While in Portugal, Dan and I happened to bring and read the same book, Kim Vicente’s The Human Factor. It turned into a bit of a humorous rivalry as to who was reading faster and who was going to finish first, but we ended up finishing nearly at the same time (Dan did beat me).

It was quite an exciting “last hundred metres,” as the book improved significantly and hit home for both of us when it shifted to discussing engineering education. Vicente really hit the nail on the head about where engineering schools need to head in the future to produce engineers that design technology with an affinity for human nature, helping to improve our quality of life in an increasingly technological world by reducing the “bad fit” that often exists between people and technology.

It’s quite encouraging, so I wanted to share it with everyone. There it is below, in all its glory. And no, I didn’t type it out.

From Kim Vicente’s The Human Factor, Random House Publishing, pp. 302-305:

Finally, universities can also contribute by taking a critical look at technical education. Since I’m an engineering professor, I’ll concentrate on engineering education. Most designers focus on technology because engineering curricula are largely still based on a Mechanistic world view. Students learn about thermodynamics, materials science, calculus, linear algebra, chemistry, physics, electrical circuits. All these topics are important; our planes wouldn’t fly and our bridges wouldn’t stand without them. But, as I’ve tried to show, these skills aren’t enough any more. The Human-tech Revolution doesn’t do away with the need for technical competence; designing to fit the physical world is critical. It just asks that we go beyond technical excellence, that we look at the interaction between people and technology. And, surprising as it may be, most engineering students are never taught to do that. They graduate without having taken a single course in designing for people. They join the workforce without being skilled in Human-tech thinking. They live in a Mechanistic world where they literally can’t see incompatibilities between people and technology. The best and the brightest may overcome these educational deficiencies and learn the value of Human-tech thinking from practical experience, but most don’t. And they wind up designing very impressive technical widgets that most people use with difficulty, if at all.

The impact of educational change is slow, but all engineers need to know that it’s possible to design technology that has an affinity with human nature. They need to know that there are systematic methods for achieving that goal, and that those methods have been proven to make a difference. They need to know the tremendous negative consequences of focusing on technical details alone. Mind you, that doesn’t mean that all engineers should become Human-tech experts. That’s not realistic, nor desirable for that matter. But they do need to know that attention to the interaction between people and technology is a crucial part of good design and that there are experts who specialize in that area.

It doesn’t take much, actually. For example, almost every engineering undergraduate is required to take one course in engineering economic analysis. That doesn’t make these students expert accountants or economists; specialists will always be needed. But taking the course exposes students to the relevance of economic factors to project management, and engineers are required to take it because, no matter what the industry, every engineering project has a budget: you simply can’t avoid economic considerations. The very same argument applies to the human factor: every engineering project involves interaction between technology and people somewhere along the way. Yet there’s currently no requirement that I know of for all engineers to be exposed to these considerations.

I also believe that, in the long run, making this kind of change to engineering education would result in tremendous — possibly surprising — benefits. Right now, engineering tends to attract people who are born Mechanistic thinkers — technologically clever, but somewhat narrow in their interests. Most of them are men. A lot of students who are just as good at the technical details but also have broad interests don’t go into engineering, or if they do, don’t stick with it, because they think it will be boring to spend four years taking only math, science and technical courses. These students are at least as bright as the ones who do currently go into and stay in engineering. They too have excellent high school grades, especially in maths and sciences. But they have wide interests. They can write a proper English sentence. They can speak clearly and convincingly. They’re heavily involved in extracurricular activities. They have good people skills. They read newspapers. They’re leaders. They want to learn about history, psychology, politics, sociology and other courses that don’t currently have a place in the rigid and overly prescriptive engineering curricula. These students — ones that we’re currently losing to other disciplines — would make outstanding engineers and precious leaders in society. They’re born Human-tech thinkers. Many of them are women.

By putting more emphasis on Human-tech thinking we would be graduating better engineers. Technical skills are essential, sure, but many of society’s problems demand a broader view, and many of the students we graduate are ill prepared for the challenges that await them. They wind up perpetuating rather than solving our societal problems. And the students who bypass engineering and become leaders often don’t have the knowledge or the skills they need to tackle society’s important problems — many of which are technological in nature, given the degree to which technology is becoming central to so many critical sectors, and not just at the physical level, but at the level of organizations and political systems too. Most people in leadership positions in government, for instance, have no technical background at all; many are graduates of law, politics or business. (Can you name one prominent politician who has an engineering degree? Answer: Jimmy Carter.) Today’s leaders find their way into positions of power and influence because they have a good sense of history, context, people and organizations — knowledge that is absolutely essential in making public policy decisions. But it’s clear that many of society’s problems today also require a knowledge of technology. Do you think that politicians without any technical knowledge are in the best position to make life-critical decisions about the safety of our water, for instance, let alone nuclear or environmental decisions? Society needs a new breed of leader — one that is as comfortable with differential equations and computers as with human psychology and politics.

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 21st, 2005 at 4:33 am and is filed under As Found Elsewhere, Literary Pursuits, School. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.