Proc. Instn Cio. Engrs, Part 2, 1983,75, Mar.

, 77-94

PAPER 8619

An analysis of the characteristics

of a good civil engineer
D. I. BLOCKLEY, BEng, PhD,MICE,FIStructE*
c. I. ROBERTSON, MA, MICE*

The assertion that engineering is the third cultureis briefly discussed and it is argued thatat
root-philosophical level the differences between scientists and engineers are not large.How-
ever, in thinking aboutthe education and trainingof civil engineers,it is useful to have some
model of the characteristics requiredof a good civil engineer. A hierarchically structured set
of logically connected propositions is proposedas a tentative analytical modelof this prob-
lem. Possible uses of the model are presented and concepts such as technical soundness,
practical capability, critical responsibility, and business capability are discussed. Finally, the
possible quantitative use of the model to define minimum levels of engineering competence
and organizationalquality is suggested.

Introduction
Engineering is the third culture. This is a proposition increasingly being heard,
particularly in the context of discussions about the reasons for the decline of
British industry. There have been warnings since the 19th century from various
individuals about. thepossibility of this decline and the need to establish a more
effective industrial education. Lewin’ has pointed out thatin spite of these and the
deliberations of various enquiries(the most recent being Finniston’) the problems
seem to remain much the same. An apathetic attitude to engineering education
seems to have become entrenched in society. It seems that engineering has been
made to appear mundane and devoid of intellectual challenge and creativity.
2. In aneffort to counterthis problem and toassert the case for a third culture,
the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) has a campaign termed Education for capability. It
is a campaign to redress what they see as a serious imbalance in Britain today in
the full process which is described by the two words‘education’ and ‘training’. The
RSA describes, for example, the idea of the ‘educated’ man as thatof a scholarly,
leisured individual who has been neither educated nor trained to exercise useful
skills. It is maintained that those who specialize in higher education are taught to
practise only the skills of scholarship and science; to understand but not to act.
These people therefore gain knowledge of a particular area of study, but d o not
obtain ways of thinking and working which are appropriate for use outside the
education system. The protagonistsof the RSA scheme believe that this imbalance
is harmful to individuals, to industry and tosociety. Individual satisfaction stems

Written discussion closes15 May 1983; for further details see p (ii).
Copyright Clearance Center code: 0307-8361/83/010077-18.$3.60.
*Departmentof Civil Engineering, Universityof Bristol.
I1
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 B L O C K L E Y AND R O B E R T S O N
from doing a job well through the exercise of,personal capability. The present
system of education inhibits the acquisition of this capability by stressing the
importance of analysis, criticismand acquisition of knowledge and neglecting the
formulation and solution of problems,doing,making and organizing-infact
constructive and creative activity of all sorts. Education for capability considers
that there exists in its own right a culture which is concerned with doing, making
and organizing: a culture which emphasizes craftsmanship; the design, manufac-
ture and marketing of goods and services; the creative arts and the day-to-day
management of affairs.
3. This RSA campaign is of directrelevance to civil engineersbecause this
description of a culture, similar to the German ‘Technik’ or the French ‘metier’
mustincludeengineering.Chilver3 andFinniston* were both very muchcon-
cerned with the balance of education and training. Every university and poly-
technichasponderedontheproblem andthe EngineeringCouncil andthe
engineering institutionswill have to make important decisions in the near future.
4. Philosophers of science regularly debate‘the scientific method ’, but is there
anequivalent‘engineering method’?The AmericanSocietyforEngineering
Education4 states that the goals of an engineering education are: a mastery of
fundamental scientific principles and a commandof basic knowledge; a thorough
understanding of the engineering methodand elementary competence in its appli-
cation; an ability to select significant results in a study and present them clearly
and concisely; a continuinginterest in further professional developmentand some
understanding of human and social problems. Although many engineers might
think they have an intuitive understanding of what is meant here by the engi-
neering method, thereis still very little published discussion. Clearlyit is important
to establish somesort of consensus of what is meant before thedetails of education
and training canbe agreed upon.
5. The need for aphilosophy of engineeringhas also been pointed out by
Blockley and Henderson’ who argued that the difference between scientists and
engineers is not great. Following Popper,6 both science and engineering were seen
as creative problem-solving activities in which the consequences of incorrect pre-
diction are markedly different. The scientist wishes to falsifyhis conjectures as
ingeniously as he is able; the engineer has no wish to d o so as this means failure.
The scientist is concerned with precisionand truth; theengineer is concerned with
the production of an artefact of quality (i.e. one which is safe, beautiful, economic
and so on) and is primarily interested in dependable information. The engineer is
interested in accuracy only to the extent that it is necessary to solve his problem
effectively. Thus at root-philosophical level it may well be argued that the real
differences between the two cultures are small because good scientists and good
engineers must be able to formulate problems, design equipment, analyse, criticize
and evaluate. Perhaps the differences arise only fromthe different motivations.It is

