publisher & editor - the warren centre · publisher & editor the warren centre for advanced...

Publisher & Editor The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering LimitedEngineering Link Building J13Sydney University NSW 2006 AustraliaT 61 2 9351 3752F 61 2 9351 2012E [email protected] www.warren.usyd.edu.au

Sub-Editor Wordsmart

Designer Creative HQ

Printer University Publishing ServicesUniversity of Sydney

ISBN 978-1-74210-153-8

Disclaimer The ideas and assertions put forward in this report are the collective view of the PPIR Project Team. It is not the intention of The Warren Centre or itsmanagement or the Centre's many sponsors to present a formal view of anyof the matters presented on behalf of The Warren Centre, the University ofSydney or any PPIR Project Sponsor

Copyright © 2009 The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering Limited

Except as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part of this report may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system or communicated in any form or byany means without prior written permission. All requests for reproduction or communication should be made to The Warren Centre for AdvancedEngineering Limited at the above address.

Names, titles and post-nominals of individuals, and the names of companiesand government departments, are listed as they were at the time of theirinvolvement with the PPIR Project.

Trade Marks Professional Performance Innovation and Risk™, PPIR™, HARF™, Hazardand Risk Framework™ and AS.PPIR™ are trade marks of The Warren Centrefor Advanced Engineering Limited.

Acknowledgements This project has received substantial funding and in-kind support from the sponsors and supporters listed in Annexure 1.

Glossary A glossary of terms can be found in Annexure 3.

The project was only possible due to the dedication of the project team:

Peter North AM Ian Dart

Christine Kanellakis Dr John Nutt AM

Denis White Alan Chappel

Prof. Michael Dureau Robert Mitchell

Ken Conway Martin Dwyer

Geoff Peattie Brian Kooyman

Prof. Ron Johnston

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE, INNOVATION AND RISK

Executive Summary ....................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 41.1 ORIGINS OF PROJECT.................................... 41.2 THE ENGINEER AND PERFORMANCE ............ 51.3 THE ENGINEER AND THE

DUTY AND STANDARD OF CARE.................... 51.4 JUST WHO IS AN ‘ENGINEER’? ...................... 51.5 ENGINEERING IN THE COMMUNITY.............. 61.6 ENGINEERING IN THE ECONOMY .................. 7

2. THE PPIR PROJECT................................................. 82.1 AIMS OF PROJECT ......................................... 82.2 APPROACH TAKEN......................................... 92.3 SPONSORS AND PROJECT LEADERSHIP...... 10

3. CONTEMPORARY REALITIES FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER .................... 113.1 THE COMMERCIAL REALITIES ..................... 113.2 THE RISK REALITIES.................................... 123.3 RISK SEGMENTATION REALITIES................. 133.4 THE INSURANCE REALITIES ........................ 133.5 THE LEGAL REALITIES.................................. 143.6 THE ‘MISSING LINK’.................................... 14

4. ETHICS, COMPETENCY AND PERFORMANCE........ 154.1 ETHICS ........................................................ 154.2 COMPETENCY.............................................. 164.3 PERFORMANCE............................................ 164.4 DEFINING THE THIRD DIMENSION .............. 17

5. DEFINING PERFORMANCE IN PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE............ 185.1 THE APPROACH ........................................... 185.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE

PPIR PROTOCOL .......................................... 19

6. THE ‘PPIR PROTOCOL’: THE WARREN CENTRE PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE, INNOVATIONAND RISK PROTOCOL ........................................... 21

7. GUIDELINES FOR USING THE PPIR PROTOCOL ........................................... 247.1 IS THE PPIR PROTOCOL WRITTEN

FOR THE INDIVIDUAL? ................................ 247.2 DOES THE PPIR PROTOCOL

REPLACE THE EA (OR SIMILAR) CODE OF ETHICS? ....................................... 24

7.3 HOW DOES THE PPIR PROTOCOL APPLY WITHIN AN ENGINEERING TEAM?............... 24

7.4 WHAT IF THE TEAM LEADER IS NOTA PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER?..................... 25

7.5 ARE THERE LIMITATIONS TO HOW THE PPIR PROTOCOL MAY BE APPLIED?............. 25

7.6 IN WHAT WAYS WOULD A CORPORATE ENTITY APPLY THE PPIR PROTOCOL? .......... 25

7.7 IN WHAT OTHER WAYS COULD THE PPIR PROTOCOL BE APPLIED? .................... 26

8. INTEGRATED RISK ASSESSMENTAND MANAGEMENT ............................................. 278.1 THE HAZARD AND RISK FRAMEWORK ........ 288.2 AN ILLUSTRATIVE HARF .............................. 288.3 THE GOVERNING HAZARD AND

RISK CONTEXT ............................................ 298.4 HAZARD AND RISK GROUPS ....................... 298.5 DELEGATION AND

REFINING CONTEXT .................................... 29

8.6 HAZARDS, VULNERABILITIESAND RISKS.................................................. 29

8.7 ANALYSING, EVALUATING AND TREATING RISKS ................................. 30

9. THE ROADMAP FOR CHANGE................................ 31

10. AS.PPIR: THE CORPORATE EQUIVALENTOF THE PPIR PROTOCOL....................................... 33

11. EXPERT TESTIMONY: USING THE SYSTEM MORE EFFECTIVELY........................ 3511.1 RULES GOVERNING

EXPERT TESTIMONY.................................... 3511.2 CONTEMPORARY PRACTICES

IN EXPERT TESTIMONY ............................... 3711.3 EXPERT TESTIMONY, THE

PPIR PROTOCOL & AS.PPIR ......................... 37

12. THE BENEFITS OF CHANGE .................................. 4012.1 THE PUBLIC BENEFIT .................................. 4012.2 BENEFITS FOR CLIENTS............................... 4112.3 BENEFITS FOR SUPPLIERS.......................... 4212.4 BENEFITS FOR PROJECT FUNDERS.............. 4212.5 BENEFITS FOR SENIOR

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ....................... 4312.6 BENEFITS FOR ‘JUNIOR’

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ....................... 4312.7 BENEFITS FOR

ENGINEERING EMPLOYERS ........................ 4312.8 BENEFITS FOR

ENGINEERING INSURERS ........................... 4412.9 BENEFITS IN

DISPUTE AND LITIGATION........................... 4412.10 BENEFITS FOR

ENGINEERING ASSOCIATIONS.................... 44

13. THE CHANGE PROGRAM ...................................... 4513.1 DISSEMINATION OF PPIR

PROJECT REPORT ........................................ 4513.2 CPD EDUCATION PROGRAM........................ 4513.3 INDUSTRY ‘EARLY ADOPTION’

PROGRAM ................................................... 4613.4 RATIFICATION OF PPIR PROTOCOL.............. 4613.5 DEVELOPMENT OF AS.PPIR......................... 4613.6 IMPROVING EXPERT TESTIMONY................ 4613.7 GAINING RECOGNITION OF

ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM ............. 4713.8 DEVELOPING THE ROLE

& SPONSORSHIP OF NERB ......................... 47

14. TOWARDS A UNIFIED REGULATORY REGIME? ....................................... 4814.1 POTENTIAL OF VOLUNTARY REGIME ........... 4814.2 A NATIONAL REGISTRATION REGIME? ........ 4914.3 PUBLIC SECTOR BUYING

USING AS.PPIR?.......................................... 4914.4 AN ‘ENGINEERING PROFESSION ACT’?....... 50

Annexure 1PROJECT LEADERS AND SPONSORS............................ 52

Annexure 2 INDICATIVE APPROACH TO AS.PPIR ............................ 55

Annexure 3GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................. 58

PPIR PUBLICATION PHOTO CREDITS........................... 59

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE, INNOVATION AND RISK

This report presents the findings of The Warren Centre's Professional Performance, Innovation andRisk Project (PPIR Project), a comprehensive review of professional performance, innovation and risk in contemporary Australian professional engineering practice.

The PPIR Project has been undertaken by a team of leading engineering professionals, backed by participating sponsors representative of a wide range of engineering industry and profession stakeholders, under the auspices of The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering. It has included anextensive series of workshops among, and consultations with, more than 200 practising professionalengineers representative of all fields of engineering.

The PPIR Project has explored and considered the generic role of the professional engineer and, in particular, the performance, innovation and risk management aspects of that role; community andclient expectations of the engineering professional; the contemporary commercial and professionalrealities impacting on the work of the engineering professional; the effects of the complex minefieldsof law and liability that govern everyday engineering; engineering risk and responsible risk-taking; and particularly the relationships between professional performance, innovation and risk.

This report on the PPIR Project proposes a way of defining and formally recognising how professionalengineers interact with, and respond to, their clients, their professional peers and the community. This approach also defines and recognises how clients, professional peers and the community cangain best advantage of the professional engineer's skills, knowledge and experience.

The approach reinforces the role and importance of the engineering profession's existing ethical andcompetency standards, but adds performance as the essential third dimension in defining engineeringprofessionalism, by considering:

How should the engineering professional's work be carried out and accomplished and howshould ethical and competency issues be addressed within a task-specific framework?

A key feature of the approach is that it introduces The Warren Centre Professional Performance,Innovation and Risk Protocol (PPIR Protocol), to:

• inform and guide the professional engineer acting individually or as a member of a team on theessentials of performance in undertaking an engineering task

• inform and guide all parties to, and stakeholders in, an engineering task on the role and obligations of the professional engineer and the effective use of professional engineering services

• define the essentials of performance against which the 'duty and standard of care' of the professional engineer can be assessed objectively, both in prospect and in retrospect.

The report also proposes three related initiatives that, together with the PPIR Protocol, form an integrated Roadmap for Change:

1. The new concept of a Hazard and Risk Framework (HARF) that calls for a formal, fully integrated 'best for risk management' approach to recognising and delineating all the hazard and risk issuesand accountabilities in an engineering task;

2. An Australian Standard (AS.PPIR) that would become the equivalent of the PPIR Protocol as 'bestpractice template' as to what corporate clients, suppliers and users of engineering products andservices should expect of themselves, of their employees and of each other, in the key aspects ofany engineering task;

3. an organised approach for the engineering industry and profession to make more effective use of the way in which the expert testimony system presently works,both to improve the standard of expert testimony andto gain recognition in expert testimony of the PPIRProtocol as the basic platform from which to assess the professional engineer's duty and standard of care.

The program of change proposed in this report is specifically designed to offer benefits to all those involved in buying, selling and using engineering products and services.

In particular, it can provide clients in both the public and private sectors with a recognised and consistent best practice template for making the most cost-effectiveuse of the capacity of the professional engineer to applyknowledge and experience to achieve for the client theoptimum outcomes and value for money in consideringand undertaking an engineering task.

The main elements of the public benefit are of course general in nature, but nevertheless their combined impactis likely to be very material. They are:

• a more balanced, cost-effective working relationshipbetween client and supplier in both the public and private sectors, leading to:

•• better use of the professional knowledge and experience available

•• better outcomes and value for money, particularly in major projects

•• more application of engineering innovation

•• more balance in environmental and other public interest issues

•• fewer commercial disputes, better dispute resolution outcomes, less litigation

•• better use of the engineering industry and profession's scarce resources

• a fully integrated 'best for risk management' approachto risk assessment and management leading to:

•• lower engineering project risk achieved at lower cost

•• improved protection of public safety

•• better engineering workplace safety at lower cost

• a new approach to engineering litigation and expert testimony leading to:

•• streamlined engineering litigation at lower cost

•• higher standards of engineering expert testimony

•• more efficient use of the courts system

• the best practice template provided by the PPIRProtocol and AS.PPIR, combined with the related registration and accreditation initiatives, leading to:

•• wider recognition of Australia's high engineering standards

•• increased competitiveness of Australian engineeringin world markets

•• undergraduates better prepared to become professional engineers

•• improved awareness of the professionalism of engineering that will help attract young people intoengineering careers.

These principal features of the public benefit serve tounderline that, by bringing into force the proposals outlined in this report, the engineering industry and profession can raise its public profile, its economic productivity and its international competitiveness anddeliver to the economy and public at large outcomes that will gain and deserve increased recognition for thevitally important role played by engineering in everydayAustralian life.

The main body of the report is organised as follows:

Chapters 1 and 2 outline the background to the PPIRProject and how it was undertaken.

Chapters 3 and 4 describe the contemporary realities of the world in which the professional engineer operates,and the dimensions of professionalism that govern theprofessional engineer's role.

Chapters 5, 6 and 7 discuss how performance has beendefined, introducing the PPIR Protocol and the guidelinesfor its use.

Chapter 8 sets out the Hazard and Risk Framework(HARF), a fully integrated approach to risk assessmentand management.

Chapter 9 outlines the Roadmap for Change which features a voluntary 'opt-in' approach to the adoption of the proposals.

Chapters 10 and 11 discuss the AS.PPIR and expert testimony initiatives that are fundamental to the Roadmap for Change.

Chapter 12 summarises the considerable benefits thataccrue to each of the parties involved in buying, sellingand using engineering services and products: clients, suppliers, project funders, individual professional engineers and their employers, engineering insurers and parties to a commercial dispute or litigation.

Chapter 13 details the Change Program for implementingthe proposals.

Chapter 14 explores the possibilities for later seeking the support of governments to achieve a unified national regulatory regime for the engineering industryand profession.

3PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE, INNOVATION AND RISK

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTIONThis report presents the findings of the Professional Performance, Innovation and Risk Project (PPIRProject), a comprehensive review of professional performance, innovation and risk in contemporaryengineering practice and, in particular, what constitutes performance for the professional engineerin that context.

The PPIR Project has been undertaken under the auspices of The Warren Centre for AdvancedEngineering within the University of Sydney (The Warren Centre) by a project team of leading engineering professionals, backed by participating sponsors representative of a wide range of engineering industry and profession stakeholders. The review has included an extensive series of workshops among, and consultations with, more than 200 practising professional engineers representative of all fields of engineering.

The project has benefited materially from contributions by the Australian Academy of TechnologicalSciences and Engineering (ATSE), Engineers Australia (EA), the Association of Consulting EngineersAustralia (ACEA), the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers (APESMA) andthe Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM).

The views expressed in this report are not necessarily the views of individual project sponsors or supporters.

1.1 ORIGINS OF PROJECTThe project developed from a series of meetings of a small group of leading engineering professionals(the Working Group), to discuss the significant issues raised in the ATSE May 2002 Symposium 'Living with Risk in Our Society'. These issues were essentially about the impact of changes over the preceding several decades in the risk and liability climate in which engineers were operating. The Working Group decided to explore the ways in which these changes might be adversely affectingthe contribution of engineers and engineering to economic and social progress in Australia.

The initial focus of the Working Group was on the engineering profession's perceptions of the prevailing social attitudes and community expectations about risk and about the trust that could orshould be placed in engineering professionals. The Working Group was asking 'Is there a case for a new, more reasonable risk paradigm?', particularly in the context of the professional's duty and standard of care, without having a clear idea of exactly what that might mean or how to go about conceiving and creating a new, more reasonable risk paradigm.

However, the Working Group came to see this as a need to explore:

• engineering risk and responsible risk-taking

• the relationships in engineering between professional performance, innovation and risk

• the apparently complex minefields of law and liability that govern everyday engineering practice

• particularly the role of performance, innovation and risk in defining and applying the engineeringprofessional's duty and standard of care.

This posed a significant issue: just what professional standards describe the performance that thecommunity expects or should expect of the professional engineer? Further, just what role does a definition of performance play in defining and objectively assessing the professional engineer's duty and standard of care?


1.2 THE ENGINEER AND PERFORMANCE

The Australian engineering profession has a generallyaccepted and well-defined set of ethical standards, published by EA and supported by APESMA and by similar standards of the ACEA. The obligation to comply with these standards applies only to members of these organisations.

The Australian engineering profession also has a range of competency standards that are accepted or required in various contexts as generic criteria of capacity to act ina particular professional role. The most highly regardedcompetency standard for a professional engineer is EA'sChartered Professional Engineer (CPEng).

However, as discussed later in this report, ethics and competency are only two of the three dimensions of professionalism: the third dimension is performance. The Australian engineering profession and its constituentindustries do not have a generally applicable and widelyshared view of just what constitutes performance for theprofessional engineer.

The Working Group also explored how the engineeringprofessions around the world define professional performance or professionalism and found that, again,these terms are invariably defined by strong statementsof ethics, values and competencies, but rarely in terms of what each professional expects of himself and hispeers in terms of performance. As discussed later, this initial finding has been confirmed by a comprehensivereview of international practices during the PPIR Project.

1.3 THE ENGINEER AND THE DUTY AND STANDARDOF CARE

The duty and standard of care as used in this reportencompasses two legal concepts: the 'duty of care' isdesigned to ascertain whether there is a duty to apply a standard of reasonable care in the particular circum-stances; and given that duty, the 'standard of care' isabout the appropriate standard in those circumstances.

The standard of care owed by professionals is determinedby what can reasonably be expected of a person professingthe professional skill, taking into account all the relevantcircumstances at the time – that is, the appropriate professional performance in that particular situation.

Whether the court relies as a matter of course on standardprofessional practice to define performance has variedsignificantly over the past two decades. For severaldecades prior to 1992, it was not open to a court to find a standard professional practice to be negligent.

This changed in 1992 from which time the standard ofcare had to be determined by the court. While such determination was still usually based on standard practice within the relevant profession, it remained thecourt's choice as to whether this would be the case.

Following the Commonwealth Government Review of theLaw of Negligence in 2002, a modified version of the pre-1992 rule was introduced in NSW. In essence, thecourt now accepts a standard professional practice if it is 'widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion' as being so, although with some qualifications as discussed later in this report.

Notwithstanding these important changes, if a particularprofession does not have a generally applicable and widely shared view of standard professional practice, the professional's duty and standard of care is defined by default by the view of performance formed by the court in retrospect, in the course of each particular litigation proceeding.

So there remains a very significant 'missing link' for theengineering profession and industry: there is no standardof professional performance in engineering that is 'widelyaccepted in Australia by peer professional opinion'.

Moreover, as there is no national system which certifieswho is a 'practising professional engineer', just howshould we define that group of professional engineerswhose practices determine whether a professional practice is 'widely accepted'?

1.4 JUST WHO IS AN 'ENGINEER'?

In contrast to earlier times when engineers such as John Bradfield and William Hudson were at – and wereseen to be at – the forefront of Australian economic andcommunity development, just who in Australia should be called 'engineer' is today somewhat unclear.

The term 'engineer' is not formally recognised inAustralia, so it can be used to describe a technician oranyone working in an engineering-related field; its use is not limited like the terms 'medical practitioner' and'legal practitioner'.

The term professional engineer describes a person holding an engineering qualification from a universitydegree course accredited by EA, and who has undergonea period of formation in the workplace. There is a specificEA membership category for professional engineers, but many university graduate engineers do not join anyprofessional organisation, and many do not even go on to practice engineering in a professional or technical sense.


1. INTRODUCTION

There is compulsory registration of professional engineersin certain categories in Queensland, while other stateshave special-purpose registers of particular types of engineers and EA, ACEA, APESMA and IPWEA togetheroperate a national system of voluntary registration of professional engineers. However, there is no universalrequirement for engineering graduates practising engineering in a professional or technical sense to be registered in the formal way which applies to legal andmedical practitioners.

