In this edition I am going to focus on what you can do to become the best engineer you can be.
Think about whomever you reckon is the best engineer of all time. It might be someone historical or someone you work with. It doesn't matter who it is, because I am going to explain how you can be just as good – if not better.
And it will not be just a lot of hype and motivational text. I am going to link this back to research so you know what I am talking about is rock solid.
 Let's start with what we know about the best engineers, then how skills in general can be developed, and finish off with developing the best strategy for you.

Engineering skill
The first thing to keep clear in your mind at all times is that there is no such thing as a natural engineer.
Some have certain aptitudes – an eye for proportion, a steady hand, or an interest in how things work – but none of that translates directly into engineering capability or skill. Engineering is built, not born.
But what are the skills the best have developed? They are framing, systemic thinking, and first principles. I have mentioned these in my book and how to improve them, but I will recap them here for reference.
Framing is about defining and redefining the problem before solving it. Many engineering errors originate from a poorly framed problem statement.
Systemic thinking is the recognition that every decision exists within a network of consequences. When you adjust one part, others respond – so be aware of them.
First principles thinking means returning to fundamentals. Rather than relying on established patterns or habits, ask why a rule exists and whether it still applies.

Getting good, then better, then excellent
In Pedagogics of Design Education, Vladimir Hubka and W. Ernst Eder proposed that it takes around 10 years to become an established design engineer, and be able to apply these attributes well.
This same number of years was noted by Anders Ericsson in his work on expertise, later discussed in Talent Is Overrated. Performance in any domain improves through what is called deliberate practice. This is not ordinary repetition. It is the systematic refinement of skill through focused challenges, constant feedback, and reflection. It’s demanding. It forces you to work at the edge of what you can currently do, to fail often, and to analyse why. Over time, the brain reorganises itself to perform at a higher level. And you need to do that for 10 years.
That’s a pro and a con. It might feel like a long time, but that also means you have plenty of time to get good – just don’t waste that time.
You can accelerate your development by being deliberate about what you do. Focus on developing each of those attributes (framing, systemic thinking and first principles).  
And when you are ready, add others like goal analysis, modal shifting, and team engagement. Each can be developed in the same way: by being conscious of when you are using it and when you are not.
​
So what’s the best plan for you?
First off, awareness converts routine work into practice. So simply being familiar with the attributes (re-read my book to remind yourself) will set you on the right path.
But if you want structured exercises, then take a look at my website: cjsteele.com/engineering-expertise. I have developed and shared exercises designed to help you integrate deliberate practice into your day-to-day work. You can also use the AI system Ingeny, which is in development so you can help with that development, to run an audit of your current skills and identify where to focus next.
And if you want to combine your development with your daily activities, then be intentional at work. Improvement in engineering is not automatic – so don’t assume you will just get better with experience – instead, focus and make work work for you. For each engineering action you take at work, ask yourself: which of the engineering attributes could I or should I use here; how can I best use them; have I used them incorrectly in the past; how can I avoid doing that again?
Think again of the engineer you admire most. Their skill did not appear overnight. It was built through years of structured effort. You can do the same. With ongoing, focused practice, you can reach the same level of mastery. Actually, you have more support than they did – The Global Engineer was not around for them – so you can surpass it.
Becoming a global engineer is the ultimate upgrade. It does not rely on talent or luck. It comes from the decision to practise with purpose, to learn continuously, and to treat every challenge as an opportunity to refine how you think and create.
Good luck with it and let me know if I can ever help.

In this article I will talk about cultural shocks and how to handle them. But I am going to talk more about one that few expect. After reading it, you will be better able to manage transitions between roles and, if you are a manager, help other better manage the transition.
First of all, let’s consider some of the different things that can affect engineering practice and culture. The main ones are:

You can probably understand from the above how you could experience significant differences in how engineers go about engineering as you move from one country to another. Especially when those two countries have very different cultures.
However, when the differences are that large, we are often fore warned (and thus prepared) about those differences.
It is the cases where you expect there to be fewer differences that you are more likely to suffer. The cultural consultant and author The Culture Map, Erin Meyer noted that the case where there is the greatest failure in professional transfer is between the U.S. and the U.K. People assume that the cultures are sufficiently similar enough that they do not need to mind those differences – this complacency then causes issues.
In my experience and from my research though, there is an even greater (and less noticed) factor that can cause issues for engineers: typical budget sizes.
This can have a tremendous effect upon how engineers go about their jobs.

• Do you take larger risks on each step of a program so that you spend less on each step?
• Do you have the time and other resources to optimise every aspect?
• Should you be leveraging of the shelf components and system or using custom designs and services?
• Do you conduct hand calculations or do you utilise a dedicated simulation team?
• Do you rework parts or just scrap them and move on?
• Do you try to make it work with run of the mill materials or can you start trying exotic materials from the onset?
• Are independent test laboratories given the final system so only one test needs to be done, or do you send them a full system after you come up with each new feature?