Table 1
A B If A then B
I T T T
2 T F F
3 F T T
4 F F T

Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF A CIVIL ENGINEER
also clear that a spectrum of knowledge and abilities through the various cultures
exists and is needed. The real question relates more to the encouragement of the
various abilities in our system of education and training. Thus, the purpose of this
Paper is to present an analysis which might beusefulin determiningwhat is
required for civil engineers. The analysisis based on a modelling techniquewhich
has been proposed for the analysis of structural safety’ and consists of a series of
hierarchically arranged, logically connected propositions.It is a tentative analysis
of a problem which may be formulated in a number of ways but is presented in the
hope that it will lead to a firmer basis for discussion than is currently available.
Some of the implicationsof the analysisare discussed in 8 14-24.

Hierarchical modelling
6. Consider the following propositions
( a ) If Joe Smith is an ideal civil engineer (A)
(b) then Joe Smith is technically sound(Bl)
(c) and Joe Smith has all the qualities of a well-educated professional(B2)
( d ) and Joe Smith has good personal qualities (B3).
Propositions B1, B2, B3 are necessary conditions on proposition A. This means
that for example if Joe Smith is technically sound heis not necessarilyan ideal civil
engineer because he may not have good personalqualities. However, if he is ideal
then he must be technically sound because proposition Ais sufficient for B1. If for
the purpose of simple understandingit is imagined that each proposition could,in
a particular circumstancebe labelled true (T)or false (F)then the truth table would
be as shown in Table 1.
7. In this relationship of ordinary binary logic, the implication if A then B
(A 3 B) is true under all circumstances exceptwhen A is true and B is false (line 2).
Two of the simplest logical arguments can be understood from tnis Table: the
modus ponens and the modus tollens. In the first we are given that A 3 B and A is
true, and from line 1 the conclusion canbe drawn that B is true. The modus tollens
deduction is when A 3 B is given together with B is false, then the conclusion is
that A is false (line 4). It is particularly interesting to note that if B is true, then no
conclusion canbe drawn about the status of A (lines 1 and 3).
8. It is the modus tollens which is relevant to the analysis presented here;this is
why the term ideal civil engineer is used in proposition A. It is the extent towhich
conditions B are not met (i.e. are false) which determine the extent to which A is
false. In other words the analysis depends on the idea of determining the extent to
which the idealis not achieved.
9. Proposition A is rather vague and although propositions B are less vague
they are still difficult to interpret. However, just as the propositions B are neces-
sary conditions for A, it is possible to write down necessary conditions for eachof
thepropositjons B. Similarly,each of theseconditionshavefurthernecessary
conditions and so on in a descending hierarchy. At each level of necessary condi-
tions in this expanding tree of propositions the propositions will become more
specific and less vague. It is possible to continue the processuntil the precision of
thepropositions at aparticular levelisperceived to be that required for the
problem at hand.
10. In a sense the necessary conditions at a particular level in the hierarchy
may be interpreted as the meaning of the proposition forwhich they are necessary,
79
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 B L O C K L E Y AND R O B E R T S O N
to the accuracy represented by that level. It is the responsibilityof the authorof the
hierarchical model to provide a description of all of the necessary propositionsin
order to obtain some measure of completeness. However, it is implicit in the
method that the conditions are never sufficient and therefore never complete be-
cause of our incomplete understanding or ignoranceof all of the relevant factors.
Another important difficulty may arise if propositions in the tree are logically
cross-connected. In some circumstances this may be so important that thegeneral
tree structure of the hierarchy may be swamped. In the preliminary analysis pre-
sented here this increased complexity due to these cross-connections is largely
ignored forinitial simplicity.
Analysis
11. The propositions of Q 6, with slight abbreviation, are set out in Fig. 1 with
the further necessary conditions. The complete set of hierarchically ordered propo-
sitions can be followed in Figs. 2-7. The logical implications are indicated by the
horizontal and vertical lines.
Potential use of model
12. It is common to classify the development of an engineer into three cate-
gories: personal andsocial background, formal education, and industrial training.
In broad terms the first is an individual attribute, the second is dealt with by
educational establishments and the thirdis 1argely.basedon industry.However, in
universities and polytechnics there is a clash between the requirements of a good
education and the needs of a vocational preparation for industrial training. Thus,
in developingthehierarchicalmodel at the first level, theconcept of a well-
educated professional was used, be he/she engineer, doctor, lawyer or architect
(proposition 3). The special attribute of the engineer-technical soundness-was
then included separately (proposition 2). Thus, the propositions consequent on
proposition 3 are intended to be largely common to all professionals although the
weightings given to the various attributes will differ. The ability to formulate