In essence, there is uncertainty in community understandingof just who is an engineer and just what it is that an engineer does; there are no limits on the use of the term'engineer'; there is a somewhat imprecise demarcationbetween a practising and a non-practising engineer; and, except in some particular fields, there tends to beimprecise demarcations between those qualified and notqualified to be called, or to practice as, an 'engineer'.

1.5 ENGINEERING IN THE COMMUNITY

From the time of Australia's pioneers and, even more from 1883, when William Henry Warren delivered at theUniversity of Sydney the very first engineering lecture in Australia, engineering has been a key element inAustralia's social and economic development.

The engineering industry and profession today continuesto play a vitally important part in the Australian community.

The professional engineer's role is essentially aboutapplying scientific and technical knowledge to fulfil the needs of industry and the community for products,infrastructure and services that are fundamental tonational economic and social well-being and progress.This role embraces an incredible array of tasks that thecommunity simply takes for granted: from designing andbuilding a new road or bridge or dam, to designing andbuilding the Beijing Olympics 'water cube' swimming centre; from designing a process to make washing detergent or Vegemite or wine bottles or face creams, to designing and building a mobile phone or cardiacdefibrillator or fire-fighting unit. These are simply illustrations of the reach and impact of engineering in our everyday lives.

Engineering innovation is essentially about the professionalengineer applying new scientific and technical knowledge,or about applying existing scientific and technical knowledge in new ways. It is a major force in bringinginto general use the realisable benefits of scientific ortechnical invention and is typically a direct response tothe 'market pull' demands of the commercial marketplace.

Moreover, engineering innovation enables entirely newfields of technological innovation, making possible outcomes not previously even dreamed about: fromcheaper and more robust builder's tools to very advancedbiomedical implants for the deaf to hear, or to replicatingthe functions of the heart, or to growing new blood vessels; from new ways to control domestic oven temperature to robotics that operate unmanned cargo wharves, or massive resource mining trucks ormicrosurgical devices; from processes to manufacture a new dishwashing detergent to advanced processes tomanufacture nanomaterials, offering entirely new (andoften quite remarkable) physical and chemical properties;from spray cans that dispense a finer and more pervasivemist of flyspray to delivery mechanisms that allow newmiracle drugs to be applied reliably and simply in dailyclinical practice.

Engineering innovation is essentially what most professional engineers create or oversee, as simply one part of the many technical and managerial tasks they perform in developing and delivering expected outcomes in daily commercial life and in fostering theemergence of entirely new technologies.

The reach and impact of engineering in the community,and of the professional engineer in particular, is thereforevery significant and a very important determinant of oureveryday wellbeing and living standards. It is perhapsbest epitomised by this extract from a 2002 report by the UK-based Royal Academy of Engineering:

Engineering is first and foremost an activity thatinteracts deeply with society. It requires a profoundunderstanding of society's needs and aspirationsand an ability to communicate and debate with thecommunity how best to meet those needs. It is an economic activity concerned with the optimumuse of scarce resources. It is a cultural activity that impacts on lifestyle and behaviour. It does allthis within a disciplined framework able to deliverthe devices and artefacts best suited to meet society's needs.

Yet, at the same time, the Australian community tends to be unaware of – or at least unsure of – just what it isthat engineers do and just who ensures that they do itwell. Australians almost by default place their trust in thesound judgment and integrity of the engineering industryand profession in general.


1. INTRODUCTION

1.6 ENGINEERINGIN THE ECONOMY

The illustrations given above also demonstrate just how significant and influential is the role of engineeringand engineering innovation in the basic fabric of ournational economy.

It is not possible to segregate within the usual economicdata the contribution the engineering industry and engineers make to the national GDP. We do know from the 2006 Australian Census that some 250,000 peoplewere classified as being part of the 'engineering profession'; of these, almost two-thirds held a universitybachelor degree or higher qualifications.

Indeed, there are very few industries where engineeringdoes not play a significant role in the industry's basiccapability, productivity and advancement.

The social and economic importance of engineeringunderlines the concerns shared by the Working Groupabout the changes in recent decades in the commercial,risk, insurance and legal realities of the world in whichthe professional engineer operates. As discussed later inthis report, these changes over recent decades have cometo distort the very nature of engineering professionalismitself and have brought about significant adverse impactson the productivity and effectiveness of the engineeringindustry and profession.


1. INTRODUCTION

2. THE PPIR PROJECT


In 2004, the Working Group proposed to The Warren Centre a project to explore these and relatedissues, and subsequently convened a ‘round table’ to explore the feasibility of such a project, focusing particularly on risk issues. The 30 participants represented a wide range of stakeholders in the engineering industry and profession and their clients, together with stakeholders from the community and the legal profession.

The Round Table produced two important outcomes. First, it became clear that the issues being raised by the Working Group were very relevant and very significant, but not easily addressed, interms useful to the engineering industry and profession. In particular, it would be exceedingly difficult to obtain objective evidence based on representative examples, given the very wide diversity in the engineering products and services industry, and given the expressed reluctance of senior executives to go on record about matters that remained commercially sensitive or the subject of ongoing commercial dispute or litigation.

Second, the Round Table confirmed that, while there appeared to be considerable potential for a ‘risk-focused’ project, there was a very important shift required in the central themes to be pursued:

• the project should continue to be about a new way of thinking about risk that fosters engineeringprofessionalism and engineering innovation...

• but the focus should move to expectations and delivery of performance...

• and the engineering industry and profession’s expectations of itself...

• by defining what professional engineers should expect of themselves, of each other and of theirclients, in performing their professional roles.

The Working Group modified its project proposal along these lines and gained strong backing fromkey sponsoring stakeholder organisations.

The Warren Centre subsequently agreed to launch under its auspices the Professional Performance,Innovation and Risk Project (PPIR Project), fully funded by the sponsoring engineering industry and profession organisations, led by The Warren Centre and undertaken by a group of leading engineering professionals.

2.1 AIMS OF PROJECTThe aims of the PPIR Project have been to:

1. Define ‘professional performance’ in the practice of engineering by expressing in words:

• the profession’s expectations of itself in terms of best practice in undertaking and managing an engineering task in any field of engineering

• the basics of managing the overall risk environment of the engineering task, particularly the special risks of engineering innovation

• the framework that should govern the working relationships between the professional engineerand all the parties to an engineering task

• what society should reasonably expect in relying on the special qualifications of the professional engineer

• the legal basis from which the duty and standard of care of the professional engineer should be assessed in retrospect.

2. Propose a set of initiatives to bring about change inthe professional, liability and legal frameworks thatgovern everyday engineering, so that:

• there is recognition of engineering professionalism in the law

• there is a greater recognition of engineering issues and engineering innovation, particularly in contractual frameworks

• the relevance and quality of engineering expert testimony is improved

• fewer professional liability issues arise and outcomesare more predictable

• innovation re-emerges as a driving force in Australianengineering practice.

3. Ensure that the outcomes of these changes offer material benefits to everyone involved in buying, selling and using engineering products and services.

2.2 APPROACH TAKENThe PPIR Project has used the well-proven engagementmodel used for all Warren Centre major projects:

• The principal sponsors are representative of the engineering industry and professional groups with adirect commercial interest in the issues and outcomes.

• These principal sponsors have provided the financialand pro-bono support of the project and have participated actively in the project’s leadership.

• The Warren Centre has exercised overall project controlto ensure the quality and objectivity of the findings and recommendations.

• The project has brought together a wide range of representative engineering industry and professionstakeholders and drawn extensively on their knowledge, experience and input to ensure that:

•• issues are based reliably on contemporary experiences and concerns

•• solutions reflect the realities of commercial practice

•• resulting changes are carried into practice by participating stakeholders.

In preparing the project proposal, the Working Group hadalready delineated the issues based on the ATSE 2002Symposium discussions and their considerable individualexperience; further, they had received vigorous input andconfirmation from the principal sponsors that these wereindeed the significant issues.

While this was a sound starting point, it was recognisedthat the material was based largely on anecdotal evidenceand that given the nature of the subject and the issues, itwould be exceedingly difficult to gain objective evidencein the course of the project as confirmation. This was laterfurther confirmed by the reluctance of senior public sector

executives to have attributed to them their comments on innovation in public sector procurement.

Moreover, a key task in the project was to develop andtest a ‘definition of professional performance in the practice of engineering’ that would be both practical anduseful in a wide variety of engineering tasks in a widevariety of fields and contexts of engineering practice.

It was decided therefore to set up a series of workshopsand other consultative groups of, and individual consultations with, practising professional engineers representative of a wide range of engineering industryand profession stakeholders, to draw extensively on their knowledge, experience and input to:

• confirm whether the Working Group’s presentation ofthe issues represented the ‘real world’ for practisingprofessional engineers

• test various approaches to defining performance, by applying each version to case studies drawing onreal-life situations.

As the workshops and consultations progressed, thematerial presented on the issues and the approach todefining performance were modified in response to theinputs received from the more than 200 professional engineers and others who participated. These participants(see www.warren.usyd.edu.au/PPIR/report/appendixA.pdf )included many with significant standing as practitionersand leaders in the engineering industry and profession, a variety of middle-managers and some university educators and researchers.

The PPIR Project Team’s work has also included two desk studies to determine if there are approaches in other professions similar to that envisaged by the PPIRProject. The first was a review of the approaches taken by engineering professions in the EU and 13 non-EU countries to defining professional performance and related matters. The responses were mostly by the leading professional association in each country and, as mentioned earlier, the results confirmed that, apartfrom various registration regimes, there was nothing similar in aim or substance to a definition of professionalperformance. A summary of the results of this review can be accessed at:www.warren.usyd.edu.au/PPIR/report/appendixB.pdf.

The second was a review of the approaches to definingprofessional performance in the Australian legal, medical,accounting and architectural professions. While each ofthese has a form of regulatory regime, some backed bylegislation, none has anything similar in aim or substanceto a definition of professional performance. A summary of the results of this review can be accessed at: www.warren.usyd.edu.au/PPIR/report/appendixC.pdf.


2. THE PPIR PROJECT

Finally, in developing the Roadmap for Change, the PPIR Project Team has consulted widely with the keystakeholders, including the main engineering industryand professional associations as well as ‘elders’ and leaders of the engineering industry and profession.

2.3 SPONSORS AND PROJECT LEADERSHIP

The PPIR Project’s sponsors have been 25 engineeringindustry and professional organisations, of which the sixleading sponsors each contributed $50,000 or more incash or pro-bono services.

The PPIR Project Team has comprised ten leading engineering industry professionals acting in a pro-bonocapacity, together with Warren Centre representatives and a project manager. The Steering Committee responsible for oversight of the project has comprisedeight representatives of the sponsoring organisations,plus the PPIR Project Team. The International Committeehas comprised three members of the PPIR Project Teamplus three leading engineering and services industriesrepresentatives, acting in a pro-bono capacity.

A brief description of the sponsors and project leaders is given in Annexure 1 immediately following the lastchapter of this report.


2. THE PPIR PROJECT

3. CONTEMPORARY REALITIES FORTHE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER


The commercial and professional contexts in which the professional engineer operates have becomeover recent decades distorted and increasingly unpredictable.

This has been caused by the cumulative effect of several shifts in the realities of the world in whichthe professional engineer operates. From the engineering perspective:

• the commercial relationships between engineers and their clients and tasks are becoming too complex and ‘legalistic’ and, as a consequence, less responsive to the inherent nature of the engineering task itself and to the client’s expectations about the outcomes achievable

• the community has come to have unrealistic expectations about engineering risk

• real-life risk management has become subordinate to risk segmentation and allocation

• engineering insurance underwriters are finding it harder to understand the risks as presented and to accurately assess the exposures of the parties involved

• engineering litigation has become more time-consuming and costly, its outcomes have becomeincreasingly unpredictable, and the quality of engineering expert testimony is often questioned.

Taken together, these developments over recent decades have come to distort the very nature of engineering professionalism itself: the professional engineer now spends far too much time dealingwith the consequences or potential of past events and juggling current risk issues, and has much less opportunity and enthusiasm for applying new engineering knowledge and for considering engineering innovation.

While there is no one cause, there is a common and very pervasive underlying theme: while the engineering profession – like most professions – has a generally accepted and well-defined set of ethical and competency standards, there is a ‘missing link’: the engineering profession and its constituent client and supplier industries do not share a widely accepted view of the engineering perspective that should govern the relationships between the parties to an engineering task and of the professional engineer’s duty and standard of care in that task.

3.1 THE COMMERCIAL REALITIESIn recent years, in some of segments of the engineering industry and profession, it has become common for there to be a significant imbalance in the commercial terms for an engineering task, particularly as the size of the project increases.

This imbalance results when the relationship between the parties to the task becomes driven largelyby a commercial perspective which tends to over-simplify the engineering task to be undertaken andplaces the emphasis on a process-driven approach to delineating and contrasting the commercialinterests and legal positions of the parties. As a result, much attention is paid to describing (often inabstract terms that are not task-specific) the warranties that survive the contract and give the clientmultiple avenues of redress should the task not turn out the way the client expects. The result can bea self-fulfilling prophesy, and client surprise when the outcomes are not exactly as the client expected.

In contrast, when the relationship between the parties for the task is driven by the more traditionalengineering perspective, there is a much greater focus on delineating and describing the task-specificfundamentals: the nature, scope and extent of the task; the context in which it is to be undertaken;the client’s expectations about the outcomes; the achievability of these outcomes; and the other

issues and possibilities. Moreover, these are all consideredin a task-specific context, taking full advantage of theextensive engineering knowledge, skills and experienceavailable, while still responding to the commercial imperatives involved.

The relationship and commercial terms are then developedwith proper regard for these issues and the related ambiguities and uncertainties, so the client’s expectationsbecome more realistic and the resulting outcomes morelikely to be achieved in practice.

An imbalanced commercial perspective can readily occurwhen those in senior procurement roles are not properlyequipped with the technical and commercial knowledgeand experience of how to buy and use engineering products and services. This can lead to a procurementpre-occupation with process, probity, public accountabilityand risk aversion, with a resulting need to rely on ‘follow-the-steps’ and ‘tick-the-boxes’ processes, which tend not to have ‘steps’ or ‘boxes’ for how to understand task-specific engineering issues and how to use the engineering knowledge and skills available. As a consequence, there is increasing use of:

• process-driven contractual terms and language in defining the aims and scope of what is to beaccomplished in the engineering task: in particular,terms which do not reflect the realities of the taskand what it involves, in the context in which it is to be undertaken; or terms which work against evenconsidering how realistic are the client’s expectationsor what are the opportunities and benefits of engineering innovation in task-specific terms

• process-driven extremes in risk transfer and contracting out of liability which, despite their apparent attractions to larger clients (particularly in the public sector), can and do result in significantmismatches between who carries the risk and howthe risk and its outcomes can be most effectivelymanaged; can and do make it more difficult to understand and assess the risks as presented; canand do result in ‘freezing’ the potential contributionof engineering innovation; and also can and do placethe small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) in the position of either declining to be involved or havingquite disproportionate liability exposure, oftenunmatched by the risk management skills and/or liability insurance cover they can make available

• process-driven undefined or ill-defined ‘fitness for purpose’ clauses which, by their very nature,require their resolution to be deferred for retrospectiveargument, and discourage constructive discussionand agreement right from the outset as to how ‘purpose’ and ‘fitness’ should be defined and objectively determined as an integral part of agreeing task-specific engineering realities.

3.2 THE RISK REALITIESFrom an engineer’s perspective, the community understanding of the nature of risk generally, and engineering risk in particular, seems to have becomequite distorted. In particular, it seems that the communityhas come to regard risk as a dirty word, so that, from the community’s viewpoint, any risk of any kind at all isquite unacceptable, regardless of the benefits achievableor the way in which such risk can be managed and minimised effectively.

This community aversion to risk has changed quite significantly the professional negligence environment in which the professional engineer must operate and at times can diminish the professional engineer’s driveand enthusiasm for making effective use of engineeringinnovation. Clearly, it is unacceptable for engineers andengineering to take risks in terms of public safety, and a statement to this effect is an explicit part of the EA Code of Ethics.

It is also clear that there needs to be a shared understandingof the very significant role that can and must be played byengineering innovation and engineering risk managementif we are to capitalise effectively on new technical and scientific knowledge and thus capitalise on the potentialfor achieving economic and social progress through engineering skills.

At the same time, there needs to be a shared understandingthat ‘risk packaging’ and ‘risk transfer’ – where commercialstrength is used to decide why and how to allocate risk to other parties – can and often does work against theeffective assessment and management of risk.

This is a particularly significant problem in the public sector, where the prevailing culture appears to be that the best way to manage risk is to allocate it to someoneelse. Further, based on an informal survey by the PPIRProject Team, this same public-sector culture seems tohave developed a significant aversion to engineering innovation, apparently equating it to taking quite unacceptable risk.

Nevertheless, from an engineer’s perspective, these contemporary commercial and community attitudes torisk have the very significant adverse effect of tending to distort expectations about what can and should beachieved by engineers as they fulfil their duty and standard of care.


3. CONTEMPORARY REALITIES FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

3.3 RISK SEGMENTATION REALITIES

From an engineer’s perspective, the practices of risk transfer and contracting out of liability seem to suggestthat risk is a one-dimensional concept that is divisibleinto discrete and separated packages, making it possibleto play in real commercial life the children’s game ‘pass-the-parcel’. In effect, this package of design risk is quite separate from that package of technical risk, which is quite separate from that other package of commercial risk, and so on, with similar segmentationof other dimensions of risk. In some cases, these separated ‘risk compartments’ are created by regulationin other areas such as occupational health and safety and public safety.

For example, the whole field of engineering task OH&Sand its supporting regulatory and liability frameworkseems to be somewhat separate from the other risk andliability issues – the other non-OH&S physical, technicaland commercial issues – of the everyday engineering task.

As an illustration, Bill Wild, Chairman of EngineersAustralia’s Taskforce on Construction Safety, notes thatthe ILO Code of Safety and Health in Construction (1992)suggests that all parties to the construction task – clients,designers, engineers and architects – should be part ofand be held accountable for a duty of care, including safety considerations, in their contribution to a project.Wild also notes that a similar stance is taken in the UKand the EU, but that in Australia:

‘... for most of the industry, safety is the constructor’s problem.... in the whole of the legislation in most jurisdictions, there is not a word about the legal obligations of owners, designers and other stakeholders.’

It seems to be now widely accepted that effective risk management strategies – in whatever aspect of engineering risk and liability is being considered – depend heavily upon a ‘top down’ approach that integrates and links the efforts and accountabilities of all the parties to, and other stakeholders in, all riskdimensions of the engineering task. Yet the prevailinglegal and professional contexts and norms work against – and may even prevent – such an integrated effort.

3.4 THE INSURANCE REALITIESFrom an engineer’s perspective, the cumulative effect ofthese developments over recent decades has also impactedunfavourably on the insurance of engineering activitiesand contracts, and of engineers professionally.

There are a number of ways in which these unfavourableimpacts have emerged. A leading insurer of engineeringrisks gives one prime example: he advises that one of the most troubling aspects in underwriting engineeringcontract and professional liability insurance is the increasingdifficulty in recent times of interpreting contractual documentation in order to properly understand the risksas presented and to accurately assess and price the exposures of the parties involved.

