Olin College and the Future of Engineering

Richard K. Miller
"Future Synch"
October 16, 2001
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering

Welcome

It's great to see you all here. It is quite rare that we assemble the entire College community together, as you know, but we have planned to do this twice a year around "important conversations."

The topic for our important conversation for the next two days centers on planning for the future. All of us need to set aside some time periodically to make plans-to assess where we are, what opportunities and challenges we face, and think deliberately about our future in preparation for making decisions. In particular, we plan to talk about where the field of engineering is headed, what a career in engineering might be like, and what some of the possibilities are for our graduates. This is an appropriate time for such a topic for several reasons. These include the need those of you who are students to visualize your future and think about the learning opportunities you have here at Olin as preparation. In addition, it provides a convenient time for those of us on the faculty and staff to consider-or reconsider-how our academic program will best meet the needs of students.

The list of speakers and topics for this event is quite broad, and includes some excellent people from both inside and outside of Olin College. I expect we will all learn a lot from these different perspectives. I want to thank Dr. Sherra Kerns and the entire Future Sync committee for their effort in putting together what promises to be an important conversation-the first of what I expect will become a series in our College.

Historical Perspective

It might be appropriate to begin by considering some of the changes in the engineering profession in the last two decades that led to the call for reform in engineering education. The call for reform, in turn, led to the creation of Olin College by the F.W. Olin Foundation.

Since the end of the Cold War, the practice of engineering has changed significantly. To deliberately over-simplify for the purpose of clarity, before the end of the war, the defense department was a major consumer of engineering talent. Many high tech companies had one primary client-the federal government. So, marketing efforts were not focused on the consumers in the way that they are today. In addition, the technical challenges that attracted many engineering students were focused solely on high technology. They were exciting and grand, but limited in scope. These challenges included such tasks as putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade-no matter what the cost. "Just do it if it's possible" was the request. And do it quickly-we needed to beat the Russians. Since we were not planning to manufacture large quantities of such spacecraft or sell them widely, manufacturing and marketing-or business considerations generally-were not very important by today's standards. Furthermore, since the technology was highly confidential, it was a disadvantage for a company to have business relationships with foreigners. Security was the principle objective, and this meant keeping important ideas protected from foreigners by avoiding unnecessary business interactions with them. Finally, technical companies were often organized internally with "silos" in which engineers worked only with other engineers-usually with exactly the same technical degrees. This situation minimized the need of engineers to understand the perspective of others not exactly like them, and also minimized the importance of a global perspective or understanding of other cultures.

When the Cold War ended, many things changed. A simple story that illustrates this well is that of the development of the Boeing 777 aircraft. Again to oversimplify a little for clarity in the time we have available, Boeing predicted a shift away from defense and toward commercial aircraft in their business. In order to beat the competition in designing and building the next generation of jetliner, Boeing took a bold step. It invested heavily in new computer simulation technology so accurate that it is capable not only of designing but also simulating the behavior of a complete jetliner. This cost them nearly everything they had, and it was a huge risk. But the potential benefits were also huge. The software eliminated the need to cut metal to test prototypes before finalizing the design. Such hardware tests are very costly and cause a lot of delays in the design process. Then, they partnered with foreign firms in Asia and Europe, so they could download their daily progress over the Internet to a partner on another continent at the end of the day. The partner was just beginning the workday at their location, so they were able to work essentially continuously-24 hour a day-without shutting down at night. The result was amazing. They finished the design of the 777 in a small fraction of the time-and at far less cost-than their competitors. As a result, Boeing now owns McDonnell Douglas. In fact, today, if you do not have international partners or advanced simulation technology, you are not even in the game in the commercial aircraft business.

In the process of pioneering this new way of doing business, Boeing learned many lessons. In particular, they learned that their engineering workforce was not well prepared to work in this new way. Many other companies have also learned this lesson, and have been calling for changes in the education of engineers.

Boeing has been a leading voice in this call for reform. Their list of proposed changes mirrors those called for by the National Science Foundation and many other businesses. They include better teamwork and communication skills, and familiarity with basic business principles. They found that to be successful in this new way of doing business, engineers needed to be able to work well on teams with real diversity-including diversity of functional responsibility (since engineers no longer work in silos with only engineers on projects), and also foreign cultures. They also reported that for their purposes, all engineering graduates they hired were essentially over-qualified in technical subjects for the type of work they were asked to do, but badly uneducated in other important areas, like the nature of business, and also in the ability to communicate effectively with others. Also, they found that in many cases, young engineers were not familiar with the design process or with manufacturing.

One of our hopes at Olin College is that our graduates will be better prepared to work together in multidisciplinary teams, to communicate effectively to many other groups, and to lead creative design activities. Of course, we plan for our educational program to also provide a solid foundation in the basics of science and mathematics as well.