These are just a handful of examples of the things that can be dependent upon how well funded your engineering project is. But, the list still shows how you could tend to take certain courses of action if you have become accustomed to a certain budget size in the engineering roles you have had in the past.
An example from some of my research.
This was some time ago when I spoke with engineers in the automotive industry. It was noticed that Australian and Chinese engineers were better able to work with each other than either could with American engineers. Why was this, given the greater cultural similarities between Australian and Americans? At that time, the Chinese automotive industry was not the juggernaut that it is today – few had heard of BYD, and Great Wall was only just starting to be associated with cars. Instead, it was an industry that ran on much tighter developmental budgets. Much like the Australian industry also was at that time. Today, while the Chinese industry has grown, the Australian industry is essentially dead – so obviously the trends were in opposite directions while at that time there was an intersection.
What does this mean for you?

1. If you are an engineer changing companies, then really focus on how this aspect of the new company is different (if at all) from what you are used to. Then, each time you are thinking about your strategy for an engineering endeavour, double check if you have made any erroneous assumptions based unconsciously on what you think the budget would be.
2. If you are a manager who has new people coming in, then a good way to help them become accustomed to the new company is to talk to them about how they progressed such projects in the past. Do this within the context of budgets so you can be explicit with them if things are different from what they are used to.
3. If you work across global teams, make budget assumptions explicit early. It prevents mismatched expectations and helps align design philosophy from day one.

Budgets can be more of an issue than cultural differences (or even a cause of those differences). Noting the above will help you be more of a global engineer and let better managing this rarely considered issue. ​

The first thing to note is that this is about replacing missile defence with laser defence. The reason? Drones!
Drones are so cheap to build, while still being able to wreak havoc and destruction, that missile defence is simply too expensive. It is noted that a Patriot missile costs one million dollars while a drone would cost about one thousand dollars. That means you need to be one thousand times more productive if you want to keep using missile defence.

From the above, as global engineers, we can note that the problem is framed as a challenge of attrition. The engineering goal is to design a solution that is more cost effective than the enemy’s. That means you can produce your defence longer than they can produce their offence.

Now that the frame is clear, we would like to understand how we got to this situation and the lessons that offers us (or, at least, the phenomena that is demonstrated).

This change has come about because advancing drone technology has provided a more cost-effective form of attack. This is not a surprise to those in the know – in 1997 (literally last century) a book by the title of Robot Warriors predicted things like this.

It was a result of peripheral technologies – mostly electronics, electric motors, and electric batteries – improving. As shown in book like How We Got To Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World and Hitting the Brakes: Engineering Design and the Production of Knowledge:

• These peripheral technologies made new technologies (drones) viable.
• These new technologies then put pressure on existing technologies (missiles).
• These new technologies also provide opportunities to advance other technologies (lasers).
• These new technologies potentially also benefitted from improvement in the same peripheral technologies.

This again shows, as I have argued in my book, that often engineering innovation is the product of the needs generated by other innovations. And sometimes, as engineers, we can think of ourselves as the tools that are guided by the innovation path as opposed to being the ones that need to set the path.

This can sometimes provide a freeing sense for engineers and it can also help guide you in your career.
But before we go into talking about career advice, a side note about military history and how it can help you be a better engineer. I want to note that I am not a person obsessed with the military and war. It is simply that because military history is so well documented, it is often possible for us engineers to learn about the way technologies have developed within the contest of evolving need as a result of tother technological developments. Thus, it provides a useful reference. So even if you are not a fan of war (and who really is?), then you can learn a lot from it to help you be a better engineer.

Now back to what we can learn from lasers replacing missiles and how that might guide us in our careers.
I should note that I am speculating here, but I am doing my best to leverage my expertise to provide something accurate.

Because it has become a war of attrition, and the costs are now much lower (on a per unit basis), there will be an ongoing effort to make this laser technology able to fire farther and more frequently through more unfavourable weather conditions. Thus, allowing a single unit to take out more drones as they become ever cheaper and more numerous.

As laser technology advances, it will then eventually be able to destroy missiles (travelling at hypersonic speed) before they become a threat. Even as missiles likely increase their armour against lasers (and then lower their payloads). In such a world, missiles will become redundant – unless they are carrying a payload that has sufficient energy density to justify it (I am talking nuclear).

Therefore, if I were to be an engineer working in missile defence (or considering it), then I would be looking for alternate careers. Maybe drones or lasers. Unless I felt confident that I would secure work in this space as one of the soon to be rarer missile specialists.

This is indeed an excellent chance for you and other engineers (those with the global perspective) to watch how the situation progresses. Predicting what will happen and comparing that with what actually happens is a great way to tune this type of engineering intuition.

I have certainly made my predictions clear.

What about you: What do you think will happen? Do you think I am wrong? Would you stay with a missile manufacturer as an engineer? Do you think someone will develop a shotgun missile that will split and take out a thousand drones in one go? Would you argue mass production techniques will be applies to missiles to get their costs down? Is there something else? Have I underestimated the effects of improving laser technology?
​
Impress me with your ideas and predictions on what will happen.