Should engineers be more of an idealist or realist? 3

[CivilTom]

As an engineer looking to innovate while being successful is it more important to be an idealist or realist? Should the balance between the two be even or lean more toward one view?

 

[IRstuff]

I don't think that it's ever a firm and fast threshold, but clearly, one MUST be reasonably practical at all times. There's not much point in inventing something that requires the use of unobtainium. However, no truly innovative invention only depended on existing and well known behaviors and properties. To wit, a phone-based GPS/nav would have been absurdly unimaginable to most engineers in 1983, which was us engineers at that time, but our secretary had that vision. Too bad I lost track of her to apologize for pooh-poohing her brilliant idea. In our defense, the largest computer memory capacity was on the order of 64 kB at the time, and the processors were 80286, which required a separate coprocessor to even do floating point math. No one at the time was even sure that Moore's Law could still continue, given that there was an expectation that IC line widths required x-ray lithography to advance further. X-ray lithography turned out to be a dead end, since most companies elected to slog on using deeper and deeper UV to achieve linewidths that grossly surpassed what industry experts had thought to be a hard barrier at 1 um. We're now pushing 1/100th of that supposed limit.

Claude Shannon thought that problem solutions would only happen when all the ducks were in line, which was certainly the case for GPS nav systems: a confluence of receiver technology, memory technology, processor technology, algorithmic advances, etc., results in 50+ channel receivers with 30-state Kalman filters producing position solutions that were unthinkable even 10 yrs ago. The flip side is that Einstein wasted the bulk of his career beating his head against the Unified Field Theory wall to no avail.

The bottom line is that innovation rarely follows any well-defined path, so pretty much anything goes. If everyone was only practical, nothing would get invented.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[geesamand]

The answer is you must be both.

When speaking to management it's best to not mention the list of practical obstacles to be overcome when a new idea is floated. (When it's necessary to discuss such matters, each obstacle should be mentioned with it's solution).

On the floor you must be a brutal realist. If you don't go out on the floor and see your designs being manufactured, assembled, or used, it's time to come out of the bubble and do so. At your desk be both.

 

[DRWeig]

Thank you IRstuff. You flicked on a memory in my mind.

My thoughts on the CivilTom's post: I firmly believe in Edison's "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."

Ideation, idealistic thinking, and even imagining absolutely unachievable goals got us where we are today. But each innovation took the ability to press one's nose to the grindstone for 99 percent of the actual development work. The 1 percent goes to the dreamer. The drudge work gets done if the dreamer's desire to make it happen is strong.

For those who have time to read it, the following helps me keep that in mind:

The evil college recruiter told us that the campus library had a new system called "Automated Research" that allowed instantaneous access to data, articles, and books on any topic. He also mentioned in passing that the engineering school had the most advanced computer system in America. It was the spring of 1975.

So a bunch of us naive high school seniors signed up. During lunch on the first day at college, several of us talked about the fancy high-tech stuff we were getting ready to experience. I will never forget a brand new civil engineering freshman say that he couldn't wait to get on the engineering system. "You can just enter 'Indianapolis 500' and it will spit out everything you ever wanted to know about that race, the racetrack, and its history. I bet that library system does it too."

On the second day, we had more free time. That civil fellow and a few of us EEs wandered to the library to check out this wonder. Just inside, we saw a strange-shaped device with a sign hanging above, "Automated Research System." It was a card catalog. It was cylindrical. By pushing the appropriate colored button ABC, DEF, GHI, etc..., the thing would whirl around and present you with the set of drawers that started with those letters. Then you thumbed through the same old file of index cards.

Disappointed, we invaded the engineering computer lab. There sat a big honking IBM 1130 with 4k RAM, console entry switches, and an array of card readers. My new CE buddy was embarrassed, but we all gave him solace. We had been excited too.

I think of that fellow every time I type something into Google today. He saw it almost 40 years ago. I heard he spent many years after college designing the same foundation over and over for different sites, but one day came up with an ahead-of-its-time prefab solution to a common problem that had plagued his colleagues for many decades. He retired young and still collects royalties on his method.

That crazy dreamer. We always thought he would come to no good, what with building castles in the air like that.

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

 

[zdas04]

"Idealist" vs. "Realist" is kind of a messy line to draw. I tend to draw the spectrum around "innovator" vs. "pragmatist". I find "idealist" to have the connotation of being "flighty" and "airy". I don't know many Engineers I would call "flighty". Those folks went into interior design.

True innovation is rare (having read several thousand granted patents preparing my own patent applications, I find that virtually all of the ones I reviewed were fairly small evolutionary steps and none were truly breakthroughs). Every job we do as Engineers has a mix of inspiration, innovation, and pragmatism (if a project needs unobtanium we'll tend to put it on the shelf for later consideration). In that mix, most things that an individual Engineer does in his career have a taste of inspiration, a small measure of innovation, and a ton of pragmatism. No one, and no activity is 100% at either end of the "idealism vs. realism" spectrum.

That being said I know Engineers who consider themselves to be "realists", they can quote codes and standards chapter and verse and when faced with a truly out of the box problem will start in the codes and standards to find what is "acceptable". I know a very few Engineers that don't seem to know for sure where "the box" is kept. These guys spit ball ideas (most of which are quite stupid, but often contain a grain of the final idea that is not stupid at all) and possible solutions until one seems to work then will go to the codes and standards to see if their approach can be squeaked through.

