Survey: Registrants Positive about Organization’s Performance

When asked how they rated the organization’s performance as a regulator, 72 percent of respondents had a positive rating, broken down as 49 percent saying it was very good or excellent and 23 percent saying it was good. In terms of their reason for a positive rating, respondents cited Engineers and Geoscientists BC’s ability to provide the appropriate oversight and accountability to keep people safe, followed by good communication and positive views of available resources.

Although the survey question was worded slightly differently this year, that’s consistent with 2023 results. The survey, conducted April 8 to May 1, received feedback from 4,237 practising registrants.

“We are encouraged by the positive feedback from registrants on our performance as a regulator,” said Heidi Yang, P.Eng., CEO of Engineers and Geoscientists BC. “We understand that the PGA and the new advocacy body have brought significant changes to our profession in the past few years. We are grateful for the ongoing engagement and support of our registrants through these times of change.”

For the 13 percent who rated the organization’s performance as fair or poor, most respondents noted dissatisfaction with the Professional Governance Act (PGA) and Engineers and Geoscientists BC’s revised mandate as the main reason.

This year, the number of registrants who said their understanding of the organization’s mandate was excellent or quite good rose to 66 percent, up from 42 percent last year. Only four percent said their understanding was not very good, down from 16 percent in 2023.

Understanding the Advocacy Body

The introduction of the BC Society for Engineering and Geoscience (BCSEG), the advocacy body, was initiated on June 27, 2023, and survey results indicate some uncertainty about its role remains.

Only 53 percent said they were aware of the creation of the advocacy body. When asked how they felt about it, 19 percent were supportive, a further 34 percent were somewhat supportive, and 38 percent said they were not sure. Responses from this category showed those registrants needed more information about the purpose and benefit before making judgement.

For those who support the idea of an advocacy body, positive responses indicated these registrants felt advocacy was important and necessary and supported the idea of separating advocacy functions from regulatory roles.

Nine percent said they did not like the idea of an advocacy body, citing concerns about extra costs, fees, and bureaucracy.

Photo: iStock