JULY 2008 ISSUE 72

ENGINEERING
Postnominal abbreviations are a major credential used by the engineering profession they indicate our current competence and professional standing. IPENZ promotes the consistent use of several types of postnominal: current competence registration the quality mark for being on a register that requires regular demonstration of current competence (for example CPEng) professional standing the quality mark of acceptance of being in good professional standing by ones peers (for example MIPENZ) qualifications setting out ones formal education (for example BE).

engineering

Changes to IPENZ Postnominals

dimension
ISSN 1175-7752 (print) ISSN 1177-9012 (online)

DIMENSION

There are also overseas quality marks, for example CEng from the United Kingdom and the old Registered Engineering Associate quality mark (REA), which allow unconditional continuing registration and are not based on current competence. Therefore they are not consistent with the three types IPENZ promotes. Across professions in New Zealand, there has been a consistent protocol that registration quality marks should not have a prescribed field or scope of work applied to them a person is a registered architect, or chartered accountant, or chartered professional engineer. IPENZ has continued to support this approach for two reasons engineering is so multidisciplinary that unique fields cannot be defined, and secondly, professions have demonstrated that they can reliably self-certify their competence to do work. Thus, in the IPENZ competence assessment process: assessment is carried out in the self-declared practice area of each applicant (each applicant specifically states the engineering activities that he or she considers the basis of his or her competence) candidates are asked to map their practice area as closely as possible to one or more fields of engineering but solely to assist in identifying suitable assessors and to allow generation of statistical data about the spread of registrants between disciplines all currently competent Members of IPENZ are automatically placed in the single IPENZ Practice College a construct to identify those amongst the Membership who are currently competent, in case there is any activity or consultation that should be restricted to that group of Members. In 2002, when the CPEng Act commenced, it was recognised that the creation of the Practice College also provided an opportunity to standardise the guidance information about an engineer. Previously this had been left to the individual, and a variety of practices had existed. The extended postnominal was introduced from 1 January 2003 as a voluntary, but standardised way to provide loose guidance towards the practice area. Those IPENZ Members who are currently competent were allowed to use an extended postnominal of the form MIPENZ(X,Y), TIPENZ(A,B), AIPENZ(C,D), where X, Y, A, B, C and D were the fields of engineering to which the engineers practice area aligned (as established in the competence assessment process), chosen from: civil, structural, geotechnical, environmental, mechanical, electrical, industrial, mining, chemical, bio, information, management, fire, building services, aeronautical, petroleum, and transportation. continued on page 03

Inside this Issue:

Towards No-hassle Producer Statements p04 Competence Assessment Tool p05 Ethics Talk Transport Policy Released p06 p09

Queen's Birthday Honours p11

engineering dimension

01

Bounding Our Ethical Responsibilities

Over the last year or so, both through this publication and in the general media, Members will have read about challenges to self-regulation. Some occupations have got it wrong (such as financial planners and real estate salespeople) with dire consequences. We have consistently emphasised the importance of not letting engineering fall into similar disrepute. As my predecessor said on several occasions, we rely on Members to be the frontline, and take on the ethical responsibility to report poor behaviour, even if it is not comfortable to do so. In this issue you will find reports on two case studies one case dealt with under the CPEng regime, and the other dealt with under the Registered Architects Act. Each involved commercial issues in dispute. In the engineering case, the matter was over fees and ruled to be outside the code of ethics (as the contracting body for the fees was not a natural person, as is a CPEng), but in the architectural case the matter was over poor estimating of project price, and the individual registrant was judged to have obligations to estimate the price carefully and competently. This illustrates a more general matter on which Members need to be clear we restrict application of our ethical code to engineers carrying out engineering activities. What is perhaps not so clear is that there does not need to be a fee for service (or payment under an employment agreement) for engineering activities to occur. Whenever the engineering mindset is engaged the obligations apply. A few years ago we had an unfortunate case of a Member commenting over his fence to a neighbour about the stability of a retaining wall asked by the neighbour if it looked okay he said yes. The wall subsequently failed and you can guess what happened next. A recurring theme we face is that engineers often get into trouble by trying to be too helpful, inadvertently placing an ethical obligation on themselves (and sometimes a commercial liability through tort). Your friend who is a doctor will not give you medical advice in casual conversation, but engineers too often step in. I bring this issue to your attention in my column this month to highlight the governing Boards ongoing commitment to keeping our house in order in matters of self-regulation, ethical responsibility, and the obligation to be competent and careful in all our engineering activities. The best way to deal with complaints is to stop them from happening by good behaviour. Failing to bound ones advice is a problem we need to address, but sadly it does mean turning off our try to help gene at times. The lesson is that if we do not do so, many of us will get trouble we do not think we deserve.

