Season 5 Wrap on Difficult Conversations & Engineering for Communities

In this final episode of Season 5, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis conclude their theme of difficult conversations engineers need to have as well as discuss Engineering for Communities. 

They explore how engineering should focus on improving rather than maintaining the status quo, and the concerning trend of engineers being sidelined in critical decision-making processes.

The discussion includes:

• How councils and planning decisions have become "de-engineered"
• The importance of due diligence beyond just health and safety - extending to environmental protection and project management
• Why engineers seem to have "vacated the field" in many areas, leaving non-technical decision-makers to handle complex problems
• The need for validation, verification, and challenging assumptions rather than blindly applying Standards
• How proper due diligence can demonstrate governance and protect communities, workers, and the environment
• Due diligence is an ongoing process requiring continuous thinking and adaptation as technology and circumstances change. 

The also discuss their confusion how anyone could they're a designers and not demonstrate due diligence irrespective of what the WHS/OHS legislation says and that they’re setting themselves up for a fall.

For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au, where you’ll also find their booklets (store) and a sign-up for their quarterly newsletter to keep informed of their latest news and events.

Gaye is also founder of women’s safety workwear company Apto PPE if you’d like to check out the garments at https://www.aptoppe.com.au

Transcript

Megan (Producer) (00:00):

Welcome to Risk! Engineers Talk Governance. In this final episode of Season 5, due diligence engineers, Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis wrap up the theme of difficult conversations engineers need to have, as well as discuss engineering for communities.

(00:19):

We hope you enjoy the chat. If you do, please give us a rating and subscribe on your favourite podcast platform.

(00:26):

If you'd like to keep in touch with R2A's work and events, please head to the website www.r2a.com.au and sign up to our quarterly newsletter.

(00:37):

Thanks for all the wonderful support and feedback this season and look out for Season 6, as well as an in-person event.

Gaye Francis (00:46):

Hi Richard. Welcome to our final podcast session for Season 5, the wrap up.

Richard Robinson (00:52):

Season 5!

Gaye Francis (00:53):

Season 5.

Richard Robinson (00:54):

It's hard to believe Gaye.

Gaye Francis (00:54):

It is. It is, but it's very exciting. It's been quite an interesting season this season because we themed it difficult discussions that engineers need to have, and we've covered risk management and negligence, our new booklet. The difficult conversations that engineers need to have. Catastrophic project blowouts, which is also one of our booklets, but also we've seen that in government projects in particular and how big projects are not meeting the requirements on time, on budget and specification. Insurance criteria. One that got a lot of feedback was standards are not the solution, so that was an interesting podcast. Target levels of risk and safety always gets the the thought leadership conversations happening. Relevant, reasoned and concise, especially around expert witness type cases. How things are done in silos. And then due diligence revisited.

(01:53):

So today we thought we'd try and bring all of those topics together in a bit of a mismatch, but bring them all together and talk about in the context of engineering for communities and the philosophy of engineering is about change and not maintaining the status quo. So that comes down to one of...

Richard Robinson (02:11):

Meaning things improve.

Gaye Francis (02:13):

And meaning things improve, correct!

Richard Robinson (02:14):

And don't decline. <laughs>

Gaye Francis (02:18):

And that it requires engineers and the people in those sort of positions to think about things and not just apply standards like we've talked about previously, to get that improvement in our communities.

Richard Robinson (02:33):

Yes. Well, you're actually addressing a somewhat larger subject when you talk about engineering for communities, and what I think you're saying is that in practice in community, a lot of the core decisions that have been going on around the place have de-engineered. One of our frustrations and that's what the previous podcast (S5E9) was about, that due diligence is not just about health and safety.

Gaye Francis (02:52):

Correct.

Richard Robinson (02:53):

It's about protecting the environment. It's about not having projects blow out when you're trying to get something done. And it is also about making sure that existing plants and processes do the best they can with what you've got. Because sometimes you simply aren't going to be able to replace all these things in a hurry. So ageing, thermal power stations, yeah, we'd like to keep them going until we're sorted out whatever else we're going to do. Australia's getting, well, I think we're getting better at it... we are making it happen because we have to.

