Chris and Jeff review the episodes of 2012, and share some of the background stories that didn’t make it to the original podcasts.
Chris enjoys the lack of interruptions that the holiday season brings to his workplace.
From Episode 1, “Jumping Off,” Chris took away the notion that engineering is messy. Jeff harped once again about his “Rule of Pi” for estimating time and costs.
Episode 2 covered the topic of “Feedback.” It sometimes requires some real digging to ascertain what is motivating the end user of a product or service.
In our third episode, titled “Compromise,” the topic of engineers and their emotions was first raised; this now seems like a reoccurring theme for the podcast.
We talked with Jim Tappel about “Design Thinking” in Episode 4. Both Chris and Jeff remain a bit fuzzy about what differentiates design thinking from other customer-focused approaches. However, Jim offered some great stories about his time with design firm IDEO.
“Recruitment” was the subject of Episode 5. Guest Jim Heilman noted that networking is a crucial skill for finding new employment opportunities.
We discussed “Longevity” with Ian Dees in our sixth episode. Chris was impressed by Ian’s effort to provide useful information to the engineers that picked up his projects. Jeff enjoyed the discussion of weighing system complexity against user benefits.
Episode 7, “In the Zone,” covered how engineers can get into a creative state of mind.
We talked about “Influence” in Episode 8. Chris reports the discussion caused to “squirm” just a little bit.
We’ll be offering a survey of our listening audience in 2013. Please participate!
“STEM Education” was covered in our ninth episode. There is a great loss of potential engineers as students traverse the standard path of engineering education.
We talked with Greg Wilson about his “Software Carpentry” program in Episode 10. His focus on the practical implications of software coding was of interest to both Jeff and Chris.
Episode 11 covered the subject of “Patents” with Dave Gevers. It was of interest to Chris that patents can be obtained with a minimal level of legal assistance. Jeff was intrigued by the distinctions between “personal” and “corporate” patents.
Karl Stephan was our guest for Episode 12, which highlighted the subject of “Ethics.” Jeff appreciated the distinction between “macro” and “micro” ethical issues.
In Episode 13, we covered “Free Agency,” talking with Stephen Kesich about his experience as a contract engineer.
The skills and talents that allow individuals to become engineering “Superstars” was the subject of our fourteenth episode. While Chris and Jeff did this episode “on the fly,” it turned out being well-received.
“Talent” was the subject of Episode 15. Chris liked the message that is talent is developed, not entirely innate; he found this a hopeful message. Jeff noted that young people may not develop a passion until they work hard enough to develop a skill set.
We discussed “Critical Thinking” in Episode 16, talking with Jeff Ellis about rational decision making. Jeff found the “Principle of Reciprocity” to be a valuable concept. Chris likes the idea of being on a quest for truth. Alas, Jeff Ellis has recently shut down his website, called The Thinker.
In the seventeenth episode, Chris and Jeff discussed the “DIY” movement with Steve Hoefer. Steve’s sonar glove project really impressed Chris. On the other hand, Jeff was happy just to find out what the show was about, as his internet connection had dropped out early in the recording session.
Engineering disasters were the topic of Episode 18, titled “Failure.” The balance between innovation and technological advancement was of interest to Chris, while Jeff noted the asymmetric relationship between the individual success and the success of the profession.
We talked with James Trevelyan in Episode 19, which we called “Value.” This discussion was wide-ranging, but focused on the economic benefit engineers bring to the workplace.
Jeff is a regular listener of the Security Now podcast hosted by Steve Gibson and Leo Laporte.
Engineers bring economic benefit to their employers. In this episode, we talk with Professor James Trevelyan about the value of engineers in the workplace.
While the word “value” has many meanings, Chris has an immediate desire to interpret it in terms of dollars and cents.
Engineers obviously provide some economic value, as employers continue handing out paychecks to their engineers.
Jeff has run across the Big Beacon Manifesto, which describes an idealized goal for engineering education.
Relatively few studies of engineering practice have been conducted, perhaps because such investigations require a merging of anthropological and technical skills.
Unlike medical students, most engineering students don’t get a chance to work “in the field” before receiving their degrees.