Bas Walker IPENZ President

02

engineering dimension

continued from page 01 The problems Five years on, the general consensus is that the extended postnominal has not worked particularly well despite our best efforts to provide clear information. In that time we have published and distributed three editions of engineering edge (the reference guide to quality marks) to Members, registrants and regulators, and published a number of articles, but confusion continues. Some examples follow. Members consider that they have proved their competence in a field and not in their practice area they use incorrect expressions such as: I got my CPEng in the civil and environmental practice colleges, when in fact they are a CPEng who self-certifies they are competent to do particular tasks, but was assessed in a practice area that the assessors thought aligned with the civil and environmental fields. Members confuse practice fields with practice area and then confuse other people. Many Members think there are 17 Practice Colleges. Regulators are confused by fields and practice areas and do not realise that a field gives no assurance whatsoever it is only a means of providing loose guidance. Nevertheless some are trying to use it inappropriately.
Description

To overcome these issues would require a substantial amount of effort, and the only benefit would be a voluntary, but relatively standardised, means of providing quite loose information to guide users of engineering services. Board actions and Special General Meeting outcomes The governing Board consulted the Membership through the 2008 Branch and Technical Group Forum, and was advised by the representatives present that it was best to discontinue the extended postnominal. Accordingly the Board has amended the Practice College regulations, and this article serves as the notice of the following changes. Members who are eligible may continue to use the extended postnominal until 31 December 2008, but are advised to abandon it as soon as possible (for example when printing new business cards). From 1 January 2009 Members must completely stop using the extended postnominal. In addition, a Special General Meeting of the Institution held on 14 March 2008 modified Rule 27 to change the way Membership of a Technical Interest Group (TIG) may be represented. This change is already in place but has not yet been advertised. Rule 27 allows that within each TIG all those who pay the relevant subscription

are Members with equal rights who share collegial interchange that continues unaltered. The change relates to the ways a person may represent himself or herself outside the activities of the group. Where the Member of the TIG is also a Member of the parent body (IPENZ) and the TIG relates to their practice area, they are entitled to use their Membership class in representing their Membership of the TIG (changed). Where the Member of the TIG is also a Member of the parent body but in a different field of practice they may only represent themselves as an (ungraded) Member of the TIG (unchanged). All other Members of the TIG, whether an engineer or not, may only represent themselves as affiliate Members of the TIG (changed). Where TIGs are joint with other bodies that have equivalent competencegraded membership to IPENZ then the membership class from the other body may be used (changed). More information The fourth edition of engineering edge will be distributed to Members in December 2008 and will provide full guidance. It will also be available for download from the IPENZ website. Good and bad practice in postnominal use The table below shows a number of examples of good and bad practice.
Current good practice (from 1 January 2009) CPEng, MIPENZ, IntPE(NZ)

Previous good practice

Previous bad practice

Current bad practice

Chartered Professional Engineer, Professional Member, practice field civil, registered on the International Professional Engineers register Certified Engineering Technician, Associate Member, practice fields electrical and information Chartered Professional Engineer, Fellow, practice field transportation, Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group Chartered Professional Engineer, practice field transportation, Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group but not a Member of IPENZ itself Planner, Member of the IPENZ Transportation group but not a Member of IPENZ itself Member of IMechE(UK), and as a result is a Member of the Mechanical Engineering Group, but not a Member of IPENZ

CPEng, MIPENZ(civil), IntPE(NZ)

CPEng(civil), MIPENZ (fields are not shown with CPEng)

Claiming to be a member of the civil Practice College (civil Practice College does not exist)

CertETn, AIPENZ(elect, inform.)

Claiming to be proven competent across the two practice fields rather than just in his or her own practice area

Claiming to be other than an Associate Member of the IPENZ Practice College

CertETn, AIPENZ

CPEng, FIPENZ(transport) Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group (no postnominal) CPEng Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group (no postnominal) Using MTG as a postnominal (no postnominal is allowed for any TIG Membership) Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group (infringes Rule 27)

CPEng, FIPENZ Fellow of the IPENZ Transportation Group (no postnominal) CPEng Affiliate Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group (no postnominal)

Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group (no postnominal) ImechE Member of the Mechanical Engineering Group (no postnominal)

Claiming that Membership of the Transportation Group was actually Membership of IPENZ

Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group (infringes Rule 27)

Affiliate Member of the IPENZ Transportation Group (no postnominal) IMechE Member of the Mechanical Engineering Group (no postnominal)

engineering dimension

03

Towards No-hassle Producer Statements

The most common regulatory compliance complaint we receive from Members relates to submitting producer statements for professional engineering work under the Building Act. Members comment that Building Consent Authorities (BCAs) inconsistently accept such statements. Many accept CPEng and a selfdeclaration of competence to do the work. Some insist on CPEng but want further evidence that the engineer is competent in the specific field of engineering to which the work relates. Others require registration on local Council lists, which requires the engineer to pay a fee and provide evidence and referees. The IPENZ and ACENZ position on authoring producer statements has always been clear the first of these approaches should be applied consistently and nationally. Inconsistent advice from the central regulator, lack of clarity over what is acceptable for BCA accreditation, and sometimes a BCA claiming it wants to move to our recommended approach but has not yet had time to make the changes have all contributed to this misunderstanding. Recently, the Department of Building and Housing decided that leadership to resolve the status of producer statements was

