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.

Australia's urgent need for Engineering Leadership

Have you noticed lately how every aspect of our infrastructure is at bursting point?

• Public transport is overwhelmed with passengers.
• Roads are clogged most of the time - and the ability to predict travel time from place to place is long gone.
• Whole areas are affected by either severe drought, devastating bushfires - or more recently severe flooding and devastation.
• Our playing fields are either parched and brown and unpleasant to use - or more recently under water.
• Power supplies are stretched during peak load times.
• Hospitals have long waiting list ...need I go on.

I have come to believe that outcomes, both good and bad, are delivered by processes.   I often ponder as to how has this all happened?  What has changed with the underlying processes that we have these issues now - when in the past (in my living memory anyway), we did not?

Well, I have a hypothesis to put forward.

When I was a younger Engineer, there was a number of Engineering Institution that looked after all of these areas of our vital infrastructure.  The Victorian institutions were bodies like The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW), the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission (SR&WSC), the Country Roads Board (CRB), the Gas and Fuel Corporation, the State Electricity Commission (SECV) to name the major ones - the so-called Quangos.  There were also Town and City Engineers in each and every municipality or town overseeing the engineering works. 

Engineers were able to just get on and do what they do best - with a minimum of "interference".  To some extent that was also their downfall.  Their desire to have the best "engineering" outcomes - whilst ignoring the wishes of the community and their political overlords resulted in their eventual demise.

Today, those institutions and the associated engineering roles no longer exist.  They have been replaced by a matrix of smaller organisations often headed up by non-engineering skilled managers.  As a consequence the voice of the engineer has been drowned out by a myriad of other, often competing, voices.

I was talking to another Engineer the other day and his thought was that the Consulting Engineering Companies would be able to fill this role.  Not so, in my view... most of the Consulting Companies are bound by confidentiality agreements because they are either working on projects, tendering on projects - or hope to do so as a matter of business.  So they have a conflict.  Do they speak out against poorly conceived projects, and risk legal action or exclusion from Government tenders - or do they keep quiet?  I am not judging them in this - they have a business to run - and shareholders to satisfy.  They cannot be expected to shoulder that responsibility.

So what is to be done?  There is no point in looking back wistfully at the "good old days".  What we have is what we have.

The demands of the current era are different from the past.  The community expects consultation - and rightly so.  There are many competing factors at play now also - sustainability, environmental protection, noise abatement, more complex legal aspects, multiple funding sources and many more factors.  It is up to engineers to rise to this challenge - not sit back and bemoan the loss of identity and influence.  In my view this means that we need to see the role of the Engineer as being way more than the technically competent engineer.

Our forebears like Major General Sir John Monash seem to have had the right idea!  Isn't it time that we took a leaf from their book.

It is what we do next - as a profession - as an Engineering Team - that will count.

I agree that Engineers should be ingenious, AND that tends to take us into a narrowing role of doing things "right". As you would see from my previous comments being a professional engineer needs to involve more - that is to say that we need to take a birds eye view and make sure we are doing the right things. I have heard it said that managers do things right - leaders do the right thing. So I am suggesting that as Engineers and Engineering Leaders we need to ensure that we are doing the right things - and then ensuring that we then do them right. This is all about being a better Engineer in a much broader context - including improved ingenuity, influencing skills, negotiating skills etc per other contributors that have said it better then me. We have avoided the essential engineering leadership role long enough (in my generation anyway). An example of this is set out in this article.  Go to the last few paragraphs for the comments on the (engineering) failures that have contributed to the devastating floods.

It is a sad commentary that a journalist (not an Engineer) can see so clearly what our communities have ignored for too long (in my generation). As a one-time hydrologist in my past career - we know these things. Where is our voice of reason? Why do we build in these areas? Why do we build the way that we do? Why do we not learn more from the past devastations? There is a political storm on the horizon - and it may well be about Engineering Leadership and making sure that we do the right things (not just do things right). We will need to stand up and be counted as a profession to ensure that we do not get pushed to the background by lawyers, accountants and politicians to the narrow world of doing the things that they request in the right way.

