It’s a new project or part of one.
It needs to be delivered quickly. It also needs to be reliable, inexpensive, easy to manufacture, easy to service and compliant with all applicable standards.
There’re only enough resources (time, people, money) for one serious attempt.
So the obvious plan is to simply get it all right the first time.
And everyone seems to be onboard with the idea.
This is home run engineering.
It’s the belief (actually it’s hope) that an engineering team can step up to a new and complex challenge, take one enormous swing, and achieve everything in one go.
It sounds ambitious. Some would say aggressive. It is usually naive.
And it can tell you something important about whether you should remain with your current company or not.
What is home run engineering?
In baseball, a home run allows the batter to complete the entire circuit in one play. There is no need to progress from base to base through a series of smaller hits.
Home run engineering follows the same logic.
Instead of developing, testing, learning and improving, the organisation expects one major effort to produce the finished outcome. The first prototype is expected to be close to the production design. The first implementation of a new process is expected to work across the entire organisation.
The term itself will rarely be used. Because no-one wants to admit they’re doing it.
You might instead hear:

• We need to get it right the first time.
• We only have one shot at this.
• There is no time for another prototype.
• Failure is not an option.

It might even be described as a Hail Mary. Although that expression usually refers to a desperate final attempt, so it’s wore honest while being just as concerning. Home run engineering is more often placed in the project plan from the beginning.
The language can make the approach sound focused and courageous.
But confidence is not an engineering method.
Why companies try it
Home run engineering normally appears when corporate strategy and engineering reality are no longer aligned.
The company might have promised a delivery date before the engineering work was properly scoped. It might have committed to a fixed price without understanding the technical risk. Or it might simply have fewer engineers, less money or less time than the challenge requires.
None of these pressures changes the engineering reality.
They only create an incentive to pretend that reality is different.
It is not really a national culture issue. Although cultures that are more heavily influenced by notions of karma and mind over matter might be more susceptible to this tendency.
It is mostly an organisational culture issue.
This can happen more often in a startup where:

1. the runway is more likely to be disappearing as funds dry up, or
2. earlier evaluation trials were less demanding so people are not accustomed to the greater demands of actual implementation.

But it can also happen in a large and established organisation. Probably where a senior manager has made a commitment and does not want to take it back.
Co-evolution means you cannot know everything at the start
In my book on being a global engineer, I discuss the notion of co-evolution.
Many people describe engineering development as iteration. You develop a solution, test it, make changes and then try again.
But there is more.
As you develop the solution, you also develop your understanding of the problem. The problem and the solution evolve together.
You do not merely improve the answer.
You improve the question.
This is why prototypes reveal issues that no meeting, calculation or simulation identified. A component is more difficult to assemble than expected. A user holds the product differently from how the designers imagined. A supplier cannot maintain a tolerance. Two individually successful subsystems behave differently when connected.
This perspective should show to you just how risk the home run engineering approach can be.
Example 1: There was no obvious way into space
Today, when you think of early human spaceflight, you probably imagine a capsule on top of a rocket.
It seems obvious.
But it was not obvious at the time.
A NASA history of the early space program describes four different American approaches to putting a person into space:

1. The research aeroplane. Fly higher and faster until the aircraft reached the fringes of space.
2. The ballistic vehicle. Put a capsule on top of a rocket, launch it into space and let it return through the atmosphere with little aerodynamic control.
3. The boost-glider. A rocket would boost a winged vehicle into space and it would return by gliding through the atmosphere.
4. The lifting body. Something between a conventional aeroplane and a ballistic capsule. Its shape would generate some lift without relying upon large wings.

These were not four minor variations of the same design. And none were a clear home run. All involved knew that different approaches needed to be explored.
And the Soviet Union did something similar. They used competing design bureaux, each exploring its own idea:

• Korolev’s bureau developed the spherical Vostok ballistic capsule.
• Pavel Tsybin’s bureau worked on the PKA, or Lapotok, a reusable gliding spacecraft.
• Vladimir Myasishchev’s bureau developed the M-48/VKA-23 spaceplane concept.
• Vladimir Chelomey’s bureau then pursued its Raketoplan and Kosmoplan families of reusable spacecraft.

