Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Swimming against the current in PSME
29 October 2012
My previous four articles focused on concerns regarding the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineering, and this is on account of the Mechanical Engineering Week which is being celebrated every 3rd week of the month of October (on the strength of E.O. 319 signed by President Cory in 1998). Incidentally, October 2012 was also proclaimed as Mechanical Engineering Month (as per Proclamation No. 480) by President Benigno S. C. Aquino III in conjunction with the “Society’s” 60th Diamond Anniversary and its 60th Annual National Convention which was done last week. Today’s column will be the last of this series dealing with PSME.
The celebration of ME month was centered on the 60th Annual NatCon, which, by my observation drew in about the same number of delegates present last year. Many good things took place during the convention among which were the 1-1/2 day 2nd National ME Student conference which drew in about 3000 student delegates (double that of last year), coming from about 80 schools; the 2nd Philmach Exhibition which had quality exhibitors and appeared to be more organized this year; the completion of the road map for the global competitiveness of the ME profession in which the “Society” participated; the announcement that the organization’s fund has already grown to some PHP 12 million and is expected to increase further to PHP15 million by year-end; and the approval of the New Mechanical Engineering Code by the PRC, signified by Chairperson Teresita Manzala’s signing the said document in front of the general assembly.
It is but right that the good is acknowledged, and it should make the members of the organization happy. However, it should not negate the existence of any bad that may be happening, nor inhibit any effort to expose whatever is bad so that these can be properly addressed. Exposing what seems bad in PSME, at this point in time, would be, as a saying goes, “swimming against the current”.
It is in line with this thinking that on the second day of the convention, a number of reform-minded PSME members came out and distributed a “Manifesto for NatCon 2012” containing eight concerns which the reform group believes needs looking into. Some students, who felt they should also start getting involved in making right what is not, volunteered to distribute the manifesto. They were apprehended by the venue’s security force, but eventually released after Eng’r. David and Eng’r. Maglana (who incidentally is also a lawyer) made representations and contested the reason for the apprehension as well as the suppression of the distribution of the manifesto.
Members of the reform group identified themselves by wearing red arm bands which they were also prepared to provide others who may want to openly show support for the move. There were quite a lot who sympathised but were hesitant to expose themselves because they say they didn’t want to encounter difficulties in the future…some saying “alam na ninyo yuon”.
On the third day, upon the suggestion of a young engineer, the reform group set-up a “freedom wall” so that more members could be informed. Two such freedom walls made from red “cartolina” were posted on the wall of the venue, but then, as advised by a staff member of the venue, these were transferred to blank spaces (and finished activities) of a tarpaulin column showing the program schedule of the convention. In less than two hours, the convention chairman arrived to supervise the removal of the “freedom wall”. The members of the reform group reacted and objected by invoking their right to use the tarpaulin (being members), as well as the right to dissent. This caused a more or less 10 minute heated discussion with the convention chairman, but the removal, however, eventually prevailed, with the convention chairman removing the “freedom wall” himself as required by the reform group.
During the internal affairs workshop, the manifesto was entered for discussion with the intention of getting resolutions (for proper action) approved for each of the eight concerns, and which will then be presented during the closing plenary for ratification. This intention did not materialize due to what appeared to me as a strong and orchestrated effort to block it. What prevailed was a resolution requiring that the “manifesto” be formally sent to the national board for action, and for the results of the board’s action/s regarding the “manifesto” to be reported back to the general membership. This to me is odd, considering that most, if not all, of the eight concerns have reference to the national board. (For those who may be interested, copies of the resolutions may be accessed at http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com/).
By the way, on the election for the members of the 2013 national board, I mentioned in my October 9 column that “…it seems that the hand(s) that intend to manipulate has already started to move because someone appeared to have made the mistake of sending to me a ‘listing of preferred candidates as per so-and-so’. As per this list the following are to be elected: (for NCR) Aguiluz, Reyes, Paulino, Maglaya, So and Mamawal; (for Luzon North) Yorobe, Nicolas; (for Luzon South) Dadua, Cometa; (for Visayas) Chong, Moncada, Montero; (for Mindanao) Sultan, Aquillera.”
The actual result of the election, as reported, is as follows: (for NCR) Aguiluz, Reyes, Paulino, So, Mamawal and Ocampo; (for North Luzon) Yorobe, Nicolas; (for Luzon South) Badillo, Cometa; (for Visayas) Chong, Moncada, Montero; (for Mindanao) Sultan, Aguinea. I leave it up to the reader to make his/her own conclusion.
At any rate, I wish the incoming 2013 national directors, and the 2013 national officers, good luck! May the real interest of the profession and the “Society” prevail. Mabuhay ang PSME!
Meanwhile, comments/reactions from the readers will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
PSME October 2012 Events (3)
21 October 2012
Last week I expressed my strong disagreement with the
thinking that the mechanical engineering profession’s situation is better, as
compared to the other professions, because two of the three BME positions are
currently held by examiners who are holdovers for only more than a year, while other
professional regulatory boards contend with examiners that are holdovers for as
much as 8, 10, or even 12 years. Agreeing to this kind of thinking is, to me,
just like agreeing to a reasoning that says that one can be a little corrupt
because others are a lot more corrupt. The stance also does not jibe well with
the concept of “improvement” or the pursuit of excellence which the ME Law
dictates in its “Statement of Policy”.
I also find some inconsistency and can’t understand why the
third BME position has been allowed to be vacant for almost a year now, given
that the two holdover BME examiners have been said to be complaining of being
shorthanded. I also am concerned with what I perceive to be the difficulty in
getting the “list of 15 BME nominees” (prepared by the Nominating Committee as
required by EO 496) endorsed to the PRC by the PSME national board. Although
I’m aware that a “fine tuning” of the list is being done, I only hope that what’s
happening is not out of a deliberate effort by “influential hands” to stall and
eventually influence the outcome of the appointments. I’m concerned, because,
for reasons that I’ve already mentioned in last week’s column, I believe that
having a fresh set of BME examiners would be best for the mechanical
engineering profession.
But that should be enough, for now, regarding the BME,
because as mentioned last week, today’s column would focus on issues concerning
the election of the members of PSME’s national officers… so we shift to this
subject now.
The quality and credibility of the “Society’s” election for
national officers has been a problem for some time now, and it is also a major
reason (if not the main one) for the split of the organization into two
factions in 2006. And although each faction claims to be the legitimate one, it
is the group where I belong that has been acknowledged, since August 1, 2008, as
the Accredited Professional Organization by the PRC. But even within this group
the detrimental effect of what is viewed as inequitable election result is
being felt. There are those who doubt the authenticity of the results for what
may be a credible reason… (there are lots of grumbling about) members not
receiving their ballots. There has also been up to this time no system
installed and operational (e.g., credible census and accounting of members)
that can be used in validating authenticity of votes. Given this kind of
environment, election results are prone to manipulation to serve the purposes
of a group, or individual, with poisonous intentions.
As mentioned earlier, the general membership has been very
conscious of this problem for quite some time now, and although year on year,
since I rejoined the organization about 3-1/2 years ago, efforts were made to
improve the system, but not much positive movement on this was generated. So
when the discussions regarding the elections during the closing plenary of last
year’s NatCon (the 59th) seem headed towards another status-quo, it
was, to me, no longer acceptable. The situation compelled me (despite my being
the National Secretary then) to personally raise a motion for the PSME to exert
“utmost effort for the possibility of having e-voting by October 2012…subject
to the approval of the amended By-Laws by SEC.” This motion was seconded by
Eng’r. Felix Cenizarez of the GenSan Chapter.
During the discussions that followed, the more relevant
inputs came from: a) Eng’r. Rod Antadio
of Metro South Chapter, who suggested that there must be a presentation to the
general membership, during the next semi-annual convention, of whatever
e-voting system that would be developed, and; b) an engineer from the South
whose name unfortunately I didn’t get, and who suggested the creation of a
safety net in the event that the e-voting cannot yet be implemented in October
2012 because of a possible delay in the approval of the amended By-Laws by SEC.
According to him, such a safety net should make the non-electronic election
transparent to everybody by announcing the room where the votes will be
canvassed; and, giving the region as well as candidates the right to assign
watchers to witness the canvassing.
