The practice of Engineering Research in Australia

By John Jacob

Is this going to be a pointless exercise in navel-gazing? Or is it an opportunity on the cusp of the perfect storm of global crises at which an entire profession can step up and make a difference? Are engineers not in an ideal position to provide humanity with the tools needed to survive the next critical 100 years on earth? What good will treaties, protocols, laws, and political parties be without working technology solutions?

How are nine billion people going to eat? How are they going to shelter from the heat or cold, and how are they going to move about in the vast urban landscapes needed to house them? With cheap energy coming to an end through peak oil and global warming, there will be pressure on agriculture to take up some of the slack with biofuels. An inevitable result of that, compounded with higher transport costs, will be higher food prices. Add to that pain the increases in costs for heating, cooling, power and water, and you have a standard of living that is racing quickly ahead of most humans' ability to pay for it.

One worst-case scenario for the present population is that about a billion people will die from starvation due to floods, fire, famine, drought, or die in wars precipitated by those events. About another billion people will be roaming around the planet looking for someplace to live. Got any extra room at your place? To avoid that scenario, we need more than political, financial and social band-aids. We need engineering.

So what are engineers doing about it? Some of us are busy with administrative functions that are too hard for most clerical staff to handle by themselves. Many of us are doing documentation, writing specs, submitting tenders or writing requests for tenders. Still, some are shopping, but we call it Procurement so it sounds harder. We look for off-the-shelf solutions and figure out how to make them work in a particular industry application. It's important and useful, but is it Engineering?

I attempted to define Engineering for many years. My first degree was in Physics, a pure science with a decidedly arrogant subculture. To physicists, engineers were knuckle-dragging neanderthals who lacked the neural synaptitude to grasp the basics of nature. They can use fire proficiently, but are unable to explain how it works.

I found by personal experience that this was not entirely accurate. Physics could explain a lot of things, but what I wanted was knowledge that would directly benefit me. I wanted to know how to make my car go faster. I therefore went for a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering.

What I found was a revelation to me. There were fields of serious scientific study within engineering that many Physicists had never heard of. Things like Rheology, Tribology, Metallurgy, Rotordynamics, Structural Mechanics and Vibration, Materials Science, and more. All fascinating, rigorous, difficult, and incredibly useful and practical.

This led me to begin defining the Pure Sciences as the study of naturally-occurring systems. Physics concerns itself with the basic forces and components of the universe, energy and matter; Biology - living systems; Chemistry - systems of elements and compounds of elements.

Engineering on the other hand is best defined as the methodical study of man-made systems. Mechanical engineering is the study of materials (solids, liquids and gases) and systems of materials such as structures, machines, and engines. Electrical engineering is the study of electrical components, materials and systems of electromagnetic fields, flows and charges for practical purposes. Computer engineering comprises the study of processing, data representation and storage, data transmission, software systems, algorithms and the mathematics of information.

The kind of training many engineers receive at university is training from engineering academics, which naturally focuses on research, study, and scientific rigor. But how many of us use even a part of those skills in the workplace? I only became aware upon moving to Australia that as a Research Engineer, I was different from other engineers. I found "normal" engineering incredibly boring, and nobody would hire me to do research. That's the inviolable domain of Academics with PhDs.

But not where I'm from! Back home, engineers are often paid to do research and they are good at it. It's solving problems, inventing stuff, pushing performance to new levels, and creating new businesses and products. It's exciting and fulfilling to see your ideas turn into real, working, useful systems. But doing this kind of work requires a mindset that is against specialization, and that goes against the grain of typical Human Resources administrators and accepted business management.

Some mechanical engineers I've worked with would rather have their eyes put out than have to look at a schematic for an electronic circuit. Good research engineers, however, are unafraid to tackle anything! I am as happy using an oscilloscope as I am a micrometer; as comfortable analyzing statistical data as with paging through my hardbound edition of Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain. It is this kind of versatility that will allow Engineers to ultimately offer humanity more than politicians can.

