How do we become the best engineer we can? Is it simply talent or is it something that can be learned?

According to the book "Talent Is Overated: What Really separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else" by Geoff Colvin, the key is deliberate practice. Research has shown that for all world class performers in areas as diverse as music (performing and composing), golf, chess, football, comedy, acting and artistic painting, the key has simply been practice. But not just any kind of practice: it is something called deliberate practice. Deliberate practice has the following key features:

• It's designed to specifically improve performance: It needs to be an activity that is outside of our comfort zone and focused on areas that have been identified as needing improvement. For example, Tiger Woods would drop a ball in sand trap and then step on them to practice that very specific and difficult shot until he mastered it.
• It can be repeated a lot: To really develop the skill associated with the practice, the practice must be repeated until it is mastered.
• Feedback on results is continuously available: Without feedback we do not know if we have improved or if we reacted in the best way we could. For example, chess players will review chess games played by masters. At each stage, they will think what they would do and then compare their decision with what the chess masters did. If you are faced with a situation where you need to interpret the validity of your results (how well you played a piece of music, went in an interview or made a decision about which machine tool should be purchased), then you need feedback from someone who is objective: someone, like a mentor or manager.
• It is highly demanding mentally: The practice requires concentration because you are actually focusing on making an improvement. For example, if you want to improve your tennis, you don't just hit the ball again and again for an hour or so. You need to analyse each shot to see what needs to be improved. With such concentration you can only last for 1 to 1.5 hours.
• It isn't much fun: We need to do something we are not good at over and over again, with focused concentration and feedback on what we're not doing right so that we can then focus on that. At first this might be depressing, but it does mean that if you are prepared to go down the hard path, then it is unlikely that many will follow you and this will distinguish you all the more.

So if we now adopt this idea that to be great we need to engage in deliberate practice, then questions arise about how we would apply this to ourselves as engineers:

• How do we identify the skills that we need to work on; what are the skills that engineers especially need?
• How do we determine type of practice that we need to engage in; can it be a part of work or de we need to do this outside of work?
• Who can/should we ask for feedback; can it be someone we work with or do we need to look elsewhere; do they need to be another engineer?

These questions were put to a number of engineers who showed that they were active in the engineering community and qualified to consider these questions. The following posts are their responses.

If you have opinions on this, then please add your comments. If you have strong opinions, and can write an entire post on them, then contact us and we'll look at putting your post up.

You can buy the book from most books stores or from Amazon here.

What is it that makes Engineers unique?

I was recently involved in a discussion on LinkedIn about professional Engineering practice which also led to a discussion about what it is that separates Engineers from other professions.

At its most basic level, I think the primary skill we learn as Engineers is to solve problems. This skill is wider than just the use of technology to create better widgets, systems, roads, whatever; but this is primarily where we are taught to use it. And we learn to use measurable outcome tools to do it so we can tell if the results are going to be OK or not. This is why mathematics, scientific method, measuring and reporting, tolerance analysis and simulation feature so heavily in our training and practice. The steps include some of the following:

• What is the problem - is there any real data I can use?
• What data do I need to know and how can I be sure it correlates with the problem?
• What tools and techniques are available to address this problem and derive a solution?
• Do I have the resources to do this or am I missing something I need?
• Is my answer valid?
• What tests, measurements or simulations can I use to increase my confidence that this will work?
• Are there any regulatory or other factors that must also be taken into account?
• How long does the solution have to endure for?

You get the idea I'm sure.

In the case of my company, Successful Endeavours, we develop products for others. It can be hard to get a correct definition of the problem or to confirm that the given starting point will lead to a good destination. But our clients expect a robust outcome that works every time and to deliver that we need to understand the real problem and provide a solution that addresses it. We also provide a design guarantee and so we also want to be sure our solutions are robust.
So getting a clear and agreed understanding of the outcome is very important. And a constant risk we face is that our descriptions are often unintelligible to others. I saw a mug recently that made me laugh. These are from http://www.cafepress.com.au/ and a picture of the graphic on the mug is shown below.