Although there seem to be efforts by a few to railroad the
blocking of the motion, those who were for it succeeded in having it voted
upon, and the said motion was overwhelmingly ratified by the General Assembly
amid a robust round of applause.
Given this ratification, and given that one full year has
been wasted already, the effort to make e-voting into a reality needs to be shifted
to high gear…and this effort should address both the e-voting system itself (which
includes a complete accounting/validation of members) and whatever SEC
requirements that are needed. Along this line, it may be necessary to appoint a
COMELEC (supported by its own exclusive secretariat) that must function from
Day 1, so to speak, and focus solely on the task of implementing a credible
e-voting by October 2013. In line also with the speeding up effort to implement
e-voting, the incoming 2013 Comelec may have to thoroughly study the “2000
Amended By-Laws”, as well as the “2010 Amended By-Laws and Omnibus Election
Code” (still to be submitted to SEC for approval), because, based on my review
of the said documents, there seem to be no conflict with the immediate implementation
of a purely electronic voting, or even a mixed paper-ballot & electronic
voting.
Despite, however, everything that has been mentioned, the
bottom line is that we are bound to use the same problematic system for this
year’s election. It is therefore necessary for members to be conscious of the
dangers and help make the elections credible by openly expressing opposition to
any manipulation attempts; and actively engage in steps deemed necessary to
bring about credible election results.
On another matter, the third week of October was mentioned
in previous columns as being celebrated as Mechanical Engineering week by
virtue of EO 319 signed in 1998 by then President Cory Aquino. I have just been
informed that President Benigno S. C. Aquino, III, has through his Proclamation
No. 480, declared October 2012 as “Mechanical Engineering Month”. This,
according to the President, is to “focus public attention on the important role
of mechanical engineers in the development of the country and nation building”,
and he calls “upon all mechanical engineers and students to give the observance
of the Mechanical Engineering Month their full support.”
Meanwhile, comments/reactions from the readers will be appreciated and can be sent
through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this
writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
PSME October 2012 Events (2)
15 October 2012
As mentioned in my column last week, I shall be
writing on PSME events in my next few columns. This is on account of the
Mechanical Engineering Week that’s being celebrated 3rd week of
October (in line with EO 319; 1998), and the Diamond (60th) National
Convention that’s going to be held on October 23 to 26 at the SMX Convention
Center in Pasay City.
Simultaneous with the 60th NatCon would be
3 co-located major activities, namely the 10th PSME National Board
Meeting, the one and a half days 2nd PSME National Student
Conference where about 1,500 members from the various student units are
expected to attend, and the 2nd Philippine Machinery Exhibition, or
PHILMACH, that would also be open to the public.
While preparing this article, it occurred to me to
review whatever sound bites I have of last year’s NatCon just to refresh my
memory on what has transpired. I was not surprised to note that the 2 major
concerns covered in last week’s article (that of the BME and the election of
the PSME national board) were somehow also a subject of intense interest then.
From PRC, we learned that (as of October last year),
there were a total of 145 examiners of various professional boards with expired
terms. A lot of them serving as
holdovers examiners for 8, 10, and even as long as 12 years. Although effort was exerted to explain that it
was a condition that was inherited from the previous administration’s PRC
appointees, the revelation was to me, something that would generate a
head-shaking reaction. A better professional management performance is expected
given that the agency is PRC.
We were given then an idea of the magnitude of this
inherited problem in terms of the number of nominees that will have to be
interviewed by the PRC commissioners for the position. We were told there were
750 of them, and that this problem surfaced during the budget hearing last year,
which prompted one Senator to tell them to make sure that this (what to me is
an) aberration is corrected in one year’s time.
I wonder how
the Commission fared in responding to this deadline because our two ME
examiners (the third BME position being vacant) are also holdovers, their terms
having expired last September 2011. This makes the three positions of the BME
technically vacant and for which the Nominating Committee selected the 15 names
(currently being fine-tuned) that will be presented for approval to the General
Assembly during the 60th NatCon. After approval, the list of 15 will
have to be transmitted, covered by a resolution, to the PRC Chairperson, she
being the one with oversight function over the BME. PRC will then have to trim
the list to 9, for submission to Malacanang, as it would be the Philippine
President who would make the final choice.
There were comments (heard personally by this writer)
being ventilated by supposedly responsible personalities that, given the
magnitude of the holdover problem, the mechanical engineering situation is
better than the others because our holdover cases are only a little over a
year. Maybe, but is this the right comparison to make? Isn’t it like saying
that one can engage in a little corruption because the others are engaged in
bigger corruption? And how about the vacant 3rd BME position? I
really wonder why filling it up has not been pursued.
Hopefully, the next BME set would be a fresh one. In
my humble opinion, what we need would be a group that would not just focus on
the regulatory aspects of the job (i.e.,
making test questions, conducting examinations, enjoying social functions, doing
what’s required by letters (a) to (f), (h) & (i) and (k) & (l) of
Sec.9), but would be one that would really live up to what’s required of the
position by the ME Law, particularly, spearheading the execution of what’s stated in the “ Sec.2. Statement of
Policy”, and letters (g), (j), and (m) of “Sec.9.Powers and Duties of the
Board.” This is sort of saying, doing that extra mile…for the profession.
On a happy note though, and in fairness to PRC, there
has been a very important and significant development in their operation that
unquestionably addressed the needs, and one that is truly appreciated by their
clients…the professionals. This is regarding the renewal of the PRC license.
What used to take 3 months for release during the previous dispensation was
reduced to 1-2 weeks about a year ago. Now, I am told there is already an
on-line system that would take only a few days to renew one’s professional
license, and get one’s PRC ID, for as long as requirements for the renewal are
complete. Although the system, I understand, has temporarily been put on hold
for the correction of some glitches, its effect has already been enjoyed by
some when initially tried a few months back. I’m sure, that the improved system
would soon be reinstalled and that those who renew their license (especially
professionals working abroad) would appreciate the convenience provided them. I
would attribute this “beautiful” accomplishment to the initiative and effective
leadership of the current Chairperson. May she rub on her attributes to others
in her organization.
Due to space limitations, concerns regarding the
election for the 2013 PSME National Board will have to be covered in the next
column, hopefully sooner than my regular schedule. Meanwhile, comments/reactions from the readers
will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com)
or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
PSME September/October 2012 Events
08 October 2012
Since
1998, the third week of October has been celebrated as Mechanical Engineering
Week. This is by virtue of Proclamation No. 319 signed by President Cory Aquino
in September of that year. This year, the Mechanical Engineering Week shall be
from October 15-19, but related activities shall spill over to the following
week since the 60th (Diamond) Annual National Convention shall be
done from October 23-26 at the SMX Convention Center in Pasay City. And due to
this, I’m inclined to focus on PSME and the ME profession concerns for the next
few columns.
This month will be a very busy one for members
of the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers. First, there shall be
activities usually done by the various chapters nationwide as part of the
celebration of ME Week (e.g., attending flag raising ceremonies done by the
LGUs at the start of the week, discussing with the LGU Head/Officers RA 8495,
or the ME Law, including the matter of its implementation). Then, in the
subsequent week, the expected 2,500 delegates that would come from the 80
chapters located all over the Philippines, and abroad, shall be converging at
the SMX Convention Center for the 4 day 60th NatCon. Here, they can avail
of the usual learning and sharing opportunities, get first hand updates on the
developments in the “Society” as well as the profession, or catch up with
classmates, former workmates, friends and other acquaintances. But probably
what is more important is that they can also
participate in the process of determining the focus of the organization for the
coming year or so.
In
addition, three other distinct co-located activities shall be done in
conjunction with the Natcon, namely: a) the 10th PSME National Board
Meeting, b) the 2nd PSME National Student Conference where about
1,500 attendees from the various ME schools are expected for this 1-1/2 day
event, and c) the 2nd Philippine Machinery Exhibition , or PHILMACH,
which will have 160 booths that will showcase (to both PSME members and the
general public) tools and equipment related to the following: HVACRe, Green
energy Technology, Boiler and Valves, Fire Protection and Safety, Metal Works,
Maintenance and Reliability, Process and Packaging, as well as Food and
Beverage.