required. An expert working group including BCAs and representatives from ACENZ and IPENZ was brought together in late May 2008. The group agreed that a nationally consistent approach was required, which will: establish a national best-practice guide to which all parties ascribe (a good starting point is a draft prepared by ADAM THORNTON FIPENZ) clarify the differences between a producer statement from a design professional, and the workmanship and product certificates presented by other occupational groups ensure BCAs treat producer statements and engineers and architects expert technical opinion as evidence towards establishing design code compliance or compliance of construction work ensure producer statements are not a means to address the distribution of liability the author and receiver of such statements each have liabilities under tort (and may have liabilities under contract to other parties such as the building owner) and the statement does not change these restrict authorship to those currently on national and preferably statutorybacked competence registers, but for work where no suitable register exists, other national registers without statutory backing should be developed

and maximally used (this implies the potential use of registers such as IPENZs ETPract and CertETn in appropriate circumstances) maintain the integrity and trustworthiness of the national registers, by encouraging all involved to use the complaints process or report sub-standard work to the relevant registration authority. These outcomes align with IPENZs longstanding position, so it is very good news in the long-term. It also vindicates our decision to take a leadership position in developing ETPract and CertETn without statutory backing. However change will take time and there are likely to be some continuing frustrations before we can expect to see consistent behaviours starting to emerge. In the meantime, we ask that Members who experience difficulty in being able to present a producer statement to contact the IPENZ Registrar at registrar@ipenz.org.nz We also remind Members that although a producer statement is useful evidence, under the Building Act 2004 it alone is insufficient evidence for a BCA to discharge its responsibilities. In addition, IPENZ Members should use the NZIA/ACENZ/IPENZ producer statements and not modify them for their own purposes.

04

engineering dimension

New Tools Help Prepare for Competence Assessment

IPENZ has recently added two enhancements to its online services for Members to provide support while preparing application documents for competence assessment.
form the basis of a submission the only other documents needed are a completed application form (CA02) and referee declarations. Members can access both recording tools via the Career Management section in the Members Area of the IPENZ website. In addition, an application preparation tutorial has been developed to step Members through the application preparation process. While the primary audience for the tutorial is Graduate Members working towards their initial competence assessment, registrants needing to prepare a submission for continued registration may also find the tutorial useful. It provides help and guidance on how to complete each of the template forms and advises on alternative formats that can be used. Once again, the tutorial can be accessed via the Career Management section in the Members Area of the IPENZ website. We encourage Members to review the tutorial and use the progressive recording tools that are now available. Members feedback on each will also be welcome send your feedback to dir-la@ipenz.org.nz

Keeping a simple, progressive record of key projects, activities and continuing professional development (CPD) can greatly simplify the process when the time comes to prepare a submission. This applies to both Graduate Members preparing for their first assessment and those on a current competence register (for example CPEng, ETPract and CertETn) who are subject to ongoing assessments for continued registration. For some time, IPENZ has provided an online work-history recording tool that Graduate Members can use to record their work history and track their competence development. A

similar tool is now available for experienced Members to maintain records for continued registration, particularly current competencebased registers. This online work history and competence recording tool complements the CPD recording log that is already popular with Members. The two tools enable Members to record on a five-year rolling basis key projects or activities, particularly good examples of competence against particular elements of the competence standard, and CPD activities. When the time comes to submit for a continued registration assessment, these records can be readily edited to

Green Ribbon Awards 2008

The Ministry for the Environment held its annual Green Ribbon Awards on 5 June this year. IPENZ was well represented on the night, with Chief Executive ANDREW CLELAND and Director Engineering CHARLES WILLMOT both attending the presentation event.
Charles was also involved in judging the award category that honours innovative solutions for the environment. In making his choice, Charles considered that the two most worthy nominations were Resene Paintwise, due to its take back scheme for their paint products, and Gretchen Robertson and Monica Peters for their very readable and beautifully illustrated toolkit to enable schools and community groups to study local coastal areas. While Resene Paintwise won the category award, Gretchen and Monica were highly commended for their toolkit, which took them six years to develop. Another winner was current William Pickering medal holder, LAURENCE ZWIMPFER FIPENZ, who received the Green Ribbon Award in the volunteers and not for profit organisations category for his successful nationwide launch of eDay, a take back scheme for computers and other e-waste. Led by the computer Access New Zealand Trust and the 2020 Communications Trust, eDay is a community initiative designed to raise public awareness of the hazardous nature of e-waste. Our congratulations go to all Green Ribbon Award winners and especially to the Ministry for the Environment, which has run these awards for the last 18 years, for raising our awareness of environmental issues throughout the country.

Making sense of the Building Act 2004?

