In this article I am going to talk about a common phenomenon that has afflicted at least one engineer (usually more) in every company I have worked for. It affects engineers (and others) around the world.
And it might affect you!
And if so, then you want to know it – and how to overcome it.
Because this phenomenon is practically the first key thing you need to overcome if you wish to be a global engineer. In fact, once you crack this, the rest is fairly easy.
Which is why it is so sad to see engineers who have been limited by the phenomenon their entire careers – and never progressing as much as they otherwise could have.
So what is this phenomenon?
It has been described by numerous people in different ways with different perspectives. But you can basically say it is the notion of true independent thought.
Independent thought means you are no longer reacting to a situation. Instead, you contemplate it, you ask yourself questions about that situation, you are then prompted to think more, you collect information, you try solutions or responses to better understand the situation – and not necessarily solve it. Basically, you “explore” the situation.
No matter the culture you come from, it was likely heavily influenced by someone (and others) like this. History has many such people who thought for themselves and then laid foundations for others to work with. Adam Smith. Confucius. Mohammad. Aristotle. Francis Bacon. Karl Marx. Buddha. Imhotep. Jesus. Deganawida. There are many more. There would also be others you know who also have independent thought – but they have just not been as influential.
You too want to be such a person so your engineering, while potentially being influenced by your background, is not controlled by it.
When you can think independently:

• There are fewer genuine issues raised with your ideas. Either in review or implementation. This is because you have been able to collect the information needed to create informed ideas.
• When issues do present, you can usually overcome them quickly – you are familiar enough with the context that you thought these issues were a possibility or you understand them in an instant.
• You can justify, to yourself or others, each aspect of any idea/solution you have developed.
• You likely took your time before launching into final-solution mode.

When you don’t think independently, and you tend to be reactive:

• You often find people raise issues with your proposed solutions and feel you are often criticised.
• You can be shocked when things don’t work out as you expected.
• There are numerous aspects of any solution you put that seem arbitrary.
• You probably jump straight into coming up with a solution, and, as you do, each step feels more like a reaction to the prior step than a well-thought-out step. You basically keep shooting from the hip.

Think about the above now – and determine what kind of thinking you currently engage in.
So how do you become the type of engineer who thinks independently?

• Before you take on any task, take the time to ensure you get it. Don’t just assume you get it.
• List questions you could ask about the respective situation – put dedicated time into this.
• Allocate time to review what you are thinking of implementing, be it a handful of concepts, your understanding of the problem to be solved, more refined ideas, etc. By having these breaks in your solution process, you can check if you have been reacting (shooting from the hip).
• Keep a list in sight (maybe on Post-it notes) of all the various aspects of the situation you have discovered – this is to remind you think about these various aspect, and stop the reactionary thinking.

Once these practices become the norm, you can better contemplate your own thinking. You can then work on becoming a global engineer – and that will now be much easier.
A note for managers – demanding a design log and regular reviews can have the desired effect upon any hip shooters in your team.

In this article I am going to talk about a fault many engineers are cursed with, but, by definition, should not be. It is also a fault that can be exacerbated in a global context so it is even more important for global engineers.
If you want to ensure you are not cursed with this fault, then read on.
The curse I talk of is using indicators as opposed to facts to make your engineering decisions.
Each word above makes sense to you, I am sure; and the sentence likely seems sensible enough as well. But I will use 4 examples I have experienced personally to make it clearer to you.

Caulking glue for precise location control
This was an interaction between two engineers who needed to find an adhesive to:

1. Mount objects that needed to stay in place as the adhesive cured.
2. Release minimal chemicals during curing so that it did not pollute other nearby systems.

One engineer did the sensible thing, reviewed test data on as many available adhesives and then tested samples of those showing most promise.
The winner was an adhesive used in domestic applications, was cheap and came in a big caulking tube like one you would see on construction sites.
The other engineer, upon seeing the winning adhesive expressed surprise and apprehension. They were expecting something that would come in small containers, like you would see in a laboratory, require mixing, and be expensive.
The other engineer, given the scientific rigour used to select the winning adhesive, should have checked their bias. But they did not, they actually let this bias continue to guide them.

Metal putty or metal augmented two-part epoxy matrix
When a company was looking for a way to adhere a part to an assembly for quick experimental assessment, one engineer used metal putty. If you do not know what this is, then it is basically a glue (a two-part glue) with a high concentration of metal whiskers added. These whiskers make it much stronger than ordinary two-part glue. And, once mixed, it is mouldable like a putty. So you can work it into any shape you like – ideal for experiments when you want to explore different geometries.
The experiment worked, but others had issues trusting the results.
Why?
Because of the word “putty”. It just sounded so agricultural or domestic to them. I know this is the case because they actually said this.
If it had been called “Metal Augmented Two-Part Epoxy Matrix” or “MAT-PEX”, then they probably would have been more accepting of the results.
Of course, you know, when you think about it, that the name should have no influence on the rigour of the experiment or the results at all.

Old textbooks
When new editions of a textbook are published, it usually involves a few extra sections based on feedback from lecturers, the use of different units, case studies that seem more recent, or maybe to leverage new learning technologies. The fundamentals will not change. Nevertheless, I have had cases where people thought they would not learn as well because they had an older textbook.
This was not because of the difficulty cross-referencing reading tasks allocated for their studies. It was simply because the book looked old.
Assuming they could read Latin, such people would look at an original copy of Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and assume, because it is so old, that it had nothing useful on the laws of motion.

