![]() 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:
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:
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:
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.
0 Comments
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:
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:
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. |
AuthorClint Steele is an expert in how engineering skills are influenced by your background and how you can enhance them once you understand yourself. He has written a book on the - The Global Engineer - and this blog delves further into the topic. ArchivesCategories
All
|