|
Evidence of competent performance has two essential requirements: first, a capability to perform a number of defined actions must be demonstrated, and second, the performance must be at or exceed a specified level of demand. The defined actions are the outcomes and typifying actions that reflect acceptable performance are contained in the assessment criteria. The level is defined by a specification for the demands of the engineering activities and the nature of problem solving. In a professional field, evidence of competent performance is obtained from the competent performance of substantial engineering tasks by the person being assessed. Typical tasks provide evidence of several outcomes and assessment must be holistic.
While competence is specified by eleven outcomes to be demonstrated at a particular level, the applicant for registration must demonstrate integrated performance against outcomes. This reflects the reality that an engineering task or function is unlikely to require only one outcome, for example problem analysis seldom stands alone; it will require the use of knowledge, the analysis of impacts and must lead seamlessly into the solution phase.
Different engineering functions and activities will have different mixes of demand. An applicant for registration is expected to provide evidence of working at the required level of problem-solving in engineering activities at the specified level of demand as part of the application for registration.
The applicant for registration must document this evidence for the registration applications and must undergo documentary interactive assessment by engineering professionals who judge the demonstrated competency against the defined standards.
Details of evidence required to demonstrate outcomes achieved are specified in the R-03-series.
8. A candidacy programme12
A candidacy programme is a framework for employers to plan and execute training towards registration in a professional category. A candidacy programme is one means of implementing a Commitment and Undertaking.
A candidacy programme has the following components:
The Candidate is employed in a candidacy programme by the employer who will provide the training and experience. The objective of the programme is for the Candidate to become registered with ECSA in the appropriate category.
The competency standards generated by ECSA are used as workplace standards. They define the exit level outcomes of the training programme; the employer must define the process to build up competence to the required level. The employer must make specific reference to the workplace standards in its workplace skills plan. In addition, context-specific training guides generated by the sector may be used. These must not conflict with the generic competencies but rather provide amplification in the particular work context.
If not already registered, the trainee should register in the appropriate Candidate category with ECSA as early as possible in the training period.
The employer provides a supervisors internal to the company and a mentor who should preferably be internal but may be external. While supervisor and mentor may change from time to time, employers must ensure continuity of supervision and mentoring.
Structured work experience is provided by the employer to the Candidate. This work is managed using a standard format training record. The Candidate’s progress is assessed on an ongoing basis by Supervisors and Mentors, also using the training record for documentation.
When the Candidate is considered to be ready for registration, he or she applies to ECSA for registration. Evidence of competence is provided as required by ECSA, including the training record. The assessment of competence is performed by ECSA.
Success in attaining registration is considered to be evidence of the quality of the training programme. The workplace learning programme is not subject to formal quality assurance.
9. A Commitment & undertaking13
An organisation committing to structure their Candidates’ training and experience in a candidacy programme undertakes to:
Ensure that the engineering graduates register as Candidates in the appropriate categories.
Provide structured training and experience against ECSA competencies standards as defined in R-02-series as well as discipline specific training guidelines defined in R-05-series.
Provide a variety of engineering activities over the period (rotate where necessary).
Ensure that the Candidates’ level of responsibility increase over time.
Allocate Supervisors per engineering task to take responsibility for the work in terms of section 18(4) of “The Act”.
Appoint internal or external Mentors (preferably for the duration of the candidacy programme to ensure continuity).
Provide Mentors with ECSA’s Training and Mentoring Guidelines (R-04-series).
Ensure that the Candidates document evidence of planning, working, recording, reporting & assessment per developmental phase, using the standard “Training and Experience Report” for interim reporting.
Provide supplementary training as required.
Assess the Candidates’ progress on an ongoing basis by Supervisors and Mentors.
Maintain an up to date register of Mentors and Candidates.
Advise ECSA of changes in Mentors and provide the name(s) of any replacement(s).
Support and encourage Mentors to equip themselves to be effective Mentors, as and where required.
Create the opportunity and an environment conducive to effective liaison between Candidates and their Mentors.
