_ COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE

_ COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE

FOR APPLICANTS, VALIDATORS, AND ASSESSORS
FOR APPLICANTS, VALIDATORS, AND ASSESSORS

#LIFEWORKSBETTER [Link]

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE

#LIFEWORKSBETTER [Link]
Version: July 25, 2023

Adapted from Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia and

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Saskatchewan’s
Competency Assessment Guide
CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 6

1.1 APPLICABILITY AND TRANSITION 7

1.2 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 7

2. COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT – OVERVIEW 9

2.1 ELEMENTS AND DEFINITIONS 9

2.2 COMPETENCY RATING SCALE 12

2.3 COMPETENCE LEVELS 15

2.4.1 COMPETENCE LEVELS - ENGINEERING 15

2.4.2 COMPETENCE LEVELS - GEOSCIENCE 19

2.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 20

3. DOCUMENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS 23

3.1 SUBMISSION COMPONENTS 23

3.2 BEFORE APPLYING – INITIAL STEPS 23

3.3 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 24

3.4 COMPETENCY SELF-ASSESSMENT 25

3.4.1 SELECTING VALIDATORS 26

3.4.2 ISSUES CONTACTING VALIDATORS/VALIDATOR CAUSING DELAYS 28

3.4.3 COMPETENCY EXAMPLES 28

[Link] SELECTING, DRAFTING, AND SAVING EXAMPLES 30

 CONTENTS

3.5 COMPETENCY EXAMPLE COMPONENT 31

3.5.1 TIPS ON WRITING EXAMPLES 31

3.5.2 CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 33

4.1 VALIDATION PROCESS 35

5.1 RATING AN EXAMPLE 40

5.2 RESULTS NOTIFICATION 41

5.3 RE-SUBMISSION OF INSUFFICIENT COMPETENCIES 42

5.4 APPEALS 42

6.1 WHEN TO START ENTERING COMPETENCIES 45

6.2 TRACKING PROGRESS OF THE ASSESSMENT 45

6.3 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION 45

APPENDIX E-1 - ENGINEERING COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK 47

APPENDIX G-1 - GEOSCIENCE COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK 50

4
 1
INTRODUCTION

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 5

 INTRODUCTION

This guide is intended to assist users of the Competency-Based Assessment

System of Engineers Geoscientists Manitoba (EngGeoMB) to evaluate
engineering or geoscience work experience. It aims to assist applicants for
professional engineering licenses ([Link].) or professional geoscience
licenses ([Link].) in completing their Competency-Based Assessment (CBA)
submission, as well as to guide validators and assessors in verifying,
validating, and evaluating these submissions. The contents of the guide
are intended to enhance the understanding of engineering or geoscience
competencies and how they should be met and presented in a competency
self-assessment.

The Competency-Based Assessment is conducted to determine whether

applicants have progressed to a professional level of competency in their
field during their engineering or geoscience work experience. To achieve
registration as a professional engineer ([Link].) or professional
geoscientist ([Link].) applicants must also meet a set of requirements. The
full list of requirements can be found in the Manual of Admissions located at
the following link:
[Link]

The [Link]. and [Link]. designations are professional licenses, allowing the
practise of engineering or geoscience on projects or properties located in
the province or territory where the designation was granted. Only engineers
or geoscientists licensed with EngGeoMB, or those practising under the
direct supervision of a professional engineer, professional geoscientist, en-
gineering licensee, or geoscience licensee registered with EngGeoMB, have
a legal right to practise engineering or geoscience on projects or properties
located in Manitoba. The Competency-Based Assessment System is intended
to preserve the quality, responsibility, professionalism, and reputation of the
[Link]., [Link]., Eng.L., and Geo.L. , and designations. A competency
framework, indicators/workplace examples, and competency self-assessment
form were designed to ensure that professional registration requirements
uphold and protect the public interest while maintaining an equitable,
transparent, consistent, and efficient registration process. The competency
framework comprises of the required proficiencies to enter the engineering
or geoscience profession and provides clear guidance on the path to
registration for applicants, validators, assessors, and employers alike.

6 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 1.1 Applicability and Transition

This guide applies to engineering interns, geoscience interns, and specified

scope license applicants who have been given the opportunity to submit
work experience.

The transition from the former time-based reporting system to

Competency-Based Assessment (CBA) is as follows:
CBA shall be used by:
1. Engineering interns, geoscience interns, and specified scope license
applicants starting their experience review for the first time.
2. Engineering interns, geoscience interns, and specified scope license
applicants who have submitted one or more experience reports in the
former time-based reporting system have the choice to continue in the
former system or switch to CBA.

1.2 Frequently Asked Questions

As an additional resource, applicants are encouraged to consult the

Competency-Based Assessment Frequently Asked Questions document for
additional information, available at: [Link]/[Link]

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 7

 2
COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT –
OVERVIEW

8 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

2
COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT –
OVERVIEW

2.1 Elements and Definition

Competency
Competency can be defined as the ability to perform the tasks and roles of
an occupational category to standards expected and recognized by
employers and the community at large. The Competency Framework outlines
the competencies related to work experience in an engineering or
geoscience environment that are essential for professional engineers or
professional geoscientists in all disciplines to ensure effective practice and
public safety. Competency is a measure of ability, and thus examples drawn
from actual work experience are required to demonstrate it.

Competencies are defined as an identified skill set or knowledge base which

the applicant must have attained to achieve professional registration. They
are behavioural-type descriptions of what an applicant must demonstrate
they have done in practice to meet the required level of expertise in each
competency category.

In assessing the competence of an applicant, it must be clear that they have

not only performed well in the circumstances they have encountered to date
but also that they have demonstrated the capacity to handle situations likely
to be encountered in the future. Thus, a competency-based assessment
system requires applicants to demonstrate the ability to apply their
engineering or geoscience knowledge reliably and safely across different
circumstances, to recognize their professional limitations, and to be prepared
when necessary, to either a) extend and develop their expertise or b) call for
assistance from other sources.

