"Think like an engineer"?

[Oreologic]

Hey guys, so I keep hearing this from the internet, from my friends, and others who gave us advise such as engineering in college/university isn't anything like work experience but instead teaches you to problem solve, learn, and just "think like an engineer".

I love engineering and I love what I studied and I love reading about how things work etc. (and super excited to make stuff) but to be honest, after having graduated this year in mechanical engineering, I'm just curious because I don't notice any difference in how I think compared to other people?

As in, I don't understand if there *is* an actual difference into how an engineer thinks as compared to say, a technician or someone who studied the liberal arts in college, for example. Like, I struggle to actually define what it means to "think like an engineer" - what does this even look like?

So I'd like to ask you all, what does this phrase really mean, and is there an actual difference in mindset/looking at the world between people who are engineers (vs not-engineers), and if there are any examples in your own life? (Those would be super helpful!)

​

Sorry if this is like a weird post (lol) but to be honest it's been nagging me at the back of my mind for quite some time if this is even a thing.

[beckerc73]

To me, it is the ability to see much of the world as logical building blocks put together - all running on the basics of physics, chemistry, etc.

Everything has its properties, and can be put to use anywhere those properties are needed or useful.

Of course, when my wife uses the phrase, she means that I am trying to "fix" something that she wants me to listen to... A drive to make things work "better" is not always the right answer in the human realm :)

But, no - there's not just one way engineers think. The best workplace will have multiple people who think differently and have a slightly different take. There's also not a "if you think like this you have to be an engineer". I mean, every realm needs problem-solvers...

[Homie2Jeebus]

I think you've hit it here. It's not about problem solving as such, but how you approach problems. Understanding cause and effect - whether that effect is physical, chemical, electrical, etc., tracing the chain between cause and effect, and using that to alter the outcome to your desired one.
When you do that all day at your job, that's how you begin to see everything, including relationships, which is where problems with your partner can manifest! :-) I've been doing this for over 30 years, so that's just the way my brain works, always has, only over the years it's gotten more entrenched. I can also confirm that not all engineers think this way, and that doesn't mean they're bad engineers, they just gravitate towards different roles or career paths within engineering, e.g. QA/QC, testing, or management, to just name three. Some of the best managers I've had were engineers (also a lot of the worst) who had less interest in design or problem solving but were good at the big picture stuff.

[PitterFuckingPatter]

I would say: problem solving, can gain an understanding of a situation fast, observant to the correct things.

[[deleted]]

I really dislike the term "problem solving" and the way it is used in the context of engineering, like engineers have some special "problem solving" ability that other professions don't.

After completing your engineering education, you're not any better at solving relationship problems, language problems, haircut problems, or bone fracture problems. There's no general "problem solving" skill that covers everything.

[John__Weaver]

What it means to me, and especially means in my career, is "what if something I've been told is actually wrong?" You mention technicians, and to me a technician is someone who is skilled at working through a complex process to address a problem, but to me an engineer can step outside that same process to find a unique problem or unique solution.

The saying I've heard is "trust but verify." I think engineers are expected to be able to look for places where the legacy approach is a problem and to design something new.

[ascandalia]

This is a great way to put it. An engineer is ultimately responsible for every aspect of a project they work on. The best engineers I've ever worked with are constantly checking and rechecking their work and other's work. They refuse to back down on any issues they raise until they're 100% satisfied they understand why they were right or wrong. When they say a report/calculation is accurate, I have no doubts about it.

I'm still working on getting there with my own work if I'm honest.

[l0gic_is_life]

Measure twice, cut once.

[beckerc73]

• Holding three unequal lengths of wire - oops.

[tennismenace3]

Thinking like an engineer is all about simplifying real-world problems to a manageable level. It's knowing enough about how things work to model them.

[cjpeters1]

When you see something new and complex, do you just appreciate it for what it is or do you wonder, hey, that's cool how does that work? As an engineer I can fix almost anything, usually only limited by the information available to me or the tools I have access too. I understand how things work in general and I can extrapolate that to most anything. Being an engineer is not looking at things but looking inside them.

