Writing and tabling a report may be a satisfying experience for its authors but the exercise is of little value unless the recommendations of the report are implemented. In the case of this report, the challenge to the Canadian Academy of Engineering is a particularly daunting one in that its resources in facilities and staff are minimal. The only resource that it can bring to bear is the experience, wisdom and influence of the Fellows of the Academy. Their emphasis must therefore be on encouraging effective action by those who have the opportunity and responsibility to act.

A staged process is envisaged for decision and implementation of this recommended evolution in engineering education. This process will involve interaction with and among a number of agencies.

As noted in the introduction, a penultimate draft of this report was discussed by the Fellows of the Academy at their 1999 Annual Meeting. Those present unanimously endorsed the principles and directions of the report while recognizing that many matters of detail would have to be addressed in the process of implementation.

The same draft was provided to members of the National Council of Deans of Engineering and Applied Science with a request for further input from individual deans. Submissions received have been incorporated into this report.

It is recognized that several areas of interest and concern, particularly those relating to research and university-industry linkages, have not been addressed in the report. It is proposed that the Deans be asked to consider joining with the Academy in a task force to explore these areas.

Given the support of the Academy Fellows and the concurrence of Deans and former Deans, the next proposed step is to arrange approaches to a number of eminent leaders in Canadian industry and business to solicit their endorsement of the recommended evolution in engineering education. Prominent Fellows of the Academy and Deans of local engineering faculties should be involved in these approaches.

A consensus among engineering deans, industry leaders and the Academy will provide a powerful base for approaches to governments, universities and professional engineering bodies. Initially, the objective of these approaches should be to convince these agencies that the proposed evolution is needed for the future health of the engineering profession in Canada and for the health of Canadian economic and social development. Recognizing the provincial responsibility for education and the diversity of local regional and institutional needs, many of these approaches should be made jointly by representatives of the Academy, local engineering deans and appropriate industry leaders. If concurrence in the principles and directions of the envisaged evolution in engineering education can be achieved at these meetings, detailed planning for implementation and resource-needs assessment can be undertaken.

While much of the detailed planning must be done in each individual institution, there are undoubtedly many areas where a broad sharing of experience and views can be beneficial. A number of Canadian engineering faculties have made significant progress on various aspects of this evolution. Their leadership can facilitate developments throughout the country. It is proposed that small working groups be formed to report on topics such as best practices in project and design based learning, the development of learning skills, combined bachelors-professional masters programs, professorial recruitment criteria and reward structures, outcomes measurement and accreditation implications. Deans might be asked to nominate interested champions of the proposed changes from among their professoriate as members of these working groups. Fellows of the Academy would assist as appropriate.

Implementation of this recommended evolution will require the support and encouragement of the engineering profession as represented by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers and in particular its Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board. Through its accreditation criteria the profession has promoted an emphasis on design and a broadening of the engineering education process. Accordingly, it is hoped that the recommendations of this report will be seen by the profession as contributing to a natural evolution of its accreditation process. The report raises a number of issues which will need to be addressed:

With the recommended broadening of the undergraduate curriculum, can the four-year or equivalent program still be considered as sufficient to meet the formal academic requirements for entry to the profession?

With integration of the technical and non-technical components of the curriculum in lectures, laboratories, designs and projects, what are the processes by which an accreditation team can identify the adequacy of the results of the program?

How can the accreditation process best encourage the academic development of new emerging engineering disciplines?

It is proposed that representatives of the Academy meet with the Board, its parent Council and possibly with provincial councils for in-depth discussionsof these issues.

The Engineering Institute of Canada through its several constituent societies should be asked to publicize the recommendations of this report among its members and to solicit endorsement for its principles.

A further stage of implementation should involve the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council whose funding policies and practices have considerable impact on professorial priorities. This Council is providing significant support for the proposed evolution through its recently introduced program of design professorships.

The recommendations for evolution contained in this report are believed to be consistent with the general principles presented by engineering students in their 1997 report⁵. It is proposed that the Academy maintain its continuing liaison with the Canadian Federation of Engineering Students during the implementation process.