Big Picture Thinking February 28, 2014

Transcription

1 Big Picture Thinking February 28, 2014 BIG PICTURE THINKING. The Board s Big Picture Thinking at each meeting helps to build Engineers Canada s envisioned future. Board members will: contribute new ideas, offer a fresh perspective to the process of envisioning the future, benefit from the insights of other Board members, understand the trials and tribulations involved, gain knowledge of potential growth paths for Engineers Canada, and increase their ability to foresee and avoid the pitfalls. The essential function of Big Picture Thinking is the ability to synthesize data. This means: identifying the overarching patterns and themes in the world outside Engineers Canada, discerning strategic insights by connecting all the dots, and developing appropriate responses to trends and emerging issues to describe a future of what will be different because of the work of Engineers Canada. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSISTENCY OF NATIONAL STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The Engineers Canada Board of Directors engaged in a 90 minute open dialogue on consistency of regulatory practices and the implementation of national standards and guidelines during the Board meeting of Friday, February 28 th, The central question leading into the dialogue was: What are the principles that guide consistency among the constituent associations regulatory standards and practices to protect and serve the public interest? This question was further explored within five related themes: 1. Trends and Challenges influencing the future of regulation of engineering in Canada 2. The meaning and intent of consistency and how it applies to the adoption and implementation of national standards and guidelines. 3. The challenges of implementing national standards and practices, and how to overcome them. 4. Messages to the Chief Executive Officer Engineers Canada with regard to how he can best support the constituent associations in the adoption and implementation of national standards and guidelines. 5. Appropriate responses of the constituent association to the work of Engineers Canada in support of consistency of regulatory practices and the implementation of national standards and practices. THE DISCUSSION The members of the board brought forth the following points in response to the central question and the five themes being considered.

2 Agree on a shared vision, a strategy and priorities Consistency in and of itself is not enough it must be defined so that everyone knows exactly what we are pursuing. We need a shared vision of consistency. Currently, we share the high level vision to regulate in the public interest however; there are times when this not enough. We need to arrive at. and all of us need to buy-in to. a more complete shared vision. The CFL is perhaps the best concept we have of a shared vision of consistency but we need to all agree that is the case. That said, the CFL alone is not enough, we also need to include the Washington accord, the ABET agreement, the accreditation system, and similar high profile initiatives. In our particular case looking for a shared vision also means acknowledging how we deal with different visions. It is best to approach consistency with a strategic outlook that provides an overall view of what needs to be done but that also sets priorities regarding what we should target first. Within this vision Engineers Canada s role is primarily to get something ready for implementation. When we have all the CFL elements ready for implementation we will have the tangible components of a shared vision. CONSISTENCY Motivation for consistency: o The longer it takes to achieve an acceptable level of consistency the greater the risk that the right to self-regulation could be lost. If we are not consistent in our processes then we risk governments and other bodies become upset with us. We are already seeing this type of dissatisfaction. o Mobility. o Consistent and transparent processes encourage entry into the profession. Currently about 40,000 potential engineers enter the country each year but only 5000 seek licensure. Perhaps consistency can help us improve this statistic. o Consistency helps to maintain the current high standards of the profession. Without consistency we risk that the standard becomes defined by the weakest link in the national system. This is unacceptable. o Consistency streamlines the system and helps present no barriers to all qualified people. It helps overcome contrary perceptions by governments and industrial stakeholders. When discussing consistency we must keep in mind that our processes are not mathematically precise but in many cases involve human judgment. In the case of assessments, often it is the perception of consistency that is more or a problem than is the reality. In such cases the impact on an individual of a perceived inconsistency is hugely important but less important to a constituent association. Consistency does not mean identical. Constituent associations will always be influenced by any number of factors that requires some degree of adaptation and customization of the recommended national standards and guidelines in order for them to implemented regionally. Consistency of outcome (which respects the constituent associations autonomy) may be a more useful indicator than consistency of process. Do we say that consistency is achieved when 2 P age

3 everyone has embedded the standard in their Act or is it when everyone is licensing engineers at a consistently high standard? In other words do we monitor on the output or do we monitor on the tools. Consistency includes both the practice of regulation and registration. Legislation and engaging government Each association functions under an Act, empowered by provincial government. As we consider the change that may be required to adopt national standards we must acknowledge the very real challenges that may be present because of counter-arguments from other stakeholder groups or even the different agendas of the government itself. We cannot assume that our claim to be acting in the interest of public safety will be accepted as the necessary and sufficient justification of our proposed actions. For example PEO lost an argument based on public health and safety to a counter-argument based on economic growth. The economic argument turned out to be closer to the government s agenda. We use government legislation and the difference in our acts as an excuse for our non-aligned policies. Fixing this is a question of crafting a Vision and leaders rising above the inconvenient details of the Acts and find ways to make it work consistently. Time required to change legislation is a factor but need not be a barrier. There is a fair amount of things that can be done without changing legislation and it would nice to see the constituent associations move on those as quickly as possible. We should strive to create a dialogue with legislators around the fact that we have an Agreement on Internal Trade that is encouraging mobility but we have differences in legislation that is frustrating mobility and isn t it time that we try to work these things out. We need to gain the confidence and support of legislators by showing them a shared vision. Once we can do that we can more effectively engage them in determining how we can work together to achieve that vision. Perhaps we should prioritize certain CFL elements based on the need for legislative change so that we have this clarity in hand when we talk to legislators about where we wish to go. Management of organizational change We have achieved no more than 10% of what needs to be done in terms of the adoption of national standards. Resistance to change is normal and to be expected. To manage resistance we need to think strategically in how we pursue consistency We have been successful in the adoption of national standards such as accreditation and the inter-association mobility agreement. We need to apply these principles of success as we move forward in other areas. Engineers Canada is the focal point for making this happen. We need to engage more people, at more levels, more often if we hope to shift resistance into commitment. Engagement Engagement is a vital tool to facilitate implementation. It is a primary means of reducing resistance and gaining buy-in. 3 P age

