Engineering is about creating a system that fulfills certain defined requirements. Therefore, the most important question an engineer must know is "what are the requirements?"  

Non-engineers tend to jump to thinking about solutions before they have clearly defined the requirements.  This causes them to forget or miss things the system needs to do.  

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. If you believe engineers are purpose driven, i.e. there should be a need for doing something, I concur. But physicians, lawyers and scientists also act in response to a need and what is required of them as a professional. Only artists are driven by “art for the art's sake”, other professionals need to discover the purpose (something which helps other) before jumping into action. Of course from this point they may start to diverge and engineers try to refine the “requirements”, but some profession can live with “woolly” concepts (less defined, but not altogether confused ideas).

All of us are guiltily of what you said in your second paragraph. Sometimes we find a theory (a solution) and try to find facts to support our theory (you phrased it as jumping to solutions).

Bring this to your colleagues’ attention and see what they think.

I hope many professionals share their thoughts with me.

Best Regards

Sirous Yasseri

I think Engineering Sense is the key of how do they think ,there is  a very wide range of  space : tangible and non tangible: It is very easy for an engineer to success in biz, accounting law etc. and vice versa many other sciences are in the domain of engineering thinking domain, the difference is the sensation not like artist sensation , specifically the artist and engineers have a comparable imagination, if I am thinking like an engineer ??????     

Hi Sirous,

My wife sometimes complains that I'm too much of an engineer primarily when she tries to express an issue or problem and I try immediately to come up with a direct solution or resolution, which she often reminds me, not always gently, that:'there is no engineering solution to this problem'. Thinking about my approach, It seems to me that I create a simple model (framework) of what I think the key issues are based on what I see to be the dominant influencing factors. I then use the model to play with the factors to see the effect and how a solution can be implemented. In doing so I've learned to focus on the facts (data) and screen out irrelevant issues.Lately in solving real engineering problems reliance on good data analysis tools and having developed a good physical sense for the significance and interpretation of the data analysis results becomes important.

I think one fundamental difference, as alluded to by others, between an engineering approach and other scientific or artistic approaches, is the strong need of engineers to physically implement the solution in a process or physical construct. Generally I'm not completely satisfied until I see the full physical manifestation of my ideas.

HTH

Vince

During their study that rely mainly on mathematics they gain an arrangement thinking, which follow in its approach to the analysis and study, we find that the solution is said to be the engineer's salary thinking studying the problem in all its aspects before the solution is supported on mathematical rules with the addition of creative thinking in solving and analysis positions

Greetings, Sirous  I salute your intention to define the content of "thinking like an engineer" because using the historical auto- and biographical word paintings of the great "engineers" begs a question of scale of say an enterprise versus an occupation.

By measuring an individual's ability to "think like an engineer" the researcher should access the educational models which over time are constantly being refined into more specific subsets of engineering. Consider the human body. Each person has visual features, can be metrified into comparative groupings, can be treated based on binary analyses, i.e., male = 0 or female = 1, can be instrumented for heart rate, blood pressure, respirations. If you are Archimedes, your "eureka" moment occurs when you notice that your body displaces an equal volume of water as you submerge in a tub.

I cannot recall when the terminology of specific gravity came into use, but that measure originated with Archimedes. At some point educators incorporated water displacement as an important component of education and taught this observation widely. At the minimum "thinking like an engineer" begins with penchant for observation of our environment. Gradually or rapidly based on the degree to which "curiosity" functions in our daily interface with the world, thought processes are added and connected. In elementary school we discover that an 8.5 x 11 inch sheet of paper can be folded to form a simple airfoil. Over and over we dutifully fold our paper sheets, add mass by the use of paper clips, enlarge the fuselage by folding 11 x 17 coloring paper, add 'flaps' on the trailing edges of the wings only to proceed to the local store where we buy balsa wood aircraft to throw or perhaps rubber band power with a plastic propeller.

Returning to the educational model we have classroom and societal learning. The change I notice is a large reduction in "hands on" scavenging to strip the wheels from a discarded baby carriage or pram to fashion a crude "car". I am not disparaging the emergence of Legos competitions or high school robotics programs. They are simply the natural evolution in materials and the type of positional controls employed. These students learn to understand the "game" or the task, e.g. shoot a plastic ball into a hoop. Do we compare our human articulation to craft a mechanical replicant? Enter the engineering limits or constraints which are imposed by "cost" and "time".

The German educational model suggests that students gifted with certain talents having been measured around age 14 years should matriculate into an advanced educational path, learn advanced thought processes, involving mathematics, chemistry and physics which will prepare these students to become diplomaed engineers (doctoral) around age twenty-five years. After the Realschule these candidates are given practical training to round out the theoretical training.

If one uses Henry Ford as the archetype of the engineering thought process, he exhibited a high level of creative energy which expanded into a vision which was "birthed" as the fledging automobile. Henry was constrained by the level of manufacturing methods employed at that moment which resembled the coachworks of that era. Handcrafted and hand built assembly defined the manufacturing of any vehicle.