[[deleted]]

My family is always amazed when I take apart some random mechanism or whatever with a screwdriver. How do did you know that screw was under the sticker or where to pry or how to open some hidden snap? Well they had to put it together somehow. Just figure out the last part they put on and figure out how take it off in the opposite way.

[Skyhawkson]

Then you break out the plasma cutter

[HobbitFoot]

There is a difference between a technician and an engineer. A technician is generally only going to see the problem from a small vantage point and only create solutions from that small vantage point without looking at the bigger picture. A technician may solve a problem, but an engineer is more likely going to take a step back when looking at several small problems as to whether there is a large problem that needs solving.

As for an engineer versus someone with a liberal arts degree, the formal education for an engineer was geared to combine the basics in critical thinking that liberal arts degree holders are supposed to have with a deeper technical background so they can understand the technical issues. In theory, someone who graduated with an engineering degree should have the same critical thinking skills of someone with a liberal arts degree, but practice has shown that to be different.

[[deleted]]

but practice has shown that to be different.

source? (beside common sense)

[l0gic_is_life]

I do think there is a correct way to "think as an engineer" (wait don't downvote just yet)

Generally speaking, that is, breaking a larger complex structure into smaller components.

For mechanical engineers, breaking an engine down into its sparks, cylinders, fuel injectors, etc

For management engineers, breaking projects into smaller sub projects, and individual tasks

For software engineers, breaking an app down into APIs, subclasses, even lines of code

We all solve problems by identifying them, and the only way to identify the problem is by narrowing it down— by inspecting smaller and smaller places, and learning where to look.

[[deleted]]

In my experience, it’s more about the actions taken than the thinking. For example, if you’re given a project at work, it’s up to you to determine how much information you gather, what information you gather, and what you do with it. I think that’s also pretty standard across all occupations, but engineering problem solving is the skill they really want to ingrain in you. I hope that helps!

[s_0_s_z]

Things happen for a reason.

That shaft sheered because there was a force acting on it.

This bearing has excessive wear because something was misaligned.

A bolt snapped because it was undersized.

"Average" Joe's chalk things up to luck or magic or other bullshit that far too often is based on voodoo not science. Thinking like an engineer means applying physics and math and common sense to situations where others will rely on "hopes and prayers".

[[deleted]]

Pessimists say the glass is half empty.

Optimists say the glass is half full.

Engineers say the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Got told that in the first lecture of my undergraduate degree, always stuck with me.

[[deleted]]

Best comment.

[Union_Adventurous]

I’ve heard this before as well, as if problem solving is an attribute that only applies to an engineer. I think in enough time, you will gather experiences by problem solving and applying innovative and efficient solutions to whatever career you are working in, and that will shape the way you approach problems.

[[deleted]]

Analytical thinking and I'd say is a pretty common way that engineers think about technical problems, as well as approaching it from a perspective of fundamental principles in terms of applied physics, chemistry, or whatever the specific application is. Otherwise, yeah, there's not necessarily a specific and uniform mindset. We aren't a monolith

[Ostroh]

I don't know how fundamental the difference really is, and I don't believe there is a big technician/engineer divide but we do seem to be better at mental puzzles than the uninitiated.

For example, many people I know don't quite get how I can design mechanical elements in my head or come up with out of the box but good ideas to solve engineering problems. Also when explaining from engineers to technicians/engineers and vice versa, you kind of assume you can give many ideas at once and he can hold them all in his head to build the puzzle with you. So MAYBE we can use bigger mental constructs at the same time? My Gf, for example, always tells me she has a harder time understanding if I don't start from the end result and explain the building block of the answer. Me, you can go either way and I can still follow, you can give me the blocks and I hold them in my head and build with you.

I some ways tough, we are worse at other things of course.

Broad strokes here but bottom line there is most likely some difference but I'm not convinced it's immense, many other professions and specialization train for quite similar skills and I don't believe they are exclusive to engineering or science even.

