membership
PRC Meeting Update
In June, we had a face-to-face meeting at HQ. Ben Jones from the Engineering Council observed the meeting. There were four discuss cases.
Observing PRC Meetings
This is proving to be very popular. The waiting list for observers is now quite long. The earliest date new requests can be accommodated is likely to be in 2028. To be added to the list, please get in touch with Kevin Murphy at HQ (kevin.murphy@imeche.org).
PRC Vacancies
There are some vacancies for both the PRC and the PRC panel. If you are interested, contact me.
PRI and PRC Assessor Benefits
Members who have not tried these opportunities ask me what I get out of it. The answer is that, as chair of the PRC it is (at times) just as challenging and rewarding as working in a large organisation at senior level. There are people, processes and procedures to deal with, and there is always room for improvement with all the steps required to implement them.
PRI assessors (professional review interview assessors) get to see a variety of applicants from other organisations; this can help benchmark other organisations against their own and possibly drive new ideas in their workplace. PRC and PRC panel assessors each see a proportion of all applications, so have a good perspective of the overall details of mechanical engineering applicants and their organisations. PRC vice chairs are involved in new policy and procedures for all application processes, along with HQ staff and have autonomy to do so.
Whilst brief, I hope the above has whetted your appetite for volunteering at PRI or with the PRC.
As always, contributions from volunteers are greatly appreciated. IMechE could not function without your ongoing support.
Tim Bagnall
PRC Chair
Editorial
Welcome to this Newsletter, Number 21.
For this edition the Paul Dear has explained, in detail, the awards that new applicants to IMechE could be eligible to win. Two of these are awarded by the Women’s Engineering Society and the third is awarded by the Worshipful Company of Engineers (see issue 17 from July 2025).
Also interesting is that two of the awards are for applicants into the IEng category.
And then we have a report from Brian Walker – a member of the Appeals Committee – who explains how some applications become Appeals, due to misinterpretations of the words written by PRI Assessors. Just shows how careful we must be using the written word!
Also, we have a detailed explanation of how the Special Application Process (SAP) works, written for us by one of the PRC members who is involved in approving this method of applying – Sian Davies.
Matthew Waterhouse
VC, Communications
A Recap on the external Awards that applicants could win
We have received some requests to recap on the external awards that interviewers can nominate strong applicants for.
There are three awards for which we (PRIs and PRC) can nominate, these are:
1. from the Women’s Engineering Society (WES)
- the Karen Burt Memorial Award for the ‘Best’ female newly registered Chartered Engineer
- the ‘Best’ female newly registered Incorporated Engineer
(PRC will also review applicants eligible for the ‘Best’ female newly registered Engineering Technician. – Ed.)
2. from the Worshipful Company of Engineers Charitable Trust (the Engineers Trust)
- the Baroness Platt of Writtle Award for excellence in a newly elected Incorporated Engineer
In each case the panel chair, when nominating an applicant, is adding them to a pool of potential nominees that will be reviewed by a PRC sub-committee that recommends names to the full PRC, as outlined below.
For the Women’s Engineering Society Awards
Criteria are:
- Must be a women registered with Engineering Council between 1st March and end of the following February.
- Must be a UK resident. Candidates temporarily working outside of the UK will be deemed eligible only if their contract is under six months in duration, or if they are a serving member of the armed forces.
Process is:
- The panel chair should complete the single page nomination form (available on the document hub) and send to the IF.
- The IF will check for completeness and then submit to their HQ centre contact.
- All PRI nominations reviewed by a PRC sub-committee in mid-year, to select, initially, a short list. This is then whittled down to a single nominee for each award.
- The single final nomination submission, for each award, is made by mid-September.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Award
Criteria are:
- Must be registered with the Engineering Council during the previous year.
- Must be a British citizen (or 5 years UK resident) whose principal residence is in the UK.
Process is:
- The panel chair should complete the single page nomination form (available on the document hub) and send to the IF.
- The IF will check for completeness and then submit to their HQ centre contact.
- All PRI nominations are reviewed by a PRC sub-committee during Q1 of each year, to select, initially, a short list. This is then whittled down to a list of five nominees for the award.
- The final nomination list submission, for the award, is made by early March.
Note
- it is possible to nominate the same applicant for both the WES ‘Best’ newly Incorporated Engineer and Baroness Platt of Writtle Awards. The bespoke form for each nomination will be required.
- All the Professional Engineering Institutions (PEIs) can make nominations for all these awards. So, IMechE nominees are competing with others.