So when we communicate our understanding of the problem to others, it has to be in terms they can understand. The risk of being misunderstood is very real. And psychology has shown that all too often, in the absence of real data people will invent their own.
The other aspect that affects all of this is that there is usually a primary driver for a project. This normally fits into the category of one of:

• Time
• Cost
• Performance

As Engineers we are often focus on performance yet this is not always the primary issue. We recently secured a significant contract because we understood that Time was the primary need. The client had a hard deadline and so needed a solution before that date and was prepared to not accept the lowest bid and trade off features if that is what it took to achieve the timeframe. It still has to work and be standards compliant, but it must be on time.

In our Engineering education we don't learn much about business, marketing, communication, cost management or even leadership principles. And the ability influence decision makers so that a better overall outcome is reached for our company or even society is another valuable skill we don't get taught academically. Yet these all make a difference.

The recent floods in Queensland also show the importance of not only building things well but also managing them well. Goondiwindi did not flood because the levee banks held. Built following 3 major inundations in 1956 and properly maintained since then, the levee banks have prevented flooding for 44 years now. This is an example of getting it right and keeping it right. There are other examples being examined in the aftermath of the flood that were not done as well. These are not all Engineering failures. Poor process, management or neglect can lead to system failure when the original Engineering was well done.

The other aspect of this that came out in the LinkedIn discussion was that of risk, and who is carrying the risk. There is an increasing tendency to push risks down the supply chain. The result of this is that suppliers of goods or services can end up carrying risks they cannot mitigate. The end result is reduced collaboration, an adversarial negotiating environment and usually sub-optimal project outcomes. A recent example of this for us was a client who not only wants us to design a product, but also guarantee that it will meet their projected sales figures. The logic is simple. They have a business plan and it shows an expected sale volume. If we designed the product correctly they would get their sales and make their profits. If it doesn't sell then it must be our inadequate design that is the problem. The reality is that we can't guarantee their sales. That is a business risk. That is their risk to bear. Their plan could be good or it could be fiction. That is not a risk we can bear. Our risk is associated with making sure it works to specification and complies with regulatory requirements. We are also expected to ensure it meets the manufacturing cost target but this is also a grey area. If we can specify the manufacturer, the process and the supply chain then we might be prepared to accept that risk. If the client reserves the right to select any manufacturer, process and supply chain then all bets are off. Design for manufacture implies design for a manufacturing capability and you have to understand the manufacturer and their capability if you are to guarantee that outcome.

So as Engineers we have to solve problems on several levels if we want the project to be a complete success:

• What are the technical requirements and how do we meet them?
• What is the real outcome that is required and what tradeoffs are available in achieving that?
• Who bears what risks and how are those risks managed?
• How do I communicate with the other stakeholders so they understand in their terms?

Take time to regularly practice asking these 4 question and reflecting on how well you think you have answered them, and you should also find that you are becoming a better Engineer.

Ray Keefe is an electrical engineer and company owner who hopes to add significantly to the wealth of Australians through creating better and more successful electronics products. This will boost employment, exports, future opportunities and generally improve everyone's position in Australia. Ray is the founder and owner of Successful Endeavours,producing Electronics Designs and Embedded Software for Australian Electronics Manufacturers.

Engineering Exchanges - What does the word ‘networking’ mean for your career?

By Julia Palmer, Business Relationship Specialist

It’s long been discussed that Engineers need to network. The terms soft skill development, people skills and benchmarking are probably not new to most, but how do you undertake and apply such skills when so much of your training to date has focused on the technical aspects of the job?

The Engineering profession encompasses a multitude of disciplines that would benefit from a collaborative and networked approach. Disciplines such as aerospace, chemical, civil, computer, electrical and electronics, industrial, IT, mechanical, power and software to list a few can leverage from each other’s experiences to form communities that help promote individual Engineers and the Engineering profession as a whole.

In order for this to happen, we must embrace networking. Though unfortunately for most, networking is a misunderstood word. Let’s cover what it’s not first. It is NOT about; selling, taking over conversations, one-way outcomes, swapping business cards aimlessly (at will), or eating and drinking. It IS however about creating and then managing two-way business relationships that are meaningful and reciprocal in nature.

