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.

“Growth is permanent everything else is temporary.” This is, for me at least, a very motivating quote. Thanks Dharmesh Kodwani for sharing that with me. It got me reflecting on the things we can do to improve our engineering capability as a global engineer. There is no substitute for a clear focus on improving how you work as an engineer. However, reflecting upon insights from others can sometimes be that little bit extra that separates the ordinary from the extraordinary. And reading the right books provides the best way to do this.

Therefore, I have collated a list of the books that I think are ideal for anyone who wants to be a global engineer.

These are also books that you don’t want to just read once. They are worth coming back to time and time again. Sometimes we forget the great insights we have read. We can recall some of the details and where we read it, but we forget the important stuff. So these are books you should also pick up from time to time to either re-read or flick through to keep yourself as amazing as possible.

Hitting the Brakes: Engineering Design and the Production of Knowledge  by Ann Johnson. This book is fascinating. It is written by an historian and uses the development of antilock braking to understand how engineering communities develop. It provides great insight into how knowledge in engineering is developed and shared. As you read this book you will notice how and why your understanding of different technologies you work on changes over time. Ideal for engineers involved in a rapidly changing industry/technology.

What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History by Walter G. Vincenti. This book was a bit slow to get started for me. However, it was fascinating to see how engineers tackled different problems throughout history. It uses the aeronautical industry as a case study, but much of the content is applicable to all engineering. At the end of this book, you will start to think about what kind of an engineer you are and if perhaps there are some things you could do a little differently.

The View from Here (Optimize Your Engineering Career from The Start) by Reece Lumsden. This is a book like one I have not come across before. It is the only book on engineering that starts at choosing a place to study engineering and then considers how to manage your engineering career. It does not talk much about the unique characteristics of engineering, the way other books do. Still, no matter the stage of your career, this book can likely help. This is a book that will make you reflect upon your past as an engineer and think more about what you should do next in your career.

Engineering Philosophy by Louis L. Bucciarelli. It talks about a thing called the object world (the world engineers work in), but it also goes into much more detail about the nature of engineering. It talks about the social nature of engineering; how we, as engineers, can sometimes think we know something and do not; and how engineers learn. At the end of it, you will probably think twice before ever reaching any engineering conclusions.

Engineering and the mind’s eye by Eugene Ferguson. This is one of the most visually rich books on engineering. Because the book essentially argues that visualisation is the key to engineering, this makes sense. The book argues convincingly that engineering requires mostly visualisation, but still a tactile understanding. It cites many other sources to support its contention and was the first book that I read that finally explained the link between art and engineering. If you want to gain a better understanding of how engineering has developed as practice, from beginning to what it is today, then this is an excellent book. After reading it you will probably start thinking about how you can improve your engineering ability through the senses you use when confronting a problem and how you choose to represent that problem.

The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution by Edward W. Constant II. This book focuses, as the title suggests, upon the development of the turbojet. It deals substantially with how ideas of a revolutionary nature often come from people outside of the respective industry. How revolutions can push some companies and their engineers to the sideline and raise others. These revolutions are rare, and a book about one, written by an historian, is a useful insight into the engineering tasks and attributes essential for such revolutions. What I found most interesting about the book was that it also covers the development of the antecedent technologies like the water turbine and supercharger.

How we Got to Now by Steven Johnson. This book tracks the development of 6 major inventions that significantly changed our world. This is done from the perspective of how they came to be – through interactions with other technologies and societal events. If you need to work on your ability to understand how and why the time can be right for a new idea, then read this book.

The Saturn V F-1 Engine: Powering Apollo into History by Anthony Young. This traces the history of the titular engine and the mission to the moon. Along with coverage of the technology and its development, there is also much in here about engineering behaviour and management for success. Ideal if you want to know what it takes to pull off a large engineering project (or even a smaller one).

Six Thinking Hats by Edward de Bono. This is certainly no longer a new book. However, it is an excellent book that helps you consciously look at problems from multiple perspectives, and be more certain that you understand it. This will also help you outside of engineering as well.

Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else by Geoffrey Colvin. If you thought engineers were born and not trained, then this book will make you think otherwise. If you need more convincing that you can improve your engineering, then this is the book you want. It’s also ideal for anything else you want to improve.

