What Makes a Good Engineer?

Brains. Curious, logical and an ability to comunicate are great....but then there is being book smart, and then there are those that have the ability to think on their feet and see solutions intuitively.

It is hard to soar with Eagles when you fly with Turkeys! Everybody has brains but not everyone uses them properly. You are only as good as your desire to improve, learn and implement your ideas to make things work. A good workplace makes people work harder and put out quality work. Not only engineers but also the workforce working together, sharing ideas that make the task easier to manage and put out a good product. The good engineers are either dead or retired. We have a multitude a College grads that are overtaking the industry, some which have no idea about logic and engineering per say. They are all computer wiz but no mathematics or calculation or reading skills. We the old folks are being overshadowed but unexperienced people.

So true, especially put in a situation where the customer is looking for someone to take responsibility off their hands.

As an example: Bad as a situation is and when in that type of situation, you don't quite know how you are going to solve the issues at hand, but you know you can. Because you were put in situation like it in the past.

You actually become a catalyst to bring the project under-control and moving forward. Its a great feeling..............but not at the time of doing so.

^{the perks (if there are any) never outweight the responsibility.}

A healthy imagination.

You are perfectly correct. Engineering is the worst profession next to politics in this respect. A doctor can work(physician/surgeon)independently but an engineer has to work under idiotic bosses in private sector in some countries. Some mad CEOs hate

engineers,accountant etc but like technicians and clerks because of "hero worshipping or kiss the ass " attitude. When a project is nearing completion they reduce the salary of the engineer as the workload has become lesser. Then engineer leaves after completing more than about 95% of the work. The CEO utilises the supervisor and complete the project and tell everybody that "the engineer has deserted and the supervisor completed the project". This happened in third world(Srilanka)

You are RIGHT Mr. SSCpal,

I understand your feeelings. My feelings are also similar to that of yours.

Playing politics makes an idiot as hero of the day but will not last long. My experience - SINCERITY and HARD WORK WILL NEVER GO WASTE, and IT WILL BE REWARDED, but subjected to TEST and we should have strength to with stand the test.

Regards,

DHAYANANDHAN.S

A good engineer is the one who will share his wealth of knowledge to his co-workers with out reservation, dedicated to your work and company as a whole.

Its common also that most managers has limited knowledge especially in GCC countries because of politics) He/She is either dumb and no knowledege at all but lucky because of his skin color and connections.

Last but not the least, you can't bring your knowledge/wealth after death.

-

there is a price for integrity.......

and the only people who know the value of integrity are the people that actually have it

I would add "analysis" to the list. The ability to de-construct a seemingly large problem into a series of smaller, and therefore simpler component parts. Most of the sub components have ready made solutions (design) or can be eliminated (maintenance) leaving you free to concentrate on a few essentials and the "glue logic" that holds all the parts together.

This sounds obvious for maintenance engineers, but it is more important that the design engineer analyses and predicts potential problems and eliminates them at the project stage.

Yup, nice point. The ability to see the wood for the trees is often the key. Identify the actual problem, not just the symptoms.
Solving problems is easy, the hard thing is identifying the problem.
Del

PERFECT KNOWLEDGE in his field/branch, Encourage sub-ordinates and build a strong TEAM-WORK SPIRIT, Accept and implement workable suggestions from operative -staff and above all OWN THE RESPONSIBILITY makes A GOOD ENGINEER's CHARACTER.

DHAYANANDHAN.S.

One should be a "Continuously Learning Engineer" than a learnt engineer.

I would not rate curiosity! curiosity gets you nowhere.

I would place "observant" at the top of the list. Secondly, having the NATURAL ability to analyse and understand what you are seeing. This combined ability (I would even say 'gift') allows the true engineer to subconsciously develop a store of knowledge and UNDERSTANDING, from a very early age (infant!), right through their life (closely allied to experience!).

This 'unconscious' store of knowledge will present itself, as and when required, and with little studious effort.

This will especially mark out the true Engineering Designer, and the Engineer.

Curiosity will get you to challenge the 'received wisdom' which is occasionally wrong.
It will get you to try new combinations of stuff.
Without 'what if?' we would be extinct as we would have starved to death.
To expand on that statement, there are foodstuffs which are poisonous unless prepared through a several process, these would have been discovered by trial and error, usually being tested on the adolescent males of a tribe. When food was short, curiousity got us fed.
Similarly with many great engineering inventions. The steam engine and jet engine spring to mind...
Del

A comment of merit Del, but I think observation comes ahead of curiosity. It is the observant tribesman who sees his curious friend die from food poisoning, and by a succession of observations, lives to a ripe (and productive) old age!

