power engineer qualification recognition & … to the operation and maintenance of pressure...

Power Engineer Qualification Recognition & International Labour Mobility Project

May 27, 2016


INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the consultation process and feedback received throughout consultation

to explore and address the issue of potential labour shortages within the power engineering

profession. The consultation was conducted from November 2015 through March 2016 as a

joint venture between BC Safety Authority (BCSA), the Office of Housing and Construction

Standards of the Province of BC’s Ministry of Natural Gas Development and Ministry

Responsible for Housing (OHCS), and the Province of BC’s Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, and Skills

Training (JTST).

BACKGROUND Power engineering is a specialized occupation in Canada that includes specific skills largely

related to the operation and maintenance of pressure vessel plants in a variety of sectors (e.g.

petroleum refining, electrical generation, breweries, pulp and paper, smelters, institutions,

chemical manufacturing, food processing). In BC, power engineering is a regulated occupation

under the Power Engineers, Boiler, Pressure Vessel & Refrigeration Safety Regulation

(PEBPVRSR) under the Safety Standards Act, administered by BCSA.

In 2013, JTST conducted a review of skilled workforce needs in the Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG) sector in consultation with various stakeholders, including BCSA. The review forecasted

an existing and ongoing shortage of power engineers across industries, especially first and

second class power engineers. Initial scoping work by JTST involved identifying strategic

initiatives in other jurisdictions (e.g., foreign worker qualification recognition policies and

processes) designed to bridge power engineering labour shortages across a range of industries

and occupations.

PROPOSAL The purpose of the stakeholder engagement and policy development project was to:

Confirm whether there are labour shortages of power engineers in BC, and explore the

potential barriers.

Develop potential policy solutions to address any labour shortages identified, with

consideration for the possibility of recognizing qualifications of international power

engineering applicants.


CONSULTATION PROCESS The consultation process supporting this project was designed to be implemented in three

stages so that findings and recommendations could be reviewed and further explored within the

time frame of this project. Each phase is outlined as follows:

Phase 1: Advisory Panel Initiated in November 2015, the advisory panel was designed to provide the project team with

ongoing connection and advice with industry throughout the entire duration of this project. In

particular, the purpose of this advisory panel was to:

validate impacted stakeholders

identify potential oversights in the consultation and communication plans

discuss results of preliminary research

identify additional areas for research and follow-up

identify adequate and poignant questions for relevant stakeholders

provide input on the development of recommendations

Timeline November 2015 through

May 2016

Number of meetings 4

Participants 4

Stakeholder representation:

Four members were selected to provide perspectives of the various aspects of the power

engineering profession:

Eric Steinson, Institute of Power Engineers, representing Chief Engineers and power

engineering management

Lance Lane, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 882, representing power

engineering workers

Dave Nicolson, FortisBC Mt Hayes LNG plant, representing the LNG industry

Steven Lukawitski, Canfor Pulp LP, representing the pulp & paper industry

Phase 2: One-on-one meetings Beginning on November 10, 2016 and concluding on February 1, 2016, representatives from

BCSA and the OHCS jointly conducted 10 in-depth one-on-one interviews with key industry

stakeholders to identify the broad spectrum of stakeholder concerns with respect to power

engineer labour shortages and the recognition of foreign credentials in BC. Each interview was

approximately 60-90 minutes in length and followed a structured interview guide. Themes

addressed in the interviews were:

perspective on current status of power engineering shortages

potential solutions & options

core competencies required of power engineers

alternative models being used in other jurisdictions or industries

regulatory structure


Timeline November 2015 through

February 2016


Participants 13

Stakeholder representation:

Five meetings were held with various industry sectors:

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), representing the oil & gas

industry

Canadian Healthcare Engineering Society (CHES) and the Educational Facility

Managers’ Association (EFMA), representing institutional building management

Council of Forest Industries (COFI), representing the forestry and pulp & paper

industries

British Columbia Institute of Technology (BCIT), representing power engineering training

institutions

Three meetings were held with general power engineering stakeholders:

