Responding to Need: Getting Engineering Back on Track

By Matthew Gaston

“You see that pale, blue dot? That's us... it's our only home. And that is what is at

stake, our ability to live on planet Earth, to have a future as a civilization.”

Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth

Today’s world is a world where the threat to our civilisation is commonly recognised.

Twenty-four hour news channels abound with stories of financial, political and natural

disasters. A broad range of organisations warn that the current disasters are just the

start and even worse are to come. The IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report states that man-

made climate change is almost certain and that the effects are likely to increase in

intensity over the coming century with potentially disastrous consequences. The

World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Report 2008 warned that our “reckless

consumption is depleting the world’s natural capital to a point where we are

endangering our future prosperity.” Finally, in March 2008 the UN Secretary-General

Ban Ki-moon declared that global economic growth should be spread to the poorest of

the poor and that that year should be “the year of the bottom billion.” Of course

events in the financial markets that year meant that the top billion could reasonably

(and conveniently) forget about the bottom billion.

Though change is always happening there is no doubt that positive change of epic

proportions is required at this time to meet these great and growing needs. The more

traditional leaders of the 20th century such as politicians, bankers and big business are

now considered untrustworthy by the public. The resulting vacuum has led to an

explosion in Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and declining election

turnout. So who will lead in the 21st century?

In 2002 Transparency International’s Bribe Payers Index noted “the most blatant

corruption could be found in public works, construction, armaments and defence.”

The 2009 Global Corruption Report stated “It must be recognised that little has

changed”. In October 2009, Constructing Excellence issued its latest report Never

Waste a Good Crisis which discussed how the civil engineering industry had

implemented Sir John Eakin’s report Rethinking Construction, which sought to end

cost overruns and disputes. The magazine New Civil Engineer (NCE) quoted the

team’s chairman Andrew Wolstenholme as saying

“Even where the principles of Rethinking Construction have been adopted, too often the commitment is

skin-deep. Scratch beneath the surface and you find many so-called partners still seeking to avoid or

exploit risk to maximise their own profits, rather than finding ways to share risk and collaborate

genuinely so that all can profit.”

All this suggests that, in contrast to what many in the construction media would claim,

the leaders of change are unlikely to come from the construction industry. Corruption

has left the industry morally bankrupt in the eyes of many while stale, unimaginative

and risk averse management has prevented effective change within the industry let

alone in the wider world.

1 1 1 12 2

13

9

123456789

101112131415

1999

Bribery of

Public

Officials

2002

Bribery of

Public

Officials

2008

Bribery of

Public

Officials

2008 State

Capture

Position

Public WorksContracts &Construction

Arms & Defence

Figure 1 “We’re Number 1! We’re Number 1!” The construction industry’s competitive nature

has led to some dubious, though consistent, successes. Source: Transparency International’s

Bribe Payers Survey 1999, 2002 and 2008. In 1999 nine sectors were assessed, seventeen sectors

were assessed in 2002 and nineteen sectors were assessed in 2008.

However this essay, inspired by the keynote speech by John Ralston Saul at the

Annual FIDIC conference in Quebec in 2008, will show not only that engineers could

take the lead but that they should. To help us to understand what is needed we will

have to consider what has gone wrong. Referring to the great engineers of the

Victorian era Saul stated “I’m looking for the engineers who doubled the life

expectancy of people. I’m looking for citizens. Some professions are more important

than others and you engineers are in the top five professions and to have you out of

the loop is a big problem for society.” By assuming that the ‘greats’ of a bygone era

got it right, this essay looks at the differences and similarities with today’s industry to

discover the lessons that need to be learned.

The Institution must Direct not Star

In 1818, in a coffee shop on Fleet Street in London, Henry Robinson Palmer, James

Jones and Joshua Field (average age just under 28) founded the Institution of Civil

Engineers. The goal of this new organisation was later set out in the Royal Charter of

1828

The general advancement of mechanical science, and more particularly for promoting the acquisition of

that species of knowledge which constitutes the profession of a civil engineer; being the art of directing

the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man, as the means of production

and of traffic in states, both for external and internal trade, as applied in the construction of roads,

bridges, aqueducts, canals, river navigation, and docks, for internal intercourse and exchange; and in

the construction of ports, harbours, moles, breakwaters, and lighthouses, and in the art of navigation by

artificial power, for the purposes of commerce; and in the construction and adaptation of machinery,

and in the drainage of the cities.

