Engineering Faculties in Developing and Assessing Professional Competencies for Engineers in Australia

Engineering Faculties in Developing and Assessing Professional Competencies for Engineers in Australia Steven Goh University of Southern Queensland West Street, Toowoomba Queensland, Australia +61 746311446 steven.goh@usq.edu.au Frank Bullen University of Southern Queensland West Street, Toowoomba Queensland, Australia +61 746312527 frank.bullen@usq.edu.au ABSTRACT The paper argues for Australian engineering faculties to develop a structured mechanism that supports the current drive towards chartered (professional) status and national registration system in Australia. This paper outlines the initial proposition for a postgraduate program at the Master level to achieve chartered status for engineers and engineering managers. A roundtable gathering of representatives from industry, academia, and profession was organized and provided input in the form a SWOT analysis on the concept and rationale behind the proposition, and is presented in this paper. A refined model is then presented in this paper that outline pathways for achieving chartered status (stage 2 competencies) via an Engineering Master program. But also pathways via an Engineering Doctorate program to achieve Engineering Executive (EngExe) status, recognition for achieving stage 3 competencies for senior engineering managers; and potentially the proposed EngExe (Technical), recognition for achieving stage 3 competencies for technical specialist. This paper argues the case for engineering faculties to be active in the and assessment of engineers and engineering managers as part of the life-long learning approach that is demanded of modern professionals. 1. INTRODUCTION Engineers Australia (EA) [1] has established a national registration process for professional engineers. The National Engineering registration Board (NERB), which administers the national registration process, supervises the operation of National Registers to ensure the community is provided with the protection it is entitled to and expect in relation to work undertaken by those engineering practitioners registered [2]. However, fourteen different Acts and subordinate legislation regulate some engineering services in most states or territories. Queensland (QLD) is the only state that requires all engineers to be registered if offering or providing engineering services (registration commonly known as RPEQ, registered professional engineer of WEE2011, September 27-30, 2011, Lisbon, Portugal. Editors: Jorge Bernardino and José Carlos Quadrado. Queensland), and Western Australia is considering similar arrangements. In other states and territories, engineers generally operate under a self-regulatory system. International mutual recognition is an important expectation by members of EA. This mutual recognition does not extend beyond stage 1 competencies, or graduate engineer status. Engineers Australia argues that a national registration system that covers all states and territories is warranted to ensure that there is portability of the profession across jurisdictions and countries to bring efficiency to the system while making sure standards are protected [3]. This national approach for registration will help improve the professionalism, recognition and status of the engineering profession in Australia. This registration system will require professional engineers to be chartered (stage 2 competencies) and maintained with appropriate CPD (continuous professional ). The 2011 National President of Engineers Australia, Merv Lindsay [4] said recently, Becoming chartered must be embraced by our membership for registration to succeed. The assessment process must not consume or obscure the objective. I have questioned whether there are better ways to prove this competence; ways that put the gaining of the competence ahead of the process to prove it. Alternative processes are being explored, debated and tested. In the light of this push for national registration, it is prudent to examine the role of engineering faculties providing enabling pathways and learning journeys of current and future graduates to achieve chartered status (CPEng) or professional recognition in order to qualify for registration. The authors argue that a national and systematic approach to assisting engineering graduates to progress to chartered status and qualify for registration is required. This paper proposes engineering faculties can play a significant role in providing a holistic approach to enabling pathways for the, professional and educational of professional engineers and engineering managers, but also a mechanism to assess professional competencies for chartered status. The current environment and pathways available for graduates to progress to chartered status and its limitation in meeting future demands are discussed later in this paper. A national registration will require a nationally driven mechanism to enable it to progress graduates to chartered and thus registered. One such mechanism is the engineering faculties of universities that educate and supply the graduates to the profession. The structure of existing postgraduate programs can easily accommodate the requirements for professional 821

