Tag: responsibilities

Categories
Engineering Roles

What engineers have in common (part 2)

(Part 1 of this series can be found here)

In my last post, I suggested the term physineer be used to describe engineers who deal with the physical realm. These are individuals employed in the traditional engineering fields, such as chemical, electrical, civil, and mechanical engineering. To see how the responsibilities of such engineers are similar to those employed in non-traditional engineering fields, say software or financial engineering, I want to take a closer look at what we consider to be “engineering” activities. In doing so, I’m going to wax philosophical for a bit—but only for a short while, I promise.

We live in a physical world. To survive in this realm we must eat sufficiently well, avoid facing extreme weather conditions without shelter, and protect ourselves from oncoming traffic. Thinking about how a mythical super-hero might catch a bullet in his or her teeth is a fairly harmless mental exercise, but attempting to replicate the feat in real life will lead (most likely) to a life-ending result. We cannot escape many of the consequences that result from our actions (and inactions) in this physical existence.

Despite our inability to escape the material realm, we humans have a natural proclivity for creating mental notions of how and why things work. These abstractions have no material embodiment; they exist only as a result of a particular pattern of brain waves. We can perceive a model to exist in our minds; but we are unable to separate it from our consciousness. I can explain to you the properties of my model, and suggest relevant analogies, but I cannot directly hand you my concept, nor can you hand me yours.

In contrast to our human traits, the physical world has no need for abstractions. (Okay, some of the quantum mechanics stuff is kind of freaky, so feel free to tell me that I’m wrong.) The apple that fell in front of Isaac Newton did not need to compute the gravitational force acting on it; it simply fell. Electrons passing through a wire do not know the wire’s resistance or the voltage drop across the wire; they simply jump from atom to atom. Force and voltage and resistance are human abstractions; models that allow us to comprehend how the world around us behaves. As we learn more about the universe, we update our models. I’m not aware of any evidence that the universe changes to accommodate our conception of how it should properly function.

So I propose a logical separation between the abstract and physical realms (with apologies to the true philosophers among you, who will accurately identify my lack of knowledge about metaphysical concepts such as Idealism and Platonic Realism.) This separation is illustrated in the figure above. The arrows represent our ability to move (mentally, not physically) between the two worlds. As mentioned above, we have a tendency to generate theories about how our universe operates. If our models (abstractions) are sufficiently accurate, then they can be used to “explain” physical phenomena. In some cases, they can potentially be used to predict events and interactions that have not yet been witnessed. Even more powerfully, our abstractions can be used to create new devices or methods that cause the physical world to behave in a manner that is more to our liking. (Think central air conditioning on a hot August afternoon in central Kansas, when the ever-present west wind has inexplicably died down for an entire week, and shimmering black tar bubbles have popped up along every inch of sealed crack in the dull, sun-baked asphalt.)

To further our discussion, I’ve added the names of certain disciplines to the diagram. These are the STEM subjects; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It seems to me that we can assign one of the STEM fields, in a somewhat meaningful manner, to each side of this figure. Associated with the upward arrow are scientists who observe the real world and try to explain its behavior through the creation of theoretical models. Their model development is guided by the rules of logic and analysis that mathematicians advance while working in the abstract realm, represented here by the upper box. In association with the downward arrow, traditional engineers (physineers) use models to assist in safely modifying physical behaviors, and in creating new physical embodiments. Finally, technologists utilize and operate mankind’s tools and creations while working in the physical realm, which is identified by the lower box.

As with all models, my diagram is an incomplete representation of reality (a notion better stated by Howard Skipper). One obvious flaw is that very few individuals employed in the STEM fields have the luxury (or curse, depending on your perspective) of limiting themselves to a single discipline. In addition to creating new methods and mechanisms, engineers must be able to develop new models, and should be adept in applied math. Scientists must, at times, design their own equipment and develop mathematical tools. Today’s mathematicians may interact with computer hardware or gather physical data, while technologists occasionally have to model physical phenomena or solve obtuse logic problems. But this diagram gives context to my proposed definition of an engineer:

engineer: an individual who designs novel methods, devices, or systems that can be practically implemented to meet specified constraints, or analyzes existing methods, devices, or systems for their capacity to meet such constraints, while making use of models and mathematics.

Physineers clearly fit into my definition of an engineer. But since those engaged in software, financial or social engineering do not design objects that can be physically embodied, can they really be engineers? Up until a few weeks ago, I would have said, “no.” However, note that my definition says nothing about the resulting designs being limited to the material world. In my next post, I will discuss the activities of engineers working in alternate realms.

Categories
Engineering Roles

What do engineers have in common?

While I see many articles concerning new initiatives in STEM education, relatively little is said about the types of duties that engineers perform in the workplace. Any design process has to begin with certain constraints on the finished product, and it seems to me that an informed choice of curriculum and educational methods should begin with an understanding of the skills needed by newly graduated engineers. We live in a rapidly changing world, but are relying on an educational system that is rather dated. Simply doing more of what we’ve always done seems rather inefficient. It is also strikes me as unfair to students to make them endure an education process that is misaligned with their career interests. So I am curious if we can determine the overarching commonalities that exist in the career category we call “engineering.”

