The question is so fundamental. Yet if I were to put 100 engineers in a room and ask them to write it down, I’m certain I would get around 20 different answers. They would probably range anywhere from someone who knows a lot of math and science, to a technical expert in a field, to something related to manufacturing or process control. In my opinion, all of those answers may be all correct, or completely wrong. They completely miss the point. So here is my definition.

Engineers are people that solve problems by finding the optimal balance of competing factors under specific constraints using incomplete information.

I really let you down on that one. It’s punchy, but what does it mean? And I don’t see any mention of math, or science, or technology, or data processing, or programming… Well, there lies the problem. We think about what engineers DO rather than what they ARE. I use tools, which is clearly a characteristic of something humans do, but that doesn’t define me as human. The critical feature that sets an engineer apart from analysts or scientists is the ability to make complex decisions without being fully informed balancing competing factors. Sounds fun! Basically we get to make it up. There is a catch – we are responsible for the consequences of being wrong. So anyone willing to make consequential judgements based on incomplete information can qualify.

But perhaps we should narrow our focus to the application of the definition to the more classical engineering disciplines, because if we don’t, pretty much any problem solver could be considered an engineer. To do that in this construct, we need to consider the bound of knowledge and expertise which we will consider within the purview of the engineer. I find that rather hard to define, so I would rather consider the tools used to solve the problems the best definition. That brings us back to math and science as the primary tools used by an engineer in their problem solving endeavors. But this is extremely broad – much broader than people realize.

In today’s world, much of the technical aspects of engineering are mostly figured out. It’s mostly either a matter of putting the pieces together in a novel way to solve problems, or coming up with new applications of past solutions. So much of what was in an engineer’s toolbox – and still is coming out of college – is mostly useless or will be quickly supplanted by different tools. Why would I hand calculate the efficiency of a steam turbine given process conditions when I can quickly code a simulation of the whole cycle and measure the output? There is certainly value in understanding the core principles, and they should be revisited often. But when it comes to providing a solution where the consequences are real, the best tools should be leveraged, and rarely does that involve someone figuring out complex math on a sheet of paper at this point.

So what has engineering become? Is it dead? Could computers completely replace engineers? I would argue the exact opposite. Go back to the original definition, and specifically the aspect of “incomplete information”. This is where the value truly lies. It is also the aspect which is the hardest to teach or judge capability, therefore hundreds of times harder to code into an algorithm. The world has too many unknowns and variables to be properly calculated by a defined algorithm. Computers and robots could easily replace much of what people think of as engineers, such as design calculations, drawing reviews, system interaction analyses, etc. But that’s not engineering.

Of course this opens the door to Artificial Intelligence, but I would claim that it will be centuries before this is anything more than fancier algorithms better at collecting and processing data at higher rates of speed. This may simulate some aspects of what an engineer does, but will never replace them for the foreseeable future. Not to mention, it’s a lot harder to “hack” an ethical engineer than a computer system, so for really critical things, engineers will still be the final word.

OK, so now that we’ve established that the tools we all leave college with are relics, what do we need to know? That answer will be different at every moment and for every situation. So what are we to do? This is where engineers need to have a realization that continuing education is our only salvation. But that doesn’t necessarily mean learning the latest and greatest version of the latest ASME code, or boning up on your ANSYS skills. It could mean learning how to use P6 so that the complex interactions between a design are captured and the project doesn’t go off the rails. It could mean learning how to analyze electrical circuits even though you’ve been doing ANSYS analyses for the last 10 years. Basically, it means being able to quickly become “dangerous” in a subject, and then “being dangerous”.

That sounds bad. And risky. And scary. But that is why engineers are needed. Somebody has got to do it. As a wise woman once told me, “If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.” (thanks Mom).