Gaye Francis (03:22):

And due diligence is one of the processes that you use to demonstrate that that's being done

Richard Robinson (03:28):

Correct. Now, from the point of view of engineering and societies, I mean one of our frustrations we've noticed, for example, in planning decisions with councils - councils are basically de engineered. I mean, they've got all these planners making decisions about, and they like target levels of risk and safety because it means you can make a quick decision when they having to think things through. Although as we have demonstrated we have a current case, even actually demonstrating what the level of risk is, is somewhat messy, let's put it that way.

Gaye Francis (03:57):

Difficult thing to justify.

Richard Robinson (04:00):

And uncertain. And then when you try to work out the quantum of human effort, that should be put into a place to deal with something that's messy. That's a little bit scrappy too. So when you're trying to put the two things together, that's why it's hard and people have to think about these things. Now if you don't have the engineers around, and certainly in planning decisions, engineers seem to have basically left the fields as far as I can tell. Same things happened with building surveying. The engineers for the most part, apart from doing particular studies on bush fires or soil conditions or whatever the aspect is...

Gaye Francis (04:34):

They're a single input into the process.

Richard Robinson (04:36):

A series of single inputs the way it's going. But the collective overview of what's important to the thing seems to have gone missing and how many projects do we keep seeing blowing out? It's a little bit frustrating to us to be invited to a large project late in the day and then trying to as politely as we can point out that, yeah, it would've been better if you thought about this upfront.

Gaye Francis (04:58):

Yeah. Because what you can put in place, the controls that you can put in place and precautions you can put in place when a project is well on its way after practical completion, even some might say, is very, very limited compared to what could have been done in a safety and design process.

Richard Robinson (05:15):

And you would recall we have some Cabinet in confidence projects that we facilitated their demise and we're not allowed to talk about in case the tenderers find out.

Gaye Francis (05:24):

Correct.

Richard Robinson (05:24):

And sue the government.

Gaye Francis (05:26):

But that would have been a lot less hurt than if it had a gone ahead.

Richard Robinson (05:29):

Much less hurt, but let's not go into that. So the whole thing to us has become rather odd and we don't quite understand why the engineers have, in a sense vacated the field. And more to the point, the senior decision makers haven't grasped that in an advanced technological society, pushing the engineers away is going to cause excessive pain for the senior decision makers.

Gaye Francis (05:57):

And make those decisions harder and making informed decisions even harder.

Richard Robinson (06:03):

I'm not sure. I don't quite understand how they've done it? It's not as though, I mean we've talked about this before, but in Australia, as long as the sun's shining, I mean all the places on the planet where there's a lot of sun. I mean, you have your Finnish friends.

Gaye Francis (06:18):

I do.

Richard Robinson (06:18):

And they like nuclear reactors because in winter it's very cold and very dark.

Gaye Francis (06:24):

Not much sunshine.

Richard Robinson (06:24):

Not much sunshine. Whereas we have lots of it, and it's now cheaper to build solar power stations cheaper, faster, and quicker than nuclear plants. How long did it take the Finns to get the next Olkiluoto station going?

Gaye Francis (06:38):

I think the last one took up to 15 years because they weren't going to switch it on until they were completely confident that it was "safe".

Richard Robinson (06:47):

Which we in our society tend to say, oh, we better turn it on because we've got an election coming up or something like that.

Gaye Francis (06:54):

That's a bit cynical, Richard. But yes.

Richard Robinson (06:57):

Not after our experiences on the Geelong Freeway, but perhaps we shouldn't go there either. <laughs>

Gaye Francis (07:04):

So I think as was saying, due diligence is one of those processes that we've always said is used to demonstrate and as a defense against negligence, but it can be applied across the field, not just in health and safety. It can be applied in environment and projects and SIL reviews (safety integrity level) reviews and a whole lot of things. But one of the other important things I think that goes with the due diligence aspect is that validation and verification, and it's the ability to test and challenge and question, which is not necessarily being done. And that comes down to that questioning of things and thinking things through, but also not just applying the Standard as a minimum requirement and not thinking of the context in which the particular problem that needs to be solved in.

Richard Robinson (07:52):

Correct. And not avoiding a problem if you can in the first instance. I mean, we are continually astonished that people coming up with ideas and the solution of not doing it that way at all and doing it a better way for some reason just doesn't seem to be considered. We don't get that.

Gaye Francis (08:12):

And I think we've used this in our course many, many times just because everybody else is doing it that way, is not a defense against negligence.

Richard Robinson (08:18):

Correct. And the lawyers have been crystal clear about that forever.