Meanwhile,
while anticipating these important events, I would like to share some recent developments
(that came out of the 9th National Board Meeting held last September
29 in Bacolod City) which has relevance to these events.
First
is the matter of the nominees to the Board of Mechanical Engineering Examiners.
As related in a previous column, the BME Nominating Committee chaired by IPP
Rene Florencio submitted already to the PSME national board the list of 15
nominees for the 3 vacant BME positions, and this list, as required by EO 496, has
to be sent by the national board (covered by a resolution) to the PRC. As it is, the list was discussed
during the 9th meeting and it was agreed that a further fine tuning
will have to be done on it by the Nominating Committee. It was however also
agreed that the final list must be made available by the 10th
National Board Meeting, at the latest, so that it can be presented to the
General Assembly for approval (and subsequent transmission to the PRC) during
the 60th NatCon.
Second
is the matter of the election of the 2013 PSME National Board to be done also
during the 60th Natcon. As a backgrounder, issues have been raised
for years already regarding the current system with respect to its credibility,
and susceptibility to manipulation; and together with the complaints are
demands to improve or change the system. This demand for change was taken up
during last year’s NatCon General Assembly and as a result, the GA
overwhelmingly approved the shift to an electronic system of voting. It has,
however, been made apparent by the report of the National EVP that the system
of election for this year would be the same as with the previous years for the
following reasons: a) that the change in the election system can only be done
once reflected in the “amended By-Laws” of the organization, which needs
approval by the SEC; b) it was established, after a survey of the various
chapters, that only roughly 25% of the members have email addresses, and that
even a greater percentage does not have updated contact information at all. So,
even if we did have the approved “amended By-Laws”, it would be impossible to
implement an electronic voting system. Nevertheless, the National Secretariat
has started with a drive to build up an information database of the members so
that we hopefully will have the needed infrastructure to implement electronic
voting once our “amended By-Laws” gets approved.
So
given the current situation, PSME is back to square one with respect to this
year’s elections for the National Board. However, even at that, I believe that
a member can protect his vote if he is willing to be vigilant enough to make
sure that it is his vote that gets counted. First of all he has to make sure
that he is qualified to vote, which means that he is a member of good standing.
Second, he has to get from his chapter president his ballot and make sure he
fills up all of the 15 slots. Third, he has to strictly follow the “Rules and
Regulations for the 2012 Election” released by the 2012 PSME Comelec and which
can be accessed at the PSME Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/psmenow).
Meanwhile,
on a rather funny development, and still in relation to the upcoming 2013 PSME
National Board elections, it seems that the hand(s) that intend to manipulate
has already started to move because someone seems to have made the mistake of
sending to me a “listing of preferred candidates of so-and-so”. As per this
list the following are to be elected: (for NCR) Aguiluz, Reyes, Paulino,
Maglaya, So and Mamawal or Ocampo; (for Luzon North) Yorobe, Nicolas; (for
Luzon South) Dadua, Cometa; (for Visayas) Chong, Moncada, Montero; (for
Mindanao) Sultan, Aquillera. Well, this is a nice development, because this
very list can be used as the measuring stick which will determine whether or
not there was manipulation of the elections. More interesting developments in
the next article.
Meanwhile,
comments/reactions from the readers will be appreciated
and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com)
or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Status: Selection of nominees for the BME (3)
2
September 2012
The Philippine Society of
Mechanical Engineers held its 8th National Board Meeting last August
16, 2012 at the Villa Margarita Hotel in Davao (which actually was scheduled to
synchronize also with the Society’s 15th Mindanao Regional
Conference held August 15-17 at the Waterfront Hotel). There were three of us,
members of the national board, who arrived late for the meeting because our 9AM flight was delayed to 3PM. This was
because the PAL Boeing 747 that was scheduled to take us to Davao was hit by
lightning while flying from LA to Manila (and had to be towed to the hangar for
checkup upon landing at the NAIA), and the airline had to arrange for another
B747 for our flight.
Having caught
practically just the tail end of the meeting, I had to rely on feedback from
colleagues regarding what has transpired.
I was told that the BME Nominating Committee, chaired by Eng’r. Renato
A. Florencio, presented already the list of 15 names as the committee’s
nominees for the BME. This shall be my topic for today’s column.
So far, I have “zeroed
in” on the concerns of the ME profession in 5 previous articles, namely, “Professional
imbalance also an ME concern” (PJ,
4Dec11), “Ideas on the
matter of RA8495 and the PME gap” (PJ, 17Mar12), “The BME and EO 496”
(PJ, 28Apr12), “Status: Selection of nominees for the BME” (PJ 6/10/12), and “Status:
Selection of nominees for the BME 2” (PJ, 19June2012).Today’s article is going to be the 6th on the concerns
of the ME profession, and the third under the same title.
Why the focus on
the BME? There are, for me, two major reasons which I have expounded on in my
previous articles.
The first one is
that “the BME is the one mandated by RA 8495 to regulate, as well as
enhance, the profession (Sec.9g and Sec 9m), [and] it would be to the
profession’s interest that we practitioners get involved in the selection
process and try to influence it so that, we will hopefully have a new board
that would truly live up to its mandate of also enhancing the mechanical
engineering profession”.
And the second reason is “that the profession should
break away from the ‘framework’ within which it has been operating during the
past decades. It has to allow new approaches and ideas to flow in to enhance
the profession and extricate it from the stagnation, if not deterioration, that
it has experienced. And this, to my mind, can be achieved only if those that
are at the apex of the profession – the BME – is composed of professionals who
are [not only of impeccable integrity, but, aside from just being focused on
the regulatory tasks, are also] focused on … [other means of enhancing] the
mechanical engineering profession; … [individuals who] are receptive to
changes, more creative, and willing to explore new methods (that are within the
bounds of the ME law) which will enable them to achieve what is mandated; …[individuals
who really] have the time, capacity and capability.”
Now that the BME NC has already submitted its report
containing its list of 15 nominees, it is incumbent upon the PSME National
Board to approve and submit the list to the PRC, given that the submission is
way way past overdue. Perhaps it is necessary that a special meeting of the
board with the Nominating Committee be conducted asap to discuss the list of
nominees so as to facilitate its approval and immediate submission to the
PRC. Personally, I think that this task
should not be difficult to accomplish since SEC. 8 (Submission of List of Nominees) of EO 496 says that “On the basis of the report of the Committee on Nominations, the
National President of the duly accredited professional organization shall
submit to the Professional Regulation Commission the resolution of the National
Board of Directors recommending not more than five (5) nominees, ranked in the
order of preference, for appointment to each vacancy in the professional
regulatory Board…” The BME NC has done its task and submitted its report; it is
now the turn of the PSME National Board to comply with the requirement of EO
496. There is no justification for further delay.
Again EO 496 mandates the PRC to
immediately publish upon receipt the PSME resolution containing the list of
nominees “in a newspaper or general circulation
for the purpose of inviting anyone who may have derogatory information against
any of the nominees which may render him unfit for the position to inform the
said Commission within a period of ten (10) days from such publication. A copy
of the list of the nominees shall also [be] presented on the bulletin board of the Commission.” It
is from this list of 15 that the PRC would get its list of 9 individuals that
they would submit to the President of the Philippines, and from which the 3 new
members of the BME shall be picked. This
is where we practitioners can get involved. We should actively watch out for
this list in the newspapers and actively monitor the PRC website (http://www.prc.gov.ph) so that we can react as needed to inform the PRC of any objection
(especially integrity and corruption related issues) to any of the
personalities in the list. I believe that “If we want to achieve
something for ourselves, we [of the ME profession] have to work for it and not
expect others to do the work for us”.
For this purpose the following contact information of the PRC
Chairperson, sourced from the PRC website, can be useful: : email, prc_chairperson@yahoo.com; Landline, (632) 736-4880; Telefax,
(632) 735-4476.
For those
who may be interested, the other (earlier) articles previously mentioned can be
accessed through my webpage (http://www.facebook.com/jtl3mekaniko),
blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com) or the PSME NOW Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/psmenow?ref=hl).