Given the complexity of most engineering roles, the increased cultural mix in the job market and overseas opportunities that exist, and the desire to accelerate your career, learning how to utilise networks is a critical tool to add to your tool belt. As a further incentive, a major study by the Corporate Leadership Council into the Top 10 Talent Management Insights, found that the success of high potential employees is dependant upon the quality of their networks in the organisation and the No 1 strategy for realising employee potential was the strength of their interpersonal connections.

The following factors will influence your success, help raise your visibility and ensure you

create a powerful professional network.

The three key factors to network effectively;

1- Participate. In the modern age we have online and face-to-face networking opportunities that we can access on a daily basis and the emphasis is on utilising them! Gone are the days where we are just judged for the role we currently do. Companies now measure the ability to network as a key driver for success and in fact research at institutions such as Harvard and M.I.T. has consistently shown that employees’ personal networks are in many cases the single biggest factor impacting their productivity and ability to contribute to the company.

•  Online forums are a great way bounce ideas on professional issues, but note that these are usually more generic in nature. It’s important to get involved by asking questions and adding comments to other peoples too. Be proactive and allocate some time everyday day or week into your diary to invest in raising your online profile.

1. Face to face on the other hand is a lot more personalised but don’t spend the entire event with people you already know! It’s not called net-sit, net-eat or net-drink, it’s called net-work, so ensure you meet new people and initiate a structured, memorable conversation with each. What ever you do, don’t start with the question “what do you do?”. It alienates people and makes them feel judged.

The start of the business relationship is about establishing rapport and trust, and you will have time to qualify once you know if you like each other first. Face to face networking is daunting to most, just remember that everyone was a stranger to us at some stage! Know that you have something valuable to contribute and look for the good in people.

2 - Be Real. The main aim of many networks is to support their membership to share, learn and grow. So once you are involved, focus on being your true self to develop deeper and wider relations within your networks.

People are more likely to engage with you if they like you and vice versa. At all times stay true to your personality and be authentic. You will build trust by giving eye contact. This is something many Engineers struggle with, so a good barometer is to give between 60-70% mutual eye contact during one conversation. Remember to look at all people in the circle not just one or two, which is quite a common (and unfavourable) behaviour. Offer a firm handshake and pay attention to the messages being sent by your non verbal body language too.

Being real and true to yourself means being confident of who you are, so apply this to your interactions with others to form long term, solid business relationships.

3 - Futurise. When developing your networks think for the longer term and not just the current situation. So for example, at functions and events don’t monopolise people, be mindful that they will want to meet other people and so should you. If the conversation is going really well, and you feel that there is a fit for your network, ensure you exchange details at this stage and follow up promptly.

There are many options to connect again in the future depending on the depth of the first interaction or connection you made. You may choose to link via an online/ professional network, catch up for coffee or meal, invite them to another function, call them and so on. The purpose is to share ideas/ knowledge, discuss mutual projects/ interests and support each other.

Excuse yourself politely from a conversation if you don’t qualify them as a fit for your network, thus allowing others to meet them and you to meet others. There is almost only one degree of separation these days, so never burn bridges and don’t agree to anything unless you have ever intention of fulfilling it.

Implement the 3 key factors and remember that it’s too late to build a relationship when you need it the most! The most successful Engineers have established supportive networks both internally and externally to help them achieve their goals, raise their visibility and give back to the profession.

Treat networking as an essential part of your career strategy and not just something that you do on the side, if you have time. Information on an e-learning program designed to help you develop a networking strategy can be found at www.bconsulted.com.au

Network. Network. Network.

Julia Palmer is the Managing Director of BConsulted and author of BUZZ – Inspiration to attract, leverage retain profitable business relationships.

BConsulted provides training, mentoring and resources in business networking and relationship management. For more information go to www.bconsulted.com.au or call 1300 785 815

P.S.
Don’t forget to participate in the poll for this bog: What do you think On the topic of networking for engineers?

Why There Will Never Be As Many Women As Men in Engineering 

By Sarah van der Waal

Introduction
Why are there so few women in engineering; what can be done to increase the number of women in engineering; should anything be done to increase the number of women in engineering?

When I began engineering I could see no good reason why there weren't as many women in engineering as there were men.  I had a look at both Engineers Australia's and APESMA's web pages dedicated to encouraging more women to take, and succeed in, engineering.  While I thought some of their efforts were good, I felt like something was missing.