problems is a fundamentalskill,6 the ability to organize, communicate, deduce and
calculate should be, but are notalways, present.It is more important,for instance,
for the average engineer to be numerate than it is for the average lawyer whereas
the lawyer needs to be a better communicator. However, both must dealwith the
precision (whetherreal or apparent)of numerical data andwith the vaguenessand
imprecision of written or verbal evidence.
13. The model presented may be used
(a) to attempt toestablish a consensusof what is relevant
( b ) to establish weightingsof the importanceof the various propositions
( c ) to identify when in the development of a particular engineer he/she should
be helped to develop a particularskill and if and when he/she should be
tested for competence before being accepted as qualified
( d ) to identify and improve our understanding of various concepts such as
practical capability
(e) to identify which areas are well developed (e.g. scientific knowledge) and
which are not and need much more attention (e.g. ability to evaluate
solutions to a problem)
This Paper discusses mainly items ( d ) and ( e ) and invites comments and debate
underitem (a). Weightings are notpresentedunderitem (b) and no rigorous
attempt is made to discuss item(c).
80
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F A C I V I LE N G I N E E R
Technical soundness
14. In attempting to use the model to shed light on the concept of an engi-
neering method it is useful to examine proposition 2 (‘is technically sound’). The
first distinction made here is that between having an engineering capability and
having sufficient knowledge. The formeris that which is common to all competent
engineers, the second is that which makes some expert in structural steel design,
some in geotechnlcs and so on. Itis often argued that is it the dutyof the university
to separate out and teach the fundamental engineering principles and leave the
acquisition of sufficient knowledge (whichrests on thoseprinciples) to postgradu-
ate and industrialtraining. It is the blurring of this distinction which is sometimes
at the root of the pressure to extend the undergraduate course from three to four
years. The available knowledge has expanded so much in recent years that there is
a great pressure to include more and more in a course. However, even in four
years, only a small part of the available knowledge can be learned. Teaching,
therefore, must concentrate on fundamentals and how these are used in an engi-
neering context. Thisis discussed furtherin $4 1 6 1 9 .
15. Engineering capability requires both a scientific capability and a practical
capability. The first of these requires an understandingof engineering scienceand
its limitations both theoretical and practical. Furthermore, an appreciation is
Fig. I
1 (An ideal civil engineer) 3 2 (is technicallysound)
3 3 (has all thequalities of a well-educated
professional)
3 4 (has good personalqualities)
These will be expanded as
2 3 5 (has engineering capability)
and 6 (has sufficient knowledge)
3 3 7 (is ableto formulate and solve problems)
and 8 (is able to organize)
and 9 (is able to communicate)
and 10 (is numerate)
and 11 (appreciates his context in society)
4 3 12 (has good character)
and 13 (has good intellect)
and 14 (has good physical characteristics)
53 15 (has scientific capability)
and 16 (has practical capability)
15 3 17 (understands relevantscientific
hypotheses)
and 18 (understands the limitations of
scientific hypotheses)
17 3 19 (understands the basics of structural
mechanics)
and 20 (understands the basicsof geotechnics)
and 21 (understands the basics of fluid mechanics)
and 22 (understands the basicsof important
related disciplines suchas thermo-
dynamics and electricity)
continued overleaf
81
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 B L O C K L E YA N DR O B E R T S O N
Fig. 1. Continued
18 3 23 (understands scientific assumptions)
and 24 (understands practical assumptions)
and 25 (understands the need for rulesof
thumb and heuristics)
23 and 24 3 26 (has feedback fromuse in laboratory)
and 27 (has feedback from practical use of
hypotheses)
25 3 28 (understands the need for heuristics)
and 29 (understands how they have arisen)
and 30 (has obtained feedback from use)
30 3 31 (has obtained feedback from own
experience)
and 32 (has obtained feedback fromthe
experience of others)
32 3 33 (from working with senior engineers)
and 34 (from reading case studies)
16 3 35 (is able to formulate conceptual
solutions to practical problems)
and 36 (is able to formulate detailed solutions)
and 37 (is able to assess how nearlythe
solution matches upto what is required)
and 38 (has sufficient practical skills)
35 and 36 3 39 (has design experience) and 6 and 7
37 3 40 (is able to assess likely performance of
solution)
and 41 (appreciates likely hazards to solution)
and 42 (understands constraints on the client)
and 43 (appreciates an appropriate
technology)
and 44 (appreciates the need for analysis of
non-technical functions)
and 45 (appreciates impacton the environment)
40 and 41 3 46 (can calculate necessary limiting states)
and 47 (can assess random hazards, e.g.
flood, fire)
and 48 (appreciates the need to control
human error)
48 3 49 (in design and on site and during use)
and 50 (participates in the maintenance of
professional standards)
6 3 5 and 51 (has particular knowledge)
and 52 (knows howto obtain knowledge)
51 3 53 (has knowledge of structures, con-
struction, management, building
science, hydraulic and maritime tech-
nology, transportation, costs, site investiga-
tion, and so on)