Providing detailed examples as part of a competency self-assessment

allows EngGeoMB’s assessors to have a clear understanding of an applicant’s
knowledge and experience in all areas essential to safe and effective
engineering or geoscience practice.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 9

 Competency Categories - Engineering
The Competency Framework for engineering consists of seven competency
categories, which are groupings of competencies or skills. These are:

1. Technical Competence
2. Communication
3. Project and Financial Management
4. Team Effectiveness
5. Professional Accountability
6. Social, Economic, Environmental, and Sustainability
7. Personal Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

The seven categories represent the essential areas in which professional

engineers of all disciplines must demonstrate competence to ensure
effective practice and public safety. Each competency category contains
a list of the competencies required in that area. Applicants must meet the
required average level of competence in each competency category to meet
the competency requirements.

Competency Categories - Geoscience

The Competency Framework for geoscience consists of four competency
categories, which are groupings of competencies or skills. These are:

1. Professionalism
2. Scientific Method
3. Area of Geoscience Practice
4. Complementary

The four categories represent the essential areas in which professional

geoscientists of all disciplines must demonstrate competence to ensure
effective practice and public safety. Each competency category contains
a list of the competencies required in that area. Applicants must meet the
required average level of competence in each competency category to meet
the competency requirements.

Level of Competence
Achievement of each category is measured through a competency rating
scale that outlines six different levels of competence (0 to 5). Each category
has a required minimum overall average level of competence which is set at
level 3 or level 2. The average of an applicant’s competency ratings within
each category must meet or exceed the required minimum level with no
rating being less than 1 (training level).

10 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 Indicators/Workplace Examples
Indicators are used in the engineering Competency Assessment Reporting
System and workplace examples are used in the geoscience Competency
Assessment Reporting System. Indicators/workplace examples are activities,
actions, skills, or behaviours that an applicant could use to demonstrate the
existence and achievement of a competency. The list of indicators/
workplace examples for each competency is provided to help applicants
understand what types of experience could be used to meet each
requirement, or what specific knowledge base, experience, or skill they must
develop before achieving professional registration. Indicators/workplace
examples are to provide guidance to the applicants only. They help an
applicant interpret what is needed to be described in practice.

The list of indicators for engineering and workplace examples for geoscience
are available at: [Link]

Indicators - Engineering
There is one generic indicator list that covers all the competency categories
for all engineering disciplines. There are also discipline-specific indicator lists
for the Technical Competence category (Category 1) for several engineering
disciplines, including:

• Building Enclosure
• Civil: Municipal/Infrastructure
• Electrical: Power and Industrial
• Materials, Metallurgical, and Mineral Processing
• Project and Construction Management
• Software
• Structural

Even if an applicant’s work experience was in one of the above areas, it is the
applicant’s choice as to whether they refer to the discipline-specific
indicators when completing the entries or if they use the generic indicator
list. The indicator lists are found in Competency Assessment Reporting
System.

Workplace Examples - Geoscience

There is one generic workplace example list that covers all the competency
categories for all geoscience disciplines.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 11

 Competency Assessment Reporting System
The CBA system operates through an efficient, easy-to-use reporting
system. Through the Competency Assessment Reporting System, applicants
can save their work experience information, monitor their progress towards
meeting the competency requirements, and submit this information for
online validation and assessment.

2.2 Competency Rating Scale

A competency rating scale is used to determine whether an applicant has

achieved the required level of competence to gain registration. An applicant
must attain the minimum defined average level of competence in all
competency categories, with no rating lower than level one for any
competencies.

See Table 1 (engineering) and Table 2 (geoscience) for a brief outline of the
competency rating scales.

The rating scale descriptions in the tables below are abridged and are for
demonstration purposes only. The wording varies in the CBA reporting sys-
tem depending on the competency. Refer to the actual detailed table
available within the reporting system when selecting ratings.

12 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

TABLE 1 – COMPETENCY RATING SCALE - ENGINEERING ABRIDGED
Competence Short Short Short Direct Responsibility Complexity Supervision and
Level Description Description Description Supervision and Risk of Applicant’s Development of
Required Work Others
Category 1 Categories 2-6 Category 7 *Category 1 Only

No CPD
Little or no Little or no completed
exposure to exposure and/or
0 the to the planned; N/A N/A N/A N/A
competency competency no gap
analysis

Minimal
amount of
CPD
completed
Training level: Training level:
and/or
A general A general
planned;
appreciation appreciation
CPD
and and
1 awareness awareness
completed Significant Minimal Minimal None
may not
of the of the
address
competency competency
professional
is required. is required.
competence;
an
in-complete
gap analysis

At a level of
Requires
limited
knowledge
experience; A marginal
and
carries out amount of
understanding
activities of CPD
of objectives;
limited scope completed
2 uses standard
and and planned;
Considerable Some Some Limited
engineering
complexity; a marginal
methods and
requires /insufficient
techniques in
knowledge and gap analysis
solving
understanding
problems
of objectives

Carries out
assignments
of moderate Adequate
scope and Approaching amount of
complexity; a professional CPD
is typically level; carries completed
3 seen as out activities and/or
Some Considerable Moderate Some
prepared to of moderate planned; an
assume complexity adequate gap
professional analysis
engineering
responsibilities

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 13

TABLE 1 – COMPETENCY RATING SCALE - ENGINEERING ABRIDGED CONTINUED
Competence Short Short Short Direct Responsibility Complexity Supervision and
Level Description Description Description Supervision and Risk of Applicant’s Development of
Required Work Others
Category 1 Categories 2-6 Category 7 *Category 1 Only
Carries out
responsible and A good
varied Working at a amount of
assignments professional CPD
requiring level; completed
4 general carries out and/or
Minimal Significant Considerable Some
familiarity with responsible and planned; a
a broad field of varied activities strong gap
engineering analysis
knowledge
Uses mature
engineering At a mature
Provides and
knowledge; professional
demonstrates
independent level;
leadership in
accomplishment, independent
5 and coordination
CPD Autonomous Total Significant Some
activities; a
coordination of difficult and
superior gap
of difficult and responsible
analysis
responsible activities
assignments

TABLE 2 – COMPETENCY RATING SCALE – GEOSCIENCE

Competence Level Applicant’s Provided Example Demonstrates

0 Little or no exposure to the competency.

1 A general awareness of the competency and its significance in practise

Application of the competency or components of the competency, with

2 considerable supervision, in situations of low complexity and low risk.

Application of all components of the competency with limited supervision in

3 situations of moderate complexity and moderate risk. This may include
(Entry to Practise) situations in which the applicant supervises others in application of the
aspects of the competency, while maintaining accountability for their work.

Application of the competency with minimal supervision in situations of

considerable complexity and moderate risk. This may include situations in which the
4 applicant supervises others in application of aspects of the
competency, while maintain accountability for their work.

