Why this matters now

The Building Safety Act 2022 and the wider post-Grenfell reform of competence requirements have made one thing clear: attendance hours are no longer good enough as evidence of competence. Practices, dutyholders, and professional bodies are being asked to demonstrate that training produces real capability — not just a logged certificate.

The instrument to evidence that has been missing. CPD Impact is that instrument.

What we do

We collect anonymous, voluntary signal from professionals who attend CPD sessions: what they intend to do differently as a result. We follow up later to see whether that intent translated into practice. Over time, this builds an honest picture — session by session — of which CPD actually moves the needle and which doesn’t.

We call this the Realisation Rate: the proportion of stated intent that becomes real practice change. It’s the clearest answer we know to a question the sector has never been able to answer with evidence: did this CPD actually do anything?

Compared to what?

We don’t claim our measurement is perfect. Self-reported intent and follow-up data has limits, and we’re upfront about them. Our claim is simpler: it’s better evidence than attendance hours, which is the current standard almost everywhere in the sector. Every CPD evaluation method has to be compared to what it’s replacing — and what it’s replacing is a register and a feedback form.

Independence, with a cost attached

CPD Impact’s measurement is deterministic and auditable — every score is produced by the same transparent logic applied to every submission, with no manual curation or AI involvement in the scoring itself.

Independence is easy to claim and hard to prove, so here’s a constraint we hold ourselves to rather than a claim we make about ourselves: if we’ve been paid to consult on a practice’s CPD programme, we won’t score a session connected to that engagement for twelve months afterwards — even when it would be more convenient to. A measurement instrument that can be quietly influenced by the people or sessions it measures isn’t worth having, and the only way to make that claim credible is to occasionally turn down convenience to keep it true.

Who this is for

• AEC professionals deciding which CPD is worth their time
• CPD providers who want honest, third-party proof that their sessions work
• Practices building auditable evidence of competence development
• Professional bodies and regulators assessing what outcome-based CPD evidence looks like in practice

See it for yourself

The clearest way to understand what we do is to look at real signal from a real session. Browse the directory → and see CPD ranked by what attendees actually said they’d do differently.

If you’ve attended a CPD session recently, your signal takes about 60 seconds to add → — anonymous, and it directly improves the picture for the next professional deciding whether that session is worth their time.

Provider, researcher, or press enquiry? Get in touch →.