Also, comments/reactions from the readers, especially from the other 60,000 or
more registered mechanical engineers, can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through
this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
Monday, September 3, 2012
Status: Selection of nominees for the BME
25 May 2012
Things
have moved fast for the Board
of Mechanical Engineering - Nominating Committee since their official appointment last April
14. I recently learned from the grapevine that the members have been
meeting regularly in full force (yes, all 5 of them). This is not an easy
accomplishment for busy individuals, given that some of them are based in the
Visayas, which not only reflects commitment, but is also an indication that
they have taken their task seriously.
I
also learned that the 5 gentlemen, all of them reportedly independent minded,
initially had different ideas on how to conduct the search, but have eventually
forged the general guidelines on how to go about their task. I only hope that
the search guidelines they agreed upon is geared to make sure that they will
come up with a list of worthwhile nominees for the 3 BME positions.
Perhaps,
we, the members of the profession can help the BME-NC by adopting what I
suggested in my earlier article (“The BME and EO496,” PJ, 28 April)… that of
getting involved in the search effort by sending recommendations to the BME-NC.
We should be capable of giving quality recommendations given that a lot of us
practitioners would have an idea of the qualifications and capabilities of our
peers. This means that if any of us is aware of a practitioner (or
practitioners) that fit the requirements for the BME position, we should take
the initiative to send recommendations to the BME-NC. It may also be that if
anyone of us feels qualified for the position, we should apply ourselves…or ask
another practitioner to do the recommendation. Self application letters, or
recommendation letters (with Curriculum Vitae attached) can be emailed to the
BME-NC Chairman, Engr. Renato A. Florencio (raf@pldtdsl.net), and I would
suggest that copies be furnished also to the four other members, namely, Engr.
Saylito M. Purisima (smpengineering@yahoo.com), Engr. Ramon F. Solis (mon_solis@
yahoo.com), Engr. Danilo P. Hernandez (Hernandez-dph@gchi.com.ph), and Engr.
Expedito S. Bollosos (exbollosos@yahoo.com).
Just
for clarification, EO 496 requires that candidates for the BME should have
“demonstrated outstanding qualifications” as the search would be “based
strictly on merit, integrity and fitness”. Other attributes required of
candidates are that of having “proven leadership qualities,” “professional
competence and experience,” “impeccable integrity,” “up-to-date knowledge of
current theories, principles and practices in the profession,” and “capability
to perform the duties and fulfil the obligations of a Regulatory Board Member.”
And
if I may just reiterate a personal take on the matter which was also mentioned
in my earlier column…that the
next BME be “composed of professionals who are focused on the enhancement of
the mechanical engineering profession; those that are receptive to changes,
more creative, and willing to explore new methods (that are within the bounds
of the ME law) which will enable them to achieve what is mandated; [and] those
that have the time, capacity and capability.” In addition, I also feel
that at least one member
of the BME should be a hard core manufacturing industry practitioner, as
I believe that manufacturing is
still very much the primary
client of the mechanical engineering profession. A development such as having a
manufacturing practitioner in the BME would also dovetail with the plans of
President Pnoy to revitalize the manufacturing industry as one of the
strategies in his effort to improve the country’s economy.
This
writer also enjoins those practitioners who feel they are qualified to take
advantage of this rare chance to do something for the mechanical engineering
profession, and for that matter, for the country. Apply now, as the window for
this opportunity is not big. I got the impression from the discussions during
the 4th NBMeeting last April 14 that the BME-NC would accomplish
their task as fast as they could, as under the current BME vacancy situation,
time is of the essence. The latest info I got from the grapevine is that they
intend to finalize by May 30.
By
the way, this writer appreciates the various positive responses (received via
text, email, web messages and phone calls) to “The BME and EO 496” article.
There has been a sharp increase in the “reach” of the Mekaniko webpage from
2,186 to 4,376 “netizens” (a 100% increase) and “likes” from 200 to 361
“netizens” (an 80% increase) - just 2 days after the article was published.
Some commented about the information being an “important development and… [that
they’d] certainly welcome changes for the better”; about the “PSME’s
transparency in the selection of the BME as well as an initial move of
reconciliation”; as well as “hoping that MEs will show more concern and react
positively”.
Comments/reactions
from the readers, especially from the other 60,000 or more registered
mechanical engineers, can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com)
or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
The Board of Mechanical Engineering and EO 496
25 April 2012
At long last, the national board of the
Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers finally approved during its 4th
board meeting last April 14 in San Fernando, Pampanga, the composition of the
Committee on Nominations for the BME. The committee was formed to comply with
the requirements of EO 496, which “institutes procedures and criteria for the
selection and the recommendation of nominees for appointment to the vacant
positions in the professional regulatory boards”.
As directed by EO 496, Eng’r. Rene A.
Florencio, by virtue of his being PSME’s Immediate Past President, was
officially appointed as the chairman. The other 4 members, all of them past
national presidents of the Society are Eng’rs. Saylito M. Purisima, Ramon F.
Solis, Danilo P. Hernandez and Expedito S. Bollosos. Their duties, based on
Article1, Sec. 3 of the said executive order would be the following: “a) To
actively search, screen, and select qualified nominees for appointment to
vacant positions in its professional regulatory board, b) To submit to the
National Board of Directors for approval the names of five (5) qualified
nominees, ranked in the order of preference, for every vacancy in...[the BME],
and c) To comply with the requirements of the Professional Regulation
Commission regarding the selection and nomination of persons for appointment to...
[the BME]”.
The committee is further directed to
“actively search for
persons with demonstrated outstanding qualifications...” and that nominations should
be “based strictly on merit, integrity and fitness”. Other attributes
required of the nominees, as per the executive order, are that of having “proven
leadership qualities”, “professional competence and experience”, “impeccable integrity”, “up-to-date
knowledge of current theories, principles and practices in the profession”, and
“must have the time, capacity and capability to perform the duties and fulfil
the obligations of a Regulatory Board Member”.
I believe that this development should be
of importance to the mechanical engineering profession (composed of the 10,000
strong PSME members, as well as the other 60,000 who are out of the loop),
because as of today, all the 3 positions in the BME are technically vacant. The two current members are now
functioning in a holdover capacity, given that their appointments
expired as of the 2nd semester of last 2011, while the third position has been
vacant and never filled up since December 2010.
As the BME is the one mandated by RA 8495 to regulate, as well as
enhance, the profession (Sec.9g and Sec 9m), it would be to the profession’s
interest that we practitioners get involved in the selection process and try to
influence it so that, we will hopefully have a new board that would truly live
up to its mandate of also enhancing the mechanical engineering profession.
I believe that the profession should break away from the
“framework” within which it has been operating during the past decades.
It has to allow new
approaches and ideas to flow in to enhance the profession and extricate it from
the stagnation, if not deterioration, that it has experienced. And this,
to my mind, can be achieved only if those that are at the apex of the profession – the BME
– is composed of professionals who are focused on the enhancement of the
mechanical engineering profession; those that are receptive to changes, more
creative, and willing to explore new methods (that are within the bounds of the
ME law) which will enable them to achieve what is mandated; those that have the
time, capacity and capability.
Now is probably also the opportune time for the practitioners to get
involved since we have no less than the new chairperson of the PRC who has
taken interest in the Mechanical Engineering Profession, and in so doing, has
recently assumed oversight function over the affairs of the BME and the ME
profession. And if I may quote once again from one of my earlier articles akin
to this subject matter, “This according to her gives the profession a special
place among the roster of regulated professions, and has made, as well, the
upliftment of the mechanical engineers of special significance in the PRC”.
If we want to achieve something for ourselves, we have to work for it
and not expect others to do the work for us. We can get
involved by perhaps recommending to the Nominations Committee headed by Eng’r.
Rene A. Florencio (raf@pldtdsl.net), qualified practitioners (refer to RA 8495
for requirements) for their consideration. We can also watch out for the
publication of the names of the nominees that would be sent to the PRC (as
required by Art 2, Sec 1 of EO 496), which is being done “ for the purpose of
inviting anyone who may have derogatory information against any of the nominees
which may render him unfit for the position”.
