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.

Some background first so you understand what has motivated this piece. 

Some time prior to writing this blog post, I had submitted another article to The Foundation for Science and Technology. This post was about how engineering skill can be affected by background and how the reader could overcome any limiting effects through self awareness and understanding of core engineering attributes. Something you likely know is a huge area of interest to me given that I wrote a book on the topic.

The process of writing and tuning for their site went well until the very last step.

Once they posted the article I wrote, I noticed that they had removed reference to the specific countries I cited in an illustrative anecdote on the use of first principles. It’s the same anecdote about the Canadian engineer working in China that I use in my book to explore the use of first principles. However, it actually had some extra insights that I had gained after talking with Scott Tarcy on his podcast The Engineering Entrepreneur. Take a listen to that even if you have read my book - to get that extra insight Scott offered. 

I personally felt this removal of the specific countries was a case of saviourism - some might say “too woke”. 

Members of The Foundation for Science and Technology were happy when it was noted that people from an Eastern background had potential for better systemic thinking. But they felt uneasy when it was suggested that the same background might not be as well aligned with the use of first principles. It was as if they felt other groups would be OK with getting compliments from white people, but would not be able to endure receiving criticism from white people.
I should point out that I do not actually think this is a case of political-correctness or wokeness gone too far. I really have no issues with wokeness or political correctness. I simply used the word “woke” in the heading because it is more vernacular. As I mentioned above, I think this situation is a case of saviourism - something I think is much more concerning.

And that is why I am writing this piece. Because the above scenario shows that when we start to think the value of a human (in their eyes or ours) can be affected by noting their current aptitude, tendencies or proclivities, then we limit the ability of all to improve themselves.

As I argue in my book, we put the effort into understanding how background (economic, cultural, national and organizational) can affect our engineer ability so that we can then better ourselves as engineers. Never has it been argued that these attributes and abilities are fixed. 

Also, we should never think that the value of a person is determined by these abilities. I think there is another reason the editors of The Foundation for Science and Technology felt uneasy about the anecdote. They, like others, I have come to realise, be it conscious or unconscious, think that intelligence or cognitive ability is the way a human should be valued. As important as intelligence is, we should note that there are many other positive attributes humans can have:

• Kindness
• Bravery
• Selflessness
• A lust for life
• Socialability
• Enthusiasm

These are all great traits in a human that could also be used to assess their value - if you ever wanted to actually do such a thing. It’s just that they do not come up much when talking specifically about engineering cognition - even though there would be times when they would be important - something for another post.

For now though, I want to ensure that the understanding is that all engineering attributes in any engineer, even though they might be affected (and maybe even effected) by one’s past environment (from culture to economic), can be improved through practice. And that they are not a reflection on innate ability from ethnicity, nationality or any other demographic dimension.

PS
I will, in the next post, share the article that caused The Foundation for Science and Technology such concern.

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. 

In engineering at least..

​It's quite the common story. A recent graduate engineer, now ready to start their professional engineering career, thinks that now that they have graduated they need to find a workplace with an experienced senior engineer. Why do they think this and is it true?

Why?
The graduate can almost see him, for the mentor is often assumed to be a man, in their mind. Gray hair and a lined forehead from years of contemplating and conquering engineering challenges; clothing a touch less formal than his peers, because he is more interested in the outcome than vanity; an experienced and trained engineering brain; a gruff disposition, because years of experience dealing with real-world problems has taught him a healthy contempt for textbook learning and the ideas from others of less practical experience, but they still have both avuncular friendliness and drive to take a young engineer under their wing; he is a source of wisdom on how to be an engineer, sharing all those mysterious engineering essentials never taught in any engineering degree; and, thanks to his ability, the sometimes grudging respect of his colleagues. The things they could learn from him. The confidence such knowhow would offer. The benefits to their career progression.

The Truth
But the truth is, if you do try to find a mentor, you will likely find one who has developed habits as opposed to insights. One who has likely forgotten what you know - being a recent graduate - because they have not had to use it for years. And one who is unlikely to have made any attempt to learn from other experts or literature - most engineers just don't do that. It is likely that they can give advice applicable to their industry, but even that might be more aligned with common practice as opposed to skills that will help you evolve into a true engineer - one who is ingenious.
In short, you will probably find someone who is not actually that much more qualified as an engineer than you are. 
Just one who has experience in their respective (and specific) field. Enough experience to be able to recall solutions - as opposed to synthesising something new - and to feel confident in that solution - such that you might be impressed with them at first encounter. 
So you might feel you have a mentor, but in reality, you will not progress as much as you could.
Only skill wise though. 
I have seen some engineers elevate to high professional levels (managers of departments even) simply because they were the only one available at the time. In fact, if your "mentor" retires or gains employment elsewhere, then you might find that you simply slide into their role. Especially if you have a good relationship so they speak highly of you and the employer likes the ideas of stability (and staying with people they know). This is more aligned with networking, which you should always engage in, and politicking, which can be viewed as a professional skill and something that is outside the focus of this blog. 
This blog is focused on engineering skill. And the truth is that you are unlikely to find a mentor who can genuinely help you with this post-graduation.
I am not saying you do not need to learn more after you graduate. Engineering practice is more than the practice of engineering. You will need to learn more about engineering and continue to do so throughout your career. 