82
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 CHARACTERISTICS O F A CIVIL ENGINEER
Fig. 1. Continued
52 3 54 (can learn from published work)
and 55 (can learn from experience)
and 56 (knows when to seek expert advice)
and 57 (appreciates the need for mid-career
training)
7 3 6 and 58 (is able to recognize and operate on
relationships between perceptions,
whether precise or imprecise; thinking)
and 59 (is perceptually aware)
58 3 60 (is able to think creatively; categorize
widely; is able to formulate strategy)
and 61 (is able to think rationally; categorize
narrowly; is able to formulate tactics;
analyse and criticize)
and 62 (is able to evaluate and use judgement)
6 0 a n d 61 3 63 (is able to synthesize from well-known
ideas)
and 64 (is able to originate new ideas)
and 65 (is able to think using non-
mathematical logic)
and 66 (is able to use mathematics)
62 3 67 (is able to rank variousdata)
and 68 (is able to weight various data)
8 3 69 (is able to take decisions)
and 70 (is able to take responsibility)
and 71 (is able to judge the quality of advice)
and 72 (is able to choose whois todo a task)
and 73 (is able to decide what is required)
and 74 (is able to decide how task is to be
performed)
and 75 (is able to decide when task is to be
performed)
71 3 76 (is able to judge the qualities of the
advisor)
and 77 (is able to judge the quality of the
information)
72 3 78 (is able to organize own work)
and 79 (is able to organize workof others)
79 3 80 (is able to motivate others)
and 81 (is able to judge work of others)
and 82 (is able to communicate with others)
73 and 74 and 75 3 6 and 7
9 3 83 (is able to communicate verbally)
and 84 (is able to record communications,
write reports, write calculations,
produce drawings, set out engineering
WO rks)