University education
Does it matter where you studied engineering? Do you think you are taught different fundamentals at different universities? Do some say “now, everyone, keep this quiet – the real formula is F = m a2!”?
The answers to the above in order are: no, no, no.
What is more important are things like: how you studied, and the specific educators and the assignments they set.
Nevertheless, people will, at times like when they are employing engineers, think the place of study will reflect someone’s engineering knowledge and engineering skill. This is at its worst when people assume foreign universities offer less applicable education – without even knowing anything about those universities.
I have mentioned in a prior issue the best way to select an engineer when employing – and it had nothing to do with the place of study.
​
The common theme and the lesson for the global engineer
You can likely induce from the above that the general issue at play is an emotional bias based on perceptions that are not questioned – as opposed to the use of facts and logic. The last example is likely the most applicable to the global engineer – for practical reasons – but, as you move from one place to another, the use of logic over instinct, bias and intuition becomes even more important.
So, do you tend to judge based on feelings or logic? When you read the above examples, can you imagine yourself making those same mistakes or would you look at the unadulterated facts? 

In this article I share why one of the simplest and easiest of things to use is also one of the best ways that lets any engineer deal with the big picture and the details.
One of the challenges for all engineers is to ensure they meet the big picture needs (typically the overall functional purpose of the system they are working on) and the detailed needs (typically things like reliability, serviceability, and other minor aspects that can have major effects if they go wrong).
This act of moving your attention from one to the other and back again to ensure that everything is resolved is given the name “Modal Shifting”.
Modal shifting is not something we naturally do. And when we do do it, it usually slows our progress.
What is needed is something you can use to ensure that you cover all of the issues – be they big picture issues or the detailed issues. Something you can come back to as you progress to ensure you have not forgotten anything. Something you can also refer to when you think you are done to ensure you actually are.
Ideally, this thing would be suitable for teams as well. And, if you are a global engineer, then a team of engineers (and others) of various backgrounds.
There is a system for exactly this. And it’s incredibly easy to use.
The issue is that it’s so simple many choose not to use it. Because it is so easy, it’s hard to truly believe that it will help.
And you probably have already worked out what it is.
It’s the checklist.
There is a reason why checklists are so effective. Because it takes on the job that is so easy your brain ignores it while you focus on more interesting and demanding things. It extracts all the things you can think of when you mind is considering the requirements, and then ensures they are not forgotten as you leap into the demanding and exciting work of developing your solution to the challenge – the time when you normally forget all the minutiae that remains vital.
That’s why they are used in aviation. To ensure pilots release the gust lock for example – look that one up to see how it relates to checklists.
Their power is far greater than would be expected given their simplicity and ubiquity. That, as I mentioned above, is why many do not use them even though they should.
Within the global engineering context, checklists are ideal because they also provide a document of absolute truth for shared situational awareness. Everyone, no matter how they naturally think or are inclined to focus on, knows exactly what needs to be done.
So next time you have an engineering task with various attributes – try a checklist. Collate all that needs to be achieved, before you start the engineering work, and ensure you do everything correctly first time around.
 

This is the first "culture check" article I will write that will specifically look at different backgrounds (in a fairly broad sense because there are so many of them) and how it could cause issues in your engineering. I am focusing on the negative aspects because engineers love having problems to solve.

What are the key attributes of western culture?
Western cultures are typified by a longer period of wealth and a stronger focus on individualism over the focus on the group. There are other aspects, but these are the ones that I will focus on in the context of engineering – because they are the ones that proved significant in my research.
​
And the effect on engineering?
If you are from a wealthy western country, then you are, most likely, from a post industrialised society. That means the majority of wealth comes from the services and knowledge industries – and it has also been like this for some time. And manufactured goods are frequently considered ultra-cheap; thus, the alternative name “The throw away society”.
In such a society, we become more interested in customised and bespoke products. Brands can hold some sway, but not because they are associated with wealth; because they are usually associated with an image or persona. You can’t as easily convince people you are successful by owning certain brands anymore – because the fact is many could afford something that is practically comparable. Status thus comes from uniqueness and thus exclusiveness.
An engineer from such a society will always have more of a tendency to try something new. But not because they know it will be a better solution – even though it might be. But for the sake of the novelty itself – and the perception that the cost is not that great, nor much of an issue.
Now couple this with the tendency to individualism.
Such an engineer would now be more motivated to pursue such an idea for their own glory. If it helps the company, then great. But if it becomes a success, then they would be more inclined to say “That was my idea” as opposed to saying “That helped to company enter a new market”, “That cut cost and boosted revenue”, that reduced down time” and so on.
Thus, with a tendency to gravitate to the novel without worrying as much about cost and with less thought given to the greater group, the western engineer is more likely to go rogue and be a maverick.
This might be what’s needed at times. But, let’s be honest, good engineering happens when the engineering team is implementing solutions that are aligned with each other and with the business goals.
 
And the practical implications are…?
Western managers are probably aware of this – even if they don’t know it – and can manage it. Acknowledging the great idea and engineering excellence and then noting that in a different context we could pursue it, but, for now, we need to focus on something more aligned with the broader goals. I know I have had to at times.
But if you are from another background, then this is something to be aware of should you ever be managing western engineers. And I mean based on cultural/economic/national background – don’t assume if they have a different ethnicity from what you expect, have some heritage similar to yours, or can speak your language, then they will think like you. These tendencies could still be there.
If you are a western engineer, then ask yourself now, and indeed then, and then then again, if you tend to pursue ideas for the sake of novelty and personal glory as opposed to doing it for the engineering team, the company, and societal, success.  

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.