IPENZ Building Act workshops September: Wellington Christchurch Auckland Taupo Register today at www.ipenz.org.nz key word: engineering calendar

engineering dimension

05

ETHICS
In this first case, a CPEng registered engineer was engaged by a client to provide engineering services for a project. After work began an agreement for engagement was signed. Although the project was off to a good start, the clients satisfaction would not last long.
As with other projects he had been involved with, the client was under the impression that he would be charged a fixed fee for the entire project. When the client began to receive invoices for the work, he sought a second quote for the project from an independent engineer. The client then returned to the first engineer and used the quote to show that he had been overcharged. The first engineer determined who the second engineer was and informed him of the dispute, and that he had not been paid for his services. The second engineer subsequently declined to work for the client. Frustrated, the client made a complaint to the Registration Authority (IPENZ). His complaint alleged that he had been overcharged, that he was never informed that he would be charged on an hourly basis, and that the two engineers had colluded on a commercial matter. The Registration Authority dismissed the complaint, but the client lodged an appeal with the Chartered Professional Engineers Council. The Council considered the matter but upheld the original decision to dismiss the complaint. It determined that commercial disputes cannot be brought against a CPEng as the fee charged is a commercial consideration made by the company and not an engineering activity performed by the engineer. Status as a Chartered Professional Engineer is only available to individuals and cannot apply to a consultancy or any other organisation.

CASE 1

the client complained he had been overcharged and engineers had colluded on a commercial matter

From the IPENZ Code of Ethics Professionalism, Integrity and Competence: Members shall undertake their engineering activities with professionalism and integrity and shall work within their levels of competence. 2.11 Follow a recognised professional practice (model conditions of engagement are available) in communicating with your client on commercial matters.

This month, ANDREW CLARK, IPENZs Manager Ethics and Discipline looks at two commercial disputes with similar beginnings but quite different rulings.

An architect was commissioned by a client to design a residential home. The client made it clear that his budget was $400,000 and instructed the architect to obtain three building estimates.
The architect ignored those instructions however, and obtained a single estimate from a builder for $456,800. Although this was in excess of his initial budget the client agreed to proceed on the basis of the quote. He signed an Agreement for Architect Swervices with an assessed value of work of $450,000. But before construction could begin, the builder announced his retirement and withdrew his services. The architect sought an alternative quote from another builder, which came to a colossal $937,600. The client independently sought a third quote, which came back at $875,000. Obviously, both new quotes were well in excess of the original $400,000 budget and $456,800 estimate. The client laid a complaint with the New Zealand Registered Architects Board on the basis that he had relied upon the architects professional advice and that the architect should have been able to design a house within the budget. Shortly before the complaint was to appear before a disciplinary committee hearing, both parties advised the Board that a satisfactory monetary settlement had been made. The Board determined that there was no reason to proceed with the case. However, this case raises serious ethical concerns. The architect failed to communicate effectively and because of his conduct he lost control of the project. There was a significant issue with the informality of his office practices, and there was insufficient recording of critical stages of the process or whether important steps were carried out in a documented way. The estimated construction cost was well in excess of the complainants stated budget and the architect failed to obtain more than one estimate for the cost of construction, as was requested. As such the architect failed to recognise the clients financial limitations and design an affordable house.

CASE 2

there seemed to be little record of critical stages or whether important steps were carried out at all

LESSONS LEARNED?
Both complaints deal with costs being paid by the client, but the outcomes are completely different. In the first case, the engineers cost of services was ruled to be a commercial consideration and not an engineering activity, so there was no breach of the code of ethical conduct. In the second case however, although the case never reached a disciplinary hearing, the architect failed to maintain control the project and its costs, and thereby failed in his ethical obligation to his client. As engineers we must make sure our clients clearly understand the scope of their project, and make sure they are aware of all the fees their project will incur. If changes occur, as is often the case, then these must be mutually agreed and attached to the original signed agreement of engagement. Otherwise, a protracted dispute will be measured in your time, money and reputation.

Schools Update
She also worked with the Royal Society of New Zealand to develop science programmes that would spark students imaginations. Ive always found that gifted kids are incredibly different in their approach to things. When they learn, they dont go methodically from start to finish; they pick and choose the things that really work for them. I always made sure to include different kinds of thinking in my programmes the academic side, the hands-on approach, word games and puzzles. My new role is much the same thing. Its supporting childrens education, this time from a backseat, administrative position. I see the Schools Team as being part of a bigger machine to help make learning fun. Get Alongside a Careers Advisor IPENZ Members have the opportunity to promote their professions to students with the Get Alongside campaign. Launched in 2007, Get Alongside teams local engineers with school careers advisors. The campaign aims to provide students with the information they need to make informed career decisions. Almost 70 IPENZ Members already take part in Get Alongside and are working in schools around the country. They act as a source of information for the school and answer questions about the industry. With their help, students can see the possibilities of a career in engineering. To find out more, contact Fay at getalongside@ipenz.co.nz Publications Futureintech has launched two new publications for the upcoming careers season. Students will be able to match their favourite subjects to potential career paths with our careers poster. The poster lists a range of exciting jobs with their relevance to technology, maths, and science, helping students see the possibilities of the subjects they study. A brochure on biotechnology is also in the works for July. Students can learn more about this cutting-edge field, with career prospects in environmentalism, medical research, agriculture, and food science. For more information on these publications, contact Chris at writer-researcher@ futureintech.org.nz

New Staff This month the Schools Team welcomes Fay Duncan as our new Careers and Heritage Administrator. Fay will support our careers promotion activities, provide administrative assistance to the IPENZ Heritage Programme, and implement the Transpower Neighbourhood Engineers Awards. Fay spent the last 35 years as a teacher, mainly in primary schools. She spent about twenty of those years designing and matching programmes for gifted children.