Application of the competency without supervision in situations of significant complexity

and high risk. This may include situations in which the applicant supervises others in
5 application of the competency, while maintaining
accountability for their work.

14 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 2.3 Competence Levels
In areas where competence can be greater or lesser, a level of competence defines a
reference point that someone may have, or may not yet have, attained.

Simon Grant and Cleo Sgouropoulou (2011) What is a level of competence? In: Christian M. Stracke
(ed.) Competence Modelling for Human Resources Development and European Policies: Bridging
Business, Education and Training. ISBN: 9783942183536

2.4.1 Competence Levels - Engineering

The following is an overview of each competence level for engineering, divided by

competency category.

Competence Level 0
An engineer at competence level zero:

Categories 1-6:
• Has little or no exposure to the competency.

Category 7:
• Has completed no continuing professional development (CPD).
• Has not completed a gap analysis to determine areas of weakness.
• Has demonstrated no plan for future professional development.

Competence Level 1
An engineer at competence level one:

Category 1:
• Receives training in the various phases of office, plant, field, or laboratory
engineering as on-the-job assignments.
• Assigned tasks include preparation of simple plans, designs, plots, calculations,
costs, and bills of material in accordance with established codes, standards,
drawings, or other specifications.
• May carry out routine technical surveys or inspections and prepare reports.
• Has no supervisory role.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 15

 Categories 2-6:
• Receives training in on-the-job assignments.
• Is at an early/beginner level.
• Carries out activities of low complexity.
• Has no supervisory role.
• Is at a basic level in this area; competency needs substantial development.

Category 7:
• Has completed a minimal amount of CPD activities.
• Gap analysis is incomplete, incomplete assessment of areas of weakness.
• Has developed an inadequate or no professional development plan; many gaps in
knowledge are not sufficiently addressed.

Competence Level 2
An engineer at competence level two:

Category 1:
• Receives assignments of limited scope and complexity, usually minor phases of
broader assignments.
• Uses standard engineering methods and techniques in solving problems.
• Assists more senior engineers in carrying out technical tasks requiring accuracy
in calculations, completeness of data, and adherence to prescribed testing,
analysis, design, or combination of methods.
• May assign and check work of one to five technicians or others.
• Is normally regarded as a continuation of an engineer’s training and development.

Categories 2-6:
• Carries out activities of limited scope and complexity, usually minor phases of
broader assignments.
• Usually relies on predetermined standards and techniques in solving problems.
• Assists more senior engineers in carrying out tasks.
• Is normally regarded as a continuation of an engineer’s training and development.
• Has marginal skills in this competency; some training is required to bring skills up
to a professional level.
Category 7:
• Has completed some professional development activities on a sporadic basis.
• Has a marginal gap analysis; insufficient assessment of areas of weakness.
• Has developed a marginal professional development plan; not all key gaps in
knowledge are addressed.
• Gap analysis is incomplete, incomplete assessment of areas of weakness.
• Has developed an inadequate or no professional development plan; many gaps in
knowledge are not sufficiently addressed.

16 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 Competence Level 3
An engineer at competence level three:

Category 1:
• Receives assignments of moderate scope and complexity, including stand-alone
phases of major projects.
• Usually solves problems by using combinations of standard procedures,
modifications of standard procedures, or methods developed in previous
assignments.
• May assign and check work of one to five technicians and technologists’ previous
assignments.
• Is typically seen to be ready to assume professional engineering responsibilities.

Categories 2-6:
• Carries out activities of moderate scope and complexity.
• Provides significant assistance to more senior engineers in carrying out tasks.
• Usually solves problems by using combinations of standard procedures,
modifications of standard procedures, or methods developed in previous
assignments.
• Possesses adequate skills in this competency.
• Is typically seen to be ready to assume professional engineering responsibilities.

Category 7:
• Has completed a sufficient amount of CPD activities.
• Has an adequate gap analysis; areas of weakness are adequately assessed.
• Has developed an adequate professional development plan; gaps in knowledge
are addressed.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 17

 Competence Level 4
An engineer at competence level four:

Category 1:
• Carries out responsible and varied assignments requiring general familiarity with
a broad field of engineering and knowledge of associated effects of the work
upon other fields.
• Solves problems by using a combination of standard procedures and devising
new approaches.
• Deals with assigned problems by devising new approaches, applying existing
criteria in new ways, and drawing conclusions from comparative situations.
• Participates in planning to achieve prescribed objectives.
• May give technical guidance to one or two junior engineers or technologists, and
technicians assigned to work on a common project.
• Is typically seen to be working at a fully qualified professional engineer level.

Categories 2-6:
• Carries out responsible and varied activities requiring general familiarity with the
area of competency.
• Deals with assigned problems by devising new approaches, applying existing
criteria in new ways, and drawing conclusions from comparative situations.
• Participates in planning to achieve prescribed objectives.
• May provide guidance to one or two junior engineers or technologists, and
technicians assigned to work on a common project.
• Possesses strong skills in this competency; above average ability is apparent.
• Is typically seen to be working at a fully qualified professional engineer level.

Category 7:
• Has completed a good amount of CPD activities.
• Has a strong gap analysis; areas of weakness are correctly assessed.
• Has developed a strong professional development plan; gaps in knowledge are
well addressed.

18 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 Competence Level 5
An engineer at competence level five:

Category 1:
• Applies mature engineering knowledge in planning and conducting projects
having scope for independent accomplishment, and coordination of difficult and
responsible assignments.
• Deals with assigned problems in a mature, creative, and experienced manner by
modifying established guides, devising new approaches, applying existing criteria
in new ways, and drawing conclusions from comparative situations.
• Participates in short and long-range planning.
• Makes independent decisions for devising practical and economical solutions to
problems.
• Assigns and outlines work; advises on and outlines more difficult problems and
methods of approach.

Categories 2-6:
• Carries out activities of advanced scope and complexity.
• Independently coordinates difficult and responsible assignments and activities.
• Deals with problems or issues in a mature, creative, and experienced manner by
modifying established guides, devising new approaches, applying existing criteria
in new ways, and/or drawing conclusions from comparative situations.
• Participates in short and long-range planning.
• Makes independent decisions for devising practical and economical solutions to
problems or issues.
• Possesses superior skills in this competency; provides mentorship or supervision
for others.