Further, this insurer suggests that one of the consequencesis a lessening of competition, as some insurers decline tomake an underwriting offer at all and others make offerswhere the outcome is premiums that do not properlyreflect the risks. The result is unfunded losses that aresubsequently ‘spilled’ into areas of engineering insurancewhere underwriting profits are easier to generate.

It seems likely that the smaller engineering practices and businesses in particular could be significantly disadvantaged by these impacts and consequences, and their competitive positions and commercial strengths compromised.

Further, the professional liability insurance system itselfhas also become distorted to the extent that it has beennecessary to introduce special legislation to move awayfrom the common law principle of joint and several liability, to introduce the concept of ‘proportionate liability’ and to limit in certain circumstances the quantumof liability of the professional by ‘capping’ claims outcomes,subject to the professional’s compliance with certain professional standards.

These changes have undoubtedly made a material contribution to stabilising what had become a very uncertain public and professional liability insurance environment, and have particularly reduced the vulnerability of SMEs. However, there are still someimportant issues in that:

• Both capping and proportionate liability affect only the outcome of a liability issue or claim and have noimpact whatsoever on whether the underlying cause of a liability issue or dispute arises in the first place.

• Capping is based on professional standards which in turn are based on competency, ethical, risk management, insurance and continuing professionaleducation requirements, but not based on, nor directly related to, a comprehensive benchmark of professional performance.



• While the ‘proportionate liability’ concept alone iswidely supported, the liability allocation involved isonly determined after the event and hence its effectwhen combined with capping can be to re-arrange in retrospect the liability exposures of the parties within a contract. In turn, this can add yet again to the engineering insurer’s already difficult task of understanding and pricing the risks as presented.

3.5 THE LEGAL REALITIESAt the same time, from an engineer’s perspective, the legalsystem that is used to administer the duty and standard ofcare seems to have become progressively distorted.

In fact, it seems to be not uncommon for engineering professionals to view with scepticism – if not disdain –what takes place when engineering liability issues are the subject of litigation, and the excessive time and costsinvolved for all parties. Many senior engineers seem to have at least one ‘war story’ where the hearing and resolution of a litigation matter literally took manymonths (some would say years), resulting in a significantloss of their personal and corporate productivity.

From an engineer’s perspective, these distortions havecome about as a result of the cumulative effect of twoadverse trends in litigation processes: the intensified roleof adversarial advocacy frequently leading to drawn outand over-complicated proceedings; and the increasing useof ‘entrepreneurial’ expert witnesses who bring to legalproceedings limited experience of, or exposure at, ‘therockface’ of contemporary professional engineering practice.

The result over recent years has been a significantincrease in the duration and cost of engineering litigation,a significant increase in the concerns expressed in theengineering industry and profession about varying standards of expert testimony on engineering issues, and, most importantly, when these issues are the subject of legal debate, the outcomes have become much more unpredictable.

A major contributing factor in this context is the differencebetween the ‘prospective’ view that the engineer musttake of any new task and its outcomes and inherent risks,and the ‘retrospective’ view that can be taken in experttestimony of exactly the same task and outcomes andrisks after the event – with the advantage of knowing what actually happened.

It may not be a perfect view, but the view formed inprospect – before the actual task gets under way – isnonetheless that of the responsible and competent professional engineer making effective use of the contemporary bank of engineering knowledge and experience.

On the other hand, the view in retrospect can – with the advantage of knowing what actually happened –refashion and reshape the circumstances and the events.Yet it is this view in retrospect that applies in the legalprocesses that determine if the professional, responsibleand competent engineer’s handling of the situation hasbeen wanting.

3.6 THE ‘MISSING LINK’So just where does the problem lie? Why is it that from anengineer’s perspective, the commercial and professionalengineering environment has become, over recentdecades, distorted and increasingly unpredictable?

While there is no one cause, there is a common underlyingtheme: there is a ‘missing link’. While there is a generallyaccepted and well-defined set of ethical and competencystandards, the engineering profession and its constituentengineering industries do not have a definition of professional performance which:

• sets out a widely accepted view of the key issues that the professional engineer should address in anysituation in any field of engineering in responding tothe engineer’s duty and standard of care

• defines the ‘engineering perspective’ that should govern the relationships between parties to an engineering engagement for the relevant engineeringservices to be provided on a professional and commercial basis

• provides the appropriate and complete context whichconfirms the relevance and effectiveness of widelyaccepted best practice and competency standards

• establishes a formal, fully integrated and transparentapproach to assessing and managing all the risks andrisk accountabilities in any engineering task betweenall parties to, and stakeholders in, the particular task.

In essence, what should professional engineers expect ofthemselves and each other, and what should engineeringprofessionals and clients expect of each other, in all keytask-specific aspects of any engineering task?



4. ETHICS, COMPETENCY AND PERFORMANCE


When we refer to someone as a professional, generally we are referring to a person who is one of agroup whose occupation and work requires extensive education or training and who have a specialcompetency – a recognised high degree of particular skill and proven ability in that particular field of work.

When we refer to someone’s professionalism or professional standards, generally we are referring not just to that person’s competency but also to an important additional dimension: a standard of‘character’ and ‘behaviour’ they are expected to observe in the way they practice their profession.

So it is that we have come to expect a member of a profession to have achieved a generally acceptedformal standard of competency, such as a recognised university degree in that special field, and tosubscribe to and observe a set of ethics – a formally stated standard of character and behaviour thatdescribes what they and their peers believe to be the basis on which they should be expected by thecommunity to behave as they carry out their work.

However, this report is about the third dimension of professionalism, which is performance – how theengineering professional’s work is carried out and accomplished. This chapter discusses the nature of these three separate yet complementary elements of professionalism, the overlaps between themthat can occur in common usage and the important role of all three in properly defining professionalismin engineering.

4.1 ETHICSA standard dictionary will define the word ‘ethics’ along the lines of being ‘the moral system of a particular writer or school of thought’, or ‘the rules of conduct recognised in certain limited departments of human life’ or even ‘the science of human duty in its widest extent’.

In essence, ethics is about moral values – a moral philosophy or set of moral principles – that expressin a formal way what ‘doing the right thing’ means. However, because ethics is about moral values, it is also inherently subjective: it may be that the appropriate prevailing moral values in one social or religious context are somewhat different in another.

Nevertheless, when we describe ethics in a professional context, we usually express these professionalvalues as ‘higher duty’ that transcends differences in social or religious values, yet responds to thegeneric interests of the community and pays proper respect to the inherent dignity of the individual.

It is usual for a profession to set out its version of these higher duty professional values in a documentsuch as the EA Code of Ethics (which is summarised at www.warren,usyd.edu.au/PPIR/report/appendixD.pdf).The document itself says in its preamble that EA members are:

...bound by a common commitment to promote engineering and facilitate its practice for the common good based upon shared values of ethical behaviour, competent performance, innovative practice, engineering excellence, equality of opportunity, social justice and sustainable development.

While these are generic aspirations, they clearly express and confirm the commitment of EA and itsmembers to the concept and nature of the higher duty of the engineer when acting in a professionalcapacity and cover a wide range of aspects of this higher duty, including some competency elements.

The EA Code of Ethics has also been adopted by APESMA (and a similar one adopted by ACEA) and, while this extends its reach, there is no requirement for a practising professional engineer to be a member of such a professional organisation or to observe EA’s (or any) code of ethics.

On the other hand, the Australian legal professions arestrictly regulated and what lawyers generally refer to astheir ‘ethics’ are in fact practice standards and rules ofconduct. For example, the NSW Legal Profession Act setsout ‘Professional Conduct and Practice Rules’ which bothincludes and reflects ethical values, but also specifiesrules of conduct governing a variety of aspects of legalpractice and the basis on which a person is competent to act as a legal practitioner.

4.2 COMPETENCYA standard dictionary will define competency generallyalong the lines of being ‘a sufficiency of qualification’or ‘fitness’ or ‘legitimacy’.

In practice, there are two levels at which competency isdetermined. First, there is the ‘gateway’ or generic level of qualification, which in the case of a medical practitioneror professional engineer would be (with some exceptions)a recognised university degree, accompanied by someperiod of workplace formation or probationary practice.

In essence, the person would be ‘a qualified medical practitioner’ or ‘qualified engineer’ who is generally competent to practice medicine or engineering, in a particular field of medicine or engineering.

Further, at the gateway level, there can be a requirementfor the medical practitioner or engineer to undertake ‘continuing professional development’ so that the professional’s knowledge or skills keep pace with contemporary standards and new developments or technologies.

There may also be several standards of gateway qualification. For example, a qualified engineer may subject to assessment and with appropriate current practice experience aspire to the highly regardedChartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) standard.

However, there is also the task-specific level at whichcompetency needs to be separately considered and confirmed. Our qualified medical practitioner or qualifiedprofessional engineer, or CPEng, despite being competentto practice medicine or engineering in the field relevant to a particular task, also needs to consider whether that particular task requires additional task-specificknowledge, skill or experience.

This task-specific level of competency assessment isessentially part of the third dimension of professionalism– performance.

4.3 PERFORMANCEA standard dictionary will define performance generallyalong the lines of being ‘the act, process or manner of performing’ or ‘the carrying out of a duty’ or ‘the accomplishment of any action or work’.

Hence, performance is essentially task-specific andencompasses all aspects of the task from its initial contemplation and assessment through to its final completion and delivery.

In some professions, performance in the technical senseis quite well defined. For example, in financial auditing,there are many standards for the technical aspects of theaudit task, and these standards cover many aspects of the professional relationship that must be maintainedbetween the auditor and the client. However, the samedoes not seem to apply to the other aspects of theaccounting profession generally.

The specialist colleges in medicine maintain small, closely controlled sub-cultures of specialists (e.g. anaesthetists, ophthalmologists, oncologists) where a self-imposed regime of regular professionalmeetings on latest developments, position papers and practice literature defines current leading-edgeknowledge and practice. At the same time, apart from the ethics of the Hippocratic Oath, the expectations that the patient might have of the practitioner/patientinteraction do not seem to be formally defined.

The Australian Medical Council has recently published a ‘Draft Code of Professional Conduct’ covering a range of ethical, competency and performance elements; thedraft has received mixed reactions, not the least being the problems from both a practical and legal point of view of the mixture of subjective ethical values and theobjective requirements in conduct, caused by attemptingto handle all three dimensions of professionalism in theone document.



4.4 DEFINING THE THIRD DIMENSION

As discussed earlier in this report, while there are manystandards for the technical aspects of various engineeringtasks, the engineering industries and professions aroundthe world invariably define professionalism in engineeringby strong statements about two of its dimensions: ethicsand competency.

However, the PPIR Project is about adding the ‘missinglink’ so that professionalism in engineering becomes athree-dimensional concept: ethics and competency andperformance.

The PPIR Project is not about redefining or replacing the engineering profession’s existing ethical values orcompetency standards. The PPIR Project is about a way of defining and recognising performance – how the professional work should be carried out and accomplished, and how ethical and competency issuesshould be addressed within that task-specific framework,in terms that are objectively determinable.



5. DEFINING PERFORMANCE IN PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE


This PPIR Project has had as its central aim finding a way to define professional performance in any task, outcome and risk context in which a professional engineer is involved in everydayengineering practice.

5.1 THE APPROACHIn essence, the PPIR Project has sought to put together a set of words that make it possible for thereto be a shared view – in prospect and in retrospect – of what defines professional performance in anyengineering task context.

As such, it describes not only what the professional engineers expect of themselves, but also whatthey should expect of each other. From the viewpoint of other parties and stakeholders, it describeswhat they might reasonably expect of the role of the professional engineer and how that role shouldbe carried out.

The end aim is that this ‘shared view’ – the one that is the same whether it is viewed in prospect or in retrospect – can become the basis for the sole legal test as to what is appropriate professional practice, and what is less than acceptable practice, in handling any engineering task, in any task context. That is, it provides the platform from which to assess the professional engineer’s duty andstandard of care and the context in which to assess the applicability and relevance of many existingpractice and technical standards.

In developing this shared view, the PPIR Project has sought to describe the essence of how the professional engineer approaches and arranges a new task and how it is undertaken to ensure delivery of the final agreed outcome: what are the issues the engineering professional should address – working concurrently at the personal, team and corporate levels – within an agreed proven framework; and how to bring together the client brief, a quality-assurance approach and a risk-management approach; and how to carry out and accomplish the engineering task and thus fulfil the professional performance expectations of the parties involved.

This professional performance framework embraces all the steps from exploring and agreeing theobjectives, scope, context and extent of the engineering task right through to delivering the final outcome and meeting the expectations of all concerned.

In this context, the client may be an external party, or the task may be aimed at meeting a brief set by a person within the professional engineer’s own organisation, which in turn may be part of a chainleading to the ultimate external user or client.

Whichever of these applies, while the formalities may be somewhat different, the fundamentals aremuch the same.

What are the core issues in understanding expectations, setting objectives, deciding theapproach, carrying out the various steps and finally delivering the outcomes and ensuring that the expectations have been fulfilled?

The most difficult part of the PPIR Project has been to distil into a relatively concise document thosewords that capture what the experienced professional engineer considers and resolves in going routinely about this entire process, and to try to make sure these words make practical sense to

all people and firms involved in buying, selling or usingengineering products or services.

Most importantly, the words should reflect sound currentpractice and not ‘raise the bar’ by setting an unrealisticallyhigher standard of professional performance. Rather, thewords should ‘define the bar’ and make consistent sense,both in prospect and in retrospect, by encapsulating what professional engineers should expect of themselvesand of each other, in a variety of circumstances of engineering practice.

The result has been called The Warren Centre ProfessionalPerformance, Innovation and Risk Protocol (PPIR Protocol).

Whether all of these benchmarks have in fact beenachieved by the PPIR Protocol has in the first instanceemerged from the feedback in the extensive program of workshops and consultations undertaken in the PPIRProject. The ultimate test of practical application overtime will almost certainly reveal imperfections, but to the extent that such imperfections exist, the appropriateresponse for the individual professional engineer is set out in the guidelines on using the PPIR Protocol (as discussed later).

5.2 INTRODUCTION TO THE PPIR PROTOCOL

The PPIR Protocol presented in Chapter 6 of this reportcomprises nine clauses and defines seven terms; thedefined terms are summarised on the last page of Chapter 6.

The first clause (‘Preamble’) sets out the central role of the PPIR Protocol as guiding and informing not only the individual professional engineer on the elements of ‘professional performance’ but also guiding and informing others involved in the engineering task. Hence, the Preamble sets up the shared view theme with the ultimate aim of the PPIR Protocol becoming the basic platform from which to assess the professional engineer’s duty and standard of care.

The theme in Clause 2 (‘Relevant Parties and OtherStakeholders’) is the need to look beyond the obviousparties to the engineering task and to explore the otherswho may have an interest in (or an impact upon) what istaking place, and to explore the nature of that interest (or impact) for all those parties and stakeholders.

Clause 3 (‘The Engineering Task’) stresses the need forrigour in defining and agreeing on the objectives, scope,context and extent of the engineering task. It also sets out the need for any contractual arrangement or documentation to be wholly consistent with what hasbeen agreed in negotiations, so as to pre-empt retrospective

redefinition of the engineering task. That is, whatever ‘fitness for purpose’ assessment is appropriate and relevant to the outcomes of the engineering task, such‘fitness’ and ‘purpose’ should be defined solely as an integral part of the agreed objectives, scope, context and extent, not retrospectively.

Clause 4 (‘Competence to Act’) sets out the basics ofassessing, in task-specific terms, ‘competence to act’and, equally important, when lack of competence applies. It also sets out how to handle uncertainties as to competence issues and/or unidentifiable or uncontrollable variables that are typical in the earlystages of some types of engineering tasks.

Clause 5 (‘Statutory Requirements and Public Interest’)brings together the often quite diverse range of issuesthat need to be considered in this respect, and suggeststhat, in some engineering tasks, public interest and thirdparty liability issues may well be of scope or significancebeyond that set out formally in directly applicable legislation or regulation.

In Clause 6 (‘Risk Assessment and Management’) thePPIR Protocol sets up the need for a rigorous, fully integrated approach to all aspects of hazards and risks in the engineering task, bringing all these risk issues and their management and resolution into a formalHazard and Risk Framework (HARF) approach (as set out in Chapter 8 of this report) to identifying:

• all the material hazard and risk issues likely to be presentin the engineering task, and their interrelationships

• those parties in the best position to manage each riskissue and their capacity to accept the attendantresponsibility and accountability

• whether all such parties have formally confirmed theircapacity and willingness to accept that risk managementresponsibility and accountability.

Clause 7 (‘Engineering Innovation’) calls for a structuredapproach to identifying the benefit engineering innovationmay deliver to the engineering task and its participants.This clause also sets up the need to consider how theoften unpredictable risks inherent in engineering innovation should be considered and handled.

Clause 8 (‘Engineering Task Management’) outlines the range of management issues in undertaking the engineering task. The central theme is the need for credible and systematic routines and processes,with special consideration for the transparency andintegrity of these routines and processes. The clause also highlights the need for effective communicationthroughout the engineering task and a formal documentation of the performance and outcomesachieved in delivering the engineering task.



Finally, Clause 9 (‘Contractual Framework’) refers to situations where there is a formal contract or such governing the engineering task. The clause reinforces the theme introduced in Clause 3 by calling for the professional engineer to seek to ensure that the engineering perspective has an active and assertive role in the creation of any contract or other formal agreement governing the engineering task. It also calls for effective recognition of material understandingsand agreements reached in earlier discussions betweenthe professional engineer and the responsible person.



6. THE ‘PPIR PROTOCOL’THE WARREN CENTRE PROFESSIONALPERFORMANCE, INNOVATION AND RISK PROTOCOL


1. PreambleThis PPIR Protocol documents the essentials of performance for Professional Engineers acting in a professional capacity.

The objectives of the PPIR Protocol are to:

(a) inform and guide the Professional Engineer acting individually or as a team member on theessentials of performance in considering and undertaking an Engineering Task;

(b) inform and guide all Relevant Parties and Other Stakeholders on the role and obligations of Professional Engineers and the effective use of their services; and

(c) define the essentials of performance against which the duty and standard of care of Professional Engineers can be assessed objectively in prospect and in retrospect.

2. Relevant Parties and Other StakeholdersThe Professional Engineer should develop a clear understanding of the Relevant Parties to and Other Stakeholders in the Engineering Task and the relationships between them.

Accordingly, a Professional Engineer should:

(a) identify the Responsible Person to whom the Professional Engineer is responsible in performing the Engineering Task and the entity that person is representing;

(b) identify the person(s) and entities for whom the Professional Engineer is responsible when performing the Engineering Task;

(c) take reasonable steps to:

(i) identify other Relevant Parties and Other Stakeholders; and

(ii) map the relationships between them for the purposes of the Engineering Task, considering both the individual persons and the entities involved; and

(iii) assess their individual interests and expectations and the likely impact of these interests and expectations on the Engineering Task;

(d) agree with the Responsible Person the approach to address all issues involving the interests and expectations of Relevant Parties or Other Stakeholders relevant to the Engineering Task; and

(e) re-assess these issues throughout the Engineering Task and respond accordingly.

3. The Engineering TaskThe Professional Engineer should consult and agree withthe Responsible Person the objectives and extent of theEngineering Task.