Economics of scale converged to meet demand for Henry's horseless carriage. The idea of common, interchangeable components immerged. Task interference plagued the construction process until the concept of stockpiling components alongside an assembly line came about. Ford literally changed the methodology of any industry engaged in an assembled product. The initial Model T cost approximately $ 850 USD. Demand far exceeded supply at  the beginning, but soon a Model T was built in 93 minutes across three 8-hour shifts which paid each worker a solid $5.00 USD per day!

It appears that thinking like an engineer engages business at a macroeconomic and a microeconomic level. I am not suggesting that an individual must aspire to become an entrepreneur or industrial mogul. Rather anyone thinking like an engineer may opt to concentrate specifically on design or research to expand the body of knowledge of a niche product or an emerging market such as an autonomous, unmanned vehicle controlled by a computer, alternative fuel/propulsion methods, lightweight materials, fuel economy and emissions......a virtually endless list of opportunities!

Perhaps the issue of which came first the chicken or the egg is relevant. Does seeing a bird in flight translate into a vocation as an aeronautical engineer. Does a hobby of building model airplanes predict the same future? Again I lean on the curiosity factor as the motivational stimulus to think like an engineer. Secondly I believe that engineers a fascinated with controlling and manipulating their habitation, especially a restless dissatisfaction with any status quo. The curiosity matures as a continuous questioning: "Is this the best we can do?" If the existing manufacturing process is limited by inconsistent quality by whatever qualifier being used, then fishbone diagrams, Shainan Red 'X", Six Sigma methods improve the process observation, asking repetitively the "What if we.......?" question. Sometimes the effort is laborious trial and error investigation.

This brief examination is like an abstract to an enormous body of research. If I may allude to the "Non-engineers...comment above about presenting solutions in the absence of full knowledge of the requirements, my engineering manager posts the following comment on each email he sends: "Without data, all you have is opinion!" 

Hi John,

Thank you for your in-depth answer.  I am going to explore the last sentence of your comments. You have quoted your engineering manager as saying: "Without data, all you have is opinion!". Data and what different professions make of it is the focus of this note. Engineers and scientists start with data and using the laws of physics come to a conclusion. Borrowing a phrase from mathematician, namely “necessary and sufficient” condition, data is necessary but not sufficient to get to the right conclusion. Since, conclusion engineers reach must also satisfy the immutable laws of physics. 

Let’s take legal profession and analyse the way they think.  In law, it is  more important to keep the peace than it is to reach an ultimately just result, while in engineering it's more important to reach a "good enough" result than it is to get there by "correct procedure".

Law is more about keeping the peace than about justice, what does that mean for legal reasoning? It means legal reasoning is not a search for the truth, it's a form of persuasion designed to convince the audience that a particular result is the proper one. Lawyers for defendants and prosecution look at essentially the data/evidence and come to completely opposite results in order to convince the judge their conclusion is the right one. Similarly, judges write opinions designed to convince other judges, and ultimately the public, that their conclusions are correct. This is the way they do it. Every argument is broken into many steps. Each step is joined to the next, and between the steps, there's some room to play (like a chain, where each pieces can be rotated, but not much). The more joints (i.e. more steps), the more room you have to play, and by adding just a little bit of “adjustment”, to your desired direction, at each joint, or by adding or removing a joint here or there, you can shift where the argument ends up. Obeying laws of physics is ingrained by engineering education, which prohibit engineers to stray from the path of truth.

It is not only lawyers that use the same data/evidence and come up with different conclusions. Expert witnesses, especially forensic ones, do the same for their clients. Engineers are not immune either. Expert engineers’ reports on the likely cause of a system failure follow the purpose.   Perhaps they are in the domain of law where persuasion matters not the absolute truth. In such domain the final product is not tested if it holds water, it only should look right.

The difference between an engineer and a lawyer lies between perusing the truth and being persuasive.

being an engineer at industry and research I am allways looking for an application near solution. The combination of many different directions of knowlege into a team garantees  uniques solutions. Communication and motivation inbetween the team members and the stakeholders is an outstanding requirement. Creativity and closed loop thinking leeds to risc poor solutions. Basic knowledges (theory) and pragmatic acting are no opposites. For me Engineering thinking is linking the 4 dimensions: technically, economically, ecologically and social.

Peter

Dear Sirous !

I am NOT an Engineer, but I could not resist answering your question, because you might be interested to know an "outsider's" opinion.

(All the men in my family are Engineers.)

Yes, there is somewhat difference between an Engineer's mind and the rest of the population. The main difference may rely on pragmatism ...

You put it perfectly i your particularly interesting comment:

"The difference between an engineer and a lawyer lies between perusing the truth and being persuasive."

I should add that the difference between an engineer and a medical mind resides in the fact that we, physicians have to use pragmatic reasoning to interact emotionally, with empathy, towards our patients, without loosing our clear reasoning. Another main difference is that we take care of many of Engineers health, whereas you people build roads and computers and biomedical machinery to make our lives and profession simpler, to keep on taking good care of your health... (it goes in empathic self-nourishing round circles...)

Nowhere does it say that, but a good engineer happens sometimes scientist - if he has less time for it :-))

I think there is a lot of similarity between how engineers think, and how people in other professions in which things have to be made to work think. For example, there is a whole lot of similarity between the way engineers think and the way physicians think. Perhaps physicians don't design and build the systems they work on, as engineers do, but physicians do have to understand how the human body systems work, to correct what might have gone wrong.

