The article is the second culture check article. The first was about a western background. This one is focused on a Sino background - China and influenced countries/cultures. It might seem extreme to consider one country after considering an entire hemisphere last time. However, China is a big country with a long history – and thus justifies such attention. And, as implied above, the article could also have elements applicable to other countries that have a strong Chinese influence – either through cultural exchange or migration. It is for the reader to decide if this is applicable – either to themselves or those they work with/manage.

Perspective on Knowledge – framing and first principles
There is a cliché about Chinese not being as creative as those from other cultures. However, I can say from my own personal experience working in China that this is not the case. But there is something that can explain why people have this perspective.
It is the perspective on knowledge.

Some view knowledge as something that is external to humans – something to be acquired through exploration. Others view knowledge as something that comes from within humans – those who have something innate and special.

In China, there is a greater tendency to view knowledge as something that comes from within.

This is a result of two broad influences on Chinese culture: Buddhism and Confucianism.

The first brings with it notions of karma – this idea can mean that success is more a function of the character of the person than the laws of nature being understood and used correctly. Being a good person alone would mean that things will eventually work out. The second, often (you will see below why I use the word “often”), extols the value of obeying those in authority for the sake of social (if not cosmic) harmony – that can convey the notion that along with authority comes expertise.

The above can mean that people will be more greatly influenced by ideas that come from those viewed as experts. Therefore, an engineer with a Sino background could be less inclined to consider reframing a problem (or previously presented solution to a problem).

It can also create an environment that is dismissive of first principles. And an engineer might still choose to pursue an idea that is clearly, due to first principles, unviable; solely because someone senior said to. This was something I encountered when doing my research into how cultural background can affect engineering practice.

This tendency for Chinese to view knowledge in such a manner is sufficiently common that a solution, applicable in all disciplines, has already been developed by others.
Folklore precedence matching.

In this process, one looks for an example from Chinese history (or folklore) that is aligned with the approach desired.

Folklore precedence matching for engineering
You could choose to look for something similar to the exact approach desired. But a better approach, I think, is to showcase examples from Chinese history that showcase the approaches aligned with engineering expertise more broadly. These examples can be part of induction, education, training, or regular reminders. Use them anyway you see fit.  

Examples from Sun Tzu.
“The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”
The Art of War, Chapter 10 (Terrain)
This shows that the good of the country (company and those who work there) to do service for the sovereign (manager, owner, shareholders etc.) should be what guides actions. That means considering new ideas (framing) and adhering to the laws of nature (first principles); not simply doing as you are told to in hopes of getting approval from others (coveting fame or fearing disgrace).

“There are occasions when the commands of the sovereign need not be obeyed.”
The Art of War, Chapter 8 (Variation in Tactics)
This clearly states that the manager is not all knowing. And an engineer should be free to do as they know is best – using first principles and framing as needed (not to mention systemic thinking, which will come in more detail later).

Example from the Battle of Red Cliffs.
One of my favourite Chinese movies is John Woo’s Red Cliff. And one of my favourite parts is where Zhuge Liang is charged with acquiring 100,000 arrows.
And he needs them fast.
Everyone assumes he plans on finding some way to make them quickly – and they assume he is going to fail. However, Zhuge Liang makes no visible preparations to produce arrows and offers no explanation to his peers or superiors.
Instead, he waits for specific environmental conditions (heavy morning fog) and prepares boats covered with straw. He rows these boats toward the enemy camp, beating drums and shouting at the same time to simulate an attack. Unable to see clearly and assuming an assault, the enemy responds with volleys of arrows. The arrows embed themselves in the straw coverings. Zhuge Liang then withdraws with the needed arrows – collected from his enemy and ready to be returned.
This is an example of the value of the independent expert(s) to get the job done.

An example from Confucius.
Then there is of course Confucius. Confucius is often thought of as someone who encourages people to defer to those in authority – as mentioned above. Also, he is often implicitly viewed as an example of someone who has innate knowledge. Still, he also said:
“In serving one’s lord, one should remonstrate with him when he does wrong.”
Analects 14:22
This implicitly states that there is an objective truth (first principles) and that these should be adhered to.
The above examples provide a way one can leverage Chinese folklore precedence matching to establish a culture and environment aligned with good engineering practice. And this can change the perspective of people at any level within the engineering team. Remind them of these principles and, from that, emphasize the importance of engineers:

1. Relying on first principles to guide their decisions, and
2. framing problems differently when there is value in doing so.