(a) assess the objectives, scope, extent and context of the Engineering Task, exploring particularly therelevant expectations and outcomes and the perceived best interests of the Responsible Person;

(b) consider and discuss with the Responsible Personalternative methods of achieving the objectives,scope and extent of the Engineering Task;

(c) define and document the Engineering Task agreed with the Responsible Person and the exclusions therefrom;

(d) if the Engineering Task so defined cannot be agreedwith the Responsible Person, consider whether it isappropriate to undertake it;

(e) ensure that any documentation of the EngineeringTask is consistent with the definition agreed with theResponsible Person; and

(f ) regularly re-examine whether the objectives, scope,extent and context of the Engineering Task havechanged, and consider and respond as above to anysuch change.

4. Competence to ActThe Professional Engineer should assess and apply the competencies and resources appropriate to theEngineering Task.


(a) assess and respond to the range and availability of professional knowledge, competencies andresources required to undertake the EngineeringTask and assess any material uncertainties in these respects;

(b) reach agreement with the Responsible Person as tohow these uncertainties should be handled or failingsuch agreement consider whether it is appropriateto act;

(c) not otherwise profess a capacity to undertake the Engineering Task if any part of the required professional knowledge, competencies andresources are lacking or not available at all the relevant times; and

(d) regularly re-examine these issues throughout theEngineering Task and keep the relevant personspromptly informed.

5. Statutory Requirements and Public Interest

The Professional Engineer should identify and respond to relevant statutory requirements and public interest issues.

Accordingly, a Professional Engineer should discuss and agree with the Responsible Person the appropriateresponse to:

(a) laws, legislations, regulations and ordinances thatmay be relevant to the Engineering Task;

(b) safety, environmental, public health and other public interest issues that may be relevant to theEngineering Task;

(c) latent liability issues that may be relevant to theEngineering Task; and

(d) ways in which these issues may impact upon orchange the definition of the Engineering Task or the proposed approach to management of theEngineering Task.

6. Risk Assessment and Management

The Professional Engineer should develop and operatewithin a Hazard and Risk Framework appropriate to theEngineering Task.


(a) identify and assess the hazards and risks directlyrelated to or associated with the Engineering Task,and the relationships between them, in the form of a Hazard and Risk Framework;

(b) document and apply an appropriate plan to manage the identified hazards and risks in theEngineering Task;

(c) document and apply an appropriate plan to manage any unidentified hazards and risks in the Engineering Task;

(d) delegate risk management and accountability to the parties best able to manage that risk providedthere is documented evidence of the parties’capacity and willingness to accept such delegation;

(e) where there is not the capacity or willingness tomanage or bear the risk consider whether it isappropriate to delegate or accept delegation of risk management;

(f ) keep relevant persons informed on all material riskmanagement issues throughout the EngineeringTask; and

(g) regularly re-examine and audit (using independentaudit if appropriate) risk management performancerelevant to the Engineering Task and respondaccordingly.


6. THE WARREN CENTRE PPIR PROTOCOL

7. Engineering InnovationThe Professional Engineer should seek to use engineering innovation to enhance the outcomes of the Engineering Task.


(a) assess whether Engineering Innovation is fundamental or beneficial to the Engineering Task, and evaluate the potential benefits;

(b) assess the skills, knowledge and resources issues introduced by Engineering Innovation;

(c) assess the appropriate action required in regard to intellectual property issues introduced byEngineering Innovation;

(d) evaluate whether the risk profile and impact ofEngineering Innovation requires change within theHazard and Risk Framework for the EngineeringTask; and

(e) agree and review regularly with the ResponsiblePerson throughout the Engineering Task the approachbeing taken to use Engineering Innovation effectively.

8. Engineering Task ManagementThe Professional Engineer should apply appropriate engineering task management protocols and relatedstandards in carrying out and accomplishing theEngineering Task.


(a) adopt and apply a project management system,quality assurance system and change managementprocess appropriate to the Engineering Task;

(b) arrange an effective procurement program governingthe supply of materials and services by third parties;

(c) arrange a systematic approach to timely disclosureto relevant persons and resolution of technical and commercial issues arising in the course of theEngineering Task;

(d) identify and respond to potential conflicts of interest;

(e) assess and maintain the transparency and integrityof all transactions involved in performing theEngineering Task in the context of prevailing community and professional standards;

(f ) log daily material events and decisions throughoutthe Engineering Task;

(g) develop and maintain an effective system of timelycommunication between all those directly involvedin performing the Engineering Task; and

(h) upon completion of the Engineering Task assess anddocument the performance and outcomes achievedin delivering the Engineering Task.

9. Contractual FrameworkThe Professional Engineer should ensure that any contract or other such evidence of agreement governingor relevant to the Engineering Task is consistent with the provisions of this PPIR Protocol.


(a) review the provisions of any contract or other suchdocumentation to ensure they are based on theagreements reached with the Responsible Person in applying this PPIR Protocol and do not override or diminish the intent of such agreements;

(b) negotiate with the Responsible person where thecontract or other such documentation contains terms that are contrary to this PPIR Protocol;

(c) request and seek to gain access to third partyarrangements or contracts relevant to theEngineering Task and identify and seek to resolveany issues in conflict with this PPIR Protocol; and

(d) consider whether it is appropriate to act if agreementcannot be reached on any of the above.

DEFINITIONS‘Engineering Task’ means work done by a ProfessionalEngineer or a corporate or partnership grouping ofProfessional Engineers in the ordinary course of professional engineering practice.

‘Engineering Innovation’ means the application of newscientific or technological knowledge, or the applicationof existing scientific or technological knowledge in newways, in a commercial context.

‘Hazard and Risk Framework’ means an integrated hierarchical arrangement of all the material hazards andrisks likely to be present in the Engineering Task and their inter-relationships, the risk issues and approachesthat are consequently indicated, and the alternative waysin which the delegation of and accountability for effectiverisk management should be arranged.

‘Professional Engineer’ means a person holding an engineering qualification from a university degree courseaccredited by Engineers Australia and who has undergonea period of formation in the workplace.

‘Relevant Party’ means a party that has a direct commercial interest in the Engineering Task, be that contractual or otherwise.

‘Other Stakeholder’ means a person or entity other than a Relevant Party that has a current or latent materialinterest in the Engineering Task and may include the public or community at large.

‘Responsible Person’ means the individual to whom theProfessional Engineer is directly or ultimately accountablein the Engineering Task, being either the leader of the in-house team undertaking the Engineering Task, orwhere applicable the person representing the client of the Engineering Task.


6. THE WARREN CENTRE PPIR PROTOCOL

7. GUIDELINES FOR USING THE PPIR PROTOCOL


The following are general guidelines for using the PPIR Protocol, addressing the practicalities in itsapplication and some of the limitations that may apply in certain situations.

7.1 IS THE PPIR PROTOCOL WRITTEN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL?

The PPIR Protocol’s primary role is to inform and guide Professional Engineers as individuals in regardto their professional approach and behaviour when they are acting in their professional capacity andare responsible for, or part of a team responsible for, setting up and carrying out any Engineering Task,throughout its duration.

This focus on the Professional Engineer as an individual applies regardless of whether the ProfessionalEngineer is self-employed or is an employee.

A corporate equivalent protocol, which complements the PPIR Protocol, is outlined later in this report.

7.2 DOES THE PPIR PROTOCOL REPLACE THE EA (OR SIMILAR) CODE OF ETHICS?

The PPIR Protocol is complementary to, and supportive of, the engineering profession’s existing ethical values and competency standards. The PPIR Protocol is about defining performance – how the task-specific work should be carried out and accomplished, and how task-specific ethical and competency issues should be addressed, in terms that are objectively determinable.

7.3 HOW DOES THE PPIR PROTOCOL APPLY WITHIN AN ENGINEERING TEAM?

The PPIR Protocol applies to the individual Professional Engineer acting either as leader of an engineering team or as a member of such a team, but in different ways.

If the Professional Engineer is leader of an engineering team and so is in charge of setting up and carrying out the Engineering Task, then as the Responsible Person, he/she is personally accountablefor the application of the PPIR Protocol by the team as a whole. This applies whether the EngineeringTask is for an external or internal client.

If the Professional Engineer is a member (but not leader) of such an engineering team, then that teammember as an individual is accountable in the Engineering Task to the Responsible Person, who is theleader of the team, and his/her professional duty in terms of the PPIR Protocol is limited to:

• bringing to the attention of the leader of the team as Responsible Person the provisions andrequirements of the PPIR Protocol, their applicability to the Engineering Task and the benefits of theteam responding as a whole to these provisions and requirements

• responding effectively to the leadership of the Professional Engineer who, as leader of the team, isthe Responsible Person.

7.4 WHAT IF THE TEAM LEADER IS NOT APROFESSIONAL ENGINEER?

If a Professional Engineer is part of an engineering team and the team leader as Responsible Person is not a professional engineer then the Professional Engineer as a team member has a professional duty to:

• bring to the attention of the leader of the team as theResponsible Person the provisions and requirements ofthe PPIR Protocol, their applicability to the EngineeringTask and the benefits of the team responding as awhole to these provisions and requirements;

• respond effectively to the leadership of theResponsible Person; but

• if asked or directed by the Responsible Person to actcontrary to the provisions and requirements of the PPIRProtocol, consider whether to continue to act as part ofthat team.

7.5 ARE THERE LIMITATIONS TOHOW THE PPIR PROTOCOLMAY BE APPLIED?

As stated earlier, the PPIR Protocol is intended to guidethe professional approach and behaviour of anyProfessional Engineer who is responsible for, or isinvolved in a team responsible for, setting up and carryingout any Engineering Task, in any field of engineering.

Nevertheless, it must be recognised that in some projects or assignments, or some special situations, theformal application of the PPIR Protocol may necessarilybe limited. For example, this may be the case if theEngineering Task:

• is quite small or very limited in scope

• is wholly repetitive and the established corporate routine protocols for carrying it out have already beenbased on the PPIR Protocol

• does not present some of the issues set out in the PPIR Protocol (e.g. clauses such as Clause 6 – Risk Assessment and Management, or Clause 9 –Contractual Framework).

The Professional Engineer has professional responsibilityto make an assessment of the limited applicability of thePPIR Protocol in any particular situation, and then for justifying to his/her professional peers, if required in retrospect, the reasonableness of the basis on which suchassessment was made.

7.6 IN WHAT WAYS WOULD A CORPORATE ENTITYAPPLY THE PPIRPROTOCOL?

A corporate entity in the public or private sector that is aclient or supplier of engineering products or services, oremploys or manages one or more professional engineers,may choose to use the PPIR Protocol to inform and guideitself on the role and obligations of Professional Engineerand on the effective use of professional engineering services.

This might be put into effect in one or more ways, such as:

• reflecting the provisions and requirements of the PPIR Protocol in the relevant company policies and procedures

• ensuring that the professional engineering employeesof the company are aware that it is company policy that they are encouraged to observe the provisions and requirements of the PPIR Protocol

• making the provisions and requirements of the PPIRProtocol an integral part of the company’s purchasingor tendering processes and documentation

• featuring PPIR Protocol compliance in marketing thecompany’s engineering products or services.

In so doing, the company may be acting quite independently or as a member of an industry association which has endorsed the PPIR Protocol.

Where a company chooses not to endorse and adopt the PPIR Protocol, or not to observe some of its provisionsor requirements, the Professional Engineer employed bythat company may be placed in a very difficult situation.Accordingly, that individual will need to assess if there isany conflict between his/her obligations as an individualProfessional Engineer and his/her personal commitmentas an employee of the company, and make a personaldecision as to how to respond.

It seems likely that resolving any such individual conflicts will over time depend heavily on whether professional engineers generally, and their employers,give widespread support to any individual ProfessionalEngineer seeking to insist upon his/her personal application of the PPIR Protocol.



7.7 IN WHAT OTHER WAYSCOULD THE PPIRPROTOCOL BE APPLIED?

Other ways in which the provisions of the PPIR Protocolcould be applied are discussed at some length later inthis report.

It is envisaged that the leading professional associations,such as EA and APESMA, would, in the future, considerendorsing the PPIR Protocol in some way as defining whatis expected of their individual professional engineeringmembers, in terms of professional performance. Similarly,it is also envisaged that leading corporate associationssuch as ACEA and ACA would consider endorsing the PPIRProtocol in some way, noting that many of their leadingcorporate members already have and use similar protocols.

Also as discussed later, it is envisaged that the provisionsof the PPIR Protocol would be supported by an equivalentcorporate protocol, which would be used to guide andinfluence internal company policies and procedures, corporate buying or selling of engineering products orservices, expert testimony and alternative dispute resolution processes.



8. INTEGRATED RISK ASSESSMENTAND MANAGEMENT


It now seems to be widely accepted, at least internationally, that effective risk assessment and management strategies depend heavily on a ‘top down’ approach that integrates the efforts andaccountabilities of all parties to, and other stakeholders in, an engineering task. This theme is strongly supported by the EA Task Force on Construction Safety.

The problem is that contemporary commercial, professional and legal contexts can work against such an integrated effort. For example, it is now common for there to be:• extremes in risk transfer where the commercial strength of the client is used to ensure that

‘risk outsourcing’ takes place, regardless of whether or not this leads to the most effective assessment and management of risks

• ‘no-accountability risk delegations’, where it is not unusual for smaller businesses to face a commercial imperative of accepting a risk liability without any proper consideration being given to whether or not they have the capability or capacity to accept, or to perform in response to, such liability

• overly complex risk relationships which make it difficult – and sometimes almost impossible – for insurance underwriters to properly understand the risk exposures of the parties to a contractand to price these exposures competitively

• overly simplified uni-dimensional treatment of complex hazard and risk environments, whichcan inhibit or prevent proper skilled consideration of unexpected or unintended interactionsbetween apparently unrelated hazards and risks, or fail to elicit a potential for hazard and risk mitigation at (for example) the design stage of an engineering task, particularly when engineeringinnovation is involved

• inappropriate compartmentalisation of potentially related hazard and risk issues, which canstem from both regulation and commercial practices which create inappropriate fragmentation ofrisk assessment and management efforts and resources and blockage of the links that should becreated between separate ‘compartments’, to reduce the overall risk profile, again especially whenengineering innovation is involved.

Clause 6 of the PPIR Protocol creates the new concept of the Hazard and Risk Framework (HARF) thatcalls for a formal, fully integrated, transparent approach to recognising and delineating all the hazardand risk issues and accountabilities in each engineering task, in a way that creates and promotes a shared understanding of, and an integrated ‘best for risk management’ approach to, these riskassessment and risk management issues.

The preparation and application of the HARF would usually be the responsibility of the team leader,with individual team members contributing as required. Clause 6 of the PPIR Protocol also sets outhow the HARF should be applied, noting particularly that there is a shared responsibility to:• delegate risk management and accountability only to the parties best able to manage that risk• consider whether it is appropriate to delegate or accept delegation of risk, where there is not the

documented capacity and willingness to manage or bear the delegated risk.

Of course, these provisions can only apply within the constraints of existing law or regulation, but they highlight the essential theme that risk transfer or delegation should respond to the mosteffective way to approach the assessment and management of the risks involved, and not simply the commercial or professional interests of the parties involved.

The remainder of this chapter outlines the HARF approach to fully integrated risk assessment and management.

8.1 THE HAZARD AND RISK FRAMEWORK

The HARF takes the form of an hierarchical arrangementof all the material hazards and risks likely to be present inthe engineering task and their interrelationships, the riskissues and approaches that are consequently indicated,and the ways in which the delegation of, and accountabilityfor, effective risk management should be arranged, eachsupported by explanatory documentation.

The role of the HARF is to:

• respond to all the material hazards and risks inherentin an engineering task, including the commercial, technical, OH&S and environmental aspects of thedesign, manufacture, construction and end-use of products, processes, buildings and infrastructure

• provide an unambiguous and formal context withinwhich:•• the responsibilities and accountabilities for all the

individual elements of the risk management approachand activity throughout the engineering task, andtheir combined effects, can be integrated, allocatedand coordinated on a ‘best for risk management’ basis

•• the individual risk management initiatives undertakenand the outcomes achieved, are together cost-effectiveand meet the required whole-of-task objectives

•• the relevant regulatory requirements are properly fulfilled

• present transparently the context which supports therelevance and appropriateness of the individual riskassessment and management tools being applied; inparticular, HARF provides the framework within whichto apply the requirements of AS/NZS 4360:2004.


8. INTEGRATED RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

8.2 AN ILLUSTRATIVE HARFThe HARF arrangement best suited to the engineering task may be an expanded or simplified version of the illustrationbelow, according to the requirements of the particular engineering task.

8.3 THE GOVERNING HAZARDAND RISK CONTEXT

In developing the HARF for a particular engineering task,the essential first step is to establish the context that willgovern the design, management and application of theoverall risk assessment and management program for theduration of the engineering task.

It is important that, in taking this first step, the ProfessionalEngineer and the Responsible Person work closely togetherand accept and document their joint responsibility for,and agreement to, the governing hazard and risk contextdeveloped in this first step and to the consequent key elements of the overall HARF strategy and approach.

In establishing this context, the issues considered andaddressed will depend heavily on the size, scope andcomplexity of the engineering task, but are generallyalong these lines:

• the key features of the engineering task that are relevant to the development of the HARF, with specialemphasis on:

•• the relevant regulatory requirements

•• the interests of all relevant parties and other stakeholders in any aspect of the design, conduct or outcomes of the engineering task

• the range of commercial, occupational and skill setslikely to be involved in performing the engineeringtask; the hazard, vulnerability and risk environmentthat is typical for such an engineering task; and the relevant available professional knowledge bank

• the objectives of the risk assessment and managementprogram, specific to the engineering task, and the criteria to be used in measuring performance againstthese objectives

• the particular person to be held responsible andaccountable for the overall design and management of the risk assessment and management program andthe resources to be made available to that person inthese respects

• the methodologies to be used in identifying, analysing,evaluating and treating risk issues and the extent towhich these should be consistent across all aspects andlevels of the risk assessment and management program.

8.4 HAZARD AND RISK GROUPS

The second step in developing the HARF is to decide what different groupings should be used in managing the risk issues and whether and how these should be allocated to particular sub-sets of the management orsubcontractor structure.

It is of course essential in this respect to respond to any relevant regulatory requirements, but otherwise thegoverning principles in this step are to:

• group together those risk issues that are best managedby one person or team, taking particular account of theskills and workplace norms involved

• allocate the responsibility and accountability for thatgroup of risk issues to the person or team best able tomanage that group of issues, provided there is evidenceof the capacity of that person or team to do so.

Note that in smaller projects, this separation into groupsin the second step may not be required, although in thisrespect, special consideration should be given to the OtherStakeholders, particularly where these include end-usersat the end of a somewhat long chain of interests or events.

8.5 DELEGATION AND REFINING CONTEXT

The third step in developing the HARF has two quite separate elements. The first element is that the person or team accepting any delegation of part of the riskassessment and management program must provide documented evidence of the capacity and willingness of the party they represent to accept such delegation.

The second element is to define the context in which thatpart of the risk assessment and management program will be undertaken. This is essentially a refinement of theoverall context for the engineering task established in thefirst step of developing the HARF (as described earlier),responding to the narrower and lower-level scope of theparticular group of risk issues.

8.6 HAZARDS, VULNERABILITIESAND RISKS

The fourth step in developing the HARF is to identify the hazards, vulnerabilities and risks for the relevant partof the risk assessment and management program. This is essentially responding to three questions:

• What can happen?