A better alternative
So let’s talk about better ways of doing this. Ways that are better than having a mentor.
The first option is to read about research into engineering expertise. In my book on Global Engineering I mention a paper by Nigel Cross. The one summarising the findings from research into the ways world class engineers think. Papers like that are an excellent source of information on how to improve as an engineer. These papers are ideal because of the analysis by the researchers - it is more informed, disciplined and insightful than what you will likely gain from a mentor.
The next option is studying the history of engineering. Especially the exceptional engineers throughout history. Because of what they achieved, you know they are especially well skilled. Not to say others are not - it’s just that you can be sure those who made history are. This study can be via books or documentaries. Check out the library on the website for a collection of ideal references. 
There is also; the mastermind. This was put forward by Napoleon Hill in his book focused on what made for successful people: Think and Grow Rich. The basic principle is that a group of people is better than one. This gets back to the networking I was supportive of above. If you have a number of experienced engineers you can call upon as you confront challenges throughout your career, then you have something far superior to a single mentor. Note, these can also be online - and your network can be global.

Summary
Mentors are not what many expect, and, given the available knowledge on engineering practice and the networks available to access, you can take responsibility for your own development.

Postscript - The Other Side
While having a mentor is not as advantageous as many think, there is an advantage to being a mentor. It is called the protégé effect. When you teach something, you better understand it. You then apply it better. And you become a better engineer. You can benefit from this by being a mentor or by teaching. So be a part of other people’s masterminds when you can, share the knowledge you have when you can, and take any teaching opportunities you can.

Post-postscript - The Other Realms
Everything above is about professional engineering. There are other roles that are less well documented. Especially roles like management, CTO, CEO, VPs etc. The more esoteric roles will likely require mentorship for the sake of networking and insights unique to the company and culture on how leaders are selected.

Here is a fact for you. Many engineers do not know how to choose the best applicant for an engineering role. Here’s another fact for you. Those same engineers happen to think that they are pretty good at choosing the best applicant for an engineering role.

In this post, I will cover what is known about the best way to choose an applicant. Then I will combine this with what is known about engineering expertise. So you select the best engineering candidate next time. Then, I will go over some common mistakes – so you also know what not to do.
​
Not employing an engineer any time soon; more likely to be applying for an engineering role than advertising one? Not to worry; this post will also help explain the root cause of your frustration with employers not understanding all you can offer them.​

The first thing to understand is that intuition is not that great.

Most of the time.

Intuition is great when you need to repeat a task often and get near instant feedback. If you are a data scientist or data engineer, or even if you just know the basics, then think about neural-network training. That’s how our brains work too. We need a large amount of data.

​Also, for our intuition to work well, we need our whole brain working on the task, we want the emotional side, the creative side, and the analytical side all focused on the task. Only then, when your whole brain is trained on a large amount of data, can you rely on your intuition.

And this simply does not happen when employing an engineer.

First, it is not the case that any company needs to be employing one engineer after the other. There have been a few times in history when this has happened, but that’s simply not the norm.

Second, it is not possible to get the instant feedback needed. By the time the suitability of an engineer is evident to you, you probably can’t even recall what you noticed about them in the interview process. So you can’t update and refine your intuition.

Now that you can see why intuition is not suited to employing an engineer, let’s talk about the best way to select an employee.
​
This is explained convincingly by Daniel Kahneman in his now-well-known book “Thinking, Fast and Slow” (https://amzn.to/4bft5Qp). The steps to selecting the best employee are:

1. Think about the specific role you wish to fill.
2. Think of the traits needed to perform this role – no more than 6, independent of each other and measurable.
3. List the questions you will ask for each trait to determine their presence. These questions should be factual.
4. Make sure you have an idea of what makes for a weak answer and what makes for a strong answer for each question.
5. Find a way to answer each question.*
6. Collect the answers in order – do not skip around - for each applicant.
7. Add up the scores for the questions for each applicant.
8. Resolve to select the applicant with the highest score – no matter who you like the most.

*This is not mentioned by Kahneman, but it is common to use aptitude tests in engineering applications.  I have spoken with managers who have witnessed success when comparing the results of these tests with the performance of employees.​

I mentioned the attributes of expert engineers in my book (https://amzn.to/4beNiWH). The three main ones are:

1. Framing – the ability to turn a given problem into a different, but solvable, one that will give the desired outcome.
2. First-principles – the ability and tendency to use theory to inform and accelerate engineering decisions.
3. Systemic thinking – the ability to consider the broader context for both opportunities and risks while developing an engineering solution.

These could make up three separate traits or they could be one trait (engineering expertise). Regardless, you will need to develop a way to assess these.

You could do this by presenting a case and then asking the applicant how they would respond for each attribute.
​
For example: Consider the following problem [describe a challenge your company faces or once faced]:

1. What are other ways we could view this challenge to make it easier to solve?
2. What theories are applicable to this challenge and what insights can you gain from their application?
3. List how the various subsystems interact with each other, what surrounding systems might need to be considered, and how all this could be used to overcome the challenge.

Give thought to how long you would want to give applicants to answer these questions.
You can then also give thought to other traits you need for the specific role you are looking to fill. When you do this, you need to ensure you assess things genuinely worth assessing. So let’s now talk about mistakes made when selecting engineering employees.