Reviewer Training Pack 2016 Final

REVIEWER
TRAINING
PACK
Version 4 September 2016

Contents
2 Introduction
2 Grades of Membership
2 Route to membership and educational base
3 Initial Professional Development (IPD)
3 The Examination Associate-Membership and Chartered membership
Notes and Guidance to Reviewers
4 The Professional Review Interview (PRI)
4 Ensuring consistency across the Regional Groups and threshold criteria
5 Appointment criteria for Reviewers
5 Reviewer training
6 Before the interviews
6 The interview
8 After the interview
9 Remote PRI
9 The PRI and the three year and ve attempts rules
10 Failure and appeals
10 Grounds for an appeal
11 Initial Professional Development
11 Initial Professional Development (IPD)
13 Core Objective standards
13 IPD Regulations
14 Core Objectives minimum standards - table
16 Portfolio Guidance
16 Guidance on submission of portfolio
18 Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
19 Summary Report Forms: Guidance Notes
21 Example Summary Report Forms - Unacceptable
27 Example Summary Report Forms - Acceptable
31 Forms completed by candidates
32 IPD Quarterly Report Form
32 Progress Summary Record
34 IPD Final Report Form
35 Portfolio checklist - Example
36 Form to be completed by Reviewers
36 Reviewer Experience Record
The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 1

Introduction
Grades of Membership
There are seven main grades of membership:
i) Student
ii) Graduate
iii) Technician (TIStructE)
iv) Associate-Member (AMIStructE)
v) Associate (AIStructE)
vi) Chartered Member (MIStructE)
vii) Fellow (FIStructE)
An eighth grade Companion is designed to attract senior engineers from professions allied to structural engineering,
who have demonstrated a level of seniority and ability similar to that of a Fellow.
The requirements for election as a member of the above grades are in the Institutions Bye-laws and Regulations:
www.istructe.org/about-us/governance
Route to membership and educational base
Candidates applying for the Professional Review (Interview and Exam/Research and Development Review) must follow the
route shown below. Those seeking Technician membership are assessed against 12 core objectives rather than 13 as is
the case with Associate-Membership or Chartered membership. There is no examination for Technician candidates or
those applying via the Research and Development Route.
Pass AM or CM
Pass the
Complete the Complete the Examination/ IEng,
Professional
Educational 12/13 IPD core Research and AMIStructE or
Review
Base objectives Development CEng, MIstructE
Interview (PRI) Review
EngTech,
TIstructE
The educational base consists of:

Chartered membership - MEng or equivalent e.g.
BEng (Hons)* + MSc
BEng (Hons)* + Technical Report Route
BEng (Hons)* + CM Exam
Associate-Membership Bachelors degree or equivalent e.g.

BSc
HND + AM Exam
Technician NC or equivalent
* Accredited as part-satisfying the academic base for Chartered membership
2| The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

Initial Professional Development (IPD)
After graduation, the candidate is required to complete 12/13 Initial Professional Development (IPD) core objectives at one
of four prescribed levels of attainment (Appreciation, Knowledge, Experience or Ability).
Of the 12/13 core objectives, two are classified as Personal, five are classified as Technical (six for Technicians) and
six are classified as Management (four for Technicians).
The Examination Associate-Membership and Chartered membership
IF, AND ONLY IF, the candidate passes the Professional Review Interview, will they be allowed to sit the examination. If a
candidate fails the Professional Review Interview, he or she will be required to be re-interviewed and, subject to passing,
will then be allowed to advance to the examination.
The Institution has two examinations namely the Associate-Member (AM) examination and the Chartered Member (CM)
examination. Both examinations are seven hours in duration.

Briefing Notes and Guidance to Reviewers
The Professional Review Interview (PRI)
Upon completion of the academic and IPD requirements candidates may apply for a Professional Review. The Professional
Review for Chartered Membership and Associate-Membership is a two-stage process, the first part being the Professional
Review Interview (PRI) and the second part being the Institutions Examination (Chartered Membership or Associate-
Membership Exam). Candidates applying for Technician Membership are required to sit a Professional Review Interview only.
Chartered and Associate-Membership candidates, successful in the Interview part of the Professional Review, may apply to
sit the appropriate exam.
The task is to conduct the Professional Review Interviews for all candidates seeking Technician Membership, Associate-
Membership or Chartered Membership of the Institution demonstrating an appropriate degree of rigour and professionalism.
Discussions have previously taken place between the various PRI Co-ordinators at Institution HQ to try to identify best
practice so that a fair and consistent approach is adopted, irrespective of the Regional Group conducting the interviews. The
outcome of these discussions is reflected in these briefing notes.
The main aims of the Professional Review Interview are to:
a) Confirm that the candidate has achieved all 12/13 core objectives at the required level of attainment.
b) Confirm that the candidate can demonstrate a commitment to Continuing Professional Development (CPD).
As you will be assessing candidates CPD as part of the Professional Review Interview you must be CPD compliant;
therefore you must have submitted your CPD record for assessment for the relevant PRI session i.e. for the previous year.
On occasion reviewers will be required to carry out interviews for candidates applying for the Associate (AIStructE) grade.
This is a Chartered grade and Associates may be eligible to register with the Engineering Council and use the CEng
designation having satisfied the relevant criteria. This grade should not be confused with the Associate-Member
(AMIStructE) grade which is at the IEng level.
Details pertaining to this grade can be found on the Institutions website: www.istructe.org/associate
Ensuring consistency across the Regional Groups and threshold criteria
The IPD regulations have been designed to cater for candidates from various parts of the world with different career
backgrounds and specialisms.
The IPD regulations list 12/13 core objectives that candidates are required to satisfy. Under each objective a series of
Guidance Notes have been produced. It is important to note that the activities in the guidance notes are not compulsory. The
notes simply indicate possible ways in which the core objectives may be satisfied. It is clearly stated within the IPD document
that the guidance notes are given as examples only and are not designed to be definitive; candidates may choose to satisfy
the core objectives in other ways that are not listed here, but nonetheless attain the level of competence required.
Reviewers should note that the standards required for the objectives vary. The minimum standards required for the
objectives are Appreciation, Knowledge, Experience and Ability. Candidates are not required to be experts in each core
objective but rather simply satisfy the minimum requirement of the core objective in question.
The Applications and Professional Review Panel is relying on the reviewers to use their discretion and judgement to
determine whether the minimum standard has been reached and reviewers should structure the interview appropriately to
cover the different objectives.
The system has been designed to allow reviewers the maximum and discretion in interpreting and applying the
core objectives to suit the particular circumstances in their Regional Group. However, the Applications and Professional
Review Panel will continue to monitor this issue and would welcome feedback from reviewers.
Appointment criteria for Reviewers
1 Reviewers must be of at least the same grade as that for which the applicant is applying.
2 Reviewers should have at least years experience at the appropriate level. However this is not an absolute
requirement; an enthusiastic and capable potential reviewer should not be turned away on the sole basis that they
have less than years experience at that level.
3 All reviewers should be able to demonstrate CPD.
4 Reviewers should be appointed on a three-year basis and may continue in this capacity by mutual agreement.
5 Reviewers should not normally hold the for more than three years after retiring from practice. Again this is not
an absolute requirement so long as the retired member has kept themselves up to date with the industry and the IPD
Regulations and has submitted approved CPD records for the relevant years.
6 Each PRI Coordinator should ensure that there is a selection of reviewers with experience across a wide range of
specialisms/disciplines.
The secretariat can easily identify how often reviewers conduct interviews and which candidates they reviewed. Where
a Regional Group experiences in a reviewer with appropriate experience, reviewers from other Regional
Groups will be requested to assist in the interview process.
Reviewer Experience Records should be submitted to HQ to ensure that an up-to-date list of reviewers is available.
There should be a minimum of two reviewers for each candidate interview. Ideally at least one of the reviewers should
have knowledge of the candidates area of expertise.
The Regional Group will appoint a PRI Coordinator to be responsible for all reviewers, in order to ensure uniformity
of approach.
Reviewers should note that all relevant documents and guidance are available online via the PRI Reviewers Page. To gain
access to this section, reviewers must complete and return the Reviewer Experience Record to their PRI Coordinator or by
emailing it to membership@istructe.org.
Reviewer Training
The Applications and Professional Review Panel is keen to maintain an interview system which is consistent, fair, rigorous
and robust. An important element of achieving these goals is to ensure that all PRI Co-ordinators and reviewers receive a
minimum level of training before conducting the interviews. The Applications and Professional Review Panel organise an
annual seminar for PRI Co-ordinators, and individual presentations have also been conducted in the majority of Regional
Groups.
The Applications and Professional Review Panel will continue to work with Regional Groups to establish an appropriate
quality assurance procedure. Regional Groups interested in organising presentations should contact the Membership
Department.

