James Trevelyan speaks with us about the skills and talents of expert engineers, and how those of us who have not yet achieved “expert” status can improve our ability to complete engineering projects on time and within budget.
Brian feels he is becoming less of an expert as time goes along; there just seems to be so much to know!
Our guest mentions the book by Louis Bucciarelli, Designing Engineers, as one of the few sources of information about what engineers actually do on the job.
Engineering provides great opportunities for making the world a better place… and for spending other people’s money!
Research indicates that engineers have trouble delivering reliable and predictable results.
James mentions the accomplishments of C.Y. O’Connor, an engineer who oversaw the construction of a water pipeline across uncharted regions of Australia in the late 19th century.
Our guest feels the skills needed to drive projects to completion have been largely lost as experienced engineers retire.
While Jeff longs to take engineering students out onto the factory floor, James indicates that some students aren’t particularly keen about participating in plant trips.
Engineers spend a lot of time teaching others, even if on an informal basis.
Peer instruction has proven effective in helping college students learn new material.
James mentions our prior interview with Dave Goldberg, in Episode 65.
Once again, we mention the Grinter report (pdf), which changed the course of engineering education in the United States.
ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc.) is the organization that accredits most engineering programs in the United States.
James has spoken with corporate leaders who actively work to dismiss engineering employees, seeing the engineers as unable to produce predictable results.
Engineers have a reputation for being unable to communicate with those in other professions.
Explicit knowledge can be written down, and easily transferred; this type of knowledge forms the basis for much of what is taught in universities.
Expert engineers do not rely solely on their own knowledge, but know how to build on the knowledge and abilities of others.
Supplements to James’ book are available online, including a classification of engineering knowledge (pdf).
University grades don’t have much relation to engineering performance, at least as evaluated by supervisors.
Young engineers with an ability to obtain assistance from seasoned engineers are more likely to experience career success than are those who find themselves unable to garner expert support.
James hopes that senior engineers will begin cataloging concepts and ideas that younger engineers need to learn and understand.
One important skill that has been lost among the current generation of engineers is the art of writing of technical specifications.
While prior guest Dave Goldberg champions Noticing, Listening, and Questioning (NLQ), our current guest dedicates a chapter of his book to similar observational activities, which he designates the “three neglected skills:” listening, seeing, and reading.
We debated the relative merits of programming languages in Episode 64; James tells us that programming among engineers is most frequently performed with Excel (and its accompanying Visual Basic language).
In a lively discussion of how to best prepare today’s engineering students for tomorrow’s engineering challenges, we talk with Dave Goldberg and Catherine Whitney about their new book, A Whole New Engineer.
Any “dot-com” dreams that Brian harbored during his college days have long since dissipated.
Carmen suggests that ridiculous buyout amounts are now measured in units of “Instagrams,” with one Instagram equaling one billion US dollars.
Engineers must constantly expand and refine their skills; Jeff notes that over his career he has moved from drawing prints on a drafting board, to working with 2D CAD packages, to implementing 3D models.
Our first guest for this episode is Dave Goldberg, who appeared previously on Episode 37, in which he talked with us about the evolution of engineering roles over time. Dave leads ThreeJoy Associates, a consulting firm that advises educational institutions.
Our second guest is Catherine Whitney, a New York-based writer who has previously written or co-written more than forty books on a wide range of topics, including nutrition, social issues, and entrepreneurial success.
Dave argues that the “old engineer” was entirely appropriate in a time of expertise and narrow technical focus. However, a “new engineer” must reach across disciplinary boundaries, and solve problems in domains that lack recognized experts.
Dave makes a passing reference to disruptive innovation, a term coined by Clayton Christensen to describe the manner in which existing markets and institutions may be displaced through the introduction of new technologies.
Current technological trends have led to people “bowling alone,” a phrase the describes how individuals are disengaging from the social and political networks that comprise local communities.
The story of Jack Andraka is offered as an example of how academic expertise is being undermined over time.
Jeff notes differences between “just-in-time” and “just-in-case” learning.
Dave notes that more than one version of the Grinter Report (pdf) was proposed back in the mid-1950s.
Our guests mention a study by Kristen Wolfe, later referenced by Woodie Flowers of MIT, that looked at the skills used by mechanical engineers five years after they graduated from college.
Dave was involved in establishing iFoundry at the University of Illinois, while co-author Mark Somerville was (and is) a faculty member at Olin College.
Chris and Jeff discuss why engineers are sometimes seen as cold, heartless bastards who refuse to be team players. Oh yeah, and how that might be linked to a lack of empathy.
A recent journal article claims that engineering students have less empathy than students in other fields of study. Chato Rasoal, Henrik Denielsson & Tomas Jungert (2012): Empathy among students in engineering programmes, European Journal of Engineering Education, 37:5, 427-435.
Our guest for this episode is Jim Heilman, who appeared previously in our episode on recruiting. He thinks that the whole empathy thing with engineers is a perception problem.
Employers don’t usually ask about empathetic skills when looking for technical personnel, although the ability to “listen” is considered important.
On the whole, women are more empathetic than men, and empathy tends to increase with age and level of education.
We also tend to more empathetic toward those that share cultural and geographical backgrounds. Thus, we may have to work at being sufficiently empathetic towards those with different values and traditions.
Jim believes employers assume all candidates to be sufficiently empathetic, even through the evidence would indicate otherwise.
Taking candidates out to lunch is a common ploy to see how potential employees treat others, especially those who are not in positions of authority.
Chris recalls a quote by Samuel Johnson, “The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.”
A study out of Case Western Reserve University indicates that firing up the neuron network we use for empathy causes our analytic abilities to be suppressed. Anthony I. Jack, Abigail Dawson, Katelyn Begany, Regina L. Leckie, Kevin Barry, Angela Ciccia, Abraham Snyder. fMRI reveals reciprocal inhibition between social and physical cognitive domains. NeuroImage, 2012
Chris wonders what the biological advantage might be in this trade off between empathy and analysis.
Jim has noticed that women seem expected to show more empathy than men, especially by other women.
There seems to be a gap between the knowledge skills and characteristics that a graduate engineer is expected to hold, and what skills and characteristics these engineers actually have.
Jim feels that engineers may be getting unfairly criticized, as a lack of empathy seems widespread in a number of industries.
James Trevelyan speaks with us about the skills and talents of expert engineers, and how those of us who have not yet achieved “expert” status can improve our ability to complete engineering projects on time and within budget.
