Navigating a maze: complications within engineering practice areas

The complications with practice areas

An opinion piece by Aaron Holland

Some of you are probably aware of the problems being encountered across the engineering fields presently and a number of you will probably have been impacted either a little bit or a lot by what follows.

There seems to be a lack of understanding by the regulatory authorities and even some of those within the engineering profession as to what a CPEng engineer is and what they may or may not be capable of engineering, and even more importantly, what engineering is actually complex and what is relatively simple engineering.

For example, would you submit an example of a simple driven piled foundation, or the bearing capacity construction checks for a shallow foundation, or a single dwelling stormwater neutrality design, or a simply supported beam design for a small dwelling as part of your CPEng assessment and then try and explain how that is complex and fits with why you have the experience and abilities to become a CPEng.

What sort of engineer am I? I

1. Design subdivisions, roads, water and wastewater systems (Civil?)
2. Design retaining walls to remediate slips or support earthworks or structures (Are you a structural or geotechnical engineer? Or both)
3. Design wharfs, seawalls, groynes, floodway’s, bridges (Are you a structural or civil or geotechnical engineer?)
4. Design _ foundations (Are you a structural or geotechnical engineer?)
5. Design _ buildings (Structural?)
6. Investigate ground conditions to determine lateral and vertical bearing capacity, stability, settlement, liquefaction etc issues for any development (Geotechnical?)
7. Undertake coastal effects assessment of coastal sites in regard to erosion, infrastructure etc (Are you a civil engineer or a coastal scientist?)
8. Design _ commercial developments, including buildings, sheds, pavements, parking and access etc (Are you a structural or civil or geotechnical engineer?)
9. Analyse flooding, coastal inundation levels and effects on sites (Civil?)
10. Test ground conditions for road pavements, subdivisions, small/large scale earthworks, foundations (Are you a civil or geotechnical engineer?)

These are just some of the various tasks that _ you might _ undertake, especially if you worked for a smaller firm where engineers must be proficient at many of the above. Smaller firms cannot afford to hire separate specialists for all of these and have them registered with every BCA where they work .

Now consider what happens when you apply for CPEng and have various examples that fit into some of the categories above. Do you ask for a practice field to be Geotechnical, or Civil, or Structural? How do you choose? if you choose wrongly it may negate your ability to be accepted by councils as proficient in those other fields.

Even if you are capable, and even if you wanted to have everything listed the assessment board usually only allows two practise fields and being an assessor we don’t want to have to wade through hundreds of project examples to show you have done and are capable of doing all the things you can do, so how do you choose without hamstringing yourself?

These problems are becoming more and more commonplace. I am aware of issues with Napier, Auckland, Tauranga and Invercargill. It is not an isolated problem and it is becoming more and more important that your identified practice fields, and Practice Area Descriptions, accurately reflect what you are experienced in. For many engineers, especially those that work in smaller consultancies, this is nearly impossible to do with one or two sentences as well as limiting yourself to two practice fields.

An example of the problems being encountered:  A CPEng engineer chartered as a civil engineer and assessed as part of that CPEng assessment using slip investigation and repair agrees to a practice field of Civil, with a Practice Area Description of “Design and design management of civil infrastructure” for the CPEng register.

Who should decide if that engineer has and is capable of investigating and designing a slip repair?

Should it be Council, the Engineer, the Public, ENZ? The ENZ ethics that we all commit to every year actually leaves it up to the engineer to make the call on the limits of his or her competence once they are registered. As a Chartered Member of the ENZ we are obliged to work within our competence or face the consequences of a disciplinary hearing.

Council’s stance is “how do we know you can do geotechnical work without us assessing you, as the register does not indicate that ENZ, acting for the Registration Board, has assessed you?” What proof do you have other than your word?

ENZ cannot change what the register says without you applying for a new CPEng assessment.

If anyone then refuses to accept that you are competent to undertake the task/engineering you have completed (as it generally happens after completing a job) what would or even could you do about it?

There seems to be a major disconnect between The TA view of competence and that of ENZ, and by default, the Registration Board and we, General Practice Engineers, are caught in the no-man’s land between the two.

We have discussed this with Paul Kirby, General Manager of Regulation at Engineering New Zealand. Paul said the CPEng Board acknowledges that there is a disconnect between the regulator, agencies and the profession on the use of practice area descriptions. Paul said CPEng assessment rules require a candidate to provide a practice area description to appoint a Practice Area Assessor to confirm work samples, it was never meant for TA’s or anyone else’s purpose. Paul recognises that the public need to know practice areas so that they can appoint the right engineer for the work they need doing and TA’s need to know to manage their own risks in relying on advice. But using the CPEng practice area descriptions isn’t the right way. Paul is working with the Registrar to resolve this and is keen to work with the profession in getting there and welcomes any feedback from the committee.

See link for original article engineeringnewzealand.cmail19.com/t/t-e-zkdulkl-jhkhuthuhr-u/