Why I Want To Be an Engineer (and not a Doctor, or a Lawyer, or an Accountant)

WARWICK BISHOP FIPENZ, Trustee of the IPENZ Foundation and Foundation Scholarship judge notes how the scholarships, and school-leavers attitudes toward engineering, have changed.
There is an interesting pattern evolving in the applications from schoolleavers for the IPENZ Foundation Scholarships. This scheme, with the help of IPENZ Branches is now offering around four or five awards worth $5000 per annum and is entering its sixth year of operation. In the first couple of years there were only fifteen to twenty scholarship applicants per year, mainly boys, and mainly from the North Island. Selecting the two or three winners was a relatively simple task. Over the last couple of years the number of applicants has risen dramatically to almost 100 per year and aspiring candidates now come from all over the country. The proportion of female candidates has also risen to approximately one third of applicants. As the quantity of scholarship candidates increased, the quality of applicants improved as well. The academic records of most of these youngsters are absolutely brilliant. In 2007 there were 19 dux or proxime accessit applicants. Many others had maths, physics and science marks in international exams in the mid-90s. Many were involved in sports, arts, community work and relevant holiday jobs. Selecting winners from such a bright and focussed bunch has become a very difficult, time consuming and rewarding task. All IPENZ Foundation Scholarship seekers submit an essay on the topic Why I want to be an engineer. Quite a surprising proportion of these young folk openly admit to not having known what they wanted to do with their lives until they met a real engineer. Many youngsters among last years applicants suggested that it was a visit to an open day at a university, or an engineering company, that really helped them decide what career path to take. If they do not have a professional engineer in the family, they have had no engineering role models and no way to judge the profession prior to these visits. The largest impact on their decision-making process seems to come from meeting and hearing young professional engineers who visit their schools to talk about the working life of a real engineer the challenges and the rewards. These Ambassadors who are part of a Futureintech scheme are beginning to make a big difference to the number of young people interested in engineering. Rising enrolments in the engineering departments of many New Zealand universities bear this out. The impact of these ambassadorial visits to schools is obviously much wider than just those who end up applying for an IPENZ Foundation Scholarship. There is really no doubt that many of New Zealands brightest young minds are being attracted to professional engineering as a career. They see it as offering many rewarding ways to help their fellow citizens, to clean up the environment and to improve other peoples health and wealth. They also know it is a well-paid career, offering worldwide job opportunities. Interestingly, these youngsters often admit they also considered medicine, accounting or law but ruled them out once they realised what engineering offers and they compare the lifestyle and the opportunities. That is a big shift in school-leaver thinking in just a few years.

08

engineering dimension

Policy Release Sets Transport Straight

Transport is high on the list of issues facing New Zealand. Congestion, fuel prices, poor road safety and other transport woes have the potential to affect the lives of every person living in this country.
regime across all modes, so that users pay the true costs of travel, including externalities. In order to provide a framework for pricebased transport policies, New Zealand must find a suitable balance between each transport objective. Pricing will help to determine the appropriate emphasis between transport modes and our investment, and has the potential to reshape our funding mechanisms. But many questions about our transport system remain unanswered. We do not know what changes to society, trends in freight demand, and new technologies will mean for travel demand or vehicle developments. Recognising the important role engineers play in these and other transport issues, IPENZ, in association with the Transportation Group, has released a policy report that outlines the Institutions views and recommendations on transport. The document, entitled Transport Engineering the Way Forward, has received widespread television and radio coverage for the forward-thinking policies and strategies it promotes. What are the issues? New Zealand faces a number of major transport challenges. Our society remains reliant on cars and imported fossil fuels. Rising fuel costs are significantly increasing household expenditure and freight costs. Congestion in our major cities is affecting the economy, and is forecast to rise further as economic activity increases. Transport-related greenhouse gas emissions account for 18 per cent of New Zealands emissions and are forecast to increase by a further 40 per cent by 2040. Transport comprised 44 per cent of total consumer energy use in 2006. Until 2005, significant achievements were made in road safety but progress has since plateaued. Is What does IPENZ recommend? IPENZs position, as stated in Transport Engineering the Way Forward, promotes reducing the environmental and health impacts of transport by using a combination of new technology, pricing externalities and new road safety initiatives. Our key recommendations are as follows. Promote tolling initiatives and local road pricing, and, in the future, move to national electronic road pricing. Make greater use of public debt for major projects. Take advantage of opportunities for public- and private-debt financing of infrastructure by removing the current legislative impediments to publicprivate partnerships (PPPs), and providing guidance on best-practice application of PPPs. Analyse and research transport demand at the inter-regional and national levels, and the influence of future societal and environmental trends on demand. Upgrade the vehicle fleet by promoting new technologies and setting minimum fuel and greenhouse gas emission standards for a range of fuel systems. Develop a high-level national multimodal freight strategy that will link regions, forecast future demands and identify the best ways to meet these demands. Promote standards for improvements to freight vehicle efficiency and fuels, and evaluate the effect of introducing larger and heavier vehicles into the road freight fleet. Analyse where the best value for the road safety dollar might lie, and review the benefits relating to the value of life.

