|
|||||
New Zealand Engineering 1999 March Qustionnaire Results The September 1998 IPENZ Questionnaire Results- A report to members from the CEO - Warwick T Bishop Publications Along with the subscription notice we sent to each member last year we also included a one-page questionnaire on our budgeted income and expenditure for the current financial year. This was dispatched to all of the nearly 8,000 members of IPENZ. By the end of February 1999 just over 1,000 had been returned to us. A 13% level of return is excellent. To see a graph of the results click here Some 240 members (just under 3% of our total membership) also offered their detailed comments, encouragement, criticism or advice. Some even asked specific questions which I am unable to answer directly, but the following report is an attempt to categorise those responses and answer as many of the points raised as possible - especially when more than two or three members raised the same issue. I must thank all those who took the time to respond and especially those who went to the extra trouble of putting their thoughts on paper and sending them back to me. Overall the feedback is very useful and will be taken into consideration in future planning and budgeting. In summary, most seem happy with the general direction in which we are heading but many want to see more value for their subscription. Below, I comment in more detail under each of the seven headings in the questionnaire. These headings have been re-ranked in descending order relative to the volume of comments received. While the bulk of respondents (70%) felt we spend "too little" or "about the right amount" on publications a surprising 30% told us that we spend "too much" on this activity at 22% of budget. What many people who questioned the cost of this activity may not realise is that more than half this amount is recovered from advertising. The NET annual expenditure on all "publications": New Zealand Engineering, Transactions, the IPENZ web site, the eZine, Conference Proceedings, brochures for the Neighbourhood Engineers project, and the Annual Report, is only about 10% of the total expenses. Although New Zealand Engineering is not totally self-supporting, it currently only costs members around $2 per copy. We are looking at ways to reduce this cost even further - the most logical move being to cut the frequency from 11 to 6 issues per year. There are many savings in this approach as well as flow-on opportunities to improve content and even advertising revenue. Many of you want more from the magazine in the form of higher quality articles, more original engineering content, more overseas information, more technical information, more local engineering "news", an optional subscription and a less "flashy", easier to read format. Original, interesting and well-written articles cost money - more money than we can sensibly afford. The other fundamental difficulty our magazine will always have is the reticence New Zealand engineers seem to have about writing up their projects in a lively and readable format. In fact few of you ever write up your work for your peers to read about. Some of you want NZE to be "less commercial" while others want it to be totally self supporting, i.e. "very commercial"! There are some members who do not appear to have caught up with the fact that IPENZ Transactions are now published electronically on the internet, see the IPENZ web page www.ipenz.org.nz While hard copy versions of Transactions are available to members at no cost on request from IPENZ, very few people call for these. The "Abstracts" of the technical papers will continue to be published in the magazine and reminder links will be provided in the weekly IPENZ eZine from time to time when new editions are "published". Along with all IPENZ staff, I have been growing increasingly sensitive about the "age" of the IPENZ web pages for some time now. We have been doing a lot of work behind the scenes to revamp our Internet site and at the same time adopt new internal procedures so that the information is able to be easily and constantly updated by all of us. Happily I am able to report this objective has finally been achieved and all members should notice a constantly changing and improving IPENZ web-presence from now on. The weekly eZine (e-mail magazine) that we now send to some 4,000 members each week received almost universal acclaim in the comments sent to us. This short, sharp and immediate communication vehicle has captured your imagination and has a huge and appreciative audience - both locally and offshore. We know we need to be very careful to keep it very focused on your needs and to keep it relevant. In a very short space of time it has become by far our best way of reaching members and getting their feedback on all manner of issues. The Annual Report came in for some criticism for being "flashy and expensive" but in fact it only costs about NZ$1.00 including handling to put in each member’s hands. We are looking at expanding the role of this year’s annual report. Now that we have resolved the Privacy Act provisions, as they apply to an Incorporated Society such as ours, we intend publishing a