in the workplace required to achieve chartered status. It is also a great opportunity to instill clear and transparent life-long learning pathways for engineering professionals and managers as part of their objective to achieve registration. It may also be possible to include assessment of chartered status as part of the program if the institutions are adequately trained and appropriately accredited by the profession body, Engineers Australia to perform such role. 2. INITIAL PROPOSITION As engineering leaders continue to navigate their organizations around the global financial crisis (GFC) and sovereign debt crises, future engineers aspiring to management will need to rethink their learning journey and pathways to management to be better prepared to tackle a more regionalized, integrated, dynamic and crisis wary world [5][6][7][8][9]. This new world will provide hazards for even the most experienced managers, as regulatory and credit limitations are impacting on their engineering world. Engineering managers in the 21st Century must be prepared to operate in a very different environment to that of the 20th Century on which engineering management education is mostly based. In addition, the nature of the modern workplace in Australia has encouraged a number of engineering graduates to follow management paths early in their career. Anecdotally, it appears that there is a growing population of engineers seeking Chartered status with Engineers Australia. There has been recent in support programs such as the Engineering Education Australia (EEA) s Graduate Program in Engineering (GPE) to complement the Professional Program (PDP) to undertake the chartered status journey (EEA 2010). In addition, there is the EEA s Experienced Engineer Program (EEP) and the Engineering Leadership Program (ELP) specifically targeting existing and aspiring engineering managers [10]. Despite the introduction of these new support programs for engineering graduates, it may be perceived to be companyfocused rather than individual-focused because of the professional (PD) nature of the programs. There are some evidence to show that there is a decrease in the willingness of engineering employers to fund professional in recent years because of the GFC and the uncertainty that it presents, and the foreseeable slowdown once infrastructure stimulus are exhausted. This scenario means that costs of PD and staff mobility can be barriers to engineering graduates pursuing support for obtaining Chartered-status as individuals. More and more so, graduates are looking to official qualifications and structured lifelong learning journey. Professional master programs that address the, professional, and educational needs should fulfill this demand as part of the EA s requirement for Continuous Professional (CPD). Inspired by similar program developed by other profession such as accounting and law for attainment of professional status, the authors have proposed to the profession a postgraduate program to address a perceived market need. This is the subject of a Roundtable forum held in Brisbane on the 22 nd October 2010 with Engineers Australia and industry representatives. The outcome of the Roundtable is discussed in the next section. Based on Goh [5][6][7][8][9] the future environment requires engineering managers that are leaders who possess: Ability to nurture and lead an adaptive workforce; Ability to manage diversity and multiple-stakeholders: Genuine social and ethical attributes; Strong emotional intelligence; Strong intelligence leadership; Strong leadership in sustainability; Confidence in presence and abilities; Strong business and commercial acumens; and An in-depth knowledge of one s industry. From the attributes above, it is proposed that the learning journey start in the early years working as a graduate engineer in pursuit of their professional or chartered status. It should incorporate and integrate, professional and educational with close supervision by mentors, both within the industry and academia. It is possible to complete the learning journey in an intensive 3 year timeframe, but a more realistic 5 year timeframe is recommended as the step for most graduates to management starts generally after 6 years of work experience [7]. This learning journey is illustrated in the table 1. Refer to [11][12][13][14][15] for other relevant literature. Under the educational stream, it is proposed to embed principles such as Innovation, Leadership, Globalization and Sustainability, as part of the 21st Century Skills Set[5], into the engineering management curriculum infused within the, professional and educational framework. It is envisaged that the learning journey may involve short-term placements in another industry such as banking or the arts. Under the professional stream, the workplace becomes the classroom, and the classroom becomes the workplace. The former is where work-integrated and informal learning are recognized and captured for articulation; the latter is where the researchbased learning is part of the company s innovation or R&D program. These scenarios will be able to build-on in practice the necessary soft-skills but also develop rigor in intelligence. Under the stream, there is a case for selfdirected but collaborative peer-driven learning in a philanthropic environment