How to measure anything by Douglas W. Hubbard. This is almost an engineering book, but it’s also a business book. The reason why I put it in the list is because of how unique it is. There are few books out there that help you deal with uncertainty the way this book does. Given how many things can seem uncertain at the start of an engineering project, this ability is an ideal for all engineers to have. By being able to put a measure to those things you do not yet fully understand, you can better assess ideas in their nascent stages.

Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman. This book provides great insights into how our initial thoughts can often be wrong. Essential for good engineering – especially when you are working with something new. It also provides insights into when you can rely upon your intuition – something that can bring an engineer undone if not done right.

The Global Engineer by Clint Steele (yes – me). I am obviously bias, but if you are going to read only one of these books, then I would recommend this one. Why, well, as I noted, I am biased, however, I did pull the essence out of each of the other books above to write this one. So it will provide you with most of the good stuff. Still, if you read the other books, then you could find something you need that did not influence what I wrote. Regardless – get this book!
​
I am always looking for more to read and learn. If you have anything you think should be added to the list, then please let me know in the comments.

The best of the best
Who is the greatest engineer in history? You might suggest one of the following:

• Imhotep – The world’s first recorded engineer and architect, who designed Egypt’s Step Pyramid of Djoser nearly 4,700 years ago.
• Leonardo da Vinci – Renaissance genius whose visionary sketches of machines, bridges, and flying devices anticipated modern engineering by centuries.
• Nikola Tesla – Pioneered alternating current and wireless power, reshaping how electricity flows through our modern world.
• Isambard Kingdom Brunel – Bold British engineer who transformed transport with his tunnels, railways, and pioneering steamships.
• Eli Whitney – Inventor of the cotton gin and a champion of interchangeable parts, laying the groundwork for mass production.
• Thomas Edison – Prolific inventor who brought practical electric lighting to the world and built entire systems around it.
• Archimedes – Ancient Greek engineer and mathematician who devised ingenious machines, from war engines to the screw pump, and laid down principles of mechanics still used today.
• Li Bing (3rd century BCE) – The Chinese engineer and administrator who designed the Dujiangyan Irrigation System, one of the world’s oldest large-scale water management projects, still in use today.

Who would you add to the list? Who do you think deserves the title of the greatest engineer? There is no shortage to choose from.
But the more important question is: how do I get to be that good?
First off, let’s note one thing: some of these engineers, while having great skill, experienced some serendipity. If Imhotep had been born some years earlier than he actually was, then there likely would have been no Egyptian empire to provide the resources needed to execute his vision. That means that there are possibly thousands of engineers who were just as great (when it comes to engineering skills and expertise), but they did not get to work on projects that would make them as well known.
I hope you do – for one thing it would mean that there are still great engineering projects for me to read about and talk about – but I also write these articles so I can help you become the best engineer you can.
So now let’s talk about the three attributes these engineers had – although, each probably had each attribute to varying degrees, and could have still benefited from further improvement.
Framing
Don’t always take the problem as given. Think about other ways you can bring about the desired outcome. In my book I talk about how a Formula 1 engineer took what all thought was an aerodynamics problem (where the gap under the car was too large for ground effects) and turned it into a suspension design problem (where the challenge became designing a suspension system that would lower under lighter aerodynamic loads, and return to the specified height for scrutineering).
The key to framing is twofold:

1. As I said, don’t take the problem as given – be willing to change it.
2. Take your time. Framing does not always happen in an instant so be ready to ponder on it for a while. Wrestle with the problem so you see if from all angles and then find the one that allows you to attack it.

Systemic thinking
We often get into trouble because of the things we don’t think of. When we implement our solution, we realise that it will cause another issue with a related system. So we want to prevent this.
But, there’s more. We can sometimes use those related systems to help solve our challenge. So we also want to look more broadly at any challenge we have to find opportunities, as well as potential issues.
To do this, think bigger. Don’t focus on only your own little challenge. Talk to others. Ask them what they have experienced. Go and see the location of the challenge (if you can). As you do all of these things, you will automatically spot potential issues and think of opportunities to explore further.
First principles
You have learned all that theory for a reason.
When you choose to use it – either through hand calculations, simulations, experimentation, guiding principles and so on – you can make specific changes to your proposed solution to:

1. Prevent failure.
2. Optimise the outcome.

Failures are clearly bad so you want to avoid those. And if you can provide and optimised solution, then you are indeed working like a great engineer.
So always think about the theory applicable to each challenge you face. And don’t be afraid to learn about more if you can or need to.
Over to you
You now know that the greats did – they framed, they thought systemically, and they used first principles – so you can work on doing that too.
If you want to learn more about each, then take a read of my book – I go over each (and other attributes of great engineers) in more detail.
Which attribute do think will be the hardest for you, and what will you do now to start working on it?
 