full member list once again. This has always proved hugely popular. It may well be the last time we publish this on paper. Next year we want to provide a "member-only" area on our web page and allow members to update their own address and contact details on our database as they change. It is our intention that each of you will have the ability to select your own level of "privacy" and even put your own "updateable" CV into a searchable area if you so wish. Our future publishing efforts will inevitably be more focused on the electronic medium because of its speed, ease of use and significantly lower costs. Can I urge all those members who have not yet "taken the plunge" to think hard about joining the "Information Age". As and when you do so please send us your e-mail address and thus become better connected to your professional body. Support The big issue many raised under this heading is status and recognition. Comments were made such as "The more society invests in engineering the fewer doctors and lawyers will be needed", "Status and recognition should be the number one goal of IPENZ", "More effort needed in raising the profile of the profession", "More lobbying of government and the opposition parties", etc. Balancing this we have comments such as "Far too much concern about image", "We should each get on with the job and provide excellence in our chosen role then the profession will gain the esteem it seeks automatically", "There are many engineers in high profile jobs who no longer consider themselves part of the profession. We need to get these ‘closet engineers’ to speak out more", etc. Certainly your Board is aware of the depth of feeling amongst members over the status issue and we have a number of new initiatives underway to lift the profile of the profession. The recent IPENZ Congress 99 held in Wellington was but one of these. (See the detailed reporting in the March 1999 issue of New Zealand Engineering). Those who attended the two days were well pleased with the nationwide profile the engineering profession got by inviting Mary Harney, the Deputy PM of Ireland to this country. Politicians and senior civil servants were made well aware of our involvement and our views on the importance of education (Intellectual Capital) and finance (Venture Capital) in the future of our country. Northern regional office Our NRO provides local support and Continuing Professional Development courses to over half our members. The Wellington Office backs this up and provides the same support to the balance of our membership, locally and offshore. Auckland membership subscriptions easily cover the costs of the NRO. This activity is not subsidised by other regions, as so many of you seem to fear. There were a few of you calling for new offices in other parts of the country but the numbers do not support this. A few people made the point that www.ipenz.org.nz is rapidly becoming "home" to us all and the need for more than one physical location is dwindling. They may well be proved right in the relatively near future. Member
services Nearly all of our "sister" organisations overseas produce a "membership card" for their members each year. These cost anything from $1 to $5 to produce, depending on quality and type. For us to collate and mail out a card like the IPENZ card to 8,000 IPENZ members would have cost a little over $3.00 each or $25,000 in total. The Board had determined we should do this but the cost was a concern. Along came DriveCard/CardLink offering to do this for us at no cost provided more than 2,000 members "activated" the debit function of their card. When we started negotiations Shell was offering us five to six cents discount off each litre of fuel purchased, and some insurance companies, were keen to offer very competitive packages to IPENZ members for their house, contents, car, boat, bach, medical, life and professional indemnity insurances. Just as we were about to launch our card, fuel prices fell right across the board by 10 cents or more a litre and the major oil companies began to shave their margins and halve their staff. Our discount suddenly dropped to a very marginal two cents per litre. Thank you "Challenge!"! Meanwhile the worldwide insurance and re-insurance market also went "soft" and 15 - 20% discounts became the norm for everyone who twisted their broker’s arm. (I hope you have all got your insurance companies to sharpen their pencils in the last year or so? Mine certainly did.) That said, and understandably, only 500 IPENZ members activated the CardLink/DriveCard and we had to pay a penalty of $6,000. This still represented a very cheap way of giving you all an IPENZ identity card but it is a method that we will not be able to repeat. While we are still working on a few discount possibilities (fuel, banking, insurance) I am now very jaundiced about our ability to offer you very much that is "real" in a world where we are all deluged with loyalty programmes from every direction. Despite fears from some, members are not paying for these discount services. The CPD courses that IPENZ or APESMA run are all self-sustaining and the income from these is part of the various "other" category