Category 7:
• Provides and demonstrates leadership in CPD activities.
• Has excellent gap analysis; areas of weakness are very well assessed.
• Has developed a superior professional development plan to address all gaps in
knowledge and maintain currency in field of practice.
• Develops professional development plans with others and may instruct courses
as appropriate.

2.4.2 Competence Levels - Geoscience

For each work experience competency, professional geoscientist applicants
document work experience that they believe demonstrates a level of compe-
tence relative to the task described.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 19

 The perceived level of competence for each competency is rated on a scale of 0
through 5, where 3 represents the level expected for entry-to-practice. Ratings will
be based upon the level of competency definitions shown in Table 2 – Competency
Rating Scale – Geoscience. Repeated and reliable performance is expected for
ratings of level 3 or higher.

The assessor’s rating will be based upon the assessor’s review of the workplace
experience that the applicant provides, and will take into account, but not be
dependent upon, the ratings of the applicant and the validator.

Approach to Level of Competence

Level of competence is a function of three variables:
• Level of complexity of the task expressed in the competency.
• Level of supervision provided in the applicant’s performance of the task.
• Level of risk based upon the outcome of the task expressed.

As the level of competence increases, the level of supervision decreases and the
level of complexity and risk increase. The level of risk is determined by how
significant the decisions are likely to be based on the work undertaken. For example,
is there likely to be a significant financial risk to public investors based on the result
of a resource estimate?

2.5 Roles and Responsibilities

Applicant
• Provides work experience details through the competency assessment reporting
system, including work experience chronology and specific examples to address
each competency.
• Provides self-assessed competence level for each competency according to the
competency rating scale.
• Provides contact information for a minimum of four individuals to act as
validators to verify and provide feedback on their competency self-assessment.
• Provides further information as requested.

Validators (supervisor/employer/colleague/client, ideally a supervisor who is a

professional engineer or professional geoscientist)
• Confirms the work experience information of which they have personal
knowledge.
• Provides competence level ratings for competencies to which they are assigned
by applicants (if applicable).

20 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 • For those validators who were not given specific competencies to validate, they
will provide an overall assessment. For example, if the applicant provided
examples from only one supervisor, that supervisor validates all the examples,
and the other three validators provide general comments and answer the general
reference questions included in the competency assessment reporting system.
• Provides overall feedback on the applicant’s readiness for professional
registration.
• Applicants cannot act as their own validator.

Assessors (qualified EngGeoMB volunteers in the applicant’s area of practice)

• Reviews applicant’s submission as well as validators’ feedback.
• Provides ratings for each competency.
• Makes a recommendation on the applicant’s readiness for professional
registration.

21
COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 21
 3
DOCUMENTATION
AND INSTRUCTIONS

22
 DOCUMENTATION
AND INSTRUCTIONS
3.1 Submission Components

There are two main components that applicants must complete as part of their
competency-based assessment, both submitted through the Competency
Assessment Reporting System:

1. 2.
A brief, A competency
chronological self-assessment
employment using examples
history. This drawn from work
provides a short experience to
form overview of demonstrate
experience. achievement of
each competency.

3.2 Before Applying – Initial Steps

• Discuss the CBA system with proposed validators so that they are aware of
what the expectations are.
• Ensure résumé/curriculum vitae (CV) is up to date to include key job
roles, projects, and achievements over the period of work experience (a
minimum of four years). This saves time in completing the employment
history and selecting projects to use as examples in the competency self-
assessment. Note that a project does not need to be completed to use it as a
competency example.
• Maintain a record of all continuing professional development (CPD) goals
and activities.
• Understand the competency framework and its indicators/workplace
examples, (including any discipline-specific indicators available for the area
of practice for engineering or geoscience). They are included in the
competency self-assessment section of the reporting system for reference.
• For key learning activities, take time to reflect briefly on the key learning
gained including how it may have impacted the practice and contributed to
demonstrating competence within any of the competency categories.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 23

 3.3 Employment History

Compiling an Employment History

All applicants must complete an employment history summary through the
Competency Assessment Reporting System. The employment history
section creates a chronological, short form overview of the experience,
including brief additional detail regarding responsibilities in each position.
The summary can be edited at any time before an applicant submits their final
competency self-assessment.
Applicants should remember to:
• Briefly explain any gaps or overlaps in time periods.
• Demonstrate evidence of progression of experience and responsibility
throughout career.

Format and Information

The format of entries in the Employment History section is as follows:

24 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 For each item, select “Add Employment History” and enter the relevant
information. Applicants are asked to classify each item as “Work Experience”,
“Other/Non-Engineering”, “Other/Non-Geoscience” or “Thesis.”

In the “Overview of Major Responsibilities and Projects” section, provide

a brief outline of the major projects worked in each position, including
a description of the role and the project scope. The use of point form is
permitted.

3.4 Competency Self-Assessment

Competency self-assessment is a driven activity that allows individuals to

reflect on how their competencies-knowledge, skills an abilities-match up with
the requirements.

HRSG. (n.d.). Everything you need to know about competency-based assessments [Online].
[Link]

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 25

 3.4.1 Selecting Validators
Compiling an Employment History
Through the Competency Assessment Reporting System, applicants provide
the names and e-mail addresses of their validators. Validators verify and
provide feedback on the engineering or geoscience experience.

Considerations When Selecting Validators

A minimum of four validators are required and a
minimum of two must be professional engineers
or professional geoscientists (or equivalent).

The validator for each example is the person who

supervised the work the applicant has chosen to
use for that competency example, whether they
were a professional engineer, professional
geoscientist (or equivalent). Applicants must keep
in mind the minimum number of
professional engineer/professional geoscientist
validators required. If there are any issues with
using the direct supervisor as a validator, see
further instructions in this section.

Validators are typically professional engineer or

professional geoscientist supervisors, but may
also be colleagues, clients, or consultants with
first-hand knowledge of the work experience.
The supervisor is the person whom the applicant
reports to or who signs off on the work.

A professional engineer can validate geoscience

experience and a professional geoscientist can
validate engineering experience if the experience
falls within the field of the practice of the
professional. For example, geological engineers
may validate geoscientists since there is overlap
in the profession.

26 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 All combined, the validators’ first-hand
knowledge should cover as much of the
applicant’s experience as possible.

Each competency requires one validator, but one

validator can verify multiple competencies.