10. Good Practise: Deliverables
Deliverables
|
Evidence required
|
CATEROGY 1: “Due diligence requirements”
|
Set up
|
Signed commitment & undertaking with ECSA
Appointed mentors (internal or external)
Allocated supervisors
An adequately resourced environment
A variety of engineering tasks allocate to candidates
Learning materials/guidelines etc.
An induction programme to candidates, mentors & supervisors
|
Project management & administration
|
Arrange supplementary training
Arrange rotation or secondment & secondments
Coordinate mentors & supervisors
Track progress and collate evidence
Address problems
Pay annual council/bodies fees
|
CATEGORY 2: “Learners completing a substantial part of the training”
|
Planning
|
A Training Plan showing project activities and competencies to be developed. This should be updated at least twice a year.
|
Reporting
|
At least 3 interim Training and Experience Report (TERs) per year. This should be written up prior to each mentor review.
|
Assessing
|
Progress reviews/assessment of outcomes achieved should be conducted by the mentor at least three times per annum but preferably on a quarterly basis. Mentors should report on progress and recommend further activities to update the training plan in item 3.
|
Supplementary training
|
Courses: certificates/ attendance registers/ exam results/ reports
|
CATEGORY 3: “Successful completion”
|
Application to Council
|
Application submitted to ECSA
|
Registration with Council
|
Registration number & Title
|
6 September 2014
Stakeholder Participation and Feedback
The Engineering Council of South Africa strives to develop standards, procedures and systems to advance the engineering profession in the interest of the people we serve. Our endeavour is to continually improve our documentation, and your input can be of great value to us. We invite candidates, applicants, mentors, referees, supervisors and other stakeholders to please enter any comment, suggestions, criticism, etc. in the space provided below, and submit to
Private Bag X 691 Waterview Corner, 1st Floor,
BRUMA 2026 2 Ernest Oppenheimer Avenue
Tel: (011) 607-9500 Bruma Lake Office Park
Fax: (011) 622-9295 BRUMA
Email: engineer@ecsa.co.za Johannesburg
Website: www.ecsa.co.za 2198
Feedback
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Optional Name and Contact Information:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
6 September 2014
Index
|
|
|
Absence of full evidence
|
20(9.2), 40
|
Acquire user needs, legislation standards and resources to design
|
31(4.2)
|
Acronyms
|
45(Note)
|
Activities
|
35
|
Actual examples
|
19 (3.2), 37 (3.2)
|
Adopting new techniques
|
18 a), 35 a)
|
Advice sought
|
20 (7.2, 10.2), 39 (7.2), 40 (10.2)
|
Affected parties
|
18 h), 19 (6.2), 40 (6.2)
|
Affected parties, ethical problems
|
20 (8.1), 39 (8.1)
|
Agreement by client or supervisor
|
19 (2.2), 36 (2.2)
|
Alternative approaches or solutions
|
19 (2.1), 37 (2.1)
|
Alternative route
|
14 (A), 50 (3.3.2)
|
Analyse and investigate well-defined engineering problems
