User talk:Er Ratnesh Pandit

Ratnesh Pandit Introduction The essence of engineering is design. This article examines the relationship between engineers and society, and engineers' professional responsibilities given that relationship. This examination is particularly important for engineers in the execution of their professional responsibilities, and for students preparing to enter fields of engineering. A review of the literature yields a series of discussions on the definition of an engineer, descriptions of the design process, and of "what engineers do" (3-6). Articles and books also explore topics such as the professional ethics of engineering and legal aspects of engineering (7, 8, 9). Recently, Davis presented a useful historical perspective of engineering ethics (10). Yet, differences exist as to what engineers do (e.g. Spier (11) vs. Koen (3) ). This article examines relationships between engineers and society, and though it touches on topics relevant to the definition of engineering, it does not attempt to develop a new definition. The Role of Engineering in Society: Engineering Design Some will say that I'm an academic and that I'm supposed to be a scientist, but I have this craving to be an engineer. Waldron (12) The National Research Council recently recognized the need for improvement in both engineering design and engineering design education (13). Although there are numerous articles on engineering design (14-18), we will concentrate on the interaction between engineers and society. One of the first sources of confusion, particularly among those who are not engineers or scientists, is the distinction between science and engineering (10). The primary role of science is to develop knowledge and understanding of the physical universe (11). As pointed out by Davis (10) and others, an important distinction is that this pursuit of knowledge (science) may occur largely without regard to societal need (or to societal implications). The direction of scientific research has been described by some as curiosity-based research which is not necessarily driven by the values of society. Societal values (and resulting priorities) do not necessarily define the bounds, direction or scope of scientific curiosity. * This is not a criticism of science, for such is the nature of "inquiring." Furthermore, it is often not possible to determine relevance of a particular field of scientific inquiry to the future needs of society. * Given this curiosity-driven process, the base of scientific knowledge about the physical universe may be represented by an amoebae-like structure uneven in its extent in the various directions with current scientific research efforts acting to extend its coverage (fig. 1). Figure 1. The utilization of scientific knowledge over time establishes that some of the knowledge is immediately relevant to societal needs while other parts are less immediately relevant (society may never realize the relevance of a particular scientific inquiry). While the congruence of societal need with scientific knowledge is much more complex than indicated in this article, it may be represented for the purpose of this discussion by a Venn diagram as seen in figure 2. The authors maintain that it is this overlap of scientific knowledge with societal need, more specifically, the application of scientific knowledge to the needs of society, that is the domain of engineering (inter alia) (see below). Clearly, the extent of human enterprise is much more complex than is represented here. If, for example, it is in the interest of society to increase our store of scientific knowledge, then engineers and scientists who ply their trade in the frontiers of scientific research are both serving societal need. Nevertheless, our contention is that the central focus of the engineering profession is the application of scientific knowledge to meet societal needs. Figure 2. This analogy can be extended by superimposing the distinction of the creative versus the analytical aspect of the human enterprise (19). We can represent this aspect of the human intellect by another Venn diagram shown in figure 3. As indicated in the diagram, one may pursue creative efforts without involving analytical skills, and one may apply analytical skills without entering the domain of creativity. For example, as engineers apply commercial software to the solution of an engineering problem, the application of analytical skills, per se, * may involve little or no creativity. Figure 3. One may superimpose these two Venn Diagrams and use the resulting diagrams to examine engineering enterprise as shown in figure 4. Figure 4. Considering the intersection of scientific knowledge with societal need (designated as the domain of engineering), the authors will discuss three sectors, shown as A, B, and C. Sector A represents the intersection of purely analytical talents with the engineering domain. This may be used to represent engineering science, an ability to model complex systems and predict their response to various inputs under various conditions. * This segment of engineering has, of course, been the subject of intense development over the last half century and has benefitted most directly from the availability of fast digital computers. Sector C, the intersection of our creative capacity with the engineering domain, can be viewed as representing those sudden intuitive leaps often responsible for revolutionary advances in technology called "significant novelty" by Spier (11) as well as those aspects of engineering, not yet fully supported by engineering science, that remain more art than science. The third sector, B (the intersection of knowledge and need with both creative and analytical capability) can be used to represent engineering design and much "real world" problem solving. This sector includes activities ranging from developing innovative products and processes, to creating an innovative bridge design, to developing a new control process for petrochemical production. This vision of engineering design as the quadrilateral intersection represented by Section B is consistent with statements expressed by Pahl and Beitz (20), Dixon (21) , and Penny (22) . Current approaches to teaching used in engineering schools have been designed more for developing analytical skills (Sector A) than creative skills (23). The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) identifies engineering as "that profession in which knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize, economically, the materials and forces of nature "for the benefit of mankind" (emphasis added). ABET further recognizes that "a significant measure of an engineering education is the degree to which it has prepared the graduate to pursue a productive engineering career that is characterized by continued professional growth" (24) . One can conclude that analytical skills are essential tools for engineers, * but are not sufficient for a complete engineering education. An education that only uses classroom problems in which all variables are accurately known and only one correct answer exists not only misrepresents the situations engineers encounter in their jobs, but also does little to stimulate creativity. A trend toward using open-ended problems in the engineering classroom is a healthy step in the direction of more complete and relevant engineering education. This four-circle representation of human endeavor (fig. 4) also offers a useful perspective for other enterprises. Sector 1, the intersection of analytical skills with societal needs outside the bounds of scientific knowledge might include economics and philosophy while sector 3 may encompass the arts. Sector 2 may be used to represent those societal needs outside the bounds of scientific knowledge that required both analytical and creative skills, perhaps including public policy, business administration, and music. The view of engineering presented in this paper differs from the view of "method" presented by Koen (3), and the notion of "significant novelty" presented by Spier (11). Spier argues, "There is a product that results from the activity of an engineer" and interprets the term "product" broadly (we presume to include processes). Our emphasis, however, is not on the product, but the engineer's interaction with society.