled in correctly. Some
notes follow on those aspects which frequently cause problems.
There is a section which asks the candidate to specify that ‘My
submission relates to’ followed by a long list of options. The
temptation appears to be to list as many as possible. Since this is
the device which the computer uses to appoint suitable
Reviewers, all this does is give the computer more options.
Persuade your candidates to only complete those boxes of
143
which they wish one of their Reviewers to have a knowledge –

one or two at most. This gives the computer fewer options and
thus ensures a better match.
The single-page A4 summary of the project is needed for a
manual check on the suitability of the pair of Reviewers, as
chosen by the computer. It does not need to be a true synopsis.
It should just give sufficient information, of the type of project
and the nature of the candidate’s involvement, to check that at
least one Reviewer has enough background understanding to
be able to properly communicate with the candidate, particu-
larly on technical matters.
The emphasis on sealed envelopes for the sponsors’ question-
naires is to allow the sponsors not to reveal their information to
the candidate if they so wish. Personally, I believe that if this is
necessary, then the sponsor should really be questioning
whether they should be acting as sponsor at all. Writing some-
thing ‘behind the candidate’s back’ is rarely a proper or profes-
sional use of the system.
Experience report
The Reviewers are not so much interested in what the candidate
has done as what the experience did to the candidate; what the
candidate has become as a result of their experience. So the
criteria for this report are precisely the same as those they have
been guided to apply to their Quarterly Reports for some years.
The ‘single-page A4' summary sets out the skeleton of their
entire experience. This is a difficult page to compile, but, if done
properly, gives the Reviewer a clear picture of the candidate’s
career progression, through detailed experience with
employers and senior engineers. It should factually cover their
entire experience, before, during and after graduation and/or a
Training Agreement. The 2000 words which follow must
demonstrate the benefit gained from that experience. They
should not repeat information in the foreword, nor need they
144
describe the benefit of every piece of experience. They should

draw, from that totality of experience, those incidents which
made significant contributions towards making the candidate
into a professional engineer, and explain how they achieved
this. ‘I was then seconded to John Laing Construction Ltd on the
M6 motorway in Westmorland, as Senior Engineer on a group
of structures at Grayrigg, where ...’ is a repetitive waste of
words. ‘On the M6' is all that is needed – the Reviewers can refer
to the foreword to find out when, where and what, leaving
many more words for the benefit gained.
There was for many years a requirement to ‘indicate how the Core
Objectives were achieved’. It is surprising how many candidates
failed to do this. It does in fact present an opportunity to enlarge
upon a point, mentioned in the report, in the space under the rele-
vant Objective. In other words, judicious use of the spaces under
the Objectives extends the number of words available to describe
the benefit gained from the opportunities available. So I continue
to advise candidates to annotate their Experience Reports in order
to cross-reference them to the Objectives.
Nevertheless, the report must stand alone in its own right, and
rely neither on the Objectives nor on any Quarterly Reports
(which are no longer a requirement of the submission, but are
not specifically excluded. Again, judgement is needed as to
their value to the Reviewers). Like appendices to any report, the
Training Record will only be read by the Reviewers if they find it
necessary, i.e. if the report raises questions and doubts in their
mind. Sometimes the record can fill out the meaning of a
remark in the report, but candidates should not rely on
Reviewers scrutinising their Training Record in detail.
Project report
The function of the project report is to demonstrate that, to all
intents and purposes, your candidate is a professional civil engi-
neer of the appropriate class. So it is not a project report at all,
145
but a report on the candidate’s involvement in, and influence

on, a project or parts of projects. The book ‘Developing today’s
professionals for tomorrow’s challenges’ recommends that
candidates use their ‘most rewarding project’; the reward is
usually the satisfaction which comes from seeing the most diffi-
cult one through to a successful conclusion. The temptation is
to use the project which went best with fewest problems.
However, the one which is likely to best demonstrate the attrib-
utes required is the one that went wrong, where the candidate
was called upon to take responsibility, make decisions and use
their judgement. To leave as many words as possible to describe
their involvement, the project must be described as concisely as
possible, leaving the great majority of the words for their
personal influence on its progression and to demonstrate their
understanding of the total process and the decisions being
made. So clear annotated pictures with relevant statistics are
vital.
Remember that candidates are not just proving they can fulfil
their role, but that they will be capable of managing similar
projects and making the decisions themselves. This is a ‘chicken
and egg’ situation, where they are trying to prove that they
have become a professionally qualified engineer, but are
unlikely to be undertaking the full role and responsibilities,
because they are not yet qualified. The Reviewers will be asking
themselves the question, ‘Would this person, when in the posi-
tion of a professional engineer, make the right decisions?’ . Not
‘has’ but ‘would’ – the Review is an assessment of future capa-
bility, based on current ability. Clearly, the emphasis on poten-
tial decreases with greater experience.
The project needs to present an adequate challenge – techni-
cally, professionally and managerially, if the candidate is going
to be able to demonstrate all the required characteristics. The
Council descriptions of members, in particular, are a good indi-
cator of the level of involvement and responsibility necessary.
The best way of deciding on a suitable project is to dissect the
specification given by the Institution in the 2000 series
146
booklets, where it states that the Reviewers will ‘require you to

be able to demonstrate’ a list of bullet points. It is imperative
that the material chosen does enable the candidate to demon-
strate every attribute listed, all adequately, some extremely
well. This is the way I would recommend you to encourage your
candidates to set about their report – working backwards from
what they are required to demonstrate to what material best
enables them to do that. In my experience, choosing which
project to use at the outset is too restrictive. It is better to work
backwards, from what the Reviewers are seeking to what the
candidate might best demonstrate it with, and only at that
stage to choose a suitable title.
The project need not be one ‘job’. It can be a collection, in
which case the best method is to think of a generic title: e.g.
‘The assessment of highway underbridges’, ‘Redevelopment of
contaminated sites’ or ‘Improving urban traffic flows’, with a
sub-heading detailing more precisely what bridges, sites or
intersections are to be used. The projects can even be alto-
gether unrelated, e.g. ‘Refurbishment of warehouse and
cofferdam design’, but in this case it is advisable for the candi-
date to link them by explaining to the Reviewers why both have
been included.
Some bad misunderstandings must be avoided: the purpose of
the project report is not to show ‘site’ and ‘design’, to cover the
candidate’s total experience or to continue their progression
towards developing the attributes of a professional engineer. It
is surprising just how many candidates write things like ‘This
experience enabled me to learn about the environmental prob-
lems associated with pumping rain from excavations’ in their
project report. Too late! The project report must demonstrate
that they have already learned it.
The project(s) need not be ‘complete’, i.e. from problem to
handover, but should have a defined ‘start’ and ‘end’, e.g. ‘Pre-
ferred route for Exchester By-Pass’, which is a defined stage in
the acceptance of a new road scheme. In general, the feasibility
stage or tendering stages of many projects are often ideal to
147
demonstrate the characteristics of a Chartered Member. The