4 When engaging constituent associations a greater depth of information and supporting context is required to help in their decision making process. In particular, this should include: o o o The full context and supporting rationale for the matter being reviewed. The known interdependencies and impact should be evident from the outset. The opportunity to have questions answered and to enter into dialogue both internally and externally on the issue(s) at hand. Engagement must take place at multiple levels within a constituent association. As appropriate this should include: President and Council Experience Review and Academic Review committees, Boards of Examiners Chief Executive Officer and staff Volunteers Members o The responsibility to create a compelling invitation to engage at all levels rests with Engineers Canada. Currently, meetings to discuss national standards are fractured and exclusive i.e. Presidents only, CEOs only, Board members only, etc. Perhaps we could re-design our meetings to get more meaningful engagement amongst a greater diversity of participants. Need better tools to facilitate conversations by ALL the people dealing with the issues to help them build consensus and to collectively value the work that is happening throughout the regulatory bodies. Facilitating conversations on best practices within and between constituent associations is one way of building consistency of outcomes. This is particularly true when the issues are complex or have significant impact. Priority: Internationally trained engineers Addressing the impact of internationalization should be a priority. Consistency can help mitigate this impact. Internationally trained engineers are not an exception but an essential and integral part of sustaining and regulating the profession. In the future the majority of our engineers will be trained outside Canada. Our policies and practices must reflect consistency in how we work with both domestic and international applicants and members. We do very little accreditation of foreign programs and very few MRAs are in place. We could do better. Regional Diversity Engineers Canada has a role in facilitating consistency however acknowledging regional diversity is a part of the challenge. It is important to value what the constituent associations do and how they do it. The Canadian Framework for Licensure has done a good job of framing the national standard and has, very helpfully, broken this down into the specific elements of regulation. Going 4 P age

5 forward, we need a regional engagement strategy that includes both volunteers and others with expertise in each of these specific elements. This would create a brain trust that is knowledgeable on the topic but also aware of the regional diversity that will be a key factor when seeking the adoption and implementation of CFL elements. Implementation We need to work consistently with the people who are actually responsible for implementation. Not just a select few. Changes in process will likely take less time than legislative changes. It makes sense for constituent associations to have dedicated implementation resources so that we can have some assurance that things will be kept moving. We should show a timeline for implementation that people can be confident will be met. We should define various milestones and then report such milestones against the timeline. When it comes to implementation if there are defensible differences in process then that is ok. However, if these differences reduce mobility that is not ok. The evidence is that there are enough marginal problems with mobility that our differences are preventing us from fully achieving this goal. We do not want to lose the benefits of provincial flexibility and innovation. The real issue that is driving consistency is the availability of implementation plans that take provincial innovation or other benefits into consideration. Implementation plans are missing in the development of the CFL and need to be built in. As we look closer at implementation we should consider a mix of provincial trials and larger scale initiatives. Appropriate responses of the constituent association to the adoption and implementation of national standards and practices Engineers Nova Scotia recently made forward-thinking legislative changes that devolved certain decision making powers to their Council. In future this will allow them greater flexibility to consider changes in policies and practices without having to resort to changing legislation. In Nova Scotia, Council has said they will use their authority to adopt national guidelines as they come out. Perhaps this model could become the basis of a best practice that would facilitate change for other constituent associations. To proceed we need to understand why things are not being implemented and we really need to know what the constituent associations need for them to be able to implement. Then perhaps the Board of Directors could help to make that happen by directing the Engineers Canada CEO accordingly. 5 P age

6 MESSAGE TO THE ENGINEERS CANADA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER The need for speed. o Time is our enemy. Risk increases the longer we take. We need to recognize that if we don t keep things moving we lose momentum and people s interest wanes. The CFL is taking a long time and frustration is increasing significantly given the time things are taking. We need to find a way to kick it into a higher gear. o We need to increase the level of resources to achieve an effective level of progress. Broader more meaningful engagement o Understand and identify the people of influence and get to the people in the trenches (i.e. chairs of the ERC/ARC, etc.) and bring them into the room in order to get buy-in. It we don t get buy in at the critical levels we are wasting our time trying to get it anywhere else. A shared strategic vision of consistency o Consistency is not just about the CFL (as important as that is) but there is a lot more. e.g. the accreditation system, the Washington accord, the ABET agreement and similar high profile initiatives. Collectively these are the principal flagships of consistency that define national standards and guidelines. We need a clear definition of consistency that can become the national shared vision of what we are working to achieve. SUMMARY The key points of the discussion were: Consistency of national standards and guidelines is needed to achieve a number of valid objectives including: o Maintaining high standards o Mobility o Encouraging entry into the profession o Maintaining credibility and safeguarding the right to self-regulation A shared vision for consistent national standards and guidelines needs to be defined. A process needs to be put in place so that everyone can discuss and buy-in to this shared vision. A shared vision should form the foundation of a dialogue with government on how we can work together to achieve the vision. Perhaps we should consider moving toward giving greater authority to Councils and not embedding as much in the Act. Going forward there needs to be broad, meaningful engagement at multiple levels with the constituent associations as national standards and guidelines are developed and made ready for implementation. Customized implementation plans are also needed. We need better tools and processes to ensure we acknowledge, understand and benefit from regional diversity and expertise in the development and implementation of national standards and guidelines. Providing a consistent and transparent approach to the impact of internationalization is a priority. We need to identify all other priorities and focus our work accordingly. Past performance is not acceptable we must find ways to move faster. 6 P age