• How might it happen?

• In what way are people, designs, processes or physicalassets likely to be vulnerable?



There is a range of generally accepted methodologies that can be used in responding to these questions. Inassessing these methodologies, it is important not toplace primary emphasis on checklists even if they havebeen developed for the specific situation involved.

Rather, commentators experienced in this field suggestthat it is essential to employ an approach such as a brainstorming session or structured workshop, wherethose to be directly involved in the situation, togetherwith others experienced in a similar situation, are encouraged to explore creatively a range of concerns and possibilities, before considering the issues raised by any available relevant checklists.

8.7 ANALYSING, EVALUATINGAND TREATING RISKS

The final step in developing the HARF is to analyse, evaluateand treat the individual risks identified in the step above.

In so doing, it is important to identify actual or potentiallinks between identified risks, particularly links to riskswhich may be in another group; and to ensure that thesignificance of these links is formally recognised andproperly explored and managed by both the persons and teams responsible for the affected risks.

There is a wide range of well-accepted approaches or techniques that can be used in risk analysis, risk evaluation and risk treatment, notably those set out in some detail in AS/NZS 4360:2004.




9. THE ROADMAP FOR CHANGEThe PPIR Protocol and the related HARF integrated approach to risk assessment and managementtogether establish the basics of a best practice template for the professional engineer acting in a professional capacity.

As discussed earlier, they can also be adapted for corporate use by clients and suppliers of engineering products and services, or by employers of engineers.

However, while they are essential pre-requisites, they are not by themselves able to bring about thefundamental aims of the PPIR Project: that is, changes in the professional, commercial, liability andlegal frameworks that govern everyday engineering, so that:

• there is recognition of engineering professionalism in the law

• there is a greater recognition of engineering issues and engineering innovation in commercial relationships and contractual frameworks

• fewer professional liability issues arise and liability issue outcomes are more predictable

• the relevance and quality of expert testimony is improved and engineering litigation is more streamlined and less costly

• innovation re-emerges as a driving force in Australian engineering practice

• there are significant resulting benefits for everyone involved in buying, selling and using engineering products and services.

To achieve these fundamental aims of the PPIR Project, we need to make the PPIR Protocol and HARF part of a Roadmap for Change, comprising five strategic themes. These strategic themes are discussed below; the specifics steps in the Change Program to implement these themes are discussedlater (in Chapter 13).

The first and most important strategic theme of this Roadmap for Change is that the Change Programshould comprise essentially voluntary ‘opt-in’ elements, without relying upon regulatory or legislativesupport. The additional steps that might be taken later to give regulatory and legislative effect to thechanges are discussed later (in Chapter 14). This voluntary ‘opt-in’ theme means that the sequence andtiming of the various elements of the Change Program will require careful consideration, particularly to allow adequate opportunity for all the stakeholders involved to become aware of and respond to theeffects of the changes proposed.

Given this voluntary opt-in theme, the second strategic theme of the Roadmap for Change is that theChange Program should have, and be seen to have, substantial support from leaders of the engineeringindustry and profession. In this respect, a body of such leaders might be formed to act in a transitionalcapacity, to agree and oversee a fully-coordinated approach to giving formal recognition and effect tothe Change Program.

The third strategic theme of the Roadmap for Change is that the Change Program should aim to ensure that the PPIR Protocol and the related HARF gain, over time, wide acceptance among a broad cross-section of the engineering industry and profession in that together they are seen:

• as a best practice template for what individual professional engineers should expect of themselvesand what professional engineers and their clients should expect of each other, in the key aspects of any engineering task

• to offer benefits by its application that are worthwhile, realistic and achievable to typical buyers,sellers and users of engineering products and services.

The fourth strategic theme of the Roadmap for Change isthat the Change Program should generate over time anAustralian Standard based on the provisions of the PPIRProtocol (referred to in this report as AS.PPIR) whichwould gain over time wide acceptance among a broadcross-section of the engineering industry and professionin that it will be seen:

• as best practice for what corporate buyers, sellers andusers of engineering products and services shouldexpect of themselves, of their employees and of eachother, in the key aspects of any engineering task

• to offer benefits by its application that are worthwhile,realistic and achievable to typical buyers, sellers andusers of engineering products and services.

The suggested approach to such an AS.PPIR is set out inthe next chapter of this report.

Finally, the fifth strategic theme of the Roadmap forChange is that the Change Program should achieve, over time, four interdependent outcomes in terms of gaining recognition of engineering professionalism within the current workings of the law:

• a unified approach by the engineering industry andprofession to making more effective use of the existingexpert testimony system, particularly in terms ofaccreditation of, and guidelines for, engineering expertwitnesses, as discussed later in Chapter 11

• a unified national voluntary registration system forindividual professional engineers as the primary recognition of a practising professional engineer, which defines the boundary in assessing whether aprofessional practice is widely accepted

• a closely coupled arrangement for the ongoing custodyand stewardship of both the PPIR Protocol and theAS.PPIR so that the content and intent of the two is and remains consistent and mutually reinforcing

• over time, a formal endorsement of the PPIR Protocol aspart of the requirements for registration as a practisingprofessional engineer.

As discussed later in Chapter 13, it seems logical for thesefour interdependent outcomes to be pursued throughbuilding upon the existing National EngineeringRegistration Board (NERB), although this would likelyinvolve the existing sponsoring stakeholders in NERBagreeing to enlarge its role and broaden its sponsorship.


9. THE ROADMAP FOR CHANGE


10. AS.PPIR THE CORPORATE EQUIVALENT OF THE PPIR PROTOCOL

The application of the PPIR Protocol and the related HARF to the approach of the individualprofessional engineer should be supported by a corporate equivalent: a protocol for companies and public sector entities operating in the engineering industry or profession as suppliers, customers or employers.

This could take the form of an Australian Standard closely linked to, and reflecting the provisions of, the PPIR Protocol – it is referred to in this report as AS.PPIR.

Standards Australia sponsors and publishes most of the voluntary technical and commercial standardsused in Australia. The typical standard sets out a series of specifications or a procedure or a processdesigned to ensure that products, services and systems based on the Australian Standards system aresafe, reliable and consistently perform as expected and intended. They are widely used in the Australianengineering industry and profession, both as a basis for assessing best practice and as a basis onwhich a tender or quotation is to be submitted.

An Australian Standard can be established by either a committee-driven or bureau pathway. While thelatter seems better suited to this task, the particular approach and pathway needs further discussionwith Standards Australia.

The intended role of AS.PPIR as a key part of the Roadmap for Change is to inform and guide companiesand public sector entities operating as clients, suppliers or employers on the essentials in makingeffective use of the knowledge and experience of professional engineers to achieve optimum outcomesand value for money in considering and undertaking an engineering task. To achieve this, AS.PPIRshould be wholly consistent with and supportive of the provisions and aims of the PPIR Protocol and HARF; and its ongoing custody and stewardship should be closely coupled with that of the PPIRProtocol, so that the content and intent of the two remains consistent and mutually reinforcing.

On this basis, the specific purpose of AS.PPIR is to provide a sound template for the parties to an engineering task to reach a clear and shared understanding of what the engineering task is about and how the parties should go about establishing a cost-effective, balanced working relationship for accomplishing the engineering task, by:

• communicating effectively, particularly at the interface of the differences in viewpoints, interests and expectations of the parties involved

• providing a streamlined yet systematic process to identifying and resolving important issues ‘up front’

• setting up a consistent way to draw out and compare what the parties can offer each other commercially and technically

• calling for risk allocation that makes ‘best for risk management’ sense

• leading to arrangements which reflect the realities of the engineering task.

As such, AS.PPIR is intended in particular as a guide to clients, suppliers and employers in the engineeringindustry and profession in their approach to such matters as:

• specifying and responding to tenders and evaluatingtender submissions for the supply of engineering products or services, documenting the subsequent supply arrangements and undertaking the resultingengineering task

• exploring and managing the uncertainties of, and/orthe special possibilities for, innovation in acquiringengineering products or services

• reviewing and redrafting corporate quality assuranceand risk management policies and procedures on managing the purchase, supply or use of engineeringproducts and services

• promoting the quality of engineering products andservices offered by companies which have adoptedAS.PPIR

• guiding the effective resolution of commercial disputesabout engineering products or services.

The use of AS.PPIR in these ways is entirely consistentwith the recently released federal government ‘PoweringIdeas’ white paper, which suggests (in Chapter 6) thatgovernment procurement should in particular:

• demonstrate innovative approaches to procurementand service delivery

• seek to ensure that, wherever possible, the procurementprocesses allow for suppliers to provide innovativesolutions to the requirement

• seek new ways of managing the risk inherent in implementing new and creative ideas.

While the style and content of an Australian Standardneeds to meet particular requirements, an outline of theindicative provisions of such an AS.PPIR are set out inAnnexure 2.


10. AS.PPIR THE CORPORATE EQUIVALENT OF THE PPIR PROTOCOL


11. EXPERT TESTIMONY: USINGTHE SYSTEM MORE EFFECTIVELY

In addition to defining professional performance, the PPIR Project has had the parallel objective ofproposing initiatives to change the professional, liability and legal frameworks that govern everydayengineering, so that the PPIR Protocol can:

• become a widely acceptable view of the professional engineer’s duty and standard of care that isrecognised in how the law works

• help improve the relevance and quality of expert testimony, responding particularly to what seemto be widely shared concerns among professional engineers about contemporary standards andpractices in expert testimony.

As the project has progressed, the project team has come to recognise that gaining recognition of thePPIR Protocol (and its related AS.PPIR) in the presentation of expert testimony is a fundamental steptowards gaining recognition of the PPIR Protocol in how the law works in practice.

This chapter outlines the current rules that govern expert testimony and summarises the typical concerns expressed by engineers about contemporary practices in this field. It then outlines opportunities for the engineering industry and profession to make more effective use of the way in which the expert testimony system presently works, both to improve the standard of expert testimony and to gain recognition in expert testimony of the PPIR Protocol as the basic platform from which to assess the professional engineer’s duty and standard of care.

The material in this chapter is written from the layman’s perspective, rather than that of the legal professional.

11.1 RULES GOVERNING EXPERT TESTIMONY The Australian legal system’s rules governing expert testimony vary to some extent by jurisdiction, but an indicative outline is presented below.

Who is an ‘Expert’?An expert witness is a person who is accepted by the court as qualified to express an opinion about a matter for the court’s determination. In order for that person’s expert evidence to be admissible, it must be agreed or demonstrated that there is:

• a field of specialised knowledge that is relevant to the particular proceedings; and

• an identified aspect of that field in which the witness, by reason of specified training, study or experience, has become ‘expert’.

These rules generally apply to all expert testimony. Just who, by reason of specified training, study or experience, has become ‘expert’ in particular proceedings is a matter for the court, as are the rulesabout how expert testimony is to be provided.

What is ‘Expertise’?The extent to which the court relies as a matter of course on current standard professional practice in a particular field as defining ‘expertise’ has varied significantly over the past two decades.

For several decades prior to 1992, it was not open to a court to find a standard professional practice tobe negligent. Then in 1992, the situation changed with the High Court decision in Rogers v Whitacker

(1992), in which it was decided that the standard of carehad to be determined by the court: while such determinationwas still usually based on acceptable practice within therelevant profession, it remained the court’s choice as towhether this would be the case.

After the 2002 Commonwealth Government Review of theLaw of Negligence, the NSW Civil Liability Act introduced a modified version of the pre-1992 rule which:

• accepts a professional practice as competent if it is‘widely accepted in Australia by peer professional opinion’ as being so; but

• reserves the court’s right to reject peer professionalopinion if the court considers that the opinion is irrational; and

• does not require the peer professional opinion to be‘universally accepted’ in order to be ‘widely accepted’.

Notwithstanding these important changes, if a particularprofession does not have a generally applicable and widely shared view of standard professional practice, the legal paradigm which governs the professional’s dutyand standard of care is by default defined by the viewformed of performance by the court in retrospect, in thecourse of each particular litigation proceeding.

So there remains a very significant ‘missing link’ for theengineering profession and industry: there is no standardof professional performance in engineering that is ‘widelyaccepted in Australia by peer professional opinion’.

Moreover, as there is no national system which certifieswho is a practising professional engineer, just how should we define those professional engineers whosepractices determine whether a professional practice is‘widely accepted’?

Further, how do or should the provisions of this legislationapply to engineering innovation? An article in the LawSociety Journal (Feb 2009) on the practical application ofthe NSW Civil Liability Act draws particular attention to theproblems arising when innovation is involved, by asking:

‘What specialised knowledge exists regarding aninnovative procedure never before attempted andtherefore by definition not “widely accepted”?’

This current legislation applies only to the field of negligence and hence does not specifically apply toissues arising in contract, but it seems to represent an important shift that increases the relevance of the PPIR Protocol and its intended role of becoming a widelyaccepted view of the basis for the professional engineer’sduty and standard of care that is recognised in how thelaw works.

The Expert’s Duty to the CourtThe expert witness has a general duty to the court inthree defining aspects:

• an over-riding duty to assist the court on matters relevant to the expert’s area of expertise; and

• a duty not to be an advocate for a party; and

• a paramount duty to the court and not to his/her client.

Australian jurisdictions do not have direct means of sanctioning experts who breach these duties, althoughthe court may choose to name and criticise the expert inthe judgment and the expert so named does not have apublic right of reply.

Alternative Approaches To Expert TestimonyThe traditional approach to adducing expert evidence inmost fields of litigation is adversarial, as the parties tothe litigation engage their own expert witnesses.

Notwithstanding the expert’s duty to the court, expert testimony in this approach can be said to result in ‘adversarial bias’, as the integrity of evidence may becompromised because the expert is engaged by a party to the proceedings and may act as an advocate for thatparty, rather than as an independent assistant to the court.

The adversarial approach to expert testimony has alsobeen widely criticised for creating lengthy and expensivedelays in litigation across many professions and, ultimately,undermining access to justice.

It should also be noted that, in recent years, the ruleshave been amended to allow the court to direct that theexpert testimonies for each party be delivered sequentiallyand that the issues of difference be then debated by the expert witnesses. This introduces to the adversarialapproach some of the features of the ‘concurrent evidence’approach used in some jurisdictions.

The concurrent expert evidence alternative requires the expert witnesses for each side to meet prior to thehearing to identify areas of agreement and disagreement.At the hearing, each outlines the specific evidence onthose matters not already agreed, may comment on andask questions on the evidence of the other and then maybe questioned by counsel for any of the parties. This issaid to allow the court to hear and test varying perspectives,as the evidence on each topic is given at one time and itfocuses on the essential issues, so that the experts areless likely to become adversarial.

In NSW and Queensland, in cases other than professionalnegligence, opposing parties can be directed to, or agree to, jointly engage a single person as ‘joint expertwitness’. The parties jointly instruct the expert as to thefacts to be assumed and the questions for expert opinion,and may not introduce additional expert testimony.


11. EXPERT TESTIMONY: USING THE SYSTEM MORE EFFECTIVELY

It is said that the joint expert witness alternative helps ensure the expert witnesses are less exposed toadversarial bias and more likely to understand andrespond to their duty to the court. Some argue that itmakes litigation less expensive and quicker, while othersargue that parties may employ a ‘shadow expert’ and thatthis approach should only be used where expert testimonyissues are ‘straightforward’ (i.e. divergent opinions arenot needed to canvass all the relevant issues).

Typically, the court has also long had provision to use itsown court-appointed expert witness – also known as an‘assessor’ – who is instructed by the court on the scope of the evidence to be given, the facts to be assumed andthe questions arising for expert opinion. A 2005 survey of Australian judges indicated that courts use this power to appoint expert witnesses very rarely.

11.2 CONTEMPORARY PRACTICES IN EXPERT TESTIMONY

The PPIR Project Team has not undertaken any systematicresearch into contemporary practices and issues in engineering expert testimony in Australia. However, the team has gathered, in the course of the project’sexploratory discussions, workshops and consultationsanecdotal evidence of what seems a widely held viewamong practising professional engineers that the cost, length, complexity and outcomes of Australian engineering litigation proceedings are being affectedadversely by contemporary practices in expert testimony.

In essence, this anecdotal evidence suggests that fromthe engineer’s perspective, there are concerns about:

• the standard of expert testimony in Australian engineering litigation, and the adverse effect of thetypical adversarial approach on expert testimony

• the practices of engaging expert witnesses which areopen to abuse and encourage the engagement of persons who do not have the appropriate expertise;and/or are subjected to bias by the terms or conduct of their engagement; and/or become or tend tobecome advocates for their client

• expert witnesses not being required to have current orvery recent full-time professional practice experience inthe relevant field; as a result, some witnesses become‘professional experts’ partly if not wholly disengagedfrom fast-changing contemporary professional practice

• the lack of a common set of rules throughout Australiagoverning expert witnesses and their testimony in engineering litigation.

However, these concerns seem to be shared by other professions. In fact, such shortcomings are among those

readily acknowledged in the legal profession’s own commentary on the system and particularly by leadingmembers of the judiciary in advocating the need toimprove the processes and reduce the cost of expert testimony generally, particularly in complex matters.

At the same time, this anecdotal list seems to suggestthat the Australian engineering industry and profession as a whole sees itself as having little standing in regardto, or influence upon, the quality of expert testimony andthe way in which the system is used. Stated more bluntly,it seems to suggest that the engineering industry and profession sees itself as the victim of the system thelawyers control. This view seems difficult to justify.

11.3 EXPERT TESTIMONY, THEPPIR PROTOCOL & AS.PPIR

The paradox is that there appear to be a number of opportunities for the engineering industry and professionto make more effective use of the way in which the expert testimony system presently works in engineeringlitigation, both to improve the standard of expert testimony and to gain recognition in expert testimony of the PPIR Protocol (supported by AS.PPIR where relevant) as the basic platform from which to assess the Professional Engineer’s duty and standard of care.

These opportunities suggest that to achieve such change,the engineering industry and profession would need to undertake a concerted and sustained program to establish and promote benchmarks against which thestandards of ‘expert’, ‘expertise’ and ‘expert testimony’in engineering litigation can be measured more objectivelyand argued more convincingly.

Guidelines on Expert TestimonyThe Australian engineering industry and professionalassociations could adopt and publish the PPIR Protocol as the guidelines on which expert testimony on issues of the performance of a professional engineer should be based; these guidelines could also cover ethical standards. While using guidelines may seem to be a relatively ‘soft’ approach, it would set up the expertisebenchmark from which to argue the merit of expert testimony based on the PPIR Protocol and the lesser merit of other expert testimony. Over time, importantprecedents on the use of the PPIR Protocol would developand enhance its further influence upon expert testimony.

Of course, the importance attached to the PPIR Protocol in this way would depend heavily on the other relatedways in which it was to be adopted and promulgated bythe engineering industry and professional associationsand actively used by their members.



Over time, it may become appropriate for these guidelinesto become rules to be observed by some or all of themembers of each association in providing expert testimonyon the performance of a professional engineer.

Some Australian professional associations in other fields have already taken initiatives in this area. The two main Australian accounting profession associationsrequire their members to observe a published professionalstandard in providing expert testimony; the equivalentaccounting association in the US has issued guidance that the US CPA should consider when serving as anexpert and advises that ‘divergence from these guidelinesshould be carefully evaluated’; the Royal AustralianCollege of Physicians publishes guidelines on appearancein court; and the Australian Society of Anaesthetists hasset policy on how expert witnesses are to give evidenceand the basis of remuneration.