Operators of railroad trains, broadcasting equipment, boilers, and aircraft systems have long been given the title of  “engineer.” However, these duties are different from the math-intensive skills that are taught in most engineering classes. Further, just about any activity that involves planning or scheming is now described as “engineering.” I cringe each time I come across the term “social engineer” being used to describe someone who manipulates the emotions and trust of others. Alas, my discomfort with the nomenclature does little to remove it from the common vernacular. So let me be more specific in describing a particular set of engineering functions.  I’m going to identify those who graduate from traditional engineering programs (mechanical, electrical, chemical, nuclear, civil, etc.) as “physical” engineers, or physineers. Central to their skill set is a knowledge of how the physical world behaves.

A story that received a lot of attention at the beginning of last month was Facebook’s plan to open an engineering office in New York City. I have previously expressed some concern over software professionals being called “engineers.” As recently as last week, I was prepared to write a post to argue that the “engineer” moniker has been co-opted to the point of becoming meaningless. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the skills of these software experts, but rather that I believe they solve a different type of problem than do physineers. However, after giving it some thought, I’m of a less dogmatic mindset. Efforts of software engineers, financial engineers, and social engineers do, in fact, share some commonalities with those who work in traditional engineering fields. We just need better naming conventions to describe the duties that each group of engineers perform for society.

The whole naming issue is important because of the disconnect that exists between the skill sets that employers are asking for, that universities are providing, and that students are expecting to learn. A recent article on the Forbe’s website heralded the strong demand for engineering talent, but neglected to point out that most of the job openings are for software engineers. Think that becoming a computer hardware engineer is a closely related safe bet? Sorry, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that software engineering employment will grow at a mean rate of 2.1% per year, the forecast is that jobs for computer hardware engineers will grow at only one-fifth that rate. Additionally, the forecast is for 1.2 million software engineers in 2018, but only seventy-seven thousand computer hardware engineers. Employment opportunities will not be evenly distributed across the engineering terrain. We need to be far more specific in the skill sets we ask young engineers to attain. So I want to look more closely at what engineers (of all stripes) actually do, and how we might better distinguish between their various responsibilities and activities. I’ll proceed with this discussion in my next post.

Categories
Engineering Roles

Building Sandcastles

As a life-long Midwesterner, I haven’t spent a lot of time on the beach. However, I managed to build enough sandcastles during my youth to know that hours of effort can quickly disappear underneath the waves of a rising tide. No matter how beautiful the structure, how perfect its lines and curves, it stands no chance against a powerful sea that seeks to level everything it can touch. If the sandcastle is to be admired for more than a few hours, it has to be rebuilt. Time and time again, one must construct the sculpture, fully aware that it will erode as high tide sweeps in. Of course, the joy of construction disappears after a few days. But the destructive nature of the tides is unrelenting, so one must build the sandcastle once more.

Although I’ve long since forgotten where I picked up this sandcastle metaphor, I often use it when thinking about the life cycle of engineering projects. It is deceptively easy to believe that the job is finished once a device, or system, or methodology has been designed. However, as soon as that design is released into the real world, it will begin to erode. Surfaces idealized as perfectly smooth by the designer acquire minute ripples during the machining process. Electronic signals pick up noise, hydraulic pumps leak, bearings seize, and chemical solutions degrade. As a result, maintenance is a large portion of the engineering workload. Many engineers spend their careers doing nothing but keeping industrial processes operating smoothly. And anyone responsible for maintaining a house built more than twenty-five years ago knows that there is a significant cost, both in time and currency, associated with keeping a once-pristine structure in proper working order.

Although nature can do significant damage to an engineered system, the most severe problems are often people-related. Managers forget the caveats placed on equipment specifications, and begin demanding unrealistic production rates. Operators forget rules about proper usage, and begin to utilize machinery in applications for which it was not intended. Engineers fail to ask enough questions when integrating equipment into larger systems. And so the erosion accelerates. Devices, systems, and methodologies, once so lovingly designed to serve a particular purpose, begin to break down as they are misused, misapplied, or misappropriated.

System failure is not always a bad thing, as it may lead to knowledge of how the scheme might be improved. But it is usually a unwanted outcome, and keeping a system running smoothly requires diligent observation. A supervision style known as Management By Wandering Around involves checking in with employees, in a casual and unstructured manner, and asking questions about how things are going—so as to discover how processes and procedures might be improved. This methodology emphasizes identification of unexpected complications, as it focuses on newly-arisen issues, and is not intended as a replacement for standard performance reports. In a similar manner, frequent inspections are required to keep engineered systems operating on a reliable basis.

Although failures can be reduced via analysis during the conceptual and design phases, the most difficult problems are usually unanticipated. Thus, one can never assume that a system is “done.” I regard as cruel any engineer who tosses a design “over the wall” and walks away without regard for others who must subsequently maintain system functionality. All physical processes have to be observed, analyzed, maintained, and tweaked to offset the unrelenting tendency of nature to maximize randomness. Steel will rust, capacitors will short circuit, and out-of-spec materials will find their way into the process.