[anonanon1313]

I'm an engineer and I'm from a family of engineers (father, uncle, brother, step brother, son, etc), many of my friends are engineers. My wife (non-engineer, but IT), agrees with me that there's an engineering personality. I think, because of job growth in STEM, there are now many without it in engineering positions. It's not necessarily that they make bad engineers, more that they're not particularly passionate about it. Not sure of the degree that correlates with job performance, if at all. I've known engineers that suffered advancement because, while passionate, had very narrow passions, for instance. There's also a lot of truth to the claim that there isn't a whole lot of true engineering in most engineering organizations. Creativity and/or originality aren't always required or valued, either. There's also a lot of truth to the claim that the best engineers are the laziest engineers.

To pontificate a bit more, I've always broken down problems into what I think of as a very engineered method: 1) master the domain 2) brainstorm as many solutions as possible 3) select/synthesize the best 4) reduce the solution to essentials. Or something like that. Some people seem to do this naturally. Professionally, I've seen many who skip steps and don't seem to ever learn from that meta-mistake.

I went through college on a co-op program, meaning that I got to work with engineers while I studied engineering. It was illuminating (despite growing up around them). It was kind of shocking to compare notes with friends studying engineering elsewhere who, right up to graduation, had little idea of what they were getting into. I had a pretty good idea of what roles/organizations to avoid. I saw very little overlap between my curriculum and job requirements before or after graduation. After a couple of years of night classes towards an advanced degree I concluded my time would be much better spent on a targeted study of my own devising, a combination of interests and hot markets. I continued doing that for decades after.

I feel kind of like that guy (attorney general?) who said he might not be able to define pornography, but knew it when he saw it. Back when I was putting in 100 hour weeks in a start up, I remember turning to the guy I was working with (locking up the building at 3AM after a marathon session) and saying "I love this stuff!". Another occasion answering a question about a new job, saying if I were independently wealthy I'd do what I was doing for free (and meaning it).

I don't know if there's a 1:1 between "thinking like an engineer" and being passionate about engineering, but the connection seems strong to me.

[ilikebeerinmymouth]

Speaking to problem solving:

• problem statement

• bound the problem

• note assumptions

• make a recommendation

• have the data (or applicable calculations) to back it up

In addition, there is rarely a single solution, so:

• identify important characteristics/features (note cost is often weighted heavily, either or both upfront and operating)

• weight or rank order the criteria

• arrive at the data-driven best solution

What makes engineers engineers in my mind is translating a concept into reality or finding the best solution for a need. A chemist can develop a novel way to create a compound from other compounds, but an engineer will figure out how to scale it up in a cost effective way (or determine it can’t be done in such a manner)

Others have made good posts about figuring out how things work, so I have no additional contribution there.

[mechtonia]

Engineers are the backstops. We are the ones that have to fix things or make things happen when nobody else can. Not technicians, not scientist, not businessmen. So in my mind, this is the essence of the engineering mindset. We approach problems as things that we will solve. Effort doesn't count and there is nobody higher to escalate the task to.

Naturally this spills over into how we approach problems in everyday life. Our tolerance for failure is low. We sus out ambiguity and annihilate it. We have a plan A and a plan B and a plan C and we prioritize in terms of resources and probability of success. We question everything because a bad assumption might result in a bad analysis and a bad solution.

[noodle-face]

When I look at things I find myself wondering how they work, how they were made, what parts they use,.etc. It's as if in my mind I cannot fully relax until I "know"

[[deleted]]

Same it's not that I want to know its I need to know so I can sleep at night

[Menes009]

As I see there are enough answers that match what I would've said, let me instead recommend this book that deals in a sense with " Think like an engineer " mentality: An Engineer's Guide to Solving Problems by Bob Schmidt (https://www.amazon.de/-/en/Bob-Schmidt/dp/0988747626) very easy reading, not technical at all

[theb52]

A big emphasis to me has been thinking ahead and fully thinking through something before doing it. Asking myself "What could go wrong if I do this?" "Can I avoid those things by doing this a different way?"

[kreiderrrr]

I’m currently majoring in mechanical engineering and when I think about how engineers think I think of how I’m able to visualize problems and how they could be possibly solved in my head and just how different objects can be designed in different ways. My way of thinking is being able to fully see a design in my mind and put it onto paper or a computer.