Reviewers are reminded that whilst conducting Professional Review Interviews, they are representing the Institution and
should in no way use the interview for other purposes, for example to discuss employment opportunities.
The Institution has agreed to pay each reviewer an amount for each interview. These payments are a part of the interview
fee charged by the Institution and are in addition to any travelling expenses. Some reviewers will travel to the interview
location by car; in accordance with Institution guidelines (and as agreed with the Regional Group Treasurer), a mileage
rate of 40p per mile should be claimed.
The organisation of the interviews is left up to the individual Regional Group. Some Regional Groups arrange all the
interviews on the same day. This is considered best practice and should be adopted as widely as possible, although it is
recognised that this may not be viable in all circumstances.
By holding all the interviews on one day, it should be possible to report the outcome of all the applications to HQ and to
submit all the relevant expense claim forms in a single letter/email, thereby maximising
The rest of this document focuses on what needs to be done before, during and after the interviews.
Before the interviews
You will receive the applications in time to be able to study them in a reasonable amount of detail.
Prior to the interview, time should be allocated for a brief meeting to discuss the candidate and the areas that the
reviewers wish to address. It is suggested that 30 minutes should be for this purpose. When you meet with your
co-reviewer, we suggest that you set aside a few minutes to discuss the submission and to agree on the major strengths
and weaknesses. Agree on the principal concerns and focus on these during the interview. Of course, you can discuss
the submissions by phone prior to the interviews, if you wish. It may be possible for you to agree that some of the core
objectives have already been so that you can use the interview to focus on the more dubious ones. This will
help you to make the best use of the available time. The Reviewers Interview Preparation Form should be used for this
purpose.
Although you are not required to submit this form to the Institution, we strongly recommend that you retain the form,
together with any notes you make during the interview. You may them useful in the unlikely event of an appeal.
The candidates submission/documentation should accompany you to the interview.
Remember: The main aim of the interview is to (and be within reason) that the candidate has achieved
all 12/13 core objectives. It is important to realise that the guidance notes are not compulsory requirements you
should be looking for evidence of good quality personal and professional development. Please do not forget to apply your
experience and common sense when deciding if each core objective has been
Please note that the application forms submitted by the candidate have been assessed by the Institutions staff at HQ and
that all candidates you are about to interview are fully eligible and have completed the educational base (they have the
required academic and that the forms have been counter-signed by the requisite number of supporters.
The interview
The interviews must be carried out by two reviewers. Candidates must show their reviewers photographic identication
prior to the commencement of the interview.
The interview should be tailored for each individual and should recognise the different backgrounds and career
development of each applicant. Candidates need only satisfy the minimum requirements of the core objectives.

The interview should last approximately one hour, but may be longer or shorter depending on the quality of the candidate
and their documentation. Please note the following points:
a) Candidates who have failed three or less core objectives prior to this years PRI session will only be required to be
interviewed on those core objectives. Ensure that the candidate is only interviewed on those as an interview
on all 12/13 could result in an appeal if the candidate fails.
b) The general approach should be to try to put the candidate at ease. You should aim to be welcoming and friendly.
Introduce yourselves and aim to give the impression that you are there to help them to get through the interview
process and not to try to fail them!
c) An opening statement should be made by one of the reviewers to the candidate that the onus is on them to
demonstrate to you (the reviewers) that all the core objectives have been at the stated attainment levels.
d) It should also be made clear to the candidate that they must pass the PRI in order to progress to the AM or CM
examination. Remember - you are not permitted to indicate pass or fail at any time during or after the interview.
The candidate should then be invited to give an informal presentation of their career in structural engineering which
should last approximately 10 minutes. They are not allowed to use any electronic aids such as computers or other
facilities such as an overhead projector to do this. They should use examples from their portfolio of work and IPD
Final Report Forms when delivering this presentation.
Reviewers are free to ask questions during the presentation. However, it is likely that the candidate will refer to
their examples of work throughout the interview. Hence, it is not always possible to identify a clear to the
presentation this does not matter!
e) Start off by asking some fairly simple questions concerning the core objectives that the candidate appears to have
easily Then focus on the areas of concern. Ask increasingly probing questions until you are More
attention can then be paid to the areas of concern. These can be in the discussions between reviewers
immediately prior to the interview.
f) It may be worthwhile stating the core objective that you are concerned about make it clear to the candidate that
you are worried, to give them the maximum chance to address your concerns. It will be less of a surprise if they then
fail that core objective.
g) Evidence of their CPD can be demonstrated by regular use of a development action plan, a personal development
record in the form of a diary and keeping a portfolio of their work and responsibility during the period of their IPD.
h) You must be aware of the implications of failing someone. The candidate will not be permitted to progress to
AM or CM examination or will not be elected to Technician membership. There will be a delay in them becoming
professionally You must therefore take steps to ensure that the candidate has been given a very clear
opportunity to demonstrate to you that all the core objectives have been achieved.
i) Before failing a candidate, on the basis of not meeting the standard expected of one or more of the core objectives,
questioning should focus on the areas of doubt. Very probing questions must be asked relating to the core
objective under suspicion. By doing this you are very clearly (and overtly) giving the candidate an opportunity to
demonstrate to you that he or she has achieved the minimum level appropriate for TM, AM or CM. Most candidates
that are being asked very questions on one or more of the core objectives will realise that they have a
weakness in this area. This is important. Similarly, if they give an obviously poor response to detailed questioning
relating to the core objective, they (hopefully) will realise that they have failed.