The ICE made a slow start and by 1820 was looking for someone to lead it who had

influence over the key decision makers in government and business. It approached the

leading civil engineer at the time, Thomas Telford, who subsequently agreed to be the

Institution’s first President.

Those first two years laid the foundations for what has happened up to today and

should serve as guidance for how the ICE should proceed into the future. The ICE

should take note of three actions in particular.

Do what you set out to do. The ICE exists for the general advancement of

mechanical science, and more particularly for promoting the acquisition of that

species of knowledge which constitutes the profession of a civil engineer. The

Institution has a good track record in this regard. Over the years it has compiled an

extensive library, created a commercial arm (unsurprisingly called Thomas Telford)

with a wide range of books and has helped in the creation of various smaller

professional bodies such as the British Geotechnical Association.

However this dedication to its original goal appears more tentative than it should be.

In November 2009 (a few weeks after the ICE had bought 5 letters written by Telford)

it was reported in the NCE that the ICE had effectively doubled the rate it charged

associated societies for meeting room hire. This change placed great pressure on the

societies’ finances and many were considering moving to other venues. “The ICE

could have a much diminished role in the dissemination of knowledge” warned one

member the NCE reported.

Though a compromise is being sought this example describes an organisation that has

lost its way. It is an organisation whose purpose is to promote acquiring engineering

knowledge but then chooses to make it harder to do just that. To prevent such

problems occurring again the institution as a whole must understand what its role is:

direct proceedings by helping to provide resources and by leading at an institutional

level.

Do lead. In 1820 Telford was brought in to help encourage more engineers to join the

ICE (at the time there were only about 20 members) and to have greater influence on

the decision-makers of the day in both business and government. This is a position

that throughout the 19th century the ICE did well, helped in no small part by the roles

that its most successful engineers had in guiding the economic and social revolutions

of the day. However, over the past one hundred years something has changed.

In September 2008 John Ralston Saul was the keynote speaker at the annual

conference of the International Federation of Consulting Engineer (FIDIC) in Quebec,

Canada. John Ralston Saul is a Canadian essayist and author. He has written about

citizenship, globalisation and leadership. He’s not an engineer. He’s not even an

architect. This was his opportunity to consider the engineer’s place in the world and to

tell the industry what he saw.

“The problem of specialised professionals caught in a straight jacket of ethical specialisation has meant

that your leadership has taken a back seat.”

“Of course becoming the specialist is comforting, or intellectually lazy to be more accurate. You need

to rewrite the definition of your profession to be again part of society. A return to ideas is needed. You

need to be central to changing civilisation for the better.”

“I’m looking for the engineers who doubled the life expectancy of people. I’m looking for citizens.”

What Saul saw was an industry that had detached itself from society by focusing on

more narrow and specialised fields. While the industry was focusing on how to do

what it does better it lost track of what society actually needed and accidentally

reduced the relevancy of its now more accurate work.

Leading the way should be institutional icons such as the ICE. The ICE is best suited

for discussions with governments and business compared to the individual or other

engineering firms. It should take confidence from its independence (assuming that it

hasn’t placed itself within a ‘straight jacket of ethical specialisation’) to not only stand

up for what it believes to be right but to do so publicly.

Figure 2 Everyone has the right to be helped, regardless of what we can get out of it (Illustration

© Pelumi Igunnobule, Social Commentari)

The world is not a fair place. Those who can pay get what they want while those who

cannot pay must do without what they need. In 1989, an earthquake struck a city in

the richest county in the world and 63 people died, while in 2010, after a further 21

years of research and development, a similar sized earthquake hit the poorest country

in the Western hemisphere and at least 230,000 people died. In the same way that we

take credit for building great monuments and systems, we should also take

responsibility for when we do not act with enough urgency or force. This lack of force

is evidence of a weakly led industry with little direction or understanding of what is

needed and therefore what is right. The ICE must be a strong leader and insist on

particular standards and actions that lead to an improvement in the quality of life of

all the members of our society.

The most worrying aspect of the NCE article that reported the conference was

actually before it described Saul’s speech. “The terms “engineer” and “revolutionary”

are rarely used together by members of the general public.” At one point we led the

revolution. Now we’re waiting for it with everyone else.