​Usually, we want to know how to be a global engineer – one who has mastered the attributes of engineering expertise and understands how context can affect both the development and application of those attributes. That way we can become an engineer of excellence who can work anywhere.
But there’s also value in knowing what not to do. And that’s the focus of this article.
I’ll take three cases of engineers saying stupid things throughout history. Then I’ll take a shot at why they blundered. From that, we can learn how not to fall into the same traps.
So let’s get started.
 
Julius Sextus Frontinus (Roman engineer and Superintendent of Aqueducts)
“Inventions reached their limit long ago, and I see no hope for further development.”
1st Century CE
From the haughty position of the 21st century, we can certainly say Julius was spectacularly wrong. Not only have inventions continued, but our understanding of science has advanced enormously since his time.
What’s more, he seemed blind to the fact that other parts of the world – China, India, the Andean civilizations of South America, to name a few – were also developing unique technologies.
Julius simply couldn’t imagine that better worlds or better systems could exist.
The lesson? Don’t ever become content. Always assume the world is full of problems waiting for solutions.
 
Boeing Engineers
“Mass production methods from the automotive industry are not applicable to aircraft.” (paraphrased)
World War II
During WWII, the United States needed to outproduce Germany and Japan in aircraft – especially bombers. At the time, it took around 200 times as many people to build an aircraft as it did a car, and the cost (per weight) was about 35 times higher. So it made sense to look at automotive-style production for planes.
But many aeronautical engineers dismissed the idea. Aircraft, they said, required tighter tolerances, exotic materials, and more “finesse.” Even German engineers thought this kind of mass production was impossible.
Of course, history proved them wrong.
And yet, even today, I hear similar resistance when Lean, Agile, or other well-established methods are suggested in industries that see themselves as “too complicated” to used these new methods.
What’s the real reason for this. I would say it is usually ego and laziness: we don’t want to admit gaps in our knowledge, and we don’t want to put in the effort to learn by trying something new.
The lesson? Stay motivated to try new ideas and see if they make things better.
(Side note: Charles E. Sorensen from Ford thought mass-producing aircraft would be easier than it was. He was overly optimistic. But if we made a list of engineers who underestimated how hard something would be, it would include you, me, and pretty much every engineer who has ever lived. Denialistic optimism might even be an essential engineering trait.)
 
Richard Gerstenberg (then Chairman of General Motors)
“Well, I have looked into this design [Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion], and while it might work on some little toy motorcycle engine, I see no potential for it on one of our GM car engines.”
1973
This was about Honda’s CVCC engine, developed to reduce pollution. When Honda tried to convince U.S. automakers to adopt the technology, Gerstenberg gave this response. Others in the U.S. also claimed it would reduce performance due to differences in cylinder size and geometry.
In response, Honda acquired a Chevy Impala, fitted it with CVCC, and sent it back for testing. The poplar story goes that it outperformed the unmodified Impala across the board. In truth, the results were more mixed – but the system clearly had promise and should never have been dismissed so lightly.
Why was it dismissed? Some argue it was because Honda was such a small player at the time. Which I think is related to the “not invented here” syndrome. We tend to disregard ideas from others – and more so when they are smaller or less reputable.
The lesson? Apply first principles thinking before mouthing off.
 
Closing
I hope this has helped you think more about how to be a better engineer – even if it’s through the lens of what not to do.
A global engineer avoids arrogance, embraces learning, and tests ideas no matter where they come from. That’s how we make sure we don’t end up as the next bad quote in history books.
And if you know other examples of “stupid things engineers have said,” then please share them.

​After the interest in the last post I wrote on SpaceX and the general interest in SpaceX, I decided that at some time I would come back to the topic - once I thought of an ideal way for readers like you to get as much out of this as possible.

And now is that time now.
​
In the video below, you will see an interview with Elon Musk by the host of Everyday Astronaut: Tim Dodd. If you are not familiar with Everyday Astronaut, then you should put it on one of your subscription lists - it is an excellent ongoing series that provides you with examples of engineering practice that you can use to hone your own engineering understanding and skills.