83
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 B L O C K L E Y AND R O B E R T S O N
F i g . 1. Continued
10 3 85 (is able to calculate accurately and
reliably)
and 86 (is able to handle mathematics)
86 3 87 (has ability with standard mathematics)
and 88 (has sufficient mathematical
competence not to be intimidated by
mathematics)
38 3 89 (can perform experiments, is able to
draw, use a computer, use workshop
machines, surveying equipment and
do site investigations)
11 3 90 (appreciates economic context)
and 91 (appreciates political context)
and 92 (appreciates ethical context)
and 93 (appreciates sociological context)
and 94 (appreciates intellectual context)
91 3 95 (appreciates effects of governmental
politics on civil engineering)
and 96 (appreciates the politics of decision-
making)
92 3 97 (context within profession)
and 98 (context outside the profession)
97 3 99 (appreciates the need to maintain
professional standards of conduct)
and 100 (appreciates the obligation to maintain
the profession through help with
education and training)
94 3 101 (scientific, mathematical, engineering
context)
12 3 102 (has agood attitude to work)
and 103 (has a senseof humour)
and 104 (has agood attitude to people)
102 3 105 (has enthusiasm, confident modesty,
is decisive, interesting, enquiring,
constructively critical, is able to work
under pressure)
1043 106 (has a good attitude to self and to
others)
and 107 (has been influenced by talented
people)
13 3 108 (has natural ability in science and
mathematics)
and 109 (can visualize in three dimensions)
and 110 (has anaesthetic sense)
and 111 (has natural creativity)
and 112 (is naturally articulate)
143 113 (is fit, agile, dexterous, has head for
heights and so on)

84
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F A C I V I LE N G I N E E R

Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 B L O C K L E Y AND R O B E R T S O N

86
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F A C I V I LE N G I N E E R

Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 BLOCKLEYANDROBERTSON

0
rj W
W

88
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF A CIVIL ENGINEER

m
.f

89
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 B L O C K L E YA N DR O B E R T S O N

90
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F A C I V I LE N G I N E E R
needed of the nature and needfor the heuristicsor rules of thumb which engineers
have to use when science lets them down. Essential to these concepts are labora-
tory experimentation and feedback from the previous use of science. The second
concept-practical capability-is an attempt todescribe what is intuitively felt by
many engineers to be the essence of a good engineer. Implicit in this is practical
common sense and the ability to formulate and evaluate a solution to a problem.
This may be at the detailed level (tactics) or in terms of overall strategy (e.g. the
ability to design a reinforcement cage which can actually be constructed or the
ability to decide that reinforced concrete is the best medium for the particular
structure being designed). The confusion between the roles of a professionally
qualified engineerand avery competent technicianis often centredon therequired
level of problem formulation, solution and evaluation. Although a technician can
deal with problems of detail-problems which are constrained and fairly closed-
ended (tacticsbthe engineer must also be able to formulate and evaluate overall
conceptual solutions to problems (strategy).