And finally, do not take responsibility for educating the public. In Telford’s

acceptance letter he stated that the public needed to be more aware of the importance

of the industry and that the ICE should be a major part of making that happen. Over

the past 190 years this has been shown to be a mistake. Though the ICE’s efforts have

no doubt varied over the years one thing has remained near constant – the public have

remained unaware of the industry’s importance. Even during what is now thought of

as the ‘golden years’ of the 19th century the increased exposure in the public eye was

due to the efforts of individuals to meet the public’s needs rather than an ICE push to

have more photos in the daily newspapers.

The reason why the ICE’s efforts have fallen flat is a simple one. Institutions are

meant to direct efforts – they use their size to create common ground amongst its

members and become the voice of the industry in high level discussions. It is much

easier for one institution to tell government what is needed than every single engineer

to do so in the same way that it is much better for a film director to talk to a financial

backer alone than for the entire cast to have their say.

However directors understand that it is not their job to help the public understand

what the film is saying. It is the actor’s role and though the director may tell the actor

where to stand and what to say and even how to say it, there is still a limit to how

much they can do. In the same way, the ICE should understand that relating with the

public is not its role. It is the role of the engineer.

The Retiring Star that is the Engineer

In 2009 an engineering firm released a video on YouTube called ‘Engineers are cool’.

It was a slick production that went through the many aspects that make up the

construction industry from geotechnics to acoustics. There was animation mixed in

with video clips with simple text. Even the music wasn’t that bad.

Use of popular media: Check

Placed on the internet: Check

Flashy moving images: Check

Reasonable soundtrack: Check

Yet something wasn’t right and it serves as an indicator of engineering’s lack of

confidence. Cool people don’t call themselves cool.

More and more engineers appear to be falling into this unconfident mould as they

seek the recognition that they feel they deserve. They were never the scientific and

technological outcasts at school (now known as computer geeks or ‘IT consultants’)

but they were never top of the pile either. Now they see doctors getting all the glory

with their higher wages and string of popular TV shows and they want to get in on the

action. The adulation some of them seek is comically illustrated in a YouTube video

called Engineer where the engineer arrives at an office to be almost instantly

worshiped.

The mistake that some engineers make is that they believe that TV and film are the

stage where they should play their part when in fact it is their daily lives. Other

professions understand this. A lawyer knows the courtroom is his stage. For a surgeon

it is the theatre and for the medical doctor it is the hospital bedside. Even if an

engineer does understand this, where can he call his stage? The occasional public

meeting?

Of course this suits the average engineer who equates “working with the public” with

the “worst case scenario”. Rather than meeting with the public they expect the ICE to

step forward and play their part for them, something the ICE has mistakenly but

willingly chosen to do. Engineers must understand that they are the best people to

represent the industry in their daily lives. They may not enjoy it and they may not see

the full impact but they must understand its great importance and that without

working with the public their work will become stale and irrelevant.

In 1854, at about the same time that Brunel was working on the Great Eastern,

Elizabeth Gaskell published the book North and South. The book is about a young

woman called Margaret Hale from a country village in the south of England whose

family moves to a mill town in the north. It is her first introduction to the industrial

revolution with its hard work, need for cheap labour and low working and living

standards. She finds herself in the middle of a battle between the mill-owners, which

her position in society gives her access to, and the working-class whose openness

gives her companionship. She instinctively chooses the side of the working class.

Eventually there is a strike and Miss Hale maintains her position. One of the most

commercially-minded mill owners initially dislikes her meddling but after seeing her

commitment and bravery in doing what she believed to be right he begins to seek and

appreciate her opinion. In the end an alliance is made between the mill owner and the

head of the workers union. The mill owner improves working conditions and welfare

while the union leader ensures the workers understand the commercial needs of the

mill.

It is suggested here that engineers should look to the example of Margaret Hale when

responding to the needs around them. Due to her position in society she could give

council to the rich while having relationships with the poor. The key however was not

what she could do but what she understood. She understood both the commercial

needs of the owners and the needs of the people but also that those of the people

should take priority. Though the people may struggle to live without the mill, the mill

would not exist at all as a financial entity without the people. As engineers play their

rightful role in their communities they will realise the over-riding importance of

meeting the needs of society.