ABET Criteria for All Accredited Engineering Programs

The changes proposed by Boeing and others have found their way into the accreditation criteria recently adopted by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in their "Criteria 2000." The following list of basic ABET requirements for all engineering programs provides a definition of the expected competencies of all engineers in the US at this time:

• An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
• An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
• An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
• An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
• An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
• An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
• An ability to communicate effectively
• The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context
• A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
• A knowledge of contemporary issues
• An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice
• Of the 11 criteria listed by ABET, it is significant that 6 of them-over half-relate to the non-technical abilities of engineers. I believe there is an important message here.
• What does it take to succeed in an engineering career today?

"...here is the process that usually leads to our identifying potential successful leaders...First and foremost, it starts early in the career path of the [engineer] with technical competence. We sometimes make the mistake of believing that an engineer who is very good technically makes a good leader. This is not always the case. Yet the first promotions are based more on technical ability than other factors. The first level of promotion is to go from a discipline lead on a project to a project manager. Usually, the discipline lead who has always performed on schedule and met his/her budget gets the nod. To be successful as a project manager, this individual needs to have good organizational ability, team building skills, client management skills and definitely good business acumen. Success at this level is based on successfully completing the projects assigned on schedule, within budget and to the satisfaction of our clients. As a private business, there is a strong correlation between financial success and project manager performance. Although not the primary evaluation factor, a project manager performs well only if we do not lose money on the aggregate of the engagements managed (not just one project) and that we have satisfied clients. This will not happen if people skills and business skills are lacking.

From the group of successful project managers, we look for line managers who start out as Department Heads, and progressively move up as Group Heads, Regional Managers and President of the firm. Not all successful project managers make good line managers. Supervisory leadership requires more team building, motivating the staff and taking a strong position with subordinates when needed and leading by example. Many of our engineers are poor supervisors who do not communicate well and are not willing to make appropriate decisions when they need to do so. The higher in the line organization the position is, the more there needs to be a good balance between internal and external relationship building. Bottom line, growing the business becomes the standard yardstick of measure..."

End of quote. Well, it is clear from this very detailed picture of career advancement in a contemporary engineering firm that communication and people skills as well as an understanding of basic business principles are essential to career advancement. Essentially every corporate CEO or chief technology officer I have met for the last 10 years has urged that we do all we can to provide better preparation for these aspects of engineering practice.

I think there are several points here. One is that without a solid technical background, an engineer will never get that first job in industry. Our first job-and our students' first priority-is to obtain an excellent understanding of the technical fundamentals that form the foundation of engineering. That is implicit, and should need no special emphasis from me. Our current curriculum appears to be well focused on providing that foundation, in my opinion.

But, technical competence alone will not provide for the career advancement that most Olin graduates will seek. Communication, people skills, and a basic understanding of business will also be required. Although we do not have a lot of time specifically dedicated to these topics in our curriculum, we are attempting to weave this in to technical courses, projects, AHS courses and Passionate Pursuits wherever we can.

Since communication skills has topped the list of needed improvements in engineering education for nearly 50 years, it may not be well understood, and therefore is probably worth a few additional comments. As I talk with industry leaders, I get the strong impression that they mean much more by this than being able to write an effective business letter or lab report. It certainly includes writing of all types, as well as oral communication, visual communication, and also listening. But more importantly, the type of communication I hear about involves looking people in the eyes and answering questions openly, communicating and gaining trust, persuading without pressure, and establishing lasting relationships. This has a clear dimension of attitude and personality, as well as values and good judgment. It includes knowing that preserving relationships may be more important than being right in every instance. Knowing how to be honest in your criticism without coming across as disrespectful is an extremely important communication skill-especially for building and preserving teamwork. Some important suggestions I hear frequently include: always postpone any judgment until after you have listened to both sides; use praise and criticism in equal measure; and especially, never attribute to malice that which could possibly be attributed instead to carelessness, oversight, or even incompetence or ignorance. People are nearly always deeply distressed and they rarely forget when they have been accused of being dishonest or deceitful. When I have been thoughtful enough to use them in my own dealings, I have always found them highly useful in building teamwork.

Besides experiences here at the College, internships and work experience may provide extremely valuable opportunities to build these important people skills. I would encourage all of our students to consider opportunities to obtain practical experience-preferably in an engineering workplace. Spending some time in this very different environment can be highly educational, if you learn to be very observant.

*I learned a great deal from two internship experiences I had as an undergraduate. (1) bridge engineer, and (2) site determination for landfill.

What will be the most important new technologies in the next 20 years?