Responsibility, knowledge and thinking

16. The engineermustalsobeable to organize, make decisions andtake
responsibility. Settle' has pointed out the central role of critical responsibility in
establishing professional competence. In criticizing the notion of the inductive
reliability of an engineering product he maintainsthat engineers should not assert
the reliability of a prediction based on a hypothesis but should use the notion of
the responsibility of a decision to act based on a hypothesis. In accordance with
legal requirements, the responsible engineeris not expected to be right every time,
but heis definitely expected never to make childish or lay mistakes. Science is
theory-laden. It is a human enterprise, and scientists are never going to be able to
declare the clear, shining undeniable truth. The critical method is the best yet
developed for determining the truth and eliminating error as far as is possible.
From this can be derived the conceptof critical responsibility.
17. There is a relationship, obviously, between the nature of a discipline and
the way problems and solutions are formulated within that discipline. An ability to
formulate and solve problems is dependent on knowledge and thinking skills.
Although a fundamental understanding of the principles of engineering science is
necessary, itis not sufficient. As noted in 9 14 there is a temptation to add further
knowledge to an undergraduate course at the expense of fundamental principles.
Of course, the definition of what is meant by a fundamental principle is not easy.
For example, what is a fundamental to an engineer may not be so for an astron-
omer or physicist. The notion adopted hereis that a fundamental principleis one
which is very widely applicable and dependable in solving problems of the type
being considered. Thus, Newtonian mechanics is fundamental to engineers but the
physicist would want to replace it with relativity theory. As the name of the latter
implies, fundamentalsare relative to theset of problems in hand.
18. Two relevant contrasting categories, among the many usedby psychol-
ogists, for particular types of thinker are the converger and the diverger. Put
simply, the convergeris typified by the popular imageof the average scientist who
is happy solving closed-form problems with well-defined data and well-defined
objectives. The diverger on the other hand tends to be attracted to the arts, may
not bevery good at precisedeductivethinking but is happyatdealingwith
open-ended problems with vague imprecise and fuzzy data and objectives. While

91
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 B L O C K L E Y AND ROBERTSON
these arts and sciencestereotypeshavesome validity, the bestengineers and
scientists, indeed the best in any profession, must be capable of convergent and
divergent thinking. Engineers haveto deal both with precise detailed logical argu-
ment (e.g. structural analysis) and with problem formulation using vague data (e.g.
conceptual design). There is experimental evidence’ that inschools, the pupils who
study science are largely convergers and those studying the arts arelargely diver-
gers. It follows that the majority of engineers are probablyconvergers because the
universities tend to select on thebasis of performance in science and mathematics.
This has repercussions in the approach of engineers to conceptual design which
does require divergent and creative thinking.
19. Any person in contact with the external world is confrontedwith masses of
data from his perceptions. Individual environmental events tend to be tied in with
previous events so that new perceptions are not seen as unique but as part of a
related sequence. Thus,new data arerendered meaningfulby being connectedwith
past data which they resemble. Clearly the more a person treats data which look to
have nothing to do with each other as though they are related, the more likely
he/she is to make data combinations which are unusual (i.e. to think creatively).
This kind of person is sometimes called awide categorizer. People who makevery
fine discriminations betweenbits of input and who require highlevels of similarity
before they can see relationships (narrow categorizers) are inclined to store infor-
mation as thoughit consisted of a large numberof relatively unrelated bits and are
thus unlikely to make the kind of cognitive leap requiredfor creative thinking. On
the other hand, willingness to treat data as roughly equivalent would be particu-
larly favourable to creativity.’ There is also experimental evidence that creative
thinking can be stimulated and improved in students even if it cannotbe taught by
a formal lecture approach. This reinforces the idea that certain essential design
skills can be developed at University through controlled sequence of open-ended
design projects.

Business capability
20. One area of competence not given a specific position in the hierarchical
model is that of acapabilityinbusinessandmanagement skills. This is oc-
casionally a sourceof conflict between the various engineering disciplines particu-
larly in the universities. Professionalswhooperateinsmallpractices (e.g.,
structural engineers, architects) are morelikely to need some basic businessskills
thanthoseworkinginlargeorganizations which employ their ownlawyers,
accountants and administrators. Many engineers working in the manufacturing
industriesneverdealwithcontracts;most civil engineersdo. In fact the civil
engineer needs to understand at least contract law, elementary accounting, re-
source schedulingand basic management techniques in dealing with people. How-
ever, thequestion for theuniversities is: do thesetopics raise fundamental
principles or are they best left to be learned later in an engineer’s professional
training? Are they merely part of ‘sufficient knowledge’? The attitude in most
university engineering departments is that they are part of ‘sufficient knowledge’
and can be picked up during professional training; thus the subjects, if taught at
all, are given low priority. However, it could
be argued thatfor examplethe idea of
critical responsibility is a rather fundamental one and shouldbe part of a univer-
sity undergraduate course in engineering business and management. There are
parallels between the thinking skills required for engineering design and those

