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.

You have likely heard of design for manufacturability, design for sustainability, design for servicing and design for recycling. You can also work out what each is about. You have likely also heard of “design for X”. Where you substitute X for whatever is important to you.
 
But have you heard of “design for design”?
 
It seems an odd concept, but you have probably already done it. Maybe it was for the best, and maybe not – but I will talk about that later.
 
In design for design, we make a design decision early on in the engineering process so that the rest of the design task is easier. For example:

• A team designing a race car on a limited budget (for both time and money) specifies that they will design a space frame instead of a monocoque. Thus, the analysis process and adjustments of the design to accommodate ongoing changes in other subsystems are easier. Making the overall design project easier.
• An engineer who needs to develop a seal between two existing parts decides on the use of silicone tooling and polyurethane so that a complicated shape can be made that works around those other two parts. The seal might be more expensive to produce and maybe more time consuming to install, but the design process is now faster and easier because there is only one part to be designed as opposed to three. This implies that time or design budget were limited.

 
You have likely noted in the above that there is some external reason that mandates the design be completed quickly. Therefore, the engineer makes decisions that will make the design process faster. You could also argue that this is actually part of the development of the design brief – and not design. But given things such as coevolution, there is actually no clear definition of when the brief development ends, and the design process starts. And one could argue that a design brief could also be designed – potentially another example of design for design that has been happening in engineering all along.
 
And this all seems reasonable – although not always ideal – it would be good to always have the time and resources to implement an optimal engineering solution.
 
However, what about times when design for design is not reasonable?
 
And have you been guilty of this?
 
Some other examples of design for design:

• An engineer dislikes sheet metal parts – such parts are not precise and this engineer has mild OCT – so all parts are designed for machining.
• An engineer enjoys designing with surfaces in CAD so creates parts with convoluted shapes that justify the use of surfaces. The official reason for the convoluted shapes is aesthetics and stress minimisation.
• An engineer in a design house contracted to develop a tool set for a market niche chooses to design new metal forgings (as opposed to just custom over-mouldings for existing forging) because they are excited by the notion of designing hand tools from scratch.

The above examples show that sometimes design for design is not about making the design process easier, but, instead, about making the design process more enjoyable.
 
By the way – I have witnessed all of the above examples firsthand.
 
So next time you are making some early decisions for how you will go about tackling an engineering challenge (and designing for design), ask yourself if you are doing it to make the process more efficient or just more enjoyable.