In the above video, a number of key concepts are discussed. By contemplating these, you can dig into the underlying principles of engineering practice. From doing this, you become better at understanding these principles, and you can then better apply them.

Below are some things I noted - I am sure that they will help you. But I am also keen to know what you noticed. After reading what I have, please share, in the comments, some of your observations on engineering practice examples - good or bad - from the interview. I always enjoy talking about such things, and would enjoy talking with you about them too.

Use of first principles to inform the goals
At 14:20 they note from theory that they can’t get more efficiency so now effort can be directed elsewhere. Why do I find this interesting? Because it shows how, as technology and engineering projects evolve, engineers need to and can change mode. Without this use of theory, there could have been an ongoing fixation with combustion efficiency - even though that’s not what’s really needed by the end user.

Framing the mixing challenge
There is a detailed explanation of the mixing process at the 16:00 minute mark. The conversation revealed that the approach was to premix prior, so that the combustion chamber does not need to do as much mixing - only the last 10%. I like this because it shows how as you progress from the bigger picture to the details you can still be framing.

Strategic design thinking informed by engineering attributes
It is noted at the 18:00 point that they are still using hydraulics as opposed to full electrics for the actuators. The reason is that they have had to focus on other things at that time and the actuators can be separated enough from other systems - so it is something they can look into later. This is a good use of systemic thinking to help optimsie the design strategy which is a great example of modal shifting. There is also a good use of systemic thinking and first principles when they explain how a hydraulic system is still a good idea in other contexts - so they are not designing by heuristics! 

Framing the design strategy
“If you’re not adding back at least 10% of things you’re deleting, you’re not deleting enough."
This is clearly a design strategy suited for the case where weight and complexity need to be reduced. This would not make sense in other cases - say a civilian nuclear reactor - but it is well aligned in this case. And it is an ideal tool to help all engineers keep the mindset suited the challenge - especially if they have tendencies toward different mindsets because of their background (very Global Engineer). There is also at this time the reference to focusing on production and then automation - this shows it is very much a commercial venture. Finally, there is the acknowledgement of the need to iterate - because the limits of first principles use are being reached. I like that last notion because itis informed iteration, and not random trial and error.

Systemic thinking and opportunism
It is noted, around the 23:00 mark, how adjusting the system to protect items from heat and aero load can eliminate the need for the shields. I like this because it shows the synergistic value from combining the attributes of an expert engineer - and not just treating them separately.

Trouble with theory
I was surprised by what appeared to be difficulty with explaining cavitation at the 28:00 mark. The two seem to think they are just bubbles and maybe affected by the chemical environment. It did not seem to be understood that they are supersonic shocks that literally break up solids. It shows that we all keep on learning first principles.

More trouble with theory
Correct me I am wrong, but it seems to me that at the 37:00 mark they provide the exact definition of Isp as an alternative to the Isp. Another example that we can all keep learning.

Now it's your turn
What did you notice in the video? What principles or mistakes stood out to you? Were there other moments that highlighted good systemic thinking, clever framing, or design trade-offs? Drop a comment below—I’d genuinely love to hear your perspective, so I will respond.

​If you're not sure where to start, just share one moment that made you stop and think. These conversations are how we all get better. You can also recap some engineering basics here to better spot examples in the video.

I started writing this piece while mentoring at a Med-Tech hackathon. And that's what gave me the idea of this post. The guaranteed way to become a better engineer. Read on and learn more.

It obviously is good to explicitly understand the attributes of the expert engineer. Once you can name these things and describe them, you can focus on improving them in yourself.

But, there is a way you can improve your engineering skills without even knowing what they are.

The protege effect.

The protege effect is likely something you have experienced in the past or heard people talk about. It is where the act of teaching something helps you better understand it.

At this hackathon, participants need to come up with a medical focused idea that is related to data (potentially using AI). The idea should be valued enough that someone would pay for it if it were implemented as a product.

Within this context, I have been talking more about focusing on the task that the idea will make easier, or even eliminate. This implicitly uses my engineering attributes like framing and systemic thinking - I've noticed that any first principles issues are overcome by the participants with relative ease. I am explicitly talking about outcome driven innovation a lot - simply because participants like these (they are mostly undergrads) are more solution focused.  And I need to bring them back to thinking about the task that they are making easier - so people see value in it.

