Skip to content
Queensferry

Phase 7 · Pass the examination

Appraising and recommending

Weighing two schemes against criteria drawn from the brief, with sustainability as a key criterion.

Who this is for:Chartered Member candidates ·IMIStructE members moving to MIStructE

Eight marks or so, roughly the same as the whole client letter — and the part candidates most often reduce to a table of ticks.

What "critically appraise" asks for

The question requires you to review and critically appraise the schemes and identify the one you recommend, giving reasons for the choice. The preparation guidance is explicit that this implies discussion of the relative merits of each option, and requires more than a list of scheme elements with a tick or a cross against each.

A discussion has a shape. For each criterion that matters:

That last part is what distinguishes an appraisal from a comparison. Two schemes can differ on eight criteria, and if seven of them are marginal and one is decisive, saying so is the engineering judgement being assessed.

Choosing criteria from the brief

Generic criteria produce generic answers, and the examiners state that marks are not awarded for generic answers. Read the brief for what is unusual about it, and let that set your criteria.

Sustainability is a criterion, not a paragraph

Since January 2024 sustainability is a key feature of all questions, and it must be a criterion in your scheme selection rather than a concluding remark.

In practice that means it is weighed like the others: material quantity through structural efficiency, reuse of existing structure where offered, the carbon consequences of the foundation choice, adaptability and end-of-life. Note that at scheme stage the instructions say you need not extend to full carbon comparisons — that is for the calculations section. What is expected here is that material efficiency and reuse genuinely influence which scheme you recommend.

Then recommend, plainly

One sentence, unambiguous, naming the scheme and the two or three reasons that decided it. Then move on — the marks in the rest of the paper depend on that decision being made.

Fictional example

Two appraisals of the same pair of schemes

Fictional example — a four-storey teaching building on a constrained city site, one scheme in in-situ RC flat slab, one in composite steel with precast planks

Weaker

A table with rows for cost, speed, sustainability and buildability, and a tick against steel in three of them, followed by: "I recommend the steel scheme as it scores best overall."

Stronger

"The site's only access is a single 3.5 m gate onto a live street, which makes deliveries and craneage the dominant constraint. The composite scheme needs fewer, lighter lifts and no concrete pours above ground, cutting street occupation from an estimated fourteen weeks to six — decisive here in a way it would not be on an open site. Against that, the RC flat slab gives a 250 mm shallower floor zone, worth about a metre over four storeys of cladding, and reuses the existing raft without piling. On material efficiency the RC scheme is the lighter structure, but the existing raft can carry either. I recommend the composite scheme: the access constraint is binding and the programme saving is large, while the floor-zone penalty is absorbed within the planning height already granted."

Why — The second version chooses criteria from the brief, quantifies where it can, concedes where the other scheme is better, and explains which criterion is decisive and why. It also carries sustainability as a real factor — reuse of the raft, material efficiency — rather than as a closing sentence.

Writing the appraisal

  1. 01

    Pick criteria from this brief

    Read the question for what is unusual — a constrained site, a live building, a heavy servicing load, a reuse opportunity — and let that set what you weigh. Marks are not awarded for generic answers.

  2. 02

    Take each criterion in turn

    Say why it matters here, how each scheme performs, and which wins. Concede where your preferred scheme loses; an appraisal that finds one scheme better at everything is not credible.

  3. 03

    Weigh sustainability as a criterion, not a coda

    Material efficiency and reuse should visibly influence the choice. Full carbon comparisons belong in the calculations, not here.

  4. 04

    Say which criterion is decisive

    This is the engineering judgement being marked. Eight marginal differences and one binding constraint is a common and perfectly good answer — if you say so.

  5. 05

    Recommend, in one unambiguous sentence

    Name the scheme and the two or three reasons that decided it, then move on. Everything downstream depends on the decision being made.

The appraisal

Worth doing

  • Quantify a difference wherever you reasonably can
  • Concede the points where the scheme you reject is better
  • Say which criterion is decisive, and why
  • Keep sustainability among the criteria that actually decide
  • End with a clear recommendation

Avoid

  • Produce a table of ticks and crosses
  • Weigh criteria that this brief gives you no reason to care about
  • Find your preferred scheme better at everything
  • Leave the recommendation implied
  • Run full carbon calculations here

Scheme appraisal workspace

Somewhere to weigh two schemes against criteria you have taken from the brief. The scoring is a thinking aid — the appraisal you write must be a discussion, not a table.

Add criteria drawn from this brief — the site constraint, the ground, the programme, the servicing, any reuse opportunity. Sustainability should be among them.

    Everything here is stored in this browser only. Nothing is uploaded, nothing is analysed, and clearing your browser data will delete it — so export anything you want to keep.

    Related pages and tools

    Read the official guidance