urban intensification desirable, is it effective in reducing demand, how long will it take, and do we have effective tools to promote it? What is the likely future impact of improved or breakthrough vehicle technologies on fuel efficiency, emission reductions and safety? Do we understand future freight demands and their impact on road, rail and coastal shipping, and the intermodal relationships? Are the key funding mechanisms (fuel excise tax and road user charges) appropriate for the future?

With increasing economic activity and demands for mobility, our society now faces constraints in our transport networks and the impacts on our economy, environment and society. These are serious issues that are compounded by major increases in fuel costs. New Zealands strategies to address these issues include technology uptake, behaviour change, demand management, promoting land-use changes, and promoting alternative modes walking, cycling and public transport. It has proven very difficult to bring about significant changes in behaviour through education, promotion and policy interventions. Alternative modes only account for a small proportion of travel, and can take long periods of time to be effective. The difficulties in changing behaviour, the modest contribution of other modes, and the long lag times lead IPENZ to the view that these mechanisms will not effectively resolve the transport issues facing New Zealand. We must move towards a comprehensive pricing

These issues raise some difficult questions about the future of transport in New Zealand. Will the increases in fuel costs significantly affect demand in the future is there a tipping point? Is it feasible to decouple economic growth from the adverse effects of transport growth? What is the realisable potential for public transport, walking and cycling to effectively contribute to congestion reduction and energy efficiency?

The complete Transport Engineering the Way Forward report is available at www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/media_comm/ documents/transport_policy.pdf

engineering dimension

09

IPENZ Members Receive Queens Birthday Honours

Distinguished Service Decoration (DSD) Captain MICHAEL PETER DE BOER GIPENZ, Corps of Royal New Zealand Engineers. For services to the New Zealand Defence Force. Michael served as Plans Officer, on secondment to the Australian Armys Timor Leste Battle Group 2 from June to October 2007. He was responsible for the planning of numerous operations in an environment characterised by constant change, limited information and a volatile strategic and political atmosphere. His professional competence saw him placed in command of a company-sized organisation of Australian forces, comprising infantry, engineers and numerous specialists, for a six-week period, and charged with containing growing violence and disorder in the notorious Viqueque district of Timor Leste. In addition to succeeding in all of his tactical objectives of containing the regional violence, he creatively employed all of his commands capabilities to effect a change in the local populations attitude, which then allowed operations conducted by the International Stabilisation Force to commence.

Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (DCNZM) PETER CHARLES MAIRE HonFIPENZ, of North Shore. For services to business. Peter is the founder and president of Navman New Zealand Ltd, a leading international manufacturer of marine electronics and global positioning technology, which he established in 1986. The company employs over 300 people worldwide and had an annual turnover of over $100 million in 2006. He is a member of the Foundation of Research, Science and Technologys NERF Advisory Panel and the Information and Communication Technology Taskforce. He was awarded the Trade NZ Supreme Exporter of the Year Award in 2002, the Westpac Hi-Tech Supreme Award for Excellence in 2002, and was made an Honorary Fellow of IPENZ in 2005.