After thinking about this, I now think that there will probably never be as many women in engineering as there are men.  This is because, by its nature, some aspects of engineering just do not suit women.

However, if we do want to increase the number of women in engineering, then I think we should focus less on women in engineering, and more on engineering itself.  Particularly, the way it is taught and its reputation in Australian society.

I really can't say I have been disadvantaged purely because I am a woman by other male engineers.  I admit that I only have a certain amount of experience and maybe that is why I haven't experience any chauvinistic attitudes in engineering.  However, I have experienced the effects of slow feedback and sense of accomplishment, a lack of preconditioning and the poor reputation of engineering. These are the issues that I will talk about here.

The nature of engineering - Delayed Feedback
I think that the way engineering (when compared to other jobs) offers a sense of accomplishment is not well suited to women.  Different jobs give different degrees of feedback and sense of achievement, and I think some are much more suited to women than is engineering. 

For example:
Nursing gives instant results and an almost instant sense of achievement because nurses can help patients and see the results straight away.  It doesn't take long to make someone more comfortable or administer drugs.  The average stay for a patient is also relatively short so you quickly get to see the results of your efforts.  It is also very clear that you have helped somebody, as they are right there in front of you.

Teaching also offers a more immediate sense of accomplishment.   Teachers can see how they have helped students learn something new each day.  They also see students grow and move on every year.  Consider the number of students in a single class.  This could easily add up to a huge sense of accomplishment if you are able to help each student every day.  Once again, as is the case with nursing, it is very clear you have helped someone and made a contribution.

Engineering, on the other hand, typically has long drawn out projects.  The average new car typically takes 4 years to develop.  Think about how long it takes for a bridge or highway to be made.  Most engineers have to wait a long time to see the final outcome of their efforts.  In addition, they need to rely on their sense of logic to fully appreciate their contribution.

This struck me recently during my IBL employment.  I worked on several relatively short product design and development projects; however, I am yet to see results due to the drawn out manufacturing phase which is still ongoing at this time.  I know I have done something worthwhile, but I need to really think about it to get the sense of accomplishment.  In comparison, the men I worked with seemed to have no trouble gaining this same sense.

I know from my own experiences as a woman, and obviously having many female friends, that women do typically prefer to work in an environment where results are seen quickly.  In contrast, men seem (to me) to be happy in jobs where they need to be able to visualise what they are working towards for extended periods. 

Additionally, when I think about my female friends from high school who also chose higher education, I realise that they typically chose health sciences, child care, teaching and nursing.  When I then think about their personalities, I know that they are the kinds of people who want to help, but prefer to help a person who is physically in front of them, and whom they are able to help immediately.  As far as I can tell, this is what most women are like.

When I consider all this, I am not surprised that we see many more women in the nursing and teaching professions than we do men.

Someone once said to me that civil engineers have saved more lives than doctors by designing and constructing public sanitation systems.  These systems significantly reduce various water born diseases that can have a serious effect on public health.  I can see how this would work and I imagine that you can too.  I would think almost all engineers can see, although in a more abstract manner, the effect that they have on society.  However, I don't think everyone can.  I honestly think men are better at doing this than women because women seem to me, as I mentioned above, to prefer an immediate sense of helping.  Therefore, even though it is clear (logically) that engineers do a huge amount for society, it doesn't mean that everyone will feel a sense of accomplishment if they work as an engineer.

I think this (the delayed and abstract sense of achievement offered by engineering) is a major reason why there are not many women in engineering. 

I don't know if this characteristic of women is genetic or cultural, but I don't think it will change soon.  I'm also pretty sure you can't change engineering into a job that will give instant feedback. 

Therefore, I think this is a characteristic of engineering that will always limit how many females will take engineering on as a profession. And we will therefore probably never see as many women in engineering as men.

I would like to finish the section with an anecdote. I recall the first woman I met who was a qualified engineer. She also had experience in the same area that I am interested in, product development.  And, like me, she was a mechanical engineer.  When I met her she had left engineering and she had become a high school teacher. She had moved from a job of delayed feedback to one of near instant feedback.