The 2025 winners were:
- Karen Burt – Juliette Goddard CEng MIMechE
- WES IEng – Caroline Nicholls IEng MICE
- BPofW – Christina Jasper IEng MIET
Paul Dear
PRC member and IF
Lessons from Recent Membership Appeals
A negative comment that focuses on an aspect of a competence which is not part of the applicant’s role without further explanation, is not helpful. It becomes particularly unhelpful if the same comment is repeated with recommendations for further development and training. This gives the impression that the Assessor has focused on something that is not relevant to the applicant’s competence in their role.
.png?sfvrsn=35685b11_2)
Applicants, who have been deferred, need advice on areas where they can improve their knowledge and experience in the key aspects of their current role. What might be sensible in a general discussion about career development but is not specific to meeting the requirements of registration (i.e. their current situation), is not helpful for an applicant. Being specific is most likely to be helpful in preparing them for another interview. It is also less likely to make them think that their role has been misunderstood.
As PRI Assessors, we try to be fair to all applicants by acknowledging where they have shown a good level of competence with a positive comment. This means that PRI reports tend to be a mix of positive and negative comments with the score being a balance between these. In Appeals, it is sometimes difficult to work out how the positives and negatives have been balanced and, if a particular score for any competence is crucial to the result, that lack of clarity may result in a second interview.
The most helpful comments, for both the applicant and the PRC reviewers, indicate why the applicant fell short of the standard. There is little time, or space, to provide anything other than a very clear reason for the score given.
It may be helpful for an assessor to ask themselves the following questions:
- Do I understand the applicant’s role and which aspects of the competence are important to their role and what are less important?
- Have I focussed too much on an aspect that is of particular interest to me, but not very relevant to the applicant’s role?
- Am I confident that I have not overlooked evidence in the application if I comment that there is no experience in a particular area of competence? There have been recent examples where the applicant’s career history recorded relevant experience, but it was not mentioned in either their competence statements nor was it discussed during the interview.
- Do my comments explain why I have scored a 2 rather than a 3?
- Have I proofread my comments – particularly where the result is a deferral?
- How would an outsider interpret my comments?
- What advice would help a deferred applicant prepare for another interview?
Most applicants who are deferred are only just short of the standard and frequently better preparation, possibly by thinking about aspects of their experience and how to present it, would be sufficient to be successful.
Advice on this would be helpful and less likely to be misunderstood.
Brian Walker
PRI Interviewer and Member of the Appeals panel
The Special Application Process (SAP) – Maintaining Standards Through an Alternative Route
The Special Application Process (SAP) provides a streamlined route to professional registration for applicants from organisations with an approved SAP, principally the UK Armed Forces. While the application process differs from the standard route, the standards for registration remain exactly the same.
The key difference is that SAP applicants complete a shortened application form. Competence statements are not required because the agreed SAP trigger points have been aligned with significant career milestones, such as promotion or qualification examinations. These milestones are supported by rigorous internal assessment and professional reporting within the Armed Forces. A designated Service Endorser confirms that the applicant has successfully completed the required assessments by endorsing the application.
Importantly, SAP applicants must meet the same academic requirements as all other applicants for EngTech, IEng or CEng. Where the academic benchmark has not been met through accredited qualifications, applicants must demonstrate the required knowledge and understanding through Further Learning or a Career Learning Assessment (CLA). A number of Armed Forces courses have been accredited by the Academic Accreditation Committee (AAC) also following rigorous assessment.
Once an applicant has reached the appropriate trigger point, the process is as follows:
- The applicant completes the SAP application form.
- he application is endorsed by the authorised Service Endorser.
- The academic requirements are confirmed by the Academic Accreditation Committee (AAC), where required.
- For IEng and CEng applications, the applicant attends a Professional Review Interview (PRI) conducted by suitably qualified and trained IMechE interviewers, some of whom may be serving or former members of the Armed Forces.
- The PRI follows the same format and assessment criteria as for all applicants. Candidates are expected to provide detailed examples demonstrating how they meet each of the UK-SPEC competences.
- The application is considered through the normal PRC process.
It is important to emphasise that the SAP is not a reduced-standard route to registration. It is an alternative application process that recognises the robust competence assessment already undertaken by organisations operating an approved SAP. The SAP process continues to ensure that every applicant is assessed against the same academic and professional standards as all other candidates.
As part of the Institution's quality assurance process, approved SAP schemes are subject to reaccreditation every three years. In May, the SAP for the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) was successfully reaccredited, confirming that its trigger points and assessment processes continue to meet the Institution's requirements. As part of the reaccreditation visit, the team interviewed serving FAA engineers who were at, or approaching, the various career trigger points. The consistently high standard demonstrated by those interviewed provided further assurance that the SAP continues to identify candidates who are well prepared for professional registration.
