I am writing this post in order to begin a discussion around the topic of adding CPD as a mechanism for registration renewal, instead of the current practice of submitting CERs to SBQ. I expect it will be possible to present strong arguments on either side of this debate, but my own view is that we are better served by the CPD process for the following reasons.
• Cadastral surveyors do not typically work across multiple state jurisdictions, whereas many mine surveyors do. This then requires CPD for renewal with BOSSI and CERs in QLD for example.
• AIMS has a CPD subcommittee already operating in NSW. We could therefore add QLD members to the CPD committee and issue certificates in the same way.
• Mine surveyors often work remotely, and good quality CPD events are the most effective way to stay engaged with emerging technologies.
• Management at operations are more likely to approve attendance at CPD events when it is a compulsory part of registration renewal.
• CPD events offer the best opportunity to network and compare work methods. Personally, I get as much value from this aspect as from the presentation content itself in many instances.
This suggestion has been discussed at the QLD subcommittee level and is proposed as an optional alternative to CERs. In other words, if the mine surveyor prefers to present evidence through the CER method then they would be free to do so.
This proposal, were it to be accepted by AIMS members, would obviously still require discussion and approval by SBQ.
Please give it some thought, and we would like your feedback. In the next few months the QLD subcommittee will be contacting you via survey monkey to obtain your opinion on this important potential change.
Interesting discussion Ken.
Under your above proposal the CPD would be obligatory as a mechanism to achieve and maintain registration, rather than voluntary in which Surveyors could potentially choose activities matching the needs of their current job. I also believe this would be a better option to the CER method as it would require updating of skills to match advancing technology and techniques across various survey disciplines.
The challenge I see is the governing of such a system, and you raise a good point that Mine Surveyors work across a number of jurisdictions. Ideally it would require a national organization such as AIMS to govern the requirements in order to meet each state’s standards.
CER's with regard mine surveying endorsements in some respect parallel the old Board of Examiners written and practical assessments as was made under the act and regulations of the time. The process typically took 2 years for qualified surveyors (as such) as the additional subjects could not be completed in 1 year due to prerequisites. This was mainly relative to surveyors coming into mining from other survey disciplines.
I don't see many issues with requiring new graduates to complete something like the CER process to first gain their registration then their mining or other endorsement/s. There does need some mechanism to initially gain registration as a surveyor and then any endorsements which is scoped by the current CER registration scheme.
I believe what the CER process has done in regard re-registration (in Qld anyway) is basically kill off the regional conferences and also have an effect on the National conference? Roster changes over the past 10 years probably have not helped the cause either, especially at the regional level?
Essentially once registered and endorsed then the ongoing value from regular network events would probably provide more benefit than regurgitating much of the same with CER's as the monthly cycle of a mine surveyor doesn't vary all that much? The CPD process should really also be additional as part of some CER type process for initial registration and endorsements. It is questionable what the CER process achieves for practising surveyors who may be better served by having to network and attend technology and other gatherings?
Most professional surveyors see the benefit of networking, conferences and technology sessions and attend by default even though these form only a very small element of the CER process. Some surveyors probably no longer see any benefit for themselves or by necessity and such have withdrawn from the CPD type of event.
Also maybe what the current SBQ, Registration & CER process has now achieved is cleaning out those that were endorsed by default or under a grandfather clause and have not or never really practiced in the field? This thinking is however a very fine line especially with regard some endorsements and much consideration and thought is required with this one.