j) As a general guide, the candidate should only be failed if, after probing with questioning (including asking the
candidate to point out the evidence in their submission, in case you have missed it) it is clear that the core objective
has not been met at the required attainment level. If there is an element of doubt on one or two core objectives
(rather than very clear evidence that they have failed) give them the of the doubt remember they are
under pressure no matter how relaxed we think they might be, they will be (and should be) nervous! For example,
your perception may be that one or two of the core objectives have been passed at, say, Appreciation rather than
Knowledge level. We should consider this to be acceptable (it can be regarded as being within the tolerances of the
interview process). However, the core objectives with an attainment level of Ability and Experience should not be
accepted at a lower level than that required by the Institution.
k) In summary, even though the onus is on the candidate, you should do all you can to provide the candidate with the
opportunity to demonstrate that they have achieved the required standards in all 12/13 core objectives. You can
exercise your professional judgement and common sense to allow the candidate a small amount of leeway in some
of the core objectives as outlined in j), above.
l) Finish the interview by asking them if they have anything further to add you may have missed an important aspect
of their experience that they are keen to describe or they may wish to add to an earlier response. The questioning
may not have covered everything that the candidate feels is useful or would make a contribution to the decision
made by you. This is a opportunity for the candidate to give more useful information that might support their
case.
Try to complete the interview within one hour. With a good clear submission that has covered all the 12/13 core objectives,
it is possible that there will be no need to spend an excessive amount of time on the interview. It is, however, suggested
that an absolute minimum period of 30 minutes should be spent that the core objectives have been met. In
effect, this is a reward to the candidate for taking the time and effort to prepare a clear and comprehensive submission.
Other cases may require longer.
Please destroy Form M/AM/TM, the IPD Final Report Forms and the two page experience report. The rest of the work must
be returned to the candidate.
Remember: Do not enter into any discussion with the candidates at any time about their performance in the interview.
Advise them that decisions concerning the interviews will be made at the Membership Committee.
At the end of the interview, try to stand back from the process a little and ask yourself if the candidate has progressed
in their personal and professional development since graduation to be worthy of the title Chartered/
Incorporated/Engineering Technician (assuming that they pass the AM or CM examination not required for Technicians).
Please note that you should NOT take the view that some of the core objectives (for example 2.1 - Conceptual Design and
2.2 - Analysis and Design) are assessed by the AM or CM examination.
The PRI serves as a stand-alone exercise. It is, in effect, a candidates who have not achieved the design-related
core objectives would probably fail the examination. Hopefully, the review process will produce a crop of engineers that are
better prepared to sit the examination.
After the interview
Please complete IN FULL the Reviewers Summary Report Form this must include comments which justify the decision
reached relating to all 12/13 core objectives and CPD. Ensure that the correct Summary Report Form is used, i.e. the one
for the grade applied for. Please note that you must provide against each core objective, including those that
have been passed by the candidate. This is a requirement of the Institution and Engineering Council and it follows from
comments raised by the Engineering Council auditors in the full and interim audits (2011 and 2015 respectively). You must
also indicate if each core objective and the CPD commitment is either U (unsatisfactory) or S (satisfactory).

Of course, if you give one or more ratings of U, the candidate fails. Please also make sure that you give your overall
assessment statement and tick either the YES or NO box. Only one form is required for each candidate and the form
MUST be signed by both reviewers and the PRI coordinator.
Remote PRI
On occasion it is not possible to arrange the PRI in a location appropriate to both the candidate and reviewers due to
a lack of appropriate members near the candidate. Under such circumstances the candidate or reviewers may be asked
to travel but if the distance or cost is prohibitive then a remote PRI can be arranged.
A remote PRI is a last resort where all other avenues to expedite the interview have failed. Below are the key
criteria/steps for conducting a remote PRI:
1. Use Skype or a similar application. Ensure that it is viable for both reviewers and the candidate.
2. If possible, one reviewer should be in the same room as the candidate when the interview is conducted.
3. Undertake a Skype, or similar, call with the other reviewer prior to the interview. This will allow you to
test the connection and discuss the candidates documentation, as you would for a 'normal' interview.
4. Undertake a Skype, or similar, call with all three parties to ensure that connection is possible and stable.
5. Maintain audio and visual contact at all times throughout the interview.
6. The candidate should have photographic ID which should be veried at the outset of the interview.
7. Be prepared to take more time with a remote PRI than would be the case with a standard PRI.
8. If the candidate is in a different country you may need to take into account local practices and legislation.
9. After the interview, discuss the outcomes with your fellow reviewer, via Skype or similar, then complete the
Summary Report Form electronically.
All other respects a remote PRI should be treated identically to a normal interview.
The PRI and the three year and ve attempts rule
If a candidate passes the interview but does not pass the exam - whether Associate-Member or Chartered - in ve
attempts or leaves more than three years between exam attempts they will be required to undertake and pass a further
PRI before they can be elected to the relevant grade of professional membership. This interview will only take place
once they have passed the exam and as such may occur outside of the normal schedule of the PRIs.
The same process should be followed for an interview under the three year or ve attempts rules and the candidate will
submit the same documentation and portfolios. However, you should recognise that such a candidate has already passed
the PRI and the examination and this interview should be a light-touch review of each of the core objectives to conrm
that the previous outcome remains valid.

Failure and appeals
Candidates will normally fail if they have not attained the required level in one or more of the core objectives (even
allowing for a little leeway) or because they have not been able to demonstrate a commitment to CPD. Remember that
CPD can be achieved through work-based learning/investigation it is not simply a matter of attending courses.
If the candidate fails, then they have the right to appeal, although the grounds for an appeal are very limited.
Nevertheless, you should bear in mind that the possibility of an appeal exists when completing the Summary Report
Form. It is essential therefore that you have clear reasons for failing a candidate and that these are stated on the
Summary Report Form.
The comments on the Reviewers Summary Report Form may be used to provide some feedback to the failed candidate
so that they can address any in the future. Please note that in the event of an appeal this form may be
presented to the candidate and the Applications and Professional Review Panel.
If a candidate fails up to and including three core objectives, they only have to address the three failed objectives at
a future interview; however if more than three objectives have been failed a full re-submission and re-interview is
required.
Grounds for an appeal
An applicant has a right of appeal against any decision in relation to their application for admission, transfer or
readmission, or approval to undertake, or failure in, the Professional Review (interview and examination).
An appeal may be made on the following grounds only:
Extenuating circumstances occurring immediately before or during the application process, interview or
examination (as appropriate),
and/or
Departure from the Institutions application, interview or examination procedures.
For the avoidance of doubt, an appeal shall not be considered on the grounds of the Membership Committees
assessment of the application or in relation to a decision of the Executive Board.
It is suggested that you retain any notes and interview preparation forms for a period of at least three months after the
interview.
10 | The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

Initial Professional Development
There are three stages in becoming a professional member of the Institution:
1 Achievement of the required educational base