detailed design or implementation is more likely to be, but
certainly not exclusively, suitable for demonstrating the charac-
teristics of an Incorporated Member (see the member descrip-
tions in Chapter Five). Neither need the project(s) be
particularly large or ‘grand’; the technical and managerial
complexity are more important, with room in particular for the
demonstration of ‘independent judgement’ rather than slavish
compliance with established best practice as laid down in stan-
dards and codes.
The project itself must be ‘sketched in’ quickly and efficiently,
using annotated pictures and as few words as possible, leaving
more for the detail of the personal influence which the candi-
date had on its progress. (Note that ‘pictures’ is the keyword –
the one thing I would rarely recommend is contract drawings,
which are produced for a completely different purpose.) In
most cases, such words as ‘My involvement commenced’
should appear no more than two-thirds of the way down the
first page of the report. Every word used to describe the project
is one less to demonstrate competence.
A useful tip for mentors when reading a project report is to have
the keywords from the list of ICE bullet points written on a sheet
of paper and to note them off as they are covered by the report.
In this way, you will ensure that the report is concentrating on
demonstrating those aspects of competence which the
Reviewers will be seeking, rather than on the project itself
(which is the natural tendency).
General notes on reports

Both reports should be perfect with respect to grammar,
syntax, clarity and ‘readability’. The assumption is that candi-
dates have infinite time and unlimited resources, and their
reports should benefit accordingly. Those who have difficulties,
either medical or ethnic, with the English language, are
148
expected to demonstrate their professional attitude by seeking

the necessary help to overcome their difficulty. As a minimum
requirement, the reports should be of at least the standard and
quality produced on behalf of the organisation.
There is also a near paranoia about the word count! The
keyword in the Institution’s guidance was ‘about’, although I
note a change to ‘up to’ in the latest versions. If the report is
concise, precise and tells the Reviewers exactly what they need
to know, then they are unlikely to bother to count the words. If,
however, it is verbose, vague and contains irrelevant material,
then they will start to wonder about the length. I am frequently
asked, ‘What percentage deviation is allowed?’. ‘Nothing!’ is
the answer. The limits set by the Institution are very good indi-
cations of what is likely to be ‘just enough’, if used efficiently.
Remember that the Reviewers have at least two other compara-
tors in other submissions, and do not need to count words. The
2000 and 4000 words are indicators of length, not to be slav-
ishly adhered to. No Reviewer is going to waste time counting
the words of a good report which says just enough, but will
inevitably query the length of a report which includes extra-
neous and irrelevant material. Having said that, it is not a good
idea to leave the word count done by the computer promi-
nently displayed at the bottom of the last page, if the candidate
has slightly exceeded the estimate.
The usual cause of overweight submissions is supporting docu-
ments. Candidates do seem to think they should include every-
thing, applying a kind of scattergun approach, in the hope that
the Reviewers will be able to find what they are seeking some-
where among the paper. Every piece of paper must contribute
to the candidate’s case or reduce the number of words needed
to describe something. If it does not fulfil either of these func-
tions, then it should be left out. The Reviewers neither wish to
carry, nor to wade through, extraneous material.
149
Chapter Eighteen
Preparation for Review
The presentation – visual aids

The ubiquitous A3 flipchart appears to have become the
mythical ‘best practice’ way to control the presentation. It may
be, in a few cases, but it is cumbersome, will not fit into a brief-
case, and usually contains far too many ‘flips’. During every
Review session, I see candidates lumbering from the waiting
area into their Review with great piles of material, even full size
flipcharts or camcorder and screen. Are they really suitable for a
presentation to two people across a small table? Do they assist
in demonstrating the attributes of a professional engineer? I do
not think so. Used sensibly, an A4 chart is just as effective as A3,
with the great advantage that it can be put away in a briefcase,
making the initial contact between candidate and Reviewer so
much more tidy and workmanlike.
Increasingly, portable computers are being used. These are
perfectly satisfactory, provided a few simple basic rules are
adhered to:
(a) make sure that the screen can be seen by two people across
a desk. Some screen images are very directional to preserve
privacy in public places, and can only be seen from directly
in front;
(b) ensure that the candidate powers up the computer just
before being called for interview (and makes sure that the
150
battery is fully charged), otherwise the process takes up

valuable time and could annoy the Reviewers;
(c) do not allow your candidate to get carried away by the
technology; the best advice is to keep it simple;
(d) have a backup system (in the form of hard copies) in case of
failure.
The actual material to be used in the visual aids is an aspect of
the Review which requires serious thought. As a ‘rule of thumb’,
professional presenters talk of a maximum of one picture every
three minutes; on this basis there should be no more than five
visual images for a fifteen-minute presentation. The Reviewers
must be able to quickly assimilate the images, at the same time
as listening to the speaker, so the material must be simple, clear
and any words must be easy to read in a clear, large typeface.
That rules out any sort of contract drawing, either in whole or in
part!
Encourage your candidates to think beyond a flipchart or note-
book computer. I have seen all sorts of devices and techniques
used to great effect. At one end of the spectrum, two-dimen-
sional transparent acetate overlays for a site development,
three-dimensional models constructed at the table, both
enabling the candidate to show the development of a design. A
sample of the material being discussed can be useful. At the
other extreme, one candidate brought a few sheets of blank
white card and drew throughout the presentation with a felt
tipped pen (as a bonus, the Reviewers’ way round!). That
approach requires courage, but he had a lot of experience in
presentation.
The presentation – content

The guidance says that the presentation should be based on the
project report, not a regurgitation of it. The presentation was
introduced to replicate the sort of presentation which a
151
professional engineer will need to give when bidding for work.

There must be a fundamental assumption that the audience has
read the report (the Reviewers certainly will have done so); the
purpose of the presentation is to draw out those aspects of
particular interest and amplify them, to ‘consolidate the bid’ in
contractual terms. And this, surely, is one of the most important
and personal bids your candidate will make? So the key areas
which particularly demonstrate the attributes sought of a
professional engineer should be highlighted and expanded.
This is the key activity to demonstrate directly to the Reviewers
that the candidate really can ‘inspire confidence’.
There will be people in your organisation whose job it is to ‘sell’
the organisation; who make presentations regularly to differing
groups of people. They may not be engineers, but they will be
good at this aspect of the business. It is surely a good idea to
engage them to assist with ideas and expertise? They will help
your candidates to identify the key messages and then keep
them clear and simple rather than getting bogged down in
extraneous detail, both spoken and visual. Bold, outline
diagrams are what is needed, with few but salient pieces of key
data written on them, to which the candidate can talk.
Timing is critical. The Reviewers are instructed to stop anyone
who strays beyond the allotted 15 minutes. Practice, in a
stressful situation, is needed to get this right, so persuade your
candidates to take every opportunity to present, not just their
report, but anything to anybody at any time, as appropriate
during their training. They will then be familiar with the oral
presentation of material. This needs practice, to the extent that
only a keyword list is necessary to keep them on track for the 15
minutes allowed. Nothing is worse than a surreptitious reading
of flash cards held just below the desk, in the vain hope that the
Reviewers will not be able to see them! If a candidate is to
inspire confidence, then they must have eye contact with both
Reviewers for most of the time, drawing them into the presenta-
tion and leading them to look at the illustrations when required.
This cannot be done if the presentation is being read.
152
Preparation for the interview