in our budget. Non-members pay higher fees than members for these courses. A few were unhappy that we put any money towards engineering heritage activities or even sustainability. A number of you commented favourably on the Graduate Career and the Mid-Career Guides. One or two wanted to know why the early payment discount for subscriptions was eliminated this year. The short answer is, "It didn’t work". We gave away nearly $50,000 of the subscription income last year in an attempt to get more money in quickly. If we had then been able to bank it and earn interest for a longer period it would have made sense. In reality the money flowed in at the same old pace as ever. In fact this year the money came in faster without a discount, and meanwhile interest rates have dropped from around 9% to 3%!!! Strategic management - governance Many commented on how important it is that IPENZ gets the new Registration Act "right". This is seen as the best way to get the "recognition and status" issue dealt with once and for all. We also need to better instil the concept of being more "Professional" into members. Ethics are seen as vital in determining the difference between "engineers" and "Professional Engineers". International mobility of professional engineers was seen as an important issue for IPENZ to keep working on. Some foresaw the impact this might also have on the local employment scene. Many would like to see the "user pays" principle operate more often and feel there is scope for further commercial activity and income in the IPENZ budget. One theme that was mentioned a few times was that IPENZ should address more public policy issues and if this took more money then so be it even if it means a higher subscription. Engineering practice Some thought that Engineering Practice is the reason for IPENZ’s existence and thus it should be the "top priority". Others thought that technical issues are now very international and we should be working more closely with offshore and northern hemisphere Institutions. The internet is offering those members in remote locations much better chances of being able to be actively connected to their peers around the country and the world. The issue of standards and their importance to the
profession was touched on by a few but most seem to feel that the funding of input to new
standards is "someone else’s problem". No one has the time to
"give" any more. Once again it seems to be a case of "user pays". There was cautious optimism that splitting the "learned society" IPENZ Technical Conference away from the "higher profile" IPENZ Congress event might mean that both fulfil their objectives more easily. Qualifications The accreditation of engineering courses at New Zealand tertiary institutions and the maintenance of entry standards via qualification assessments was seen as vital. The Professional Review procedures and careful monitoring of all the entry routes, including international cross-accreditation, into the profession are accepted as very important issues for IPENZ to undertake. The increasing emphasis IPENZ has put on Continuing Professional Development also came in for praise. The comments sent in ranged over the general importance of technical education at primary and secondary schools, (the IPENZ Neighbourhood Engineers programme got favourable mention); the need for more "uniformity" between academic institutions, (no reason given and not very likely in my view); better systems for engineering students to get work experience; better systems of setting up "mentors" for graduates; setting standards and Continuing Professional Development for members. General Some members compared the IPENZ and New Zealand Royal Society subscription rates. This is not very valid as the NZRS gets 90% plus of its funding from government. They do not carry out any tertiary course accreditation or any qualification assessment. Their role is more to do with science than with the scientist. They are more comparable to a big IPENZ Technical Group. In Australia, IEAust charges an annual subscription of A$300 - 360 for Members, Senior Members and Fellows, before GST. This equates to NZ$355 - 425 at current exchange rates. The main UK Institutions and the Engineering Council have combined fees ranging from UK�92 - 127 for local Members which equates to NZ$290 - 380. The American and Canadian fees range from US$150 - 250 or NZ$275 - 460 and on top of that they must then register in each state or province they want to practice in at a further cost of US$50 - 200 per annum. The IPENZ fee of NZ$350 before GST lines up quite well with all of these other bodies. In New Zealand registration is optional and only costs NZ$30 per annum. One member suggested that IPENZ cap its fees at 1% of the average member’s salary package. If we were able to do this recent salary surveys would suggest that this would double our fees to around NZ$800. Also, instead of being held static they would have risen 4 - 5% last year! A few people pointed out that the Technical Group and Branch fees are very low and therefore must be subsidised by IPENZ. They want this to stop. User pays must be the rule they say! Conclusion |
|||||
 |
|
|
|