Tacit knowledge has been relegated to second-class status since the times of the Greek philosophers, with messy realities being considered less “pure” than Platonic forms embodied by explicit knowledge.
Engineering education moved from being practice-based to science-based around 1950, following World War II.
Since practical knowledge is no longer being handed down in large companies, much of the tacit knowledge of engineering is being lost.
Engineering students start leveraging useful skills, such as social networking, while still in school, but they consider the use of such talents as only “semi-legitimate.”
Jeff recalls an MIT study indicating engineers learn most of their day-to-day working skills in industry.
Regardless of experience or title, about 60% of an engineer’s time is spent in direct interactions with other people.
One explanation for why engineers exhibit such a high level of interaction may be that the engineering profession requires distributed cognition.
James references a book about constructing the Canal du Midi in Southern France, which required a collective effort.
Engineers largely succeed or fail on their ability to get individuals with needed skills and knowledge to contribute those assets at the right time, and in the proper manner.
James wrote a paper on engineering collaboration, titled “Technical Coordination in Engineering Practice” (pdf), in the July 2007 issue of the Journal of Engineering Education (vol. 96, no.3, pp. 191–204).
Engineers spend approximately 30% of their time coordinating the activities of others.
Engineers have shorthand methods of communicating technical ideas, as depicted in the book, Designing Engineers, authored by MIT professor Louis L. Bucciarelli.
James refers to a paper he recently presented at the Frontiers in Education 2012 Conference, held in Seattle, Washington. It is titled “Understandings of Value in Engineering Practice,” and should soon be available to those with a subscription to IEEE Xplore.
German philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe identified that as we think about something, our ideas representing that thing shift and move. In his book Scientific Studies, Goethe writes, “How difficult it is…to refrain from replacing the thing with its sign, to keep the object alive before us instead of killing it with the word.”
We need to be aware that others, especially those from other disciplines, may assign entirely different meanings to words and phrases. Even across related engineering fields, similar words may elicit concepts that diverge in crucial respects.
Engineers are typically unaware of the economic value they bring to an enterprise.
Engineers produce significant value by reducing the project risk perceived by financial investors.
A framework for understanding why individual investors perceive similar conditions as presenting differing levels of risk is expectancy value theory.
Chris mentions Daniel Pink’s book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, which suggests that people are strongly motivated by autonomy, purpose, and mastery, but not so much by economic gain.
Management skills are an important part of engineering work. However, most managerial training offers only an abstract introduction to the practical capabilities needed in industrial practice.
As we discover more about how individuals learn, we may need to rebuild the intellectual foundations of engineering, so as to allow a broader distribution of engineering knowledge, and a deeper understanding of engineering methods.
James Trevelyan can be reached via the email address listed on his website.
Thanks to peasap for the photo titled “George is Keeping an Eye On You!” Podcast theme music provided by Paul Stevenson
Nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daichi power plant in 2011.
Electronic failures, such as the XBox red ring of death, don’t usually endanger human life.
Chris makes the case that improved tools (CAD, FEA, etc.) and methodologies (six-sigma) have served to reduce the number and frequency of engineering failures.
Jeff counters that good tools don’t necessarily produce good results.
Even with powerful tools for analysis, engineers can be surprised by black swan events.
A 2009 report card from the American Society Civil Engineers gives the nation’s infrastructure a grade of “D.”
Failure often teaches lessons that cannot be learned from textbooks.
A single problem denotes an engineering failure, while an absolute engineering success requires a complete lack of problems.
Because of the wide number of possible avenues for engineering failure, it is important that engineers be open to outside review of their work, and to reviewing the work of others.
It is important that engineers remain humble when designing a complex system.
Chris and Jeff discuss whether engineers should consider themselves the most likely source of design errors.
Innovative design requires stepping outside the security of known procedures and methods.
A myriad of options are available when designing a system, but the number of unexpected interactions go up with system complexity.
We learn about the nature of a design problem by iteratively moving from design concept to analysis, then back to concept as we discover what works and what doesn’t work.
Keeping track of “bugs” is an important part of improving a design.
Safety factors for aerospace design may be in the range of 1.2 to 1.4, while elevator cables are designed with a safety factor of 11.
Testing is an important part of reducing uncertainty.