Membership Changes to February 2008

The following is a list of additions to and changes in the classes of Membership for the period 1 March 2008 26 May 2008.
Elected to Graduate Member LC Abraham, JP Adams, JW Adamson, JH Ahn, U Ajmal, TJR Allan, JJ Allport, R Amigh, DJ Andrews, NSJ Anton, DT Ashby, FA Ayan, SE Ayre, Y Azuma, X Bai, E Balasubramaniyan, PL Beazley, TR Bellingham, JA Bhasin, S Bossaghzadeh, AB Bougher, ES Brunette, GR Bunn, GWF Burrett, ND Byron, Q Cai, N Campbell, M Chand, MW Chang, X Chang, NJ Charles, CJ Charleston, C Chen, Y Chen, CB Chetan, A Chopra, SJ Chowdhury, TC Cronin, MG Dalzell, ME Davies, RMI Dawwas, OR de Lautour, SM Dillon, RB Dudley, M Ebel, BS Ellison, F Feddo, BM Firme, MW Fleming, JP Fox, TU Ganiron Jr, BF Gebreselassie, AK Gibson, AM Gin, ST Glenny, FA Gondal, FA Hager, CM Haley, BL Halkett, TE Hassan, S Herath, CMM Ho, QG Ho, BJ Holliss, Q Hu, X Huang, CJW Hurst, GJ Hutchison, AG Inay, TW Irwin, GA Jack, SM Jayalath, PH Jenkins, JP Jensen, Y Jia, E Jim, CA Kelly, AI Kennedy, MI Khan, SJ King, JK Kongoi, ML Kully, AP Kumar, R Kumar, RD Kwan, A Lam, MS Lardies, F Latu, GS Layfield, HT Leikam, C Liu, D Llorando, JR Lloyd, GB Lowe, L Luceno, A Lukas, T Luo, HP Ly, N Ma, TM Mahar, R McCully, RJ McIntosh, RJ McLachlan, K Merry, NG Meyers, KW Miller, CJ Mills, A Milne, AAM Milne, R Mishra, M Mongia, WEL Moore, SC Morris, JW Morrison, ST Mowett, T Naidoo, V Naidoo, KA Newton, SA OHearn, AA Orchard, Y Ou Yang, A Padarath, WY Pang, M Parameshwaran, SD Pasley, BH Patel, JR Phillips, SD Pickford, JM Pointon, NN Pokasamrith, TM Porter, JJ Pring, ML Rafferty, BJ Ramanandi, SB Rankin, JM Rathnayaka, DE Reddy, ND Redekar, SF Reuther, GM Richardson, F Richter, M-K 10 engineering dimension Richter, TC Saddleton, MS Santos, R Saxena, KA Serpes, MTK Shaw, P Shekar, AM Shewring, J Sim, Rajnesh Singh, Rajinesh Singh, WS Sitana, DG Smith, DR Smith, RK Stevens, AF Stewart, P Stoeveken, ME Symons, SR Tailby, HI Tan, XT Tang, JWF Taylor, JM Teal, DR Tombleson, BH Tran, TP Vranjes, P Wadan, D Wang, Z Wang, TJ Watson, DM Wheatley, DT Wilson, F Wu, Y Wu, MJ Wulff, Y Xing, S Yang, NB Yannakis, L Zhang, Q Zhang, X Zhang, C Zhuang Elected to Professional Member WR Balsom, DR Bruce, MK Chowdhury, DJ Crichton, MCR Davies, CT Giles, IC Hills, HGJ Huang, J Islam, AF Koay, A Kumar, HA Madagammana, CJ McGregor, RJ McKinnon, A Menzies, KJ Miller, DN Ouwejan, JG Ralston, NA Shaw, KCG Tang, BJ Verhoeff Elected to Technical Member RE Bradbury, DJ Cairn, GDJ Neal Elected to Affiliate Member A Bowey, MJ Christensen, CSD Covacich, SR Mailer, TFB Marfleet, MV Mifrano, JE Peacock, IR Ranasinghe, P Rendle

Working on a Standards Committee

Committees on the basis that you represent the entire engineering profession, and the role is to bring a neutral best-practice engineering perspective to the committee. But when working on a Standards Committee, you are also bound by the IPENZ Code of Ethics, and have a duty to apply the code and the IPENZ ethical standards to your deliberations. As the nominating organisation, IPENZ has resources available to assist you in your role and can help you address any issues that may arise, or enable communication and debate on issues with the rest of the engineering profession. Support is also valuable when a Member feels they should not give ground on a matter for technical reasons. In this case you have an ethical duty to stand firm, and if you feel that the group is applying pressure then you can call on IPENZ for support. Occasionally IPENZ nominees comment that they find the workload has become too onerous. This may be due to a range of reasons. One frequent concern is that the Member feels he or she is carrying a disproportionate workload compared to the rest of the committee. This can occur because the IPENZ Member is the sole technical expert on a particular committee. If this is the case, you should discuss the issue with the Chair of the Standards Committee you sit on. If necessary, the Chair can raise the issue with the Standards New Zealand Project Manager. Nominees should also maintain a working relationship with IPENZ and provide feedback on an ongoing basis. IPENZ would like to know how the Standards Committee is operating, and is interested in any issues that may develop. A form is available for Members serving on a Standards Committee to fill in and forward to IPENZ National Office, at least once per year, even if it is a null report. Serving on a Standards New Zealand Committee can be a very rewarding task. It is an opportunity to contribute to the profession and society in general. For further information about serving on a Standards Committee, contact CAM SMART, Engineering Practice Manager at practicemanager@ipenz.org.nz or ANDREW CLARK, Manager Ethics and Discipline at ethics@ipenz.org.nz Further information is also available from the Standards New Zealand document entitled Committee Members, Their Roles and Responsibilities, which is available at http://spex.standards.co.nz/ guides/index.html

Standards New Zealand offers several opportunities to participate in their Standards Committees. As a Standards New Zealand Committee member you will: become familiar with a range of related standards expand and update your knowledge of legislation and regulations network, research and be party to the latest thinking in specialist technical areas collaborate with other experts, standards organisations, special interest groups and regulatory bodies use your professional judgement to evaluate information and opinions.

