THE PROFESSIONAL REVIEW

GUIDELINE FOR REVIEWERS

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

INTRODUCTION

1. The Professional Review (PR) is carried out on behalf of the Engineering Council of South Africa and
under the auspices of The South African Institute of Chemical Engineering (SAIChE) to ascertain
whether or not candidates meet the requirements for Professional Registration. These requirements
with respect to academic standards, continuing professional development, training and practical
experience are detailed in the ECSA Discipline Specific Guidelines: Chemical Engineering “Acceptable
training for registration as Professional Engineers.”

2. The PR constitutes a comprehensive review of CEs’ engineering careers in the form of an interview,
to assess the quality of their professional attributes and the level of competence achieved during
their period of training.

2.1 The PR is designed to enable CEs to demonstrate that:

(i) they have acquired an understanding of the professional environment in which they work,
including moral and ethical issues;

(ii) they have developed the ability to exercise engineering judgement, to make responsible
decisions, to communicate lucidly and accurately, to identify and find solutions to problems
and to implement these solutions; and that

(iii) they have achieved an acceptable level of competence in defined elements and
understanding in defined training objectives within the specific discipline of engineering.

2.2 During the PR, the candidates’ quality of practical experience in chemical engineering must be
assessed and they must demonstrate their technical competence. At the same time the candidates’
professional experience of chemical engineering is also assessed and they must demonstrate their
ability to exercise competent professional judgement and responsibility.

3. AVAILABILITY OF REVIEWERS

3.1 The Professional Reviews will be undertaken at regular intervals (at least quarterly) as decided by
ECSA and as recommended by the Professional Advisory Committee (PAC) on Chemical Engineering.

3.2 It is accepted that Reviewers, as they are all registered as professional engineers and members of
the SA Institute for Chemical Engineering (SAIChE), will not always be able to make themselves
 available for any particular review, the ECSA system of reviews depends critically on all Professional
Reviewers honouring their commitments; it is therefore expected that Reviewers will only withdraw
in a real emergency.

4. VENUE

ECSA’s Registration Department, after consultation with the accredited reviewers, is responsible to
make arrangements for finding and booking venue accommodation in which the reviews are to take
place. It is quite acceptable for the interview to take place in the office of one of the Reviewers,
provided such interviews are conducted in the correct environment.

5. PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES

The academic qualifications of candidates and the extent of their experience will have been checked
by the ECSA’s Education and Registration Department prior to the Experience Appraisal (EA) by the
Professional Advisory Committee (PAC) on Chemical Engineering. The PAC does the EA (a thorough
appraisal of a candidate’s experience on account of the documentation and reports submitted, the
so- called “paper exercise”) and decides if a candidate is fit to attend the interview. The interview is
arranged after the result of the EA has been made known to the ECSA registration department by
the PAC on Chemical Engineering.

6. SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS TO REVIEWERS

Copies of the reports and other relevant documents on training and experience will be sent to the
Reviewers by ECSA’s Registration Department after the review panel has been established. As far
as is possible both candidates and Reviewers will be informed of the details of timing and venues of
professional reviews 28 days prior to the interview dates.

7. CONFLICT OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST

Every effort must be made to ensure that there is no conflict of professional interest e.g. a Reviewer
being from the same office or firm as the candidate. If either the Reviewer or the candidate notices
such a conflict, the Reviewer will be changed. Reviewers themselves are expected to declare any
noticed conflict of interest as soon as they are notified of their candidates.

8. THE REVIEW

8.1 At the Review candidates are examined by a panel of two professional engineers. One of the two will
be appointed as the “ Convenor” and be in overall charge. At the Review, the candidates’
professional experience and responsibilities in their various appointments should be reviewed
against the criteria laid down in the ECSA Discipline Specific Guidelines for Chemical Engineering
and Policy Statement R2/1A in order to form an opinion as to their professional competencies. The
decision being taken by the panel is, in essence, whether the candidates discharge their duties in a
manner commensurate with Professional Chemical Engineers and demonstrate professional
competence.

8.2 The following points affecting the review should be taken into account:
 · Reviews should not be longer than an hour.

· The review is conducted on the basis of the account of experiential training given by the
applicant in the application.

· The reviewers should determine whether the candidate has fulfilled the requirements as
set out in the Discipline Specific Guidelines for Chemical Engineering and ECSA Policy
Statement R2/1A.

9. ASSESSMENT

The Reviewers should decide after the interview in which of the following categories they consider
the candidate should be placed:

(a) Satisfactory in every respect and one who meets the requirement for registration.

(b) Not quite up to standard of (a) but one who should be recommended for registration if he/she
submits additional reports in areas where deficiencies were detected.

(c) Insufficiently experienced justifying a recommendation for as not yet meeting the requirements
for registration.

On conclusion of the Interview, the Reviewers will reach an agreement as to their recommendation
to the PAC on Chemical Engineering and, attach the Review Report Form giving the details of the
reasons underlying their recommendation. In cases where the panel finds that a candidate is not
registerable advice, written as a summary of those reasons, must be added to the Form of
Assessment, IN TERMS WHICH CAN BE QUOTED TO THE CANDIDATE.

10 All results must be returned to the ECSA Registration Department within 21 days of the date of the
review. The ECSA Registration Department will upon receipt of the results present it to the PAC on
Chemical Engineering for a final decision.