Comments/reactions from the readers,
especially from the other 60,000 or more registered mechanical engineers, can
be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com) or through this
writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
Ideas on the matter of RA 8495 and the PME gap
15 March 2012
During the 2nd meeting of the 2012
National Board of the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers held in Cebu
City last February 4, I was handed a copy of a 3,801 word document titled “RA
8495: Clarification on our hierarchy based on different perspectives”, authored
by Eng’r. Carmelo P. Tompar. I was also made to understand, that this document (available
at http://www.psmecomments.
blogspot.com/) was written as a response to my December 4,
2011 article titled “Professional imbalance also an ME concern”.
As a backgrounder, my December 4 article zeroed in
on the “prevalence…of
the shortage of [Professional Mechanical Engineers]… that has resulted in the
unchecked and large scale violation of the ME law [which] is a disservice not
only to the [mechanical engineering] profession but also to the country, as the
shortage, in a way, deprives the various enterprises of competent personnel
that can enhance their success, and in effect, undermine the country’s nation
building and development initiatives. Such a situation, to this writer’s mind,
points only to one course of action, which is, expediting the correction of the prevailing particular
professional imbalance”.
Going
through Eng’r. Tompar’s document, I would interpret its essence as follows: He
believes that in order to address the PME shortage, there is the need to provide “Focus and emphasis on
[the] Professional Mechanical Engineering Examination…” He believes that the Fundamental
Cannon #2 of the “Code of Ethical and Professional Standards for the Practice
of Mechanical Engineering Profession” should likewise be an operative factor,
together with Sec.17 (a) of RA 8495, in the “structuring” of the prerequisites
for granting the PME grade. In so doing, there would be a full implementation
of the provisions of the law.
Sec.
17(a) specifies that “The granting of professional mechanical engineer Certificate
of Registration shall be testimonial in nature…”, while Cannon #2, which was
crafted as part of BME Resolution No.6, Series of 2003 (on the strength of Sec.
9(a) of RA 8495), states that “Mechanical Engineers in the fulfilment of their
professional duties, shall…Perform services only in areas of their competence”.
The logic of this approach is that it can
speed up the processing of PME applicants without compromising on the
qualifications of a passing engineer since his/her competence would be tested with
respect to his/her own experience and expertise. More PMEs can then be
generated in the process.
Eng’r.
Tompar also opined that “the full implementation of RA 8495 could only be
actualized if there is
immediate action of PSME, the PRC and the Department of [Interior and] Local
Government”. He did not support this statement with details but I would
hazard to guess what he means as follows:
The
function of DILG and PRC will be material in terms of enforcing the ME Law on the strength of Sec. 40
empowering them to enforce the provisions as well as prosecute violators.
The
function of the PRC and BME will be material on the strength of Sec.9 (a) and Sec.9 (g) of the
ME Law. These sections empower them to promulgate and adopt rules and
regulations necessary for carrying out the provisions of the law.
Perhaps what can be addressed along this line is to reconsider current
operating policies in the light of what is stated in Sec.2, Statement of Policy,
which includes also, aside
from regulatory measures, programs and activities as other means of nurturing
and developing the mechanical engineers and the mechanical engineering
profession. Perhaps even the policy of not entertaining applications of RMEs connected with non-compliant
companies can be reconsidered as it seems to be one of the PME stumbling
blocks.
As
to the function of PSME,
perhaps what it can do is to fortify
its effort in getting the ME Law amended as soon as possible so that it can be
improved to be a truly effective law
for the enhancement of the mechanical engineering profession.
Professional imbalance - also a mechanical engineering profession concern
30 November 2011
It was serendipitous that while I was
contemplating on this article more than a week ago, the editorial of the
People’s Journal titled “Tragic and ironic” came out. The editorial talked of
professional imbalance, particularly pointing to the shortage of professionals
in the mining and health care industries, and how the corresponding
professional regulatory boards (i.e., mining and optometry) are addressing
their respective problems.
It seems however that this concern extends
beyond that of the earlier mentioned professions, as according to Professional Regulation
Commission commissioner, Atty. Jenifer Manalili, the country is also suffering
from a severe shortage of licensed optometrists, guidance counsellors,
psychologist, medical technologist, social workers, pharmacists, nutritionist
and dentists. The editorial also noted that the PRC has likewise warned that “...the
country may soon run out of mining engineers and other professionals...”
Professional imbalance, if this mechanical
engineer may opine, is also a concern (among others) of the mechanical
engineering profession – that of the Professional Mechanical Engineer grade in
particular. Based on the latest statistics that came my way, there are currently
about 5,000 PMEs registered with the PRC, half of whom are already dead,
inactive or retired. Section 34 of the ME Law (RA 8495) dictates, among others,
that a mechanical work, project or plant with an aggregate rating of more than
2,000 Kilowatts, and which operates for 24 hrs, should have a complement of at
least 4 PMEs. This is so that each of the three shifts can be manned by one (while
the fourth can also serve, on top of other responsibilities, as a buffer). A
simple computation would show that the nation has currently enough PMEs for
only about 625 such facilities with a rating of more than 2,000 kW. The effect
of this is the large scale non-compliance with this particular aspect of the ME
law in various industries. This discrepancy is further magnified by the fact
that a good number of PMEs are employed abroad.
The ME law in its statement of policy (Section
2) declares that, “The state recognizes the importance of mechanical engineers
in nation building and development... [and] shall develop and nurture
competent... mechanical engineers...through regulatory measures, programs and
activities”. On the basis of this policy, this writer believes that among the
underlying objectives of the law in developing and nurturing the mechanical
engineers’ competence is the enhancement of their ability to contribute to the
success of the enterprise they are with, as well as, ensure the safety and
protection of life and property. In this manner the mechanical engineer’s value
is likewise enhanced and would translate into better gains for him from the
practice of his profession. The prevalence therefore of the shortage of PMEs that
has resulted in the unchecked and large scale violation of the ME law is a
disservice not only to the profession but also to the country, as the shortage,
in a way, deprives the various enterprises of competent personnel that can
enhance their success, and in effect, undermine the country’s nation building
and development initiatives. Such a situation, to this writer’s mind, points
only to one course of action, which is, expediting the correction of the
prevailing particular professional imbalance.
The ME law was passed in 1998, some 13
years ago, but sadly, its implementation is grossly wanting as of today. The
situation has prevailed despite PSME, with its roughly 10,000 members, engaging
in an effort during the last few years to rectify the anomaly (but barely made
a dent in improving the situation). This development, again, to this writer’s
mind, may be the biggest factor that caused the stagnation of the profession
and parked it to the sad state that it is now in. There seems to be however a
proverbial “light at the end of the [dark] tunnel” development in the person of
the new PRC Chairperson, Atty. Teresita Manzala who has personally assumed
oversight function over the mechanical engineering profession (the only
engineering profession under the PRC chair). As I mentioned in an earlier
article about her message to the “Society” during the 59th Natcon, she
feels that this enabled her to gain a deeper awareness and involvement which
has given her intimate views of its issues and concerns. “This, according to
her gives the profession a special place among the roster of regulated
professions, and has made, as well, the upliftment of the mechanical engineers of
special significance in the PRC”.
Hopefully, her “presence” would usher in
the necessary initiatives and changes that would improve the profession, and
also, bring about dynamism to this “sleeping giant-resource” – the more than
70,000 mechanical engineers registered with the PRC- so that it could finally
unleash its potential abilities and gain its rightful place as a significant
partner in the country’s effort to achieve economic prominence and progress for
all.
Comments/reactions from the readers, especially
from the 60,000 or more inactive registered mechanical engineers, can be sent
through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com)
or through this writer’s blog (mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Oil, a global problem.
29 March 2012
Last Monday evening, March 28, a major broadsheet’s news item in the net (http://business.inquirer.net /51135/civil-society-groups-launch-coalition-vs-oil-price-hikes) announced the launching of the Coalition Against Oil Price Increases. This group whose claimed advocacy is the “bringing down of oil prices” is reportedly composed of lawmakers, church people, business, consumer, as well as activist groups that intend to urge the administration to “undertake all possible measures to rein in and lower oil prices”. Citing the oil companies’ recent jacking up of prices 10 times as of last week versus the three times that the prices were rolled back, they claim that the government has not done much to address the problem. As such, they raised and expressed their support for the following four issues, namely: the “reduction, suspension or removal of the VAT on oil, the review or repeal of the oil deregulation law…a probe into the pricing schemes of oil companies, and a rollback in prices”. They also claim that “There are many options and possibilities for lowering oil prices. These range from short-term measures to medium and long-term proposals” - which maybe, they should provide more details on.