2 A period of responsible work experience initially under guidance and supervision, known as Initial Professional
Development (IPD)
3 Success in the Institutions Professional Review (PR)
Note: Completion of the educational base and IPD can run concurrently.
Many of the activities undertaken during an individuals period of IPD can be considered as appropriate CPD and one of
the requirements of IPD is that candidates show evidence of CPD and a commitment to future professional development.
Professional members must gain at least 90 hours CPD over three years.
Initial Professional Development (IPD)
IPD comprises the acquisition and development of the specialist knowledge and skills, and their practical application, that
are needed to practise as a structural engineer. It bridges the gap between the educational base and attaining professional
The Institution IPD in terms of core objectives, which are to minimum standards.
All relevant experience may be taken into account, including pre-graduate experience from sandwich, part-time or
vacation work. However, the amount of pre-graduate experience which may be included will depend on the quality of the
experience gained by the individual.
There are three routes candidates can follow through the IPD regulations:
Individually Managed IPD: Accredited Training Retrospectively Collated

candidates who are Scheme: candidates who IPD: candidates who have no
responsible for managing their are following an accredited formal training records and as
own training with the training agreement with ICE, such a mentor will normally
assistance of a personal HKIE, etc. not have been involved in this
mentor. route.
a) Individually managed IPD. The submission to the Institution consists of an IPD Final Report Form for each core
objective plus a two page experience report.
Prior to the interview, these candidates will be expected to provide their Regional Group with their IPD Quarterly
Report Forms, Progress Summary Record and two copies of a comprehensive portfolio of work.
IPD Quarterly Report Form:

The IPD Quarterly Report Form is split into sections. The three sections cover the three groups of core
objectives: Personal, Engineering, Management and Commercial. In each of these three sections the candidate will
be required to list training or experience they have received in the preceding two or three months which contribute to
core objectives. For example, if the candidate attended a Regional Group meeting of the Institution this would
contribute to core objective 1.1 and consequently the candidate would note this down on the IPD Quarterly Report
Form.
The IPD Quarterly Report Form is designed to simply list very brief details of the activities undertaken. If the candidate

wishes to add further information they will use additional sheets signed by themselves and their mentor.
Alternatively, the candidate may prefer to write a report expanding on each of the bullet points and this report may
be attached to the IPD Quarterly Report Form. These detailed records help the candidate complete the IPD Final
Report Forms when preparing their submission for the Professional Review.
The fourth section of the form is the candidates Development Action Plan where they have listed activities they
intend to undertake to satisfy the core objectives.
The mentor will complete the section of the form, and both the candidate and the mentor will sign the form
and each additional page.
Progress Summary Record:

The Progress Summary Record shows the candidates logical progression through the core objectives. At a glance
the reviewers can see how the candidate has progressed through each objective.
For example, for core objective 2.2 Analysis and Design a candidate should have an appreciation (standard A)
of this upon graduation from university. However, after a short period (three to six months) within a company the
graduate may have increased their understanding of design and analysis (standard K). After a further period (12
18 months) the candidate may have experience (standard E) in many of the elements of analysis and design and
ultimately the candidate, after three or four years, may have an ability (standard B) to perform the objective without
supervision and be competent to advise others.
Therefore, in in the forms, the candidate should simply note the date of the meetings with their mentor and
the level of attainment reached at that date.
b) Accredited Training Scheme. Usually this will be an ICE or HKIE training scheme. The submission to the Institution
consists of an IPD Final Report Form for each core objective plus a two page experience report.
A key element of a managed training programme is the production of regular reports which, by recording the
activities undertaken and the lessons learned in relation to the objectives, not only act as a source for future
reference, but also demonstrates progress towards and achievement of the core objectives. Even if a candidate is
not following either an accredited training scheme, recognised by the Institution as satisfying its core objectives,
or an individually managed programme we recommend that candidates may choose to complete the IPD quarterly
report forms every three to four months as an aide memoire towards the IPD Final Report Forms and
compiling a portfolio of work.
Prior to the interview, these candidates will be expected to provide their relevant Regional Group with a copy of
their full training records and two copies of a comprehensive portfolio of work.
c) Retrospectively Collated Route. The submission to the Institution consists of an IPD Final Report Form for each
core objective plus a two page experience report.
Prior to the interview, these candidates will be expected to provide their Regional Group with two copies of a
comprehensive portfolio of work.
The core objectives relate to all types of structural engineering work and associated disciplines. They permit maximum
and indicate only the minimum standard of required competence. They do not depend on time-served as a
measure of achievement but are capable of objective and progressive assessment.

The core objectives are arranged in three sections:
Personal: effective communication and interpersonal skills, leadership and professional commitment.
Engineering: and solution of engineering problems and the safe, economic and sustainable implementation
of the solutions.
Management and commercial: procurement and management of resources within economic, environmental
and regulatory constraints to achieve the engineering objectives.
The required level of attainment that will satisfy the core objectives
There are four different standards that apply to the core objectives:
A A general appreciation of the subject is required, as well as an understanding of how the subject may affect, or
integrate with other subjects.
K A knowledge and understanding of the subject and its application is required.
E experience is required to enable the subject to be performed independently or under supervision.
B An ability to perform the subject without supervision and be competent to advise others.
It is important to note that candidates are not required to be experts in all of the objectives; they are simply required
to satisfy the minimum standard as in the objective. As far as attainment levels are concerned, the guidance
notes under each core objective highlight some of the ways in which candidates may satisfy the objective. However, the
guidance notes are, as the name suggests, simply guidance notes. The notes are not intended to be either comprehensive
or exhaustive.
Other activities may also contribute to a objective and may be recorded.
However, whilst the notes are designed to guide candidates and should not be used as a tick box exercise, it should be
noted that if candidates have not undertaken a number of activities in the notes they may it to
demonstrate that they have met the minimum requirement of the objective.
IPD Regulations
The IPD Regulations for all three grades of membership are available on the Institutions website and via the PRI
Reviewers Page in the My Account section. Links to the relevant IPD Regulations are as follows:
Technician Membership: www.istructe.org/ipdregtm
Associate-Membership: www.istructe.org/ipdregam
Chartered Membership: www.istructe.org/ipdregcm (Standard)

www.istructe.org/ipdregresearch (Research and Development)
It is your responsibility as a reviewer to familiarise yourself with the relevant IPD Regulations, before interviewing a
candidate. This will ensure that you are informed of our current guidance and requirements. Do not rely solely on your
experience and knowledge as a structural engineer.

