Engineering - Royal Australian Navy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Naval Engineering Bulletin • June 2001 Professional Engineers in the Royal Australian Navy By LEUT Robert Elphick, RAN If, as a graduate of a four-year engineering degree, I was employed in a civilian engineering practice, in many instances I would be encouraged, during the years following graduation, to be part of a program which would develop and extend the foundations of engineering knowledge laid at university 1 . This is not the case in the RAN. While there is a program for the Continual Professional Development (CPD) of engineers it is pitched at an intellectual level far below university engineering and could not be said to extend or develop the foundations of engineering knowledge laid at university. And where knowledge is not put into practice and developed, it is often lost. My purpose in contributing this article to the Naval Engineering Bulletin is to provoke discussion on the training progression of the professional engineers 2 in the RAN. Since all training should be aimed at developing an officer for future employment, out of this may flow discussion on the role of the Naval Engineer and the training required to build this type of person. My thinking in this matter was stimulated through an article published by IEAust on the topic of professional practice 3 . The article discussed the terms Cosmopolitan and Local with respect to one’s profession and used these terms to describe a professional person’s disposition regarding his career. A person valuing themselves (for want of a better expression) primarily in relationship to his immediate work place and organisation is described as having a strong local disposition. A person with a highly cosmopolitan disposition sees himself primarily in relationship to his profession. Most junior naval engineers posted to sea going vessels will very soon develop a strong local disposition. This is not surprising given that they are required to work in a close team with other officers, the large majority of whom are not engineers. The highly operational focus of a sea-going billet, together with the many collateral tasks (divisional and whole ship) is not at all conducive to the consolidation and extension of the foundations laid during the engineering degree. Consequently in this environment a junior officer will operate (and see themselves) more as a member of the Profession of Arms and develop more as a Naval Officer than they will as an Engineer. The situation is somewhat similar when the young engineer is then posted to a shore establishment in that loyalty to, and teamwork with, officers of different specialisations remain central tenets of the work. However, a shore job generally has a lesser operational focus and this factor, combined with the opportunity to work in an area with a larger percentage of engineers, increases the scope for a greater focus on purely engineering matters. While this allows an engineer to hold a slightly more cosmopolitan disposition than what he or she would hold at sea, the complexity of engineering practiced is still well below, or at least of a vastly different type, to what they will have studied at university. Even ashore there is no consolidation or extension of the skills gained at university. Have we decided that many of the specialised skills gained during university are not required of RAN engineers? If so, should there be a greater emphasis on management skills in the engineering degrees offered at the Australian Defence Force Academy? Should units be introduced at the Defence Force Academy, which deal with “operations engineers” related competencies (eg. configuration management, maintenance management, terotechnology, quality management, technical administration, and methods of performance analysis, environmental issues)? Could we better employ our young engineers? By not employing and developing their university learnt skills, are we contributing to retention problems? 1 The end result of this program may be gaining status as a Certified Professional Engineer (CPEng) under the auspices of the Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust). 2 A Professional Engineer, according to IEAust, is a graduate of a four-year engineering degree from a recognised university. 3 Key Competencies in Engineering Practice Part A Chapter 1 p12 by Prof B. Lloydd, IEAust, 1999 25
Naval Engineering Bulletin • June 2001 I am in no doubt that the experience I have gained during my sea postings as a WE officer has developed my understanding of engineering practice. However, I have difficulty articulating exactly how this engineering relates to the majority of what I studied at university. Furthermore, I would have to admit that a lot of what I studied at university, because it has not been consolidated during the intervening years, is very faint. About the Author Lieutenant Robert Elphick BE (Elec) Hons. graduated from the Australian Defence Force Academy in 1994 and completed his WECC on HMAS Brisbane in 1996. He served as a Systems Engineer Officer in HMAS HOBART and is currently DWEO of HMAS BRISBANE. His shore postings have included CDSC and the Tactical Development and Analysis Group (TDAG), MHQ. I understand there is discussion in progress to determine how the cumulative experiences of a WE Officer on gaining their CQ may make him or her eligible to apply for recognition as a Certified Professional Engineer with IEAust. I think such an arrangement would greatly improve the vision of young naval engineers. In many cases the extra study required to be eligible for to gain CPEng would be accepted as a challenge. What do you think? Editor’s Note: Refer to article by CMDR Varcoe (page 24). 26
Page 1 and 2: Volume 1 Issue 1 June 2001 NAVAL b
Page 3 and 4: Naval Engineering Bulletin • June
Page 25: Naval Engineering Bulletin • June
Page 77:
Naval Engineering Bulletin • June
show all

Engineering - Royal Australian Navy

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?