As to whether or not the group’s stance with respect to the four issues are valid, I believe that the coalition, being composed of citizens, have all the right to raise these concerns, and I think that it is the government’s duty and responsibility to openly and objectively address them. In this way, what can possibly be rectified is rectified; and those that can’t be, is properly explained to the public. I , for one would also like to be enlightened why I have to pay Php 58.35 per liter for my gas which is 21.46% more expensive than the price per liter in the US ( at $4 per gallon).
On the other hand, what does not fit well with me though, is, as I have observed, the inclination of some to resort to name calling, which has been taken advantage of by some quarters to degrade the President’s person. Although I don’t think the attempts were effective, I think the “demolition” effort was childish and even foolish, because it attempts to weaken the very person who must spearhead the effort to bring about the corrections being sought.
The current concern regarding oil and gasoline got me to read up on these items and what I learned got me really worried. First of all, it turns out that the price of oil has already reached the US$147/ barrel in July 2008 (http://oilpricefrom1999to2008.blogspot.com/), and I remember paying about Php60/liter for my gasoline during that time. The reason for this high level was the geopolitical tension then over Iranian missile tests. Currently, the price of oil is at US$124/barrel, which is partly caused by, again, by geopolitical tensions with Iran that threatens to block the Strait of Hormus, through which 20% of the traded oil worldwide passes. If the geopolitical condition deteriorates, then there is a possibility that the July 2008 experience will be repeated, bringing more oil related difficulties to all.
Another worry is the concern about “peak oil”, which is the point in time where oil production flows are unable to increase. In 2010, the International Energy Agency declared, based on data gathered from the oil fields, that the peak of conventional oil production occurred in 2006. It has also been established that the oil production growth has stopped in 2004 and has remained to within 5% of its peak (approx 86 million barrels/day) despite historically high prices. The problem is that despite the plateau in worldwide oil production, economies of countries like China and India continue to grow and keep on increasing their oil demand. Given the law of supply and demand, it seems that realistic global conditions point to more expensive oil in the future.
It seems that the oil problem runs deeper than how we perceive it, and we may have to start already focusing also on efforts to mitigate effects of oil shortage. This however is definitely not an easy matter to tackle. More details on this in my next articles on this subject.
Ideas on the matter of RA 8495 and the PME gap
15 March 2012
During the 2nd meeting of the 2012 National Board of the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers held in Cebu City last February 4, I was handed a copy of a 3,801 word document titled “RA 8495: Clarification on our hierarchy based on different perspectives”, authored by Eng’r. Carmelo P. Tompar. I was also made to understand, that this document (available at http://www.psmecomments. blogspot.com/) was written as a response to my December 4, 2011 article titled “Professional imbalance also an ME concern”.
As a backgrounder, my December 4 article zeroed in on the “prevalence…of the shortage of [Professional Mechanical Engineers]… that has resulted in the unchecked and large scale violation of the ME law [which] is a disservice not only to the [mechanical engineering] profession but also to the country, as the shortage, in a way, deprives the various enterprises of competent personnel that can enhance their success, and in effect, undermine the country’s nation building and development initiatives. Such a situation, to this writer’s mind, points only to one course of action, which is, expediting the correction of the prevailing particular professional imbalance”.
Going through Eng’r. Tompar’s document, I would interpret its essence as follows: He believes that in order to address the PME shortage, there is the need to provide “Focus and emphasis on [the] Professional Mechanical Engineering Examination…” He believes that the Fundamental Cannon #2 of the “Code of Ethical and Professional Standards for the Practice of Mechanical Engineering Profession” should likewise be an operative factor, together with Sec.17 (a) of RA 8495, in the “structuring” of the prerequisites for granting the PME grade. In so doing, there would be a full implementation of the provisions of the law.
Sec. 17(a) specifies that “The granting of professional mechanical engineer Certificate of Registration shall be testimonial in nature…”, while Cannon #2, which was crafted as part of BME Resolution No.6, Series of 2003 (on the strength of Sec. 9(a) of RA 8495), states that “Mechanical Engineers in the fulfilment of their professional duties, shall…Perform services only in areas of their competence”.
The logic of this approach is that it can speed up the processing of PME applicants without compromising on the qualifications of a passing engineer since his/her competence would be tested with respect to his/her own experience and expertise. More PMEs can then be generated in the process.
Eng’r. Tompar also opined that “the full implementation of RA 8495 could only be actualized if there is immediate action of PSME, the PRC and the Department of [Interior and] Local Government”. He did not support this statement with details but I would hazard to guess what he means as follows:
The function of DILG and PRC will be material in terms of enforcing the ME Law on the strength of Sec. 40 empowering them to enforce the provisions as well as prosecute violators.
The function of the PRC and BME will be material on the strength of Sec.9 (a) and Sec.9 (g) of the ME Law. These sections empower them to promulgate and adopt rules and regulations necessary for carrying out the provisions of the law. Perhaps what can be addressed along this line is to reconsider current operating policies in the light of what is stated in Sec.2, Statement of Policy, which includes also, aside from regulatory measures, programs and activities as other means of nurturing and developing the mechanical engineers and the mechanical engineering profession. Perhaps even the policy of not entertaining applications of RMEs connected with non-compliant companies can be reconsidered as it seems to be one of the PME stumbling blocks.
As to the function of PSME, perhaps what it can do is to fortify its effort in getting the ME Law amended as soon as possible so that it can be improved to be a truly effective law for the enhancement of the mechanical engineering profession.
Oman experience, part 2
08 March 2012
As mentioned in my last article, I had to wait for about four hours at the Abu Dhabi International Airport for my connecting flight to Muscat, Oman. While waiting, I met two Filipino overseas workers also headed for Oman. One of them is Arnel Siapno, who, after a three month home leave, was returning to his work as the company cook at the Belgian firm, Jan de Nul, a leading company specialized in dredging and land reclamation projects all over the world. According to Arnel, his company is in the process of finishing a project it has been working on for the last five years (since 2007) in the Port of Duqm, Oman. The project involves the construction of a new port complex, breakwaters and quay walls, including the dredging of the access channel and harbour basin. After finishing in a month or so, they’re set to move on to another big assignment in Vietnam.
Meanwhile, in the plane, I had as seatmate a 29 year old Filipino civil engineer who was also returning to his work with Parsons International, a company recognized internationally as a leader in the planning, designing and implementation of infrastructure projects. Eng’r Ronaldo “Mark” Angeles, who to his credit has attained the position as a Site Engineer at such a young age, seemed to be just too eager to engage me in conversation and share with me a lot of stories about him. He related that he is from Bulacan, and the eldest among three siblings. Being the eldest, and the first to finish college, he (just like a lot of Filipinos in a similar situation) succeeded in supporting his sister (a teacher) and his brother (an ECE) through college. Now, feeling that he has somehow complied with his responsibility to his younger siblings, he is eyeing settling down with his fiancée Ms Maria Blanche Samaco, a flight stewardess with Oman Air. It was so evident how deeply in love he is with her, in the way he fondly recalled how he won Maria, in spite of his being turned down twice. According to him he continued to pursue her because she is the realization of his dream of having a wife who is both beautiful and someone who never had a boyfriend. On my part I shared with him some advice I usually give young engineers on how they can improve their chance of succeeding in their profession, e.g., being conscious of not ending up with a “smokestack” development, but instead consciously adopting a development path similar to that of an “inverted cone”. The exchange continued pleasantly along these lines during the entire flight, with the two other “kababayans” (Arnel and Rudyrick Fernando) who were, seated not far from us, eventually joining in.
What transpired when we arrived in the Muscat Airport was to me heart-warming because without my asking, the three made it a point to stay with me and assisted me in getting through the immigration desk. This was despite the fact that they were really all in a hurry - one of them was still going to make an eight hour land trip to Duqm, while the other two were supposed to proceed directly from the airport to their work. We all took our separate ways only after they made sure I already cleared immigration and have collected my luggage.
