Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PEO Conducting Technical Review
PEO Conducting Technical Review
Conducting a
Technical Review
A review of a document to determine whether the engineering content
of the work is correct, complete or suitable for the intended application.
Review:
an examination of the content of any type of
engineering document prepared by, or under the
direct supervision of, a professional engineer.
Same employer:
a person or organization who ultimately benefits
from the services of both the authoring and
reviewing engineers.
Second opinion:
the alternative opinion provided when a second
practitioner independently carries out an
assignment already completed by another.
Work:
A drawing, design calculations, engineering
report, specification or other document,
containing directions, opinions or judgments of
an engineering nature prepared by, or under the
supervision of, the authoring engineer.
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer. 2
PRACTICE
Technical reviews play an essential part in how • have access to, and understanding of,
we self-regulate and maintain public trust in our theoretical and practical knowledge that
profession. A technical review is a review of a generally corresponds to the state of the art in
document to determine whether the engineering the professional engineer’s field at that time,
content of the work is correct, complete or
suitable for the intended application. Technical • express technical information through
reviews result in opinions regarding the quality graphical representation and/or written
of the output of the work, not how the engineer documents in sufficient detail to make
carried out the work. engineering decisions by others unnecessary,
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer. 3
TECHNICAL
REVIEWS
In general, technical reviews are intended to make
specific assessments:
1 Prepare
A technical review should:
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer. 4
OBLIGATIONS
A REVIEWER should...
• never ask for proof of the authoring engineer’s qualifications,
• not comment on whether another professional • consider making use of the PEO complaints
engineer is practising in accordance with the process if there are concerns about the
Professional Engineers Act or Code of Ethics. competence of an authoring engineer based
These assessments are made through the on the quality of the work under review, but
PEO complaints and discipline processes, should not report this to the client,
• provide a written report on the completion of • accept responsibility for the opinions in the
the review, report, not for the work that was reviewed, if
they must seal the report, and
• not ask a client or an authoring engineer to
disclose the fee or salary paid to the authoring • recognize that repeated objections from
engineer for the work under review, authoring engineers, especially if they are
belligerent, should be reported to PEO,
• advise the client of the identity of the
parties with whom he or she proposes to • deal only with the presented design and should
communicate, and of the intended purpose for neither make suggestions about better designs
the communication, nor report how the reviewer would have
approached the task differently.
• maintain a record of all significant
communications with the client, the authoring
engineer, and any other party contacted during
the review,
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer. 5
An AUTHORING ENGINEER must...
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer. 6
A CLIENT should understand…
• the only output of a review is a written report, • if the objectives of the client and the authoring
engineer do not agree, a reviewing engineer
• the rights and obligations of the reviewer and will discuss the differences with both parties
the authoring engineering, to obtain a common understanding of the
• direct contact between authoring and objectives of the work under review, and
reviewing engineers should not be done • know that if they ask reviewers to provide a
without approval of clients or parties second opinion, that second opinion is not
requesting a review, provided in the context of a review – the
• their approval is not mandatory if during the reviewer will not make comparisons between
review the engineer uncovers a situation that the original and alternative designs.
constitutes an imminent risk to public safety,
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer. 7
An ENGINEERING FIRM must understand…
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer. 8
PHASES
1 Prepare 2 Conduct
• Determine what assessment criteria apply. • Understand the context and conditions
pertinent to the work under review.
• Obtain approval from the client, preferably in
writing, for communicating with anyone other • Comply with legislated standards and codes.
than the client.
• Be prepared to visit the site if needed.
• Have examples of good engineering practice as
a comparison point. • Be ready to ask for additional materials from
the authoring engineering (as required).
• Identify what can be reasonably considered to
be the customary procedures and practices • Do the relevant research to back their views.
for similar work to that under review that should • Consult with other practitioners for a sense
have guided the authoring engineer. of the generally accepted view within the
profession on the issue.
Negative comments aimed at the person rather than the facts can be
construed as libel (written defamation of character or reputation) or slander
(oral defamation) and could, in some cases, lead to lawsuits against the
reviewer. However, such claims are unlikely to succeed when a reviewer simply
reports facts about the work (not the person) and acts in good faith (even
if the reviewer’s opinion ends up being incorrect). –PEO Guideline: Professional
Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer. 9
3 Report 4 Conclude
• Prepare a review report. • Be ready to carefully consider and respond
in writing to an authoring engineer’s written
• Keep the tone of the report professional and reasoned arguments for clarification.
objectively neutral.
• Provide an addendum to the original report, if
• Avoid using negative adjectives and do not necessary. However, a single response to the
include accusatory or inflammatory language. authoring engineer should be sufficient.
• Include an introduction that identifies the • Professional engineers should not be compelled
individual who authorized the review, the by employers, clients, regulators, or other
authoring engineer and the scope of the review. practitioners to make changes to their work
• Describe the reason for the review. they are not willing to accept. If an authoring
engineer agrees to make the changes
• Include a brief description of the item under suggested by a reviewer, this should be noted in
review, a summary of documentation provided writing.
to the reviewer and of communications made
during the review, and a description of the • In some cases, a client or employer may be
reviewer’s methodology for conducting the persuaded by a review or second opinion that
review. changes to the original document are necessary
or an alternative approach is more suitable for
• Preface the report with a statement that the the client’s or employer’s needs.
opinions expressed are only for consideration
and are not intended as modifications to the • If an authoring engineer is unwilling to comply
original documents. with a request to make such changes, a client
may decide to retain a different practitioner to
• Consider including a disclaimer limiting the use modify the existing design or prepare a new
of the report to the client for the stated purpose. one.
• Clearly distinguish between facts, assumptions
and opinions.
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer.
Source – PEO Guideline: Professional Engineers Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer. 10