Standardization of Power Engineering Exams Committee (SOPEEC) / Alberta Boiler

Safety Association (ABSA)

Institute of Power Engineers (IPE)

International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)

Two meetings were held with other organizations that had developed a foreign qualification

recognition initiative:

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC (APEGBC)

BC Association for Crane Safety (BCACS)

The most frequently mentioned and salient observations from these interviews were used to

validate the advisory panel’s input while also forming the main themes that BCSA would explore

in further detail during phase 3 consultations involving the focus groups.

Phase 3: Industry-Based Focus Groups Industry-based focus groups were intended to provide an opportunity to engage in group

dialogue about the current status and future options for power engineers. Four focus group

meetings were conducted by BCSA from February 18 through 25, 2016, including a total of 17

participants.

One of these focus groups consisted of members of BCSA’s Boiler Technology Advisory

Committee, representing stakeholders from across the boiler industry.

One of the focus groups was specifically for post-secondary institutions providing

training in power engineering.

Two of the focus groups were made up of general stakeholders related to the power

engineering profession.

Each meeting was approximately 90 minutes in length, consisting of a formal presentation to

provide background on the scope and purpose of the consultation, followed by a facilitated

discussion.

Timeline February 2016


Supplemental: Survey to power engineers In addition to the three phases described above, a web-based electronic survey was distributed

in January 2016 to gain feedback from those who work in the power engineering field, or had

intended to, about what barriers exist to progressing to higher power engineering certificate

classes. This supplemental research survey was conducted to provide the advisory panel and

project team with quantitative and qualitative evidence to confirm statements where data did not

exist and challenge the validity of observations that would otherwise be labeled as anecdotal.

The online survey was distributed via email by BCSA to 3808 individuals who had written a

power engineer exam for whom BCSA had a valid email address, as well as by the International

Union of Operating Engineers and the Institute of Power Engineers to their membership lists.

Respondents Because the consultation for power engineers was exploratory in nature, and because there is

no comprehensive list of active power engineers certified in BC, the scope of impacted

industries and stakeholder associations expanded during the course of the consultation.

Over 970 individuals participated in the consultation through the methods described above. The

table below demonstrates how various industry sectors and stakeholder groups participated in

the consultation.

STAKEHOLDER

GROUP

ENGAGEMENT METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS

Oil & gas

industry

One-on-one meetings: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

Focus Groups: BC Oil & Gas Commission

Online survey: 192 respondents

Liquefied

natural gas

industry

Advisory Panel: FortisBC Mt Hayes LNG Plant

Focus Groups: Pacific NorthWest LNG

Forestry / Pulp

& paper

industry

Advisory Panel: Canfor Pulp & Paper LP

One-on-one meetings: Council of Forest Industries

Focus Groups: Canfor Pulp & Paper LP

Harmac Pacific


Building

management

industry

One-on-one meetings: Canadian Healthcare Engineering Society

Educational Facility Managers Association

Focus Groups: Building Owners and Managers Association

City of Powell River


Power utilities

industry

One-on-one meetings: BC Hydro (Burrard Thermal Power Generation)

Focus Groups: BC Hydro



Participants 17


Manufacturing

industry


General

stakeholders

Advisory Panel: Institute of Power Engineers

International Union of Operating Engineers

One-on-one meetings: Institute of Power Engineers

International Union of Operating Engineers

Standardization of Power Engineering Exams Committee (Alberta Boiler Safety Association),

Focus Groups: Boiler Technology Advisory Committee

Canadian Standards Association

Training

institutions

One-on-one meetings: British Columbia Institute of Technology

Focus Groups: British Columbia Institute of Technology

College of New Caledonia

Vancouver Island University

Foreign worker

qualification

recognition

One-on-one meetings: Association of Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of BC

BC Association for Crane Safety

Other: Facilitating Access to Skilled Trades in BC Committee

Other related

occupations

Focus Groups: Mechanical Contractors Association

Thermal Environmental Comfort Association

FEEDBACK AND ANALYSIS This section gives an overview of the key themes of the feedback received through each phase

of the consultation.