In planning an engineering career for the next several decades, it is natural to look to the future and do your best to obtain a solid preparation in those technologies that will become the most important. It happens that I am currently serving on an advisory committee at the National Science Foundation that is charged with identifying the research topics most likely to play a leading role in the future. (In fact, I must leave before noon today to attend the next meeting of this committee, and I will miss the rest of Future Sync as a result.) Some of the emerging research areas of great promise include Biocomplexity in the Environment, Nanoscale Science and Engineering, and Information Technology. Some important but slightly more mature technologies include Bioinformatics and Bioengineering, Advanced Materials, Processing, and Design. These themes have many sub-components, and are extensive in the number and size of research teams involved across the country. A very new development is a line of research aimed at enhancing Homeland Security.

The faculty we have attracted here at Olin College are exceptionally well prepared in their technical disciplines, and I will not attempt here to go into details in these or other emerging research areas. I assume others will do that later in this meeting.

A natural question in planning a future career is which one of these emerging topics will become important in the future? How important is it to identify the right one? How can you be sure the one you have chosen has a bright future?

While I think it is important to obtain a broad foundation in the fundamentals of emerging research themes, it is not possible to know for sure which if any of these new areas will become and remain important in industry. It is probably more important to learn how to engage in research in a new and emerging field that is unfamiliar to you. That skill is undoubtedly going to be useful for entire career, no matter what emerging research area turns out to be most important.

A brief illustration from my own career might be helpful here. When I was an undergraduate, it was widely assumed that nuclear energy would soon replace petroleum as the primary source of energy on the planet, and everyone believed that space would quickly become an important commercial frontier. Nuclear power plants were being constructed across the country, and we had recently put a man on the moon. Arthur C. Clark's movie, 2001-A Space Odyssey, was so convincing-with images of a PanAm cruiser taking tourists into space, and American astronauts in route to Mars. As a result, all undergraduate engineers were required to take at least one course in modern physics so they could at least read the literature in nuclear technology. In addition, aerospace engineering was regarded as the safest major on campus for anyone wanting to assure his or her future in a high technology company.

Of course, both of these impressions turned out to be wrong. Nuclear energy is still an illusive dream-and nuclear engineering departments have largely been eliminated from schools of engineering since careers in this area are quite limited. In addition, shortly after the movie, aerospace engineers were driving taxicabs in Los Angeles as the aerospace industry collapsed. Many schools merged aerospace engineering departments with more robust and general programs in mechanical engineering.

The moral is that even the brightest minds are not capable of predicting which technologies will become the most important. In fact, history has shown that many of the most important technical innovations have come from small businesses or independent inventors, without support from the major research labs and universities. Hence, it may be wisest not to make career decisions based on estimates of the future technologies. Instead, for students as talented and capable as you, I would recommend pursuing those topics that truly fascinate you. Topics that have the power to hold your interest, in spite of a lack of obvious career potential, may well provide a lifetime of inspiration for you. You are likely to do your best work on topics that are of deep personal interest to you. And if you do your best work-given your talent and drive-I have to believe there is almost certainly going to be successful career waiting for you. Those who are excellent at what they do-almost independent of what that is-are almost always in demand. Concentrate on selecting topics that you are both deeply interested in and also very good at, and you are most likely to succeed.

What if you are unsure whether a career in engineering is right for you?

Some students may have so many strong interests that it is unclear whether a career in engineering practice is the right choice for them. They may be good at math and science, and they may enjoy project work, but they may also have equally strong ambitions. One worry in this case is whether an engineering degree might limit later career options if it turns out that an engineering career is not the desired end result.

In most cases, I believe an engineering undergraduate degree provides an excellent base from which to explore other careers. It certainly provides a strong foundation in math, science, problem solving and quantitative reasoning. It also provides a solid exposure to non-technical subjects, even though the time for depth of study in specific subjects may be limited. It has been argued that an engineering undergraduate degree may provide the best possible "liberal arts" degree for the 21st century, since it provides a deep exposure to the laws of nature as well as an unmatched understanding of the man-made world and its limitations. Such an understanding will become ever more important for public policy decisions and citizenship in general. Engineering graduates should be able to read a book on the second law of thermodynamics and also on Shakespeare, whereas most liberal arts graduates find literature in the nature sciences beyond their reach.

Many engineering graduates from other schools have found that their preparation has provided an excellent starting point for a career in medicine, law, business, public service, or even the arts. Our intention here at Olin College is that your undergraduate degree should open doors for you rather than close them. Your preparation should provide a broad background and enable you to pursue many different career directions. Of course, this will have to be within the limitations of the requirements for an engineering degree, and within our available resources. Much of this remains to be designed and completed here-but you have the opportunity to help us identify priorities in these areas, and build the degree program in the next few years. We all look forward to helping you define your career objectives and develop a program that meets your goals.

I hope this conversation has been useful, and I expect the perspectives of the faculty and guests will add greatly to the discussion. Thank you.