I hope that by now, mentors and sponsors reading this book
have realised that their candidates have come through a
training period during which they have repeatedly been asked
the sort of questions which the Reviewers will ask. So there
should be no problem with unexpected questions during their
candidate’s interview. Even where a question strays beyond
their own direct experience, candidates should be well
prepared, by the training they have done with you, to discuss
how they would set about solving that problem and demon-
strate that, given access to the appropriate information, which
they can readily identify, they could arrive at an answer.
If the candidate is well prepared, then the Review should not be an
ordeal. It will still be stressful but, by then, your candidates will be
used to controlling themselves in similar situations, having already
had experience of contractual meetings, public exhibitions, client
meetings or whatever is appropriate in your organisation, as well
as the type of questioning which the Reviewers will use, which is,
hopefully, what you have been using for some years.
The Written Assignment

There are three things which trainees need to be encouraged to
do throughout their training, in preparation for the written test.
It is rarely sufficient or successful to start only when the submis-
sion is being compiled.
(a) Developing the breadth of understanding needed to
formulate thoughts and ideas about their involvement in
civil engineering.
Most graduates start with a fairly narrow view of what civil engi-
neering involves, but following the ideas and processes from
this book should by now have broadened their understanding
and given them the confidence to develop, and offer, their own
views and opinions.
153
(b) Writing logical, reasoned discussions under severe time

constraints.
There is no substitute for practice, restricted to the two hours
allowed. Many unsuccessful candidates have told me that,
although they thought they had practiced, they just did not
realise how difficult it was in the time constraint applied, until
they had to do it on the day – too late!
(c) Collecting key factual information to back up their views
and opinions.
As an example, the statement ‘the construction industry has a
poor safety record’ needs a figure comparison with, say, manu-
facturing industry, some key details of what kind of accidents
are major contributors, what persons are most likely to get hurt
and a few relevant quotes from health and safety publications
to back it up.
In general, essay groups spend too long collecting too much
detailed information. In fact they can easily give the participants
another problem – too much information to transmit in the
time allowed for the Written Assignment, so that candidates
have to make choices under pressure and inevitably get it
wrong. Maybe this is because candidates are still in examination
mode, where they think that they must transmit as much infor-
mation as possible to get good marks.
The purpose of the Written Assignment is to test the candidate’s
power of communication, not their knowledge. After all, the
topics (two, from which one must be chosen) are based on their
submitted experience, so they ought to know enough without
too much research, if their horizons have been broadened
throughout their training. So essay groups ought to spend the
majority of their time practising communication in writing, not
collecting information.
It is necessary to be absolutely ruthless in culling sufficient facts
and quotations to be useful from the mass of information avail-
able. After all, in such a short time, it is not going to be possible
to go into too much detail. Just enough relevant knowledge is
154
needed to reinforce views and opinions, much of which can be

used in the answers to a variety of questions. Candidates need
guidance on how to compile their information. The art of using
‘just enough’ material is a great skill which takes time and expe-
rience to develop; the skill is unlikely to be developed
adequately in the few weeks between submission and inter-
view, but some candidates do still attempt it.
155
Chapter Nineteen
The aftermath of failure
I would like to think that, as a result of the publication of this

book, this chapter is redundant but, pragmatically, such a goal
cannot always be achieved. I know it is the Institution’s fervent
desire to reduce the risk of failure by every means possible.
However, there are inevitably too many things which could go
wrong, leading to an unsuccessful Review. So I add some ideas
on how to help an unsuccessful candidate cope with this devas-
tating experience.
Any candidate who is unsuccessful at their Professional Review
is going to be upset and aggrieved, certainly immediately after
opening the results envelope. After the initial shock, there will
be a temptation to blame everyone else, as an understandably
defensive attitude develops. A prime target will be the Institu-
tion, its Reviewers and their Regional Liaison Officer. There will
be a mixture of anger, annoyance, disbelief, discomfort or
despair. Your candidate will feel victimised and vindictive. After
all, a huge amount of effort went into the submission docu-
ments and into the day itself – all in vain. So an immediate
response may well be a desire to appeal. This step needs to be
carefully considered, and the Institution allows two months for
a submission, so get your candidate to settle down for about a
month before making any decisions.
This is where mentors can provide a steadying influence. The
letter, and what it says (as distinct from what the candidate
156
thinks it says!), needs to be considered thoughtfully. I can assure

you that the Reviewers have agonised over writing the key para-
graphs, and every failure letter goes through a panel
comprising the most senior Reviewers, before it is finalised and
sent. So the words have been chosen carefully and vetted thor-
oughly. They deserve similar careful analysis.
Again, the role of the mentor is to question:
o Why do you think the Reviewers got that impression?
o Was it because of the way the reports were written?
o Was it the manner in which you answered their questions?
These questions should be kept until the candidate has over-
come their initial strong reaction and has subsided into
subdued defeat. Then is the time to start picking them back up.
Gradually (and sometimes it can take a few weeks) the truth will
start to emerge, and the reasons why the Reviewers were
unconvinced will begin to gel. Basically, there will be two cate-
gories of reason:
(a) the candidate failed to convince the Reviewers, but actually
had sufficient understanding;
(b) the Reviewers uncovered an area of weakness, where the
candidate did not have an adequate understanding.
The Regional Liaison Officers have access to the residual docu-
mentation kept at the Institution and can help to put flesh on
the bare bones of the failure letter but, generally, it is not
needed; I find this search usually merely confirms what the
candidate and their sponsors/SCE have already concluded.
At this stage decisions, based on factual analysis rather than
emotion, are possible. There are several options.
o If the reasons fall into category (a) above, then either
– an appeal, if there were reasons beyond the candidate’s
control;
– an early resit, rectifying omissions in the submission and in
interview techniques.
157
o If the failure resulted from weaknesses (category (b) above),

then these deficiencies need to be rectified before a resit is
contemplated.
Appeals procedure
The Institution offers a range of reasons why candidates might
choose to appeal, such as administrative shortcomings by the
Institution in handling the submission, unsatisfactory handling
of the interview process, a domestic crisis at the Review time for
the candidate etc. It is absolutely clear from this list exactly what
may be used as the grounds for an appeal. There cannot be an
appeal against the judgement in principle; in other words,
however unjust the result seems to the candidate, there must be
some valid reason, in the way the Review was handled adminis-
tratively by the Institution or carried out by its elected
Reviewers, to form legitimate grounds for appeal.
Any candidate who has an unexpected domestic crisis, which
prevents them giving of their best on the day, should realise
that the Institution will take a sympathetic view and get in
touch immediately with the Reviews Manager, rather than
having an unsuccessful Review and then appealing. I have
known of Reviews which have been delayed to a later date
within the same Review period, Reviews taking place after the
main period at a mutually convenient venue or a postpone-
ment, with no financial penalty, until the next session. Perhaps
the most frequent problem is a delayed journey due to accident
or breakdown, neither of which could have reasonably been
anticipated by the candidate. Reviews have been delayed until
later in the day, and even to another day, when such circum-
stances have arisen.
In my experience, the Institution will do everything reasonably
possible to allow every candidate to give of their best on the
day. But some candidates do still carry on, almost on autopilot,
when they are facing the most difficult personal circumstances,
158
and sponsors/mentors must encourage them to think rationally

