Ministry of Forests and Range (MFR)
Engineering Roles and Responsibilities
Review Team (ERRRT)
Conference Call Minutes
February 5, 2008
ERRRT Mission Statement:
“Engineering the future by building on the past.”
Facilitated and prepared by: Recalibrate.com
February 5, 2008 ERRRT Conference Call Minutes & Actions Call began at 10:30 am
Attendees:
Les Thiessen Knut Herzog RosaAnne Howell Dan Robek
Andrew Davies Brent Case Brian Chow Josh Pressey Gene MacInnes Dave Rebagliati
Rick Hardy (regrets) Facilitators: John Mallett & Lisa Mallett
1. Confirmed agenda (John Mallett to manage the call on behalf of Les Thiessen, ERRRT Chair).
2. Reviewed and approved ERRRT Meeting 5 January 2008 Minutes & Executive Summary.
3. Updated ERRRT on Feb. 1st Steering Committee conference call (attended by facilitators, Les Thiessen and Brent Case). Main points include:
OLT expects a report from ERRRT following meeting #6, and before the ERRRT’s draft report goes to the Community of Practice at the Provincial Engineering Meeting (PEM). (It has since been organized by Vern Quaroni that ERRRT Chair Les Thiessen will present to OLT on February 20th, supported by John Mallett). Following PEM, the ERRRT draft report will get broader circulation in MFR for input and feedback, e.g., via distribution to District Managers for their review.
Due to the expectations for broader circulation in MFR, ERRRT was asked to schedule another meeting (beyond the PEM) in order to incorporate the rest of the feedback and finalize its report. The final ERRRT meeting is scheduled for March 26 and 27, 2008 in Richmond, BC (likely the Best Western Richmond Inn).
The need for ERRRT to fully develop and articulate the aspects of
“knowledgeable owner” and what constitutes the “practice of engineering” (B. Chow has lead).
Continuing to work with BCTS re: collaborating on managing participation in the ERRRT segment of the Provincial Engineering Meeting (PEM) on February 28th.
The need for ERRRT’s draft models to be built with a BCTS support component (i.e., build models that show what the structure/services would look like both with and without a BCTS support component). Looking at a BCTS fee for service from Ops Div model was briefly discussed; apparently is problematic – would be better to make a service centre dedicated to BCTS. In summary, all ERRRT models will include a version that considers BCTS.
Need to add the issue of BCTS to the February ERRRT meeting agenda – to articulate current issues and figure out how to make things work better
corporately.
ERRRT facilitators shared with the Steering Committee some of the themes arising from ERRRT’s work to date. For example, of significant concern to the Engineering Program is the “erosion” of the “professional pool” of engineers, due not only to difficulties in recruitment, but also due to ministry managers selecting RPFs for designated LSO3 and
LSO4 engineering positions (Note: this issue arises in varying degrees around the Coast and Northern Interior Forest Regions and at Branch, whereas the Southern Interior Forest Region seems to manage in ways that have been more successful in preserving the engineering focus and function).
This led to a more detailed discussion on the ERRRT conference call, and a summary of related issues follows:
Current functions and activities (and who is “technically” responsible/accountable for carrying out those activities) within BA5 are well documented and articulated. In fact, upon detailed review by ERRRT, there are few activities currently within the BA that are considered expendable. Rather, ERRRT has determined there are functions/activities that need to be added to the BA, due to new initiatives and the fact that there is an overall decrease in forest industry road use/capacity across the road network.
Specific roles and responsibilities (as documented within current job descriptions and policies and processes) are believed to be well articulated and cover current and most future roles (other than newly created activities within the RRA and Safety File). However, even though the functions, activities and roles and responsibilities are known and documented, there seems to be a lack of focus/clarity/understanding on what the MFR engineering program’s overall purpose and role within the organization and government is. This lack of focus/clarity/understanding seems to have created a tension within the engineering community of practice.