Phase 1: Advisory Panel Since the advisory panel was designed to give feedback throughout the entire duration of the

project, in advance of each meeting advisory panel members were provided with feedback

received from the one-on-one meetings, focus groups and research performed by BCSA and

OHCS’s policy representatives.


Meeting 1

November 9, 2015

Discussions

Power engineering labour shortages felt at 1st and 2nd classes only,

specifically in industries requiring higher classes of power engineers without

being able to provide higher pay

Skillsets of power engineers at different classes will differ among industries

Plan for consultation going forward

Outcomes: Areas to further review

Competency assessment programs developed by Association of

Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of BC, Nursing Community

Assessment Service, BC Association for Crane Safety

Statistics on annual retirements and turnover rates, especially in pulp &

paper industry, for more information on power engineering labour shortages

Meeting 2

December 9, 2015

Discussions

Components of existing competency assessment programs

Scope of power engineering labour shortages as per various studies

Overall agreement with common feedback themes from one-on-one

meetings


Power engineering examinee survey on employment rates and barriers to

progression

Formation of options for competency assessment programs

Meeting 3

February 11, 2016

Discussions

Overall agreement with common feedback themes from one-on-one

meetings

Overall agreement with common feedback themes from power engineer

survey

BCSA outlines a range of options for recognizing foreign qualifications.

advisory panel provides industry input and preferences for a proposed FQR

model that includes a peer review component and BCSA issuance of

certificate of qualification.


Project group to further refine foreign qualification recognition model for

options that include peer review and BCSA review competency assessment

programs and present at next meeting.

Meeting 4

March 29, 2016

Discussions

Overall agreement with common feedback themes from focus group

meetings

Overall agreement with proposed model of peer review competency

assessment program with BCSA as final approver


Interlacing with Canadians gaining experience abroad, workers working

under Alternative Safety Approaches, other areas of engineering;

communication competency

Members to review draft report, validate recommendation and endorse

support


Phase 2: One-on-one meetings Across the ten one-on-one meetings with stakeholder groups, the feedback collected throughout

the second phase of the consultation can be summarized under three major topics:

1. Labour shortage. Stakeholders expressed an opinion on whether labour shortage was

felt in their industry, offered factors affecting the labour shortage, and potential solutions.

2. Barriers to progression. Stakeholders expressed an opinion on what, if any, barriers

exist for power engineers looking to progress to higher certificate levels, and how the

educational structure may be improved to reduce these barriers.

3. Processes for competency review. Stakeholders expressed an opinion on the option

of recognizing foreign worker qualifications, both as a potential solution to labour

shortage, as well as in general.

While most feedback during the one-on-one meetings could be placed in one of the three

abovementioned categories, the most salient feedback included:

Labour shortages – the downturn in forestry, oil and gas sectors coupled with the

increasing mechanization and shift away to alternate energy sources has offset

decreases in labour supply.

Barriers to progression – opportunities to move up to the first and second class power

engineering are available but the concern that compensation increases are not in

alignment with the increase in responsibility has hindered wider adoption.

Education – Requirements for attaining Canadian firing time create a barrier for foreign

qualification recognition.

Certification renewal – A lack of clear information about workforce composition and

career paths of power engineers hinder the ability to make changes and measure the

impact of the changes on the wider industry.

Process for qualification assessment – Acceptance of a foreign credential was

predicated on the basis that it does not create an inequitable two-tiered system nor lower

safety requirements for industry as a whole.

