The Fuzzy Engineer

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less travelled by and that has made all the difference” is the favourite quote that inspired me always. Many years back, when we took a software oriented career, we perhaps thought we were taking the road less travelled. Soon we found that the road was getting crowded. All people around us (and we too) were speeding in a hurry, overtaking each other, changing lane, jumping signals and many times causing accidents! One confusion prevailed among our software community though- if they are an absolute engineer or just a shade of an engineer.

One of my fellow travellers said it is indeed an interesting thought. He, having researched in mathematics, proudly called the shade of an engineer as a fuzzy engineer (citation: L.A. Zadeh ,on “Fuzzy sets”, Inf. Control 8, 338-353, 1965 ). He explained that the degree to which an engineer is an engineer varies. i.e., the membership with which a baccalaureate engineer belongs to the practice of engineering varies from 0-1. I quickly observed that it is easy to define the ideal engineer whose fuzziness is zero (membership=1) as per the following criteria issued by ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology):

• Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
• Ability to design and conduct experiments as well as to analyze and interpret data
• Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
• Ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
• Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
• Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
• Ability to communicate effectively
• Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering  Solutions in a global and societal context
• Understanding of the need for and ability to engage in lifelong learning
• Knowledge of contemporary issues
• Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tool necessary for engineering practice

My software friend puzzled me by asking if I could help him to identify what his membership is. He described himself, “I have the knowledge (but may not be able to apply with out help); I have the ability to design but may not be willing to conduct experiments and am finding it difficult to interpret data. I have the ability to design a component but I always can’t differentiate a component and a system. Single disciplinary team work itself is difficult; so am not willing to be part of a multidisciplinary team. I understand professional and ethical responsibilities but nobody ever taught me to follow it always. My understanding of communication is only to the extent of knowing the language; am yet to learn that oral, writing, listening and graphic skills are required to communicate effectively. I know learning is important but believe continual learning is a nuisance. I am living as if I am never going to die and I may have to die as if I have never lived; so contemporary issues are nonexistent for me. But I know many tools well and of course I come with a high price tag.”

He paused and looked at me with hope. What is his engineering membership?; I did not answer but gave a fuzzy smile. May be you could! Is it worthwhile to search another road that is less travelled?

Comments

[Patricia Kelly]

I appreciated the honesty and insights of this posting which highlights the gaps between skill sets and the ability to apply them. Having a "skill" does not mean understanding or integrating those skills so that they become part of your approach to life.
It is time to retire "Fuzzy" from engineering discourse since it only has negative connotations
Blurred
Indistinct
Fluffy
In fact the skills and attributes labelled 'fuzzy' are essential skills for engineers working in complex, intercultural, local and global environments.
Communication can be as much as 80% of a professional engineer's time, so it is worthwhile valuing it and teaching it.
Scott and Yates (2002) reported that successful engineering graduates rated the ability to contribute positively to team-based projects as” the most important of 49 possible reasons for their success” (in Willey & Freeman, 2006, p.2).
My experience teaching engineers showed me that engineers want to be good communicators but often need support to improve.

Also, the profession they value doesn't overtly value these skills and abilities so engineers feel that they have to adopt a dismissive attitude to anything that might mark them as "soft".

If we are to survive this century, we need engineers with the qualities of a "globo sapiens" professionals who are also wise global citizens, aware of their responsiblities for their work and its impact on communities and the planet. One of the most important of these qualities is "courage". I thought Johnson's posting reflected this.