Core Objectives Minimum Standards
The table below should act as a quick reference guide and should be used in conjunction with the relevant IPD
Regulations. Please be advised that although the minimum standard for some of the core objectives are the same, the
way in which the candidate will satisfy the expectations of the core objective will be different depending on the grade of
membership the candidate is pursuing.
It is therefore vital that you familiarise yourself with the guidance notes contained within the IPD Regulations as these
provide the greatest level of detail and will ensure that the candidate is assessed appropriately.
Technician Member Associate-Member Chartered Member
Core Objective Min Core Objective Min Core Objective Min
1.1 K 1.1 K 1.1 K

Institution Institution Institution
Knowledge of the Institution Knowledge of the Institution Knowledge of the Institution
and involvement in Institution and involvement in Institution and involvement in Institution
affairs affairs affairs
1.2 B 1.2 B 1.2 B

Communication Communication Communication
Ability to demonstrate Ability to demonstrate Ability to demonstrate
effective communication and effective communication and effective communication and
interpersonal skills interpersonal skills interpersonal skills
2.1 A 2.1 K 2.1 B

Conceptual Design Conceptual Design Conceptual Design
Appreciation of the process Appreciation of the process Appreciation of the process
of producing viable structural of producing viable structural of producing viable structural
solutions, within the scope of solutions, within the scope of solutions, within the scope of
a design brief a design brief a design brief
2.2 K 2.2 B 2.2 B

Structural Solutions Analysis and Design Analysis and Design
Analysis and Design Ability to carry out analysis Ability to carry out analysis
Knowledge of the processes and design of conventional and design of conventional
involved in the analysis and structures structures
design of basic structures
2.3 B 2.3 K 2.3 K

Production of Engineering Materials Materials
Documents Ability to specify and co- Ability to specify and co-
Ability in the production ordinate the use of materials ordinate the use of materials
of structural engineering
documents

2.4 K 2.4 K 2.4 K
Materials Environment Environment
Knowledge of how Knowledge of relevant Knowledge of relevant
materials are environmental and environmental and
and incorporated into the sustainability issues and sustainability issues and
structure legislation legislation
2.5 K 2.5 E 2.5 E

Environment Construction Construction
Knowledge of relevant Experience in construction Experience in construction
environmental and techniques techniques
conservation legislation
2.6 E 3.1 E 3.1 E

Construction Management Skills Management Skills
Experience in construction Experience in management Experience in management
techniques skills for programming and skills for programming and
control control
3.1 K 3.2 A 3.2 A

Management Skills Law Law
Knowledge of management Appreciation of the law and Appreciation of the law and
skills for programming and statutory legislation statutory legislation
control
3.2 K 3.3 E 3.3 E

Health and Safety Health and Safety Health and Safety
Knowledge of Health and Experience in Health and Experience in Health and
Safety requirements and Safety requirements and Safety requirements and
legislation legislation legislation
3.3 A 3.4 A 3.4 A

Commercial Awareness Commercial Awareness Commercial Awareness
Appreciation of commercial Appreciation of commercial Appreciation of commercial
and constraints and constraints and constraints
3.4 K 3.5 K 3.5 K

Quality Systems Contract Documentation Contract Documentation
Knowledge of quality systems Knowledge of procurement Knowledge of procurement
routes and forms of contract routes and forms of contract
3.6 K 3.6 K
Quality Systems Quality Systems
Knowledge of quality systems Knowledge of quality systems

Continuing Professional Development
Candidates will be assessed on their commitment to CPD. Candidates may provide evidence in the form of a
development action plan, a CPD record/diary or the Institution's own CPD Activity Record. Evidence of CPD should
normally cover the previous three years as a minimum.
Ethics
All members of the Institution are expected to uphold ethical values and should demonstrate within their application
that they are committed to working in an ethical and socially responsible manner, as outlined in the Institutions
Code of Conduct. The candidate's understanding of ethics and application of ethical behaviour should therefore be
assessed during the interview.
The Institution believes that ethics should apply throughout all aspects of an engineers working life, and it is not
consequently represented by a single core objective as ethical issues can have an inuence across multiple objectives.
You should expect to see examples of how the candidate has upheld ethical values relevant to their working practices
within their IPD Final Report Forms and portfolio, and you may also wish to discuss this during the interview.
Portfolio Guidance
Engineers are encouraged to build a portfolio of work to help demonstrate experiences and skills gained, and their
applicability to the Institutions core objectives. The work diary should be updated periodically and should be used to
record/reference designs, sketches, drawings, letters, reports, etc. which are compiled in the appended portfolio.
Guidance on Submission of Portfolio

1. All candidates are required to prepare a portfolio of work in support of their IPD Final Report Forms, which they
must submit to their Regional Group once requested. However, in order to avoid unnecessary delays in the interview
process candidates are advised that the portfolio must be ready for submission at the time when they make their
interview application to headquarters.
2. Two copies of the completed portfolio will need to be submitted. Candidates following the individually managed or
accredited training scheme routes will also have to submit supporting documents (i.e. IPD quarterly report forms,
training records, etc.) with their portfolio. Examples of these forms are enclosed with this handbook. Candidates are
informed that in the event that they are unable or do not provide their portfolio within the timescales required by the
reviewers, that they may be prohibited from attending the interview.
3. The portfolio should demonstrate that the candidate has attained at least the minimum level of competence and
responsibility for the grade of membership that they are pursuing. It is a vital element of the PRI process, and they
should devote the necessary time and care to its production.
4. Core objective 1.2 is ability in communication, and the IPD report forms and portfolio will contribute to the
assessment of this objective.
5. The portfolio should be A4 size and not more than 40 mm (single-sided) or 25 mm (double-sided) in thickness,
excluding the folder/binding. If it exceeds this amount it is up to your discretion as well as that of your co-reviewer
whether you request that the candidate reduces the portfolio in line with the stipulated size restrictions, if time
permits, or agree that you will be unable to assess all of the submitted information in detail, and that the portfolio is
rejected and the interview therefore cancelled. Please note that upon receipt of an excessive portfolio and following
discussion with your co-reviewer that you contact your PRI Coordinator to confer, before advising the candidate.
6. The pages of text within the portfolio should be A4 size and not reduced to A5 to two pages onto an A4 sheet.
Drawings must be no greater than A3 size, and folded to suit. The font size used in the portfolio and IPD report
forms should be no smaller than Arial 9.
7. The portfolio must, as far as possible, contain evidence relating to all of the core objectives on which the candidate
is being assessed, and allow easy cross-referencing with the IPD Final Report Forms. The overriding principle is that
candidates must ensure that the information contained within the portfolio is relevant and relates directly to the core
objectives and how they have achieved the standards associated with each objective.

8. Candidates will be expected to include examples of work from a variety of projects that they have worked on, and
the portfolios must be sub-divided into the core objectives, with the evidence provided in each subsection relating
specically to the associated core objective.
9. All candidates are required to include a signed portfolio checklist as the page of their portfolio; if the checklist
is absent, reviewers reserve the right to request it prior to the interview. By completing the checklist candidates are
that they have complied with the Institutions requirements in terms of the layout and variety of evidence
provided within the portfolio. An example of the checklist is available at the back of the handbook (please note that
each grade has its own checklist with grade-specic criteria).
10. Where appropriate, candidates should provide hand written comments/annotations on the submitted information to
help demonstrate an understanding of the work and its relevance to the core objectives.
11. All work included within the portfolio must be clearly attributable to the candidate, and relevant to the core objectives.
Grade guidance and examples of information that could be expected in a typical portfolio can be found in the
relevant IPD Regulations:
www.istructe.org/careers-and-development/professional-development/initial-professional-development

Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
All reviewers should be able to demonstrate CPD. CPD is by the Institution as: The systematic maintenance,
improvement and broadening of knowledge and skill and the development of personal qualities necessary for the
execution of professional and technical duties throughout the practitioners working life.
All members of the Institution have an obligation to keep their skills and knowledge up to date.
The Institution provides a CPD Activities Record which can be used to record CPD. There is also a secure online version
accessible via My Account on the Institutions website.
Please note that the Institution operates mandatory reporting of CPD whereby a proportion of those elected to Fellow,
Chartered Member, Associate, Associate-Member and Technician will be obliged to submit a CPD record on request or
be removed from membership.