A more comprehensive summary of the most frequently cited feedback can be found in the

following table:

ISSUE FEEDBACK

Labour Shortages Mixed opinions on the degree and severity of power engineer labour

shortages

Large size of individuals aged 50-plus is expected to contribute to power

engineer shortages over the next five to fifteen years, particularly at the 1st

and 2nd class level

The downturn in the forestry, oil and gas sectors, as well as increasing

mechanization and shift away from boilers in some industries, were cited as

helping to offset decreases in labour supply

Shortages and retention issues are more prevalent in lower paying sectors

Barriers to Progression Lack of incentives for advancement to 1st and 2nd classes

Concerns that compensation increases do not align with the increase in

responsibilities at higher levels

Potential solutions included support for 1st and 2nd class exam preparation

and employer incentives for advancement


Phase 3: Focus Groups Building on the feedback of the one-on-one meetings and guidance of the advisory panel, phase

3 of the consultation process aimed to explore the top three major themes in greater detail and

begin the process of constructing potential options to address the project’s objective.

Feedback collected throughout the third phase of the consultation can be summarized under

three major topics:

1. Labour shortage. When asked about the greatest challenges facing the power

engineering profession, and whether they had agreed with the feedback gathered

throughout the survey and first two phases of consultation, stakeholders expressed an

opinion on whether they felt there was a labour shortage, and offered reasons.

2. Barriers to progression. Stakeholders expressed an opinion on what, if any, barriers

exist for power engineers looking to progress to higher certificate levels.

3. Processes for competency review. Stakeholders offered their opinion on components

of competency reviews based on existing programs.

Education Need to revise the training delivery model for power engineers, in order to

improve the quality and prospects of newly trained 4th class power

engineers

Education is a key component of ensuring long-term labour market stability

Resistance to hiring 4th class power engineers straight out of school, with

many graduates finding it difficult to attain firing requirements

Suggestions for improvement included the ability to frontload education

requirements and an earlier focus on trades in the education system, as

well as greater promotion of power engineering as a career path

Desire for well-rounded applicants with skills outside of power engineers’

particular specialization, such as management abilities

Certification Renewal A lack of clear information about workforce composition and career paths of

power engineers was frequently cited

Certification renewal was seen as a possible method for tracking the

composition of the power engineering industry

Process for

Qualification

Assessment

General recognition that, despite difficulties, foreign qualification

assessment would be possible

Potential difficulties included the diversity of plant classifications, as well as

barriers such as language and geo-political context

Industry may be able to play a role in qualification assessments. Chief

Engineers can ascertain suitability and capability of multi-nationals to

establish if foreign employees would be suitable for work in domestic plants

Regulatory role was also seen as appropriate, particularly in confirming

credentials

Acceptance of foreign credential recognition was predicated on the

requirement that it does not create a “two-tiered” system that favours

foreign qualifications

Alternative Models Potential models for FQR were suggested based on other jurisdictions’

experiences and the process utilized in other industries

Suggested models included: the use of a probation period with limited

scope certification; an advisory board model, composed of industry and

BCSA representatives; the use of skills passports; and third party credential

assessment


ISSUE FEEDBACK

Labour shortage Evidence supporting a labour shortage:

Power engineers are being hired because their skillsets (e.g. systems knowledge) are

valued, not for regulatory requirements

Unclear, because no tracking mechanism for active power engineers

Shortage in certain industries

Evidence supporting a labour surplus:

Technology changes toward smaller facilities requiring fewer power engineers

Power engineers’ skillsets are valued only because lack of specialized training in

existing fields

High number of students in power engineering classes

Barriers to progression Factors:

Diversity of reasons for wanting to become a higher class power engineer, but need

motivation to initiate studies, particular in mid-30’s

Less motivation currently: Fewer jobs; fewer local jobs

Employers hire for longevity in a company

Suggested solutions:

Grants for education (to employers or students)

Allow candidates to take exams before gaining firing time

Processes for competency

review

Components:

Legislative requirement

BCSA/Regulator should be assessor

Verifiable experience or demonstration of practical skills (e.g. practicum period with