I have been reminded, by recalling what I have learned in the past as I explain it to others, the importance of understanding how well a task is currently served and how important it. By understanding this balance, you can better frame the problem (and solution to pursue).

Now, if I am to confront a related scenario in my day job, I will be better able to recall this perspective so I can use it to inform the approach chosen. It might be for me explicitly and solely, or, it might be for a team, or, even for a colleague who is just talking to me about something they are working on.

Long story short - being a mentor at this hackathon has maintained and improved my engineering expertise (this time with regards to outcome driven innovation).

If you get a chance to mentor in something like a hackathon, then I suggest you take advantage of this - and fully commit (I am here for the whole weekend). I am a natural teacher so I enjoy these regardless. If you are not a natural teacher, then attend for the engineering skill enhancement. And also, the networking benefits (I have just boosted my network with some very interesting people), workshops (I have learned about about efficient data use and ethics), and presentations (I have learned about a great new health app that cover a condition that regularly afflicts me). Winning all over.

You do also have other options though.

I have tutored high school students (helping me recall fundamental mathematics) and I have taught in academia (so I have been able to improve my understanding numerous aspects of engineering).

Therefore, consider doing some part time work as a tutor or offering your skills to universities to help with their teaching.

The reason why these both help, along with the benefits that come from explaining a concept is this fact: the fear of not knowing an answer when you are expected to be the expert is far greater than the fear of failing any exam. This fear motivates you to learn much more deeply and broadly - you will be amazed at how your expertise improves.

Happy mentoring!

You have probably seen this photo a number of times now. The three-stage evolution of the SpaceX rocket engine. A visual exemplar of engineering excellence.
It is indeed an impressive feat; many have wondered at how the plumbing was simplified so much. Some have even felt some pride; being part of the same professional family. It has also been motivation for other engineers; seeing what can be done when enough engineering effort and skill are applied to a task. And, finally, some simply thought the photos were not genuine; maybe the best evidence that the engineers had done well.
But the real value would come from asking how it was done.
By understanding the engineering thought that was behind such achievement, you can then better reflect upon your own skills and how to improve them.
And that’s what I will do here.
By using the above image, insights I have read about the engine’s evolution, and the knowledge I have shared with you in my book on engineering expertise, I will share with you some concrete examples of this expertise in practice.
First, two things we should note:

• Given how he has become such a controversial figure of late, it should be noted that this not about deifying (or demonising) Elon Musk. That fact is, even though he would have influenced the approach, the engineering was carried out by a team. And it is their work we are considering.
• What I write here, while being thoroughly informed by the most recent understanding of engineering expertise, is an inference. There will not be specifics – only higher-level insights into the engineering strategies used.

Now let’s talk about that plumbing. It is obviously the first thing most of us notice. And clearly the best way to get the part count down in such an engine – where most of the engineering effort is focused on ensuring the flow of fuel, oxidant and coolant.
The major reduction is from the first to the second.
It has been reported that the second version was a complete redesign. This is very much aligned with coevolution: where your understanding of the problem evolves with the implementation of the solution. There would have most likely been many lessons learned when designing and implementing the first design.
The lesson here for you is twofold:

1. If you are working on something very new, then expect that the first effort will be more about learning than about achieving. Even if that first effort is to go into service.
2. There will likely be little in the first design/effort that is worth keeping. This can be hard to accept. We can become attached to our designs. But work on being more appreciative of the knowledge gained.

The reduction in plumbing as the design evolved from the second to the third version is still significant. Ratio wise, it is probably the same as the respective reduction for the evolution from the first to the second.
The difference here though, is how it was achieved.
In this instance there was the goal put forward to reduce the number of protective engine shrouds. This is an example of framing – identifying the engineering challenge that will be the focus.
The number of shrouds was reduced by integrating many sensors and plumbing into the housing wall. This is an example of systemic thinking. By understanding how each part and subsystem interacts with others, opportunities can be found to harmonise all elements of the design. In this case, they could all use the same heat shield.
In addition, parts were combined into one (via welding as opposed to bolted joints). Having fewer parts means a more compact and lighter design. But, in this case, and often in others, it means more difficult servicing. The judgment would have been made that the increased cost in servicing was less than the money made carrying more cargo. These competing needs can both be quantified – so, it would be expected that, first principles would have been used to establish the most profitable compromise.

