|
|
Library |
.
|
You can browse through profiles of universities that are interested in codeveloping courses!
------------------------------
Get Visible NOW Create a profile for your organization that others can browse. Other organizations that match and compliment your programs will contact you. |
|
|
Article of Interest |
|
|
|
Continuing
Ed: Defining Professional
Development By Thom Lowther, Director, AIA/CES and
William F. Dexter, Risk Management
Consultant, Construction Risk Management,
San Luis Obispo, California. Consulting-Specifying
Engineer Magazine --
7/1/2002 Regardless of whether they're dubbed
continuing education units (CEUs),
learning units (LUs), professional
development hours (PDHs) or mandatory
continuing education units (MCEs), they're
all ultimately the same thing - a measure
for documenting continuing education among
design professionals. But what's more
important than the nomenclature is
figuring what continuing education should
mean for your people and your firm. What it is and
what it's not The reasons for engaging in
professional development vary. For some,
continuing education means a program that
enables the engineer to keep current,
master new knowledge and skills, plan for
the future - and ultimately - meet the
responsibilities that society entrusts the
profession with. But in reality, the training
departments of many A/E firms consist of a
product presentation from a manufacturer's
representative who happens to occasionally
knock on the door and offer a free
lunch. It is true that many states, in an
effort to develop some form of
accountability for the professionals
practicing within their jurisdictions, are
now implementing MCEs as part of their
licensing requirements. But in the eyes of
many principals, the aforementioned lunch
session constitutes such requirements.
Furthermore, the said lunch session might
be that firm's training event for the
month - and in some cases - the year. In
other words, the training model for many
still looks like this: In all seriousness, MCE demands by
state licensing boards, as well as
attention to the subject from groups like
the American Institute of Architects, with
its Continuing Education System (CES)
requirements, have led to substantial
changes. Seven years ago, just three states
required MCE. Today, 25 states and seven
Canadian provinces have enacted MCE
requirements for engineers and architects
- 21 others are at various levels of
legislative activity. This is of
importance, of course, because many
engineers and architects hold between
three and four state licenses. Most states have similar requirements,
but they do vary. New York, for example,
requires 36 hours every three years;
Florida, 20 hours every two years. In
Canada, Ontario requires 35 hours per
year. Of the states with MCE requirements,
all mandate - with the exception of Kansas
- that the majority of these continuing
education hours be in the area described
as health, safety and welfare. OK, but what
does it mean? While such mandates will certainly get
the attention of multi-state engineers,
the problem that remains is that many
design professionals are still perplexed
over the difference between training and
professional development. Training, by definition, is a
short-term solution to a short-term need
or problem. Professional development is a
long-term solution addressing the needs of
the firm and its design professionals as
part of a strategic plan. To achieve such
a goal, a series of planned training
sessions should be applied. This way, the
firm, hopefully via a professional
development specialist, selects a training
provider based upon identified needs vs. a
product rep or continuing education
provider randomly knocking on the door.
That being said, provider programs can
still satisfy some professional
association requirements as well as some
state MCE requirements - and many will
still provide a free lunch. In other
words, the model for more firms is
beginning to look like this: For many, this is a new way of
thinking, but one that can only help the
construction design profession grow. A
systematic approach also makes the best
use of a designer's time and
resources. Training can
be practical That's all well and said, but how does
a firm go about implementing a
professional development program? First, many professional organizations
have educational plans available that
provide guidelines for establishing
quality programs. The following, for
example, is AIA's five-point approach: In initiating such a plan, AIA
recommends that firms consider
compensation and recognition for employee
participation. Attention should also be
paid to orientation and special target
programs. Furthermore, firms should
explore partnership programs with
professional organizations whose sphere of
influence the design firm is within. Finding
support Such a systematic approach will take
time, and frankly, a great deal of effort.
Engineers, however, are not on an island.
Numerous published guidelines are
available to help achieve these goals.
Excellent sources include: Additionally, AIA Wisconsin's
Continuing Education Committee recently
conducted a study collecting information
about the continuing education activities
of architects and engineers in its state.
The study also offers perspectives from
CES providers.* CEUs can =
cash On a final and more fiscal note,
continuing education can mean more to a
firm beyond legal and fuzzy benefits. For
principals with bottom-line concerns,
professional development can be an
opportunity to increase a firm's net
income. How? CEUs that focus practioners'
minds on risk management help eliminate
losses from professional liability claims.
In other words, many liability insurance
carriers, experiencing increased costs as
the premium for defending design
professionals in today's volatile
construction environment, see the benefits
- and savings - of having their insureds
emphasize smarter business practices. Many
carriers have implemented detailed and
informative programs, accompanied by
premium reductions, upon satisfaction of
the course requirements. In their eyes, it
all boils down to lower and fewer
claims. But the need for continuing education
is perhaps best stated in the words of
James Barker, president of Clemson
University, in the Boyer Report on
Building Community: "Continuing education
for all practitioners can be the best
bridge between higher education and
practice we have yet established." *Editor's note: To
learn more about AIA Wisconsin's subjects,
methods and results, contact Mitchell
Spencer, past chair of the Continuing
Education Committee, in care of the
University of Wisconsin, School of
Industry & Technology, Menomonie, WI
54751. Phone: 715/232-2416; Fax:
715/232-5004. Bill Babcock, the executive
director of the Wisconsin Society of
Architects, is another source for further
information at 608/257-8477.
Bill Dexter
(wdexter@pacbell.net) is a national risk
management consultant and is currently
serving as a panelist for the American
Arbitration Association. He has
participated as an industry spokesman
before AIA, CSI and the California
Contractors State License
Board. |
[Overview]
[Contact]
[Library]
[News
& Events]
[Educational
Partners]
[Industry
Partners]
[Practice
Partners]
All materials are
Copyright ©2002-2004 by the EPIConnection Group •
All Rights Reserved Worldwide
Site implementation & hosting by my
Internet Dept., a
division of Digital Reef Services