I have to disagree that curiosity played any significant part in the invention of either the steam engine or the jet engine. The inventors of these would have known in their minds that their ideas should work, they then set about proving their ideas. They did not design, make, and assemble the required parts without knowing their function, and without having an expected result. This is certainly not curiosity!

Their ideas (inventions) would have come from their mental store of observation and experience, and possessing the kind of brain that subconciously brings these things together, that's what sets such people apart.

Henry

I would not rate curiosity! curiosity gets you nowhere.

I have to disagree with you on that with an analogy....

Hey! Your stepping out of line there, get back in line and start marching like the rest of you robot engineers!

I've been thinking about your dismissal of curiosity being an important attribute for an engineer and the responses by others to it. While I greatly respect many of those who disagree with your point, I think they are missing an important point here.

Curiosity is the fundamental critical attribute of an inventor or scientist, not an engineer. These are three fundamentally different roles. Now many individuals with the title or responsibilities of an engineer will change roles and become a scientist or inventor for critical periods of time of a project or from personal curiosity, but they are not acting as an engineer at these times. An engineer must know what his design should accomplish. A scientist does not know what an experiment will produce. If they do it's called a demonstration or at best a confirming experiment. An inventor does not know if their device is something that people will want or need. An engineer knows that a device is needed and the science required to build the device.

Don't get me wrong, curiosity is one of humanity's most important attributes and an engineer only knows what they know from the result of others curiosity. I also admit that any good engineer should be at times curious, but not while doing engineering.

Now you might say I'm making a semantic argument here, and you'd be correct. But this semantic argument I think is important. Too often engineers inadvertently mix in a scientific exploration when they are tasked to make a reliable, well understood system. Similarly many scientists will build an instrument with too many unknowns to produce any usable data.

A case in point against your argument would be the case of "Galloping Gertie" in Tacoma, Wa. After designing that bridge and checking all the load factors that the steel was proper, the trusses properly designed, the wire supports sufficiently anchored and so on, those engineers were probably very confident that they had done a great job of bridge design. And after all that was their duty and what they were paid to do. It was probably all checked out with their mathematics and load calculations as to what weight that bridge could hold, what forces it could stand up to based on traffic and weather.

Would it not have been a matter of curiosity for one of them to look into what would happen if this or that condition prevailed or that happened at the same time? Or if these other three conditions should all happen at once?

Sometimes it is that lonely voice crying out from the wilderness that often gets ignored because "we've always done it this way" and "it's way too outside the box so let's not bother about it".

Curiosity may have killed the cat but "what if" never hurt a designer or engineer unless it was a case of "what if I cut the Red wire not the black wire on this bomb."

Be careful with what you site as an example. Galloping Gertie had a team of three different competing engineering designers work on the project. Had Elleridge's original "tried and true" design been implemented on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge it is likely that construction would exist today despite the high winds. It was Moisseiff who had just published a theoretical paper on the elastic distribution that the suspension cables would disperse the wind load combined with the narrowing of Elleridge's original road bed and towers (to reduce construction costs), that probably doomed this bridge. Engineers were doing science while under the pressure of financing.

On a positive note, on Galloping Gertie, It is now text book examples used for training and education.

On speculation, if it didn't happen on G.G. theres a good chance it have happened somewhere else.

I only used Gertie as a for instance about "thinking outside the box" which I believe that "curiosity' is a part of. Not being a Civil Engineer or Bridge Designer I was unaware of the ramifications of Gertie's deign that you noted. But in my quest for Knowledge or to appease my Curiosity if you will, I will follow your links and enlighten myself.

Thanks for the leads and I agree with your "Engineers were doing science while under the pressure of financing" except I don't think that they were doing Science as much as cutting corners at the point of some politician's financial gun.

"Thinking outside of the box" is another of those ridiculous, meaningless catchphrases, so beloved by those who wish to impress. Thinking inside the brain is what counts!