Figure 3 Meeting society's needs. Though people regularly look to Africa, what is needed can

regularly be found on your doorstep (Top photo ‘De deur camp refugees’ by Tawe/Zplit,

available under a Creative Commons Attribution licence. Bottom photo ‘Homeless sleeping on

the sidewalk’ by Franco Folini, available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share alike

licence.)

The Villainy of Specialisation

One of the things that many people, in many professions, understand is that the time

of the generalist, where an individual could competently work in a wide range of

subjects, is long dead. “Everyone knows”, they will say “that in today’s highly

complex world one person cannot withhold the required knowledge in several

branches of industry to produce work of a suitable quality in each one. Only the most

brilliant could possibly achieve it in two branches.”

It is true that the world is very complex requiring more accurate and precise solutions.

However, an engineer’s work should not be judged by its level of precision or

accuracy but by its relevancy. In a world where everything has been turned into a

science (from how much chocolate you should eat to how you relate to your goldfish)

engineering should stand out as an exception. Breaking the profession down into

smaller and smaller, easier to understand roles should strike any right thinking

engineer as wrong. Unlike science engineering is not about “finding ever-better

approximations” but is to use “the fundamental equations of Nature [that] are only

approximate for a practical and socially responsible purpose” as Graham Farmelo put

it in his brilliant book The Strangest Man.

Specialisation has taken what was (and could be again) a world changing profession

into one that is restrictive and repetitive. The job that was done by the Brunels and

Stephensons that John Ralston Saul is looking for and the one that a new graduate

steps into are worlds apart. Whereas one looked for areas where they could use their

problem-solving ability and knowledge to best use, the other is placed in a ready-

made position with a pre-defined problem and usually an expected answer.

This distance between the heroes that we aspire to be and the realities of our daily

work will cause the most talented young engineers, the industry’s future leaders, to

turn away from engineering altogether. They will think to themselves “If Brunel is a

hero of mine then why should I be satisfied with only designing bridges if it did not

satisfy Brunel?” Having been sold the profession as an opportunity to follow in

Brunel’s footsteps only to find out that in fact it is not possible to do so, those who

seek to do more with their lives than simply be paid will go elsewhere to find greater

opportunities.

To retain the best of its graduates the industry must recognise that though specialists

are vital (both technically and in terms of management), it is the generalist’s approach

which is best at finding “practical and socially responsible” solutions.

Even if specialisation didn’t distance today’s generation from their heroes of

yesteryear or turn what should be a world changing profession into something little

more than working in a call centre, it should still be avoided for just one reason:

specialists can’t lead change, let alone change which is needed.

The more focused a set of skills or depth of knowledge is the more sensitive its

usefulness is to change. Just ask those who made records in the 1970s, cassettes in the

1980s and CDs in the 1990s whether greater knowledge of their products has prepared

them well for the 21st century. If the change is also within a complex network or

ecosystem, like using DDT on crops or the buying and selling of toxic debts, the real

and full effects are not known until after the event. For this reason it is perfectly

natural to be apprehensive about making changes. If you champion a change in the

engineering universe you could unwittingly bankrupt your biggest client and make

yourself redundant.

A specialist focuses on one skill set or range of knowledge. They do not seek to

broaden their knowledge but seek to know ever more detail on one particular subject.

When that subject is en vogue this form of scientific thinking is very useful and the

specialist will progress quickly through the ranks. However when the limelight moves

on the specialist will find themselves out in the cold. When the real effects of change

are unknown and change could lead to personal redundancy, why would a specialist

seek to lead change?

Specialists dislike change because they lack the confidence that they will adapt to it.

As such, the leaders who seek change to meet people’s need will not be specialists but

those who have the confidence to adapt. The likelihood is that such people were not

born with this confidence but have gained it through experience. They have been

through the unknown and understand the difference between what is predicted and

what is real. Generalists typically expect the unexpected on a project and will react

with flexibility. It is the generalist who will manage when things change not because

they have better, more accurate skills than the specialist but because they have the

confidence that the skills they do have are enough.

Yet, with the ever growing number of engineering specialisations the industry appears

to have rejected the generalists, choosing instead to create a set of Lego bricks that

produce a predetermined model. How did we get to this point? Why do we now find

ourselves paralysed by the fear that change may lead to redundancy as our job

description moves outside our area of expertise? At a time when global change is

needed, we have not stepped forward. Where has our courage gone?