I had three Filipino engineers who attended my lectures (together with nineteen Omani and two Indian nationals). They were Eng.’s Dominador Velasco, Brandy Guevarra (both mechanical engineers) and Ferdinand Aluning (electrical engineer). I also met and had the chance to interact with a few of what I was told were more than thirty Filipino men and women technical professionals in Haya Water - among them, Eng.’s Jerry Valente, Robin Barquez, Wilmer Gromo, Armer Samson and Gary Espinosa. Interacting with them, I sensed their self-confidence, which probably is a result of the recognition of their value in the organization by their Omani peers and superiors, some of whom I also had the opportunity to talk with. I likewise sensed this self-confidence with the two Filipina waitresses (Liezel and Liza whose family names I unfortunately failed to get) who took care of me in the hotel restaurant where I took my breakfast and dinner. I again observed this self confidence in the hundreds of Filipinos that converged in Abu Dhabi airport, including the Qatar based construction worker I sat with in the plane on my way back. If I were to hazard an explanation for such an effect, it must be the realization of a higher self-worth; brought about by the actual experiencing of achieving something that they never thought they could achieve.
When the wheels of the Etihad Airways B 777 300 touched down almost everyone in the plane clapped, and I presume it is because of happiness for being back home once more. After looking around, I also clapped, but for another reason – just like what is done after a witnessing a terrific performance, I clapped for them!
Oman experience, Part 1
02 March 2012
The opportunity to make my first ever trip to the Middle East was brought about by a commitment to give a lecture titled “Challenging Traditional Approaches in Maintenance” to the staff of the Oman Wastewater Services Company (Haya Water), a corporation owned by the Sultanate of Oman.
I’m finishing this article while on my sixth day in Muscat, the capital of Oman, and, observing a two day break (Thursday and Friday), their equivalent of our weekend in the Philippines. Resumption of the lecture shall be on Saturday and completed the following day, Sunday.
This trip, as usual, has proven to be truly educational especially in terms of being able to further appreciate, and this time in close quarters, the talents of Filipinos, as well as the honor that this new generation of heroes (the OFWs) are giving our country. It has been an educational opportunity, as well, in terms of being exposed first hand to the culture of another country that has given economic opportunities to a lot of our countrymen.
The travel from my home didn’t seem to start very well, as despite the four and a half hour lead time that I purposely provided to give myself comfortable time in traversing the 30 kilometer distance to the airport, and in going through the checking-in process of what to me is an unfamiliar trip was eaten up by – guess what – clogged roads. I barely made it to meet the boarding time of the 11:55 PM flight. My complaint in particular was the bottlenecks, practically gridlocks, at two points of my route to the airport, and, at 9:30 in the evening. One bottleneck was before crossing the bridge traversing the SLEX from the Fort and the other one after crossing the same bridge towards the road going to Nichols where the terminals are. The ill-discipline of the drivers, as well as the possibility of traffic build-up at those points and at that particular time, are, to me, already a given, and I think that this factors should have enabled the authorities responsible for controlling traffic to develop and adopt pre-emptive measures. This particular traffic problem in this particular location at a particular time is definitely brought about by clearly identifiable recurring factors so it should not be difficult to implement steps like assigning more traffic control officers armed with a traffic control strategy designed to address this traffic problem. I can just imagine the tension that tourists, coming from the Fort on their way to the airport, are subjected to because of fear of missing their flight. Definitely not a good way of saying, thank you, or, goodbye please come again.
At any rate, I was able to successfully board my flight, after going through the process of cueing at our Terminal One, pay my travel tax, check in my luggage, have my visa to Oman read, then back to the check-in counter, pay the terminal fee, go through the single snake-like cue of what looked like 500 passengers to pass through immigration, and then, being advised that I left my visa at the check-in counter. One bright spot though was the courtesy and graciousness of the lady immigration officer who respectfully asked me to fill up a departure card (which I should have done beforehand and told her straight I did not have any) so that I can get through her gate.
The plane for the nine hour flight to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates was a Boeing 777 300, and the airline, Etihad Airways. In the plane I was seated beside Mr Gilbert Reonal, a Registerd Nurse on his way back to work. We had a wonderful conversation for a big portion of the flight, and he struck me as being one of the more privileged Filipino ex-pats in the UAE. He is currently working as a Nurse Manager for the UAE Health System, and aside from managerial duties, is involved in psychiatry as well as addiction and rehab work. According to him, he has been working for 22 years in the Middle East, 8 years of which he spent in Oman, 2 years with the Abu Dhabi Armed Forces and 12 years with his current job. He was part of the first group of Filipino medical personnel who worked in Oman and which, according to him, was responsible in encouraging the government to “Omanize” their medical system, i.e., develop their own nurses and doctors. Nowadays, their medical system is manned by Oman citizens.
He also made me aware of the successes of various Filipino individuals as well as groups in the Middle East, among them a lady engineer who was one of the consultants in the building of the Burj Khalifa Building, the tallest building in the world as of 2011, as well as a Filipino who owns Oman Phil, a manpower company that brought in Filipino workers during the 1980s. Pilipino professionals like the nurses (of which there are about 50,000 in Abu Dhabi), educators (with PhDs teaching in colleges), engineers (working in the oil and gas, and construction industries), as well as non-professional successfully providing their skills abound in the Emirates.
The flight was generally smooth except for a little bumpy portion towards the end, which caused the flight crew to delay serving hot drinks for breakfast. This was however more than compensated for by the amiable and gracious crew headed by Ms Aurora “Au” Hechanova, the Cabin Crew Manager. Being a proponent of quality, I consciously observed how capably she managed her staff, and I would attribute the effectiveness of the cabin crew to the example that she herself showed. This performance must be typical of this airline and probably the reason why it gets so much passengers. I was actually surprised to see the large cordoned-off waiting area in front of our gate full of passengers, and practically in a SRO situation, when I checked in. Ms Hechanova, by the way, also informed me that about 50 percent of the Etihad Airways personnel are Filipinos; and there are pilots as well.
We landed at Abu Dhabi about 15 minutes ahead of schedule, and as I took the long long walk towards the terminal for my connecting flight to Muscat, I was saying “wow” because of what I saw. I was telling myself, so, this is the example of a world class airport; clean and well lit walk ways, working walkalators, very clean toilets with working fixtures, courteous personnel and comfortable lounges for waiting passengers, like me, as I have to while away four hours before my connecting flight to Muscat, Oman takes off. More interesting stories on our compatriots and my Oman experience to follow.
Kahalagahan ng isang supervisor #4
22 March 2012
Natalakay na sa mga naunang bahagi ng artikulong ito ang dalawa sa tatlong paksang kung saan ay dapat nakatutok at naididiin ang pagsasanay, o training, ng isang supervisor, upang ang kakayahan niyang mangasiwa ay mapatibay at mapabisa. Ang mga ito ay ang kaalaman sa trabahong sasakupin (job knowledge) at kakayahan sa pakikipagkapwa-tao (behavioral skills). Sa bahaging ito ngayon ay tatalakayin naman natin ang pangatlong paksa; ang kakayahang mag-isip na parang pangasiwaaan (management-mindedness).
Ang pag-iisip at paggalaw na parang isang ganap na nangangasiwa ay maipapahiwatig sa pamamagitan ng mga sumusunod na pamamaraan:
Una, ay ang pagtanto, pagtarok at pagsasapuso ng ‘bisor sa mga pilosopiya (philosophy), patakaran (policies) at pamamaraan (procedures) ng kumpanyang kanyang kinabibilangan. Mahalagang ang kaalaman o kasanayan niya tungkol sa mga nabanggit ay kasintindi ng kaalaman o kasanayan niya tungkol sa mga pamantayan (standards) o kota (quota ) sa kanyang trabaho. Sa pamamagitan nito ay lubos na tataas ang kakayanan niyang maipaliwanag sa kanyang mga tauhan ang mga layunin (o hangarin) ng kumpanya, at kung paano naman magkaagapay ang hangarin ng kumpanya at ang kani-kanilang mga sariling hangarin. Mahalaga na mapalakas ang kakayanang ito dahil, kagaya ng nabanggit na sa nakaraang unang bahagi ng artikulong ito, ay sa kamay ng mga ‘bisor nakasalalay ang pagpapalabas ng resulta na inaasahan buhat sa mga trabahador (na kanyang mga tauhan). At, malaki naman ang kinalaman ng matagumpay na pagpapalabas ng inaasahang resulta sa pangkalahatang tagumpay sa negosyo ng kumpanya.