|
19 (Outcome 1), 36 (1)
|
Analyse qualification
|
56 (Figure 4)
|
Analysing designs
|
19 (2.2), 37 (2.1)
|
Analysis method
|
16, 17 (Nature of problem…), 36 (Outcome 1)
|
Analysis methodology used
|
32 (5.2)
|
Annual fees
|
15
|
Applicant’s development
|
22 (1.1)
|
Application and annual fees
|
5 (5), 8, 15 (5), 33, 48
|
Application for Candidate Engineering Technician
|
2
|
Application for Professional Engineering Technician
|
11
|
Apply method, skill or tool
|
31 (3.2)
|
Apply theory correctly
|
19 (3.2), 40 (3.2)
|
Applying NDip theory to justify decisions
|
20 (10.1), 40 (10.1),
|
Areas of practice
|
19, 37 (Outcome 3), 42
|
Assess method, skill or tool
|
31 (3.1)
|
Assessment Form
|
49 (3.3.1), 61
|
Assessment Process
|
45 (3), 49 (Figure 3)
|
Assessment results
|
62 (9), 63 (12)
|
Benchmark Qualification
|
14 (A)
|
Broadly defined
|
64 (Nomenclature)
|
Calculations, Ndip level theory
|
19 (3.2), 20 (10.1), 37 (3.2), 40 (10.1), 54 (4.5)
|
Candidacy Phase
|
34, 75
|
Candidacy programme
|
65
|
Candidate Engineering Technician, Application
|
2
|
Clarification
|
18 b), 19 (1.2), 36 b) and 1.2)
|
Client
|
19 (1.1), 20 (2.2), 36 (1.1), 37 (2.2), 53
|
Code of Conduct
|
20 (8.2), 39 (8.2)
|
Codes, procedures and standards
|
18 f) 36 f)
|
Codified knowledge
|
37 (Outcome 3 b))
|
Commitment and Undertaking (CU)
|
16, 17, 22 (1.8), 76
|
Communicate
|
19, 38 (Outcome 5, 6.2)
|
Competence extension and maintenance
|
20, 41 (Outcome 11)
|
Competence of a Professional Engineering Technician
|
25, 26, 27 (1), 34, 35 (2)
|
Competence, advice sought
|
20 (7.2, 10.2), 39 (7.2), 40 (10.2)
|
Competency Standards R-02-PN
|
25, 26, 27, 44 (1), 45 (2), 51 (4.1), 69 (5)
|
Competent performance
|
73 (7)
|
Comprehend and apply knowledge
|
19, 38 (Outcome 3)
|
Conflicting constraints
|
18 h), 36 h)
|
Consensus recommendation
|
50 (3.3.1)
|
Consequences
|
18 j) f), 20 (9.2), 36 j) f), 40 (9.2)
|
Consequences and risks
|
18 j) f), 35
|
Constraint by operational context
|
18 e), 35 e)
|
Controlling
|
38 (Outcome 5 d), 53 (4.5)
|
Correct application of NDip level theory
|
19 (3.2), 37 (3.2)
|
CPD
|
29, 55 (4.7)
|
Criteria
|
19, 20, 36, 37, 38, 39,40, 41
|
CU (Commitment and Undertaking)
|
16, 17, 22 (1.8), 76
|
Cultural impact
|
19, 38 (Outcome 6)
|
Curriculum analysis
|
55 (5.1)
|
Data entry
|
46 (Figure 2), 47 (3.2)
|
Decision making
|
20, 40 (Outcome 10)
|
Deferral
|
50 (3.3.1)
|
Define, investigate and analyse
|
19, 36 (Outcome 1)
|
Defined, familiar
|
18 d) c), 35 (c), 36 d)
|
Degree of responsibility
|
16, 17, 52 (Table 3)
|
Deliverable, good practise
|
77
|
Demonstration of Competence
|
35 (2)
|
Derive and analyse information
|
32 (5.3)
|
Design or develop
|
19, 37 (Outcome 2)
|
Designation of Work
|
18
|
Developing solution
|
16, 17
|
Development, professional
|
20, 41 (Outcome 11), 65 (1)
|
Discipline
|
16, 17, 54 (Table 4)
|
Discipline Specific Fields
|
54 (Table 4)
|
Discipline Specific Training Guide (DSTG)
|
18, 23 (2.1), 34, 35 (1), 51 (4.1)
|
E-17-P, Education Evaluation Policy
|
45 (Table 1)
|