What makes engineers different from physicians is primarily the interest in man-made systems, rather than the interest in something designed and built by a natural process we don't fully understand. This is the empathy angle of the way physicians think. But the analytical processes are very much alike, in my opinion.

I think one can see children at a very, very young age, who show these proclivities. It is easy to notice children, even 2 and 3 years old, who study intently how things are made. Whereas others don't care. And what makes that particularly fun to observe is that at such a young age, there is no pretense. The interests the child demonstrates are truly his or her own.

To me, thinking like an engineer means your first instinct is to understand what makes things tick, what holds buildings up, why different styles of bridges exist, how machines work, why natural phenomena occur, and so on. As opposed to not caring to know the details at all. As opposed to thinking, "all I care about is that it works."

Difference between engineer and scientist? I would think, the scientist is less interested in designing machines that work, more interested in discovering, describing, codifying, the fundamental principles. Engineering is an applied science.

Dear Maria,

Thank you for giving in and answering my question. My question is not directed to engineers, it is for everyone who cares to answer. You are the only respondent who is not an engineer.

You are right in saying that engineers don’t have to deal with emotionally charged people, nerveless they are emotionally attached to what they do. I don’t think they throw themselves from the nearest bridge if things go wrong, but they persist. As Edison did, they try and try until they get a good enough solution.

Here is something for you think about. A friend of mine who is an internist told me that physicians are trained to think about differentials and categories.  A physician uses a pattern seeking approach known as differential diagnostics. It consists of four steps. First, the doctor collects the patient's medical history, and makes a list of the patient's symptoms. Next, the doctor makes a list of possible diseases or conditions that might cause each of these symptoms. Third, the doctor organizes this list by priority. The ranking must take into account the likelihood, as well as the potential severity, of each possible condition. Finally, the doctor begins testing for each of these conditions, starting with the top of the list and working down. If the test results rule out a possible condition, the doctor moves on to the next one on the list. Sometimes, test results may prompt the doctor to reprioritize the items on the list.

The interesting thing is this: diagnostic approach is also used by maintenance engineers whose job is to find fault in a system and repair it. Next time the maintenance engineer comes to repair one of your equipment, ask him how he/she finds the fault. You will find there are a lot of similarities with physicians’ approach which is finding the fault by scrutinising symptoms.

 Sirous

Thank you.

Let me add that, when things go wrong, Engineers could also be responsible for other people's life and wellbeing. You offered the good example of scrutinising for bridge repair. I thought of nuclear power plants, or the electric cables of a building... According to the Peter Principle, anything that can go wrong... will go wrong ! (This applies to any profession that deals with humans).

I work in close professional relation with Hygiene and Safety Engineers. Our team knows well of the fundamental importance of predicting and preventing accidents and professional diseases. When we work correctly, no one will notice our work, but we know that we can save lives, from intelligent diagnosis and preventive actions. (If our actions are unnoticed, we have good performance).

Maria, a slight correction: The Peter Principle is that people rise in the hierarchy of their organization until they reach their level of incompetence. The reason being, an employee becomes a candidate for the promotion based on his/her competence at their existing job, and not based on their aptitude for the new job. Having become incompetent at their current job, the promotions cease.

On the other hand, Murphy's Law is what you are referring to. If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. The most difficult aspect of system design is certainly the requirement to accommodate failures. Designing for success is comparatively easy.

I agree on the point about the engineers' work having consequences on the safety of users of the technology. But of course, that's true also for physicians. Their work definitely impacts the safety and well-being of users of their services!

Indeed right (wrong!), thank you for the opportune correction, dear Albert. I tend to mix things, when it's late at night, as at the moment.

Thank you for the correction. (I hope no patient died , from my mistake...)

Hello Sirius, I still am not an engineer,

(I'm in last year of engineering), but I believe that an engineer must perceive possible causes giving rise to loss of resources of an organization, for it also I think it is necessary that the professional must always imagine the worst scene to conduct preventive actions on these possible causes so that the organization does not lose productivity or competitiveness.

Dear Albert,

Thank you for your contribution. You said there is a lot of similarity between the ways different professionals think. I contend that such similarity is on the surface, deep down each professional (drawing from her/his world view) is looking for something else. I think engineers are happy to be approximately right provided nobody can do better, hence they don’t wait until somebody to show the way. However, scientists wait until they are exactly right.

DR MT Rahmati of Brunel University told me the story of theory of turbulence which support the above opinion. Stokes, as in Naivier-Stoke theory of turbulence, was one of the giants of fluid dynamics in his time. Stokes proposed a set of six equations to solve the turbulent flow. But he couldn’t solve them. At the same time Osborn Reynolds wrote a paper and described a method now is known as “Reynolds time averaged bulk of turbulence flow” and suggested an approximate way out, but his paper was initially rejected by Stokes as not being accurate.  Reynolds was looking for a “good enough” solution to put into practice, instead of postponing everything until the correct solution is found.

Reynold approach is 100 years old, but it is still the main work horse of the industry. Even with supper computers the Navier-stokes equations can be solved only for very simple cases. This tell us a lot how the mind of scientists and engineers work.

Reynolds was a professor at Manchester university at the time and he is the found of engineering department.

