AIMS Notice Board

AIMS Qld CPD Survey Results

QLD CPD SurveyThe 2018 AIMS QLD CPD Survey results are in. The AIMS QLD Subcommittee would like to thank all those who contributed to the survey and especially for the comments supporting your vote.

The QLD subcommittee will now prepare a submission to SBQ for the July board meeting based on the survey results.

Again thanks for your interest and support.

Your feedback will help AIMS to accurately represent members opinions rather than a small sub-group.

Participation:

Only AIMS Qld members were contacted for their opinion.

60% of members who were contacted responded to the simple question:

“Do you support the submission of CPD evidence as an optional alternative to career episode reports?"


The Results:

YES - 86.44%

NO - 10.17%

UNSURE/UNDECIDED - 3.39%


Sample of Responses:

It is difficult to summarise the feedback/opinions expressed, but here is a representative sample:


YES

“I believe all states should actually have a combination of both, there are too many surveyors in our industry who just attend the course and get their points to keep their registration who are not what I would rate as competent enough to be registered. To maintain our registration we should be required to keep up our skills on the tool and continually develop our profession, evidence of both should be essential.”

YES

“Professional institutions exist mainly to provide ongoing professional development activities to members - this is part of what being a professional is. Showing active participation in CPD events provided by professional bodies is a lot more relevant to proving ongoing competence and professional develop, as opposed to writing an essay describing some mundane activity that doesn't prove much in it's own right.”

YES

“I think there is a need to do both. The current CER submissions show that a mine surveyor is currently displaying their skills and knowledge and is active in the industry. The CPD also shows that the mine surveyor is keeping up with the latest methods and technology. But a person may not be actively working as a mine surveyor and can still be registered through CPD alone. Not all mine companies have budgets to let surveyors attend seminars but I can see that this will force their hand if they want work with the current ACT. A combination of both I think will strike the right balance.”

NO

“In my early days the process of renewing my registration in QLD was by 20 CPD points. A registered person could pretty much do nothing all year, register for an annual regional SSSI conference, attend and sign up on day one, receive their 20 CPD points, and not necessarily attend any of the presentations. Very poor way of proving continuous professional development and I know of registered people that possibly should not be registered due to that system. Whilst there were other people that were continuously developing, they had problems because CPD points could only be attained at conferences, and they were not able to attend due to a variety of reasons. The SBQ took a firm stand over 10 years ago by abolishing CPD and moved to the 10% CER process due to this, which I believe was a good move forward because it forced people to prove their competencies against their registration framework. When the Mining (ALL) endorsement was abolished in QLD, I voiced concerns of what I believed to be a flaw with the SBQ, regarding how the registered person could electively choose his/her split registration (Mining O, UC, UM). Meaning in early days to attain an (ALL) endorsement one needed to prove competency in Open Cut and Underground only, not necessarily the difference between Coal and Metalliferous. The SBQ at the time assured me the 10% CER process would filter out people holding a registration they shouldn't because they would be required to address the relevant framework. In my opinion, a registered mining surveyor that once proved competency for example in U/G Metalliferous, but has spent the last 15 years in U/G Coal, and has nothing to contribute to U/G Metalliferous, should be questioned why he/she should continue to hold a Mining UM registration? Perhaps what would be better in such cases would be the introduction of an Emeritus Registration per endorsement, not just for people who have retired. Possible option to put forward, so that people are not in some sort of fear of loosing that recognition moving to another sector, however if they choose to return the process of reregistering would be considerably less. As we are well aware systems/processes/technology/etc change rapidly, what was once done 15 years ago is not necessarily the same today. However frameworks change slowly, but are a standard baseline of best practice that people also need to maintain in line with CPD. The whole idea of CPD is to ensure people are continuously developing in their chosen discipline/s of surveying. Personally I consider the CPD system loose and easily exploited, whilst the 10% CER process more rigid and less flexible. Both systems are trying to protect the integrity of the industry from cowboys. I do not agree with the word "alternative" it should be in "conjunction". "CPD" and the "SBQ 10% CER" process is really two different things. One is regarding continuous development whilst the other is ensuring compliance against the framework. I firmly believe it is essential to have both systems, they are both equally important.”