Standards development relies on collaboration and networking, and perhaps the most valuable aspect of the work is interacting with the different organisations and individuals that make up a committee membership. As an IPENZ Member, you are nominated to Standards

Telecommunication Engineer Dies

BRUCE HANDS FIPENZ, respected telecommunications engineer and administrator of Invercargills modern telephone network installation, died in May aged 87
Born in Wellington on 19 November 1920, Bruce Berghan Hands attended Wellington College from 193236, then went on to tertiary education, beginning his studies at Victoria University College in 1937. While there, he held various junior part-time engineering positions with the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Department. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1943. War interrupted his early engineering career and Bruce served for five months as a Radar Trainee with the Royal New Zealand Navy. Following the war, he returned to the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Department in 1950 to take a role as Telegraph Engineer. He was promoted quickly in the organisation and a year later he became Resident Engineer, and a few years after that, District Engineer at the now renamed New Zealand Post Office. Bruce spent 23 years as District Engineer at various locations around New Zealand, including 13 years in Invercargill. While there he took charge of the automation of the Invercargill telephone network installation, which at the time, was the largest automation project ever undertaken in New Zealand. engineering dimension 11 Bruces telecommunications expertise was extensive one of his telecommunications facilities even earning him a special acknowledgement from the Prime Minister. Following his retirement in 1977, Bruce continued to work as a management consultant for various local bodies in the West Coast and Nelson-Marlborough regions. He served IPENZ as Chairman of both the Southland and Nelson Branches, and gave a great deal of his time to community activities, serving as President of the Invercargill Rotary Club and other Nelson community groups.

Professional Development at Your Fingertips

With the new Professional Development Partner programme well under way, IPENZ is working to support employers as they design, implement and maintain professional development programmes for their staff. Employers now fully recognise continuing professional development (CPD) as an integral part of their organisations strategic plan. To ensure that CPD remains high on everyones agenda, we are offering employers the opportunity to access IPENZs online engineering calendar via an IPENZ icon on their intranet. By clicking on the icon, employers are taken to a search engine where they can look for a wide range of CPD events by location, skill category and delivery method (distance learning, public and in-house programmes). This means that by a simple click of the mouse, your employees will have a vast array of technical and essential skills courses to choose from at their fingertips! Tools like the IPENZ CPD icon not only save your human resources staff time but encourage all staff members to feed back any learning needs they may have, identify opportunities to enhance their professional development, and contribute towards your businesss performance. To take up this opportunity please contact the Professional Development Advisor at profdevadvisor@ipenz.org.nz or phone 04 474 8984.

IPENZ Professional Development Short Courses

July
Resource Management Act Hamilton 17 July Christchurch 23 July Leadership and Management Taupo 21 July Risk Analysis Auckland 29 July Technical Expert Chirstchurch 9 September Negotiating Skills Auckland 12 September Consultation and Engineers Chirstchurch 17 September Auckland 23 September Taupo 25 September Business Development Wellington 26 September

August
Report Writing Auckland 6 August Christchurch 27 August Negotiating Skills Hamilton 11 August Business Development Auckland 15 August Time and Priority Christchurch 7 August Auckland 26 August

VUW Practical Project Management Wellington 13 August Strategic Leadership Wellington 28 August Stakeholder Management Wellington 19 September Project Management Level 1 Wellington 22 September Time and Stress Management for the Office Wellington 25 September

Affiliated courses
NZWETA Principles and Trends of Wastewater Treatment Auckland 4 August Confined Space Training Course Auckland 6 August Hamilton 26 August Advanced Stormwater Design and Management Christchurch 12 August Water and Environmental Sampling Palmerston North 12 August Stormwater Management Auckland 27 August

September
Climate Change Wellington 3 September Christchurch 4 September Auckland 11 September Taupo 17 September Specification Practice Wellington 5 September

Express your interest

Traffic and Parking Forensic Engineering Technical Language and Writing Skills The Building Act 2004 Effective Communication and Relationship Management Urban Design

President Bas Walker president@ipenz.org.nz Deputy President Anthony Wilson deputy.president@ ipenz.org.nz Chief Executive Andrew Cleland 04 474 8935 ce@ipenz.org.nz

Managing Editor Nick Helm 04 474 9650 editor@ipenz.org.nz Design Manager Jade McCaig 04 474 8946 design@ipenz.org.nz Director Policy Tim Davin 04 493 2027 dir-pp@ipenz.org.nz

Director Engineering Charles Willmot 04 474 8932 dir-eng@ipenz.org.nz Director Learning and Assessment Brett Williams 04 474 8936 dir-la@ipenz.org.nz Director Schools Angela Christie 04 474 8981 dir-schools@ipenz.org.nz

Director Operations Susie McCutcheon 04 473 2029 dir-ops@ipenz.org.nz Registrar Jeff Wastney 04 474 8983 registrar@ipenz.org.nz Membership Enquiries Michele Boniface 04 474 8948 membership@ipenz.org.nz

National Office Ground Floor 158 The Terrace PO Box 12 241 Wellington 6144 New Zealand T 64 4 473 9444 F 64 4 474 8933 E ipenz@ipenz.org.nz W www.ipenz.org.nz

Official journal of The Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand Inc

12 engineering dimension