Despite my personal fear of having to work on something he designed, Xyz is probably a good engineer.....
(Direct reference to member removed)
Whether directed at any specific engineer or the class of 'most engineers' the measurement 'a good engineer' is probably too loosely defined.
My personal career experience has involved managing many engineers - at a guess in the order of 100 under my line management. Could be more.
I found that those engineers fell into different categories of competence of which three broad groupings will serve for the point I would make here.
1) The bottom level is those 'technician engineers' who can input the data into the text book or practice manual formula, spread-sheet, computer program etc and follow the lock step laid down procedures to arrive at the right answers.
2) The middle level is those who can derive new approaches, a different way of dealing with the same problem OR an innovative way of dealing with a new problem;
3) the top level is that minority group who can reason through a complex multi factor situation such as the challenge of forensic engineering represented by the WTC1, 2 &7 collapses.
Most engineers fall into groups 1 and 2 PLUS the reality of their occupation is that most of the work they need to do falls into group one level. i.e. routine application of standard methods.
And, in the sort of work scenario most of them occupy, it is rare for shortcomings of those people who are limited to the reasoning skills level of 'Group 1' to be exposed without the protection of work colleagues noticing and helping them through their errors.
And, as a manager, I really appreciated the handful of level three types that passed through my oversight on their way to bigger things.
Two disclaimers are relevant:
A) The 'level of competence' is not a single factor - there are multiple aspects - I have only presented it as one factor for simplicity of explanation; AND
B) Naturally the same sort of issue applies in other professions - but this forum and these topics tend to expose the weaknesses of engineering reasoning skills. And related areas of reasoning by applied physicists.
So the question of 'is Xyz a "good Engineer"?' has, IMO, to be put in a context. The context being 'good for what?' I'm sure that most of the engineers we see posting outrageously 'out of their depth' on these WTC collapse level 3 topics would be perfectly 'good engineers' when engaged on routine predefined tasks. i.e. level one work. Possibly at 'level 2' work. But clearly lost on these WTC 9/11 collapse level three plus complexities.
And, final comment, just like the truism that we cannot see our own blind-spots, the level 1 engineers are almost certainly not able to comprehend either level 3 problems OR WTF I've just written.
Now go back over posts and ask 'Does the material posted by member "Pqr" demonstrate understanding at level 3 or 2 or 1?'
And smile at how I avoided MA problems by referring to the posted material - not the person who posts it.