Preconditioning - The cultural advantage that SOME boys have
‘Preconditioning' is an issue often ignored.  I don't know if this is the right word for the phenomenon I am about to discuss, but it is the word I will use here.  I believe the preconditioning is cultural.

Typically, men fix things and boys tend to follow their fathers around.  Thus, they too get exposed to fixing things.  This naturally imprints upon them.  This gives them an intuitive understanding of how to fix things and I think it also generates an interest in how things work.  This is what I mean by preconditioning.  I think having an interest in, and understanding of, how things work makes boys more inclined to choose engineering.

Another aspect of preconditioning is the car magazine.  Before I started engineering, I thought that they were just full of photos of cars.  I now know that they are full of useful information that helps to precondition their readers.  I've only recently found out that these magazines contain technical tips sections.  These sections talk about things like:

• thermodynamics and fluid mechanics of internal combustion engines,
• machine systems such as clutches,
• dynamics of vehicles,
• linkage systems found in car suspensions,
• mechatronic systems used to control car performance,
• tribological phenomena in car tyres and engine bearings,
• material properties and material processing for engine components.

You can imagine how reading about these topics introduces most of the topics in an engineering degree (especially mechanical).  These readers have read about these engineering theories in a real life and practical context, and can see the practical application.  Due to this, they have gained a valuable head start.  In addition, they find learning more interesting because they have seen the practical application, which in turn, makes learning engineering much easier and more effective. 

Girls just don't typically read these magazines.  I know I didn't and I can't remember any friends that did. 

So due to the nature of our culture, boys will always be more likely to have been preconditioned for engineering than would girls.

The key issue preconditioning, that I have noticed, is that lecturers, who are predominantly men, think all their students already know about the many mechanisms that are already in existence (that they are preconditioned) and use these mechanisms to explain theoretical concepts.  This puts many female students (like me) at a disadvantage from the beginning.  Therefore, when the lecturer is explaining things, male student will typically have an advantage over female students.

Even though this is cultural, I don't think it's going to change any time soon, and one would expect that girls will continue to have a disadvantage due to this unless universities account for this in their engineering educational programs.

However, this difference might be reducing, which introduces new issues.

Today modern technology is changing how people go about fixing things.  Products are becoming more complex.  Combined with the rising number of office jobs and increased division of labour, there is now less time to spend fixing our own things.  It is now more time and cost effective to get a specialist in to fix something when it breaks down. 

Many more people are also moving into cities; therefore, there is less space to store tools and machines for fixing things.  This means that fewer people will have the kind of exposure and preconditioning discussed above. 

Although in the future some students will still have preconditioning, the number will be far fewer than today or in the past.  This might lead to a drop in engineering student applications overall.  It also means that in the future there will still be female students without preconditioning as well as a larger portion of male students also without preconditioning. 

Therefore, universities are going to have to start accounting for a reduction in preconditioning not only for female students but for all students. This introduces the issue of the failing education system.

Failing Education System - where is design?
I think that, unfortunately, the engineering education system is actually getting worse when it comes to accounting for preconditioning. 

Therefore, if lecturers are going to assume preconditioning, then more effort needs to be put into compensating for the lack of preconditioning.  I think the best options are: focusing on good engineering design subjects and effective Industry Based Learning.

Based on conversations I've had with older engineers and considering my own course, engineering courses are focusing less on design subjects and more on engineering sciences then they used to.  There also seems to be a decreasing emphasise spent on teaching the practical applications of scientific knowledge (I think this should be a key part of design). 

The design subjects are the ones that have the most potential to compensate for the lack of preconditioning that I mentioned above.  Because design subjects should encourage the application of engineering science knowledge in real life situations, they emulate this precondemning, and students are given a chance to see the theory in action.  This makes learning easier.  Therefore, if an engineering degree has a strong design focus, regardless of a student's background and preconditioning, they will gain a sound comprehension of the application of engineering science theory.  

This would not only make it easier for women, who typically lack preconditioning, but it would also benefit all students who have a natural ability in engineering but who were not exposed to any preconditioning.  As I mentioned above, this number will only rise further.