where there is a melting pot of diverse profiles of participants but also of the recipients of the charitable work. The learning in these philanthropic environments will hopefully develop the ability to manage diversity and be adaptive, but also to develop empathy for social and environmental concerns. In conjunction with coaching/mentoring, these activities are conductive aids for developing integrity. Though the authors acknowledge that there are external accreditation drivers for an outcome-driven approach in engineering education, it is essential that academics and professional authorities reflect on and challenge existing paradigms. For example, what do we want prospective engineers to know about leadership and sustainability? Should they explore leadership and sustainability, determine what it means to them, and learn how to adapt and exercise it? Engineering educators will need to take a life-long learning perspective to their client, in this case, the aspiring engineering managers. This may require engineering educators to be retrained and reequipped to be able to coach and mentor and facilitate, professional and educational of individuals. A certification process or chartered status for accredited educators of this unique program may be introduced to 822

ensure the right people are helping to facilitate the learning of our aspiring engineering managers. This framework can be replicated for postgraduate engineering coursework programs with specialized technical contents. With the above framework and rationale in mind, a Roundtable forum/workshop was held as part of an engagement process with Engineers Australia and industry representatives in developing this proposition. 1 2 3 4 5 Table 1. A proposed learning journey for engineering management program Personal Personalized 360 degree evaluation to construct a plan; Coaching and mentoring provided Execute plan; this may include philanthropic activities or selfimprovement workshops along with other participants from other disciplines and/or professions Evaluation of progress in the plan; adjust or refine if required. Continue to execute plan Review and evaluate; Submit a portfolio of reflections Professional Be guided to plan for Stage 2 and/or Stage 3 competencies; identify strategic opportunities for professional ; Can be part of existing PDP or Graduate program Continue to record and evaluate career episodes reporting, and adjust learning plan if required. Should include a Work-Integrated Learning and short professional courses as part of the recognition of informal learning; Could include a research component as part of a workplace project. Submit Career Episode Report to EA for assessment Educational Be guided to plan a curriculum that best fit the organizational need; the suite of courses should consist of management, engineering, and business strands that have an overarching framework of 21 st Century Skills Set (Innovation, Leadership, Globalisation, Sustainability). Start small with 1 course per semester. Continue with the educational plan and complete 10 courses; Can be accelerated with residential schools or intensive coursework; Recognition of prior studies and articulation of short courses should be available. Multidisciplinary or multi-profession student cohort is desired. 3. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION The 1 day Roundtable forum was held on the 22 nd October 2010 in Brisbane (Capital city in the state of Queensland, Australia) and consisted of a number of engineering academics and educators, Engineers Australia representatives from its various committees and groups, Engineers Australia s national assessors (for chartered status), industry representatives from Australian Defence Force, energy and infrastructure providers, and a member of the QLD Professional Engineers Board (the board administer the Professional Engineers Act of QLD 2008 legislation on behalf of the QLD state government). At the start of the Roundtable forum, it was pointed out that it would be prudent to discuss the pathways for all engineers and not just for aspiring engineering managers. The thesis for the forum was quickly changed accordingly, and further discussions were based on the ability of Universities to meet the market needs for postgraduate engineering education and. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, feasibility, and curriculum content analysis were performed by the participants of the forum and these are documented in the following tables (Table 2,3,4). Strengths Table 2. SWOT Analysis Strengths and Weaknesses Industry will support decent propositions Ability to accept and Initiate change Adopting different learning requirements Quality of academic staff Availability of mature teaching staff with industry experience Activities coordinated in conjunction with EA Professional for academics Delivery of Stage 2 Competencies Utilization of assessment processes Establish mentoring programs USQ flexible entry and articulation structures USQ distance education Weaknesses Skills shortage within the industry and academia Low student retention Lack of academic staff with significant industry experience Market lacks definition Fragmentation of Industry Disparity within university funding arrangements Alignment of professional to