Obviously, space travel is a major task, and no-one would suggest a home run approach. But it is a reminder to think seriously about the size of the challenge being taken on.
Example 2: The modern car
Consider the layout of a modern car.
Usually there are four wheels. The front wheels steer. The driver uses a steering wheel and pedals. In a conventional internal-combustion vehicle, the engine has commonly been at the front.
This arrangement now seems obvious.
But it was not obvious to the early automotive engineers.
The Benz Patent-Motorwagen had three wheels, a rear-mounted single-cylinder engine and tiller steering. Other early vehicles used steam or electric power. Engines appeared at the front, rear and beneath the occupants. Controls included levers, tillers and pedals in combinations that would feel completely foreign to a modern driver.
It took considerable trial and error of an entire industry to get to the layout we now have.
Example 3: The first successful aeroplane
The Wright brothers provide another example.
Their successful powered flight in 1903 followed years of experiments with kites and gliders. When their 1900 and 1901 gliders did not perform as expected, they did not simply build a larger engine and hope for the best.
They questioned the data.
They built a wind tunnel, tested many wing forms and used what they learned in the 1902 glider. That aircraft helped them develop the control knowledge and piloting skill required for powered flight.
The famous flight was not a home run.
It was the visible result of many earlier swings.
Different engineering: different speeds (how a move could bring you unstuck)
Home run engineering can become especially likely when someone moves from an industry in which changes are relatively fast and inexpensive into one where each learning cycle is slower and more costly.
Consider the following:

• A software team might release an update, observe its performance and issue another version within days.
• An electronics change might require a new board revision and further compliance testing.
• A mechanical change might require new tooling and another physical build.
• A civil engineering change might involve approvals, heavy equipment and concrete that cannot simply be rolled back.

This is not an absolute hierarchy. Some software changes are extraordinarily consequential, and some mechanical prototypes can be modified in minutes.
The point is that the cost and speed of learning differ between engineering contexts.
So if you move industries or work with another one, take the time to understand just how involved a project is. Lest you be the one asking for a home run.
How to recognise home run engineering
You will know it when you see it, even though nobody will use the term.
Some signs are:

• The first prototype is expected to be suitable for customers.
• There is funding for implementation, but not for exploration.
• The schedule contains design and delivery, but no meaningful time for learning and redesign.
• Tooling, procurement or construction begins before major uncertainties have been resolved.
• Testing is planned only as final verification.
• Engineers who raise uncertainty are described as negative or insufficiently commercial.
• The project can succeed only if every major assumption turns out to be correct.
• People throw the term “calculated risk” around without actually doing the calculation.

One of these signs does not automatically mean the company is badly run. But if you start to see a pattern of such things then consider a move.
When it’s time to leave
Every company will occasionally create a bad schedule or make an overconfident commitment.
That alone is not a reason to resign.
What matters is what happens when engineering reality becomes clear.
Does leadership adjust the strategy? Does it reduce the scope, move the deadline, add resources or create a staged development plan? Are prototypes treated as learning tools? Are engineers rewarded for revealing problems early?
If not, and your company repeatedly relies upon home run engineering, and refuses to change when the problem is made clear, then it might be time for you to take your engineering ability somewhere else.

I have mentioned in a prior post about the need for willpower (and how you need fuel) when you are working on improving your engineering skill.
In that case, I was talking about how people find it easier to resist change. And how that in turn can make them feel like weights dragging you down or holding you back.
This metaphorical drag on your progress would sap your energy – and you would seriously need to fuel yourself with quality food so you could push on.
But it can sometimes be even worse than that.
Not only will people resist the change. They will sometimes tell you that you are wrong, that their way is better.
In cases like this, you sometimes need to endure working in a manner that you know is suboptimal until your time comes.
But this has likely raised questions like:

• But how does this come about?
• How is it that people can think they have a better way?
• Do they know something more?
• Should they too have learned about the importance of things like framing, systemic thinking and first principles?

The answers to these questions are:

• Luck
• Unfounded confidence
• No
• Yes

Let’s start with the first aspect, Luck – because it explains the next and so on.
I have also noted in a prior post – on starting your own engineering business – the two important elements of business success: the business model and location. These were noted by the demographer Bernard Salt. He also went on to claim that intelligence and hard work were something the laws of business did not care for – they could never overcome a bad business model or poor location. The reason why I agree with this is not only because it aligns with personal experience, but, because, being a demographer, Bernard Salt bases this assertion on the data on all businesses – not his personal experience with a handful of businesses. Thus, his assertion is objective and universal.
Those engineers who think they know the real core of engineering have been lucky enough to have worked for companies that have been successful. They assume their engineering excellence played a major role – thinking it’s all about intelligence and hard work; having no idea about the importance of the business model and location.
Being so certain company success was a result of their excellence, they can’t help but be confident.
The kind of confidence that means they have not bothered learning more – so they do not know something more.
Even though they should take the time to learn more.
It’s near impossible to argue with such people. They will have stories of how their way saved the company and how that proves they know what’s best.
As you become more informed and a global engineer, you will start to see how it was external factors that allowed for these engineers’ success.
But you will not be believed if you try to explain it. And then the frustration can set in. And all you can do is endure.
This sounds rather bleak – I know. And it is – I have lived it before.
But I have always been glad to know what I know. And I have learned to choose my battles.
And you should too. Value your knowledge and pace yourself as you apply it so you do not fatigue or become bitter. Sometimes the only thing worse than someone with unfounded confidence is a cynic who is always annoyingly right about what’s going wrong.
So next time, let’s talk about how your global engineering skills can get you a better job.