Chief Engineer signoff; proof of experience with description of equipment worked on)

Exam requirement

Cautions:

Maintain a high standard: Other jurisdictions, including US, are looking to adopt

Canadian model of certifying and training power engineers

Should be available to Canadian-trained workers

Lack of knowledge of Canadian processes, safety culture, terminology

Other jurisdictions:

See ABSA’s existing competency review model

Survey to power engineers

Timeline January 2016

Participants 941

The survey asked all classes of power engineers working in various industries:

What barriers exist to progressing to higher power engineering certificate classes

What motivations exist to progressing to higher power engineering certificate classes

Current state of employment

A comprehensive survey summary report is presented in Appendix A of this consultation report

while a summary of the predominant feedback and insights gained from the survey are

presented in the table below:


ISSUE FEEDBACK

Barriers to progression Assertion:

Power engineering graduates are unable to find a job, therefore unable to

get the required firing time

Greatest factors:

Job opportunities and economy

Unable to complete firing time requirements

Personal reasons (time required to study and progress)

Solutions:

Allow for candidates to write their exams before gaining firing time

Motivations for

progression

Assertion:

82.3% of 3rd and 2nd class power engineers surveyed had the intention to

progress to 2nd or 1st class power engineering certificate

Greatest factors:

More money

More responsibilities

Employer requirement

State of employment 1st class power engineers: 66.7% employed as a power engineer

2nd class power engineers: 89.0% employed as a power engineer

3rd class power engineers: 74.2% employed as a power engineer

4th class power engineers: 60.6% employed as a power engineer

5th class power engineers: 70.8% employed as a power engineer

Other comments Exams:

3rd class B1 exam recently changed to multiple choice, allowing academic

and theory vs practical knowledge, and increased potential for cheating

Difference between what is taught in classroom or given as study material

vs what is examined for certification

Perceptions:

Should maintain a high standard: Relaxed requirements are already making

progression too easy

Not recognized or treated as a specialized trade

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on feedback received throughout the 3 phase

consultation process and supplemental survey:

Recommendation 1: A model developed for the recognition of foreign qualifications should be:

Fair and consistent: Criteria and process should align with other Canadian standards

and allow for an applicant, regardless of their prior qualifications, an opportunity for

evaluation.

Rigorous: Evaluations must be a rigorous process. BCSA has built confidence as the

historical certifying body for power engineers; any evaluators must be qualified and

knowledgeable of the industry.

Industry supported: Involve expertise from industry within the evaluation process.


Streamlined: Administrative process and fees should not be burdensome to the

applicants, companies, BCSA, the Provincial government or other entities; a singular

organization is preferred to administer the process.

Flexible and scalable: Evaluation process should be adaptable/flexible to volume and

type of applicants over time while recognizing administrative, technical, and financial

resources are preconditions of successful implementation.

Timely: Regulatory amendment should not impede timely implementation of an

enhanced evaluation process.

Recommendation 2: BCSA develop a mechanism to track and report information on power

engineers for the purpose of sustained labour market analysis and planning.

Recommendation 3: BCSA explore options to validate and/or recognize work experience

obtained outside of Canada in fulfillment of firing time requirements for individuals seeking

future sustained employment in Canadian plants.

Recommendation 4: BCSA conduct further consultation with industry on this model prior to full

implementation.

Power Engineer Qualification Recognition & International Labour Mobility Project APPENDIX A: REPORT ON POWER ENGINEERING SURVEY RESPONSES

SUMMARY

BC Safety Authority conducted an online survey to gain industry opinion on any barriers that

exist to progressing to higher power engineering certificate classes. The survey was open from

January 8 to January 29, 2016, and was distributed by email by BC Safety Authority, the

International Union of Operating Engineers and the Institute of Power Engineers.

In total, 941 complete responses were received to the survey.