I believe that Engineering Excellence is often interpreted in a narrow way focused on just technical excellence. Whilst this is, and always will be, an essential element in being an excellent Engineer there is more involved in becoming a high performing Engineer. You must also encompass practice in management and leadership.

Engineers all work in multi-function teams these days. As a minimum we rely on IT systems and accounting systems to be able to complete projects. It is essential that we can relate to all the team members and create high performing teams to ensure the best outcomes. Deliberate practice in areas such as sound management and business practice, influencing skills, negotiating skills, presentation skills and leadership skills to name just few are essential.

If you would like to know more - please seek out the Centre for Engineering Leadership and Management (CELM) at Engineers Australia. The Engineering Executive competencies provide a balanced view on the areas of practice that anyone wanting to become a high performing Engineer should consider in addition to technical excellence.

If you are interested in coaching and mentoring to become a high performing Engineer - please go to www.viccelm.org.au  (VicCELM is a chapter of CELM at Engineers Australia)

The Deming PDCA is an excellent approach to continuous improvement in business (and in life in general).  There is also a more evolved version that has been expanded out into the (Australian) Business Excellence Framework (BEF). It has as the engine for change the ADRI Cycle. Approach - Deploy - Results - Improvement (similar to PDCA).

The BEF also looks holistically at seven categories...

Category 1: Leadership

Category 2: Strategy & Planning

Category 3: Information & Knowledge

Category 4: People

Category 5: Customer & Market Focus

Category 6: Process Management, Improvement & Innovation

Category 7: Success and Sustainability

If you would like to learn more - you could go here, and obtain a copy of the document - or feel free to contact me as well.

I am a volunteer Evaluator for the Australian Business Excellence Awards which compares the entrant with the best practice as set out in the BEF. The 2010 Excellence Medal and Gold Award went to DORIC Group - a Perth based engineering and construction company.

Engineering is quite unique and underpins much of what we now consider as a civilised society.  Having said that, the world has passed Engineers by in my generation. I could go further and say that my generation of Engineers has failed the profession and the community.

The essential community resources like water, flood mitigation, power, public transport, ports and road networks are all at breaking point because of the lack of Engineering Leadership.  I believe that it is because we have not been able to show leadership in the community - and this needs to be addressed urgently.

I believe that the technical side of Engineering is as high as ever. There are many examples of outstanding Engineering feats (the rectangular stadium in Melbourne springs to mind). And this must not change. Engineering technical excellence is always going to be what defines us as a profession. But in itself it is no longer enough (if it ever was).

As I understand it - people like Sir John Monash were very forceful in putting their Engineering view forward. Our forebears built our nation. Roads, railways, ports, water supply, Snowy Mountain Schemes, Ord River scheme, irrigation schemes etc. Where is that voice today? We have seen the dramatic decline in Australia's infrastructure because Engineering Leaders have not been in the key decision making positions.

Why? Now there is a good question.

I have been active in the Centre for Engineering Leadership and Management for some years now. It is all about developing a listening around some complimentary skills to the important technical competencies of being an Engineer.

For me it is an AND, not an OR, with the technical development. So I see it as technical skills AND business skills AND people skills AND leadership skills. Unfortunately it is interpreted often as technical OR those "other" skills. Worse, if you study the "other" skills then you must leave the engineering profession!

I suspect that it is all part of the denial of the need to change and grow as an Engineering Profession. In 2009 I started up a Coaching and Mentoring Panel for Engineers. That can be viewed at www.viccelm.org.au

The views expressed in this article are entirely those of the author - John McIntosh.   They do not necessarily represent the views of the organisations mentioned: Engineers Australia, the Centre for Engineering Leadership and Management or SAI-Global. You can see more of John's work activities at these websites:

www.mcintoshcoaching.com and www.powerinfluence.com.au