The next reaccreditation visit is scheduled for July with the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME).
The reaccreditation team comprises Siân Davies (PRC), Lydia Amarquaye-Booker (Education & Skills Policy Lead), Lara Mallet (Senior Membership Development Manager – Defence Liaison), Mark Hill (AAC), and Christian Sloan-Murphy (PRC).
The team reviews the evidence supporting the SAP, ensuring that the agreed trigger points remain robust and continue to provide confidence that applicants have demonstrated the competence expected before progressing to the Professional Review Interview.
Finally, while the SAP process is mainly used by members of our armed forces, it should be noted that any forces applicant is fully entitled to apply through the standard application method and not use the SAP.
Siân Davies
Vice Chair CEng PRC
PRI Assessor Engagement Campaign 2026:
Key Insights and Opportunities to Strengthen Interviewer Participation
In Q1 2026 we launched our PRI Assessor Engagement Campaign. As part of the campaign we included a survey the results of which provide valuable insight into the motivations, barriers and behaviours of our Professional Review Interview (PRI) interviewers. Overall, the findings paint a positive picture of our engaged volunteer community that remains strongly committed to supporting the profession. The challenge is not one of motivation, but of creating a volunteering experience that better fits the realities of modern professional lives.
Strong Engagement Demonstrates Continued Interest
The campaign achieved excellent engagement levels across both email and survey activity. Email communications generated click-through rates significantly above IMechE's usual benchmark, demonstrating our interviewers remain highly interested in PRI-related content and opportunities. In total, emails were sent to 846 interviewers, with only one opt-out recorded.
The survey achieved 119 completed responses, exceeding the original KPI (84) by 29%. This provides a strong evidence base and confidence that the findings are representative of the wider interviewer community.
An Active Volunteer Base with Growth Potential
The majority of respondents were full-time employed professionals, with a smaller active group of retired assessors. Most respondents had undertaken interviewing activity within the previous six months. A key opportunity exists to re-engage interviewers who have not participated for 7–12 months and to activate trained assessors who have yet to complete their first interview panel.
Time, Not Motivation, Is the Main Barrier
The survey findings clearly show that the primary barriers to participation are time-related. Our Interviewers cited preparation requirements, work commitments and the need to commit to a full day of interviewing as the biggest challenges. By comparison, factors such as employer support and preferences around virtual interviewing had much less influence on participation decisions. This suggests there is a highly motivated volunteer base whose participation is constrained by competing professional commitments rather than a lack of interest.
Additional Insights from Interviewer Drop-in Sessions
Feedback gathered through interviewer drop-in sessions provided further practical insights into volunteer behaviour.
Firstly, interviewers were significantly more likely to join a panel when either the chair or co-panellist had already committed. Volunteers described empty panels as carrying greater uncertainty and requiring a larger personal commitment. This suggests that filling one panel role early and making panel availability clearly visible could increase Interviewer booking rates and improve panel completions.
Secondly, some employed interviewers reported operating within a relatively short planning horizon, typically committing to activities only two to three weeks in advance. This means that communications issued several months before interview dates may not align with how working professionals manage their diaries. More targeted invitations and reminder campaigns closer to interview dates may therefore be more effective.
Enhancing the Volunteer Experience
Interviewers consistently expressed a desire to give back to the profession, support future engineers and contribute to professional standards. Interviewers value networking, recognition and a sense of community, while the current experience can sometimes feel administrative and transactional.
Suggestions received included shorter interview sessions, reduced preparation requirements, more intuitive recommendation form templates, improved recognition, and more opportunities for networking and community building.
The feedback and recommendations raised are highly valuable and will be considered as part of the ongoing development of the PRI process. It is important to note that, implementing changes to established processes and systems may take time due to existing operational and technical constraints.
Tom Owen
Head of Membership Growth and Services
A successful “Appeal”!
Thank you to everyone who expressed an interest in joining the Appeals Panel. We were delighted by the strong response from across the community and appreciate the time and enthusiasm shown by all applicants. All available vacancies have now been filled. We are grateful for your support and look forward to future opportunities to work together.
The general rate of appeals has been steady over the last few years, with only 10 requests for appeal in 2025. This is testament to the great work of the PRI training team, IF training team, interviewers, IFs and PRC reviewers. The feedback systems ensure there is continuous improvement to ensure all applicants are given a fair and equal opportunity at interview.
Lydia Amarquaye-Booker
Contacts
Coordinator
Matthew Waterhouse - matthew.waterhouse@member.imeche.org
Chair
Tim Bagnall - tim.bagnall@member.imeche.org
PRC Staff Manager
Kevin Murphy - kevin.murphy@imeche.org