Most of the time when I see people (on eng-tips.com and in my consulting practice) who tend to be at the "realist" end they are the guys complaining about their remuneration, they are the guys who get laid off, they are the guys that struggle to find work. The guys at the "idealist" end are the ones that bust the salary curve, that cause standards to be changed, that tend to survive lay offs. I can point to a dozen or so of the second group and hundreds of the first. We all have a mix of attributes, but the people who are able (and willing) to think and to take risks (failure is part of the innovation cycle) will be held down by stupid managers (who won't ever fire them, but will keep them from ever competing for the boss job), but will always have a job, usually paying very well.

Managers positions are almost always held by "realists". That is the only viable path to financial success for a realist. Idealists often run projects and find that everyone they meet either takes an instant dislike to them or become incredibly loyal supporters. No one is ambivalent about an innovator.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

 

[ScottyUK]

It appears that I am at the idealist end of the spectrum. Now that I know I won't ever be a manager, I guess I'll have to be satisfied with telling them what to do instead...

 

[moon161]

I have worked at places that didn't work well with new ideas, and places that do. I prefer the latter. Engineering is also an art of the possible. If you want it to leave the drawing board, it helps to realize this.

 

[IRstuff]

David's posting is a direct lead-in to TRIZ, which is the system that Genrich Altshuller developed to systematically approach invention problems. As a patent examiner, he observed that there were specific avenues of change that resulted in new patents, and that there was possibly a systematic approach to invention that would maximize the possibility of finding an invention (solution) to a given problem. This resulted in TRIZ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ

Despite the half-century since TRIZ was initially developed, the jury is still out on its efficacy, but I think that the main issue is that people, by their own nature, are not systematic thinkers, and therefore do not systematically apply rules for solving problems. Also, while systematically approaching a problem allows one to cover the bases, the specific detail solution is still not obviously available. Even after identifying the specific mechanism, say, "translation in space," coming up with the actual solution is still not necessarily a simple task.

The TRIZ text gives an example of a problem of removing a statue from its pedestal without a crane and without damage. "Translation in space" was the eventual solution, but using blocks of ice as an elevator, while innovative, is not obvious, particularly if one has never seen actual blocks of ice big enough to do the job.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[TheTick]

Which is more important for mixing green paint: blue or yellow?

 

[Latexman]

Engineers should follow the data that yields the most profit!

Good luck,
Latexman

 

[macmet]

Tick, that is a great saying. Never heard that one before.

 

[truckandbus]

I guess it depends if you consider yourself an engineer, a tinkerer, or a research scientist. As an engineer, I’m expected to resolve specific problems at a reasonable cost – so you need to be a realist. If you can afford to fail over and over again and/or blow your budget and not lose your job – by all means be an idealist. I provided services to a company once who’s founder prided himself on developing a device that ‘the engineers said couldn’t be built’ – it took him years and years and multiple iterations but he did it. The same company would not have tolerated me taking even more than one kick at the cat to provide them with my product.

 

[CivilTom]

I guess I see my self as a 70% realist and 30% Idealist. I think its more important to be a realist for the same reasons truckandbus mentioned. As engineers we need to follow code, and for that reason we think inside the box. As a realist I think keeping a consistant cash flow and comfortable lifestyle is more acheivable. However to better ourselves and progress as engineers we need to be idealist as well. Im lucky to have a close cousin (electrical engineer) who I do alot of work with and is a mirrored image of me (70% idealist and 30% realist). The balance gives us an edge in future buisiness ideas we plan to do.

 

[stanier]

Do you just want to develop products for financial gain? What of the common good where society benefits? Richness isn't always associated with fortune. Your life can be rich and rewarding and yet you will not be a billionaire.

Money is the root of all evil.

If you spend your time looking to make a monetary fortune and then get diagnosed with untreatable cancer how will you feel?

“The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you.”
---B.B. King

http://waterhammer.hopout.com.au/

 

[CivilTom]

No, I am not only focused on financial gain... After completing my BSCE and receiving a decent salary I've already learned that money will come even if you arent chasing it. There are many other reasons (non money related) to create a company or product.

 

[IRstuff]

"What of the common good where society benefits?"

If society doesn't get any benefits from your product, they won't buy and you go out of business. There are things that arguably have no benefit, but the old adage, "Of what use is a rose," comes to mind. You cannot simply exist on a slurry of amino acids; taste and texture are pretty important too.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[truckandbus]

There is nothing wrong with being altruistic, but even the most generous non-profit would (or should) rather see something done for one dollar instead of ten dollars.

A good realist ought to be able to help more people than an idealist - may be the realists quantify the visions of the idealist?

 

[rconnor]

Although I admit it may only be partly relevant, I can't pass up an opportunity to quote Carl Sagan:

"We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact. The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths, of exquisite interrelationships, of the awesome machinery of nature."

To me, realism is required in your day-to-day work but it is important to never let your sense of wonder/imagination be completely sufficated by practicality. Imagination can also lead to the discovery of quicker, cheaper and simplier solutions. The value that engineers bring is in their creativity and innovation. If we were purely prescriptive problem solvers, we could be replaced by a decision flow chart.

We did not become engineers because we loved reading codes and standards or working on excel spreadsheets (although I seem to enjoy that much more than the average/normal person); we became engineers because we were intrigued by the unknown and motivated by the challenge of bringing those unknowns to light.

 

[Maui]

Rconnor, well said.

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com