Best regards

Sirous Yasseri

We become engineers in part because we like our facts in black and white—true or false, good or bad—without gray areas and subjectivity that put the value of our work at the whims of others. In return for that simple value system, we have to live up to it.

http://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2015/the-importance-of-engineer-ethics/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28208256&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9TySaZAEVQiDuCKEW0sCHstTTvQsJPObsUuRaGQGTfg5Ytv7u7GeTKTgX_5h85SWaoIXtIE3bcfUFErgQ8lWCYGdeBmQ&_hsmi=28208256

How To Think Like An Engineer And Solve Any Problem

"I would argue that being an engineer is more than just a job. To me, being an engineer is actually a state of mind and something that anyone can develop over time. Supporting my argument is the fact that there are so many different kinds of engineering job meaning that there’s no neat definition you can put on it as a career. You can be a software engineer for instance, an electronic engineer, a mechanical engineer… heck some people even call themselves ‘maths engineers’ and ‘word engineers’. If you work behind a till, then perhaps you could start calling yourself a ‘customer service engineer’.

The point is that any problem can be approached as an engineer, and that this is an incredibly useful ability to have. Of course people who have ‘conventional’ engineering roles will think like this naturally and that’s what will have made them right for the job, but for the rest of us there is a lot to be said for learning this kind of thinking and applying it in our own lives and careers. So let’s look at how an engineer thinks…"

Some more resources about the issue are attached.

http://www.istanz.org.nz/careers/how-to-think-like-an-engineer-and-solve-any-problem/

Article Learning to Think like an Engineer

Conference Paper On Countability, Enumeration, and How to Think Like a Comput...

The scientist wants to know why and does not ask how (often).

The engineer wants to know how (and quickly) and then also why the (mostly) :-)

 Dear Ljubomir,

Well said, thanks. According to your post  being an "engineering mind" has value and hence many professions want to give an impression of being "engineer" . Perhaps, they think the title of "engineer" is  prestigious and by adopting this title some good may rub off them. 

In the UK anybody with a wrench in his hand (they are male only) call himself engineer. They might as well have a hammer in their hand, as they are mostly destructive. It seems you don't nee any qualification.

UK professional organisation tried to rescue the title of "engineer", but it was hijacked such long time ago, nothing can't be done. Perhaps coning another word may be the solution. 

Now answer this question: what makes one an engineer and how do you recognize him/her if you see one. 

 Dear Josef,

Thank you for answering my question. I concur with you. 

Now answer this question: what makes one an engineer and how do you recognize him/her if you see one.

Dear Hamed,

Thank you for your contribution. I concur with you in saying that the guiding light for an engineer to make make life comfortable for people; to make an improvement even if it is very small. 

An important question is how we learn to think like an engineer.  

Would you please get your friends and professors to tell me what they think. 

Dear Sirous, I will add another question to your question which is also very important for engineers. Namely, it is intersting to hear an opinion what is the status of the engineers in some countries compared with layers, medical personos, economist etc. Now, based on my opinion engineers that are  not in a field of informatics doesn't have adequate status in the Society. So,  heavy proffesions as civil engineers, mining engineers, geological, geotechnical one etc, has a lot of responsibility but they are not "popular" at this moment.In my opinion, during  education process we learn to think like an engineers using procedures and codes how to solve some engineering problems, but we need to look also from  the side of other profesoions to understand their logic.

Dear @Sirous, your sub-question was " What makes one an engineer and how do you recognize him/her if you see one?"

I do consider myself as an engineer, as I have solved many engineering problems in practice. You may see some of those at my publications page. I am in the field of industrial automation and control engineering.

I do see some older engineer around me. I have learned from them, as  I do hope that my students will become good engineers. I do teach them practice!

I do like this story: "What Does It Mean to Be an Engineer?" Harvard story!

"We as engineers look out into the world, and we can see that everything has an underlying mathematical and mechanistic basis. We recognize that we can understand and model our world, using the tools of quantitative analysis. We see the connections and the exchanges between science and engineering, how advances in science lead to advances in engineering, and vice versa.

Most importantly, we as engineers realize that we have the ability to solve pressing world problems in energy, sustainability, transportation, education, healthcare, food, and the environment. While other disciplines in basic science aim to understand reality, engineers ultimately seek to build a new reality, a better place for everyone...

As engineers, we all want to help people. In fact, it is our duty to serve the public and address global grand challenges; to respect one another and work collaboratively; and to do our best to help others using our skills. Engineers can participate not only in making life better and more comfortable for everyone, but also in saving lives. My advice to you, as young and emerging engineers, is to always remember why you entered this profession in the first place. Always remember that your goal is to use your skills for the betterment of society. Importantly, always remember the sense of wonder and creativity that drives your interest in engineering.

I also advise you to be courageous and resilient, because engineers are needed now more than ever to solve difficult problems in the world. This field is for the brave, not for the faint of heart. This field is for those who are willing to stand up for what is right, not for those who just crave comfort and security. This field is also for the kind and caring souls, not for those who are cold or unfeeling, because engineering is at its core about humanity. I wish I could make sure that you always have a cheering section. But I cannot. What I can tell you is this: if you pursue your career as an engineer with dedication, with honesty, with commitment, with conscientiousness, and with love, then you can always be proud of yourself. You can look in the mirror and be your own cheering section. This is the definition of resilience. This is courageousness. This is character. This is what it means to be an ENGINEER..."