Summary Report Forms: Guidance Notes
Completing the Form:
Always use ink, NEVER pencil.

Ensure the forms are completed in full.
Complete the forms legibly if at all possible they should be typed. If not typed, the report forms must be legibly
handwritten. Please remember that someone unfamiliar with your handwriting will be reviewing the form.
The Comments Section:
MUST always be given REGARDLESS of whether the candidate fails or passes a core objective. The
comments should justify the decision made and may be used as evidence in the event of an appeal. When the forms
are sent to the Applications and Professional Review Panel for (Engineering Council in any audit), those
reviewing them will want to see the basis for the judgement of the reviewers and effective, clear and practicable
comments aid immeasurably with this.
Comments, in the case of both successes and failures, should always be of practical use. It is not enough to say,
for instance, not The comments should contain the detail of why the candidate has passed or failed with
reference to facts/projects.
Any and all comments made by reviewers MUST be synchronous with the decision reached. This means that if a
candidate is unsuccessful at a core objective, the comments should that. If a candidate is successful this
should also be indicated in the comments made.
It should NOT be the case that a candidate successfully passes a core objective, but has contradictory comments
given, for example
Headings for decision reached Assessment

S U
2.2 Ability (B) to carry out Structural sense is weak and an inability to sketch
analysis and design of out proper bending moment diagrams and the
structural forms shape of a simple two-bay portal was
demonstrated.
The above comments contradict the assessment and this should never be the case. Exactly the same principles
given above apply to the Reviewers Overall Assessment, for example
Reviewers Overall Assessment

The candidate has indicated that she has done structural analysis and design. However, her structural sense
appears to be weak and her ability to judge the correctness on the output of her computer models is doubtful. Her
knowledge on environmental issues is also However, such shortfalls are considered to be marginal and
could have been due to nervousness during the interview. We consider that she should be given the opportunity to
proceed to the written exam.
Again, this demonstrates a lack of consistency between the verdict and the comments.
The terminology should be consistent with the standard expected within the core objective. Key words such as
experience, ability awareness and so forth should be consistent with the core objective standard.

1.2 Ability (B) to The candidate demonstrated good experience in
demonstrate effective oral and written communication.
communication and
interpersonal skills
In the above example the reviewer has stated that the candidate has good experience. However the standard
required for this objective is Ability and reviewers should be mindful of this, as far as possible, when completing the
form.
Candidates should always be assessed on all 12/13 core objectives, unless the candidate is reapplying having failed
three or less core objectives in a previous year. If the candidate is to be interviewed against a reduced number of
objectives this will be indicated on the application form (and, of course, three or fewer IPD Final Report Forms will
have been submitted). Reviewers must NOT disregard objectives, even if it is obvious from early in the interview that
the candidate is going to fail.
Areas of Good Practice:
Wherever possible, PRI Co-ordinators should operate a quality assurance system whereby ALL Summary Report
Forms are reviewed and signed by the co-ordinator before being returned to the Institution.
This will allow the PRI Co-ordinators to ensure that there is consistency across the interviews and that reviewers
have applied the same standards and expectations.
Some PRI Co-ordinators have taken this a step further by not actually conducting any interviews themselves. Instead
they make themselves available to the reviewers, throughout the day of interviews, to offer guidance and support
wherever possible. This also allows them the opportunity to ensure that the interviews are being conducted correctly.
Obviously, this system will not be practical for all Regional Groups, but it is worth considering where viable and
relevant.

International HQ tel: + 44 (0)20 7235 4535
11 Upper Belgrave Street fax: + 44 (0)20 7235 4294
London SW1X 8BH mail@istructe.org
United Kingdom www.istructe.org
Reviewers Summary Report Form

Chartered Member Professional Review
(This form is to be returned to the Institution within SEVEN DAYS of the Interview)
Reviewers must record comments which justify their decision and are specific to the candidate on the
Summary Report Forms irrespective of whether the candidate is deemed to have satisfied the Objective or
not.
Candidates Name: _________________________________ Membership No: _______________________
Regional Group: _____________________

_____________________ Date: _________________________________
Headings Justification for decision reached Assessment

S U
1.1 Knowledge (K) of the
Institution and involvement in
Institution affairs
1.2 Ability (B) to demonstrate
effective communication and
2.1 Ability (B) to produce viable

structural solutions within the
scope of a design brief,
taking account of structural
stability, durability, aesthetics
and cost
2.2 Ability (B) to carry out
analysis and design of
structural forms
2.3 Ability (B) to specify and co-
ordinate the use of materials
2.4 Knowledge (K) of relevant

environmental issues and
legislation
2.5 Experience (E) in

construction techniques
management skills for
programming and control
In the event of an appeal this form may be presented. October 2011

S U
3.2 Appreciation (A) of the law
and statutory legislation
3.3 Experience (E) of Health and

Safety requirements and
legislation
3.4 Appreciation (A) of

commercial and financial
constraints
3.5 Knowledge (K) of

procurement routes and
forms of contract
3.6 Knowledge (K) of quality

systems
Candidates commitment to CPD
We confirm that we have reviewed the candidate in accordance with the Institutions regulations and have
concluded that:
The candidate has satisfied all 13 Core Objectives Yes No
Name: Name:
Signature: Signature:
Membership Membership
Number: Number:
Grade: Grade:
Date: Date:
PRI Coordinator Signature:

name:
In the event of an appeal this form may be presented October 2011


not.
Regional Group: _____________________

_____________________ Date: _________________________________

S U
1.1 Knowledge (K) of the Candidate able to discuss role of the Institution.
Institution affairs
1.2 Ability (B) to demonstrate
2.1 Ability (B) to produce viable No evidence presented and candidate did not
demonstrate this ability at Interview.
and cost
2.2 Ability (B) to carry out All project work submitted was very similar in nature
Lack of varied experience in design.
structural forms
2.3 Ability (B) to specify and co-
2.4 Knowledge (K) of relevant No evidence.

legislation


S U
3.2 Appreciation (A) of the law
3.3 Experience (E) of Health and Presumed, but not demonstrated.

legislation
3.4 Appreciation (A) of

constraints
3.5 Knowledge (K) of No evidence and no experience of alternatives in own

project work.
forms of contract
3.6 Knowledge (K) of quality

systems
Candidates commitment to CPD Candidate presented no evidence.

