> home
> About
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> IEEE-USA

If an engineering project is very large and/or complex, was costly to produce and deploy, is expensive to maintain, and has been operating successfully without failure, does it follow that, inevitabley, something bad will happen? In the case of the BP oil rig disaster, it did.

Faced with a design challenge, whether it be to refine an existing product or system or to meet some ambitious new demand, the usual procedure is to itemize the desired new design features—that is, the “needs” and the “wants.”

Don Christiansen recently received the news that he has been waiting for: It turns out that when technology goes bad, it may not be the fault of engineers after all — or even of technology’s users.

“If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.” So goes the popular paraphrase of John Whitcomb Riley's classic quotation. But what was very likely true in days of yore is not necessarily the case in the oxymoronic world of virtual reality.

Don Christiansen peruses some of the popular "A-Lists" in search of renowned engineers and innovators. While some are represented, you might be surprised at some of the notable omissions.

An NAE study initiated in 2006 concluded that “offshoring appears to have contributed to the competitive advantage of U-S.-based firms in a variety of industries, and the negative impacts of offshoring on U.S. engineering appear to have been relatively modest to date.” However, the study did note severe impacts in some industry sectors and for some jobs.

Today's ECE students might equate the term “digital systems” only to modern electronic digital systems based on binary integrated circuits. (So might many veteran engineers!) Historically, of course, digital systems in the broadest sense included a variety of items having information represented in discrete states.

Defenders of proper English are concerned about the effects of communicating via the Internet. Some decry the attempts to “squeeze a short novel” into 140 characters through the use of mashed grammar, creative misspelling, and a plethora of awkward abbreviations. But a glance into history yields some interesting precursors to the tweeting phenomenon.

It seems that everyone born with a computer in his or her crib (“digital natives” or DNs) differs from those of us who were not (“digital immigrants” or DIs). Their brains develop in a different way. The way they learn is different. The jury is still out as to whether this is good or bad.

Creative inspiration comes in many forms. For Don Christiansen, ideas often spring forth from his "parts box" of clippings, articles and partially written columns. Do you have a parts box? And what do you keep in it?

The symbolism of engineering has evolved as engineering design has gotten more complex and abstract.

Can the fruits of engineers’ labors be considered art? What of those of electrical engineers in particular?

n theory, globalization is supposed to equalize global wages and raise the global standard of living. Everyone is supposed to benefit. So, what's the problem?

The engineer’s work environment is not what it used to be. Many who began their careers in the mid-20th century did not work from a cubicle and none had a computer workstation. If they had a desk, it was often shared. In the case of U.S. engineers, they had little or no contact with the vendors, customers or other engineers outside the United States.

Backscatter author Donald Christiansen has compiled some of his earliest, thought- provoking columns in a new IEEE-USA e-book, , The Best of Backscatter from Today’s Engineer – Volume1. Here's a brief review.

His name was Nipper. He was — and still is — known as the RCA dog. Not a talking dog nor a singing dog, his fame came from listening. Yes, he was a real dog!

Don Christiansen wonders about young engineers' knowledge of the history of our own profession. Consider the once ubiquitous vacuum tube. How many under-40 engineers are aware of the origins of the thermionic vacuum tube or of its importance during its halcyon years?

Early adopters are valuable to those who introduce innovative high-tech products. These early customers may be either individuals or corporations. It is estimated that perhaps 10 to15 percent of the individual purchasers of a product fall into the early-adopter category.

Engineers have been known to grouse that while pop stars and sports figures get lots of attention, engineers labor in the shadows, and, like Rodney Dangerfield, “don’t get no respect.”

Remember the board game King Chip? Or the Macintosh XL (aka Lisa)? Or PC Jr.? Don Christiansen revisits some of the technologies and technology predictions of the mid-1980s to explore the veracity of the law of engineering obsolescence.

OK, so engineers don’t glad-hand as many strangers as would a politician. And at technical meetings, we're likely to seek out colleagues in our own fields and neglect others. But does that make us nerds?

Do engineers consider ethics in engineering practice unworthy of discussion? Superfluous? A waste of time? Boring? Don Christiansen isn't sure…

Oh, for the good old days when your neighbor knew exactly what you did when you told him you were an electrical engineer! The mid-century EE was either a power engineer or a communications (electronics) engineer. No matter. You could be either, and your neighbor was confident you would fix his TV when it acted up.

When Don Christiansen first conceived of the micromouse competition in 1977, he had no idea that 30 years later, the competition would still be going strong.

Don Christiansen addresses some of the numerous responses we received to his column “Math . . . What Good Is It?,” in which he noted the difficulty in interesting U.S. K-12 students in mathematics.

Engineers don’t write well, we are told. O.K., so maybe the first step is not writing badly. Writing well may follow. Don Christiansen looks at some positively dreadful writing (not from engineers, mind you) and some compelling passages (from science and engineering writers), and wonders if engineers really deserve the criticism.

Part of the success of the Internet is its largely unfettered access and its adaptability to many modes of information transfer. But most information technology gurus agree that it is this unrestrained accessibility that leads to questionable content and decreases the efficiency of online research by scientists, academicians, and other serious users.

