ES 4498G Position Paper

Cantelon Wise 250436130

Dr. Don Hewson Feb 13, 2012

The field of engineering is quickly evolving. These changes include upgraded software, hardware, or completely new methods and technologies. It is important for engineers to continually develop themselves professionally in order to maintain competence in their work. Section 77 Article 1-5 of the Ontario Regulation 941 of the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) code of ethics states that it is the duty of a practitioner to the public, to the practitioners employer, to the practitioners clients, to other members of the practitioners profession, and to the practitioner to act at all times with competence in the performance of any professional engineering services that are undertaken.1 This paper will critically analyze this article in terms of its influence on protecting the public, the enforcement of professional development, and the consequences of not maintaining competence. The philosophy of ethical duty stems from Immanuel Kant and suggests that everyone has a duty to prevent harm to human life and to consider the welfare of society to be paramount.2 Being competent means that the practitioner has the necessary knowledge, skills and judgment to properly perform their work. As an engineer, continued competence plays an important role in fulfilling our responsibility to society. By failing to comply with this article of the code of ethics, public safety can be jeopardized. An example of this is demonstrated from the collapse of the Concorde overpass in Laval, Quebec. After inspection of the incident, one of the recommendations regarding bridge safety was to research into more advanced technology and methods to detect failing bridges and to provide better training for inspectors.3 Training workers is a key component of making sure that workers are capable of performing their job and better equipment decreases the possibility of a disaster occurring. At Walkerton, many residents became sick due to contaminated drinking water. This event was not a failure on the part of engineers. However, it did enlighten the engineering community of the importance of continual

improvement and encouraged engineers to innovate and develop enhanced water purification technologies.4 When events of this magnitude occur, investigations follow and the results are usually incorporated into revised and improved standards, guidelines and regulations in order to help protect the public. Engineers must continuously learn in order to be aware of these updated standards. Otherwise, the same mistake may occur again. The qualifications required to become a PEO are set high for the purpose of ensuring that practitioners entering this profession are competent. However, this does not mean that the engineer will remain competent over the full course of their career. Engineers must be dedicated to lifelong learning. Debate arises as to the need for a continuing professional development (CPD) program. Some provinces in Canada have adopted a mandatory CPD program, which requires recording and reporting of activities that contribute to CPD such as, formal courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, etc. Each practitioner must acquire the specified amount of CPD hours over a specified time period. Failing to produce the required amount of CPD can result in revocation of the practitioners license. PEO currently uses a voluntary annual reporting program through the PEO website.5 In addition, PEO requires, as a condition of license renewal, for practitioners to make the following statement: I declare that I have maintained knowledge of developments in the areas of professional engineering relevant to the services I provide to my employer and/or clients, that I shall act with competence in the performance of those professional engineering services, and that I shall only undertake work that I am competent to perform by virtue of my knowledge, training and experience.6 I believe that CPD should be a voluntary program. It is the obligation of the engineer to assess their own level of competence and to only work on projects in the realm of their knowledge, skills and experience. Engineers should not be pressured by a bureaucratic program

to continually develop. It is in the nature of the engineer to continually develop as they progress from a junior engineer to a senior engineer, gradually taking on more responsibility as they become more experienced. The field of engineering is very diverse one engineer could be working on a challenging project involving the design of new technology whereas another engineers work could be very familiar and routine based. The amount of professional development required by an individual is specific to their job and projects. As such, it should be the engineers decision as to whether or not they require CPD. Furthermore, an engineer can attend many courses and seminars or other CPD activities but a significant amount of PEO resources would be required to determine the pertinence and value of those activities to the engineers job and to measure the effectiveness of the program towards the public. The Association reviews about 30 complaints a year and 10 to 12 are sent to a discipline hearing. This is low compared to the number of licensed engineers.7 This indicates that incompetent engineers are not a widespread issue and that overall, most engineers are competent. It is impossible to create a regulation system that is error-free in the sense that the public can never expect to encounter a competence problem.8 This stems from the fact that incompetence is not just because of a lack of CPD, but can also be caused through alcoholism or simply poor work ethic. If it were possible to create a perfect system, it would take a vast amount of resources to implement and would require rigorous monitoring and evaluation of practitioners ultimately creating an administrative monster with little benefit. Other than the CPD program there are other factors that motivate engineers to maintain competence. The company plays an important role. In a free market, competence is required to stay competitive in the market as new innovations improve on older designs and can result in cheaper ways of doing things. As a result, competent companies will succeed whereas the less