Accreditation of Engineering ExpertsThe Australian engineering industry and professionalassociations could set up a system where a professionalengineer could apply for ‘accreditation’ as an expert witness. To gain such accreditation, each applicant couldbe required to undertake special training in the practices,techniques and alternatives in providing expert testimonyand to commit to observing and using the PPIR Protocol in their practice of engineering and in their provision ofexpert testimony.

Initially, the system might offer a general accreditation,where basic standards of competence and rules of integritywould be published and promoted, but the accreditationmight apply only to a narrow field of engineering expertise specified by the professional engineer seekingaccreditation. Alternatively, an accreditation panel mightbe used to assess the applications, particularly in regardto the field of engineering expertise.

The aim would be for the standards of accreditation to be seen to be quite rigorous and administered objectively,so as to set up a profession and industry benchmark fromwhich to argue the merit of testimony given by accreditedexperts and the lesser merit of testimony from those notso accredited. Over time, the approach could create a significant gap between the perceived professional standing and credibility of expert testimony provided byan accredited expert witness, and that provided by others.

Moving in this direction would not be without precedent:the Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors has introduced a register of expert witnesses ‘to satisfy the concerns courts have shown about the standard of expert witnesses’ and the Australian Society ofAnaesthetists has a policy which includes who among its members can act as an expert witness.

Once again, the importance attached to the PPIR Protocolin this way would be heavily dependent on the other related ways in which it is adopted and promulgated bythe engineering industry and professional associationsand actively used by their members.

Promoting Use of Testimony AlternativesWhile the guidelines and accreditation concepts outlinedabove could improve the standard of expert testimonyunder the adversarial system of expert testimony, thebenefits achievable by their application could well be further enhanced by alternative approaches to expert testimony. In particular, the system of joint expert witnesses introduced in NSW and Queensland in 2005appears to offer many benefits from an engineering perspective, particularly if the choice of the one expert for both parties were to be an accredited expert whowould be using the guidelines.

While the use of shadow experts in the joint expert witness alternative would clearly add to the cost of theproceedings, it may be that given the significance of the issues at stake in much engineering litigation, suchpotential added cost may not be material in the contextand may be overshadowed by the improved quality ofexpert testimony and the application of the PPIR Protocoland AS.PPIR in that testimony.

The concurrent expert evidence alternative focuses the adversarial aspect of the proceedings on the expertwitnesses themselves, rather than on the lawyers for each side using only selectively the expertise each witness can offer. It seems to follow that the accreditedexpert would have more credibility and opportunity in arguing the relevance and merit of the guidelines, particularly the PPIR Protocol.

As mentioned earlier, these two alternative approaches to expert testimony are not presently available in all litigation. The concurrent expert evidence approach ispresently only used in the NSW Administrative AppealsTribunal. The joint expert witness approach is not at present available in professional negligence litigation, on the basis that the initial claim must include an expertreport which supports the basis for the claim. The widerapplication of both might become an objective of theengineering industry and profession campaign.



Promoting Use of Case ManagementIn 2008, to streamline patent litigation, the AustralianFederal Court introduced an intensive case managementprocedure which focuses on the court narrowing theissues at an early stage of the proceeding to reduce thescale of discovery and limit the amount and type of technical expert evidence to be heard.

This approach is being considered in other areas of litigation and Justice Peter McLellan, Chief Judge of theCommon Law Division of the NSW Supreme Court, hasrecently advocated the use of assessors to advise andassist the Court on complex technical issues.

Assuming the experience of using case management inpatent litigation supports its wider use in engineering litigation generally, there may be opportunities for theengineering industry and profession to advocate suchchange linked to the use of an accredited engineeringexpert as court-appointed expert to advise on narrowingthe engineering issues.

This could serve not only to demonstrate in practice themerit of the engineering accreditation system, but also to reinforce the merit and legitimacy of the PPIR Protocoland the AS.PPIR and their usefulness in providing a widely accepted and consistent context in which to consider the engineering issues in case management.

Participation in Expert Testimony DebateThere seems to be an important opportunity for the engineering industry and profession to participate actively in the contemporary debate on streamlining the approach to, and reducing the cost of, litigation proceedings. Such active participation in the debate could help ensure that any changes to the system ofexpert testimony respond appropriately to the needs of,and special issues relevant to, the engineering industryand profession.

Further, assuming that the PPIR Protocol and AS.PPIRhave already been adopted and promulgated by the leadingengineering industry and professional associations andput into practical use by their members, active participationin this debate could also help ensure that the legal systemand profession come to accept and respond to the PPIRProtocol and AS.PPIR as the benchmarks against whichthe standards of ‘expert’, ‘expertise’ and ‘expert testimony’in engineering litigation can be measured more objectivelyand argued more convincingly.




12. THE BENEFITS OF CHANGEIf the Roadmap for Change is implemented effectively by the engineering industry and profession,there are significant benefits achievable for all those involved in buying, selling and using engineeringservices and products.

This chapter first summarises the considerable public benefit that can flow from the proposals andthen outlines the benefits from the individual viewpoints of:

• the principal participants involved in engineering tasks: clients, suppliers, project funders, individualprofessional engineers and their employers; and engineering insurers

• parties to commercial dispute and/or litigation, and those that operate the formal processes involved

• associations representing the engineering industry and profession.

12.1 THE PUBLIC BENEFITThe main elements of the public benefit are of course general in nature, but nevertheless their combined impact is likely to be very material. They are:

• a more balanced, cost-effective working relationship between client and supplier in both the publicand private sectors, leading to:

•• better use of the professional knowledge and experience available

•• better outcomes and value for money, particularly in major projects

•• more application of engineering innovation

•• more balance in environmental and other public interest issues

•• fewer commercial disputes, better dispute resolution outcomes, less litigation

•• better use of scarce engineering industry and profession resources.

• a fully integrated ‘best for risk management’ approach to risk assessment and management leading to:

•• lower engineering project risk achieved at lower cost

•• improved protection of public safety

•• better engineering workplace safety at lower cost.

• a new approach to engineering litigation and expert testimony leading to:

•• streamlined engineering litigation at lower cost

•• higher standards of engineering expert testimony

•• more efficient use of the courts system.

• the best practice template provided by the PPIR Protocol and AS.PPIR, combined with the relatedregistration and accreditation initiatives, leading to:

•• wider recognition of Australia’s high engineering standards

•• increased competitiveness of Australian engineering in world markets

•• undergraduates better-prepared to become professional engineers

•• improved awareness of the professionalism of engineering that will help attract young people into engineering careers.

These principal features of the public benefit serve to underline that by bringing into force the proposalsoutlined in this report, the engineering industry and profession can raise its public profile, its economic


12. THE BENEFITS OF CHANGE

productivity and its international competitiveness anddeliver to the economy and public at large outcomes thatwill gain and deserve increased recognition for the vitallyimportant role played by engineering in everydayAustralian life.

12.2 BENEFITS FOR CLIENTSThe combination of the PPIR Protocol and the AS.PPIR can provide clients in both the public and private sectors a recognised and consistent best practice template formaking the most cost-effective use of the capacity of theprofessional engineer to apply knowledge and experienceto achieve for the client the optimum outcomes and value for money in considering and undertaking an engineering task.

This best practice template gives the parties to the engineering task a sound approach to quickly reaching aclear and shared understanding of what the engineeringtask is about, and how to set up a cost-effective, balancedworking relationship, because it:

• focuses on communicating effectively, particularly atthe interface of the different viewpoints, interests andexpectations of the parties involved

• provides a streamlined yet systematic process to identifying and resolving important issues ‘up front’

• sets up a consistent way to compare suppliers which draws out what each has to offer commerciallyand technically

• calls for risk allocation that makes best for risk management sense

• leads to arrangements which reflect the realities of the engineering task with less need to rely on imposedcontract legalities, warranties and remedies.

These benefits can be particularly important when theclient’s procurement team lacks resources with the knowledge and experience needed in buying engineeringproducts and services. They are also consistent with the federal government’s procurement policy initiativesoutlined in the 2009 white paper ‘Powering Ideas’.

The best practice template also helps to improve clientconfidence that suppliers’ performance undertakings aremore reliable and the outcomes of the engineering taskare more predictable, because it:

• promotes a shared and realistic view of client expectations and of how and when they will be delivered, even when the targets are demanding

• creates a clearer understanding of just who is responsible for what

• sets up reliable routines for assessing progress andidentifying and resolving problems along the way

• provides better client access to the benefits of the supplier’s internal quality assurance and risk management systems which are already aligned to industry-wide standards.

Moreover, the client is less likely to be involved in a commercial dispute, because:

• the client and supplier will have focused on balanceand equity in making their commercial arrangement or contract

• the performance and outcomes achievable will be more predictable

• there are reliable routines for reviewing progress andflagging and resolving problems along the way on atimely basis.

When commercial disputes do arise, the path to follow is better for all concerned, because the basis for disputewill be clearer to all the parties and there will be a bettershared understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. Consequently, it is more likely that theparties will agree to alternative dispute resolution andfurther, using the best practice template helps improvethe chances of resolving the dispute.

If the client ends up in litigation, there will be a muchmore streamlined litigation process which, together with a better standard of engineering expert testimony, shouldhelp ensure a more equitable, more predictable and lesscostly outcome.

Looking more broadly, the typical client of engineeringproducts and services can over time strengthen its businessstrategy, because it can:

• improve the quality and reliability of project progressreviews available to project funders and thus increasetheir confidence in the client’s approach

• increase client confidence in considering participationin project alliancing or complex project delivery systems(such as PPP)

• improve client access to the latest engineering knowledge and experience, with less risk

• widen the range of potential suppliers the client can consider, as more SMEs come to respond to thebest practice template

• provide a transparent and reliable process that canmeet the toughest tests of internal audit, probity andpublic exposure.

12.3 BENEFITS FOR SUPPLIERSGiven the emphasis on balance in most aspects of thebest practice template, it is not surprising that most of the benefits outlined above accrue at the same time, andfor much the same reasons, to both client and supplier.There are however some differences, as discussed below.

The combination of the PPIR Protocol and the AS.PPIR can provide suppliers in both the public and private sectors a recognised and consistent best practice template for the parties to reach a clear and sharedunderstanding of what the engineering task is about, and how to set up a cost-effective, balanced working relationship that will deliver the client’s expectations on outcomes and value for money. The reasons for thesupplier are much the same as those for the client outlined earlier.

However, by using this approach to achieving a balancedrelationship, the supplier also benefits because the bestpractice template helps the supplier to:

• achieve more balance and equality in the arrangements,particularly when the commercial strength of the clientis much greater than that of the supplier

• place special emphasis on defining the engineeringtask and lessen exposure to client reliance uponimposed contract legalities, warranties and remedies

• display and market to best advantage what the supplierhas to offer in commercial and technical terms, and tobe on a level playing field when the client comparessupplier alternatives

• focus attention on risk packaging/allocation that doesn’tmeet the guidelines set by the integrated HARFapproach to risk assessment and management

• reduce the risks inherent in being involved in complexproject delivery systems (such as PPP)

• accept tough outcomes targets but ensure they are still realistic

• present a better contract insurance risk profile.

In terms of undertaking the engineering task, the supplieralso gains additional benefit from:

• more effective use of in-house quality assurance andrisk management processes which already align withindustry-wide standards

• agreed, unified templates for client/funder progressreviews and for identifying and resolving problems.

Of course, both client and supplier benefit from the possibility of commercial disputes being less likely, and when commercial disputes do arise, from the addedincentive to enter alternative dispute resolution which has the advantage of being able to respond to the PPIR Protocol.

If the dispute cannot be resolved, then, as with the client,the supplier benefits from a more streamlined litigationprocess which together with a better standard of engineering expert testimony should help ensure a moreequitable, more predictable and less costly outcome.

Again, it is important to recognise the added importanceof these benefits to SME suppliers: they help the SME tocompete more effectively on larger tasks.

12.4 BENEFITS FOR PROJECT FUNDERS

In the context of the overall Change Program, the bestpractice template provided by the combination of the PPIR Protocol and the AS.PPIR also offers significant benefits to the project funder, again because it sets up a clearer shared understanding of what the engineeringtask is about and helps ensure a cost-effective, balancedworking relationship between the client and the supplierthat is more likely to meet the project funder’s expectationson outcomes.

It seems likely that the project funder will also see particular merit in:

• a much better defined engineering task reflecting its realities and engendering more confidence in outcomes being achieved as expected

• a much clearer understanding of engineering task riskallocation and more confidence in the quality of riskmanagement likely to be achieved

• agreed, unified templates for better quality client/supplier/funder internal audit and progress reviews,and for identifying and resolving problems

• less likelihood of client/supplier commercial disputesand better processes for resolving them without resorting to litigation.



12.5 BENEFITS FOR SENIOR PROFESSIONALENGINEERS

The best practice template provided by the combination of the PPIR Protocol and the AS.PPIR offers significantbenefits to the senior professional engineer in setting up and maintaining a fully integrated professional performance environment, in both the engineering andcommercial aspects.

The PPIR Protocol guides the senior professional engineeras to what to expect of:

• himself/herself, whether acting as an individual professional or as leader of an engineering team

• professional engineers acting internally as part of that engineering team

• professional engineers acting externally as individualprofessionals or as engineering team leaders.

The AS.PPIR, being tightly linked to the PPIR Protocol,informs and guides the senior professional engineer onthe essentials of best practice for companies subscribingto the principles and provisions of the PPIR Protocol andhence what might be expected of them as participants inan engineering task and what they expect in terms of therole of the professional engineer.

The senior professional engineer might express the benefits of the best practice template along these lines:

• ‘It helps me understand and respond to the expectations of others and to clarify my responsibilities and the responsibilities of others’

• ‘It gives me a better chance of applying effectivelymy hard-won professional knowledge and skills toensure the best outcomes are agreed and achieved’

• ‘It helps my team members understand better whatour engineering team should be trying to achieveand to support my team leadership’

• ‘It sets up a much better basis on which to argue foran integrated approach to all the risk issues and forproper management of these risks’

• ‘It gives me a basis that is widely-accepted fromwhich to apply my best professional judgement tothe issues and the circumstances’

• ‘I have confidence that if my professional judgementis later questioned in a dispute or litigation, my judgment will be assessed using the same approach I used at the time’.

12.6 BENEFITS FOR ‘JUNIOR’ PROFESSIONALENGINEERS

For the ‘junior’ professional engineer – who is not yetexperienced enough to act as an individual professionaland so is part of an engineering team – the role of thePPIR Protocol is essentially to guide him/her on what isexpected of the engineering team as a whole, and how to play a part in helping the team as a whole meet those expectations.

The junior professional engineer might express the addedbenefits along these lines:

• ‘It helps me to understand a lot more about what is going on and where I fit in’

• ‘It helps me to understand what is expected of meand of our team’

• ‘It gives me more confidence in how to acceptresponsibility and to act ethically’

• ‘It gives me a really good insight into my future role as a senior professional engineer leading anengineering team’.

For university undergraduates training to become professional engineers, the PPIR Protocol can be used to introduce them to the practice of the professional engineer and make them much better prepared for thisrole in the future.

12.7 BENEFITS FOR ENGINEERING EMPLOYERS

The combination of the PPIR Protocol and the AS.PPIRhelps engineering employers encourage their professionalengineers and engineering teams to:

• become more effective and commercially productive

• set higher standards for making commercial decisions,particularly in assessing and managing risk andimproving operating margins

• make more effective use of existing internal qualityassurance and risk management systems

• create a PPIR Protocol-based competitive advantagethat can be marketed and respected by potential clients

• improve the attraction of and approach to commercialdispute resolution

• improve the insurance profiles for contract and professional indemnity.



12.8 BENEFITS FOR ENGINEERING INSURERS

The best practice template provided by the combination of the PPIR Protocol and the AS.PPIR, and the associatedapplication of the HARF fully integrated approach to risk assessment and management, offers engineeringinsurers much more reliable, transparent and consistentapproach to:

• gaining a proper understanding of the risks as presented,and making better assessments of these risks and towhom they ultimately apply

• placing more confidence in the risk allocation conceptbeing used and the risk assessment and managementapproach being taken

• pricing insurance proposals more appropriately.

The best practice template also reduces the possibilitiesof the insured being involved in a commercial dispute and,when a dispute does arise, the basis for dispute will beclearer and the parties will have a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each position.Consequently, it is more likely that the parties will agree to alternative dispute resolution and that the dispute will be successfully resolved.

If the insured ends up in litigation, there will be a muchmore streamlined litigation process and a better standardof engineering expert testimony, helping to ensure a moreequitable, more predictable and less costly outcome forthe insurer.

12.9 BENEFITS IN DISPUTE AND LITIGATION

As discussed earlier in this chapter, when commercial disputes do arise, the path to follow will be better for all concerned, because:

• there will be a better contemporaneous record of what has transpired

• the issues in dispute will be clearer to all the partiesand there will be a better shared understanding of thestrengths and weaknesses of each position

• it is more likely that the parties will agree to alternativedispute resolution

• using the best practice template helps improve thechances of alternative dispute resolution processesbeing successful.

If the issue ends up in litigation, there will be a muchmore streamlined process and a better standard of engineering expert testimony which together should help ensure a more equitable, more predictable and less costly outcome for all concerned.

Most importantly, the judicial system itself will have thebenefits of:

• the engineering industry and profession participatingmore actively in efforts to streamline and reduce thecost of litigation

• the PPIR Protocol and AS.PPIR providing the acceptedprofessional practice standards as the platform onwhich expert testimony will be presented

• access to a higher standard of engineering expert testimony through the availability of accredited engineering expert witnesses.

12.10 BENEFITS FOR ENGINEERING ASSOCIATIONS

Clearly, the significant role that the principal engineeringindustry and professional associations can play in theChange Program (as outlined in the next chapter) giveseach of these significant opportunities to support andstrengthen its constituency. This is likely to strengthenthe standing of each association in the eyes of governmentand to improve their capacity to enhance public perceptionsof their members and the parts of the engineering industryand profession they represent.

Each association can also offer its members importantnew education and advisory services based on theChange Program as a whole and its various elements, and thus play an active role in improving members’understanding of the opportunities the Change Programoffers and how to make the important changes needed to take full advantage of these opportunities.

The Change Program also envisages employers coming tosee the benefits of actively encouraging their engineeringemployees to join a professional association that hasendorsed the PPIR Protocol and to undertake that association’s related training and CPD courses.

The Change Program also envisages a much stronger role for the accreditation and registration of professionalengineers, and for the establishment of an accreditationprogram for expert witnesses, both based on the NPERoperated by NERB. Clearly, this will present an importantopportunity for the main professional bodies who supportand become part of this effort.




13. THE CHANGE PROGRAMThis chapter discusses the proposed coordinated, integrated Change Program for the engineeringindustry and profession to take advantage over time of the opportunities presented by the PPIR Protocol, the related HARF and AS.PPIR concepts, and the related initiatives in engineeringexpert testimony.

The principal elements of the Change Program are those required to implement the Roadmap for Change discussed earlier in Chapter 9. It should be recognised that, as the Change Program progresses, the ‘how’ and ‘when’ of each change initiative may necessarily be adapted to the issuesand opportunities as they arise.

