Understanding Engineering Practice

Abstract: Efforts to reform engineering education by improving the relevance of learning for engineering practice have not yet been very successful. Analysis of published literature demonstrates that engineering education is predominantly based on a model of engineering practice represented by technical problem-solving and design. However, this model cannot explain many observations of engineering practice like the amount of time that engineers interact with other people. This paper introduces a comprehensive model based on detailed observations of practice and briefly discusses how changes in pedagogy, assessment and accreditation are needed to close the gap between engineering education and practice.

Abstract: Efforts to reform engineering education by improving the relevance of learning for engineering practice have not yet been very successful. Analysis of published literature demonstrates that engineering education is predominantly based on a model of engineering practice represented by technical problem-solving and design. However, this model does not adequately explain how engineers deliver solutions in the form of services and artifacts. It cannot explain simple observations that reveal that engineers spend much more of their time interacting with other people than they do on solitary technical work. Neither does it explain how finance and people constrain practice, nor how engineers manage to eliminate errors and misunderstandings in practice. Qualitative analysis reveals how this simple model also strongly influences observations of engineering practice such that other aspects are hidden, even to practicing engineers. If we are to move to new models of engineering practice, we need to understand current conceptions before we can change them.

Abstract: Engineering education has been shaped by a model of engineering practice based on technical problem-solving and design: this model is incomplete. This paper proposes a comprehensive model based on observations of engineering practice. Unlike earlier models, it explains why engineers spend much more of their time interacting with other people than they do on solitary technical work. It also helps to explain how finance and people constrain practice, and how engineers manage to eliminate errors and misunderstandings. The model includes delivery of services and solutions in the form of artifacts, production, operations, maintenance and decommissioning. A comprehensive model is needed to allow accurate observation of practice in diverse settings to guide educators. The model helps us to understand why engineering fails to deliver effective results in many impoverished countries. The educational implications of this model are briefly introduced: these will be examined in more detail in a further paper.

Engineering Work Classification Framework (PDF, October 2008 revision) - Provides detailed descriptions not included in the paper.

Abstract: This paper discusses educational implications of a comprehensive model of engineering practice. The model describes a web of social interactions and formal processes that enable predictable results to be obtained from individually unpredictable human performances. Participants exchange expertise distributed between them as they gradually negotiate a shared understanding of what needs to be done to meet client and end user needs within resource, technical, schedule, financial, environmental and society constraints. Engineering practice, to a surprisingly large extent, is supported by simultaneous teaching and learning by its participants. Teaching methods based on distributed cognition could improve student learning and help develop appropriate human interaction skills. Assessment needs to reflect all the attributes needed for engineering practice. Changes to accreditation requirements are needed, partly to ensure that academics are appropriately informed and students are well prepared from accurate observations of engineering practice, and partly to overcome existing weaknesses.