organizations goals Need for research Too many masters degrees Conflicting interests between the industry and universities Engineering academics are not trained as educators Academics are removed from practice Mentoring gap According to the Roundtable, the strengths for such a offering (, professional, and educational of engineers with the aim of meeting Stage 2 competencies) in the postgraduate arena are that the platform, capability and capacity of universities to supply this market need is available or readily and easily developed, and that the willingness of industry to not only support it, but there is a willingness to fund the s of such programs. The weaknesses are that there is congestivity and fragmentation of the postgraduate education market from not only universities but from private providers. There is also criticism of the growing nexus between academia and practice, and indication that universities are not the natural owners of such postgraduate programs (because of the perception in the lack of professional experience in academic staff profile). There are also key questions on the professionalism of engineering educators (in particular relating to continuous professional ). There is also the evidence that the 823

most relevant learning occurs in the workplace, and an argument that such a program will have to be aligned with organizational goals and objectives. Hence, a customized and flexible framework for delivery is needed specifically to cater for the engineering profession in Australia. According to the Roundtable, the opportunities for such an offering are that there is a market driven need from graduates and overseas-trained engineers. The Roundtable also foresee an excellent opportunity for the profession and academia to interact and collaborate more than ever, thus bridging the divide between the two entities. There are also residual benefits for the graduates in the form of a clear and transparent pathway to chartered status and recognition of their respective learning journeys. In addition, this program may be potentially funded federally and accredited by Engineers Australia. The threats to such a postgraduate offering are related somewhat to the possibility of a reduction in quality and ethical expectation of chartered engineers graduating from this program, and the assessment standards and processes that administrate it (currently only accredited National Assessors from Engineers Australia are allowed to assess Stage 2 competencies). Again, the Roundtable had doubts over competencies, ability and lack of industry experience of engineering academics in delivering such a program. Table 2. SWOT Analysis Opportunities and Threats Opportunities The need for postgraduate engineering education Training, education and professional of students from overseas Opportunity for academics to have sabbatical in the industry and vice versa Recruitment process for PhD or CPEng RTS funding model for Engineering Doctorates EA involvement and interaction with universities Recognition of qualification within the workplace. EA accreditation Fundamental change in attitude to CPD CPD and mentoring as part of program Training for academics from EA assessors Exchange between assessors and academics Use of technologies in education Teach sustainability and ethics Linked with engineering team recruitment Integrated approach in a future context Threats Cultural Integration Australian ethical need to be upheld Number of Chinese and Indian engineers Universities will begin to deliver training rather than education Lack of consistency of assessments Variability of the benchmark and base skill levels Breadth of experience within academics Pressures of the global workforces According to the Roundtable, the feasibility analysis (as shown in Table 3) of such a postgraduate offering indicated that the program concept should be developed further within a Stage 2 competencies requirements (rather than the Stage 2 and/or Stage 3 as initially proposed). The authors argued that removing the Stage 3 competencies as part of the storming and norming process during the Roundtable discussion is more of the time constraint issue as participants still regarded as important. However, there was also inadequate traction in adopting Stage 3 competencies within the Engineers Australia s community, the lack of understanding and relevance of Stage 3 in the professional recognition, hence, the reluctance to include it in the Roundtable discussions. A generic structure and curriculum for the program is recommended to cater for the broad engineering sector (which involves the core civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical disciplines as well as other disciplines such as materials, biomedical, environmental, mining, etc). The Roundtable also explored the extensive use of Problem or Project-based learning in the program, and the role of strategic industry and university partnerships in the provision of the program for maximising learning impact, ease of access and delivery, utilization of industry and academic experts and resources. There were a number of driving forces that will encourage the enrolment of such a program; industry demand for quality postgraduate education and training, knowledge and skill gaps, professional