​In this article I want to encourage a habit in you. The habit of staying up to date with the latest in your specific field.
But first, I wanted to take the time to share with you that this is now the second year of this newsletter. The last issue was issue 52 so this one marks the start of the second year – volume II if you will. I did not plan to publish once a week, but, after publishing the first edition, a colleague, Andrew Waterson, said “I hope to see you doing this once a week from now on.” He tells me he does not recall saying this, but that it sounds like something he would say. Regardless, the effect was that I was motivated to keep on writing. So thanks go to Andrew.
I still have more content to come and I hope that past (future) content has helped (will help) you in some way to become a better engineer.
And that brings me back to the focus for this article: how to keep your finger on the pulse of your engineering discipline to stay up to date – or even ahead of the curve.
Obviously, I would suggest you keep reading my newsletter. You can also join the Global Engineer Group to see other posts, and share questions, thoughts and ideas with others. This is a relatively new group, and members are approved so the quality of others there can be maintained into the future. In addition, you can follow The Global Engineer page to be reminded of past articles and other posts.
But that’s general – what about staying up to date with advances in your specific area of engineering?
This is where Google Scholar is one of the greatest developments in the past decades. I recall when it started back in 2004. At the time, when I was doing my PhD, I would not have used it – it simply did not have the coverage needed nor did it have the search functions in the established databases. However, today, it has almost everything and excellent search functions.
Add the alert function and it is even better – you get the occasional (depending upon the specificity of your search term) email letting you know about recent publications on your topic of interest.
My current alert is just one phrase “engineering cognition” – that’s because this is my current area of interest.
You would obviously choose one that aligns with your industry – or the industry you want to get into so you know what skills you need to demonstrate as you make the transition.
As you read the articles you are alerted to, you will come across ideas you can put to use and better understand your industry. You will also have excellent professional development activities to report if you are a registered professional engineer who needs to do this.
Try Google Scholar now. See what the latest papers on your area teach you.
You might need to have a few goes – sometimes the phrases used by authors are not the like the one you would use.
Once you have a search phrase that gives you articles you like, hit the “Create Alert” link. That way you get automated updates. You don’t even need to go to Google Scholar to get the information anymore. You just sit back and wait for it to come to you in your inbox. To be read when suits you.
But you want to make it even easier? Then combine it with ChatGPT (or other AI).
Type this into your AI system of choice:
I would like to know about recent advances in [your area of interest]. Review articles that are available on Google Scholar that have the phrase [the search phrase you found that worked] in them. Then, give me a summary of the major topics covered and the associated findings.
This will be an even easier read. And it will still give you links so you can read in more detail anything that is of more interest to you. But it will only happen when you choose to do it – the email updates are good because you get the reminder.
None of the above is a replacement for structured professional development courses that are curated and delivered by experts (assuming they keep themselves up to date), but it will still keep you better informed than others.
And stop you slipping behind!

​Why was it that the Europeans (and even the Soviets sort of) had supersonic flight, but Americans did not? Did it perhaps all come down to the engineers and their ability? In this article I will consider such questions in more detail so we can better understand how various factors affect your engineering and your chances of success when taking on big challenges.

Some background
Depending upon the newspaper you read, you might have seen this recent article in The Telegraph about the history of the Boeing 2707: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/boeing-2707-america-lost-concorde. The Boeing 2707 is described in the article as “America’s lost Concorde”. Interesting words; how was it lost; circumstance; incompetence; tragedy; or is it about the loss of an engineering race? It leaves the reader wondering just how it is that America never had its own commercial supersonic aircraft.

The article argues that the Boeing 2707 did not succeed because of the following:

1. The Europeans got a headstart
2. The American design was too ambition carrying more passengers and being optimised for slower flight as well with swing-wings
3. Fickle political support
4. Potential for public backlash because of noise
5. Market realities – like those that saw the end of the Concorde

A global engineering lens
Would we reach the same conclusions if we look at this as global engineers? And, could we learn lessons from this consideration?

In my book, I cite another book (The Origins of Turbojet Revolution by Professor Edward Constant II) that compares the efforts to progress aeronautics in both Europe and America. Professor Constant noted that a lot of engineering in the U.S. was guided by commercial realities associated with longer flights (think New York to Los Angeles) carrying more people. This means larger planes with more comfort. In Europe, the focus was purer, and on fast efficient flights.

This offers potential insights into why the American design was too ambitious. There was still the notion of carrying a large number of people, which is congruent with large scale commercial operations. The swing-wing would increase efficiency during the slower portions of a flight – the beginning and the end. This is only significant for shorter flights such as domestic ones (that’s why they worried about people complaining about noise). Thus, it seems Boeing was making the 2707 a domestic and international plane – and thus increasing the potential for sales.