92
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 CHARACTERISTICS O F A C I V I L E N G I N E E R
required for management since both involve making decisions on the basis of
information of varying quality. These parallels could well beexploited in teaching.
21. Another difficulty is that business management is often taught in a course
called Engineer in society. The title here implies that the contents are related to
proposition 11 of the hierarchical model (‘appreciates context in society’). Thus,
the student is left with the impression that business and management are really
rather of marginal interest to the central role of an engineer. However, engineers
and society at large must face up to the increasing powerof technology to change
society, the problems of the ensuing risks and the dangers inherent in the cult of
the expert. All these and other fundamental issues point out the importance of a
properly constructed course on the interaction between engineering and society.
Its prime aim should be to raise the level of awareness of student engineers and
encourage them to think about the problems. Only when they and the corporate
membership of the engineering institutions have arisen fromtheir apathy, can the
Institutions expecttheir voice to carry muchweight with Government.

Individuals andorganizations
22. Clearly no individual is ideal and no one person fulfills all the character-
istics listed in the model. The comparisonof an individual’s characteristics against
perfection is one measure of competence. However, a more acceptable use of the
model is to use it to define a set of required minimum characteristics. Again,
different individuals have differingabilities and skills but weightings may be used
to emphasize one skill over another in the definition of the skills and competence
that ail civil engineers must have.An example of this is examination marks. They
represent weightings of academic merit in various subjectsand also set minimum
levels of competence.
23. Within an organization, individuals with differing skills come together to
form a whole which is at least the sum of its parts and may be more if ideas are
generated interactively. Thus,onemightexpectthatan efficient organization
would get nearer to the ideal than an individual. An organization could therefore
use the model to examine how its own characteristics measure up to a perceived
ideal. Indeed it is possible to attempt quantitative assessment usinga mathemat-
ical technique suchas fuzzy logic.’

Conclusions
24. A hierarchically structured set of propositions, logically connected canbe
used to model the characteristics required oFa good civil engineer. The model, it is
hoped, will provide a firmerbasis, than is currently available, for the discussionof
the education and training of civil engineers. It provides an indication of those
ideas within the professionwhich are not well developed, e.g. practical capability,
critical responsibility, evaluative thinking and judgement, creative and divergent
thinking, the role of business capability in undergraduate courses. Withthe use of
a quantitative assessment technique suchfuzzy as logic, the model couldbe used to
establish minimum levels of competence for individuals and the efficiency of or-
ganizations.

References
1. LEWIND. Engineeringphilosophy-thethirdculture. J.R. Soc. Arts, 1981, 129, Sept.,
653-666.

93
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 BLOCKLEY AND ROBERTSON
2. FINNISTON SIR MONTAGUE (Chairman). Engineering our future: report ofthe Committee of
Inquiry into the engineering profession.HMSO, London, 1980, Cmnd 7794.
3. CHILVER SIR AMOSHENRY (Chairman). Report of the Chilver Committee on The Institu-
tion ofcivil Engineers, London, 1975.
4. WALKER E. A. Goals of engineering education. American Society for Engineering Educa-
tion, Washington DC,1968.
5. BLOCKLEY D. I. and HENDERSON J. R. Structural failure and the growth of engineering
knowledge. Proc. Instn. Ciu. Engrs,Part 1, 1980,68, Nov., 719-728.
6. MAGEE B. Popper. Fontana, Glasgow. 1973, Fontana Modern Master.
7. BLOCKLEY D. I. The nature of structuraldesignandsafety. Ellis Horwood, Chichester,
1980.
8. SETTLET.W.Scientists:priests of pseudo-certainty or prophets of enquiry? Science
Forum, 2, No. 3,1969,21-24.
9. VERNONP. E. (Ed).Creativity. Penguin Books, London, 1970.

94
Downloaded by [ University of Sussex] on [17/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.