An idea can come from anyone – not just those in authority.

Organisational maturity – systemic thinking
China has progressed economically at an amazing rate over the past decades. There have, along with that, been improvements in regulation, research and development, education, and business management. However, there are still significant areas of China heavily influenced by earlier practices – including those of the communist era.

One practice that is significant in the context of engineering expertise is the division of labour.

When it comes to production, there is no substitute for the division of labour. Early estimates by the economist Adam Smith noted an improvement in productivity of 206 times when using the division of labour.

And it is tempting for managers who have seen the power of the division of labour in production to then erroneously use it in engineering practice. Putting each engineer in their own Dilbert-esque desk and having them focus on one specific task in the engineering process. Because of the large number of managers in China who have come from production, there is a greater tendency for this practice to occur in China.

There are many issues with this approach regarding good engineering practice and outcomes. However, for the engineers in this situation, their ability to think systemically, given they need to focus on a single task all the time, atrophies.

This, based on the experience of a colleague working in China, can be addressed by simply steadily expanding the scope of engineering works. Something that has atrophied from neglect can be strengthened from exercise.

Thus, if you are an engineer with such a background or managing such engineers and you want an increase in systemic thinking, then all that’s needed is a steady increase in the number of systemic issues that are to be factored into any task.

Closing
In the above I have shown how a Sino cultural background, particularly as expressed in China, can influence engineering practice in subtle yet important ways. But it could be useful for Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia – any part of the world influenced by Chinese migration – or any other culture that shares similar philosophies. By examining perspectives on knowledge, authority, and organisational structure, it shows how framing, first principles, and systemic thinking can be weakened when expertise is overly associated with hierarchy or when production practices are misapplied to engineering work. Importantly, it also demonstrates how Chinese philosophical and historical examples can be used to reinforce good engineering practice, offering practical ways for engineers and managers to align cultural context with engineering excellence.

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?
 

The Mars Climate Orbiter was destroyed when one team used metric units and another used imperial. The Mars Polar Lander likely failed because its software misinterpreted the deployment of landing gear as touchdown, cutting the engines too early.

Not long after these events, I was lucky enough to attend a presentation by Chris Johnson, who had been asked to investigate the disasters. He specialised in safety — how to prevent incidents, basically. His job was not to understand the technical causes (they were known); his job was to explore the organisational aspects that allowed the causes to exist in the first place.

His presentation included a number of interesting elements. For example, he was told by some government departments that they had evidence the lander was on the surface — but they could not tell him what their evidence was (that was classified). Another example was that he studied the code in the system and found that the power management software kept resetting the emergency beacon — so even if the lander had survived, it would never have been able to let anyone know.

There were many examples within his investigation that would help demonstrate key principles of engineering expertise — or, at least, what can happen when they are not applied.

However, the one element I found most interesting in his presentation was Tier Analysis.

Tier Analysis is a tool used to find the root cause of failures from the perspective of the organisation. It checks that each level of the organisation has done what it should to prevent the respective failure. In his presentation, Chris Johnson said it was basically like this:

• Blame the person lowest on the hierarchy involved in the respective project.
• Then ask: is it fair to blame them? Were they sufficiently informed and supported?
• If the answer is “no,” then blame their boss.
• Then ask if that is fair.
• Keep on repeating this process until eventually the answer is “yes, it is fair to blame this person; they should have done more.”

In the presentation, Chris Johnson noted that Tier Analysis had proven popular with many organisations. However, as they used it, they found that often there was a lot of blame placed on middle and senior managers. Those managers didn’t really care for being blamed — so they decided to stop using Tier Analysis.

And that is why I can say: it probably is the boss’ fault.

What does this mean for Global Engineers?
You can probably see how the application of Tier Analysis — and managers choosing not to use it — demonstrates the importance of well-functioning engineering teams. Shared situational awareness efforts, dedicated to ensuring all team members understand what is trying to be done and how, would mean more people could spot gaps in plans and point them out before it’s too late.

So if you are the boss, be mindful of ensuring those under you have all the information they need. If you are not the boss, then consider taking on the role of documenting everything and sharing it with others (including your bosses), so that potential issues can be spotted before they become disasters.

What would you do differently?
Have you ever been in a project where things went wrong — but the real problem was further up the chain?

Would a better flow of information, or clearer expectations, have helped?
​
Drop your experiences or thoughts in the comments — I’d love to hear how you’ve seen this play out in your own engineering career.

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.