Opposed to PEAK and programs like it

It is very interesting to see that to justify an unpopular program by their own statistic, i.e. 33 per cent of eligible licence holders are actually participating, in the article titled “PEAK program team responding to first wave of user input” published on page 8 of the November/December 2017 issue of the official PEO magazine (Engineering Dimensions), one falsely claims that “Even PEAK-resistant licence holders want to participate, if only so their statuses are shown as ‘complete’ on their online profile.”

While respecting the opinions of the ones in favour of the program, along with many other like-minded colleagues, I would remain totally opposed to PEAK and PEAK-type programs, proven to be a failure in other disciplines, and am disturbed by the fact that someone speaks falsely on my behalf. Additionally, the low level of participation in the PEAK program along with the continually low level of participation in the standard voting process are indicative symptoms of larger challenges that PEO has been facing for a long time in convincing licence holders of its ability to introduce strategic visions and pragmatic approaches that truly represent the engineers and engineering profession in the modern era.

So, although one would have hoped that PEO chose the wise path of putting the PEAK program to vote among all licence holders rather than blindly implementing it, it is my firm belief that, at the end, even though PEO may choose to impose it as a mandatory requirement, it will only further confirm the need for a major organizational overhaul of PEO to meet the demands of the 21st century.


Rahmat Ushaksaraei, P.Eng., Mississauga, ON

UA-72171128-1