Education and experience limitations
|
20 (10.2), 40 (10.2)
|
Education check
|
48 (3.2), 56 (Figure 4)
|
Education Evaluation Policy E-17-P
|
44 (Table 1)
|
Education evaluation process
|
57 (Figure 5)
|
Educational Development Report (EDR)
|
14 (A), 23 (3.1), 30, 48 (3.2), 50 (3.3.2)
|
Educational requirements
|
48 (3.2), 55 (5)
|
Effects of engineering activity
|
19, 38 (Outcome 6)
|
Employer philosophy towards development
|
20 (11.2), 41 (11.2)
|
Engineering activities
|
18, 19 (Outcome 4), 20 (Outcomes 7, 9, 10 and 11), 35, 38, 39, 40
|
Engineering brief
|
18
|
Engineering judgement
|
20, 40 (Outcome 9)
|
Engineering knowledge
|
54 (4.5)
|
Engineering materials, components, systems or processes
|
30 (1.2)
|
Engineering problems
|
19, 36 (Outcomes 1 and 2), 42, 54 (4.5)
|
Engineering Report (ER)
|
18, 23 (2.1), 54 (4.5)
|
Engineering responsibility
|
20, 40, (Outcome 10), 21, 22 (1.5), 23 (2.1), 54 (4.5)
|
Engineering standard procedures
|
19 (3.1), 37 (3.1)
|
Engineering standard systems
|
19 (3.1), 37 (3.1)
|
Engineering systems
|
18 e) f), 37 e) f)
|
Environmental impact
|
19, 38 (Outcome 6)
|
Established engineering practices
|
19 (3.1), 37 (3.1)
|
Ethical issues identified
|
20 (8.1), 39 (8.1)
|
Evaluate selected design
|
31 (4.4)
|
Evaluate situations in the absence of full evidence
|
20 (9.2), 40 (9.2)
|
Evaluation
|
20 (1.2), 36 (10.3), 40 (10.3)
|
Evaluation of solution
|
16, 17, 18 i)
|
Evaluators
|
50 (3.3.1)
|
Examples, actual
|
19 (3.2), 20 (3.2)
|
Experience and Training Outline
|
17, 22, 23, 53 (4.4.3), 54
|
Experience and Training Report
|
16, 22, 23, 52 (4.4), 53 (Table 4)
|
Experience and Training Summary
|
21, 22 (1.10), 48 (3.2), 51 (4.3), 53 (4.4)
|
Extended Experience Appraisal
|
45 (3), 50 (3.3.1)
|
Factors, interrelationship
|
20 (9.1), 40 (9.1)
|
Factors specific and technical
|
18 d), 35 d)
|
Feedback, stakeholder
|
78
|
Field, Discipline Specific
|
16, 17
|
Final solution
|
19 (2.2), 37 (2.2)
|
Foreseen work consequences
|
20 (9.2), 40 (9.2)
|
Forms and documents
|
51 (Table 2)
|
Formulate design problem and manage design process
|
31 (4.1)
|
Full evidence
|
20 (9.2), 40 (9.2)
|
Generated possible solutions
|
31 (2.2)
|
Good practise deliverables
|
77 (10)
|
Group educational assessment
|
64 (14)
|
Group experiential assessment
|
61 (6)
|
Health and Safety
|
20, 38 (Outcome 7)
|
Holistic evaluation
|
63 (Nomenclature 3)
|
Identify ethical issues
|
20 (8.1), 39 (8.1)
|
Ill-posed problem
|
42
|
Impact limited
|
18 d), 36 d)
|
Impact, social, cultural and environmental
|
19, 38 (Outcome 6)
|
Increasing levels of responsibility
|
68 (4)
|
Individual educational assessment
|
64 (13)
|
Individual experiential assessment
|
61 (5)
|
Information supplementation
|
18 g), 36 g)
|
Information to clarify
|
19 (1.2), 36 (1.2)
|
Initial Professional Development Report (IPD)
|
28, 29, 41 (11.1), 54
|
Instruction interpretation
|
19 (1.1), 36 (1.1)
|
Instructions
|
19 (5.2), 38 (5.2)
|
Integrated performance
|
42
|
Interacting disciplines
|
37
|
Interaction with stakeholders
|