There may also be some validators who are not

given specific competencies to verify, but they
provide input in the overall feedback section only.
The overall feedback section includes questions
on the applicant’s readiness for licensure.

Validators nominated by the applicant to verify

specific competency examples must have direct
personal knowledge of the engineering or
geoscience work performed. This person should
be the supervisor, except in exceptional
circumstances where prior approval is obtained
from EngGeoMB. At least one validator must be a
direct supervisor and share the same discipline or
scope of practice as the applicant.

Unless requested, no additional reference forms

are required to be submitted for the
professional member application for users of
the Competency-Based Assessment System
unless the applicant provides additional names
on their professional member application that
were not included in the CBA reporting system.
All feedback is provided through the reporting
system’s validation process.

As the applicant completes the competency self-assessment, they assign

each example to a validator with first-hand knowledge of the work described
and following the considerations above for selecting validators. This validator
is asked to provide a competence level rating for the example and has the
option of providing a comment.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 27

 All validators are also asked to provide overall feedback on the experience
and readiness for professional registration. There is no requirement to
assign all the validators to a specific competency; validators not assigned
to any competencies are asked to provide overall feedback. For example,
co-op work term supervisors who do not need to validate any examples may
be included as validators to provide overall feedback, which allows them to
comment on and confirm experience during the co-op period.

Note that a project does not need to be complete to use it as a competency

example.

3.4.2 Issues Contacting Validators / Validator Causing Delays

The applicant must make their own effort to contact their supervisor(s) to act
as validators. However, contact EngGeoMB’s Admissions staff for assistance if
experiencing an exceptional delay with the validator completing their part. A
person other than the direct supervisor may be used to validate examples only
upon approval by EngGeoMB Admissions staff.

3.4.3 Competency Examples

The Competency Self-Assessment section is divided into either engineering or
geoscience categories of the Competency Framework. Under each
category heading – such as Technical Competence – the required
competencies are listed. One example must be provided for each competency
prior to final submission. Each competency must be achieved at a minimum
level of one on the competency rating scale, while achieving the required
average level for each category.

When completing the competency self-assessment, use both the

competencies and their indicators/workplace examples as
guidelines to identify suitable and relevant projects and activities from
engineering or geoscience experience that best demonstrate achievement
of each competency.

Be specific about individual actions and contributions.

For each example, identify a self-assessed competence level demonstrated.

The descriptions of each level of competence in sections 2.2 and 2.4 of this
guide will help determine which level on the competency rating scale should
be cited for each competency.

28 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 The descriptions are also provided in the applicable screens in the
reporting system.

Examples are valid if:

• They are related to unique problems without obvious pre-determined
solutions.
• The applicant had full or partial responsibility for delivering the outcome.
• They typically took at least one month* to accomplish (more on this in
section 5.1 of this guide. The value of one month is for guidance and is not
an absolute requirement).

A partial image of the window for entering an engineering competency

example is included below as a sample. The geoscience window is similar in
layout.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 29

 [Link] Selecting, Drafting, and Saving Examples
Under each competency, the applicant is asked to describe an example of
recent engineering or geoscience activities that best demonstrates
achievement of the competency. The examples the applicant selects
should reflect activities or projects the applicant had responsibility. Detail
is encouraged; applicants need to be specific in describing how they have
met the competency. When selecting examples, pay close attention to the
indicators/workplace examples provided in the system; they are intended to
assist in identifying typical evidence to submit.

Different aspects of the same project can be used to demonstrate several of

the competencies.

For each competency, applicants may view different types of indicators/

workplace examples from the “Indicator Type” drop-down list. The generic
indicators/workplace examples are recommended for most situations, but
discipline-specific indicators are also available in several areas of practice for
Category 1.

Applicants do not need to demonstrate all indicators/workplace examples

listed. They provide a helpful guide as to what assessors are looking for.
Indicators/workplace examples are samples to guide in determining the
type of engineering or geoscience work that satisfies each competency.
Applicants may use an example from their own work experience which will
demonstrate satisfaction of the competency; it is not necessary to use one of
the indicators/workplace examples provided, although the applicant may if
appropriate for the work experience.

Warning
Applicants cannot edit the content of competencies or validator
assignments after they have selected the button to submit the assessment
for validation.

Applicants need to do all necessary checks to ensure accuracy before

submitting.

30 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 3.5 Competency Example Components
Each example includes the following information

• Employer and Position: The applicant’s employer and position at the time
of the work described in the example.

• Validator: The professional engineer, professional geoscientist (or

equivalent) that has first-hand knowledge of the work the applicant is
asking them to validate. This is ideally the person who supervised the work
but may also be a colleague or client with prior approval of EngGeoMB
Admissions staff.

• Start Date and End Date (Month/Year): The time period covered by the
applicant’s specific example for this competency.

• Situation: A brief overview of a specific situation or problem. The same

situation can be used to cover multiple competencies.

• Action: The actions that the applicant took in response to the situation,
including engineering or geoscience judgments made or solutions found.
This section is typically the longest portion of the example and should
include details about the specific actions that the applicant took that
demonstrate completion of the competency. Applicants need to be specific
about individual work and contributions – use of the word “I” is required to
show what work the applicant did specifically. Point form is permitted.

• Outcome: The impact that the applicant’s actions, solutions, or judgments

generated.

• Canadian Example: Indicate whether this experience was gained in a

Canadian environment (Yes or No).

• Self-Assessed Competence Level: The level on the competency rating

scale that the applicant believes they have demonstrated in the example.

3.5.1 Tips on Writing Examples

Depending on the competency, it is recommended to include the significance
of the project (e.g. an indication of project size such as dollar value and
duration), the applicant’s role in the project, and the key issues and outcomes.
Make the technical or managerial complexity of the project clear. The
applicant needs to be specific about the role (use “I” statements) and level of
responsibility.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 31

 Applicants are encouraged to exercise judgement over the level of detail
provided with different examples. Less detail may be needed for substantial,
obviously complex projects or activities than for smaller-scale projects where
the complexities may not be immediately apparent to the assessors or where
the work is in a non-traditional engineering or geoscience environment. The
objective is to supply sufficient information to enable straightforward
verification of evidence by assessors, and not to leave assessors with substan-
tive questions or information gaps that require further investigation before
they can verify that the required competence level is met.