Most common industry sectors of employment Power engineers [n=830] Non-power engineers [n=60]

1. Oil & gas 21.0% 1. Oil & gas 15.0%

2. Forestry 16.1% 2. Building maintenance &

operations

13.3%

3. Building maintenance &

operations

15.5% 3. Manufacturing 13.3%

Reasons for wanting to progress (weighted responses) Power engineers [n=363] Non-power engineers [n=33]

1. More money 64.9% 1. Career advancement 36.4%

2. More responsibilities 43.1% 2. Progression is currently in

progress

15.2%

3. Required by employer 27.5% 3. Better job (tied)

3. Better pay (tied)

3. Desirable industry (tied)

3. Required by job (tied)

9.1%

Reasons for not progressing (weighted responses) Power engineers [n=830] Non-power engineers [n=19]

1. Progression is currently in

progress 40.8% 1. Time 36.8%

2. Did not have the time to

complete study time /

requirements

34.2% 2. Exam challenges 21.1%

3. No significant financial gain 22.2% 3. Chose an alternative career

path (tied)

3. Lack of job security (tied)

10.5%

Barriers to progression Power engineers + non-power engineers [n=848]

1. Economy (job opportunities) 18.5%

2. BCSA requirements (firing time) 17.3%

3. Personal reasons (time required) 13.2%


INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the responses received to a survey distributed in January 2016 to

power engineers who hold a certificate in BC. The survey sought feedback from those who work

in the power engineering field, or had intended to, about what barriers exist to progressing to

higher power engineering certificate classes. The outcomes of the survey were to help inform

how to improve regulation for helping power engineers progress to higher classes, in the hopes

of resolving any industry shortages.

METHODOLOGY The survey was a web-based electronic survey that contained a mix of multiple choice and short

answer questions.

Questions Given a list of possible responses and an option for “other, please explain”, respondents were

asked to rank their top three reasons for:

Why they chose to advance in the power engineering field (1st and 2nd class only)

Why they did not choose to advance in the power engineering field (3rd, 4th and 5th class)

Respondents were also asked about their thoughts on barriers to advancement in the power

engineering field, and other comments.

Participation was voluntary, and providing demographic or personal information beyond the

respondent’s power engineering certificate class and the industry and plant class in which they

worked, was optional.

Distribution The online survey was distributed via email by BC Safety Authority to 3808 power engineers

registered in BC for whom valid email addresses were registered in BCSA’s database. The

International Union of Operating Engineers and the Institute of Power Engineers also distributed

the survey to their membership lists.

The survey was open from January 8, 2016 and closed at 12:00pm PST on January 29, 2016.

RESPONSES In total, 941 complete responses were received, with an additional 196 incomplete responses.

Only complete responses were included in the tabulation and analysis.

Type of respondents All 941 complete responses provided their certificate class; all other information was optional

and provided voluntarily.

By certificate class The majority of respondents (46.7%) were 4th class power engineers.


Power engineers by industry sector The majority (21.0%) of power engineer respondents worked in the oil and gas sector. [830 out

of 872 power engineers responded to this question.]

other

government

military / marine

tourism & hospitality

mining, metals & materials

food & beverage

power utilities

manufacturing

building maintenance

forestry

oil and gas

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%

Industry type (power engineers)


Non-power engineers by industry sector The majority (15.0%) of non-power engineer respondents worked in the oil and gas sector. [60

out of 69 non-power engineers responded to this question.]

Employment

Current employment/occupation All classes of power engineers were asked whether they were currently employed as a power

engineer. From the 869 responses received, 68.5% of power engineers stated that they were

currently employed as a power engineer; 31.5% said they were not.