How do we make the transition from shopping and drawing pictures to solving global problems? One obstacle to business' utilizing our potential as a profession is a lack of management methodologies capable of making use of that potential. Standard management practice is no use: it is only focused on maintaining profitability and the status-quo. Project Management techniques are focused on tangible outcomes and often miss the point of R&D, which is engineering knowledge relevant to a business plan. What we need is a management methodology that is engineered for the purpose.

Waterfall methodology is the most common approach to R&D. We've all seen Gantt charts. This approach works in deep organizations with plenty of time and lots of financial resources. It is hopeless in small, fast projects in rapidly changing environments. For that, we have Agile Development methodologies. Though invented for software, it can be adapted to any field of innovation and research. The only reason it isn't used more is that Management hasn't figured it out yet. Research by for-profit companies employing non-academic, non-PhD engineers can and does work. It's a matter of organizing it correctly.

I was struck by something I read as a student: "Business failures are seldom the result of bad engineering, yet they are always the result of bad management." That is not a slur against MBA's, but an indictment of engineers focusing too much on narrow specializations and not taking seriously the management of engineering.

We engineers are in a position to make a big difference in the world. We have the knowledge, the skills and the intelligence. That much you knew. Did you also know that engineers are capable of being leaders? That we have the responsibility of organizing and managing our efforts? And that we have what it takes to do so?

John Jacob has a B. S. in Physics from Arizona State University and a Masters in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Utah State University. He has over 25 years' experience working in research and development in a diverse assortment of fields. John writes and speaks on a variety of science and business topics in addition to his work as a consultant in Perth, WA, where he has lived since 2001.

Please also take a look at the associated poll.

Connecting the Industry and Research cultures in Australia

By Richard Manasseh

Since I have over 20 years' experience in R&D for industries in Australia and overseas, I have been asked to comment on any difference in attitudes to R&D between this country and others. Of course, there have been many professional, detailed investigations into the Australian innovation system and underlying attitudes. I do not pretend to be an expert on this, merely to reflect on personal experiences and suggest one improvement.

First, let us check the statistics. It has been remarked for years that we invest proportionally less on R&D than the average industrialised country. The apparent good news is that in recent years this percentage has been climbing, though is still below average [1]. But when it comes to patenting, a key indicator of our interest in developing ideas into money-making technology, we come 20th out of 28 [2]. And although business investment in R&D has recently grown, only 18% of Australian firms actually introduce new-technology products [3], well below average. In Canada, that figure is 77% [4]. My guess is that a lot of the recent growth in Australia's business R&D is thanks to mining-boom profits getting saved from taxation by labelling incremental improvements as R&D [3]. Governments have tightened up on such practices, but it is unreasonable to over-regulate and over-police. On average we should expect that as revenues rise, all associated metrics should rise, including companies' incremental improvement expenditure.

Many reasons have been proposed for the chronically poor levels of Australian business investment in innovation. Many say "Poor incentives", which translates to wanting to pay less tax. Tax concessions have gone up and down over the past 10-20 years: ten years ago only Portugal and Spain were more generous than Australia in their tax incentives for R&D [5]; we have now dropped back.

Another common opinion is "companies have their headquarters overseas so do their R&D overseas". In fact, the largest growth in Australian R&D employment in recent years is thanks to foreign-owned companies [1]. These factors wax and wane over the years. But in my experience, fundamental attitudes to R&D in Australia have not shifted.

My interactions with other engineering cultures have been those of the USA, France, Japan, the UK, and to a lesser extent South Africa and China. It seems that, on average, there are systematic differences in attitudes to R&D in Australia and overseas. Engineers in some countries seem to have a stronger belief in the link between R&D and prosperity. Of course, the existence of this link is quickly acknowledged by Australian engineers. However, to many Australian engineers, the relation between R&D and the advancement of their company's prospects - and of their individual careers - seems remote.

Consequently, research is acknowledged as something that is important to do, but important for someone else to do, and someone else to fund (like the government).

I am not sure from where this cultural difference stems, but it may be a mixture of our education system and the nature of the biggest employment markets for Australian engineers.