Assessors cannot rely on ‘implied evidence’ – they can only use evidence that
clearly shows the applicant can do the work required by the Competency
Framework. For this reason, it is important to identify specific examples that
best demonstrate competence. For example, in the competency
self-assessment, it is not acceptable to state: “I am a project manager and
must be able to communicate clearly to perform my job”. Applicants must
give specific examples of communication requirements (e.g. chairing client
meetings, managing contractors, reporting to senior management, etc.).

When completing the competency self-assessment, always write in the

first-person. Use “I” statements as opposed to “we” - even if working as
part of a group. It is important to identify the personal contribution and
responsibility.

Remember
• Competencies are assessed as development towards becoming a
professional engineer, professional geoscientist, or specified scope
licensee. Examples should demonstrate experience in an
engineering or geoscience environment or as part of an engineering or
geoscience assignment.
• Be specific about contributions when describing experience. Avoid
general terms such as “participated in” or “involved with” and state
your exact duties.
• Wherever possible, use point form when describing actions taken to
resolve the situation described in the example.
• It is the applicant’s responsibility to pick the best evidence for
submission. Do not wait to be asked!
• For examples of what could be good evidence to include in the
competency self-assessment, refer to the indicators/workplace
examples.
• Different aspects of the same situation/project can be used to
demonstrate multiple competencies, as applicable.
• A project does not need to be complete to use it as a competency
example.

32 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 3.5.2 Confidential Information
If applicants provide project details that must be kept confidential, it needs
to be indicated with a statement to that effect in the appropriate box within
the reporting system where the information is being provided. Applicants
are urged to provide as much detail as they are permitted, with the goal
to provide sufficient evidence that they can practise competently as a
professional engineer or professional geoscientist. This could be demonstrated
by documentation that describes the nature of your work and its complexities
without disclosing confidential details about solutions, business processes,
client names, or locations.

The applicant may use surrogate names such as “Project X” in “City Q” then
inform the validator separately which project is being referred to by “Project
X” and “City Q”. Note that although all EngGeoMB assessors are bound by
confidentiality, it is wise not to disclose proprietary or confidential
information because assessors may work in the same industry or sector.
Where there is a choice, obfuscate the information or use non-confidential
information. Discuss with supervisor(s) before submittal.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 33

 4
VALIDATION OF A SUBMISSION

34
 VALIDATION OF A SUBMISSION
4.1 Validation Process
The online validation process occurs as follows:

1. When the applicant submits for validation, the validators selected by the
applicant receive a link by e-mail which includes login information to
complete their validation through the reporting system. This e-mail is sent
when an applicant submits an example through interim validation or a
completed competency self-assessment. It is recommended that the
applicant contact the validator(s) before or immediately after releasing
the completed submission for validation to confirm they received their link.
Note: If the validation e-mail was not received by the validator, they should
check their spam filter. The domain name of the e-mail is
[Link]

Warning
Applicants cannot edit the content of competencies or validator
assignments after having selected the button to submit the assessment for
validation.

Applicants need to do all the necessary checks to ensure accuracy.

2. Following the link, the validator enters the Competency Assessment

Reporting System.
3. The validator first views the applicant’s education and employment history.
No input is required from the validator in these sections, but they provide
the validator with the opportunity to review chronological summaries of
the applicant’s education and experience.
Validators then have an opportunity to decline to complete the process if
they are not willing or not able to verify the applicant’s experience. A
reason must be provided if the validation is declined and a comment box is
provided. The reason, along with all validator feedback, is confidential and
is not visible to the applicant.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 35

 4. The validator is asked to review the applicant’s competency self-assessment
and provide feedback on any examples that the applicant has assigned to
them. The selected validator provides a rating on the competency rating
scale and is given the option to provide a comment. Descriptions of each
level are available in sections 2.2 and 2.4 of this guide. Validator comments
on the examples are encouraged and help to provide valuable additional
feedback and information to assessors.
5. Finally, validators are asked to provide overall feedback on the applicant’s
readiness for registration or licensure. The overall feedback section includes
similar questions to the EngGeoMB professional reference form, so
validators are not asked to complete a separate reference again when the
applicant is ready for professional registration in the future. Also note that if
a validator is not assigned to a specific competency example, they are asked
to complete the overall feedback section only.

Discrepancy in Ratings
If a validator rates an applicant lower than the applicant self-rates, assessors
consider several things:

• If it is one competency and the category averages to an acceptable level, it

is normally not considered to be a problem. Validators whose rating is
below the applicant’s self-assessment will often comment on why, although
it is not mandatory. Assessors tend to accept the validator’s rating,
especially if it is below that of the applicant, as it normally is accompanied
by a concern articulated by the validator.
• Assessors look at the validator’s overall additional feedback at the end to
see if the validator considers the person ready for registration or licensure.
• It’s possible that the applicant did an unacceptable job of writing the
example, but the experience is acceptable. The applicant will be provided
with the opportunity to rewrite and re-submit the competency in question.
• If the validator indicates that the applicant needs additional experience
to satisfy a specific competency and the assessors agree, the assessors
will comment and the applicant will normally be given the opportunity to
re-submit the competency in question if it is necessary in order to pass
either the competency or the category.
• Upon assessment of the re-submission, one of three things may happen:
1. the competency is accepted, or
2. the applicant will have to use another example from other work
experience, or
3. the applicant will have to gain additional experience to satisfactorily
complete a competency category.

36 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 The applicant is asked to show understanding of all of the competencies and to
demonstrate an overall average minimum level achievement in each category,
however, it is important to note that assessors are looking at other factors in-
cluding the peer recommendations to determine if the applicant is ready for
professional registration.

Disagreement with Validator’s Evaluation

If a validator rates an applicant lower than the applicant self-rates, assessors
consider several things:

All interns, specified scope of practice license applicants, professional

members, and licensees are obligated to adhere to the Code of Ethics of the
association with which they are registered. The Code of Ethics for EngGeoMB
can be found on the EngGeoMB website at
[Link]

Section 5 of the Code states “practitioners shall conduct themselves with

integrity, treat clients, colleagues, and others with equity, fairness, courtesy
and good faith, give credit where it is due, and accept, as well as give, honest
and fair professional criticism”. If a validator includes a negative comment in
an experience report it does not necessarily mean that the experience will not
be approved. It is essential that future and current professionals are aware of
areas they need to make improvement.

