When going for a job, engineers know they can do that exact job. They know they do it well. They would not have applied otherwise. But when it comes to explaining why they can do the job (be it in their resume, their cover letter or the interview), the message does not always get across.
So the job goes to someone else – likely someone who previously had a job that was almost the same (that’s the go-to-move used by many employers).
You have probably experienced the above yourself.
In the previous article, The Need for Willpower, I talked about how frustrating it can be to have strong global engineering skills while working for people who are certain they know better.
I also said I would explain how you can use these to better explain yourself when going for a job.
So let’s talk about that now.
​
For graduates: proving you understand engineering, not just exams
Graduate engineers often look identical on paper.
Same degree. Same subjects. Same grades.
What interviewers are really trying to determine is whether you understand engineering, or whether you simply learned how to pass engineering exams.
This is where noting framing, first principles, and systemic thinking can give you the edge.
Point to any example you can and explain:

• how you framed the problem,
• where you relied on first principles, and
• how you considered the system beyond your immediate task,

you will then immediately distinguish yourself from the majority of graduates.
Design projects or any work experience during study are best here. They are often the closest thing students experience to real engineering practice: incomplete information, competing constraints, trade-offs, and uncertainty. If you have access to design projects — especially open-ended ones — leverage them heavily.
For example:
“At first I thought this was a materials problem, but after reframing it as a thermal–mechanical interaction, the constraints became obvious…”
or:
“Rather than relying on testing, which would be time consuming, I went back to first principles to inform my decision. I found that…”
and:
“I didn’t want to simply assume what was presented. I considered the broader system for opportunities or risk and found that I could…”
Statements like this tell an interviewer something very important: you weren’t just executing procedures — you were thinking like an engineer.

Experienced engineers: making expertise transferable
For experienced and senior engineers, the challenge changes.
At this level, employers aren’t just evaluating what you’ve done. They’re trying to work out whether your capability is locked to a specific industry, organisation, or economic environment — or whether it travels.
This is where global engineering fundamentals really matter.
Instead of listing achievements, you explain how you think:

• how you’ve reframed problems when projects stalled,
• how you’ve used first principles when standards, precedent, or organisational habit were misleading,
• how you’ve thought systemically to uncover risks or opportunities others missed.

Crucially, you make explicit that these are generalised attributes:
“It should be noted that I was not following standard procedure. They’re engineering fundamentals applicable to all industries. Industries like [INDUSTRY YOU ARE APPLYING TO]. That’s why they apply even when the context changes.”
This is especially important if you’re moving between industries, organisations at different levels of maturity, or regions with very different economic backgrounds. Engineering does not exist in a vacuum — constraints, incentives, and decision-making are shaped by economic reality just as much as by culture or structure.
Being able to articulate that awareness signals depth.

Engineering managers: scaling judgment across people and contexts
For engineering managers — engineering leads, heads of R&D, CTOs — the emphasis shifts again.
At this level, you’re no longer just applying framing, first principles, and systemic thinking yourself. You’re developing them in others.
Strong candidates for these roles can clearly explain:

• what good engineering judgment looks like,
• how they encourage it in their teams,
• and how those attributes need to be interpreted differently across industries, cultures, organisations, and economic environments.

This is where global engineering truly becomes a leadership skill.
A manager who understands that framing, systems, and first principles manifest differently depending on context is far better equipped to guide teams. Not by imposing answers, but by shaping how problems are understood in the first place.
What’s more, the fact that you know what the attributes are of the expert engineer will likely separate you from other would-be managers. You show that you are indeed an expert engineer – as expected of a manager – as well as having the required leadership attributes. A powerful combination you should articulate.

Why this works: labels make thinking visible
A lot of engineers already do these things. But they just don’t label them – making it hard for other to understand or see your ability.
When you say:

• “I reframed the problem…”
• “I went back to first principles…”
• “I broadened the system boundary…”

you’re giving the listener a framework they can link your past actions to – making it easier to appreciate and recall.
I’ve used this approach myself repeatedly when applying for roles. I link all the actions I mentioned to an attribute of engineering expertise. And without fail, people switch on. They understand what I did and how significant it was because I gave it a name and explained the meaning.
If you’ve read my book, you’ll know there are many other attributes worth developing — fixation, attachment, goal analysis, and more — particularly for leadership roles. But framing, first principles, and systemic thinking are the core.
They are the fastest way to make your engineering capability legible.
And once it’s legible, it becomes employable.
Also, if your application involves moving countries, working across cultures, or managing international teams, one book I strongly recommend is The Culture Map. It provides a practical framework for understanding how communication, authority, and decision-making vary globally — all of which directly affect engineering work.
Start mentioning these things in your next application. And all the best with that application too – along with all the others that follow. I hope your engineering career continues to be onward and upward – offering you all you wanted from it.
 

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.

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?