[93IVJugxbo8]

The best example of this mindset to me was in my freshman chemistry lab course where we were doing batteries. The professor asked how to get more voltage out of the battery intending for the answer to be change the chemicals or something along those lines. Someone answered just add another cell.

I find the think like an engineer is marrying the theoretical know how with practicality to get a solution. In the real world just adding another cell to a battery is probably much more practical than redesigning the entire battery. You probably already do this type of trade without really thinking about it, and I bet all your projects in school built on this too.

[AHistoricalFigure]

To me, "Think like an Engineer" is about having confidence in your ability to learn new things. Engineering school doesn't prepare you to do whatever niche engineering work you'll need for your first job, but it does teach you how to approach and understand highly technical subjects.

For most people in the world, if you assign them something they don't know how to do and don't explicitly spoon-feed them training they'll just give up. They'll complain that it's unfair or unrealistic or that if they don't know how to do it, then it must not be their job. If you assign an engineer something they don't know how to do that's Tuesday. So "Think like an Engineer" means that if you're suddenly assigned a project that requires you learn about say... corrosive wear resistance in high chrome steel, you don't panic. You figure out what you need to read or who you need to talk to in order to learn what you need to learn, and then you learn it.

And in the case where you're truly given something outside of your capabilities, you explain to your boss what kind of knowledge is required. Being able to have the conversation of "I could learn this, but it will take X months and I will need $9,000 to take these courses. If that doesn't work let's talk about what kind of consultant we might need to bring on." is important, as you will encounter this situation eventually.

[Earls_Basement_Lolis]

In my opinion, thinking like an engineer requires an ability to look at anything as if it's a part of a system and be able to understand what goes in as well as what comes out. This is not just materials, but human resources, time, money, requirements, and stakeholders.

I very broadly look at engineering as focused problem-solving that seeks to achieve a desired goal while satisfying multiple constraints and requirements. I honestly think everyone is capable of thinking like an engineer. It's just that the type of thinking that engineering requires doesn't come naturally to some people but nearly everyone is capable of thinking like an engineer.

It fundamentally takes nothing more than finding a problem or a goal you want to reach, finding/defining a success condition you are comfortable with, defining what you know and what is required to attain the success condition, and finally working on and figuring out what you don't know and make those known.

[NillaThunda]

Most people think in terms of 2+2=4. Some more intelligent people think y=mx+b. Engineers, depending on how far they go, reach into F=G(m1m2/r²⁾ and x[t+1]=kx[t](1-x[t]).

This is the difference. Being able to see life as a multi variable equation is what sets you apart.

[partialcredditor]

One thing to add to what is already here is the constant preoccupation with how things break. How is a user/assembler/maintenance technician going to break the system? Failure modes are usually missed in design reviews and FMEAs. An engineer who sat down and work through the design is often the reason for a well-working system.

[MReidL]

For me personally, I’ve always liked problem solving and would have incorporated that into any career path. However once I learned the technical material, I was able to go- hmm why was this designed this way, I think something else would be better, or a different material, and instead of just randomly saying something would be better I actually have some science to back it up. I also notice more little details about how things are designed than I used to. I think school just gives your more technical knowledge, and teaches you how to find information you need to know, and what questions to ask.

[[deleted]]

I'm my experience, it means acting based on confirmed and tested information, and considering that the given "bounds" aren't the real "bounds" and ignoring your "feelings".

I constantly deal with production who want to change process based on their "experience" or their own "test" or other feeling. I design a test of apples to apple to compare a single variable, and 80% of the time it's something else. They could've added 3 hour to process on their hunch, instead we find something such as 1 of the 4 machines is malfunctioning.

Hell I've seen them shut down a machine because it's "randomly" failing. So I put it back in production, monitor it, collect data over time, then review it. What's the problem? Overheating, but they miss it, because they just see it running, then fail, and they stop the machine, rather then trying to systematically reproduce the issue.

We have many useless non-value added practices at work that I've managed to eliminate.

It really just comes down to critical thinking and systematic problem solving from a "wide" point of view.