All non-power engineers and those not currently employed as a power engineer were asked

what their occupation was. [323 responses out of 343 possible respondents] The most common

occupations were:

other

government

mining, metals and materials

student

tourism & hospitality

forestry

military / marine

manufacturing

building maintenance & operations

oil and gas

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0%

Industry type (non-power engineers)

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

Millwright

Manager

Building & Facilities Operations

Retired

Marine Engineer

Technician

Maintenance

Plant operator

Unemployed

Student

Top 10 occupations of those not working as power engineers


Location and type of plant All respondents were asked this question which province or territory they were working in. Of

the 873 respondents, the majority (84.1%) were based in BC.

Those employed as power engineers were asked what class of plant they were working in.

Intention to progress

Pursuing a 2nd or 1st class certificate 3rd and 2nd class power engineers were asked whether they had considered obtaining a higher

certificate. Overall, 82.3% (269 out of 327) said yes. A higher percentage of 3rd class power

engineers (84.1%) said yes vs. 2nd class power engineers (78.2%).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Quebec

Saskatchewan

Alberta

British Columbia

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

5th Class

4th Class

3rd Class

2nd Class

1st Class

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No

Yes

Intent to pursue a higher class of certificate

2nd cl 3rd cl


Pursuing certification as a power engineer Those who were not yet a power engineer were asked whether they had intentions to follow

through with obtaining their certificate. [n=69]

Career advancement was the reason most respondents (36%, or 12 out of 33) gave as their

reason for wanting to follow through with obtaining their power engineering certificate.

Time was the reason most respondents (37%, or 7 out of 19) gave as their reason for not

wanting to follow through with obtaining their power engineering certificate.

Reasons for personal motivation to progress to a higher class of power

engineering 1st, 2nd and 3rd class power engineers were asked what motivated them to progress to their

current class in power engineering. The percentages shown are weighted to take into account

the ranking of significance given by the respondents.

Top 5 reasons (all classes)

1. More money 64.9%

2. More responsibilities 43.1%

3. Required by employer 27.5%

4. Wanted to move into a management

position

25.6%

5. Personal/Professional development

(tied)

5. Job opportunities (tied)

11.4%

11.3%

Across the classes, the top 3 reasons given for motivation differed slightly.

1st class 2nd class 3rd class

1. More money 1. More money 1. More money

2. Wanted to move into a

management position

2. More responsibilities 2. More responsibilities

3. More responsibilities 3. Wanted to move into a

management position

3. Required by employer

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No

Yes

Intent to pursue certificate


Reasons for not personally progressing to a higher class of power engineering 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th class power engineers were asked what prevented them from obtaining a

higher class of power engineering certificate. The percentages shown are weighted to take into

account the ranking of significance given by the respondents.

Across the classes, the top 3 reasons given for not progressing differed slightly.

2nd class 3rd class 4th class 5th class

1. No significant

financial gain

1. Progression is

currently in

progress

1. Progression is

currently in

progress

1. Did not have the

time to complete

requirements

2. Did not have the

time to complete

requirements

2. Did not have the

time to complete

requirements

2. Did not have the

time to complete

requirements

2. No significant

financial gain

3. Limited job

opportunities

3. No significant

financial gain

3. No significant

financial gain

3. Progression is

currently in

progress

Barriers to progression

Top 5 barriers to advancing in the power engineering profession [n=848] Category Subcategory Total Mentions %

Economy Job opportunities 157 18.5%

BCSA Firing time 147 17.3%

Personal Time required 111 13.1%

BCSA Exam challenges 79 9.3%

Personal Gaining experience 47 5.5%

Other comments [n=394] Category Total mentions %

BCSA requirements 99 26.5%

Courses & exams 86 23.0%

Job opportunities 38 10.2%

Employment challenges 34 9.1%

Personal reasons 7 1.9%

Top 5 reasons (all classes)

1. Progression is currently in progress 40.8%

2. Did not have the time to complete

study time / requirements

34.2%

3. No significant financial gain 22.2%

4. Limited job opportunities 19.7%

5. Did not want to relocate 14.1%

power engineer qualification recognition & … to the operation and maintenance of pressure...

Documents