The candidate is obviously someone who has worked in a design office for many years.
However he was unable to demonstrate a varied experience on a range of projects and did not submit his
diary of IPD Report Forms. As such we are unable to judge whether he has achieved his core objectives.
concluded that:
Name: Name:
Number: Number:
Grade: Grade:
Date: Date:

name:


not.
Regional Group: _____________________

_____________________ Date: _________________________________

S U
1.1 Knowledge (K) of the Satisfactory
Institution affairs
1.2 Ability (B) to demonstrate Satisfactory
2.1 Ability (B) to produce viable Satisfactory

and cost
2.2 Ability (B) to carry out Unsatisfactory
structural forms
2.3 Ability (B) to specify and co- Satisfactory
2.4 Knowledge (K) of relevant Satisfactory

legislation
2.5 Experience (E) in Unsatisfactory

3.1 Experience (E) in Satisfactory

S U
3.2 Appreciation (A) of the law Satisfactory
3.3 Experience (E) of Health and Satisfactory

legislation
3.4 Appreciation (A) of Satisfactory

constraints
3.5 Knowledge (K) of Satisfactory

forms of contract
3.6 Knowledge (K) of quality Satisfactory

systems
Candidates commitment to CPD Satisfactory
concluded that:
Name: Name:
Number: Number:
Grade: Grade:
Date: Date:

name:


not.
Regional Group: _____________________

_____________________ Date: _________________________________

S U
1.1 Knowledge (K) of the Attended CPD activities in the past year and got
Institution and involvement in updated Institution information in website.
Institution affairs
1.2 Ability (B) to demonstrate Have drafted site correspondences to contractors
effective communication and responding to contractors submissions.
2.1 Ability (B) to produce viable When asked for an alternative structural scheme for
structural solutions within the a lift tower in order to reduce the foundation cost, the
candidate failed to present the merit/demerit of
structural steel versus reinforced concrete buildings
and cost
2.2 Ability (B) to carry out Experience only limited to foundation, schematic
analysis and design of design in wind analysis and determination of
structural member sizes for superstructure. Have no
structural forms
experience in detailed design
2.3 Ability (B) to specify and co- Able to specify and coordinate the use of reinforced
ordinate the use of materials concrete in structures as well as other materials.
2.4 Knowledge (K) of relevant Demonstrated knowledge of environmental issues and

environmental issues and legislation during site practicing such as the necessity of
legislation obtaining relevant permits for operation of power machine
outside normal site working hours.
2.5 Experience (E) in Insufficient experience in construction techniques
construction techniques noted. Have no idea for monitoring required for
foundation works. Have proposed to form
construction joint within the corewall along its length.
3.1 Experience (E) in Got experience in vetting and monitoring contractors
programme during the site practicing.

S U
3.2 Appreciation (A) of the law Demonstrated appreciation of law and statutory
legislation relating to construction industry such as
Buildings Ordinance, Buildings (Construction)
Regulations, etc.
3.3 Experience (E) of Health and Demonstrated experience in the implementation of
safety legislation in construction site.
legislation
3.4 Appreciation (A) of No idea on cost for construction materials.

constraints
3.5 Knowledge (K) of Demonstrated knowledge of different kinds of contract

and understood their difference.
forms of contract
3.6 Knowledge (K) of quality Demonstrated knowledge of quality systems used in

the routine works including office internal quality system
systems
and quality control testing implemented on site.
Candidates commitment to CPD Committed in the Interview.

The candidate was not able to present the structural engineering concept during the Interview. Deficiency
was also noted in the concept of construction technique and contractual arrangement.
The candidate has not yet completed his HKIE Structural Scheme A training. He is advised to enrich his
design experience and pay more attention in both construction techniques and contractual relationships in
the coming year.
concluded that:
Name: Name:
Number: Number:
Grade: Grade:
Date: Date:

name:


not.
Regional Group: _____________________

_____________________ Date: _________________________________

S U
1.1 Knowledge (K) of the The candidate has demonstrated his understanding of
the Institutions role and has actively participated in
many seminars, short courses and visits organised by
Institution affairs different professional institutions.
1.2 Ability (B) to demonstrate The candidate demonstrated his capability to
communicate effectively with all parties involved with
his routine work.
2.1 Ability (B) to produce viable The candidate has in-depth knowledge of the planning
and conceptual design of buildings. He demonstrated
his creativeness in producing viable structural solutions
scope of a design brief, to suit the site constraints and clients requirements.
and cost
2.2 Ability (B) to carry out The candidate has carried out analysis and design of
various structural forms for several large design
projects in Hong Kong. He is familiar with the usage of
structural forms software packages such as ETABS, SAFE, S-Frame,
SAP2000, etc.
2.3 Ability (B) to specify and co- The candidate has developed a good ability and is able
to specify and co-ordinate the use of different materials
such as structural steel, reinforced concrete, etc.
2.4 Knowledge (K) of relevant The candidate knows the importance of environmental
issues and understands the existing requirements of
related legislation.
legislation
2.5 Experience (E) in The candidate has had supervisory experience on pile
installation and superstructure construction. He
understands the construction sequence and site
constraints.

S U
3.1 Experience (E) in The candidate has been responsible for the Kwok
management skills for Shui Road residential development project. He has
experience in managing team members and realizes
the control of programme on site.
3.2 Appreciation (A) of the law The candidate appreciates the statutory
and statutory legislation requirements of building regulations and construction
law.
3.3 Experience (E) of Health and The candidate has acquired sufficient experience
Safety requirements and and attended training courses on health and safety
requirements and related legislation.
legislation
3.4 Appreciation (A) of The candidate has shown appreciation of the

commercial and financial construction costs of different designs schemes and
materials adopted in the Hung Hom Bay project.
constraints
3.5 Knowledge (K) of The candidate has good understanding on the

procurement routes and contract documents and with knowledge of
procurement routes.
forms of contract
3.6 Knowledge (K) of quality The candidate has developed knowledge on internal
systems and auditing and quality assurance system in design
and construction of projects.
Candidates commitment to CPD The candidate attends seminars and events at

regular intervals. He has a good track record of CPD.

The candidate has satisfied the minimum requirements of all the Core Objectives..
concluded that:
Name: Name:
Number: Number:
Grade: Grade:
Date: Date:

name:

Forms completed by candidates
Note: The following documents are available online in both word and editable PDFs and can also be found in the IPD
Regulations.
IPD Quarterly Report Form

Candidate Name:
Membership No:
Date:
Period covered by Report:
Report:
1. Personal:
2. Engineering:
3. Management and Commercial:
4. Development Action Plan/Objectives for next period:
Mentors Comments:
Candidate Signature:
Mentors Signature: Mentors name (print):
Continue on separate sheet if necessary. Photocopying of form is permitted.