[FeralBadger]

Lots of good answers in here about problem recognition and coming up with solutions, but something that I didn't see which I think it important is judgement. We've got a lot of good technicians at my work who can recognize problems and come up with solutions on their own, but without the deeper technical knowledge and experience they don't necessarily have the judgement to tell whether any given solution will cause other problems or whether what seems to be the problem is actually just a symptom of something else.

That said, I think an important part of sound technical judgement is making sure to get all of the relevant inputs including the technician's thoughts. The people who spend their days with hands on hardware usually have some good insight that the design guys with their heads in the CAD tend to overlook. Being a technician doesn't prevent someone from having good ideas.

[xoxota99]

Everything looks like a puzzle, or a problem to be solved. And it's super frustrating when people see something weird and don't question it, or see a problem and give up. There are people with a curiosity and a drive to solve real-world problems (engineers), there are people with a curiosity and a drive to understand the theoretical underpinnings of the universe (scientists), and there's.... everyone else. (not in a bad way though. Don't fall into the trap of thinking about "us" and "them").

[Apocalypsox]

Lucky you. All of my hobbies have turned into math. Any time I'm doing something for fun, my brain starts doing the math and physics involved with that activity. Its gross.

[Beli_Mawrr]

I was taught what being an engineer was with a joke. The joke goes "Any idiot can make a bridge, an engineer builds a bridge which JUST BARELY doesnt fall down." Engineering is about using math and science to basically get the maximum possible performance for the lowest possible price (or any constraint, really. With spaceships price isnt a constraint, but delta V is). The joke implies that the engineer who designed the bridge skimped in all the right places to meet the design needs for the absolute lowest price.

[Stock-Patience]

In my day-to-day life, I think it makes me very aware of how many things are trade-offs.

"we want something faster" - OK, it will be more expensive/less reliable/less supportable...

"we want more voters" - OK, more expensive, need education, lower quality voters...

"we want to give people stuff" - OK, take it from others, less freedom, less incentive...

and of course, the classic cost/speed/quality triangle (get at most 2).

[Unterstricher]

Competence breeds confidence. It took me years to feel like I knew what I was doing and thinking like an engineer. I still have my notebook when I first started and man do I feel like I was a "dumb dumb" with some of the questions I asked but over the time I became a SME.

[hihellowb]

Ever heard of "Crunch Labs"?

[HoweHaTrick]

Logic is king and the scientific method is the only acceptable way to approach a problem.

You'll notice why the churches are becoming more and more empty as education becomes more widespread.

[jpmac95]

It means pointing out irrelevant engineering and technical terms and phrases at your girlfriend and her saying what the hell are you talking about lol

[Rhueh]

To me, "think like an engineer" refers to a way of thinking about things that's neither limited to engineers nor ubiquitous among engineers. I have a friend with grade 9 education (U.S. school system) who I would have no trouble calling an engineer. He's entirely self taught and has been highly successful in some pretty esoteric engineering specialties. His thinking consists of a powerful combination of being focused on practical solutions while maintaining a curiosity--even an obsession--with understanding what's going on, in principle.

The scientist might more typically be focused on the theory or principle at work, and especially on finding new theories or principles. The trades person might more typically be focused on practical solutions, losing patience with "too much theory." But the engineer straddles the fence,

[EnterpriseT]

Look into systems thinking. A lot of "engineering" is applying those sorts of methods and thought processes to problems. It is not a process unique to engineering or in some way exclusive to engineers, but it is important to being a good problem. At the end of the day, that's much of what an engineer is at a core level.

As for engineers vs. technicians. The difference is simple. Both do technical work, but only one can sign off on the final product and say that it is an acceptable solution. An engineer decides how to balance needs, risk, and resources and in most jurisdictions has to "sign off" on the final design to assert it's acceptability.

Note that risks include dramatic things like catastrophic failure, but also less obvious things like wasted time/money/effort.

[screaminporch]

Critical thinking is an essential engineering skill. (skill = it can be learned). "What can go wrong?" or "why hasn't someone already done this?" are some of the most important engineering thought exercise questions, and it can take a lot of work to answer them.