registration, global standardization and mobility, and workintegrated learning. Barriers may include the traditional view to program that encourage course compartmentalization, lack of senior management support in industry, ignorance of the professional requirements, inadequate pool of qualified educators to mentor, and the role of Engineers Australia to accredit the program (and potentially engineering educators). Scope/Parameters Table 3. Feasibility Analysis Stage 3 excluded A generic program Use of PBL Possibilities of a multi-institutional model of strategic partners within industry Driving Forces Barriers Industry forces Skills shortage Marketing of CPEng and RPEQ and other certifications Individuals for career advancement Lack of local engineering input of global standards Need for distance education Knowledge gap Course compartmentalisation (i.e. Knowledge/skills learnt in one course are not carried through to subsequent courses) Senior management Need for Engineers Australia s accreditation Willingness to mentor CPD seen as chore, not requirement Ignorance of requirement According to the Roundtable, the curriculum content Analysis (as shown in Table 4) of such a postgraduate offering indicated that the need for a holistic approach to the learning journeys of engineers or engineering managers is very apparent. Personal, professional, and educational should be approached as an integrated program rather than in isolation or approached separately. Within the sphere, leadership (and mentoring), inter and communication skills were heavily emphasized and the Roundtable noted the changing nature of the engineering skills requirement (requiring both soft and hard skills to work within the engineering 824

team). It is quite evidenced that from the discussion further technical training (and/or education) is seen as not just desirable but essential to be effective as professional engineers and engineering managers. Professional was viewed as mostly on-the-job training and recognition of work-integrated learning; these include presentation and writing skills, cultural and intergenerational awareness, project and risk management, sustainability and ethics, and pathways to chartered status and registration. The educational discussion is somewhat interesting in that the fundamental business studies and training were important, but hard technical engineering content (more so, to be technically updated and relevant) were seen as critical to of the engineer and engineering manager. It is also quite interesting to note the suggestion from the panel that academic and/or industry research can play a major part in both professional and educational (given that majority of the participants were from industry). The thinking in this approach is that if academic and/or industry research were targeted and focused, and sufficiently aligned with industry objectives and the individual s learning journey, it will be highly valued within this holistic framework. Personal Table 4. Curriculum Content Analysis Leadership Communication skills Negotiation skills Conflict resolution Group dynamics Career planning (within the first 12 months of program) Leadership coaching and mentoring Inter skills using electronic media Life-long learning Job Rotation C3 Stage 2 Professional Getting charted status (registration) Report writing CER and PDP Presentation skills Research Management (Knowledge Transfer) Time management Cultural awareness Intergenerational awareness Project management Risk management Meeting protocol Ethics Understanding of sustainability Research (Stage 2) Networking skills Educational Accounting Contract Law Fundamentals of MBA Economics Design and design research Simulated work environments Hard technical knowledge Practical work using role play Client relationships 4. REFINED PROPOSITION From the discussions in the Roundtable, the initial proposition is further refined and is discussed in this section. There are overwhelming supports for a transparent and structured for engineers and engineering managers. There are however slightly diverse views on how to achieve it; in that some believe that universities are incapable of facilitating and professional, and even with educational, engineering educators failed to teach curriculum that are industry relevant. Perhaps this is due to the historical divide that exists between academia and industry in Australia. The authors argued that this program would be an opportunity to test this hypothesis and actively intervening to bridge this divide. Bridging practice and academia is a question of mobility between the two sectors; in that, once you taken one respective path such as academia, it is very difficult for individual engineer to shift their professional role into industry practice. It is interesting to note that research was viewed as important in the professional and educational ; perhaps this training need in research is the elixir to bridging this divide. If there is an engineering doctorial recognition, which addresses Stage 3 competencies (whether in management or technical competencies), this could provide the mobility to move between the two respective sectors; industry vs academia. This can be a continuation of a structured and transparent learning journey after Stage 2 competencies have