INNOVATION January-February 2016

l et ter s

Letters to the editor containing your views on topics of interest are encouraged. Opinions expressed in Letters to the Editor are not necessarily endorsed by APEGBC. Letters should be 300 words or less and can be emailed to editor@apeg.bc.ca.

Unending Reporting Requirements The CPD Bylaw’s defeat came as no surprise to me. Although APEGBC strongly stressed the importance of having a mandatory CPD program in place (to be in line with other/similar associations, to avoid government intervention, etc.), I feel that as professionals, we are continuously asked to increase “reporting”— be it in the workplace or in the associations we belong to. I have been involved in project execution for more than 30 years, and it is truly alarming to see the quantity of projects having “failed” in the past decade. I define failure as any one, or combination, of the following: cost overrun >25%; schedule overrun >25%; cannot reach nominal design throughput after one year of operation. When comparing the olden days with the current state of affairs, what I notice is a significant change in reporting requirements. Reporting is required to the extent that project staff now focus on issuing an unending variety and quantity of reports—to the detriment of the truly essential tasks to ensure success. It should have come as no surprise to the association that engineers are reluctant to embark on yet another reporting requirement, no matter how flexible or amicable it is being offered. I have yet to meet an engineer who does not continually improve his or her skills, as much because of the need to keep up-to-date (supply and demand in knowledge!) as because of its gratification/self-satisfaction. Most of us enrolled in engineering because we love it, and what’s more natural than wanting to keep abreast of new developments? The ones who don’t keep up will eventually be left behind. Mandatory reporting will not by itself improve public safety. The ring on the pinky is a better reminder to always do safe engineering! Gabriel Werner, P.Eng. Las Condes, Chile

Duty to Support Colleagues Seeking Training As a practicing engineer who has worked in both public and private sectors for over 25 years in Canada and elsewhere, I followed the CPD Bylaw discussion and vote with interest. Our profession is founded on personal responsibility to the public as well as to ourselves, and we are the better for it. I believe our society is already too rule bound, and the excessive number of rules takes away from personal responsibility. Our Code of Ethics specifically requires us to keep current within our respective disciplines so that we can uphold the public interest, and I would like to assume that most engineers take that responsibility seriously. However, some engineers are not in a position to be self-determining when it comes to formal CPD. Young engineers (and even some older engineers) who have recently entered the work force might find it challenging to approach their supervisors to register for CPD when it is not required to maintain one’s professional status. Similarly, some employers see little value in CPD and refuse to fund it, displacing the burden (ethical and financial) onto the engineers. For these engineers, decisions regarding CPD are made by persons who do not adhere to the Code of Ethics. The bylaw would have provided those colleagues with the legislative framework to obtain employer support for CPD. Article 7 of the Code requires us to “Conduct [our]selves with fairness, courtesy and good faith towards ... colleagues.” I submit that those who voted against the CPD Bylaw violated Article 7. Frommy perspective, they did not act in good faith to their colleagues. We need to support all our colleagues as they work towards professional development. Why would a profession not support fellow engineers who want to maintain our high ethical standards? Gary Vlieg, P.Eng. Port Moody

6

J AN UA R Y/ F E B R UA R Y 2 016

i n n o v a t i o n