This seems to be the question that many elementary school kids are asking. A teaching system that cannot answer them is often blamed for losing future engineers and scientists who, at this youthful stage, may be mathematically adept but uninterested in pursuing math studies because they cannot imagine any useful way to apply what they might learn.

"Nearly all recent surveys of science and mathematics curricula in our secondary schools paint a picture of gloom and doom. A cross section of high school curricula and faculty taken across the United States reveals a lack of consistency in both the number and quality of courses." That was written 20 years ago and is still pertinent today.

Most experienced engineers agree that having a good boss is one of the most important aspects of one’s job. Your boss can serve not only as a professional colleague, mentor and leader, but often as a shield from the whims of an oppressive bureaucracy. But, how do you find a good one?

When it comes to specialized parts for products designed and developed in house, some firms opt to make their own. Many, however, choose to outsource the job — which increasingly means sending manufacturing and even engineering jobs overseas.

Sometimes we develop a nostalgic fondness for a building we used to work in, a ship we used to sail on, or some other place where we spent a good deal of time. Perhaps it's a fascination with the history of technology, industrial archaeology and the preservation of artifacts that brings our attention back to it... or perhaps it's something more.

The standard line goes like this: Engineers are interested only in furthering technical capabilities and improving the performance of our designs. We don’t have much concern for how our resultant systems will be used in the real world. Or whether our efforts will contribute to the betterment of society, as compared to merely bringing more dollars to the bottom line. But we have traditionally countered with the argument that once a technical development is successful, its applications cannot be limited — for better or worse — by its creators.

Notwithstanding a generally good reputation, business schools are coming under criticism, not only from employers of their graduates, but also from some of the business school leaders themselves.

Some of the very early formulators of electrical science, like Volta and Ampere, were given what is perhaps the highest individual accolade — having electrical units named for them. Today, however, with the proliferation of teams and work done in parallel, assigning credit to one individual for a particular technical development is harder than it used to be.

Why is it that engineers and marketing people so often discount the advantages of talking to one another? Sometimes the relationship between engineering and marketing becomes downright adversarial and, no surprise, counterproductive. Social scientists have earned Ph.D.s studying the phenomenon.

An engineering career can provide excitement and even drama. But how can we convince young people who might be considering a degree in engineering that the profession is every bit as interesting and exciting as we believe it to be?

Engineering is everywhere, but rarely is it the central premise of mainstream television programs or major motion pictures. Sure, there have been a few exceptions, but most of the efforts, as IEEE Spectrum noted several years ago, have ranged from comical to “good try.” So, why isn’t there a television show about engineers?

Unless we have the latest version of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) program, we're considered technically disadvantaged..."My iPod can do more than yours" is an acceptable boast...As agents of change, engineers lay the foundations for disenchantment with the old, while helping popularize the new...

Deciding which technologies will be successful — and how and when they will be incorporated into commercially viable products — is a daunting challenge for corporations. They often call upon technology forecasting to help them “pick a winner.” Just how accurate are such forecasts?

It seems many of today’s sleek and sophisticated but user-unfriendly consumer products, which feature black knobs and pushbuttons on black cabinetry and housings have been designed by artists hoping to win prestigious design awards. Miniscule icons imprinted on or near the controls in dishwater gray do little to help. Where are the engineers who designed the sophisticated stuff that’s inside? And who represents the customer?

Estimating the number of pages being added daily to the Internet to be between five and 10 million, are we becoming swamped with information we can’t process? How can we find good content without getting “caught in the Web?”

Many technical articles now include references to Internet addresses, as opposed to hard-copy resources. In one study, 108 of 184 Internet addresses became inactive within four years.

Most of us probably have our own personal collections of e-waste: “dated” computers, thermal fax machines, older-model CD players and cell phones, VCRs. We can credit “planned obsolescence” at least partially for these collections. And now that we have the newest, the fastest, the latest bells and whistles, what do we do with the growing pile of yesterday’s latest and greatest?

Why do systems fail when they shouldn't? Is it because designers are not aware of preceding failures, or because they are willing to accept the risks based on prior successes?

To the neophyte, peer review might seem a jungle; to others, it’s a familiar hurdle to overcome in the quest to get papers published. How does it work; who’s involved; and how will you know whether or not your peers judged your work impartially?

Engineers have always had an inherent desire to control their work — and the way society uses it. Are we in charge? Do we really need to be?

It seems there are more reasons than ever to hold more meetings. Is there a way to have fewer meetings? Could it make us more productive?

If patents are used as a measure of engineering accomplishment, and if we accept the fact that most engineers never receive patents, does this imply that most of us are not inventive?

The engineering teamwork concept of today is far-removed from the individualistic and independent environment enjoyed by engineering's pioneers. Could it be that we need a bit of both? Should we nurture the "lone wolf" in each of us?

Engineers' technical decisions don't always jibe with management's business decisions. So, where does the line get drawn between professional ethics and sound business tactics? Former Spectrum editor Don Christiansen delves deeper…

Yesterday's engineers in-the-making had plenty of opportunity to experience hands-on engineering. But today's playing and experimenting environment is ready made. How do today's youngsters develop an interest in and understanding of the profession, and what can we do to help?

Employers' requests for engineers who can become productive more quickly led the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) to devise new outcome-based criteria for all college engineering programs. So, how are the schools doing?