16, 17, 54 (Table 4)
|
Interactions
|
18 d), 35 d)
|
Interfaces
|
18 i), 36 i)
|
Interpretation
|
19 (1.1), 36 (1.1)
|
Investigate and analyse well-defined engineering problems
|
19 (Outcome 1), 36 (1)
|
Judgement, engineering
|
18 i), 20 (9), 36 i), 40 (Outcome 9), 54 (4.5)
|
Jurisdictional knowledge
|
37
|
Justification of decisions
|
20 (10.1), 40 (10.1)
|
Knowledge and skills required to solve problems
|
31 (2.1)
|
Knowledge comprehended and applied
|
19, 37 (Outcome 3)
|
Legal and regulatory requirements
|
20, 39 (Outcome 7), 53 (4.5)
|
Level Descriptor, Well-defined engineering activities
|
18, 35 (2), 44
|
Levels of responsibility
|
6 (4)
|
Locally important risks
|
18 j), 36 j)
|
Major laws and regulations
|
20 (7.1), 38 (7.1)
|
Making decisions responsibly
|
20, 40 (Outcome 10)
|
Manage yourself, priorities, processes and resources
|
19 (4.1), 38 (4.1)
|
Management responsibilities
|
17, 19 (Outcome 4)
|
Matters outside ability
|
20 (10.2), 40 (10.2)
|
Mentor
|
15, 20, 32, 72, 75
|
Method of analysis
|
16, 17, 36 (Outcome 1)
|
Mitigating measures communicated
|
19 (6.2), 38 (6.2)
|
Mix of mathematical, natural science and engineering knowledge
|
30
|
More evidence
|
49 (3.3.1), 61, 64
|
Nature of problems addressed
|
16, 17, 54 (Table 4)
|
Nature of training or experience
|
16, 17, 54 (Table 4)
|
NDip Diploma in Engineering
|
2, 14 (A), 19 (Outcome 3), 20 (10.1), 22 (1.2), 23 (3.1), 30 (A.1)
|
NDip level engineering standard procedures
|
19 (3.1), 37 (3.1)
|
NDip level reasoning
|
19 (3.2), 37 (3.2)
|
NDip level theory calculations
|
19 (3.2), 20 (10.1), 37 (3.2), 40 (10.1), 54 (4.5)
|
Nomenclature
|
59
|
On-line, secure system
|
45 (3)
|
Operational context constraint
|
18 e), 35 e)
|
Organising
|
38 b), 54 (4.6)
|
Organogram
|
16, 17, 22 (1.7), 53 (Table 4)
|
Outcomes
|
19, 34, 42
|
Over-determined problem
|
42
|
Overview of the competency standards
|
69 (5)
|
Perform design task
|
31 (4.3)
|
Perform investigation
|
32 (5.1)
|
Performance, competent
|
73 ((7)
|
Planning
|
38 a), 54 (4.5)
|
Point of view, presentation
|
19 (5.1), 38 (5.1)
|
Policy on Registration R-01-P
|
14 (A), 44 (1), 45 (2), 53 (4.4.3)
|
Portfolio of Evidence
|
35 (1)
|
Practical engineering knowledge
|
18 i), 36 i)
|
Practice areas
|
18 b), 19 (Outcome 3), 35, 37, 39, 42
|
Prescribed or standardised
|
18 f), 36 f)
|
Present preferred solution
|
31 (2.3)
|
Presenting point of view
|
19 (5.1), 38 (5.1)
|
Procedures
|
19 (3.1), 37 (3.1)
|
Procedures, codes and standards
|
18 f), 36 f)
|
Process for Registration
|
44
|
Process Outline
|
45 (3), 49 (Figure 3)
|
Professional development
|
20 (Outcome 11), 41, 65 (1)
|
Professional Engineering Technician, Application
|
11
|
Professional Engineering Technician, Registration Process
|
44
|
Programme, candidacy
|
75 (8)
|
Project reports
|
55 (5.3)
|
Purpose of Standards
|
35 (1)
|
Qualifications
|
11 (2), 13, 14 (A), 55 (4.7), 61 (2)
|
Range statement
|
42
|
Reasoning, NDip level
|
19 (3.2), 37 (3.2)
|
Recognition of Educational Qualifications
|
14 (A)
|
Referees
|