In the reporting system, validator comments are not visible to the applicant,
but validators are urged to inform the applicant separately of any areas
of concern, unless there are legal reasons preventing it. An applicant may
not agree with the evaluation of a validator. If that is the case, it should be
discussed with the validator and if necessary, an additional letter submitted to
EngGeoMB Admissions staff stating the concerns.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 37

 5
ASSESSMENT

38
 ASSESSMENT
Each competency submission is reviewed by an assessor in the applicant’s
field. The assessment process proceeds as follows:

1. An assessor is assigned by EngGeoMB Admissions staff and notified by

e-mail once the submission is ready for review. They then log in to the
Competency Assessment Reporting System. The assessor performs their
review independently.
2. The assessor reads the applicant’s education and employment history. No
input is required from the assessor in these sections, but it provides the
assessor with the opportunity to review chronological summaries of the
applicant’s education and experience.
3. The assessor then reviews the applicant’s competency self-assessment and
determines for each competency whether the example(s) provided
represent sufficient evidence that the required competency has been
satisfied. While reviewing each example, the assessor will note the
competence level claimed by the applicant and validator for each
competency, based on the breadth, depth, and quality of the example
provided they determine the competence level demonstrated for each
competency. Descriptions of each level are available in sections 2.2 and 2.4
of this guide. The assessor will also have the option of providing a
comment for each competency; these comments are confidential to the
assessment process and are not viewable to the applicant or validators.
However, if a re-submission is required, the applicant will be provided with
details of the issue.
4. The system calculates the average competence level achieved for each
category according to the assessor.
5. In the “Supporting Documents” section, the assessor may review any
supporting documents uploaded by the applicant. The inclusion of
supporting documents is optional.
6. In the “Validator Overall Feedback” section, the assessor reviews the
feedback of the validators.
7. The assessor is asked to confirm their final recommendation on whether
the applicant has met the competencies at the required level for
professional registration (entry to practise).

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 39

 5.1 Rating an Example
Assessors rate each example in an applicant’s competency self-assessment
for each competency according to the competency rating scale. An assessor’s
role is to examine the examples provided for each competency and determine
the competence level demonstrated; applicants must have met the required
average competence level for each category to be approved.

Example Review Process –

Category 1 for Engineering / Category 3 for Geoscience
An evaluation of Competency Category 1 for engineering, (Technical
Competence) and Competency Category 3 for geoscience (Geoscience
Practice), serves as an example of the review process.

The assessor reads and assesses the examples for each competency, keeping
in mind the following:

• Examples must be related to unique problems without obvious

pre-determined solutions. Original thinking is used in the analysis and/or
synthesis of problems.
• The applicant must have had full or partial responsibility for delivering the
outcome.
• Examples typically have taken at least one month to accomplish.

Note
The length of time it takes to perform a task is not indicative of
complexity. A complex example can take a short amount of time and a
simple example can take an extended period. The typical minimum of one
month is for guidance and is not an absolute. For instance, for working
well in a team, a significant difference of opinion could be resolved within
a week and be an excellent example. The quality of the example is more
important than the time it takes to complete it.

• Examples must be clear and specific, and demonstrate the applicant’s

competence in a particular area. Assessors cannot rely on implied evidence

40 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 Based on the evidence provided in the examples, the assessor assigns the
applicant a rating on the competency rating scale for each competency in the
category. The applicant’s self-assessed rating as well as the validator’s
feedback are available for reference, as well as the detailed descriptions of
each competence level included in sections 2.2 and 2.4 of this guide.

The reporting system calculates the average that the applicant has achieved
for each competency category based on the ratings assigned by the assessor.
If the average rating is equal to or higher than the required minimum
overall competence level for the category, then the applicant has satisfied the
requirements. If the category average rating is below minimum required, the
applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements for that category.

A successful submission requires that an applicant attains, at a minimum, the

required average level of competence in all competency categories, with no
rating lower than level one for any competency.

• The assessor may look to the competency rating scale and indicators/
workplace examples for guidance in determining whether an applicant has
met the required standard for each competency.

When the Assessor Does Not Agree or When Any Competencies

Do Not Pass
Further assessment is required if the assessor does not agree that a specific
competency is passed. Depending on the situation, additional assessors may
be contacted, the applicant may be required to submit additional validators,
or the submission may go before the Registrar to decide. Other measures may
also be taken depending on the circumstances. This process applies to the
first submission as well as any re-submissions.

5.2 Results Notification

Within approximately three months of submission, applicants should receive
feedback as to whether the experience is acceptable. Results are entered
in the applicant’s EngGeoMB Online Profile and they will receive an e-mail
notification to review the results. Applicants should contact EngGeoMB
Admissions staff if their results have not been posted within the three-month
timeframe.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 41

 Should concerns with a submission or the work experience itself be identified
by EngGeoMB Admissions staff or the Registration Committee, one or more of
the following may occur:

1. 2.
The applicant will The applicant will be
be contacted by contacted by e-mail,
e-mail or phone and with copies sent to
asked to provide the validator
missing or further outlining the
information. concerns and action
required, if any.

The possible outcomes of the experience review are as follows:

Approval
• File tabled until the next Registration Committee meeting for one of the
following reasons:
° Assessment by additional assessor(s).
° Assessor unable to complete an assessment due to conflict of interest
or unforeseen circumstances.
• Request to re-submit the insufficient competency(ies) as insufficient
information was provided for the assessor to reach a decision. The
applicant will be provided with specific feedback on the issues.
• Denial of experience for professional registration. Specific reasons for the
denial will be provided as well options to move forward.

5.3 Re-Submission of Insufficient Competencies

In cases where one or more competencies are assessed as insufficient, the
applicant is informed with specific comments and is given an opportunity to
re-submit. The specific competencies are made available in the competency
assessment reporting system for the applicant to re-enter information. Once
completed, those competencies are released for the validator(s) and assessors
to review again using the same process as before.

5.4 Appeals
There are three levels of appeal:
1. to the Registration Committee
2. to Council
3. to the Court of Queen’s Bench

42 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 The Registration Committee’s decision on satisfactory experience is a
recommendation to the EngGeoMB. If the experience is not approved due
to a negative assessment by the Registration Committee, the applicant is
given the opportunity to make their case to the Committee. Note that further
assessment is part of the standard process for all cases where re-submission is
flagged by the original assessor, as outlined in section 5.1 of this guide.

