by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Project Manager : Project Manager Apr May 2013
32 Project Manager THE ENGINEERING INDUSTRY'S NEW performance strategy promises to improve talent management, innovation and risk management. "Professional Performance, Innovation and Risk (PPIR), the Warren Centre initiative involving AIPM and Engineers Australia (EA) among others, grew out of concerns that engineering practice was being sti ed by the lack of innovation and absence of calculated risk-taking behaviours by practising engineers, explains Ted Tooher, AIPM Life Fellow and Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Sydney. " is lack of innovation and risk avoidance was, and still is, driven by widespread belief that any activity that did not fall within a standard approach or accepted practice could leave practitioners liable for damages or negligence. "Widespread concern among leaders in the engineering profession led to a belief that what constitutes accepted practice should be rede ned to include obligations to innovate and guidelines about how to take calculated risk." Why the industry needs structure Industry risk management is often not guided by what is best for risk management, but by outsourcing risk and poor risk allocation. "There was a lack of clarity in the procurement process because it was dominated by a legal and accounting framework, rather than an engineering framework," explains PPIR Director Christine Kanellakis. Unrealistic community expectations are believed to have created a culture that impedes innovation in the industry. According to Kanellakis, the "anti-risk attitude" of society is in uencing the government and in uencing the sort of work that is being procured, adding to issues Protocol for performance Defining performance at an individual level will help build stronger teams and improve project outcomes. BRIANA EVERETT surrounding liability of engineers and insurance. ese issues sparked the rst phase of the PPIR project in 2007 when it became clear that a strategy was needed. Members of the industry called upon the help of the Warren Centre to create a strategy. After the launch of the PPIR report in 2009, the implementation of the strategy began. "In 2010 we kicked o the implementation project, which is to take that broad strategy in the report and make concrete changes," says Kanellakis, who became involved in the project in its initial phase. At the core of these concrete changes is the PPIR Protocol. A concise, two-page document, the PPIR Protocol de nes an expected level of performance at an individual level. e wider strategy also outlines the roles and obligations of all parties and stakeholders involved in an engineering task. "[ e profession] needed to get a real understanding of how a professional engineer undertakes their task to deliver the nal agreed outcome. So, how do you perform your job from the individual level all the way up to the top?" asks Kanellakis. "We needed to clearly de ne that so everyone understands what their roles and obligations are." The PPIR Protocol provides eight elements of performance against which performance and ultimately the duty and standard of care of an engineer can be assessed: contract, task management, innovation, risk, public interest, competence, the engineering task and stakeholders. " e engineering industry was focusing on technical ability at university and in training, which is necessary" explains Kanellakis. "But to actually perform your job properly, it's not UNREALISTIC COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS HAVE CREATED A CULTURE THAT IMPEDES INNOVATION IN THE INDUSTRY
Project Manager Feb Mar 2013
Project Manager June July 2013