13.1 DISSEMINATION OF PPIR PROJECT REPORTThe essential first step in the Change Program is wide dissemination of the PPIR Project Report toachieve a well-grounded understanding among a wide cross-section of the engineering industry and profession throughout Australia of the project’s origins, aims, recommendations and benefits.

There should then follow as soon as practicable a series of briefings and seminars at which the issuesarising can be canvassed, so that the views being formed are based as much as possible on the factsrather than on unfounded assertion or speculation.

It may also be appropriate to offer special briefings to clients of the engineering industry and professionand to key representatives of the public administration, legal and financial systems, to ensure they areproperly advised of the report proposals and the resulting benefits.

It is envisaged that a program of briefings and seminars along these lines would take at least six months.

13.2 CPD EDUCATION PROGRAMFollowing closely in parallel with the dissemination initiatives outlined above, a major program ofbasic professional education should be offered for professional engineers generally to develop asound understanding of the application of the PPIR Protocol, possibly as a CPD option.

This program would not be aimed at meeting ‘competency’ requirements, but it may be appropriate to offer in addition a supplementary intensive education program for professional engineers who holdsenior leadership positions in the engineering industry or profession and so need a more detailedunderstanding of the PPIR Protocol and HARF and their application.

The education program should be based on a ‘PPIR Special-Purpose Education Package’ to be madeavailable through the main industry and professional organisations. This ‘PPIR Special-PurposeEducation Package’ may also be useful to initiate an undergraduate engineering study unit at all universities as a supplement to their regular curriculum. It is envisaged that, eventually, a subjectbased on the PPIR Protocol and its application would become part of the standard undergraduateengineering curriculum at all Australian universities.


13. THE CHANGE PROGRAM

13.3 INDUSTRY ‘EARLY ADOPTION’ PROGRAM

In parallel with the above dissemination and educationprograms, a specific program should be offered to encourage early adoption of the proposals by leadingcompanies within the engineering industry and profession. This program would provide advice and assistance on their adoption of some or all of the range of opportunities for corporate response as buyers andsuppliers of engineering products and services, and/or as engineering employers, as set out earlier in this report(particularly in Chapters 7, 8 and 10).

There could be added value if such an initiative involved acharter of commitment and adoption, with an appropriatelogo displayed and promoted to give recognition to thiscommitment to, and achievement of, early adoption.

13.4 RATIFICATION OF PPIR PROTOCOL

Once the dissemination and education elements of theChange Program are well advanced, and assuming thePPIR Protocol has by that time gained reasonably broadacceptance within the engineering industry and profession,it would probably then be appropriate for the leadingengineering industry and professional organisations toratify or endorse the PPIR Protocol in some way.

This ratification or endorsement could take the initial form of adopting the PPIR Protocol and the related HARFas guidelines for individual professional engineering members of each organisation, or even as part of a competency package: the particular form would be a matter for the individual organisation. It should be noted,however, that over time, the strength of this ratification or endorsement – and the expectations it creates – couldplay an important role in supporting the other elements of the Change Program and achieving the very significantbenefits discussed earlier in this report.

Similarly, associations of engineering corporate entitiesmight formally ratify or endorse the PPIR Protocol andHARF and recommend that their member companies:• advise their professional engineering employees that

the company endorses the PPIR Protocol as appropriateprofessional behaviour in the course of regular business;and/or

• actively encourage their professional engineeringemployees who are not members of a professionalorganisation to join a professional organisation thathas ratified the PPIR Protocol; and/or

• formally apply the provisions of the PPIR Protocol by modifying the company’s operating policies and procedures.

Of course, this approach could also be taken by a companyacting independently from any industry association.

13.5 DEVELOPMENT OF AS.PPIRAs discussed earlier, the application of the PPIR Protocoland HARF by the individual professional engineer shouldbe supported by a corporate equivalent: a protocol forcompanies and public sector entities operating in theengineering industry or profession as clients, suppliers, or employers. This should take the form of an AustralianStandard closely linked to, and reflecting the provisionsof, the PPIR Protocol, based on the indicative provisionsof an AS.PPIR, as set out in Annexure 2.

So an important element of the Change Program is to initiate the process of establishing an AS.PPIR, gainingthe necessary approvals and arranging for its custody and maintenance. As discussed later in this chapter, thecustody and maintenance may be a role to which NERB is well suited.

The Change Program should then involve a specific campaign to inform and guide buyers, sellers and users of engineering products and services on how toapply AS.PPIR to gain the benefits achievable from itsapplication. Such a campaign should include how to use AS.PPIR in such areas as those set out earlier inChapter 10 of this report.

13.6 IMPROVING EXPERT TESTIMONY

The Change Program should include a coordinated campaign for the engineering industry and profession to undertake the initiatives outlined earlier to make moreeffective use of the way in which the expert testimonysystem presently works, both to improve the standard of expert testimony and to gain recognition in expert testimony of the PPIR Protocol as the basic platformfrom which to assess a Professional Engineer’s duty and standard of care.

13.7 GAINING RECOGNITIONOF ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALISM

However, as noted earlier in this chapter, making moreeffective use of the existing expert testimony system isonly one of four interdependent outcomes to be achievedby a unified approach by the engineering industry and profession to gaining recognition of engineering professionalism within the current workings of the law.The other three are:

• a unified national voluntary registration system asrecognition of a practising professional engineer and defining the boundary in assessing whether a professional practice is ‘widely accepted’

• a closely coupled arrangement for the ongoing custody and stewardship of both the PPIR Protocol and the AS.PPIR

• over time, a formal endorsement of the PPIR Protocol aspart of the requirements for registration as a practisingprofessional engineer.

It seems logical for these four interdependent outcomesto be pursued through building upon the existing NationalEngineering Registration Board (NERB), as discussedbelow. This assumes of course that the existing sponsoringstakeholders in NERB agree to the concept of enlargingits role and broadening its sponsorship.

13.8 DEVELOPING THE ROLE &SPONSORSHIP OF NERB

NERB has been established jointly by EA, APESMA andACEA. In addition to representatives of these sponsors,the Board includes representatives of the Institute ofPublic Works Engineers Australia (IPWEA), of the communityand of state governments.

NERB is not a legal entity and its activities are presentlyadministered at arm’s length within the structure of EA.NERB supervises the operation of voluntary national registers of both professional engineers and engineeringtechnologists ‘to ensure the community is provided withthe protection it is entitled to expect in relation to thework undertaken by those practitioners’.

The National Professional Engineers Register (NPER) is a joint initiative of EA, APESMA and ACEA. It was established in 1998, and there are currently some 10,000professional engineers registered. NPER registrationrequirements for a professional engineer are equivalent to those for chartered professional engineer status(CPEng) and include commitment to the Code of Ethicsjointly endorsed by EA and APESMA.

Discussions with the relevant stakeholders suggest to the PPIR Project Team that the aims of the PPIR Protocoland the NPER seem to be well aligned. Further, theprogress of NPER in building widespread acceptanceamong engineering professionals could be significantlyenhanced by enlarging the role of NERB so that:

• NERB becomes the primary vehicle through which theengineering industry and profession takes a unifiedapproach to achieving the four interdependent outcomesdiscussed earlier, in terms of gaining recognition ofengineering professionalism within the current workingsof the law

• NERB becomes the ‘bureau’ which takes custody of and responsibility for the proposed AS.PPIR AustralianStandard (discussed earlier in this chapter)

• NERB can accept responsibility for the ongoing custodyand stewardship of both the PPIR Protocol and theAS.PPIR so that the content and intent of the two is and remains consistent and mutually reinforcing

• The NPER becomes the primary recognition of a practising professional engineer, and thus the basis for defining the boundary in assessing whether a professional practice is ‘widely accepted’.

However, for the engineering industry and profession tosee NERB in this enlarged role, and for NERB to achievethe acceptance and significance of the NPER throughoutthe engineering industry and profession that this enlarged role seems to offer, it may be important to consider broadening the group of sponsoring stakeholdersof NERB.

In this way, NERB could be seen more readily to be representing and responsive to the interests of the engineering industry and profession as a whole.

Obviously, such a change would require the full support of NERB’s existing principal sponsors – EA, APESMA and ACEA.


13. THE CHANGE PROGRAM


14. TOWARDS A UNIFIED REGULATORY REGIME?

Assuming that the basic themes and propositions set out in this report gain widespread support fromthe engineering industry and profession, and the Change Program is undertaken effectively, thereremains the question of what further might be achieved by seeking the support of governments for a unified national regulatory regime for the engineering industry and profession.

Achieving such a unified national regulatory regime is not simple: the regulation of professional services is a matter requiring unified action by state and territory governments; and any regulationaffecting public sector buying is a matter requiring unified action by governments at all levels – federal, state and local.

This chapter summarises what can be achieved without regulatory or legislative support and thenexplores the further steps that might be taken by future government intervention.

14.1 POTENTIAL OF VOLUNTARY REGIMEThe Roadmap for Change set out earlier in this report is for the engineering industry and profession to adopt a Change Program to apply the PPIR Protocol and several related initiatives using a voluntaryopt-in approach that does not rely on regulatory or legislative support.

If this Change Program (set out in Chapter 13) is implemented effectively and gains widespread supportfrom the engineering industry and profession, then, without relying on regulatory or legislative support,the outcomes can be:

• recognition of engineering professionalism in how the law works in practice

• greater recognition of engineering issues and engineering innovation in contractual frameworks

• improved relevance and quality of engineering expert testimony

• fewer professional liability issues arising and more predictable outcomes of such issues

• re-emergence of engineering innovation as a driving force in Australian engineering practice

• achievement of the benefits of change (as set out in Chapter 12 of this report) by the key stakeholders involved in buying, selling and using engineering products or services.

It is therefore entirely possible that, if the voluntary opt-in Change Program achieves these outcomesand resulting benefits, the engineering industry and profession may not see merit in seeking regulatoryor legislative reinforcement for these changes.

The paradox is that the more effective the voluntary opt-in Change Program becomes, the easier it islikely to be for the several governments involved to agree to government intervention.

The remainder of this chapter discusses the three main avenues through which government interventionmight reinforce or enhance the benefits of the Change Program.

14.2 A NATIONAL REGISTRATION REGIME?

The Change Program envisages that more professionalengineers and/or engineering industry employers of professional engineers would see benefits of participatingin the present voluntary National Professional EngineeringRegister (NPER), administered by a broadly basedNational Engineering Registration Board (NERB).

While it seems likely that this would increase significantlythe number and proportion of practising professionalengineers on the NPER, it is also likely that there wouldstill be a material number of professional engineers in active professional practice (either employed orindependent) who would not be so registered.

What would be the added benefits, then, if every practisingprofessional engineer was required to be registered, asapplies in the legal and medical professions?

The main added benefits seem to be:

• Enhanced professional standards: it would becomepossible to regulate minimum professional standardsand ensure that every registered professional engineeris required to meet those standards in order to remain on the register; and as part of these minimumstandards, the PPIR Protocol would provide a soundbasis for auditing professional performance, assessingcompliance and resolving complaints.

• Assured legitimacy: it would become easy for buyersof engineering services or products to identify thoseregistered professional engineers who can meet theresponsibility, accountability, performance and liabilitystandards set by the PPIR Protocol in the regulationsystem and the courts, and to identify those that do not.

• Better assessment and management of risks:it would become possible to mandate, through therequired application of the PPIR Protocol’s Hazard and Risk Framework, a fully integrated approach to risk assessment and management in all professionalengineering tasks and contexts.

• Streamlined public administration: there would be a lesser need for the many other regulatory andquasi-regulatory regimes maintained across many jurisdictions, especially by state and local governments,and there would be no further need to impose this wide variety of separate prescriptive technical and competency standards.

• Stronger competition: buyers of engineering productsor services could become more likely to consider usingSME sellers of professional engineering services, thusintensifying competition between these firms and theirlarger competitors.

• Higher public profile for the engineering industry andprofession: the commercial and public communitiescould become more aware of the higher minimum standards for professional engineers in the engineeringindustry and profession and this could encourage moreyoung people to consider a career in engineering.

• Enhanced international mobility and trade: Australianengineering standards would become more widelyrecognised and support an expanded role in qualifyingfor trade opportunities under bilateral trade agreements;Australia’s principal trading partners such as Japan,China, United States, Malaysia and Singapore place a high degree of importance and reliance on the common currency of a comprehensive legislated system of registration of engineers and certification of engineering providers.

The corollary question is that if there were to be a compulsory unified national registration regime, should it be run by a statutory authority rather than a broadlybased NERB? While there are important arguments thatfavour a statutory authority, a broadly based NERB hasthe very significant advantage of self-regulation by theengineering industry and profession. This is particularlyimportant in ensuring that the minimum standards areand remain responsive to the everyday realities of engineering practice, perhaps with the proviso that an independent third party would handle complianceauditing and complaints.

14.3 PUBLIC SECTOR BUYINGUSING AS.PPIR?

The Change Program envisages that, over time, some sections of the public sector will come to see quite independently the important benefits of using AS.PPIRcompliance as a basis for tendering, contracting anddelivering the supply of engineering services and products. This would set up a best practice templateapproach, and also provide an objective basis for supplierperformance evaluation and dispute resolution.

It seems likely that the voluntary application of AS.PPIR in this way could become quite widespread in local government procurement, and could also be used in some state government procurement, especially wheresuppliers already have to meet some form of NPER orCPEng pre-qualification requirement.

It also seems likely that the voluntary application ofAS.PPIR could provide an important step towards themore effective use of alliancing in the public sector, byproviding a structured approach to the issues that aresometimes difficult to resolve in considering and usingpublic sector alliancing.





However, the routine application of AS.PPIR in larger stateand federal procurement contexts would almost certainlybenefit from some form of regulatory support. This couldbe particularly needed to help offset the overly cautious,process-driven culture which has become more commonin some parts of the public sector (at all three levels) inrecent years, especially where the procurement officersinvolved lack the required technical skills and experience.

As discussed earlier in this report, this culture can lead,for example, to a procurement preoccupation withprocess, probity, public accountability and risk-aversionissues at the expense of the more difficult in-depth consideration of the engineering task and the procurementopportunities and challenges it presents, especially interms of engineering ‘value-adding’ (a commonly usedeuphemism to avoid mentioning the word ‘innovation’).

The form that such regulatory support might take couldbe government simply instructing each procurementdepartment or authority to adopt a preferred approachfeaturing AS.PPIR; or it could be a general regulationrequiring AS.PPIR to be a standard feature of the design,management and evaluation of the procurement anddelivery processes, and of the dispute resolution approach.

Either way, this would be entirely consistent with the recommendations of the federal government’s 2009 whitepaper ‘Powering Ideas’.

14.4 AN ‘ENGINEERING PROFESSION ACT’?

The third main avenue through which government intervention could reinforce and enhance the benefits ofthe Change Program is the adoption of an ‘EngineeringProfession Act’, along the lines of the existing acts governing the roles and activities of the legal and medical professions.

Again, it must be emphasised that achieving a unifiednational approach to an Engineering Profession Act is notsimple: the regulation of professional services requiresunified action by state and territory governments; andregulation affecting public sector buying requires unifiedaction by federal, state and local governments.

It must also be emphasised that the whole concept of anEngineering Profession Act should probably be viewed as a final step of enshrining in law what will already be largely happening in practice. It is not easy to see how such an Act could be at the forefront of change given the very significant cultural shift that the ChangeProgram represents and the time required to bring aboutsuch change.

Moreover, it would be critically important to ensure thatthe minimum or recognised standards endorsed by suchlegislation would not be allowed to become unrealisticallyprescriptive, but would remain responsive to the realitiesof everyday engineering practice.

The following is illustrative of the features that might be considered in drafting a model for an EngineeringProfession Act:• Requiring registration of all practising professional

engineers, as outlined earlier in this chapter; thismight take the form of creating a statutory role forNERB and the NPER, rather than creating a new statutory authority

• Specifying professional engineering services as thoseroles and tasks that can only be performed by (or underthe supervision of ) a registered professional engineer;given the enormous diversity of engineering roles andtasks, this could be an exceedingly difficult task unlessit is based on a ‘sub-specialities’ structure used in the NPER

• Restricting use of the term ‘engineer’, although givenits current widespread use, the practicalities of thisapproach seem somewhat daunting

• Formally recognising the PPIR Protocol as the basis on which:•• a registered professional engineer is expected to

operate

•• auditing of a professional engineer’s compliance andperformance is undertaken

•• complaints and disputes involving the services of a professional engineer are handled and resolved

•• expert testimony on professional engineering issuesis presented.

• Formally recognising the AS.PPIR as the best practicetemplate as to what corporate buyers, sellers and usersof engineering services and products should expect of themselves, their employees and of each other, inbuying, contracting and delivering engineering servicesand products, in evaluating supplier performance, inresolving disputes or presenting expert testimony

• Formally recognising an accredited expert witnesssystem of the kind outlined earlier in this report, andpossibly even restricting the presentation of expert testimony to professional engineers accredited underthe system

• Setting up state-level Commissioners of EngineeringServices to undertake the auditing of professionalengineers’ compliance and performance, the handlingof complaints and the resolution of disputes; this rolecould also include assessment of cases where the de-registration of a professional engineer, or someother disciplinary action, seems indicated and thepreparation of recommendations for the registeringbody to consider and apply.

Finally, an important feature that might be considered in drafting a model for an Engineering Profession Act is whether the provisions of the Act and the obligations it creates can be over-ridden by other legislation, or not. For example, the obligations that the NSW LegalProfession Act creates for a lawyer acting in a professionalcapacity cannot be over-ridden by the obligations underCorporations Law, if, in that same situation, the lawyer is also a director or officer of the company involved.

In addition to an Engineering Profession Act having a similar standing, those drafting it might also considerwhether the obligations it creates should be senior to the obligations created by other legislation. For example,should the relevant OH&S legislation create a vicariousliability for the professional engineer and/or his employerwhen the PPIR Protocol’s HARF approach demonstratesthat, notwithstanding the provisions of the OH&S legislation, the most effective way to manage a particularrisk is a delegation based on the HARF approach and itsrelated rules on risk delegation and accountability?




ANNEXURE 1PROJECT LEADERS & SPONSORS

The PPIR Project Team has comprised ten leading engineering industry professionals acting in a pro-bono capacity, The Warren Centre representatives and a Project Manager. The Steering Committeeresponsible for the oversight of the project has comprised eight representatives of the sponsoringorganisations, plus the PPIR Project Team. The International Committee has comprised three membersof the PPIR Project Team plus three leading engineering and services industries representatives actingin a pro-bono capacity.

The following lists all these people in alphabetical order, showing their roles in the PPIR Project andtheir professional backgrounds.

Robert CareBE PhD FIEAust FTSE

Steering Committee

Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Arup Australia.Thirty-five years in construction industry in various jurisdictions. Chairman, RedR Australia.

Alan ChappelBE (Civil) Dip T&RP HonFIEAust FTSE

Project Team & Steering Committee

Director, Hunter Water Corporation. Consultant to Anenco.Formerly: Director and Regional Manager, ConnellWagner; Chairman, Australasian Tunnelling Society.

Ken ConwayBSc BE (Civil) MEngSc FTSE HonFIEAustFAIMM


Formerly: Chairman & Managing Director, GHD PtyLimited; Deputy Chairman, The Warren Centre; Chairman, Macro Projects Council.