at these stressful times and to rely on the Institution’s pragmatic
and sensible attitudes. But remember, the Institution cannot
take a sympathetic, mutually sensitive, decision if they are not
first told that there is a problem, or if the problem could reason-
ably have been foreseen.
The written appeal must be received in writing by the Institu-
tion (with a fee) within two months of the date on which the
result is announced. The letter needs to be carefully composed,
laying out the specific grounds for appeal. What it cannot legiti-
mately do is to introduce further particulars or evidence of the
candidate’s professional capabilities which were not available to
the Reviewers. Once the letter is received by the Institution, a
representative, most probably the local Regional Liaison Officer,
will then discuss in detail with the candidate the reasons for
appeal. Concurrently, the candidate’s lead sponsor and the two
Reviewers will be asked for their written views on the appeal
letter. All this information, together with the failure letter, the
review assessment form and the candidate’s c.v. from the orig-
inal application, will then go to the Appeals Panel, consisting of
two Reviewers not involved in the Review, chaired by the
Chairman of the Training and Professional Reviews Panel
(TPRP), a subgroup of the Professional Development
Committee.
The outcome can be one of three decisions, sent in writing to
the candidate by the Chief Executive and Secretary:
(a) to uphold the Reviewers’ decision;
(b) to invite a resit at no financial cost;
(c) to reverse the Reviewers’ decision, with or without their
consent.
Obviously, with all the information to be gathered, it will take
some time for the result of the appeal to become available,
certainly beyond the next submission date for Review. This
leaves an awkward decision to be made – should the candidate
submit again on the assumption that the appeal will be denied?
159
I have been party to this discussion on several occasions now

and, without exception, the decision has been to stand by the
appeal and wait for what should be (if the appeal is not a
despairing hope or, unforgivably, frivolous) a satisfactory
outcome. If the decision is the second option above, then the
Institution would be unreasonable to deny a late submission for
the current round of Reviews.
If the appeal is denied, then there needs to be a serious discus-
sion between the candidate and their sponsors to try to discover
what went wrong at the original Review, and why the appeal
was unsuccessful. The Regional Liaison Officer may be able to
help and the Chief Executive and Secretary’s letter may have
included further explanation of the original reasons. But what is
certain is that it is unwise to resit until the candidate has a very
clear understanding of what went wrong and why their reasons
for appeal were mistaken, to prevent the same thing happening
again.
An unsuccessful appeal will not prejudice any future resit by a
candidate.
Retaking the Review

I use the word ‘retaking’ rather than the usual term ‘resitting’
because I find that it is most likely that the submission docu-
ments themselves will need alteration and amendment. On
occasion, it has been necessary to choose different material and
start again, particularly for the project report. In Chapter Seven-
teen, I give guidance to sponsors on how to ensure that the
documents do demonstrate all the attributes which the
Reviewers are seeking, so fundamental errors of choice should
not be made.
If the documents had been comprehensive in the first place,
then the Reviewers would have approached the interview with
few, if any, doubts in their minds. So, unless something
dramatic happened in the interview (and usually the candidate
160
can remember that kind of occurrence), it is reasonable to

assume that the documents were inadequate and the interview
failed to redress those inadequacies. This may be the case even
where the Reviewers have said that the documents were ‘satis-
factory’. This expression may mean only that they were not
particularly good, merely read well, were easily followed and
what information they did contain was reasonably well
presented.
A salutary task is for the candidate to attempt to draft a response
to the original failure letter. This would commence by stating
that the advice from the Institution to discuss the letter with
sponsors and RLO had been taken and that it had been decided
not to appeal. It should go on to consider each detail of the
reasons given for failure, on which definitive answers should
now be available. These answers will fall into two categories.
(a) The documents, presentation, interview and written assign-
ment failed to demonstrate the required attributes, but the
candidate does have them.
The remedies here are clear – redraft the documentation to
better demonstrate the perceived weaknesses, making sure
that, in so doing, other attributes which were adjudged satisfac-
tory last time, are not then weakened and become less apparent
next time. Your candidate would also benefit from further
informal interviewing, to develop a better attitude and
approach to answering penetrating questions. The material and
delivery of the presentation needs reviewing.
(b) The Review identified shortfalls in the candidate which we
(the candidate, the mentors and the organisation) have
now rectified.
The letter should outline the measures which have been taken
to put things right and draw attention to any additional CPD
undertaken, since the new Reviewers will not have access to any
of the original documents. The only information they have is
the new submission documents and a copy of the letter from
the Institution informing the candidate of their previous result
161
and the reasons for the decision. I therefore recommend, for the
equanimity of the retake, that the candidate sends this response
letter to each of the new Reviewers as a frontispiece to their
submission documents, thus pre-empting the inevitable first
question, ‘What have you done about it?’.
I cannot over-emphasise the need for a calm, controlled,
thoughtful and rational response to the Reviewer’s rejection.
Far too often, I have seen unchanged re-submissions, motivated
by frustration and annoyance, sent for the next available
session. The result – the candidate again fails to demonstrate
those clearly defined attributes which the replacement
Reviewers are expecting. To fail once is a devastating error by
the candidate and sponsors; to fail again calls into question
their collective misunderstanding of the process and purpose of
review. To allow a candidate to be rejected more than once is of
no benefit to the candidate’s self-belief, their contribution to
your business or their commitment to our profession.
162
Chapter Twenty
The Reviewers
It seems sensible for prospective candidates, and their mentors

and sponsors, to have some knowledge of how Reviewers are
chosen, trained and kept up to date, and an appreciation of
how they approach the Review. The submission documents and
preparation for the interview can then be undertaken with a
better overall understanding of the expectations of the
Reviewers.
One of the best ways of imparting this understanding is to have
Reviewers among the staff of your organisation. The Institution
is always on the lookout for suitable people to undertake this
responsibility, so I hope that readers of this book will seriously
consider offering their services, thus complying with our Code
for Professional Conduct. For this reason, I have written about
the selection, training and updating of Reviewers in some
detail.
By reading what follows, I hope I shall dispel a widely held
impression that candidates are at the mercy of a rather random
collection of venerable gentlemen, where the outcome
depends very much on who you get on the day. This is far from
being the case, with ever-younger Reviewers being recruited,
and a rigorous system of training and continual updating in
place.
Of course, any system which is dependent on the judgement of
people can never be infallible, but in counselling unsuccessful
163
The Reviewers
candidates since 1988, I have yet to find a Review where I

cannot eventually find out why the Reviewers had misgivings
and came to the conclusion they did. There certainly were
candidates who were perfectly capable of passing, but who, on
the day and/or in their submission documents, gave an impres-
sion which worried the Reviewers. This is why it is so important
that your candidates are absolutely clear about what the
Reviewers are seeking, and that senior mentors and sponsors
read what is actually said in the submission documents, and do
not read between the lines what they know about the person or
the work described.
Reviewers’ approach to the Review