IBL could also help compensate for a lack of preconditioning; however, IBL often does not run as well as I think it should.  IBL is meant to give students the opportunity to see how engineering theory is applied in practise.  I was lucky.  I was expected to apply engineering theory to a number of designs for new products.  This made me think differently.  I now have a much greater appreciation for engineering theory and its practical application.  When I return to my studies I will be much more motivated to gain a deep understanding of engineering principles.  Effectively, I now feel like I have at least some preconditioning.  This will make my education a lot more enjoyable.  I am therefore more likely to complete my engineering education. 

If I had been exposed to this earlier or even before my course, I would have, more likely, paid more attention in class and learnt more effectively.  Not only that, if the students who I studied with in earlier levels who have since dropped out, had earlier been exposed to an IBL experience like mine, then they too would have been much more likely to stay on and complete the course as well.

Unfortunately, few have such good IBL experiences.   I have friends who struggled to find work to occupy them throughout the day when they were on IBL.  IBL, also, often just comes too late in the course.

I realise IBL can't be run too early.  Therefore, I think it is best to focus on effective engineering design subjects and practical application of knowledge to compensate for any lack of preconditioning.  Then, when students are able to go on IBL they are better prepared to do meaningful work and get a better experience.

Such efforts will improve engineering education, the quality of engineering practice and make engineering more accessible to everyone (including girls). But still, people need to want to choose engineering.

Reputation
I think that the perception of engineering by Australian culture is different to the perception held by other cultures.  Australians seem to have little knowledge about what engineers do; they also don't seem to care.  Everyone knows what doctors, lawyers, police officers, plumbers and so on do, but ask an Australian what an engineer does and you'll receive a vague and ill-informed explanation.  For example, I've now lost track of how many times after I answer ‘mechanical engineering' to people's questions about what I'm studying that I've received the response, ‘oh so you'll fix cars?'

Many people have to go out of their way to find information about engineering.  By sheer luck during the period in which I was studying my VCE an international student who studied engineering came to board with my family.  Had this girl not been staying with us, I may have never known that engineers existed, and chosen a different course to pursue.  For this reason you can be sure only a certain type of person will find themselves studying engineering, those who seek out the information themselves (typically those who are preconditioned) or the lucky ones, like me, who stumble across it just in time.

One thing I have noticed about the women who do study in my course is that they are often international or from other (non-Australian) cultures.  In a majority of other countries engineering seems to be regarded as highly as any other profession, and its importance to society is fully recognised.  Thus, the women in these cultures are more likely to consider and choose engineering.  This just doesn't seem to be the case in Australia. 

If the reputation of engineering in Australia was greater, then, I think you would see more people, including women, considering engineering as a career option. Thus, once again, by focusing on engineering itself instead of women in engineering, I think you will see more women consider engineering as a career.

Conclusion
I think we should accept that there will not be as many women in engineering, much like nursing will probably never have as many men.  I think this is so because I don't think the nature of women requiring feedback is going to change anytime soon.

However, the situation can be improved by focusing on those issues that are within our control.  That is the preconditioning of engineering students and the reputation of engineering.

Without preconditioning, potential students need to know that they will actually be taught or how they will be trained to be engineers.  Therefore, to get the brightest students regardless of background (be it sex or lifestyle) the practical application of engineering knowledge (what some people refer to as the wisdom or art of engineering) must be an integral part of all engineering degrees.  I think this would require strong design subjects (with very practical components) and effective IBL.

As I mentioned when discussing the reputation of engineering, only those people who are already preconditioned are likely to seek out engineering as a career option (this group comprises mostly of boys, but is reducing due to changes in modern life style).  If we improve the reputation of engineering, then more people will know about engineering and consider it a viable career option.

Neither of these two issues (compensating for preconditioning and engineering's reputation) is explicitly related to female students.  Therefore, paradoxically, to increase the number of female engineering students we need to focus less on the female students themselves, and focus instead on the quality of education and reputation of engineers.

In summary, I think there will never be as many women as men in engineering, but to increase the number of women in engineering we need to focus more on the quality of engineering and not on women.

Sarah van der Waal is a mechanical engineering student at RMIT and one of the earliest members of Ingeneers Network Australia. She was asked for her thoughts on the topic of women in engineering.

What are your thoughts?

Also take a look at the poll for this topic.