This following bit of information is my opinion only and expressed here to simply share my point of view. I have written about affiliations before and this is simply an example for each of us to contemplate. I feel the initial reasons are irrelevant at this time but the results are worth much consideration.

During the last decade Alberta eliminated the Building Operator CC category, of which there were two, “A” and “B”. The Building Operator “B” CC was combined with the Fireman CC to form the current Fifth Class CC, thus eliminating the Fireman and BO”B” CC’s. The Building Operator “A” CC was combined with the “Old” Fourth Class CC to form the “New” Fourth Class CC, thus eliminating the “Old” Fourth Class and BO”A” CC’s. The change in the regulations also allowed that those holding the former CC’s could maintain them by simply paying their annual renewal fees.

A comparison I would make here is this. Imagine if the Carpenters and the Plumbers were amalgamated to form the “Construction Workers”. It seems to me the result might be some confusion, especially for some young person interested in making a career in Carpentry or Plumbing. I, as a Power Engineer, have never worked in the “Building Operator” realm as we formerly called it, and I have much respect for the responsibilities placed on those in charge of today’s high rise office towers and other such edifices. These people are, in my opinion, a “specialized” group of “Power Engineers” as we are now to refer them as, rather than “Building Operators”. My opinion here is that there could be a “commercial” and an “industrial” aspect to Power Engineering. I must admit that during my career I viewed a Building Operator as being relative to Power Engineering but a “specialized” facet of the profession.

Relative to this, not all jurisdictions have CC’s relative to Building Operations such as Alberta previously had. Perhaps this was a reason for the changes that were made but as I aforementioned, no matter. However, I feel some adjustments must be made, and this should be considered on a “National” basis. So how does one go about making these adjustments?

Currently Power Engineers are governed Nationally via IPECC, SOPEEC, and the ACI. These bodies receive information from each of the 13 “jurisdictions” across the country. Aside from the governing aspect, the only “National” organizations for Power Engineers that I can find are the CUOE, IUOE, and the IPE, not all of whom have membership in each of the 13 jurisdictions, according to my sources. For example, there is not an IPE “Branch” in each of the 13 aforementioned. But there is also a “National” body for the Building Operators, the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and it appears to have better jurisdictional representation than our own Institute. If I were working in the Building Operator realm of Power Engineering, it would be this organization I would turn to for support. I would also look closely at the IPE for additional support, since my CC states “Power” Engineer. (This term incidentally, is not a “National” term in my opinion, since “Stationary” and “Operating” are still in use in some documents, texts, jurisdictions, organizations, etc.)

I joined the IPE in 1972 and when the changes were made in the last decade I made a decision to join the Calgary Building Operators’ Association (BOA) which is Municipal rather than Provincial or National. And this past year I have taken part in discussions relative to these changes. I have listened and I have been listened to. And I have admired the respect that is and continues to be shown at these sessions. And the problems presented are greater than I imagined. I have committed to alleviating them and believe that what my fellow BOA members have accomplished thus far and what we intend to accomplish in due time is for the benefit of “Power” Engineers nationally who work in the Building Operations sector.

Our BOA view is this: Develop a method of evaluating workers such that their competency can be verified and that it is fair and just. It must also meet and/or exceed the requirements of the jurisdictional body. In addition, it must make the realm of Building Operations attractive to those embarking on a career, such as graduates or pregraduating students, etc. We believe that our National affiliate, BOMA, be active in ensuring compliance with jurisdictional as well as “customer” aspect of the program on a National basis. Thus far they have indicated their realization of needs and willingness to take part in, and support, our endeavour. They have representation at each of our meetings and respectfully contribute.

Currently we have developed a plan that indicates there should be four, perhaps five, “levels” of Building Operations. To attain each level would require a time factor, an academic (course) factor, and a competency factor. Each of these would be “regulated” or “verified” by BOMA before an individual would move to the following level. At the end of a pertinent level, the individual would have to comply with jurisdictional compliance by obtaining the applicable CC as per the jurisdictional regulation(s). For Alberta, the CC’s of concern are Fifth Class Power Engineer and Fourth Class Power Engineer. (Some facilities may allow for Third Class but boiler pressures and/or capacities tend to nullify this.) For example, a person entering at Level 1 would be given up to 12 months to complete the course and competencies and then obtain his Fifth Class CC. The Regs stipulate “...course + 6 months...”. If successful, the person would then enter Level 2, complete the course and competencies within 12 months, then enter Level 3. In this level, course and competencies would be completed in another 12 month period and the Fourth Class CC obtained. Levels 4 and/or 5 would entail studies and training leading to Administration and Management positions. If our plans reach fruition then, Fifth Class after 12 months of study/training and Fourth Class after 36 months study/training. Third Class may be possible after Level 4 or 5. We believe this “commercial” rather than “industrial” class of “Power” Engineer would be a fair and just system for an employee to learn all the pertinent aspects of high rise towers, apartments, etc.

In summary, it is my belief that the IPE, IPECC, SOPEEC, and ACI should be willing to share concern in this endeavour. Hopefully, this concern will evolve into full support. Safety of the public is the prime focus point and it seems to me that CC’s verify this. At the meetings attended thus far, safety and competency have been the centre of concern. I am sure it will remain as such. There will no doubt be some feedback on my opinions expressed here. But my thoughts have been shared and such is the purpose of membership in any organization. And thoughts promote action. Action promotes results. Sharing is wise – the BOA president is a fellow IPE member! And change criticism to constructicism, it works better but isn’t in “Webby”! Stay tuned for “…the rest of the story…”!

Ray J. Shupac, PE

First published in "the Operator", October 2006