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 4^th 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 2^nd 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”.You know, I agree with you that our focus should not be only on technical aspects. In the same way that I usually declare that having just a good technical skill is not enough to assure success for an engineer. One has to be as well rounded as possible, and develop the necessary competence in other skills, such as behavioural, communication, etc. Such a widening of concerns should also be the case with respect to the professions or organizations. As for the PSME, I joined and became an active PSME member since I retired from active employment more than 3 years ago. However, it is my thinking (after being exposed to the national activities through the national board) that although there is a current thrust being undertaken to improve its effectiveness as an organization, I’m afraid it may not be successful. This is because it is still operating within the very same “framework” that (to me) has been the cause of its stagnation, if not deterioration, over the last few decades. What I believe is needed is a more radical approach – a breakaway from this old “framework” – so that new approaches and new ideas for enhancing the profession would be allowed to flow in. To achieve a meaningful improvement, here should be an overhauling and the introduction of “fresh wind” at the very apex of the profession itself.You know, I agree with you that our focus should not be only on technical aspects. In the same way that I usually declare that having just a good technical skill is not enough to assure success for an engineer. One has to be as well rounded as possible, and develop the necessary competence in other skills, such as behavioural, communication, etc. Such a widening of concerns should also be the case with respect to the professions or organizations. As for the PSME, I joined and became an active PSME member since I retired from active employment more than 3 years ago. However, it is my thinking (after being exposed to the national activities through the national board) that although there is a current thrust being undertaken to improve its effectiveness as an organization, I’m afraid it may not be successful. This is because it is still operating within the very same “framework” that (to me) has been the cause of its stagnation, if not deterioration, over the last few decades. What I believe is needed is a more radical approach – a breakaway from this old “framework” – so that new approaches and new ideas for enhancing the profession would be allowed to flow in. To achieve a meaningful improvement, here should be an overhauling and the introduction of “fresh wind” at the very apex of the profession itself.

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).