In summary:

• When doing something very new, the engineers leant into coevolution.
• Much of the reduction in complexity came from developing the right frame and then using systemic thinking.
• First principles were used to find the right compromise between revenue generation and servicing cost.

If you can’t recall the details of things like framing, systemic thing, and first principles, then take a listen here – it will take you 10 minutes.

If you have any questions or thoughts about how engineering expertise was applied in these engines or about developing your own abilities, so you too could do that, then leave a comment or send me a message.

Last time, I spoke about how we can sometimes limit our ability to reflect upon our engineering ability and how it might be affected by our background. This limitation is a result of, what I considered to be, saviourism. The text below is the post I mentioned, and promised I would share. Take a read and decide for yourself if it should be banned. 

THE GLOBAL ENGINEER - AND THE SKILLS THAT LET YOU CAN WORK ANYWHERE AND FOR ANYONE
This blog is a summary of research conducted into how your background - cultural, economic, national, and organizational - can affect the way you think and behave as an engineer. It will then talk about how you can use this knowledge to develop universal skills that will allow you to be the perfect engineer for any role anywhere in the world. Even if you do not plan on changing roles, this information will help you improve your engineering capabilities.
 
But first, to create context, what is currently known about engineering expertise needs to be covered.
 
The expert engineer
Much of the research into engineering expertise comes from research into design engineers. This is because they often have more definable tasks. But, they use the same skills as other engineers, and the findings are applicable to all. It’s just that design engineers make better “lab rats”.
 
So what has this research found?
 
There are three things the expert engineers do:

• Systemic thinking - they don’t stay focused solely on the problem right in front of them. And they don’t make the problem more and more specific. Instead, they consider all the peripheral issues - for both potential future problems and opportunities to solve the problem they are working on.
• Framing - they don’t always accept the problem as presented. They look at it from different perspectives - like looking at it through a different frame. They then find the one that provides the path to the best solution. In short, they take real world problems and then turn them into engineering problems.
• First principles - everything is optimized based on the best applicable scientific knowledge available. There is no guesswork or doing simply what was done before. They make sure that every specification in any solution is justified with some scientific principle.

 
How does background affect this expertise?
 
Examples are best to demonstrate this.
 
And let’s consider systemic thinking first. 
 
Research into how people from a western or eastern background look at paintings found that westerners looked more at the centre of a painting and those from an eastern background noted more details in the periphery. The reason for this was argued to be that in eastern cultures it is not simply what happens that is important, but it is also the context of when and where it happens. It is not simply what was said, but who said it, to whom, while whom else was present (and not present) and what was happening elsewhere. While in the west, it is more about the facts, which, we like to think, are absolute and independent of other things.
 
This would mean that people from eastern cultures would likely exhibit greater systemic thinking. They always need to be aware of other factors.
 
However, other research specifically into engineering found the opposite. 
 
This was because of another influence - organizational. 
 
Organizations in these countries would often divide work and then allocate one engineer to each subtask. Once an engineer finished their subtask, they would pass the work to another engineer to complete the next subtask. The reason for this was attributed to the developing understanding of concurrent engineering in these organizations. Dividing the labour seemed like a sensible way to improve efficiency so that each engineer could specialize and become more skilled - note that it has been found that such division does not actually offer increased efficiency.
 
When such engineers worked for other companies - ones that engaged in concurrent engineering - it was challenging for them at first, but the systemic thinking ability did develop. Thus, when given a chance to be expressed, the cultural advantage could be seen, but it was also the case that it could be stifled by managerial and organizational decisions.
 
This example shows not only how culture and organizational background affects engineering capabilities (and expertise) but also how they can counter each other.
 
Now Let’s consider framing.
 
Framing is where you take a challenge as presented and then turn it into the engineering challenge you will take on. Note that even if the challenge is initially presented as an engineering challenge, then you might still need to reframe it.
 
It’s a bit like working out what the real problem is.
 
A classic example of framing was reported on by Nigel Cross when he analyzed expert engineer Gordon Murray. You can find the paper here - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01607156. Gordon Murray was presented with what appeared to be an aerodynamic problem. But after he thought about it, he turned it into a suspension design problem. Aerodynamics was still the main issue, but it was the suspension that could bring about what was desired. This was a ground effect issue that required the vehicle to be lower to the ground while at speed.
 