Ian Dart BE (Mech)

Convenor, Project Team & Steering Committee

Managing Director Northern Region, Logical TechnologiesPty Ltd; Project Director, Advertiles Corporation. Formerly: Chief Information Officer, AGL; President, BHPInformation Technology.

Ian DawsonBE (Hons) MEngSc FIEAust

Steering Committee

Global Leader, GHD Transportation business; MemberGHD Innovation Advisory Group. 30 Years in planning,design & delivery of major infrastructure projects.Formerly: Manager, GHD (Sydney, Canberra, Port Hedland).

Phillip DawsonBSc. LLB

International Committee

Partner, Clayton Utz (Sydney) in Construction & MajorProjects (infrastructure disputes & project managementclaims); advises in rail infrastructure, rail systems &rolling stock.

Mike DureauBE (Chem) MApSc (Env.) CPEng FIChEFAICD FTSE HonFIEAust FAIE, CSci


Chairman & Executive Director, The Warren Centre;Adjunct Professor Eng & IT, USyd. Director Cermaic FuelCells, Anaenco, BioTek Fuels, Granite Power. Formerly: CEO, Alstom Power; Chairman, RedR Australia.


ANNEXURE 1: PROJECT LEADERS AND SPONSORS

Martin DwyerBE (Mech) FIEAust CPEng MAICD


Director Engineering Practice, Engineers Australia, responsible for EA’s 8Colleges, 30 Technical Societies, Technical Publishing & Conferences. A biomedical engineer and former Chair of EA Biomedical College.

John GaskellBSc C.eng FIET

Steering Committee

Chief Executive, ABB Australia. Formerly: President Global Energy Business,Rolls Royce; President, Heavy Duty Turbines, ABB-Alstom; MD, ABB UKPower Generation; Managing Director & CEO, Kennedy & Donkin.

David HudsonBScEng (Hons) FTSE FIEAust FAICD

Steering Committee

Executive General Manager Risk Management, Leighton Holdings Ltd. More than 40 years experience in construction on engineering, mining andbuilding projects in Australia, Asia, Southern Africa.

Ron JohnstonBSc PhD FTSE


Professor Eng & IT, USyd; Executive Director and Founder (1992), AustralianCentre for Innovation - ‘advising organizations on addressing the challengesof the future through innovation’.

Christine KanellakisBA LLB

PPIR Project Manager

Principal of CKonsult, strategy consultant on innovation, sustainability &stakeholder engagement. Formerly: General Manager Strategy, BilfingerBerger Services; Senior Associate Litigation, Clayton Utz (Sydney).

Richard Kell AMBE (Hons) HonFIEAust CPEng


Director, Cardno International. Formerly: Chairman and Director, Cardno P/L;World President, International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC).

Brian KooymanBArch RAIA FAIPM MAICD MPD


Director Global Business, Tracey Brunstrom & Hammond; Adjunct Professor,Curtin Graduate School of Business; Adjunct Professor Project Management,UTS. Formerly: Chair, Global Council for Project Management.

Andrew LonsdaleLLB (Hons)

Steering Committee

General Counsel, Bilfinger Berger Australia. Extensive experience in negotiating contracts and resolving disputes in the construction sector.Formerly: General Counsel, Abigroup.

Robert MitchellBE (Hons, Chem) MBA


Chief Operating Officer, The Warren Centre. Formerly: Marketing Director, Moore Australia; Executive Inter CorporateLicensing, British Technology Group; Esso Australia Ltd.

Megan MottoMA GAICD


CEO, Association of Consulting Engineers Australia (ACEA); Director,Australian Construction Industry Forum; VP & Director, AustralianSustainable Built Environment Council; Trustee, CEDA.

Peter North AMBE (Mech) MBA FAIM FAICD FTSEHonFIEAust

Project Team, Steering & International Committees

Director, ATSE, Australian Centre for Innovation; Chairman, StreetonConsulting. Formerly: Chairman, The Warren Centre; Director, LeightonHoldings, Leighton Asia, Cochlear, Mildara Blass; SEM, McKinsey; Managing Director, British Leyland Australia; General Manager Marketing,Ford Australia.

John Nutt AMBE PhD HonDSc HonDEng HonFIEAustFTSE FIStructE MICE


National Vice President, ATSE. Formerly: Global Chairman of The ArupPartnerships (Director London, New York, and Hong Kong); Chairman, OveArup and Partners Australasia (part of founding in 1963).


ANNEXURE 1: PROJECT LEADERS AND SPONSORS

Geoff PeattieBSC (Eng) CPEng FIEAust

Management & Steering Committees

Vice President, Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Corporate in Asia Pacific, for Project Management oversight in transport, water, defence and minerals sectors.

Campbell SeccombeDipl.Tech (Mech Eng), CPEng, MIEAust

Steering Committee

Formerly: Vice President Technology, Bluescope Lysaght, responsible for all R&D (formerly BHP Building Products); Chief of Testing, ConsumersAssociation of Canada; Testing Director, Australian Consumers Association.

Denis WhiteBE (Civil) MEngSc FIEAust

Project Team, Steering & International Committees

Executive Consultant, Parsons Brinkerhoff. Formerly: Chairman andManaging Director, Parsons Brinkerhoff; Managing Director, RustCorporation; Managing Director, PKK Consultants; Director & Manager NSW, Kinhill Engineering.

James WiechmanDip Tech (Civil Eng) Dip. Insurance(Broking) AAII

Steering Committee

National Manager Construction & Engineering, CGU Insurance. Formerly: underwriting specialist, Munich Re, Chubb Insurance,Assetinsure; Lecturer (p/t), UTS Graduate School of Business.

Julie WrightLLB, PG dip LP, M Const Law

Steering Committee

Partner, Mallesons Stephen Jaques (Sydney), in construction and engineering law dispute resolution (litigation, arbitration, adjudication,alternative dispute resolution); Adjunct Assoc. Professor Eng & IT, USyd.

Leading Sponsors• Babcock and Brown Power

• Bilfinger Berger Australia

• Deacons

• GHD

• Leighton Holdings

• Mallesons Stephen Jaques

Gold Sponsors• ABB Australia

• Australian Centre for Innovation

• ARUP

• Aurecon

• Golder Associates

• Parsons Brinkerhoff

• PKF Australia

• Sinclair Knight Merz

• SMEC Australia

• Uhde Shedden

• URS Australia

• WorleyParsons

Platinum Sponsors• Bluescope Steel

• CGU Insurance

• Clayton Utz

• Engineers Australia

• Kellogg Brown and Root

• Thales Australia

Other Sponsors• Assetinsure

• Tracey Brunstrom & Hammond

Other Supporting Organisations• The Association of Consulting Engineers Australia

• The Australian Institute of Project Management

• The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia

• The Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

The PPIR Project’s sponsors are 25 engineering industry and professional organisations, listed below in alphabetical orderwithin each sponsoring group:


ANNEXURE 2INDICATIVE APPROACH TO AS.PPIR1. Introduction1.1 This document outlines the indicative features and provisions of an Australian Standard

(‘AS.PPIR’) which is the corporate equivalent of The Warren Centre Professional Performance,Innovation and Risk Protocol (PPIR Protocol).

1.2 The role of AS.PPIR is to inform and guide companies and public sector entities operating asclients, suppliers or employers on the essentials in making effective use of the knowledge and experience of Professional Engineers to achieve optimum outcomes and value for money in considering and undertaking an Engineering Task.

1.3 The specific purpose of AS.PPIR is to provide a sound template for the parties to an EngineeringTask to reach a clear and shared understanding of what the Engineering Task is about and howthe parties should go about establishing a cost-effective, balanced working relationship forundertaking and accomplishing that Engineering Task by:

• Communicating effectively, particularly at the interface of the different viewpoints, interests and expectations of the parties involved;

• Providing a streamlined yet systematic process of identifying and resolving important issues ‘up front’;

• Setting up a consistent way to draw out and compare what the parties can offer each othercommercially and technically;

• Calling for risk allocation based on the Hazard and Risk Framework (HARF) fully integratedapproach to risk assessment and management;

• Leading to arrangements responding to the realities of the Engineering Task.

1.4 AS.PPIR is intended to be applied by clients, suppliers and employers in the engineering industryand profession in their approach to such matters as:

• Specifying and responding to tenders and evaluating tender submissions for the supply of engineering products or services and documenting the subsequent supply arrangements;

• Exploring and managing the uncertainties of, and/or the special possibilities for, innovation inacquiring engineering products or services;

• Reviewing and redrafting corporate quality assurance, risk management and other internal policies and procedures on managing the purchase, supply or use of engineering products and services;

• Promoting the quality of engineering products and services offered by companies which haveadopted AS.PPIR; and

• Guiding the effective resolution of commercial disputes about engineering products or services.

2. Parties to the Engineering TaskThe Client Principal and the Engineering Principal should:

2.1 Work together to develop a shared understanding of the Relevant Parties to and Other Stakeholders in the Engineering Task and the relationships between them;

2.2 In considering the Relevant Parties, address:

a. the Client entity and the other entities directlyinvolved in the Engineering Task, their roles andthe individuals by whom they are represented;

b. the other key individuals and entities participatingin the Engineering Task and their specific roles and responsibilities;

2.3 Take reasonable steps to:

a. identify other Relevant Parties and OtherStakeholders; and

b. map the relationships between them for the purposes of the Engineering Task, consideringboth the individual persons and the entitiesinvolved; and

c. assess their individual interests and expectationsand the likely impact of these interests and expectations on the Engineering Task;

2.4 In the context of all the above:

a. agree on the approach that should be taken to address the issues involving the interests and expectations of relevant parties and other stakeholders relevant to the Engineering Task;and

b. re-assess these issues and approaches throughoutthe Engineering Task and respond accordingly.

3. The Engineering TaskThe client principal and the engineering principal should:

3.1 Assess and agree the objectives, scope, extent andcontext of the Engineering Task, exploring particularlythe relevant expectations and outcomes and the perceived best interests of the client;

3.2 In so doing, consider and agree on alternative methods of achieving the objectives, scope andextent of the Engineering Task, given its context;

3.3 In the context of the above:

a. agree the Engineering Task and the exclusionsthere from, or failing such agreement, considerwhether it is appropriate to undertake it;

b. document the agreed Engineering Task, ensuringthat any such documentation is wholly consistent with what has been agreed; and

c. regularly re-examine whether the objectives,scope, extent and context of the Engineering Taskhave changed and agree on the appropriateresponse.

4. Competence to Act4.1 The Engineering Principal should discuss with

the Client Principal the Engineering Principal’sassessment of the competencies and resourcesappropriate to the Engineering Task and any material uncertainties in these respects.

4.2 The Client Principal and the Engineering Principalshould:

a. agree as to how these uncertainties should behandled or failing such agreement, considerwhether it is appropriate to undertake theEngineering Task; and

b. regularly re-examine these issues throughout theEngineering Task and agree on any consequentresponse.

5. Statutory Requirements and Public Interest

The Client Principal and the Engineering Principal shoulddiscuss and agree on:

5.1 The relevance to the Engineering Task of:

a. laws, legislations, regulations and ordinances;

b. safety, environmental, public health and otherpublic interest issues; and

c. latent liability issues;

5.2 The ways in which these issues may impact upon or change the definition of the Engineering Taskor the proposed approach to its management and accomplishment.


ANNEXURE 2: INDICATIVE APPROACH TO AS.PPIR

6. Risk Assessment and Management

The Client Principal and the Engineering Principal shoulddiscuss and agree on:

6.1 The identification and assessment of the hazardsand risks related to or associated with theEngineering Task and the relationships betweenthem, in the form of a Hazard and Risk Framework;

6.2 An appropriate plan to manage the identified and unidentified hazards and risks in theEngineering Task;

6.3 An approach to the delegation of risk managementand accountability that:

a. applies the basic principle of such delegationbeing to the parties best able to manage each risk provided there is documented evidence of theparties’ capacity and willingness to accept suchdelegation; and

b. documents exceptions to the above basic principleand their justification, including the constraints ofexisting law or regulation; and

c. ensures delegation is not made or accepted wherethere is not the capacity or willingness to manageor bear the risk.

6.4 Effective systems to be applied throughout theEngineering Task for:

a. Keeping all relevant persons informed on all material risk management issues; and

b. Regularly re-examining and auditing risk management performance relevant to theEngineering Task and responding accordingly.

7. Engineering InnovationThe Engineering Principal should:

7.1 Review with the Client Principal the nature of andbasis for the proposed approach to EngineeringInnovation in the Engineering Task and the relatedissues for the Engineering Task in respect of:

a. skills, knowledge and resources;

b. intellectual property; and

c. risk profile and its impact on the Hazard and Risk Framework;

7.2 Discuss and agree with the Client Principal theapproach to be taken throughout the EngineeringTask to use Engineering Innovation effectively.

8. Engineering Task ManagementThe Engineering Principal should:

8.1 Review with the Client Principal the approach to managing the Engineering Task that confirms that the Engineering Task can be carried out and accomplished as agreed;

8.2 Review with the Client Principal the steps taken to maintain the transparency and integrity of alltransactions involved in the Engineering Taskin the context of prevailing community and professional standards;

8.3 Develop and maintain an effective system of timelycommunication between all those directly involvedin performing the Engineering Task and between the Engineering Principal and the Client Principal;

8.4 Upon completion of the Engineering Task, reviewwith the Client Principal a documented assessmentof the performance and outcomes accomplishing the Engineering Task.

9. Contractual FrameworkThe Client Principal and the Engineering Principal should:

9.1 Ensure that any contract or other such evidence ofagreement governing or relevant to the EngineeringTask is:

a. consistent with the provisions of the AS.PPIR; and

b. based on the agreements reached between theClient Principal and the Engineering Principal anddoes not override or diminish the intent of suchagreements; and

c. responsive to any third party arrangements or con-tracts relevant to the Engineering Task and to anythird party issues so raised;

9.2 If agreement cannot be reached on any of the above,consider whether it is appropriate to undertake theEngineering Task.


ANNEXURE 2: INDICATIVE APPROACH TO AS.PPIR


ANNEXURE 3GLOSSARY OF TERMS

‘Client’ means the entity or individual who is the client of the Engineering Task.

‘Client principal’ means the individual representing the Client.

‘Engineering principal’ means the individual ultimately responsible and accountable for undertakingand accomplishing the Engineering Task.

‘Engineering task’ means work done by a Professional Engineer or a corporate or partnership grouping of Professional Engineers in the ordinary course of professional engineering practice.

‘Engineering innovation’ means the application of new scientific or technological knowledge, or theapplication of existing scientific or technological knowledge in new ways, in a commercial context.

‘Hazard and Risk Framework’ means an integrated hierarchical arrangement of all the material hazards and risks likely to be present in the Engineering Task and their inter-relationships, the riskissues and approaches that are consequently indicated, and the alternative ways in which the delegation of and accountability for effective risk management should be arranged.

‘Professional engineer’ means a person holding an engineering qualification from a university degreecourse accredited by Engineers Australia and who has undergone a period of formation in the workplace.

‘PPIR Protocol’ means the Warren Centre Professional Performance, Innovation and Risk Protocol.

‘Relevant party’ means a party that has a direct commercial interest in the Engineering Task, be thatcontractual or otherwise.

‘Other stakeholder’ means a person or entity other than a Relevant Party that has a current or latentmaterial interest in the Engineering Task and may include the public or community at large.

‘Responsible person’ means the individual to whom the professional engineer is directly or ultimatelyaccountable in the engineering task, being either the leader of the in-house team undertaking theengineering task, or where applicable the person representing the client of the engineering task.


PPIR PUBLICATION PHOTO CREDITS

COVER:

Cochlear Laboratory Supplied by Cochlear Ltd(also seen on pages 2 and 40)

City West Cable Tunnel ProjectSupplied by Leighton Holdings Limited(also seen on pages 18 and 48)

Cochlear ImplantSupplied by Cochlear Ltd(also seen on pages 15 and 52)

Metro Alliance Wastewater Treatment Plant UpgradeSupplied by Leighton Holdings Limited(also seen on pages 27 and 55)

BACK COVER:

ABB EngineersSupplied by ABB Australia Pty Limited(also seen on pages 15 and 55)

Maroochydoore BridgeSupplied by KBR(also seen on pages 18 and 35)

One Shelley StreetSupplied by Creativity Architectural

Photography and Arup(also seen on page 2)

INSIDE FRONT COVER:

Sydney Desalination PlantSupplied by KBR(also seen on pages 21 and 35)

Stockland HQSupplied by Arup/James Harmer(also seen on page 45)

Sohar Aluminium, OmanSupplied by ABB Australia Pty Limited(also seen on page 48)

Saadiyat Link Expressway – Leighton International/Al Habtoor project

Supplied by Leighton Holdings Limited(also seen on pages 21 and 35)


PAGE 2:


City West Cable Tunnel ProjectSupplied by Leighton Holdings Limited(also seen on pages 24 and 58)

PAGE 4:

Al Shaqab Equestrian Academy – Leighton International


Wandoo Oil PlatformSupplied by KBR(also seen on pages 24 and 55)

Hinze Dam Stage 3Supplied by Leighton Holdings Limited(also seen on pages 15 and 52)

Barra SonobuoySupplied by Thales/DSTO(also seen on pages 18 and 45)

PAGE 8:

Cochlear ImplantSupplied by Cochlear Ltd(also seen on page 48)

Automation EngineersSupplied by ABB Australia Pty Limited(also seen on pages 24 and 45)

Kowloon Southern Link Project – John Holland/Leighton Asia project


PAGE 11:

Piazza Canopy at Aurora Place, SydneySupplied by Arup(also seen on page 33)

East LinkSupplied by KBR(also seen on pages 27 and 40)

The Water Cube, BeijingSupplied by Ben McMillian and Arup

PAGE 15:

“City Lights”Supplied by 10,000 Friends of Greater Sydney(also seen on page 48)

PAGE 24:


“City Gridlock”Supplied by 10,000 Friends of Greater Sydney(also seen on page 35)

PAGE 33:


Other photographs supplied by Creative HQ


NOTES

THE PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE, INNOVATION AND RISK PROJECT IS PROUDLY SPONSORED BY:

LEADING SPONSORS

PLATINUM SPONSORS

GOLD SPONSORS

SPONSORS• Assetinsure

• Tracey Brundstrom & Hammond

OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANISATIONS• The Association of Consulting Engineers Australia

• The Australian Institute of Project Management

• The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists & Managers Australia

• The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

Engineering Link Building J13, Sydney University, NSW 2006T: +61 2 9351 3752 F: +61 2 9351 2012 E: [email protected] W: www.warren.usyd.edu.au

THE Warren CENTRE - established in 1983 to mark 100 years of engineering education at The University of Sydney

THE WARREN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED ENGINEERING LIMITED

The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering is an independent industry-linked institute committed to fostering excellence and innovation in advanced engineering

throughout Australia. It is a self-funding, not-for-profit company limited by guaranteeoperating within the Faculty of Engineering and IT at The University of Sydney,

controlled by a board appointed by the University’s Senate.

The Centre was set up in 1983 to mark the centenary of engineering education at the University. The Centre has gained wide recognition for its unique approach

and its achievements in diverse fields of engineering technology, innovation and industry development.

publisher & editor - the warren centre · publisher & editor the warren centre for advanced...

Documents