Innovation Spring 2025

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

Professional practice inquiries

How can I appropriately provide remote direct supervision?

The Professional Practice article in the Winter 2024/25 Innovation issue discussed the requirements for registrants when conducting remote field reviews, noting the direct supervision requirements when field reviews are delegated. This article will focus more broadly on how registrants can appropriately provide direct supervision when delegating engineering and geoscience work in a remote context. The direct supervision requirements, outlined in section 7.3.8 of the Engineers and Geoscientists BC Bylaws, assist registrants in meeting their professional and ethical obligations, including public protection and environmental safeguarding. Direct supervision allows work to be delegated properly and appropriately. When done correctly, direct supervision allows registrants to utilize subordinates to assist them in getting their work done, while still being able to take full professional responsibility for that work. A subordinate is any individual who engages in the practice of engineering or geoscience under the direct supervision of an Engineers and Geoscientists BC registrant. The Guide to the Standard for Direct Supervision provides direction for registrants to adequately meet the direct supervision requirements; however, in a remote context there are additional considerations to contemplate. A key principle of direct supervision is the registrant’s ability to be aware of and remain actively involved in the work of any subordinates to whom work is delegated. This can be more difficult when someone is not working in the same office, city, or country as their subordinates. Therefore, before deciding if it is appropriate to delegate work, the registrant should assess whether the adequate degree of direct supervision can be maintained throughout the work cycle based on the requirements of the work and potential barriers that come with remote supervision. Ways to demonstrate appropriate remote supervision include: • Ensuring subordinates clearly understand the scope of work and what the boundaries and limitations of their involvement are.

• Providing clear expectations for when subordinates need to consult with the supervising professional before moving forward. • Reviewing and providing feedback on documents or design work at an appropriate interval. • Providing timely feedback and guidance. • Having frequent virtual meetings, phone calls, and/or email check-ins. The extent of direct supervision should be assessed on a case-by-case basis as it may vary depending on the level of experience of the subordinate and the complexity and level of risk of the work. Inexperienced subordinates may require more frequent check-ins and detailed reviews, and the ability to do this adequately in a remote context should be taken into account. Other considerations could include differing workday schedules and the degree of urgency with which direction or decisions may be required. The best way to demonstrate appropriate direct supervision has taken place, whether remote or otherwise, is through documented records of the communication between the registrant and their subordinate throughout the time of direct supervision. This could include emails, meeting minutes, records of phone conversations, and marked up worked products. If only a final review of the work is recorded, this does not meet the intent of direct supervision and is not sufficient. Firms can assist by including in their documented quality management procedure for delegating work to subordinates, specific requirements around how these obligations can be met and recorded for remote situations. Finally, activities that require a registrant to take overall responsibility for professional work, including document authentication, must not be delegated. For further inquiries and questions, please contact practiceadvisor@egbc.ca . Leane Holloway, GIT Practice Advisor

Innovation Spring 2025

13