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/24304/what_does_it_mean_to_be_an_engineer.html

Dear Sirous

I am not an Engineer, but I'm profesor of math  in Engineering Faculty for many years and my husband is also Engineer.

So, I think that Engineers have a one track mind. If something is broken, they will be fixated on it until it is solved. Get in this mindset! I strongly believe that this is one of the main attributes of engineers that make them successful.

 Dear Qefsere,

Thank you for your contribution. It appears many people share your view of  engineers as being solution orientated.  From your post I gather, you as a mathematician and your husband as an engineer approach problem solving differently.  Perhaps  engineers or a person married to an engineer could second your opinion, otherwise I have to conclude that your husband is unique in having such determination and focus. 

Dear Dr. Sirous Yasseri,

you asked to us: "How to think like an engineer?". Yes ... my personal answer is that my first profession was an engineer and as such I think and solve problems where I've worked, to understand each curved legislation, economic efficiency and thus completed at the time of the required space, and am never too late ... Have a nice time!

I want to thank Prof. Qefsere for her contribution that she has given to engineering students!

Dear Sirous

A good engineer solve things as simply as possible - not invent stupidity. He knows that everything will be more complicated over time itself :-))

Josef

Dear Ljubomir,

Thank you for your post.  I am right to think that  to be an engineer is to be problem solver.  Being a caring person is our genes and engineers can be  uncaring; but I hope not and the profession only attracts young people who care and would like to make life comfortable for others.

Dear Prof. Sirous, 

Answer at your question is very simple. Engineer is like a child. He thnik,  act and create like a child. He is always visionary, curious, inovative, inteligent, simple, precise, accept no boundaries, he is open to sugestions, he is logic problem solver ( who like to focus, observe and judge the problem), think oposite (like end user),  a dreamer with excelent sense for visualization and thinking in pictures (he is solving the problem like chess champion), and of course at the end he have a  excelent sense for humor.

Best regards, 

Dear Dragan,

Thank you for your answer.  You gave me a lot to think about. 

How a scientist way of thinking differs from an engineer's ?

Dear Miss Emina

Thank you for your answers.  I read them many times and each time i discovered something new.  I am sure your contributions help to resolve issues that I am still struggling with. 

Dear Maria,

I read your answer again. I would like to comment on the last paragraph of your answer.  It is true that your profession has an immediate problem to deal with people, but engineers also need to think  how people are going to use the fruit of their labour. People are not out of the equation. Engineers must think about the practicality, usefulness, accessibility and many more regarding their product. In this respect they should identify themselves as user.  Job of both professions resolve around people, without people; medical professionals have to deal with people on their feet while engineers have time to think about people's need at leisure. 

Dear Prof. Sirous,

You are welcome. I suppose that you will gonna find the answer at  your new question, when you define the moment when engineer stop to be just engineer and became the scientist.

Best regards,

HELLO

ALL ENGINEERS ARE WORKING UNDER THREE MAIN FACTORS , THEY ARE:

COST, LIFETIME, AND FUNCTION, THAT MEANS SEARCHING FOR REQUIREMENTS FIRST, MEANWHILE THE OTHERS RESPECTED PERSONS ARE JUMPS DIRECTLY TO THE FINAL RESULTS.

Hi Emad,

Thank you for your contribution.  

Please read  Dr Maria Bettencourt Pires' post and you will see she has taken a different and interesting viewpoint. 

Physicians don't jump to the conclusions, in general, (perhaps a few do). Their thought process is different.  Physicians are trained in medical schools to think about differentials and categories.  A physician uses a pattern seeking approach known as differential diagnostics. It consists of four steps. First, the doctor collects the patient's medical history, and makes a list of the patient's symptoms. Next, the doctor makes a list of possible diseases or conditions that might cause each of these symptoms. Third, the doctor organizes this list by priority. The ranking must take into account the likelihood, as well as the potential severity, of each possible condition. Finally, the doctor begins testing for each of these conditions, starting with the top of the list and working down. If the test results rule out a possible condition, the doctor moves on to the next one on the list. Sometimes, test results may prompt the doctor to reprioritize the items on the list. This mode of thinking is also used by engineers to find fault in a system. 

Dear Aparna,

Thank you for your very interesting points. You are right in saying that numbers are the tool of trade for engineers. However, every profession tries to assess the problem at hand by some sort of analysis. Engineers use numbers to analyse a problem. Lawyers use logic to analyse and to chart their way through intricate legal arguments. Physicians use deductive logic for problem solving.  The common denominator here is analytical thinking which is shared among all professions. 

Thanks Abdul Aziz for your input.

Engineers are able to solve a specific problem, know how and mostly why.

Scientists often knows why the problem occurred, but often do not know how to solve it :-))

... why, because I before all the professions I am engineer ...

To me, thinking like an engineer means that you think of everything as being a system. So the same rules have to apply. As a result, when answering a question or otherwise solving a problem, the solution has to make sense from a system point of view. All the way through.

This certainly applies to the economy. Inputs, transfer functions, outputs, feedback loops.

