Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, Part 2, 1984,77, Mar.

, 91-94

DISCUSSION ON PAPER 8619

An analysis of the characteristicsof a good

civil engineer
D. I. Blockleyand C. I. Robertson

Mr G. L. Ackers, Sir M. Macdonald & Partners

No civil engineer is ideal unless he is available, i.e. willing and able to gowhere the
work is. This raises anotherhierarchy of factors, ananalysis of which might
significantly affect staff selection procedure. Perhaps, the Authors could oblige
with an addendum totheir interesting approach.

Mr D. Shackleton, Member
The Paper presents an intriguing device for measuring the ability of an engineer,
and thelogic of the model proposedis most appealing.
27. It is not too difficult to see how the concept might raise a full spectrum of
emotions,although my personalreaction was of afascinatedself-examination
against the‘ virtues ’ listed.
28. The concept might be viewed with some trepidation in view of the possible
abuses of the device, but on consideration some similar system must have been
adopted by recruitment specialists, especially in recent years, with clients’ require-
ments being more detailed and competitionin the field more intense.
29. That the concept has been raised through a publication of the Institution
can only be welcomed as it is basically this body which at presentestablishes
acceptable levels and standards to be attained and maintained. Moreover, this
should ensure that the development of the conceptis both thorough andin the best
interests of the profession as a whole.
30. I would respectfully offer the followingsuggestions concerning possible
routes in the developmentof the concept:
(a) determination of possible quantitative procedureswhich might be applied
to the model
(b) establishment of control groups or similar (possibly by volunteers from
theInstitution or possibly throughthe assistance of recruitment
specialists) for the evaluation of both the model and the quantitative
procedures
( c ) use of the model in some of the many andvaried areas to which it may be
applied (e.g. recruitment, general evaluation, specific evaluation within
an organization).
31. I feel that, as in many engineering problems, some ‘field data’ may at this
relatively early stage enable a more practical programme of development to be
achieved, particularly in what may provein the future to be
a far-reaching project.

Paper published: Proc. Instn Ciu. Engrs, Part 2,1983,75, Mar., 77-94.

Downloaded by [ University Of Wollongong] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 DISCUSSION

M r G. Beuret, Leicester Polytechnic

The Authors seem to me to offer an interestingly broad-ranging account of the
qualities required of an ideal civil (or other) engineer. They d o not, of course,
discuss curriculum development issues-how such
an engineer
might be
‘ produced ’. Such prescriptions always raise interesting questions about whether
employers would, in the event, welcome such engineers. For if their education and
training were as comprehensive and broad as it is suggested it ought to be, it is
possible that engineers would be less docile and compliantas employees than they
now generally are. Employers mightbe less than enthusiastic aboutengineers who
were capable of usingtheirengineering skills to mount apowerful critique of
road-building schemes, city-centre redevelopments, the use of green-field sites for
housingdevelopment etc. Such engineers mightarguethatsomedevelopment
schemes were not in the public interest,were politically unjustifiable, were wasteful
of resources etc. They might also argue that a practice or firm was unwise or
unjustified in a particular course of action. Such criticism might be in the firm’s or
the nation’s long term interest-but it might well conflict with short term com-
mercial advantage. Perhaps some employers, least, at see advantages in a relatively
narrow educationfor engineers?

M r A. W. Shilston, Consulting Engineer

Civil engineering is all about the management of resources, culminating in the
practical task of performing a contract to be completed in the open, largely below
ground level, on time, to budget and to the specified quality.
34. Most of us areaware of thatextractfrom Tredgold’s 1827 definition,
enshrined in theInstitution’sRoyalCharter,about‘the profession of a Civil
Engineer being the artof directing the great sourcesof power in Nature for the use
and convenience of man’. J. H. W. Turner” asserted that the great sources of
powerin nature had always beenseenin material terms, in terms of physical
structures. The civil engineer had sought to understand theforces and energies of
nature in order to harness them for practical use. The means towards that end had
been the competence to design the appropriate structures, select thematerials
required for their creation andspecify the standards tobe met in the construction
process. But, he questioned, was that enough? Was that the total contentof ‘ the
great sources of power in Nature’? Surely, he reasoned, the greatest of all sources
of power-within the concept of physical nature on earth-was the one so far
neglected by the civil engineer: the human being, with all his potentialities for
creative effort. Turner emphasized the importance of human relations and inter-
play and sought toidentify a wider interpretation of ‘directing the great sourcesof
power in Nature ’.
35. TheAuthors’central thesis is thatthe differencebetweenscientists and
engineers are not large. The expressions ‘ behavioural sciences’ and ‘management
sciences’ are nowin common use. In the 1978 conference, promoted by the Institu-
tion, on the management of large capital projects,’ one of the five central themes
was human resources, under which heading was included a paperentitled
‘Contributions from the behaviouralsciences’.
36. One infers that the Institution had recognized that those who were con-
cerned with the higher organization and management of civil engineering needed
to draw on the behaviouralsciences to enable better performance to beachieved.
As research advances this infantdiscipline, so it is likely that at thehighest levels of
management (‘direction ’ in present-day civil engineering falls within the scope of
92