The Concorde on the other hand would get out of one country and stay at top speed until it reached its destination far away – disturbing no-one in between – a purest approach for a very specific (and small) market. Not very capitalistic at all.

Based on the above, we could argue that points 2 and 4 were ultimately more about culture overriding engineering decisions.

Points 1 and 3 can be combined. Indeed, the Europeans had a headstart, but so did the Soviets in the Space Race. The U.S. could have caught up and surpassed if they really wanted to. But there was no perceived national security threat as there was in the Space Race. So political support, being both delayed and then reduced, likely played a role.

And considering point 5, the U.S. government was probably overly spooked to support commercial supersonic flight in the first place, and wise to reduce support later on. Assuming it was all about direct commercial gain and there was no interest in the value of spin off technologies.

Lessons for engineers
Culture can cause you to create an engineering design brief that is not well aligned with the laws of physics. This can sometimes be through your commercial attitudes. Make sure you are realistic about your commercial goals and that they are aligned with engineering realities.
​
And if they are not aligned, then accept that you will need something like government support to succeed. Failure is not a result of engineering skill – or lack thereof. Although it might be a result of engineers not challenging culture with sound engineering principles. You need, at times, to combine engineering and commercial reasoning to find the right direction forward – which might mean ceasing efforts.

So will America have a supersonic commercial airliner?
The Boom Overture, scheduled for release in 2029, has tried scale models already. It shows similarities with the Concorde – delta wings and fewer passengers. And the company seems to be focused on offering a speedier alternative to business class flights along long flights – showing a combination of commercial thinking with engineering thinking.

So yes, I do think there is a good chance that the U.S. will indeed have a supersonic commercial airliner.

But what do you think?

Let’s talk about what it takes for a successful business. Because engineers (and maybe you) think about running their own business. Also, as an engineer, you are likely to be asked to join a start-up, and it would be good to know if that’s a good risk to take.
I’ve run my own business, been involved in a number of start-ups, formally studied the theory of starting a business in a Master of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, published in business journals on analysing start-up risk prediction, and kept up to date with the topic ever since.
Having done all that, I’ve come to realise the core needs (and common mistakes) when starting a business. And that’s what I will share with you here – in case you have indeed been thinking about your own business.
​
The Big Mistake
Confusing technical expertise with the essentials for commercial success.
In The E-Myth and The E-Myth Revisited, Michael Gerber explains how people who are good at something are often told they should start a business. He shares the case of a woman who opened a pie shop after everyone praised her baking skills. But there’s a lot more to running a profitable business than simply making a great product.
You need to understand how the whole system will work, and from that ensure it’s efficient enough to actually make a profit. Many never master this second step. That’s why so many businesses fail, and why people who work for themselves, on average, earn less than those who work for others.
So what makes for a profitable business? A demographer has the answer.

The Two Laws of Business Success
Let’s talk about Bernard Salt – the demographer.
Because he’s a demographer, he hasn’t simply run a few businesses and drawn conclusions from his own experience. He has looked at the data across all businesses, providing insights that are far more objective and complete than you will get from anyone else.
And what does Bernard say?
The laws of business do not care how smart you are or how hard you work (this is a shock to many). Instead, Bernard tells us that they only care about two things:

1. Your business model
2. Your location

Note how this follows on from what Michael Gerber says. It’s not about the skill; it’s about the way your business is set up.
So how do you know how to set up your business? You have to ask the right questions of your customer.

Finding the Right Business Model
That brings us to Tony Ulwick’s Outcome-Driven Innovation (ODI), summarised in his book What Customers Want. ODI focuses on the tasks people want done. By doing this, you create a business around the things that make life easier for people — helping them achieve their goals with less cost, whether that’s time, effort, or money.
Once you understand this, you can fine-tune (or maybe redesign if needed) your offering (product or service) and how you present it to potential customers.
It also helps you innovate.
Consider the anecdote — which is untrue, by the way — that Henry Ford once said: “If I asked customers what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
This is often used to argue that customers don’t know what they want. That’s not the case. It’s more that we often don’t ask in the right way. When you understand what people need done, and then find a way to make that easier for them, you’ve taken a big step toward having the ideal business model (and, the right location) that is the foundation for success.

The Takeaway
I do want to see you succeed regardless of the path you take, so I hope the above helps you to:

1. Avoid leaving your day job for a venture that’s unlikely to succeed.
2. Guide you toward success in any venture you do start.

What are you thinking now? Are you now less certain about starting your own business? Are you thinking about tasks you can help people with? Are you thinking twice about that start-up your friend asked you to join?
I am always keen to learn more about innovation. If you’ve started your own business or come across great insight from others, then tell me in the comment what you’ve learned?