competent companies will be pressured to leave the market. In order to assist their employees, companies sometimes pay for their employees to pursue an additional degree or a Masters degree. At the very least, companies provide their employees with in-house training to ensure that they are familiar with the company standards and procedures. For instance, the automotive industry is continually evolving with new car models coming out each year. In order for a mechanic to repair new types of vehicles, the company provides training in the form of online tests and instructional videos. Companies collaborate with educational institutions in order to conduct technical studies. For example, London Hydro cooperates with the University of Western Ontario in order to determine if the introduction of electric vehicles will have negative effects on the distribution system and to find methods of mitigating any potential issues. In doing so, London Hydro maintains competence to the customers they serve and avoids violating standards. Engineering services are required to comply with standards; failing to comply can lead to a liability lawsuit putting millions of dollars at stake. In addition, incompetence can result in a practitioner or company having to defend against accusations of professional misconduct or incompetence in a disciplinary hearing. The name of the practitioner or company could be made public as a result of these hearings, leading to a bad reputation and less business.9 Overall, if practitioners and companies do not stay competent there is the risk of being forced out of the market by competition, facing lawsuits or disciplinary hearings, ultimately leading to their demise. In summary, Section 77 Article 1-5 of the Ontario Regulation 941 from the code of ethics deals with the practitioners duty to be competent in all engineering work performed. This article is important as continued competence is a prerequisite for public safety. I do not believe that a mandatory CPD program should be imposed and that it is the obligation of the practitioner to

assess their own competency and pursue professional development if they feel necessary. If the practitioner fails to maintain competence consequences will ensue ultimately leading to the practitioner losing their license and possibly their job.

Notes 1. Professional Engineers Act of Ontario, 1990, R.R.O. Reg. 941, s.77 (1). Government of Ontario. 2. Gordon C Andrews, Canadian Professional Engineering and Geoscience: Practice and Ethics 4th edition (Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education Ltd., 2009), 216. 3. Michael Mastromatteo, "Training, Knowledge Sharing Key to Bridge Safety," Engineering Dimensions 31, no.2 (2010): 26. 4. Michael Mastromatteo, "Engineering Profession Still Mulling Over Lessons of Walkerton," Engineering Dimensions 31, no.5 (2010): 39. 5. Professional Engineers Ontario Council, Report: Continuing Competency Assurance. (2008); http://www.peo.on.ca/consultation/2008/Continued%20Competency%20Assurance%20 Report%20-%20Jan%2008%20-%20C-445.pdf (accessed on Feb 10, 2012) 6., Jennifer Coombes, "In Council: Council Hopes to Remove Industrial Exception Under Ontario Open For Business Initiative," Engineering Dimensions 31, no.3 (2010): 28. 7. Karen Hawthorne, Professional Development: A Prescription for Competence Assurance?, Engineering Dimensions 24. no.3 (2003): 27. 8. Richard W. Braddock, Is Competence an Issue?, Engineering Dimensions 24. no.1 (2003): 3. 9. Dwight Hamilton, Punishment as Competence Assurance, Engineering Dimensions 24. no.3 (2003): 31-33.

Bibliography Andrews, Gordon C. Canadian Professional Engineering and Geoscience: Practice and Ethics 4th edition. Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education Ltd., 2009. Braddock, Richard W. Is Competence an Issue?. Engineering Dimensions 24. no.1 (2003): 3,6. Coombes, Jennifer. "In Council: Council Hopes to Remove Industrial Exception Under Ontario Open For Business Initiative." Engineering Dimensions 31, no.3 (2010): 26-28. Hamilton, Dwight. Punishment as Competence Assurance. Engineering Dimensions 24. no.3 (2003): 30-33. Hawthorne, Karen. Professional Development: A Prescription for Competence Assurance?. Engineering Dimensions 24. no.3 (2003): 25-29. Mastromatteo, Michael. "Engineering Profession Still Mulling Over Lessons of Walkerton." Engineering Dimensions 31, no.5 (2010): 34-39. Mastromatteo, Michael. "Training, Knowledge Sharing Key to Bridge Safety." Engineering Dimensions 31, no.2 (2010): 26. Professional Engineers Act of Ontario, 1990, R.R.O. Reg. 941, s.77. Government of Ontario. Professional Engineers Ontario Council, Report: Continuing Competency Assurance. (2008); http://www.peo.on.ca/consultation/2008/Continued%20Competency%20Assurance%20R eport%20-%20Jan%2008%20-%20C-445.pdf (accessed on Feb 10, 2012)