Downloaded by [ University Of Wollongong] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 8619

management) greater recoursewill be had to the findings of ‘scientists’ workingin

this field.
37. WhatdidtheAuthorsunderstand by ‘science’ while preparing their
Paper? Would they considerthatthe so-called behaviouralandmanagement
sciences could be accommodated within the portmanteau word science? If not,
how do they propose, within their model, to deal with the present-day reality that
at the highest levels, whatever wide range of other aptitudes and skills might be
possessed,a person could not be regarded as ‘ a good civil engineer’without
having those human qualities which Turner 20 years ago set out to identify and
encapsulate within his redefinition of civil engineering?
38. Presumably the Authors have directed their sights at ‘goodcivil engineers’
of all ages, recognizing that the skills needed to qualify for this hallmark will vary
according to the demands of the position to be filled. It is central to an appre-
ciation of the Authors’ courageous and ambitious project to follow their under-
lying thinking by eliminating possible ambiguity in the meaning attached to the
terms they use. Civil engineering, in the ultimate, relatively speaking, is not a high
technology arena of endeavour. Itcalls, in substantial measure,for an appreciation
and considerable exercise of judgement about the possibilities and vagaries of
human performance.
39. Whereas in the past the concept of ‘ a good civil engineer’ would probably
have been well-enough perceived, I tend to feel that for modern schemes (with the
wide range of personal qualities, aptitudes and skillsfrequentlycalled for) the
concept is too abstract to be amenable to definition. Perhaps we should be think-
ing of ‘ horses for courses ’.

Dr Blockley and Mr Robertson

M r Ackers suggests a setof factors which we only partlycovered in ourmodel. The
willingness of an engineer ‘ to gowhere the workis ’ would be coveredby the more
detaileddevelopment of thehierarchyunderpropositions 102, 105 in Fig. 7.
However, the abilityof an engineer ‘ to gowhere the work is’is only partlycovered
underpropositions 14, 113 inFig. 7, throughthe possibility of physicaldis-
ablement. Another factorwhich ought to be added to the complete hierarchy in the
first layer is a proposition ‘has good personal circumstances ’. The necessary con-
ditions on this would be ‘is able to adopt flexible work patterns’ and ‘has good
personal life ’.
41. M r Shackleton answers his own point concerning possible abuses of the
suggested model; however, we share his concern that models such as this must be
handled cautiously, especially if quantitative measures are used. Indeed, as he
suggests, the very reason for publishing the Paper is to attempt to ensure that the
development is thorough, rigorous andin the best interests of the profession.
42. As mentioned in thePapertherearealready exampleswheresociety
attempts to quantify and weight various personal skills and aptitudes. Schools,
universities and polytechnics test academic competence; the Institution tests pro-
fessional competence and the Joint Board of Moderators tests the competence of
university departments.
43. M r Beuret has misunderstood the use of the term ‘an ideal civil engineer’.
The hierarchy contains the necessary conditions for an ideal civil engineer and can
be used to measure howclose an individual comes tothis state. We do notsuggest
that education and training should encompass every facet, as this is quite clearly
not possible. However, we do think that the hierarchy could be used to define
93

Downloaded by [ University Of Wollongong] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 DISCUSSION
minimum standards of competence for graduate and charteredengineers. If infor-
mation is input to the model at thelowest levels of the hierarchy it is only possible
to falsify (to some degree) the propositions at the higher levels. Thus the final
measure might be the extent towhich ‘Joe Smith is an ideal civil engineer’ is false.
We hope thatthis explanation will also answer M r Shilston’s final point. In answer
to Mr Beuret’s other points we would say that in any society there are conflicts
which will require compromise. Professional people, we think, tend to co-operate
rather than confront. We use logical and rational thinking to lead us to the best
solutions within the criteriawe set up. If properly educated engineers, as a group,
are involved in public debate, then this must help to contribute to better solutions
for society as a whole.
44. In answer to M r Shilsto, we reiterate that the purpose of the Paper is to
attempt toclarify what we mean by ‘a good civil engineer ’. He also asksus what is
science and implies we have not considered adequately the roleof the behavioural
sciences. We all know that volumes have been written in attempts to answer this
question. We tend simply to the view that science includes any testable results of
human rationality. However, much of our engineering and common-sense know-
ledge is not testable andthis is why we rely on subjective judgement. Thenecessity
for the development of this skill is included in the model.
45. We thank the contributors to the discussion for their interest and we hope
the Paper may stimulate further work on the topic.

References
10. TURNERJ . H. W. Construction managementfor civil engineers. CR Books, London, 1963.
11. Management oflarge capital projects. Institution of Civil Engineers, London,1978.

94

Downloaded by [ University Of Wollongong] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.