And most emphatically, you don't buy into facile "explanations." If it doesn't make sense, it's probably wrong. Too frequently, explanations don't take the entire system approach into account. Here's an example: "If you raise the minimum wage, wealth goes up." Way too simplistic, and therefore, wrong.

Dear Mr. Yasseri,

I am an Electrical engineer, I really feel that I am  thinking and acting  exactly like a machine!  these are some examples:

1. I am not using my emotions for judging while I am a female and that exactly opposite for female thinking.

2. I am arranging my time well by writing the tasks every day at morning and solving them in parallel. this point I take it from studying the multiprocessing system and I applied it in my life.

3. I am studying my self to see how can I improve my efficiency in working and life. treat my self as a system.

But the most important issue that not the all the engineers have brain of engineering in other hand you can find a scientist or physician can do jobs that the engineer couldn't do it. for example my husband his field is physics ,, but during my engineering life I didn't face any engineer can do jobs like him, so it is not a rule! 

Best wishes 

Esraa

Dear Prof. Dr. Bashkim Mal Lushaj 

Your answer has René Descartes'  ring.  " I am an engineer therefore I am" . 

Dear Esraa,

Thank you for your contribution.  Your last sentence tell me husbands can be useful around the house even if they are not engineer. 

Dear Albert,

You are the only one who has answered this question  using the context of systems engineering. I can subscribe to your view, especially  when you said you can't talk your way out by explaining thing which has no solid foundation. It is like sending a letter to someone and going there yourself to explain the content of your letter.  

I don't believe teaching  "system thinking" is a part of  undergraduate courses yet. Thus, whatever, good engineers do must have picked up along the way.  

An engineer always thinks of a project / any endeavour in the following order;

Imagine

Draw an articulation,

Design

Dear  Josef  Punčochář

Thank you for your input. To be honest I cant define the boundaries between engineer and scientists, except the practicality of the task (inquiry).  

One can say that engineering is very much about solving problems. Engineers look for solutions and design which are practical and economical. An engineer may use rules of thumb, simplifying assumptions to come up with practical designs when there are  time or financial constraints.

 Dear Behrouz,

Thank you for your contribution.  

Are  young people who enroll at your university's engineering courses

• borne to be engineer,
• you select them so that they have the necessary aptitude to become engineer , or
• the courses are designed to make them engineer.

Suppose I am an accountant and heading a successful engineering enterprise. I was told that it is beneficial to think like an engineer. What should  I do?

I don't have the answer. 

Very good question. It would be nice if you could summarize the discussion at one point. Here is how Prof. Mark J. McCready,  professor of Department of Chemical Engineering University of Notre Dame, defined the thinking processes of an engineer:

Engineers operate under constraints caused by a need to produce a product or service that is timely, competitive, reliable, and consistent with the philosophy and within the financial means of their company. Engineers are result driven and the detail of an engineering solution for a needed product, process or service is always determined by balancing competing effects to attain an answer that is optimal subject to the imposed constraints.

These ideas lead to an example that I often work into my undergraduate classes. A mathematician is expected to produce the "correct" answer, which for a real problem means a number. A scientist will test nature and produce a number and its expected accuracy. An engineer needs to get the number (by any available means), its reliability or accuracy and then is expected to provide an opinion or judgment that will enable a device or process to be constructed.

Source:

McCready, M. J. (1998). Defining engineers: How Engineers think about the world.

https://www3.nd.edu/~mjm/engineer.essay.pdf

Hi Behrouz,

Interesting post, Thanks.

This discussion was dormant until yesterday.  Most respondent concentrated on how engineers might think not on if way they think differs from other profession. My intention is to use these posts as an evidence or paraphrase  thought expressed in them. 

I remember you sent me your email. But I can't find it. I am writing two papers on this subject for an educational journal for practicing engineers.  Please send me your email again and I will send you the first of these two paper for your comments. 

Here is one article which may provide more insight on How Physicians, Engineers, and Scientists Approach Problems Differently

The Physician: MDs are trained in medical school to think about differentials and categories. A patient’s presenting signs and symptoms are processed, then historical information is used to determine the most common diagnosis associated with that data set. More complicated tests are given based on the most common and most dangerous diagnoses, and then treatment is often based on the outcomes of those tests. This is a categorical approach to problem solving. The MD tries to determine what category the patient belongs in, and then treatment is based on the assigned category. This is a very efficient system when a patient has a problem that has been encountered before and a pre-existing data-set that the patient can be matched too. Often, a complete picture isn’t even needed since this problem solving approach is based on probabilities. However, when the patient has something not seen before, this is a very inefficient way of treating the problem, as the MD moves to less and less common solutions. Programmers would call this searching a known set, which is often the fastest way to find a solution if the solution is in the set, but it is the slowest if the solution is not, as all possibilities have to be excluded before determining that the answer isn’t there.

The Scientist: In contrast to the MD, the Scientist is trained to look at a problem in the abstract and use testable hypotheses to isolate all the component parts of a problem and solve them (individually, if possible) in a logical way [3]. Breaking down the problem into its component parts can determine the independent root causes. Then, using those root causes, the Scientist can arrive at a solution to the overall problem. Solving problems in this way is more resource- and time-intensive than the Physician method, but if the right hypotheses are posed, this system can handle a broader range of problems and generate new data that are applicable to other problems. Programmers would call this a global search, which is often the least efficient way to find a solution, but the solution found would have a higher chance of being the optimal solution because it ideally takes into account the most information [4].

