2006 Issue

www.utahengineerscouncil.org 26 UEC JOURNAL February 2006 We had forgotten the lessons learned in the early days of our profession that the core of engineering is a love of inno- vation where newly constructed things are created to benefit humanity. The cre- ation of theories and the generation of numerous reports and data, while neces- sary in our work, is not the ultimate prod- uct of engineering. Those areas of en- deavor more properly belong in pure sci- ence or other areas and not engineering which, at that time was an area of confu- sion in the public mind. (Example: the launch of the space shuttle was suppos- edly a “scientific” achievement in the media rather than an engineering achievement.) It was only when we spotlighted those individuals who love the profes- sion for the adventure and excitement it holds to do things no one has ever done before, and build things no one has ever built before, that interest in our youth was rekindled. Mass creativity is an immensely powerful force we had ceased to tap because it could not be controlled or quantified. In the late 19 th and early 20 th century inventors were heroes of society, but as inventions be- came more complex and costly, corpo- rations with highly innovation adverse managers began to override the creative abilities of those who became only “employees” with minimal reward from their creative efforts. (A gold watch, certificate or pin were typical rewards) As the 20 th century advanced, invention became institutionalized and the “not in- vented here” syndrome flourished. Oddly enough, those companies which became wildly successful were usually small at first with “irrational” ideas pro- viding great success till many of these same companies grew and descended into the status quo management model over- run by generic MBA thinking and bean counting. This condition persisted up through the difficulties of the first years of the 21 st century. So what did we do to help electrical (and other engineering) flourish in the new century and save the U.S.? It was simple: We returned the innovative chal- lenge, possible rewards, and yes, fun to engineering and explained to prospective engineering students why they should consider creating things, instead of pro- viding only services as their major contri- bution to society – thereby running against the “post industrial service economy” groupthink of society at that time! In this manner, students sorted them- selves out, with those who chose to fol- low a profession of creating the techno- logical basis of society encouraged, and those who preferred a service role or re- search in pure science without a physi- cally created end self directed to those areas. The flagellation of “politically incorrect” engi- neers for not irrationally in- volving one group or an- other suddenly went away, as they volunteered (or were paid for) time and re- sources to simply present the upside and downside of the pro- fession to all possible future engineers. One of the best sources of engineer- ing interest among high school students SOCIETY FORUM INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS Engineering Week — continued ▲ were retired creative engineers often re- employed by corporations and given resources to visit schools for assemblies and question/answer sessions to encour- age (and find) future first rate candi- dates for summer and other internships with interested corporations. (Bored students were not required to attend these sessions.) The retired engineers then mentored the interns to create highly competent engineers upon graduation from college. Examples of creating engineering in- terest were the national contests we be- gan, to encourage public school students of various ages to solve engineering prob- lems as best they were able by science fair type projects. These implemented the idea of true competition where there were winners and losers once again – just as in real life. The national winners were brought to a well publicized con- test by the engineering societies where national media relayed the program to the country and beyond. Other coun- tries adopted similar ideas and interests and there was a rousing competition between people from many areas of the world. (Some of you will remember the highly competitive television program “Invention” which was so popular from 2011 till 2015.) We found the U.S. still had more in- novative ability in our free society of in- dividuals than any other country. This maintained our engineering leadership in the world. Eventually, the innovative brilliance of our upcoming generation was assisted by individuals, corporations, and even schools. Retired engineers served as mentors in U.S. public school classes without educational certification (union cards) and kept the students in- It was only when we spotlighted those individuals who love the profession for the adventure and excitement it holds to do things no one has ever done before, and build things no one has ever built before, that interest in our youth was rekindled.