Reviewers approach the Review in a very positive manner. After
all, it is an onerous and responsible task, with no material
reward. The pleasure for them is in meeting good young engi-
neers, with whom the future of the Institution will be ‘in good
hands’. One Reviewer sums it up rather well by exhorting
potential candidates not to give him any reason to have to fail
them. In other words, the Reviewers want the candidates to be
successful.
The most important thing to make clear right at the outset is
that the Reviewers have no hidden agenda. They are working to
the identical set of criteria that is available to all candidates. So
there should be no misunderstandings if the candidate has read
and understood the requirements.
Reviewers hope to find easily all the evidence they need in the
submission documents. They then approach the interview with
optimism and confidence. If some of the necessary attributes
are not obvious or apparent, then they will hope that the candi-
date will demonstrate them in their presentation or during the
discussion, perhaps with a little guidance into suitable areas of
experience from the Reviewers. The onus is still on the candi-
date; the Reviewers talk about an 80/20 interview – the
164
The Reviewers
candidate talking for 80% of the time (excluding the presenta-

tion) i.e. nearly 50 minutes of an hour’s interview. Remember, it
is not for the Reviewers to find, but for the candidate to demon-
strate, their competence. The candidate should be in full sail,
requiring only the odd touch on the tiller to remain on course.
However, as one Reviewer succinctly put it ‘we can only steer if
the candidate is already making headway!’.
The Review schedule

Reviews are held twice a year in the UK, currently always in
London, with Manchester, Edinburgh and Belfast in the spring
and Durham, Glasgow and Cardiff in the autumn. With the
widening international influence of the Institution, more and more
venues for Reviews are overseas. At the moment, these annual
Reviews are arranged wherever there is sufficient demand to make
a session viable, but as the network expands I am sure that a more
routine schedule will develop. The submission date (once a year)
differs from those for the UK Reviews, to give adequate lead time
to organise appropriate venues and Reviewers.
Choosing potential reviewers

The ICE Professional Reviews are carried out by senior members
of the Institution of Civil Engineers on a voluntary basis. Most
recruits are approached by other Reviewers, or by the Regional
Liaison Officers, and are invited to complete an application form.
The appointment of Reviewers is the responsibility of the
Training and Professional Reviews Panel, which reports to the
executive Professional Development Committee. Reviewers are
normally asked to retire at 65 or if they have been retired from
the industry for two years, whichever is the sooner. They receive
out-of-pocket expenses only and a small honorarium per session.
As part of their application, potential Reviewers indicate their
willingness and give an indication of which areas of work they
165
The Reviewers
feel confident to review on the application form. The areas coin-

cide with those listed on the Review application form, where it
states, ‘My application relates to ...’, thus enabling the
computer to make a realistic match with at least one of the
Reviewers. Applicants are also asked for their record of
Continuing Professional Development to ensure they are up to
date, not only in their specialised areas of work, but also in their
general understanding of, and commitment to, the profession.
Training new Reviewers

The process of registering new Reviewers in the UK commences
with their attendance in London (usually in September) at a full
day of training, conducted by the secretariat and senior
Reviewers, consisting of seminal talks and workshop examples.
That training is followed by sitting-in, as an observer, on two
live interviews in London for each of the classes of membership
for which they have indicated a willingness to review. They are
not permitted to take any part in the Review or the decision
making process, but are often invited to share their thoughts
with the two Reviewers once a mutually acceptable outcome
has been agreed. Later that day, usually in the afternoon while
the candidates are doing their Written Assignments, a
debriefing and feedback discussion is held with a senior
Reviewer and the Professional Reviews Manager.
Following the observation sessions, new Reviewers are paired,
for the next three sessions for which they are available, with a
senior Reviewer, who is asked to ensure that there is a transfer of
knowledge and Review techniques. The senior Reviewer from
each of the three sessions gives a brief, confidential report to the
Institution. If everything is satisfactory, the new Reviewer is
admitted to the register.
At any stage in this process, the Institution reserves the right not
to proceed any further with the registration, without necessarily
disclosing why, if there is any doubt as to suitability.
166
The Reviewers
Clearly, the logistics of this schedule are far more difficult

overseas, but senior Reviewers do go to countries with any
concentration of potential candidates to offer advice, guidance
and best practice. Overseas results are also subjected to the
comprehensive auditing system which is an integral part of the
process.
Updating existing Reviewers

The Annual General Meeting of the Reviewers is held in London,
generally in the third week in January, to provide an opportu-
nity for updating and discussing situations and problems which
have arisen during the previous two Review sessions. This
meeting is usually very well attended, but those who are unable
to get there do receive a copy of the minutes, so that they too
are able to reassure themselves that they are applying the
system correctly.
Reviewers’ refresher courses are held at most of the review
centres on one or more of the afternoons during the review
sessions, and present further opportunities for mutual
updating and for the Institution’s staff to draw attention to any
changes of emphasis or administration. Since 1998, attendance
at a reviewers' refresher course at least once every three years
has been required to enable a Reviewer to remain on the
register.
Reviewers generally meet the night before the morning they are
paired together. There can therefore be as many as 30
Reviewers sitting down to dinner and the main topic of conver-
sation is the Review process, never candidates or their submis-
sions. This dinner provides another opportunity for Reviewers
to test their beliefs and understandings against a consensus
view. Individual candidates are discussed by their two
Reviewers beforehand on the telephone and sometimes after
dinner.
167
The Reviewers
Availability of Reviewers
Reviewers are generally asked to make themselves available for
a minimum of one day per session, but more consecutive days if
possible. Normally three candidates are interviewed by each
Reviewer in the morning (the candidates write their Written
Assignments in the afternoon). There are two sessions in the UK
each year, in April/May and October/November, usually of four
weeks’ duration, with the first fortnight in London and the
second fortnight circulating around the provinces. The number
of Reviewers required can be as high as 30 per day at each
provincial venue, and over 50 in London. Outside the UK, the
arrangements are rather more ad hoc, responding to reason-
able demand.
Availability forms for each UK session are sent out late in January
and July each year, so that Reviewers may be able to ‘block off’
days for which they feel able to be considered. Confirmation
that any particular Reviewer will be required, together with
details of their candidates, is sent out about one month before
the date of the interviews themselves, at about the same time as
the candidates are notified.
The Reviewers are paired for one morning only, and are unlikely
to work with the same Reviewer again for some time. I know
one Reviewer who has reviewed for 14 years and has never
worked with the same Reviewer twice. The aim is to develop a
consensus, rather like those jewellers’ rotating drums, where
the semi-precious stones constantly rub together, wearing off
any eccentricities until they are all the same rounded shape.
Once they have stated their availability and been selected, the
system of Reviews depends on all Reviewers honouring their
commitment. Even so, it is expected that Reviewers, since they
are senior practising civil engineers, will occasionally be forced
to withdraw in a real emergency. This is why candidates are
unrealistic if they expect to be able to specify an exact day for
their Review, or wish to make a late change of date. The Reviews
Office staff will undoubtedly do their best to meet specific
168
The Reviewers
requests, but there are so many imponderables that arranging