Should the re-submission(s) to the Registration Committee not be

successful and the applicant disagrees with the results, this effectively means
one component of a professional member application is being denied and the
applicant has the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Registrar directly
to Council as explained in The Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act.

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 43

 6
APPLICANT STAGES

44
 APPLICANT STAGES
6.1 When to Start Entering Competencies
Applicants can create an account for the Competency Assessment Reporting
System and start using the system when their application is approved and
invited to submit their work experience.

Access the system via [Link]

Once applicants have followed the instructions to set up an account,

EngGeoMB Admissions staff will be notified automatically to approve the
account, and the applicant will be notified by e-mail when it is possible to
enter their information.

6.2 Tracking Progress of the Assessment

Once applicants have submitted their competency self-assessment through
the Competency Assessment Reporting System, they are able to log back into
the reporting system at any time to track the progress in the Competency
Self-Assessment screen.

6.3 Professional Registration & Licensure

Once the competency-based assessment report is accepted and the National
Professional Practice Exam (NPPE) has been passed, the report is sent to
the Registration Committee for approval. The Registration Committee is the
final approving body, and they will determine if professional registration or
licensure is obtained.

45
COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA 45
 7
APPENDICES

46
7
Appendix E-1 – Engineering Competency Framework

1. Technical Competence (minimum overall competence level: 3)

Competencies

1.1 Demonstrate knowledge of regulations, codes, standards, and safety - this

includes local engineering procedures and practices as applicable.

1.2 Demonstrate knowledge of materials, or operations as appropriate, project and

design constraints, design to best fit the purpose or service intended and address
inter-disciplinary impacts.

1.3 Analyze technical risks and offer solutions to mitigate the risks.

1.4 Apply engineering knowledge to design solutions.

1.5 Be able to understand solution techniques and independently verify the results.

1.6 Safety awareness: Be aware of safety risks inherent in design; and demonstrate
safety awareness – on-site; possible safety authorization/certificate as appropriate.

1.7 Demonstrate understanding of systems as well as of components of systems.

1.8 Exposure to all stages of the process/project life cycle from concept and
feasibility analysis through implementation.

1.9 Understand the concept of quality control during design and construction
including independent design check and independent reviews of design, field checks
and reviews.

1.10 Transfer design intentions to drawings and sketches; understand transmittal of

design information to design documents.

2. Communication (minimum overall competence level: 3)

Competencies

2.1 Oral

2.2 In writing

2.3 Reading and comprehension

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 47

 3. Project and Financial Management (minimum overall competence level: 2)
Competencies

3.1 Awareness of project management principles.

3.2 Demonstrate increasing level of responsibility for project planning and

implementation.

3.3 Manage expectations in light of available resources.

3.4 Understand the financial aspects of their work.

3.5 Ask for and demonstrate response to feedback

4. Team Effectiveness (minimum overall competence level: 3)

Competencies

4.1 Work respectfully and with other disciplines/people.

4.2 Work to resolve differences.

5. Professional Accountability (Ethics and Professionalism)

(minimum overall competence level: 3)
Competencies

5.1 Work with integrity, ethically, and within professional standards.

5.2 Demonstrate an awareness of own scope of practice and limitations.

5.3 Understand how conflict of interest affects practice.

5.4 Demonstrate awareness of professional accountability.

5.5 Demonstrate an understanding of appropriate use of the stamp and seal.

5.6 Understand own strengths/weaknesses and know how they apply to one’s
position.

48 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 6. Social, Economic, Environmental, and Sustainability
(minimum overall competence level: 2)
Competencies

6.1 Demonstrate an understanding of the safeguards required to protect the

public and the methods of mitigating adverse impacts

6.2 Demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the

engineering activity and the public.

6.3 Understand the role of regulatory bodies on the practice of engineering.

6.4 Be aware of any specific sustainability clauses that have been added to
practice guidelines that apply to their area.

6.5 To the extent possible, recognizing the applicant’s position of influence,

consider how sustainability principles could be applied and promoted in his/
her specific work.

7. Personal Continuing Professional Development

(minimum overall competence level: 3)
Competencies

7.1 Demonstrate completion of professional development activities.

7.2 Demonstrate awareness of gaps in knowledge and areas requiring further

development.

7.3 Develop a professional development plan to address gaps in knowledge

and maintain currency in field of practice.

The list of engineering competency indicators for all disciplines can be found
in the competency assessment reporting system under the heading called
“The Competencies.”

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 49

 Appendix G-1 – Geoscience Competency Framework

1. Professional Competencies
Competencies

1.1 Comply with relevant legislation, regulations, and statutory reporting

requirements.

1.2 Practice within the bounds of personal expertise and limitations.

1.3 Increase relevant knowledge, skills, and level of performance over time.

1.4 Apply engineering knowledge to design solutions.

1.5 Apply ethical principles.

1.6 Respond to obligations and responsibilities to the public, to the natural

environment, to clients, and to employers.

1.7 Contribute to health and safety in the workplace.

2. Competencies in Scientific Method

Competencies

2.1 Apply scientific principles.

2.2 Effectively utilize scientific literature.

2.3 Identify uncertainty and ambiguity in data, and limits to knowledge.

2.4 Apply principles of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC).

2.5 Undertake relevant investigation and due diligence.

3. Competencies in Area of Geoscience Practice

Competencies

3.1 Plan investigations based upon purpose of study, incorporating existing

site-specific information and appropriate approaches.

3.2 Acquire, process, and analyze data using appropriate methodologies.

50 ENGINEERS GEOSCIENTISTS MANITOBA

 3.3 Incorporate relevant data from other sources.

3.4 Interpret and evaluate data to construct models consistent with purpose
of investigation.

3.5 Critically evaluate models.

3.6 Formulate conclusions and recommendations.

3.7 Adapt methodologies to address unfamiliar situations.

4. Complementary Competencies
Competencies

4.1 Deliver and comprehend oral communication.

4.2 Deliver and comprehend written communication.

4.3 Communicate technical information effectively to a variety of audiences.

4.4 Manage activities.

4.5 Use time management skills.

4.6 Provide direction to others.

4.7 Contribute to budgetary management.

4.8 Apply basic principles of risk management.

4.9 Contribute to secure data management.

4.10 Maintain comprehensive professional records.

The list of geoscience competency workplace examples for all disciplines can
be found in the competency assessment reporting system under the heading
called “The Competencies.”

COMPETENCY-BASED ASSESSMENT GUIDE 51

52