been addressed. A structured and transparent process for recognizing Stage 2 and Stage 3 competencies will provide engineering graduates with clearer options for their career paths and certainty for employers on the quality and expectation of postgraduate training and education. One may also argued that this certainty and transparency may result in better retention of practicing engineers within the profession, and better mobility will mean more efficiency in utilization of engineering skills. A refined model for the learning journey of engineers and engineering managers (and may include potential engineering academics) is separated into the respective Stage 2, Stage 3 (technical) and Stage 3 (management) competencies; this has resulted in clearer allocation of key learning objectives and methods in the proposition. The basis for the holistic approach (, professional and educational ) does not change, and is still the primary driver for the structured learning. Opportunity to have Engineers Australia accredited engineering educators and external competencies assessors to input and mentor in the structured learning should be examined further. This is perhaps the most contentious issue arising from the Roundtable. This refined journey is illustrated in Table 5 in the next page. 5. CONCLUSION Engineers Australia argued that a national registration system that covers all states and territories is warranted to ensure that there is portability of the profession across jurisdictions and countries to bring efficiency to the system while making sure standards are protected. This national approach for registration will help improve the professionalism, recognition and status of the engineering profession in Australia. This registration system will require professional engineers to be chartered (stage 2 competencies) and maintained with appropriate CPD (continuous professional ). In the light of this push for national 825

registration, it is only prudent to examine the role of engineering faculties providing enabling pathways and learning journeys of current and future graduates to achieve chartered status (professional status) in order to qualify for registration. Engineers or Leadership program engineering, and business strands Table 5. A refined proposal for learning journey of engineers 1 2 3 4 5 Personal Self-evaluation to construct a career plan; Coaching and mentoring provided Execute career plan; this may include philanthropic activities or selfimprovement workshops along with other participants from other disciplines and/or professions Evaluation of progress in the plan; adjust or refine if required. Continue to execute plan Review and evaluate; Submit a portfolio of reflections Professional Be guided to plan for Stage 2 competencies; identify strategic opportunities for professional ; Can be part of existing EA s PDP or Graduate program Continue to record and evaluate Career Episodes Reporting (CER), and adjust learning plan if required. Should include a Work- Integrated Learning and short professional courses as part of the recognition of informal learning; Option to include a minor research component as part of a workplace project Submit Career Episode Report (CER) to EA for assessment Educational Be guided to plan a curriculum that best fit the organizational need and to complement Stage 2 competencies; the suite of courses can be selected from management, engineering, and business strands Continue with the educational plan and complete 10 courses; Can be accelerated with residential schools or intensive coursework; Recognition of prior studies and articulation of short courses should be available. Multi-disciplinary student cohort is desired. Achieve CPEng (chartered or professional status) once CER is assessed and passed. In addition, achieve master qualification once assessments of 10 courses are satisfactorily passed. 6 (ED) Personalised 360 degree evaluation to construct a plan; Coaching and mentoring provided Be guided to plan for Stage 3 competencies (technical or management); identify strategic opportunities for professional ; Can be part of existing EA s Experienced Be guided to plan a curriculum that best fit the organizational need, and to complement Stage 3 competencies (management vs technical); the suite of courses can be selected from management, 7 8 Execute plan; this may include philanthropic activities or selfimprovement workshops along with other participants from other disciplines and/or professions; Review and evaluate; Submit a portfolio of reflections Continue to record and evaluate Career Achievement Reporting (CAR), and adjust learning plan if required. Should include a Work- Integrated Learning and short professional courses as part of the recognition of informal learning; Should include a significant research component as part of a workplace project or academic research project Submit Career Achievement Report (CAR) to EA for assessment; Submit Doctorial Dissertation for examination Continue with the educational plan and complete 6 courses; Can be accelerated with residential schools or intensive coursework; Recognition of prior studies, research achievements and articulation of short courses should be available. Multi-profession exposure and senior leadership exposure are desired. Achieve