the Reviews is difficult enough without the introduction of extra
parameters.
The consensus system of checks and balances does not stop
once the review is over. Arbitrary samples of the review docu-
mentation are checked by senior Reviewers. Every draft failure
letter is checked, not only for constructive clarity, but also for
detailed compatibility with the review documents. The entire
system is subject to regular audit by The Engineering Council;
far from being at the mercy of the whim and prejudices of indi-
vidual Reviewers, every candidate is offered the same structured
and controlled opportunities to demonstrate their competence.
The positive expectation is that by far the majority will do so.
No one is suggesting for a moment that any system dependent
upon the judgement of a group of people can ever be perfect,
but the relatively small number of appeals since the possibility
was introduced does suggest that it is a pretty fair system.
169
Appendix
Critique of Quarterly Report

extracts
(1) As a graduate engineer, I benefited from an Institution of Civil

Engineers’ Training Agreement with J. Bloggs, BEng CEng FICE
MIHT, the Head of the County Engineering Division, as my
Supervising Civil Engineer. I decided to accept this new Agree-
ment because of its structured programme which would allow
me to gain experience within the various sections and depart-
ments of the County Engineer’s Department.
First impression – has ‘style’, grammatically correct, good punc-
tuation. But verbose, vague and imprecise. Contains informa-
tion available elsewhere in submission.
What is the value of ‘experience (with)in the various sections’? I
do not understand the use of ‘within’ instead of ‘in’, but
perhaps this is just a personal prejudice?
A better version would be:
My Training Agreement with J. Bloggs (F) County Engineer,
offered opportunities for a breadth of direct experience in five of
the divisions of his Department.
This brief version actually tells the reader more than the original.
Then the trainee should go on to say, utilising the words saved,
how the benefits (in developing towards becoming a profes-
sional engineer) were gained from those opportunities.
170
Critique of Quarterly Report extracts
The convention is to state ICE membership only (without other

memberships) as (M) or (F). If not an ICE member, then it is
convention to state only the relevant lead professional member-
ship (i.e. MIStructE, ARICS, MASCE) without the academic base
or other memberships.
(2) On commencing employment with Midshire County Council
Highways Department, Design Services (Roads) Division, I was
assigned to the Major Improvements Section and gained much
experience working on several highway improvement schemes
including:
(a) designing accommodation works for the Broadwash By-
Pass and compiling the accommodation works Bill of
Quantities using the MICRORATE software;
(b) preparing vertical alignments for various by-pass
schemes;
(c) production of working drawings, schedules and contract
documents for a section of the Feetwet Ferry Southern
Primary Route Improvement Scheme. The working draw-
ings were drafted on the Computer-Aided Design system;
(d) designing preliminary horizontal and vertical alignments
and junction layouts, using Department of Transport
design standards and producing approximate cost esti-
mates for a proposed by-pass to Middle Town Centre;
(e) preparing cost comparisons for two alternative junction
improvement options.
For the majority of these schemes, once I had been briefed by
the Project Engineer, I was responsible for obtaining relevant
data from various sources, performing design and compiling
drawings and documents.
This is not untypical of an early Quarterly Report – ‘what I was
involved in’ rather than ‘what I learnt’. Inherent (I think), but
certainly not ‘demonstrated’, is considerable independence
and responsibility so early in a career.
171
If the reader (mentor) is familiar with the work, it is all too easy
to ‘read between the lines’, rather than seeing what has actually
been written. The ‘but it’s obvious’ syndrome must be over-
come – experience and competence must be demonstrated!
Most of the detailed information (a–e) should be edited into a
brief foreword. This will eventually be the format of the experi-
ence report for the submission, so it is useful for the trainee to
begin to learn how to use it. Writing a summary gains space to
answer questions such as:
o How was ‘relevant data’ decided upon?
o Where was it sought and found (‘various sources’)?
o How did the trainee choose and learn to use the design soft-
ware (and does this learning appear in their Development
Action Plan and Professional Development Record)?
o How did they make the problems fit the software and was
any check made that the assumptions inherent in the
program were acceptable?
o What form of contract were they using? Why?
o How were estimate costs established? Was the base data
adjusted in any way?
o How accurate did the designs and estimates need to be for
realistic comparisons to be made?
(3) I was temporarily seconded to this site as an ARE. The works at
this site were part of several ‘Advance Works’ contracts for
major improvement works to a busy road junction over and
adjacent to the London Underground. These particular works
consisted of the construction of a pedestrian/cycleway ramp
and associated retaining wall from an existing bridge over the
underground lines to an anchored sheet pile wall at the
entrance to a future subway under a road adjacent to the
works.
My job was to ensure that the works were constructed in the
correct positions and that the workmanship met the standards
172
set out in the Specification. This was not easy in the confined
space of the works and I gained a lot of experience, working
with the contractor to ensure that the setting-out was correct.
A secondment can only be ‘temporary’ – superfluous. Repetitive
word use (works, site) – requires editing.
What is an ‘ARE’? In general, do not use job titles – they can
easily be misconstrued beyond the organisation. The name ‘res-
ident engineer’ is not a defined title under any form of contract.
Explain the precise responsibilities (perhaps in this case by using
the letter, defining the roles of the engineer’s representatives to
the contractor under Clause 2 (ICE 6th edition), as a supporting
document).
Remember that pictures save words. In this case, they might
even make the description intelligible!
The job requirement is stated, but there is no indication of how
it was achieved and what the difficulties were.
o What were the specific problems of a confined site with
restricted access?
o How did those responsible ensure that referencing/setting-
out was not tampered with?
o What were the difficulties of ensuring quality? How were
they addressed? Were they overcome successfully (‘inde-
pendent judgement’)?
o What are the candidate’s personal views on whether (with
hindsight) it could have been done better.
There is no indication of any experience beyond ‘the job’
(which is not itself a role for a potential professional engineer).
o How were public access and road/rail operations main-
tained?
o What were the actual responsibilities under the contract for
accuracy and quality? How were they apportioned between
contractor/resident engineer?
173
o In working closely with the contractor, were they inadver-

tently exposing their employer to greater risk?
(4) I have been working within the profession for almost a year
now. During this time I have learnt numerous skills and gained
valuable experience which is helping me bridge the gap from a
good educational base to eventually becoming a professionally
qualified member of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
One of the most important lessons I have learned is the level of
competence and understanding of principals that is required to
become a Chartered Engineer. I, like most graduates, left
university believing I had a firm educational background and
just needed a couple of years’ experience within the industry
before becoming Chartered. Believe me, it is not at all like that.
On starting work, I quickly realised that I was only just begin-
ning to learn and was on a very rapid learning curve. More
importantly, I believe it is important to understand, from an
early date, that whatever position you hold within the profes-
sion, you should never stop learning and developing.
This report does not address the issues. It is a superficial, repetitive
overview of what the trainee believes is required to be demon-
strated, but does not demonstrate any specifics. This is a good start,
because it usually takes considerable time and effort from the
organisation to achieve this level of understanding of what trainees
are required to develop, but more solid evidence is needed.
It is a little ‘chatty’ for a professional report (but perhaps
demonstrates a relaxed relationship between the mentor and
trainee?). Note the misspelling of ‘principles’.
Paragraph 1:
o What skills has the candidate learned?
o To what type of experience has the trainee been exposed?
o What is the value of the experience which is said to have
been gained (in their development towards becoming a
professional engineer)?
174
o What experience has been particularly beneficial?