The Engineer: One way to think of the Engineer’s method is as a hybrid of the Scientist’s and Physician’s methods. The Scientist starts with a new set of hypotheses for each problem, and the Physician starts with a set of solutions that can be applied. The Engineer is trained to take a known solution and then use that as a starting point to hypothesize a solution that applies to the problem. Thus, the Engineer’s approach is also a combination of the advantages and disadvantages of the above methods. Like the Scientist, the Engineer tries to break down the problem, but doesn’t break it down all the way. Since the Engineer isn’t looking for a root cause, the problem is only simplified enough to get a solution that works with the least amount of change from the current paradigm. Going back to our programming analogy, this is a local search: again, a hybrid of the two above examples.

http://www.medgadget.com/2012/08/how-physicians-engineers-and-scientists-approach-problems-differently.html

Any more comments on this question before I collate these comments into a coherent technical note. 

If any one feels he/she has something to add, I love to hear. 

Best regards

Sirous 

Dear friends,

I  have written an article  (and uploaded on RG) which freely draws on your answers as well as from many other sources. Your comments are greatly welcomed. 

I am a professional engineer. I say the practical purpose of teaching engineers Maths is to brainwash them to think logically, not to make Mathematicians out of them. They must learn to be clear, concise, and correct in their communications.

I have always enjoyed doing research, and have been teaching it successfully to all other professions since 1990. See link appended. My approach follows:

Many of the important engineering and other thinking skills are not taught explicitly in the Engineering courses. Sadly, there is no Logic 101, Creativity 101, Systems 101, BlackBox 101, Operationalising 101, Design 101, Prototyping 101, Estimating 101, Modelling 101 Scaffolding 101!

https://www.amazon.com/How-Research-Todays-Tips-Tools-ebook/dp/B01I5JJDXC

Thanks Ian for your contribution.  I will read your answer in depth and let you know my reaction.  The question has two sides, one is what engineers think of their own ability and the second is how other people see them. You brought a third point how an engineer should ( not they would) solve a problem.  All interesting. 

Thanks and best regards

Sirous Yasseri

Professional Engineers are not always aware of what they have implicit absorbed in their studies, industrial experience and life-long learning (tacit knowledge).

The public concept of the engineer is much like that of the mad scientist, always a baddy in the Hollywood movies!

I think that your respondents have correctly reported that a key attribute of the professional engineer is persistence and ability to solve complex problems.

see my article https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319644185_Thinking_like_an_engineer

am planning to revise this article. Any new thought is appreciated highly.

See also my other question https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_an_archaeologist_think

The engineer is programmed to only think logically. There is no rhetoric.

A full sketch is elaborated by Professor Ian Kennedy., however, I think Engineering is a professional and optimal way of handling technical projects within particular bounds and limitations according to the user requirements.

Engineering is the process of using scientific principles to design systems that produce specific desired results. Considered broadly, this means solving problems and designing systems using evidence-based principles.

Here is a book chapter I wrote a while back about applying an engineering approach to language learning curriculum and technology design, i.e. Educational Engineering.

Chapter Educational Engineering for CALL and MALL

Dear Dr Kennedy,

I can subscribe to your view. Thanks for expressing it.

Dear Dr Marek,

Thank you for bring this publication to my attention.

Dear Dr Ali,

As I work at Brunel university, I compare every engineer with Bruenl when solving a problem. Brunel had non of modern methods and computing power, but he had intuition which admire. Brunel is one example of 19th century engineers, who had great confidence in themselves and risk their lives to prove they are right. You can find similar example in medicine. Can this be taught?

Nice article.

I do not think Engineers are different than a Physician or a Scientist, as they are all problem solvers and at the end what matters is whether you solved the problem or not. If so, they deal with different layers of the same problem or even, both the Physician or the Scientist are using the tools (or procedures) the Engineer designed for them previously, therefore they are already in a set framework so they dont have to take in account some other layers.

Then lets point out the following " How to think like a GOOD engineer? " cause there are many out there that are Engineers but they are useless.

I believe a non engineering quality of a GOOD engineer is HONESTY. As you pointed out the PURSUE OF TRUTH its a characteristic, and I beleive its probably the most relevant one. A GOOD engineer will pursue the truth independently of whether it benefits him or not, there is no political correctness, there is no subjectivity.

Try to put under test a random group of population to make an analysis of a situation or problem, and you will find out how difficult is for most of them to reach a conclusion that is not coerced by other factors like: does the conclusion benefits me or not? is it the conclusion politically correct? what others might think about me if i say that? and so many other impediments and tricks their minds put on the way of reaching a GOOD conclusion that gets stripped out or contaminated as it passes stages of our thinking until its spoken out.

My conclusion is that we are all born GOOD ENGINEERS, some more capable and some less capable. But quite often this ability is lost over the time while children grows up. Why do I state this?

Brain is quite amazing and you can experience yourself how children can learn to read their parents, interact with more experienced brains (adults), learn to stand up, learn how to walk, learn to communicate, to articulate a thinking and express themselves and claim their slice of the world, just to name a few. That level of achievement its just ASTONISHING when we take in account all this outcomes comes purely by OBSERVATION and then trial and error.