IPD Quarterly Report | The Institution of Structural Engineers |
Progress Summary Record - Example
Candidate Name:
Membership No:
Period covered by Report:
Ref: Core Objective Minimum Level Attained at

Standard Date of Assessment
Date 1: Date 2: Date 3: Date 4:
1.0 Personal
1.1 Institution K
Knowledge of the Institution and
involvement in Institution affairs.
1.2 Communication B
Ability to demonstrate effective
communication and interpersonal
skills.
2.0 Engineering
2.1 Structural Solutions - A

Conceptual Design
Appreciation of the process of
producing viable structural
sloutions, within the scope of a
design brief.
2.2 Structural Solutions - Analysis K

and Design
Knowledge of the process involved
in the analysis and design of basic
structures.
2.3 Production of Engineering B

Documents
Ability in the production of
structural engineering documents.
2.4 Materials K
Knowledge of how materials are
specified and incorporated into the
structure.

Progress Summary Record - Example
Ref: Core Objective Minimum Level Attained at
Standard Dateof Assessment
Date 1: Date 2: Date 3: Date 4:
2.5 Environment K
Knowledge of relevant
environmental and conservation
legislation.
2.6 Construction E
Experience in construction
techniques.
3.0 Management and Commercial
3.1 Management skills K

Knowledge of management skills
for programming and control.
3.2 Health and Safety K
Knowledge of health and safety
requirements and legislation.
3.3 Commercial Awareness A

Appreciation of commercial and
financial constraints.
3.4 Quality Systems K
Knowledge of Quality Systems.
Candidates Signature
Mentors Signature (if applicable)
List of Mentors Consulted During Period:

Name (Print) Signature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

IPD Final Report Form
Candidate name:
Membership number: Date of report:
Core objective:
Standard achieved A K E B
(Candidate MUST indicate standard)
Please indicate below how you have achieved at least the minimum standard citing
examples from projects you have worked on
Mentors comments (if applicable):
Mentors signature: Mentors name (print):

Portfolio checklist - Example
All candidates must complete this checklist and include a signed version as the first page of their portfolio. By
completing the checklist you are confirming that you have complied with the Institutions requirements in terms
of the layout and variety of evidence provided within the portfolio. Failure to comply with these requirements
will reduce the likelihood of success at the Professional Review Interview. Remember also that your portfolio
must be A4 size and not more than 25mm (double-sided) or 40mm (single-sided) in thickness (excluding the
folder/binding).
Please ensure that your portfolio is sub-divided into the core objectives, with the evidence provided in each
subsection relating specifically to the associated core objective.
Please tick to confirm that your portfolio includes as many of the following as is practicable:
Evidence relating to all of the core objectives on which you are being assessed.
Evidence of attendance at CPD events, e.g. attendance certificates, personal notes, etc.
Project correspondence by the candidate, e.g. letters, faxes, emails, reports, site instruction records,
site inspection notes, meeting notes, etc.
Hand drawn conceptual design sketches and sketch details.
CAD project drawings either by the candidate, or for which the candidate has had design
responsibility. Candidates should provide some evidence on the drawing, by way of annotation, of their
part played in the drawing production.
Examples of methods of analysis (both manual and computer aided).
Examples of design calculations (both manual and computer aided).
Specification documents or specification notes produced by the candidate.
Evidence of risk assessment procedures undertaken by the candidate and how assessed risks are
dealt with and/or communicated to others, including (if appropriate) details of any personal
involvement with particular health and safety issues on site.
Evidence of an understanding of environmental/sustainability issues, either by personal involvement
on a project, background reading, or attendance on relevant courses.
Evidence of site experience, e.g. photographs taken during site visits, site inspection notes, site
meeting notes, correspondence relating to site issues, etc.
Evidence of basic management skills and responsibilities, e.g. programming of design works and staff
resources, preparation of information release schedules, correspondence regarding release of
information, additional works, fees, etc.
Evidence of quality assurance systems, e.g. in-house issuing procedures, in-house checking
procedures, checking of subcontract/specialist design information, etc.
Demonstration of an understanding of basic forms of contract either by personal involvement on a
project, background reading, or attendance on relevant courses.
Name: Signature:

Form to be completed by Reviewers
Note: The following document is available online in the My Account section of the website
Reviewer Experience Record

Name: Membership No:
Regional Group: Date:
Reviewers Details:
Company Name (in block capitals):
Current Employment Position:
Full communication address:

(Work/Home)
Postcode/Zip code:
Email:
Telephone number (Work/Mobile):
Background and Experience:
Member since:
Number of years professional working

experience:
CPD Compliant (Yes/No)
Any specialist knowledge or Experience e.g.

Buildings, bridges, temporary works, etc.:
Number of years as a Reviewer:
Additional Information: (Use this space to add any information you think may be of interest)
Signature: Date:
Continue on separate sheet if necessary.

International HQ tel: +44 (0)20 7235 4535
47-58 Bastwick Street membership@istructe.org
London, EC1V 3PS www.istructe.org
United Kingdom

Reviewer Training Pack 2016 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reviewer Training Pack 2016 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEWER

Version 4 September 2016

The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 1

There are seven main grades of membership:

Route to membership and educational base

The educational base consists of:

Associate-Membership Bachelors degree or equivalent e.g.

* Accredited as part-satisfying the academic base for Chartered membership

2| The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

The Examination Associate-Membership and Chartered membership

The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 3

The main aims of the Professional Review Interview are to:

Ensuring consistency across the Regional Groups and threshold criteria

Appointment criteria for Reviewers

3 All reviewers should be able to demonstrate CPD.

The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 5

Before the interviews

The candidates submission/documentation should accompany you to the interview.

6| The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 7

After the interview

8| The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

The PRI and the three year and ve attempts rule

The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 9

Grounds for an appeal

An appeal may be made on the following grounds only:

Departure from the Institutions application, interview or examination procedures.

10 | The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

1 Achievement of the required educational base

Initial Professional Development (IPD)

Individually Managed IPD: Accredited Training Retrospectively Collated

IPD Quarterly Report Form:

The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 11

Progress Summary Record:

12 | The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

K A knowledge and understanding of the subject and its application is required.

E experience is required to enable the subject to be performed independently or under supervision.

Other activities may also contribute to a objective and may be recorded.

Technician Membership: www.istructe.org/ipdregtm

Chartered Membership: www.istructe.org/ipdregcm (Standard)

The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 13

Technician Member Associate-Member Chartered Member

Core Objective Min Core Objective Min Core Objective Min

1.1 K 1.1 K 1.1 K

1.2 B 1.2 B 1.2 B

2.1 A 2.1 K 2.1 B

2.2 K 2.2 B 2.2 B

2.3 B 2.3 K 2.3 K

14 | The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

2.5 K 2.5 E 2.5 E

2.6 E 3.1 E 3.1 E

3.1 K 3.2 A 3.2 A

3.2 K 3.3 E 3.3 E

3.3 A 3.4 A 3.4 A

3.4 K 3.5 K 3.5 K

The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 15

Guidance on Submission of Portfolio

16 | The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack | 17

18 | The Institution of Structural Engineers | Reviewer Training Pack

Always use ink, NEVER pencil.

The Comments Section:

Headings for decision reached Assessment

Reviewers Overall Assessment

Candidates Name: ___________ Membership No: _

Candidates Name: ___________ Membership No: _

Candidates Name: ___________ Membership No: _

Candidates Name: ___________ Membership No: _