Paragraph 2:
o How does the trainee know what ‘most graduates’ believe?
Discourage throwaway and unsubstantiated remarks.
o Why is there a gap between education and work and what
could be done about it?
o Will SARTOR’97 help to bridge the gap?
o Edit out all colloquial remarks.
Paragraph 3 is irrelevant as written. Something more definitive
about the ever-changing workload requiring constant personal
updating and development would be more use, with a mention
of the specific experience which has prompted that remark.
(5) Easter weekend saw the mainline derailment of a freight train
at Staffield. I produced the derailment plan showing the posi-
tions of the train and significant structures immediately
following the incident. I was also involved with the repairs to
the track and the weekend of work reinstating the track that
followed also proved to be another very good learning experi-
ence for me.
A wasted opportunity to demonstrate competence and, particu-
larly, the trainee’s broader understanding!
o A mainline derailment at Easter – what were the ‘global’
consequences?
o What emergency arrangements were made to keep traffic
moving?
o How did the emergency systems swing into action?
And then more mundane matters:
o Why was a plan needed? What was its purpose/significance?
o How was the information to draw it up obtained?
o What level of detail/accuracy was required?
175
o How were ‘significant structures’ defined?

o Surely the track needed to be repaired as soon as possible?
Why wait until a weekend?
o What was the outcome of the ‘very good learning experi-
ence’?
– getting possessions
– material/manpower logistics
– positional accuracies
– programming to tight ‘windows’
– tamping, ballasting, etc.
(6) The designer is not always the author of the contract. I was
involved in the maintenance of the sewerage system in
Englewick Green, my employer being the local Council which
carries out this work under a management contract with the
Regional Water Authority. The water company required me to
use their modified ‘Minor Works Contract’ for the work, and I
found it to be very vague in places. Other Local Authorities also
use it but each placed its own interpretation on the ambigu-
ities, even when using the same contractor as I was. This
clearly led to disputes, even when there was agreement about
the work itself.
This is skirting round some very interesting issues, such as:
o the delicate balance between keeping a contract with a
major client and criticising their approach, with the possi-
bility of losing goodwill.
o interpretation of a standard form of contract;
o the resolution of disputes.
To demonstrate ‘vision and leadership’, ‘understanding of the
broader issues’ and ‘innovation, creativity and change’, this
trainee should discuss the following.
o The difficulties created when the designer cannot choose
what they consider to be the most appropriate form of
contract and how these might be overcome/mitigated
176
o Whether the candidate would consider discussing matters

further and more formally with the other local authorities (he
has obviously had informal discussions) with the intention of
achieving a consensus interpretation, and whether his
employer has considered this approach.
o How the weaknesses in the Minor Works contract could be
drawn to their client’s attention without compromising the
continuance of their maintenance contract.
o What modifications or other forms of contract he would
consider better fitted the situation in sewer maintenance and
why.
o How he overcame the disputes, since he has apparently
developed a good working relationship otherwise (although
he has not actually demonstrated this, merely implied it).
177
Index
NOTE: Page numbers in italic Chartered Professional Review 83

figures refer to illustrations client expectations 18–19,
21–2
academic appraisal 83 commercial criteria, ICE
achievement levels 131–2 membership 36
analytical design 19 communication criteria, ICE
analytical software 30–1 membership 36
Annual Appraisal 79–81 communication skills 24, 154
see also Training Review company culture 102–3
Appeals Panel 159 competence 36, 58
appeals procedure 157–60 competitiveness 57–8
asset management 24 computers 19–20, 30–1
Associate Members 35, 39, 87 construction industry, best
see also Incorporated Members practice 20–1
context shifting 10–11
business objectives Continuing Professional
competitiveness 57–8 Development 36, 43, 76,
ICE criteria 34–46 77
ICE training scheme 47, 55–6 mentoring 104–5
Management Development Reviewers 166, 167
Programmes 54–5 Training Review 81
mentoring 104 see also Initial Professional
recruitment 26–33 Development; professional
training 12–14, 18–25, 90 development
contractual criteria
career ICE membership 36
appraisal 83, 132 Core Objectives 50, 52–4, 81,
structures 88–9 104, 121
change management 7–17, monitoring progress 129–34
18–25, 98 CPD see Continuing Professional
Chartered Engineers 87 Development
Chartered Members degree courses 29, 30
criteria 35–8, 39–40, 148
professional development 48 Delegated Engineers 61, 67,
Training Agreement 70 77, 78–9
Training Review 82 mentors 98–9
178
Index
demand management 24 ICE see Institution of Civil

DEs see Delegated Engineers Engineers
detailing 20 Incorporated Engineers 35, 87
Developing today’s professionals... Incorporated Members 31
42–5, 137, 146 criteria 35–8, 39–41, 148
Development Action Plan 36 professional development 48
drawing production 20 specialist objectives 54
Training Agreement 70
education trends 26–9 Incorporated Professional Review
employment patterns 29, 88–9 82–3
Engineering Council 28, 87, induction 59–60, 67
169 information technology 19–20,
‘seamless continuity’ of 30–1
development 47, 70 infrastructure 16, 23–5, 30, 45
standards 29 Initial Professional Development
Standards and Routes to 17, 32, 47–9, 51, 63, 64
Registration 39 Delegated Engineers 78–9
English language usage 122, training agreements 70
141, 148–9 see also Continuing
environmental concerns 3, 16, Professional Development;
22–5 professional development
European General Professional Institution of Civil Engineers
Directive 89 2000 series documents
experience 42–6, 104, 137, 146–7
ICE Core Objectives 132–3, Code for Professional Conduct
145 74, 163
loss 29–30 Developing today’s
outside training system professionals... 42–5, 137,
130–2 146
previous 67–8 Future Framework
Quarterly Reports 107–14 Commission 39
and training 15–16, 111–13 membership classes 16–17,
Experience Report 132, 133, 35–41, 44–5, 86–7, 133–4
144–5 Professional Review see
Professional Review
failure 1–2, 104, 130, 156–8 qualifying criteria 34–46, 58
appeals 157–60 Royal Charter 14, 24–5, 135
retaking the Review 157, rules 2–3
160–2 training see training
Internet 19
graduates 17, 26–9, 30–3 interview, candidate’s 153,
professional development 160–1, 164
47–9 IPR see Incorporated Professional
recruitment 86–7 Review
179
Index
Latham report 20, 21 Personal Development Record