Of course, there are many exceptions to my "averaged" opinion. I have encountered companies overseas that will not invest a cent unless there is clear evidence of immediate return. And I have met successful Australian engineers who have sponsored research and reaped the long-term benefits.

Irrespective of government- and corporate-level policies, there remains a ground-level disconnection between practicing engineers and the research community that we should work to fix. Policies come and go and can help or hinder. But technological innovations are not made by government and corporate leaders.

They are made by people like you.

Experiences of my colleagues overseas - and some local experiences of my colleagues and I - shows that a long-term relationship between a research provider and an industry engineer generates long-term benefits. Even if the current project is a failure, both parties have been educated by the process. Sticking with the relationship delivers higher productivity. Faced with a difficult issue, engineers learn "who to call" once they have had detailed interactions with a researcher. Even better, they learn what fundamental questions to ask. And innovation for a new product often comes from putting different heads together.

Most universities run final-year projects where students are sent to industryon placements. I believe that this process, often ignored or wasted by bothsides, presents one mechanism for changing our R&D culture. In particular, I believe it should be viewed as a practical networking mechanism for industry and research providers, as much as a training program for students.

If you are in industry and have a small, practical engineering project that is not critical, get in touch with a local university. Or several. Chat to the academics running research projects. Find one really interested in your industry and its fundamental problems, not necessarily the immediate subject of your project. The academic may work on a topic that seems ridiculously esoteric and specialised. But understand that competition for government research funds is intense, that the international impact rankings of all researchers in the world can be instantly compared, and the only way for them to stay competitive is to focus - and publish - on one or two specialties. You are competing for their attention to make your long-term interests their second specialty - or in the long run, maybe their first. Yes, supervising the student could be time-costly and there is overhead in the paperwork you have to do. But view this relationship as an investment. Make sure the academic supervising the students is involved in your meetings. It may take a couple of years and a few rounds of students, but remember many academics are hungry for industry involvement and it takes time to get the ideas that can really help.

Do not view this relationship as merely something that may be good for your company. View it as good for your career. You just need to sponsor one genuine innovation and your CV will stand out.

If you are in research, likewise view the interaction with industry as an investment in your own career. Yes, the student project the industry wants done is probably dismayingly far from your research topic and probably will not yield the publications you urgently need. And the company is unlikely to give you research cash today. But go to the meetings. Put serious effort into helping your students help the company. Understand that engineers in industry work on much shorter, more tightly programmed time scales than you do, and that they may move jobs much more frequently. Understand that they need confidence that their first investment in your students will not make them look bad. And understand that someone spending time to talk to you means you have struck an exceptional individual. Learn what the industry's needs really are. The idea for an innovation may come next year or later. Once your industry partner understands the benefit you can really offer, small amounts of money to support a PhD or Masters project should not be a problem. The simple fact that you have a relationship with industry can be a surprisingly powerful draw-card attracting good students to you. Students are sensitive to any way they can get an edge in the job market and many are impressed by evidence of industry relevance.

Then, if there is mutual agreement on a potential innovation, look for substantial funding together. The Australian Research Council (ARC)'s Linkage Projects provide government cash for cases where industry genuinely supports a research project. They are competitive, but not so competitive as the academically-driven ARC Discovery projects. If you have an established relationship, you are already ahead in the competition.

Plus, if industry is impressed by one of the students, some of the difficulty of future recruitment is reduced. And further down the track, the former placement student, immediately recognising the value of the experience, in turn sponsors new student projects ... The relationship between the industry engineer and the research academic becomes one of career-long, mutual benefit. I have seen this work. It only needs to work once to change your career.

It is not the only solution to the Australian industry and research disconnection.

But it is one we can implement now.

Disclaimer

This represents my own views and not those or any past or present employer.

References

[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009,

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/8104.0/

[2] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Main Science and

Technology Indicators (MSTI): 2010/1 edition",

http://www.oecd.org/document/26/0,3343,en_2649_34451_1901082_1_1_1_1,00.html

[3] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010,

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/57/41557063.pdf

[4] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/452075145463

[5] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010,

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/12/27/2498389.pdf

Richard Manasseh is a mechanical engineer by training and was asked to write this blog entry because of his experience in numerous countries. He now works as a lecturer in sustainability engineering.