Likewise, interpersonal understandings may have to be reconstructed on a regular basis. Managers may need to be reminded as to their original agreements about specified performance. (Keeping a contemporaneous notebook is quite useful in this regard.) Operators may require a bit of nudging to return to proper operating procedures—although this should be done with an open mind, as they may be ready and able to show why the procedures should be revised. Colleagues may benefit from a better understanding of how a prior-generation system was intended to operate. But none of this can happen if an engineer holes up in a cubicle, and refuses to interact with others. There has to be a willingness to walk the beach, just to see how the sandcastle is fairing.

When engineering students are asked to carry out design projects in a period of a few weeks, just getting their design to function properly is a sufficient challenge. However, during semester-long activities, such as a senior design project, young engineers need to be made aware of the multitude of forces that may cause their designs to decay. Where possible, designs should account for the eventualities of repair, maintenance, and disposal. These issues are certainly of less immediate importance when one is thrashing about, trying to get a new design to simply work. However, as a design is refined and improved, the life cycle of the system deserves serious consideration.

Engineering graduates should also understand that, during the course of their careers, they will likely run into financially-focused managers who will tell them to put off maintenance, or goal-driven managers who may ask them to run systems outside of specification. There are sometimes quite legitimate reasons for doing such things, and the political clout to countermand such decisions is frequently beyond the engineer’s reach. But they should attempt, to the best of their abilities, to reconstruct the agreements and understandings that constrained the original design work. In a perfect world, this should not have to be done. But it usually falls to an engineer to deal with the physical consequences that result from such managerial decisions. So engineers should learn early on that, sooner or later, someone will have to go out and rebuild the sandcastle.

Categories
Engineering Roles

Engineering Role Research

In scanning the internet for information on engineering roles, I stumbled across an the web page of James Trevelyan, a professor at the University of Western Australia. He is leading research into Engineering Learning and Practice. An interesting eleven-minute introduction from 2008 can be viewed online. It appears that Dr. Trevelyan is of the opinion that universities teach relatively few of the skills required in engineering practice.

A recorded web conference conducted in conjunction with the University of Wisconsin indicates that studies of engineering practice here in the United States are also being conducted. A quick sampling of this conference provided several insights, one of which is that incoming engineering students are unaware of their future duties; nobody wants to think that they will be responsible for production or maintenance—they mostly anticipate being designers and researchers. There is a lot of information is available on Prof. Trevelyan’s site; it will take me a while to try and digest it all. Better too much data than too little!

Categories
Engineering Revision

Welcome to Engineering Revision

More than a decade ago I started a blog titled ZopeNewbies, utilizing (then hard-to-come-by) web space kindly donated by blogging pioneer Dave Winer. It was my intention at the time to assist those interested in the Zope web framework as I investigated the software myself. Although I wrote a few well-received tutorials along the way, I quickly discovered that the hours spent summarizing Zope news devoured any and all time I had available for learning the software. And after almost two years of blogging, I decided the two to three hours I was spending on the ZopeNewbies site each morning could be put to better use. So I placed the site in the capable hands of Luke Tymowski, and moved on to other things. Since then I’ve had a great appreciation for bloggers who can generate insightful material on a regular basis — but I’ve had no desire to return to blogging myself. Until now.

Although I don’t consider myself a hardcore geek, I do love technology. I am fascinated by how things work, and I enjoy thinking about how devices and processes might better function. To that end, I’ve gone just about as far as I can go in trying to train myself to be an effective engineer. At the age of (almost) fifty, I am finishing up a mechanical engineering doctorate at Purdue University. A licensed professional engineer since 1986, I’ve worked for small machine shops, medium-sized companies, and large mega-corporations. And for the past fifteen years I’ve run my own consulting business. Throughout my career, I’ve been surprised by the apparent disconnect between what is taught in engineering classes, and what passes for engineering in industry. While I’ve seen encouraging steps taken to close that gap, I don’t believe that change is coming fast enough. So this blog is going to talk about how the responsibilities, skills, and training of engineers will necessarily change as we plunge deeper into the twenty-first century.

As I hope to point out in future posts, the role of engineers must evolve as technology marches forward at an ever increasing rate. It is unlikely that a larger percentage of the population will ever want to study engineering, but modern technology is rapidly allowing more and more people to leverage the power of applied science. As both society and the infrastructure upon which it relies become more complex, engineers must transform from isolated problem-solvers to socially adept guides who can direct the technical endeavors of others. While still in my twenties, I spent a couple of years teaching engineering technology classes; I know that it can be challenging to motivate students to absorb difficult mathematical concepts. Trying to interest them in the psychology of group dynamics may be near impossible. But the need for a new style of engineer has never been greater, and the tools available for revolutionizing engineering instruction have never been more readily available.

So welcome to Engineering Revision. If you have an opinion on this topic, please feel free to leave a comment.