Gaye Francis (08:21):

Yeah. Yeah. So think these things through what has always been done isn't necessarily the way to go about it. You've got to be diligent. And we are just talking and people are absolutely correct that there's no requirements in legislation and in the WHS Act, that is a requirement for engineers to be diligent or demonstrate due diligence. But as an engineer and a business owner, I'd like my engineers to be diligent.

Richard Robinson (08:57):

Certainly.

Gaye Francis (08:57):

And to be able to think these things through from scratch and understand the context in which they're applying it.

Richard Robinson (09:08):

A designer who doesn't demonstrate due diligence is just kidding themselves. I don't understand how somebody could even possibly say they're designers and they don't have to demonstrate due diligence irrespective what the legislation says. You would just be setting yourself up for a fall every time.

Gaye Francis (09:24):

So I think engineers are important people in our society and we're required to have good communities.

Richard Robinson (09:30):

Actually, their importance is actually demonstrated because whenever there's a court case, it's always the engineers.

Gaye Francis (09:35):

That come up and solve it or present the evidence.

Richard Robinson (09:38):

Yeah, it's not the town planner, it's the engineers. It's not the building surveyor, it's the engineers. Whenever there's a hard problem, it's the engineers that appear. And I don't quite understand why if you just look at the court process, if that's what happens, why do all these other parties who can't be a part of the solution per se, why are they making the decisions? That's the bit I don't get.

Gaye Francis (10:05):

I think it's also interesting, and another observation that we've probably had is that many of the health and safety people and advisors in organisations don't have that technical expertise.

Richard Robinson (10:16):

So they couldn't tell you how to avoid it in the first place, not the design party.

Gaye Francis (10:20):

So many of the solutions that are put forward by these people and these parties are often in the admin, the procedural sort of areas. So you've down the hierarchy of control before you even start.

Richard Robinson (10:32):

And do they attempt in the first instance, which is what they ought to be doing, to consult with those people who could perhaps eliminate the problem? I don't think they do. I think they just put forward the suggestion and more importantly, actually impose a rule on people without actually testing what the larger solutions ought to be.

Gaye Francis (10:51):

So I think there's two things that we've sort of seen, and much of the work that we do could probably be put into two categories. It's those people that want to improve safety in the organisation by demonstrating due diligence.

Richard Robinson (11:04):

Or project management

Gaye Francis (11:05):

Or project management

Richard Robinson (11:06):

Or environmental management.

Gaye Francis (11:07):

Yes, thank you. And then by doing that process, the due diligence process, you're also demonstrating a governance process that you've been through a governance process and it's sort of hand on heart stuff again, isn't it? We've done everything reasonably we can to protect our community, our workers, the people who our work exposes, what else can we do? Or we've got all reasonable practical controls in place to manage this big project or this environmental issue, whatever it is.

Richard Robinson (11:43):

And that's what that CFA chief said. Remember he said, I've been a volunteer chief for 10 years and I know that I'm going to lose somebody if I keep doing this job.

Gaye Francis (11:50):

In a bushfire.

Richard Robinson (11:51):

In a bushfire, but what I need to be able to do is put my hand on my heart and say, it wouldn't have mattered if it was my son or daughter fighting the fire. The same thing would've happened and we'd done everything reasonably practicable, but we could in the circumstances, and this is Australia and we burn.

Gaye Francis (12:06):

Yeah. And so I think due diligence is one of those processes that can do that. It is a process that requires people to think things through.

Richard Robinson (12:16):

Correct.

Gaye Francis (12:17):

Look at the context in which your situation is and look at all the controls, not just do the status quo, maintain the status quo. Technology's changing all the time. The controls are changing all the time, and what's reasonable in the circumstances can change year to year. And so it's not something that's done once put on the shelf and forgotten about. It's something that has to be thought about continuously.

(12:44):

So I think that's sort of a wrap to Season 5. We hope you've found it interesting and the difficult discussions that engineers need to have.

(12:58):

Richard and I are still looking at doing an in-person event in mid-late 2025, and especially around this sort of difficult discussions that engineers need to have because the interesting part is the different opinions of people and how it works within organisations. So we're looking at setting up a due diligence seminar, as I said, in mid 2025. And if you are interested, sign up to our newsletter to keep informed on how that's coming along and further details as they're released.

(13:30):

So thank you again for joining me on for Season 5, Richard. And we will be back for Season 6 later in the year. Thank you.

Richard Robinson (13:40):

Thank you.