EngExe (engineering executive status) once CAR is assessed and passed. In addition, achieve doctoral qualification once dissertation is examined and passed, and assessments of 6 courses are satisfactorily passed. EA = Engineers Australia (Institute of Engineers Australia) EM = Engineering Master ED = Engineering Doctorate This paper proposed a possible model for a national and systematic pathway for engineering graduates to progress to chartered status (Stage 2 competencies; qualify for registration), and also, to gain further recognition in terms of Stage 3 competencies (management) and stage 3 competencies (technical). By recognizing stage 3 competencies with an Engineering Doctorate, this will ensure portability of recognition between engineering practice and academia; bridging the divide gap between the two entities in terms of the recruiting pool of potential engineering academics and professionals. This paper proposed that engineering faculties can play a significant role in providing a holistic approach to enabling pathways for the, professional and educational of professional engineers and engineering managers, but also a mechanism to assess professional competencies for chartered status. The current environment and pathways available 826

for graduates to progress to chartered status and its limitation in meeting future demands are discussed. A national registration will require a nationally driven mechanism. One such mechanism is the engineering faculties of universities that educate and supply the graduates to the profession. Engineering faculties in Australia are well equipped and have the platform, capability and capacity to administer and deliver such a mechanism. The structure of existing postgraduate programs can easily accommodate the requirements for professional in the workplace required to achieve chartered status and further recognition. It is also a great opportunity to instill clear and transparent life-long learning pathways for engineering academics, professionals and managers as part of their objective to achieve registration. It may also be possible to include assessment of chartered status as part of the program if the institutions are adequately trained and appropriately accredited by the profession body, Engineers Australia to perform such role. 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the other members of the Master of Professional Engineering Management Team; Dr David Thorpe, Dr Ian Craig, Dr Brad Carter, Mr Bob Fulcher, Mr Trevor Drysdale and Mr Graham Proud; and the invaluable input from Engineers Australia and industry representatives who participated in the Roundtable Session. REFERENCES [1] Engineers Australia. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2011 from http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/ [2] National Engineering Registration Board. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2011 from http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/ieaust/index.cfm?634d DF0F-9DF4-2ABD-A903-C846B25E5A13 [3] Bevan, M., National registration proposed legislation explained, Engineers Australia Journal, Vol83, No.2, Feb 2011, p45. [4] Lindsay, M., Charted status protects both community and the profession, Engineers Australia Journal, Vol83, No.4, April 2011, p3. [5] Goh, S. and Jokic, M. A New Engineering Management Master to address the, professional and educational needs of engineering graduates to achieve EA chartered status. In Proceedings of the 2010 AaeE Conference (Sydney, Australia, Dec 5-8, 2010). [6] Goh, S & Bullen, F, Engineering Management Education Post GFC and Copenhagen: Are we on the right track?, In Proceedings of the 40th ASEE/IEEE Frontier in Education Conference (Washington DC, Oct 27-30, 2010). [7] Goh, S., Coaker, W. & Bullen, F., Management Education for the 2020 Engineering Manager: An Australian Perspective, In Proceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (Saratogo Springs, New York State, US, Oct 22-25, 2008). [8] Goh, S., A New Paradigm in Management Education for Engineers in the 21st Century: A Proposal for Reform, In 2008 Engineering Leadership Conference (Perth, September 11-12, 2008). [9] Goh, S., 2020 Vision and its implications for Engineering Management Education. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (Melbourne, December 9-12, 2007). [10] EEA, Engineering Education Australia, Melbourne Australia, Accessed at http://www.eeaust.com.au/ on the 11th July 2010. [11] King, R. (2008) Addressing the Supply and Quality of Engineering Graduate for the New Century, A scoping report by the Australian Council of Engineering Deans for the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. [12] National Academy of Engineering (2004) The engineer of the 2020: visions of engineering in the new century, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. [13] National Academy of Engineering (2005) Educating the engineers of the 2020: adapting engineering education to the new century, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. [14] National Science Board (2007) Moving forward to improve engineering education, National Science Foundation, Virginia, US. [15] Royal Academy of Engineering (2007) Educating engineers for the 21st century, Royal Academy of Engineering, London. 827