Nature of Engineering Design

Often people call engineering as one discipline, but it consists of multiple sub-majors, and the each major has distinct characteristic natures. Ethnologists Latour and Woolgar (1986) described engineering tasks as follows:

“One area of the laboratory contains various items, apparatus (section A), while the other contains only books, dictionaries, and papers (section B)” (p. 45).

Engineers in section A are in charge of cutting, sewing, mixing, shaking, screwing, and making. On the other hand, the engineers in section B wear white coats and spend long periods of time at their desks. We understand the two engineering sections as one profession; however, their “engineer” tasks are very different. Each engineer has different working styles, which might be rooted in their different educational history or job experiences. The divergent nature of engineering makes difficult to study the engineering design process in and of itself.

Koen (2003) argued that engineering problems feature the characteristics of change, resource, best, and uncertainty. The change feature is explained by the argument that “engineers cause change” (p. 11). Engineers continually deal with various changes during their problem-solving. As noted in the definition of engineering, engineering solves problems under certain constraints and given resources. Design problems explicitly or implicitly contain criteria and constraints that limit the boundaries of problem-solving. Engineers also solve design problems to the best of their ability. There is no definitively right solution to a design problem. Engineers make decisions that influence the next phase of their problem-solving. Lastly, engineering problems are uncertain. Real-world engineering problems lack clear definitions. When solving a problem, engineers often begin by framing the boundary problem-solving in order to define the problem (Buchana, 1992).

Engineering design is a social process. Bucciarelli (2003) described its social nature as

“a process which engages different individuals, each with different ways of seeing the object of design but yet individuals who in collaboration, one with another, must work together” (p. 9).

This quote emphasizes the sociotechnical aspect of engineering design. Engineers work as a team on most design projects. Engineers work with other individuals who have different experiences, cultures, and interests. The sociotechnical aspect can be extended to the client side. Engineers communicate with their clients via design outcomes. When an engineer designs a solution to address the problem, the client may understand the intention of the design in his or her own way. The sociotechnical nature of engineering is a distinct feature of engineering design.

Henry Petrosky (1992; 2006) mentioned that the nature of the failure is imperative to engineering. He noted that the first goal of engineering is to avoid failures; necessarily, engineers experience various failures throughout the design stages. Over the course of engineering history, engineers have accumulated significant knowledge and experiences. However, one cannot deny that most of this knowledge was acquired through engineers’ failures and efforts to overcome them. Bucciarelli (2003) also noted that engineers should be tolerant of failure because engineers cannot fully control how the process of engineering actually works.

0

0