Pangalawa, ay ang pagkakaroon ng ‘bisor ng ugaling patuloy na mapabuti pa at madagdagan ang pansariling kaalaman, kakayahan at pananaw tungkol sa mga bagay-bagay (self-improvement), lalung –lalo na ang mga bagay na may kinalaman sa trabaho, at pati na ang pakikitungo sa mga tao. Isang mabisang pamamaraan ng pamumuno ang pagpapakita ng sarili bilang halimbawa kung kaya malamang na tularan ng kanyang mga tauhan ang ‘bisor sa makikita nilang pagpupursige nitong mapaigting at mapalawak pa ang sariling kakayanan. Kapag nangyari ito ay magiging isang malaking kahalagahan para sa kumpanya. May mga hamon, banta, hadlang at kabigatang hinaharap sa pakikipag-kompetensiya sa negosyo na dapat na pagpahalagahan ng ‘bisor, at dapat din siyang makiisa sa pagpupunyagi upang manaig at magtagumpay ang kumpanya. Isang pamamaraan nga dito ang tuloy-tuloy na pagpupursige upang lalo pang mapaige ang kalidad ng produktung ginagawa at serbisyong ibinibigay niya, at saka ng kanyang mga tauhan. Dagdag na din dito ang ginagawang kusang pagpapalawig ng sariling kakayahan na magdadagdag di lang ng kanyang halaga sa kumpanya, kundi pati na rin sa kakayanan ng kumpanyang makipagtagisan at manaig sa negosyo.
At kung mayroon mang nagnanais na magpadala ng katanungan tungkol sa mga nakasulat ay mangyari lang na magpadala sa aking email na sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com o sa aking webpage na http://www.facebook/jtl3mekaniko.
Kahalagahan ng isang supervisor #3
2 February 2012
Nuong nakaraan ay natalakay ko ang kahalagahan ng pagsasanay sa mga supervisor, upang maging mabisa sila sa pang-una nilang tungkulin na maipatupad nila sa kanilang mga tauhan ang nakaatang na mga gawain nila - kung ito man ay ang pagbubuo ng isang produkto, paggawa ng gawaing pang-upisina, o pagbibigay ng isang serbisyo.
Nabanggit ko din na, sa ganang akin, ang pagsasanay sa mga supervisor ay dapat na itutok sa mga sumusunod na tatlong paksa. Una, kaalaman tungkol sa trabahong sakop (job knowledge), na kung saan ay nasasaklaw ang kakayahang teknikal tungkol sa trabaho (technical skills), kaalaman tungkol sa mga pamamaraan sa pagpapatakbo ng trabaho (familiarity with operational aspect of the work), at ang kaalaman at kakayanan sa pangangasiwa, o pamamahala (administrative and management skills). Pangalawa, ang kakayahang makipagkapwa-tao (behavioural skills), na siyang nakatakda nating talakayin ngayon. At pangatlo, ang kakayahang mag-isip na parang pangasiwaan (management mindedness).
Ang pagkakaroon ng isang malawak na kakayanang makipagkapwa-tao ng isang ‘bisor ay magbubunga ng isang malusog na pagkakaugnay niya sa kanyang mga tauhan. At ang ganitong malugod na lagay ng isang samahan ay makakapagpadali sa pag-papasang-ayon sa mga tauhan na makipagtulungan upang ang mga minimithing layunin o hangarin ng organisasyon ay matamo.
Marami nang pag-aaral ang nagawa tungkol sa kung anu-ano ang kinakailangan sa pakikipag-kapwa-tao, at may nagsabi na makikita ang kakayanang ito sa pamamaraang ginagamit mo sa pakikitungo sa iba; at pati na din sa kung paano naman ang pagtanggap mo sa pakikitungo nila sa iyo. Ito ay makikita sa kung paano ka makipag-usap, makinig, magtanong, mag-utos, mag-ganyak, makiusap, magbigay ng tulong, magbigay ng papuri, magdesisyon, atbp. Makikita din ito sa kung paano ang pagtanggap mo sa dumarating na reklamo, sa paghingi mo ng paumanhin, makipag-usap sa isang galit, trato sa pagkabigo, pagpapasalamat, pagtitimpi, pangangalap ng impormasyon, pagtrato sa problema, atbp.
Napatunayan na din ng marami na ang maayos na pakikipagkapwa-tao ay isang mabisang paraan upang mapasigla ang communication sa isang grupo o organisasyon. Malaki din ang maitutulong nito upang mapataas ang pagpapahalaga sa sarili (self-esteem) at kasiglahan (morale) ng samahan. Mapapasibol at mapapayabong din nito ang pagtutulungan ng magkakasama (teamwork) na siyang isang sagot sa pagpapataas ng productivity - isa sa pinakamahalagang sangkap para sa pagtatagumpay ng isang organisasyon.
Ang tunay at tapat na pakikipagkapwa-tao, higit sa lahat, ay katambal ng mabisang pamumuno. At ang ‘bisor na may mataas nang kaalaman sa kanyang trabahong sakop, at nakikitaan ng kanyang mga tauhan ng tunay at tapat na pakikipagkapwa-tao, ay di malayong tanghaling isang kagalang-galang at pinag-pipitagang puno, na siyang pagsisibulan ng isang matibay at mabisang pamunuan.
Ngunit ano nga ba ang mabisang pamumuno, o effective leadership ng isang ‘bisor? Ito ay hindi ang pagiging popular dahil sa kinukunsinte ang mga tauhan, o sa pagiging mapagpalayaw. Hindi din ito maipapakita sa pamamaraang pagiging mabagsik, o kinatatakutan upang mapasunod ang mga tauhan.
Sa halip, ang mabisang pamumuno ay maipapakita sa pamamagitan ng tunay na makataong trato sa mga tauhan, at di parang kasangkapan lang; pagpapakita ng pantay na pagpapairal ng disiplina at pagmamalasakit sa kapakanan at karapatan nila; pagkilala sa halaga nila sa ikapagtatagumpay ng organisasyon; tuloy-tuloy na pagpapaliwanag sa kanila tungkol sa mga hangarin at panuntunan ng orgnisasyon; patuloy na pagpapataas ng kanilang kaalaman at kakayanan, at pagbibigay ng kanilang kailangang kagamitan upang matagumpay na magampanan nila ang kanilang nakatakdang gawain; pagpapakita ng patas na trato sa lahat; pagtutuwid ng mga kamalian, at pagdadagdag sa mga kakulangang karunungan; pagpapakita ng ‘bisor ng kanyang sarili bilang isang halimbawa ng isang responsible at kapaki-pakinabang na empleyado.
Ang pagkakaroon ng isang mabisang pamumuno (na kung saan ay nakadiin ang pagpapairal ng dalisay na pakikipagkapwa-tao) ang siyang kailangan upang maganyak ang mga tauhan na makipagtulungan, at magpakasigasig, para sa ikapagtatagumpay ang organisasyon. Lalong magiging epektibo ang pamamaraan na ito kung sadyang ibinabahagi sa mga tauhan ang mga layunin ng organisasyon, at ipinapaliwanag sa kanila ang tungkol sa kahalagahan nito pagdating sa kapakanan nila - at ng organisasyon. At kaagapay nito, ay ang pagbibigay din sa kanila nang kakayahang tumukoy ng mga hangaring kung saan ay magiging kapakipakinabang sa organisasyon at sa kanila, at sa pagpapatupad ng mga hanqaring tinukoy, sa pamamagitan ng paggamit nila ang kanilang angking kasanayan at talino (empowerment).
Ang paksang susunod na tatalakayin ng artikulo sa ilalim ng pangkalahatang pamagat na “Kahalagahan ng isang supervisor” ay ang kakayahang mag-isip na parang pangasiwaan (management mindedness). At kung mayroon mang nagnanais na magpadala ng katanungan tungkol sa mga nakasulat ay mangyari lang na magpadala sa aking email na sl3.mekaniko@gmail.com o sa aking webpage na http://www.facebook/jtl3mekaniko.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)