Specifically, tension has been created because the fulfillment of those engineering functions, activities, as well as program and individual
responsibilities, are heavily impacted by inconsistent personal preferences of the staff, and various management influences/prerogatives respecting the handling of competing priorities and funding pressures. Those influences have led to a systemic lack of rigor with regard to carrying out individual and program roles and responsibilities, policies and processes within engineering.
Some within the engineering community of practice believe the lack of rigor described above comes from a misunderstanding of the inherent risks and
responsibilities entailed in the discipline and practice of engineering and, as such, MFR is no longer an engineering “knowledgeable owner” (at
districts/regions/branch/BCTS) or, at the very least, is losing its credibility in this area.
Within the engineering community of practice there is felt to be a lack of clarity and understanding of engineering practices/risks throughout ministry. This lack of clarity and understanding has created a systemic problem that requires a refocusing of the engineering program. Some of the issues include:
o Regions converting LSO 4 positions (Regional Engineering Officer) to foresters.
o District managers filling RO Engineering positions with staff lacking engineering training, experience and competencies.
o District managers requesting RO positions carry out non engineering activities. (In areas where there may not be a full engineering workload, this is likely to simply ensure full employment/use of staff. However, it occurs even where there is a full engineering workload; engineering staff as seen as capable and tend to get assigned to unrelated tasks, activities
and responsibilities that detract from the program’s focus and purpose, and which do not use the staff members’ specific expertise. Over time, this dilutes the engineering program focus and impacts staff job
satisfaction.
o Apparent lack of motivation/innovation to find ways to share engineering expertise/workload between regions (e.g. to deal better with the point above).
o Lack of capacity/flexibility to take on new engineering initiatives or respond to workload spikes.
o Inconsistent use of specialized engineering expertise among regions.
o Inconsistent support of BCTS program among regions.
o Inconsistent training/mentoring opportunities among engineering staff.
o Inconsistent application of engineering manual/practices due to
regional/district/BCTS priorities and lack of motivation to audit/monitor.
o RFT implementation not properly considering engineering technologist recruitment and retention of staff issues.
o Lack of career opportunities for technical and professional staff wishing to remain in engineering.
o Lack of recognition (compensation) for P. Engs with senior/expert
engineering knowledge due to current regional structure (e.g. one LSO 4 per region for engineering - generalist), whereas regional forester
positions are specialized, allowing for more than one LSO 4 position for Foresters (e.g., silviculture, timber, planning, C&E etc.).
4. Update to ERRRT on latest discussions with BCTS re: the PEM on Feb. 28th.
Based on discussions with BCTS, and BCTS concerns that they need at least 1.5 hours for meeting on their own on the afternoon of Feb. 28th to discuss BCTS-specific business, the facilitators and Brian Chow suggested the 3 hour ERRRT segment on Feb. 28th be conducted as follows (to maximize inclusion of the engineering Community of Practice to the greatest extent possible):
1:00 to 2:30 – ERRRT overview of background, project impetus, the various drivers of change and the analytical “lenses” applied, and a presentation/explanation of the draft options and recommendations.
2:30 – 2:50 – Coffee break and room changeover, during which time BCTS has coffee and breaks off into its own session, and the rest of the participants have coffee, and we get ready for the ERRRT break out group discussions to answer questions/concerns and gather specific feedback/input.
2:50 – 4:30 – Community of Practice (minus BCTS) engages in ERRRT
workshop/feedback session. BCTS conducts its own separate business meeting.
BCTS leadership has been asked to advise ERRRT how they may wish to communicate the purpose/level of involvement of BCTS at the ERRRT segment of the PEM, as BCTS staff will not be participating in the feedback session due to their separate meeting.
NOTE: ERRRT wishes to encourage MFR Operations Managers to attend the PEM
and most specifically the February 28th ERRRT segment at PEM as the topic will
be of interest and relevance to them.
5. Task List Review
Reviewed task assignment list and confirmed with ERRRT members what they needed to prepare and bring to the next meeting (mainly be prepared for working on their costing spreadsheets and discussing the Auditor General’s and Ombudsman’s reports).
6. Next Meeting
Confirmed next ERRRT meeting is February 12 – 14, 2008, Skyview Pavilion at the Executive Airport Plaza.