Research into engineers working in mixed nationality teams found the following.
 
If you have been in an education system that encourages rote learning, then you would not have been encouraged to reject the problem put, and then take on one that suits you better. And you are less likely to frame an engineering challenge differently from how it is presented.
 
If you have been in an education system that encourages creativity or one that gives you a chance to emulate others who have been successful (ideally by framing), then you will be better able to do this instinctively.
 
This shows how the attitude toward your education, by those who run the education system, could affect your framing, and thus engineering, ability. This is often a result of government policy. So it is an example of how the nation you are from might affect your engineering skills.
 
Finally, let’s take a look at first principles.
 
First principles thinking is aligned with how you view knowledge and success. Some cultures attribute success to simply working hard and diligently. And also link success to a reward for good intentions. Other cultures view knowledge more as wisdom - something that resides in the minds of those with experience or who have gone before (the ancestors). If you can tap into this sacred knowledge, then you will succeed.
 
However, the success of your engineering efforts will be a result of your intended solution aligning with the laws of nature: first principles. 
 
Therefore, if you come from a culture that values objective scientific methods to attain knowledge, and the sharing and utilization of that knowledge, then you come from a culture that is more likely to use first principles. 
 
An example was found when researching engineering practice in mixed teams in China.
 
A Canadian electrical engineer was given a task by a Chinese manager. The Canadian engineer knew this was an impossible task based on the first principles. The Canadian engineer refused to take on the task. In response, the Chinese manager gave the task to a Chinese engineer. As expected, the Chinese engineer failed. Not due to a lack of skill - the first principles would simply not allow success. The Canadian engineer was then expecting the manager to come back to him and acknowledge that they were right. However, the manager said “At least they [the Chinese engineer] tried!” Even after the outcome, the Chinese manager thought that effort and diligence and respect of authority were more important than first principles. It was never established if the Chinese engineer knew failure was going to be the outcome and just did as their boss said.
 
This example shows that your culture could affect your willingness to trust the outcome of using first principles and the associated calculations. 
 
How does this affect engineer career success?
 
If your engineering skills are affected by your background (cultural, national, organizational and more), then you are unlikely to have the skills that make you an expert engineer.
And that means you need to work on developing those skills.
 
How can these core and universal engineering skills be developed?
 
The fact that you know about them is the first and major step. 
 
From here on, you need to now remain aware of:

1. Your tendency to think about peripheral issues and source related information.
2. Viewing your engineering tasks from different perspectives to see if there is a better way to solve them.
3. How often you use first principles to guide your decisions. From the general strategy to the specific attribute of a part (length, resistance, elasticity etc.).

 
If you keep focusing on these three things and your propensity for them, then you will automatically become better. You should also encourage these in your students if you are an engineering educator; or in your staff if you are an engineering manager. 
 
A final note..
There are other factors that can affect your engineering skill. The above will help with the majority, but always be open to learning about other factors that can influence the way you think.

You have possibly seen the English television version of  Cixin Liu’s Three Body Problem on Netflix. But you might not have noticed how it actually demonstrates the use of the three core elements of engineering expertise I mention in my book The Global Engineer. Assuming you have gotten around to reading it.
In this blog post I am going to go through this. It can sometimes help to better understand a cognitive process when you see multiple examples of it. And the Three Body Problem provides another example - one that is sufficiently unique that it might help you more than others.
If you have not seen the series (or read the books or seen the Chinese series), then you might not want to read what comes. If this is the case, then stop now and come back after you have.
You have been warned!
The parts of the series that demonstrate the three core elements are those that occur in the virtual reality game.
In the first level of the game, it is established that an understanding of the laws of physics must be used to make any predictions about stable eras. This is the same as the use of first principles.
In the second level, it is established that the system is a three body one - where the planet has three suns and is, as a result, on a chaotic path. This showcases systemic thinking, where influences outside of the core area of concern (in this example the planet) are considered.
In the last and third level of the game, the problem definition is changed from predicting the cycle of the planet (and thus the chaotic nature of the weather) to finding a way to save the population in the face of such chaos. This is the same as framing (or reframing). 
If you have read The Global Engineer, but still feel uncertain about the three core attributes of the expert engineer, then check out the series for examples. They will help you develop an inductive and intuitive understanding. You could also choose to read the book Three Body Problem.