What do you think about cooperation between industrys and academia in Australia? Take the poll.

Politics and engineering in Australia

By Clint Steele

Hello,

As you know I don't normally write blogs; I get smart expert people in to do that. However, I thought now that we have had a chance to let the major political parties speak before we all actually vote in the next election it might be worth reflecting upon what they have committed to or said that is significant to engineers and Australian engineering.

Well I do not know about you, but I haven't really heard much from any party about increasing Australia's engineering capability (and thus her wealth) for years; maybe even decades.

I recall a time when there were fairly good tax benefits for doing R&D work, which should have involved some engineers and which certainly should have carried over to all engineers. However, my experience with it when I was in R&D in the mining industry and Product Development in the Auto industry was that it was more important to the accountant than the engineers.

It was an effort at least, but I think it reflects the major issue that probably most engineers (and other technologists) have with Australian politics. It's dominated by lawyers and economists who really haven't a clue about any aspects of engineering. The end effect, in my opinion, is that they also haven't a real clue about what to do to efficiently support engineering capabilities or understand how they relate back to wealth generation. They don't seem to understand that the ability to find better (or more efficient) ways of doing things, and the ability to understand and implement these new ways, is the key to an improvement in wealth.

When it becomes easier to do anything (travelling through a city, making a product, building a house or sending information electronically for example), it naturally becomes more affordable for society. And those who know how to make it easier have not only been able to improve the wealth of society, but they will soon find themselves in a financially better situation themselves (unless they need to go through a drawn out legal process in another country like our friends at the CSIRO some time ago). So it should be clear that it is worth supporting real engineering (the ingenious type) in Australia.

But instead, what does happen? Well to answer this I actually need to answer the ‘why?' first. I have seen the way the governments in this country allocate funding to activities that one would associate with engineering. As mentioned earlier I noticed the tax benefits for R&D. I have also seen the allocation of funding through ATAs and CRCs where the governments encourage collaboration in research between various organisations. I have noticed a common theme to these activities: the effective handing over of decisions to others.

It appears to me that the Australian government has for years been so unsure and scared of anything scientific or engineering related that they have found ways to have others make the decision for them. Decisions on where the effort should go in activities that could support the development of engineering (and other related) capability. This seems sensible at first: let those who are most involved and expert, make the decision.  The trouble is that those who are they key influencers are usually the established players. Typically, the established players are not the ingenious and creative types they once were. They have become older and set in their ways trying to squeeze as much as they can out of an old technology, industry or market. Even worse, they are often close to death, but no one seems to realise it as they poor money in to prop these aging organisations up. On the other hand, those who could be on the brink of something new, and could be ready to really grow, are never heard in such a system. So what really happens is:

• The government tries to support the development of engineering
• But because it is so ignorant of engineering and related practices, due to the background of the average politician and government official, they are unsure of what to do and effectively pass the power over to established players
• These established players focus on older technologies and markets that offer less room for growth, and less room for the development of engineering capability and the wealth that comes with it.

So what to do? Well really, the only way we will ever see a real change in the government's attitude toward engineering is if there is a similar change in society's; Australia is a democracy after all. And that leaves the blame with us: engineers and engineering organisations. I would like to think that one day Ingeneers Network will be able to help with that even if the main focus here is on the exchange of engineering knowledge for the improvement of engineering capability in Australia. However, at the moment Ingeneers Network is too small. I always hoped that the other organisations might take the lead, but it does seem that engineers just aren't politically inclined.

So for now, and perhaps into the future, there will not be any party that the engineer can vote for. However, that is just my opinion, and I would very much like yours. Either leave a comment or take the poll.

Clint

This is the first blog I have chosen to write. Usually, I rather have others (who are expert in their area) to write. However, this time I just wanted a piece to get engineers talking about how engineering could or should influence society through the government. So please share your thoughts with the rest of us. A politically informed engineering community can only be good for society.