leadership 37–8 36, 76
learning environment 77 personnel
liability 51 losses 29–30
litigious society 36, 51 management attitudes 20–2
recruitment see recruitment
management placements 65
and change 7–8, 9–17, presentation
18–25, 98 content 151–2, 164
and leadership 38 submission documents
and training 9, 13–14 141–9
and workforce 20–2 visual aids 150–1
see also asset management; previous experience 67–8
succession management probationary period 66–7, 108
Management Development procurement 18, 20
Programmes 54–5 professional development
Member (MICE) 35, 40, 87 career structures 88–9
mentoring 9, 31–2, 63 change management 8–9
arts and skills 95–7 initial 47–9
and change 8, 14–15, 94–5, see also Continuing
98 Professional Development;
company culture 102–3 Initial Professional
Delegated Engineers 78–9 Development; training
ICE Training Schemes 98–9, professional engineers, definition
100–1 39–41, 60
informal 99 Professional Review
objectives 102–4 appeals procedure 157–60
Quarterly Reports 108–9, business objectives 37, 43,
115–28 44, 45
questioning 115–20 experience report 132, 133,
relationship 91–5, 100–1, 144–5
105–6 failure 104, 130, 156–62
see also training ICE training scheme 32,
mission statements 8, 12, 60, 49–50, 55, 60
90 interview 153, 160–1, 164
monitoring training 129–34 preparation 150–5
motivation loss 1, 9 presentation 150–2, 161, 164
project report 145–8, 160
Objectives 49–56, 67 retaking the Review 160–2
see also Core Objectives; Review Schedule 165
Specific Objectives; Training Reviewers 163–9
Objective Reviews Manager 158
oral presentation 152 sponsors 104, 135–40
submission documents
peripatetic consultants 76 141–9, 160–1, 164
180
Index
training agreement 70 SCEs see Superivising Civil

visual aids 150–1 Engineers
Written Assignment 122, secondments 43, 62, 65
123, 153, 161 Senior Route 17, 44
see also Chartered Professional Society of Civil Engineering
Review; Incorporated Technicians 35, 49, 86–7
Professional Review software 30
progress monitoring 129–34 Specific Objectives 52–4
Project Report 145–8, 160 monitoring progress 129
public perception 16, 22–3 Quarterly Reports 121
Training Review 81
Quarterly Reports 61, 64, 67, sponsors 135–6
81, 104–6 appeals 159, 160
critiques 170–7 declaration 139–40
falling behind 113 submission documents 141–9
learning from experience staff turnover 89, 103
107–14 Standards and Codes of Practice
mentor response 115–28 131
monitoring progress 133 Standards and Routes to
Professional Review 144–5 Registration 39
structure 120–4 statutory criteria, ICE
questioning 7, 115–20, 125–6 membership 36
Structured Training 32, 48, 51
recruitment submission documents 141–9,
balanced workforce 16–17 160–1, 164
business objectives 26–33, succession management 31
57–8, 85–9 Supervising Civil Engineers 52,
Regional Liaison Officers 61, 63, 75–82
aftermath of failure 157, mentors 98
159, 160–1 Training Agreements 67, 68,
selection of Reviewers 165 70, 79
training 61, 68, 76–7, 79, 82 Training Record 113
report writing 110, 120–4 sustainability 16, 23–5
residual liability 51
resitting the Review 157, Technician Engineers 78
160–2 Technician Members 31, 39,
Responsible Experience 32, 40–1, 87
48–9, 51 professional development 48
Review see Professional Review Thomas Telford Training 2
reviewing the job trainees’ skills trainees
110 and change 9–11
RLOs see Regional Liaison failure rates 1–2
Officers guidance 61–3
reports 64
SARTOR ’97 39 and workforce 16–17
181
Index
training termination of agreements

business objectives 12–14 72–3
criteria 34–46 training without an agreement
ICE scheme 14–17, 32, 74
47–56, 66–74, 75–84, 100–1 transfer of agreements 71–2
ICE standards 57–9 Training Objectives 49–56,
monitoring progress 129–34 55–6, 62, 65
new Reviewers 166–7 Training Record 145
placements 65 Training Review 81–3
scheme preparation 57–65 see also Annual Appraisal
target 129–30, 133–4
undue delays 32 university education 26–30
work environment 25
see also mentoring vision 37, 38
Training Agreements 51–2, 61, visual aids 150–1
66–74, 104, 112
Annual Appraisal 79–81 whole-life concepts 19, 21, 25
length of agreement 70–1, workforce
81 management attitudes 20–2
registration 69–71 written appeal 159
target class of membership Written Assignment 122, 123,
69–70, 82 153–5
182

Effective Training For Civil Engineers

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Effective Training For Civil Engineers

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dynamic mentoring for civil engineers

Dynamic mentoring for

Common sense, in an uncommon degree, is what the world

Chapter One Introduction 1

Chapter Two Management of change 7

Chapter Three Operational factors influencing

Chapter Four Influences of personnel recruitment on

Chapter Five How ICE qualifying and training

Chapter Six The Institution of Civil Engineers’

Chapter Seven Preparing a training scheme 57

Chapter Eight Training Agreements for the ICE’s

Chapter Nine The mechanics of the ICE’s

Chapter Ten Recruitment of trainees 85

Chapter Eleven Mentoring – the theory 90

Chapter Twelve Mentoring in practice 100

Chapter Thirteen Quarterly Reports 107

Chapter Fourteen Mentor response to Quarterly

Chapter Fifteen Monitoring progress 129

Chapter Sixteen ICE Professional Review 135

Chapter Seventeen Sponsors’ scrutiny of submission

The forms 143

Chapter Eighteen Preparation for Review 150

Chapter Nineteen The aftermath of failure 156

Chapter Twenty The Reviewers 163

Appendix Critique of Quarterly Report extracts 170

I have been told by many younger engineers that my two

o employers are seldom recruiting the right mix of people for

professional civil engineers, able to make a significant contri-

Using this book

available, choose the most appropriate solution and implement

involved, which must be taken into account when deciding a

The construction industry went through a period of rapid change in

prompts a defensive, piecemeal reorganisation driven by crises,

Change management through people

Change and trainees

the standards of the profession. Most trainees come into our

they will begin voluntarily to do things which move them

Change management through a training

deadline. Where there is a vision of the end state, but no clearly

to deliver the desired result. Most organisations just have a

Specific business objectives of training

flexibility to cope with change. Good professional engineering

ICE training programme as an integral part

(b) be transparently proud of its workforce,

(c) achieve a balanced engineering workforce recruited to fulfil

Speedier processes, including training and development

engineers to tackle increasingly complex problems, which inev-

Pride in the workforce

Operational factors influencing

There are several trends, each of which is, in itself, a significant

whole life of the project. Clients do not wish to be involved in,

to improve their capacity and performance, and has revolution-

The move towards sustainability

decisively to deliver an ideal balance between the spiralling

Civil Engineers are required by their Royal Charter to use ‘judge-

It is not just the business which is having to continually readjust

level which is achievable by the majority. These standards, as far

The problems with university graduates are not, of course, of

now paying the costs for bringing their graduates up to an

Loss of experience ‘off the top’

graduates to spend months, even years, using software, in the

Training for change

consultants, then depended. Anyone who did not ‘fit the