They have not been taught Newtons law (yet) but they know if they fall it hurts, they have not been trained on psychology but they know how to manipulate everybody around them.

Small children are incredibly amazing solving machines same as GOOD engineer is. But so often this skill which we are all born with gets contaminated and overridden by other layers of knowledge built around that are gained when more complex interactions with the environment takes place.

To analyze the reasons behind that skill loss its an interesting topic to be studied, not for engineers but for psychologist......As long as they use a GOOD engineering approach.

Good Night.

“How to think like an Engineer?”

The answer seems perhaps very simple: In an upper level of abstraction, may be just thinking.

Dear Antonio,

Thank you for your response.

Engineers have some qualities which an entrepreneur does not have it, but the entrepreneur has something else. Both looking at the same problem give you different answers. The entrepreneur would tell you if the idea worth perusing while an engineer might give you a solution. Both using their head.

Looks like an interesting article to read. Looking forward to it. I reckon engineers think with a technical mindset. Off course it includes problem solving approach but with comprehensive technical data. One important thing that most engineers do is project their thought process into engineering drawings.

Dear Yessari,

Industrial, chemical, software, civil, electrical, and mechanical are all words that come before the title of engineer. There are several personality traits that most engineers share; among them are curiosity, critical thinking, creativity, effective communication, and a collaborative spirit.

To think like an engineer, means to think always in technical solutions. The studies for engineers contain a certain knowledge of strong math and physics and shows than the way, to derive out of this knowledge technical solutions. This forms in the end the engineers and their thinking. They are logical and enjoy analyzing complex problems. Engineers are Intuitive.

This is common understand the engineering mindset to create a good engineering culture. Engineers create products. Their career is defined by creating or changing a product. A product can be interpreted broadly. It can be software, a physical object, but also a changed team or company culture.

Engineers use a unique mode of thinking based on seeing everything as a system. They see structures that aren't apparent to the layperson, they know how to design under constraints, and they understand trade-offs. Adopting an engineering mindset can help you in any field. Engineers love to work and indulge their time in meaningful, creative tasks.

Even for science based professions, scientists, engineers and physician solve their problem differently. They use anecdotes to teach businessmen to think like engineers, but author themselves don't think like engineers, since they use inductive logic rather than deductive logic.

Engineers use their knowledge of scientific and mathematical principles to solve technical problems. They work in a variety of disciplines including civil, environmental, chemical, mechanical, electrical and petroleum engineering. Learn about educational requirements and how to get into a college engineering program.

Engineering is important. It is also challenging and exciting. Engineers use models provided by science combined with innovative thinking to solve problems and create new designs that benefit humanity. ... design and build safer, faster, quieter, more fuel-efficient aircraft.

Engineers make the world a better place. Clean water, reliable energy, safe transport, fast communications, life-saving medical equipment and food in the shops all rely on engineering solutions that make the world a safer, more comfortable and exciting place to be.

Hope is helpful for you.

Ashish

Dear Ashish,

Thank you for your detailed response. I am sure it will enrich the discussion.

Dear Yassari,

Sir, Thank you very much.

Ashish

Making things easy or making the mechanisms easy which can be applied easily. Think about the application first and start developing ideas with a set of drawings.

Dear Sampath,

Thank you for your input.

Innovation

Dear Sampath,

Would you please expand on that .

I think you mean "making something which was not there before" , which is some kind of innovation.

I found this paper interesting.

Jeffrey D. Gates, Peter Knights and Nigel Booker (2021), Cognitive Biases and the Cultural Disconnect between Engineers and Decision-makers

https://ideas.repec.org/a/tec/journl/v17y2021i1p35-62.html

From their abstract

Successful engineers are those who are proficient in translating the language of their technical discipline into that of broader society. A key skill is consequential reasoning, which is contained within engineering codes of ethics but is also critical to the persuasive power of analytical findings. Students and early-career engineers need structured learning in communication and in socio-cultural and emotional intelligence.

A book to read.

John Browne, "Make, Think, imagine: Engineering the Future of Civilisation," Bloomsbury Publishing (30 May 2019)

It is evident that the book is written by a politician, and thus brevity is not Lord Browne's strong point. A lot of time has gone into producing this sizable tome, which Lord Browne thought he needed to make his point, or (like any politician) he may have thought that people are not bright and need more explanations. Though he could have conveyed the same message in fewer words, it does not diminish the importance of the message, just only longer to get there.

this book is essential reading for politicians, but engineers also would benefit to learn what has been told about them. The book got four stars from me.

This question is captivating. As an Engineer and a Scientist, first thing first, you must be rational in decision making, introduce the ability of conception and inception to see things differently and that push to develop something new comes in to play. The need to change or improve on former designs.

The skills I have learnt in the course of my training and my tool box is then channelled to completing the tasks even to the extent a new way to do things better comes up.

Most certainly, if you cannot design or get someone to build up on your design, or model most likely, you are a scientist and not an engineer.

So you must be able to build on your models and designs otherwise get someone to do so. That's the fruit of Engineering.

https://solidedge.siemens.com/en/resource/infographic/think-like-an-engineer-poster/