Delegates at a joint Engineers Australia-RMIT University forum reveal the key metrics that reflect true diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) success in the profession.
Australia’s rapid population growth, aging infrastructure and the need for a sustainable energy transition have led to growing demand for infrastructure and technological innovation. Yet the profession integral to powering these shifts, engineering, is grappling with its own challenges – namely a persistent shortfall of qualified practitioners and a narrow, unrepresentative talent pool.
A wealth of research shows that diverse teams boost innovation and productivity.
But despite decades of targeted initiatives, engineering workforce demographics have remained stubbornly homogeneous. For example, only 16 per cent of those working in engineering occupations are women. This lack of representation raises questions about the efficacy of current DEI strategies.
Bridging the engineering talent gap
According to Engineers Australia’s Engineering Tomorrow report, Australia needs an additional 60,000 engineering graduates over the next 10 years to meet our strategic objectives.
But over the last decade, the number of domestic engineering graduates entering the workforce has remained stagnant, said Bernadette Foley, Group Executive, Professional Standards and Engineering Practice at Engineers Australia.
“To achieve that target, we have to grow the pipeline of who is actually going into universities,” Foley said.
Achieving significant increases in engineering graduates requires more than maintaining existing recruitment strategies, agreed Professor Margaret Jollands – Deputy Dean (Learning & Teaching), RMIT University School of Engineering.
“If we’re going to increase the number of graduates, we can’t just look at our traditional cohorts,” Jollands said. “We have to go out and try to attract more cohorts from diverse [backgrounds] which is good for business as well.”
Broadening the diversity lens
Diversity is much broader than gender, Jollands said.
“It’s age, race, religion, low socio-economic status (SES), disability, sexual orientation and First Nations people.”
Citing Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, Jollands stated that low-SES individuals make up 25 per cent of the general population but only 16 per cent of tertiary students; and people registered as living with a disability account for 21 per cent of the population but only 11 per cent of students. There is near-total absence of reliable data on tertiary participation based on race, religion and sexual orientation.
“In the absence of good data across all these diverse groups, we’re going to look more at gender, because we’ve got better data on gender,” she said.
And it doesn’t paint a pretty picture. Looking at the pace of change in female participation in the engineering workforce from 1970 until today, there has only been a nine-percentage-point shift. “At that rate, by 2070 we’ll only reach 20 per cent,” Jollands said.
It’s not only attracting women and diverse groups into the profession that counts, it’s keeping them there.
Women are more likely to work part-time, leave the profession as they age, and report sexual harassment at much higher rates than men. Retention challenges hinge on both structural and cultural barriers, with key issues including lack of visible career pathways, inequitable part-time policies and unsafe environments.
“Expecting women to change is not being inclusive,” Jollands said. “Being inclusive means everybody needs to make an environment where people are happy to work.”
Measuring progress requires a focused set of diversity indicators, with academia and industry collaborating to identify core metrics.
“A wide variety of diversity indicators are available. The more you measure, the clearer the picture,” she said. “However, there’s no consensus on best practice.”
What matters to current engineers and graduates?
To improve the status quo, Engineers Australia and RMIT University recently invited a cohort of engineering graduates to challenge how DEI is approached and measured – dissecting which metrics truly capture progress in diversifying the workforce and which don’t.
Attendees noted that while first impressions matter, a strong onboarding experience does little to address the pressing challenge of retaining talent over the long term. As one graduate said, “We saw the biggest issue as retention, not the start of people’s careers.”
Professional development participation rates were also considered ineffective, with many feeling they conflate individual motivation with organisational commitment. “Participation is up to the individual,” said one delegate. “It doesn’t measure the true reach or quality of programs.”
Other less favoured metrics included demographic outcomes – seen as lagging indicators that only shift after changes in hiring, promotions or attrition – and measuring backlash, which, although important, remains under-measured in most organisations.
On the other end of the scale, delegates overwhelmingly endorsed hiring, promotion, and retention rates as the most important metric. “It represents the pipeline and demonstrates if people are staying in roles, not just getting in,” said one participant.
Through quantitative surveys and qualitative feedback, staff satisfaction emerged as a clear barometer of workplace culture. Many delegates also highlighted the importance of diverse leadership teams, with one group asserting that the “values upheld by the leadership group … trickle through the entire organisation.”
Importantly, pay gap analysis was recognised as a “big overarching metric” – with pay equity signaling both fairness and business commitment to closing systemic gaps. “It identifies where a problem is and points to metrics that can solve it,” one delegate said.
Although less commonly tracked, incident reports on bias or harassment offer candid insights into organisational culture and areas needing improvement.
Shifting from engagement to impact metrics
A key theme that emerged from the roundtable is that to drive real progress, the engineering profession must pivot from superficial engagement metrics towards those that track entry, experience and advancement. By committing to robust workforce forecasts, expanded graduate targets and inclusive policy structures, the profession can generate tangible outcomes.
Engineers Australia and RMIT University will distill these insights into a summary report for broader stakeholders, ensuring the conversation extends into boardrooms, classrooms and government chambers.
Creating meaningful change in the engineering profession depends on shared commitment rather than isolated initiatives, Foley said.
“If we’re going to make progress, we need to [understand] that it’s not anybody’s responsibility, it’s everybody’s responsibility.”
At the end of this month, RMIT University School of Engineering and Engineers Australia will reconvene with recent graduates to delve into which diversity metrics matter most to shape sector-wide priorities. Later on in the year, a full day conference will bring together industry and higher education representatives to share their diversity initiatives and refine best practices for retaining a diverse workforce.