The Need to be Relevant

I started this essay by listing some of the needs that are commonly discussed in the

broadcast and print media. Climate change, the threat of environmental disaster, the

mass extinction of species and the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor are

all serious issues that society as a whole must redress immediately. It is also

recognised that engineers, as a key profession, must respond to these needs by taking

a lead in tackling the various problems that face our society today. As such there are

calls from within and outside the industry to step up to the challenge of leading

society through these problems.

Figure 4 Cheating and getting away with it has almost become an acceptable way of doing

business (Illustration © Pelumi Igunnobule, Social Commentari)

However, the needs that this essay looks at are not what the world at large has but

rather those that we, as engineers, must deal with first before any attempt to lead

others. Systemic corruption has eroded away any moral high ground we may claim to

have over politicians or other world leaders. Our lack of contact with the public,

particularly at an individual level, has left us bereft of direction and therefore relevant

ideas. The consistently unimaginative choice of businesses to go down the easy path,

after the quick buck, has led not only to a stagnant industry that believes that nothing

will ever change but also reduces the client base from ‘all of society’ to ‘those with

the best credit score’.

These problems have led to an industry that many of its possible future leaders find

stale, repetitive, misguided or simply incompatible with a well run society. The

internal torment that may lead to them turning their back on the industry is that they

know that engineering is not one of the key professions because of its size or past

achievements but because of its capacity to do good for society.

The industry can return to the values that made it great in the past but it must

recognise its flaws and both institutions and businesses (corporate and as individuals)

must play their correct roles. The institution must understand that its role is not to be

the star of the industry but to be the guardian of civil engineering knowledge and to

lead the campaign to help those in need at international and governmental levels.

Engineering businesses must recognise that they have become complacent in the

financial security of constant and uniform employment from a few large clients. This

devotion to a steady pay check has led to engineers forgetting that their position is not

to do exactly what clients tell them to do but to be a confidant to both business and the

public; by relating to the public the profession would remain effective and relevant

while its entrusted position within business would allow it to guide civilisation to a

fairer future.

Finally, it has been shown that ever increasing specialisation is not a model for an

industry that seeks to lead positive change. Specialisation elevates our heroes’

achievements to beyond our reach, restricts our most talented graduates and

discourages change. However, generalists understand that change is inevitable and

with a wider range of knowledge they are better prepared for it.

If engineers are to lead change by seeking practical and socially responsible solutions

then they must understand the needs of the people; to improve the living standards of

the poorest, to minimise the adverse effects of climate change and to create a fairer

world. If the industry does not meet the needs of the many and instead chooses to

meet the wants of the few then it will become irrelevant to society. As Francis Bacon

put it back in 1640

“In sum, I would advise all in general, that they would take into serious consideration

the true and genuine ends of knowledge; that they seek it not either for pleasure, or

contention, or contempt of others, or for profit, or fame, or for honour and promotion,

or such like adulterate or inferior ends; but for the merit and emolument of life; and

that they regulate and perfect the same in charity. For the desire of power was the fall

of angels, the desire of knowledge the fall of man; but in charity there is no excess,

neither man nor angels ever incurred danger by it.”

Francis Bacon Advancement of Learning1640

In memory of my uncle Richard, my cousin Chris and my friend Neal

References

Arup Engineers are Cool http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGmIkYw19gg

Elizabeth Gaskell North and South Oxford University Press, USA

Farmelo, G (2009) The Strangest Man, The hidden life of Paul Dirac, Quantum

Genius, London, Faber and Faber Ltd

Guggenheim, D (2006) An Inconvenient Truth Paramount

New Civil Engineer Agitate, Educate Organise 17th September 2008

New Civil Engineer Engineering bodies in row over ICE room rate hike 19th

November 2009

New Civil Engineer ICE acquire Telford letters and drawings 1st October 2009

New Civil Engineer Stark warning issued to industry as claims and conflicts return

15th October 2009

Silva8644 Engineer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXGDRrkaRgU Dilbert by

Scott Adams

Thomas Telford Letter of acceptance of the office of President of the Institution of

Civil Engineers, 1820, ICE archives

Transparency International (2009) Global Corruption Report 2009 Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press

Various Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society, London, Harper

Press

WWF (2008) Living Planet Report Cambridge, BANSON