12 (6), 14 (A), 15 (6), 24, 25, 27, 48 (3.2), 55 (4.6), 73
|
Refusal
|
50 (3.3.1)
|
Registration Committee
|
50 (3.3)
|
Registration Policy R-01-P
|
14 (A), 44 (1), 45 (2), 53 (4.4.3)
|
Registration Process, Candidate Engineering Technician
|
44, 66 (2)
|
Registration Process, Professional Engineering Technician
|
44
|
Registration system documents
|
43, 44
|
Regulatory and legal
|
20, 39 (Outcome 7)
|
Related theory
|
18 a), 36 a)
|
Reports
|
19 (5.1), 38 (5.1)
|
Resources
|
18 c), 35 c)
|
Responsibility
|
16, 17, 20 (Outcome 10), 21 (Last column), 22 (1.1, 1.2, 1.9), 34, 35 (2nd column), 40 (Outcome 10), 52 (Table 3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2), 54 (Table 4), 54 (4.5), 70 (6)
|
Responsible advice
|
20 (10.2), 40 (10.2)
|
Responsible for decisions made
|
20 (10.3), 40 (10.3)
|
Risk management
|
20 (7.2), 39 (7.2), 54 (4.5)
|
Risks locally important
|
18 f), 35 f), 40 (9a)
|
Role
|
16, 17, 22 (1.2), 23 (2.1), 70 (6)
|
Role in team
|
19 (4.2), 38 (4.2)
|
Social impact
|
19 (6.1), 38 (6.1)
|
Solution development and evaluation
|
16, 17
|
Solution of problems
|
19, 37 (Outcome 2)
|
Sound judgement in engineering
|
20, 40 (Outcome 9)
|
Sources of evidence
|
60
|
Specific knowledge
|
19, 37 (Outcome 3)
|
Specific technical factors
|
18 d), 35 d)
|
Stakeholder engagement
|
19 (6.2), 38 (6.2)
|
Stakeholder interaction
|
16, 17
|
Stakeholder participation
|
78
|
Standard procedures and systems, engineering
|
19 (3.1), 37 (3.1)
|
Standards, codes and procedures prescribed
|
18 f), 35 f)
|
Strategy to develop professionally
|
20 (11.1), 41 (11.1)
|
Sub-disciplines
|
35 (1)
|
Supervisor
|
16, 17, 19 (2.2), 20, 22 (1.10), 23 (2.1 and 3.1), 32, 36 (1.1), 37 (2.2), 40 (Note1), 53 Table 4), 71 (Table 2)
|
Syllabi
|
55 (5.2)
|
Synthesise
|
37 (Outcome 2)
|
Teamwork, role
|
19 (4.2), 37 (4.2)
|
Technical factors specific
|
18 d), 40 d)
|
Techniques
|
35 (2a), 37 (Outcome 2)
|
Techniques applied
|
18 a), 35 a)
|
Tertiary Engineering Qualifications (AR)
|
11 (2), 13, 14 (A), 55 (4.7)
|
Theory
|
19, 40 (Outcome 3)
|
Training and Experience Outline (TEO)
|
17, 22, 23,53 (4.4.3), 54
|
Training and Experience Report (TER)
|
16, 22, 23, 52 (4.4), 53 (Table 4)
|
Training and Experience Summary (TES)
|
21, 22 (1.10), 48 (3.2), 51 (4.3), 53 (4.4)
|
Training process
|
67 (3)
|
Uncertainty and risk
|
30 (1.3)
|
Understand and verify
|
19 (3.1), 36 (3.1)
|
Verify and understand
|
19 (3.1), 36 (3.1)
|
Weighing factors
|
62,63
|
Well-defined engineering activities
|
18, 25, 35, 38, 51 (4.1), 53 (4.5)
|
Well-defined engineering activities, level descriptor
|
18, 35 (2), 44
|
Well-defined engineering problems
|
18, 19 (Outcomes 1 and 2), 25, 30, 34, 36 (Outcome 1), 37 (Outcome2)
|
Well-defined engineering problems, analyse and investigate
|
19 (Outcome 1), 36 (1)
|
Work consequences foreseen
|
20 (9.2), 40 (9.2)
|
Work instruction
|
19 (5.2), 36 (5.2)
|
Working relationships
|
18 b), 35 b), 64 (Nomenclature)
|
Write a technical report
|
32 (5.4)
|
|
|
6 September 2014
Share with your friends: |