Curiosity is for those who cannot see the answer (even if they recognise the problem). Experimentation is for those who wish to prove what they believe to be so (or to satisfy the demands of others!), and the wealth of knowledge gathered by observation (of all things), puts the observant engineer/engineering designer, streets ahead of the curious, in all respects.

Ref the bridge, I don't suppose it was anything to do with too much influence from "arty" people??

Who's Arty and how did he enter the conversation? Is he the one who's "streets ahead" of the rest of us or was that just a metaphor.

As far as "observation" putting the "observant engineer/designer streets ahead" leads one back to the the old saw "that everything is not what it appears to be." After all there are thousands of "observations" that have been disproved throughout the ages, among them being "the world is flat" and "the Earth is the center of the Universe" to name only two. If Columbus and Eric the Red had not been "curious" about seeing what was beyond the horizon the Dutch, the French, the Spanish and the Brits would never have crossed the great pond to establish their colonies in America

I would also tend to classify wind tunnels and model ship basin tests as "experimentation" that record "results" and are not limited to just simple "observations" being recorded and thus have more engineering weight and scientific merit than mere observations. Oh look it floats- only an observation.

A good engineer and engineering managers should get feedback from projects completed as well as from ongoing projects to modify their techniques for better finished product. It should be a continuous process similar to Karl Marx's "permanent revolution". A civil engineer can make a model of a building,beam,road or bridge and apply loads including wind loads,tornados,earthquakes etc and study their impact. An electrical power engineer and his boss after estimating power requirement of a building should visit the site after energising and take measurements of loads in various circuits,switchboards etc to confirm whether his calculations/assumptions are correct. Other engineers too can do similar studies for quality control and avoid problems.

Spinco wrote:

>>>Sometimes it is that lonely voice crying out from the wilderness that often gets ignored because "we've always done it this way" and "it's way too outside the box so let's not bother about it".<<<<

Hey! I'm living that situation now!

"Hey! I'm living that situation now"

Yew sed a mowthful ther!

You make a good case there, but it is touching off on semetics, I look at it as a remark such as:

"This has always been the way we have done it. "

And out curiousity, comes questions, from questions comes research of finding the better way.

And I have always told my engineers when looking at a process system, keep your head on a pivot. If your designing in a particular place, look down stream as well as upstream of the process. With in reason, If a door, hatch, lid or cover is closed, ask to open it, and look what's on the other side.

Curiousity saves time, expense and hair.......and when it comes to hair......

^{... forget about me, it too late for me....................save yourself}

Curiosity teaches... without, there is no self-teaching... Without curiousity there is no learning, and the injuneer would not be made.

I was lucky to work directly under my Managing Director, I worked in same organisation for 33 years, as my boss never encouraged politics on the contrary would fire the person who would go to him to complain about others. Whenever any senior manager tried to bully me me I would kick his ass b'cas I was sure he can not do any harm to me.

The best engineers I knew never even had a degree. They were hands-on individuals who did what they did because they loved doing it. They were not 9 to 5 people. They were always willing to give more than 100% and didn't play politics. Most of them never got recognized other than to appear on a layoff sheet. They didn't have engineer titles and didn't make the money engineers made, unless it was overtime. They would be seen explaining to an engineer how something worked. I'm not saying there are not good engineers around, but they are getting fewer in numbers.

Agree 100%. I went to engineering school but did not go back for a degree. I got hired right out of Jr. College I have been working in Tooling Design engineering, Manufacturing Engineering and Liaison until this day! Most of my experience has been on the job and a lot of coaching from the old folks.

You are right Ronsetto. You do not need a degree, and a degree never made an engineer, or engineering designer, you cannot make a silk purse out of a Sow's ear! The majority of teachers and the educational establishment, have no idea what engineering design is. I hear the, what I call "artistic manipulators", being introduced as "designers", when their work is judged (and often dependent) on current fashion.

Good engineering designers are certainly getting fewer in number. I wonder whether this has anything to with the general lack of practical hobbies? In my younger days (1950's!!) we had hobbies like model making, not plastic kits, but tracing out plans, sawing, cutting, fitting, sanding, bending wire, painting. We didn't sit round playing video games, watching TV (we didn't have one!), or tapping out barely intelligable texts. I well remember my "Hobbies Weekly" (at 4d (old pence) a copy), with an additional "plan" (fretwork or model of some description) every other week. I would read that from cover to cover numerous times, and if I could get the material (offcuts of plywood or whatever), I would make whatever took my interest. When we went out we were out in the woods making bows and arrows, catapults, building hides, playing games, exploring the quarries with burning strips of rubber as lights, trolley (not supermarket type!) racing.

What is happening to England?

All three are important but I believe that what's missing from this list is "Common Sense" which some might think is part of Logic but it is not. The "Logical"approach, for example, when your toaster doesn't work, would be to remove the toaster's cover and test the voltage at the switch connections then check the voltage at the outlet. The Common Sense approach would be to check first to see if the toaster is plugged in before removing the cover.

Also missing from that very short list is an insatiable thirst for knowledge, often any knowledge, even outside your own field if expertise. This does go hand in glove with the Curious factor but to a much more intense degree.

Lastly as others have pointed out, the willingness to impart that accrued knowledge to others, to act as a mentor to communicate with others, to see them absorb some of that knowledge but most importantly to utilize it in their engineering endeavors. I believe that to a great degree that is why many of us participate here on CR4.

A good engineer should be lazy. That way he'll always be looking for the easiest way to get something done.:-)

....or for short cuts!!!

There is a BIG difference between being lazy, and being economical with your time.

http://pmpaspeakingofprecision.com/2010/12/28/what-makes-an-engineering-professional/ Milo

There a theme to your post.

Good Engineers? As per me all Engineers are supposed to be good. As they have chosen profession to serve humanity. They have agreed to work in the hostile environment such as steel plants, power houses, chemical plants etc.Even have agreed to work in open even if it rains, snows or it is hot desert so that common can utilize basic services such electric supply, water supply, other daily necessities.

Engineer's services are rarely visible to community and they are rarely recognised like other professions like medical, finance, celebrities etc.

Engineer is basically supposed to be highly intelligent, logical, and hard working otherwise he can not complete his graduation in college.This is my assessment of Engineer.

Only proper training under experienced engineers will make a good engineers.

for me, one important quality of a good engineer is willingness to teach...

being a newbie to this engineering thing myself, I've come across a number of engineers that act as if no one else has a right to knowledge and are quick to find a way of getting rid of you so you dont steal their 'tricks'

then there are the engineers that everyone loves to work with as they are constantly feeding you with knowledge about their past experiences as possible issues you might face going forward.

I totally agree with the people that say that a lot of the best engineers around dont bear 'engineer' as titles, some of the people I've learnt the most from are people that most of us look down on.

A couple of things are missing...

1) The ability to see connections. The really good engineers I have known, and I have known lots of good ones and lots of bad ones, were always able to connect the dots and "know" what should come next or what needed to happen next or "what the next proper step was". The bad ones often times were like bad dancers... stepping all over the place and "always getting the steps wrong".

2) The ability to realize when they did not know what step was next and that they needed help. To many screw ups have been caused by folks not willing to admit they needed help to determine a proper course of action.

3) The ability to realize that they are not infallible. The numerous codes and standard in effect around the world have been created for a reason. To many bad engineers have the belief that those codes and standards do not apply to them or the situation they find themselves in.

curiosity, curiosity, curiosity and after that more curiosity !!!

Curiosity why something works, curiosity why it works , curiosity to see it working and curiosity to "push" it into working and to see how to improve the mechanics or the electric circuit to work in and easier way, curiosity to see it work with much less parts curiosity to work with minimum parts -- curiosity to make it work better with less parts, curiosity to make the equipment work with less electrical parts, curiosity to make work well with simpler parts -- this is how I developed the first electronic Level controller for a small hydroelectric plant -- when I was going to college and was fed up with the electromechanical monstrosity we had to control the turbine -- this around 1960 or so

It is very difficult to define "an engineer". I learnt in 1960s that an engineer converts natural resources for the benefit of man,may be wind,solar heat and gravity. Later they invented the steam engine which used the mechanical energy in steam. Subsequently petrol and diesel engine as well as turbines came into existence. The invention of electricity generators,motors and batteries changed the world. Then what is the function of an engineer- is it inventing,designing,construction, manufacturing, maintaining, estimating or selling?. Each category has different functions and work under different environments(dealing with companies,suppliers, consultants,propereitors,civil contractors,sub contractors etc)as well as under variety of bosses like Rich people,their sons, Engineers, Government etc. It is the problem for engineers unlike Doctors who do the same thing (checking patients and prescribing)wherever they work.