Engineering Reasoning

Engineering Reasoning or How to Think Like an Engineer
A.M.Birk MECH 215/396/397/398/399 MECH 460/461/462
Acknowledgments
These notes are roughly based on the booklet, Engineering Reasoning, by R. Paul, R. Niewoehner, L. Elder, 2nd Edition, Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2006.
Sept 2008
Engineering Reasoning
What?
What is engineering reasoning? What is critical thinking? What process do you follow for both?
Sept 2008
Intro
Engineering reasoning is based on critical thinking concepts. Critical thinking is -- thinking about how you think. We use this whenever we do engineering work. If your thinking method is flawed then your work will be too.
Sept 2008 Engineering Reasoning 4
Basic Process
Think about what you are doing, why you are doing it, how you are doing it. Plan it out. Be clear about the purpose and methods. Be critical of your own thoughts and work.
Question your assumptions Question your understanding Question your data Question your approach Question your results Question your conclusions
Stand back and look at what you have done.

The Elements of a Task

Engineering tasks include the following elements:
purpose constraints key questions key concepts data or information points of view assumptions inferences implications
Sept 2008
Elements
Purpose
What are you doing, why, ..?
Constraints
What limitations are in place ..? Size, weight, cost, life, power, time, etc.
Key questions
Strength required, what material, what energy source.. ? Is it safe? Is it efficient?
Key Concepts
Conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, fatigue life?
Sept 2008
Elements
Data and Information
Is data available, what was done before, why ? Is the data good? Do we need more?
Points of view
Options available, best practices, expert opinion ? Customer, manager, stock holder, marketing, operators ..?
Assumptions
Neglect what consider only ? Are the model assumptions valid in this case?
Inferences
Current data or experience suggests ? Is the inference based on bad or limited data?
Elements
Implications
What happens if we are wrong? Are there specific issues that have grave consequences? Will people die if we do this wrong .. ? No one will buy it? No one can afford it? Is this bad for the environment ?
Sept 2008
Work Standards
When you do work you should be evaluating what you are doing based on a set standard. One standard considers the following
Clarity, Relevance, Significance, Accuracy, Precision, Logicalness, Breadth, Depth, Completeness, Fairness, Conciseness, Beauty.
Sept 2008
10
Clarity
Something is clear when you make it understandable. Use careful language appropriate for the reader. Keep it simple if you can. If it is complicated then break it down. Use just enough detail to make it clear. Use pictures or sketches with labels.
Relevance
Related to the question asked All relevant factors considered Without unrelated data or issues Only what we want
Sept 2008
12
Significance
It may be relevant but how important or significant is it? Must be able to identify most significant issues.
Sept 2008
13
Accuracy
Be correct. Free from errors. High confidence Calibrated Validated Correct assumptions
Sept 2008
14
Precision
Level of detail Exact to the necessary level Significant figures Tolerances Uncertainties or errors
Sept 2008
15
Precision
The lift force is estimated to be 400 N (is correct, but we have no indication of precision) The lift force is estimated to be 400 N plus or minus 200 N. (may be correct but not very precise) The lift force is estimated to be 400 N plus or minus 1% (is correct and precise).
Sept 2008
16
Breadth and Depth

Scope is defined by breadth and depth Breadth is a measure of how many subject areas or topics are involved. Depth is how detailed we look at a certain topic. A good MME education is broad ranging but not very deep. A specialist has more depth in a specific field.
Sept 2008
17
Logic
Engineering should be logical
Is it consistent Do the various things go together Is it presented in proper order Does it make sense Observations and conclusions follow from the data
Sept 2008
18
Fairness
Not one sided No conflict of interest Not self serving Consider all relevant points of view Dont plagiarize give credit to whom it is due Be ethical
Sept 2008
19
Completeness
Did you finish? Did you meet the contract? Are you done?
Sept 2008
20
Concision
Is the report concise and to the point No unnecessary or distracting content Focused on the problem
Sept 2008
21
Beauty
Is the result presented well Title page, table of contents, clear figures. Is the outcome attractive to look at Does it show pride of workmanship
Sept 2008
22
Intellectual Traits
When you do the task you should maintain the following traits:
Humility (you dont know everything) Autonomy (think for yourself) Integrity (do the right thing) Courage (stand up for your ideas) Perseverance (dont give up) Confidence (be confident in your ideas) Empathy (think of others) Fairmindedness (
Balance
Whenever you do something you will be limited by two opposing thoughts.
Look before you leap. (wait !) Those who hesitate are lost. (go !)
You need to find a balance.
Sept 2008
24
Failure
We fail when we Fail to identify the purpose or objectives Do not communicate clearly and concisely Do not stay relevant Fail to identify the most significant issues Do not consider existing knowledge Fail to identify bad data or limited data Make bad assumptions Are not accurate and precise to the required degree Fail to question assumptions and inferences Do not listen to other points of view Are not fair or ethical Do not finish the job When our solution is ugly
Career Progression
Junior Engineer
Do what you are asked, learn from experience. critical thinking beginner
Intermediate Engineer
Tasks defined in detail with some uncertainties developing critical thinking skills
Senior Engineer
Tasks assigned in vague terms Veteran critical thinker Needs intellectual courage and perseverance to stand up to managers
Managing Engineer
Must identify the major tasks without getting bogged down in details Tends to be focused on schedule and budgets Sometimes too busy to think critically, needs input from senior engineers and specialists
Technical Specialist
Master critical thinker finds fault in everything Needs to show intellectual courage and perseverance
Sept 2008
26
Case Study
Space Shuttle Columbia disaster 2003 Insulation foam impacted leading edge of wing late in launch (i.e. very high kinetic energy event) and damaged thermal protection tiles Shuttle broke up during re-entry with total loss of vehicle and crew of seven. Cause of loss attributed to POOR THINKING PRACTICES AT NASA.
Observations
Mission managers were more interested in the flight schedule they were not interested in technical details of foam impact (wrong purpose, relevance, implications). Managers wanted proof the situation was unsafe they should have demanded proof it was safe (wrong question). Managers assumed they could not do anything to rescue the crew (bad assumption).
Sept 2008
28
Observations
Technical specialists did not push their views strongly enough (lack of intellectual courage and perseverance). Specialists used computer models that were not intended for this purpose (bad information) . Results were assumed to be grossly conservative -- they predicted severe damage. (bad assumption) Based on previous flight experience they assumed foam damage would not take out a flight (inappropriate data, limited data). and much more
Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster

Columbia Accident Investigation Board findings wrt accident causes ..
Failure to challenge assumptions Unsupported and illogical inferences Assumptions confused with inferences Dismissal of dissenting views Failure to evaluate data quality Failure to weight implications Narrow points of view Confused purposes Failure to ask the right questions Application of irrelevant data and concepts Vague language
Sept 2008
30
Closure
Think about what you are doing. Be methodical in how you think and write. Engineers are not robots. www.criticalthinking.org
Sept 2008
31

Engineering Reasoning

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Engineering Reasoning

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Engineering Reasoning or How to Think Like an Engineer

A.M.Birk MECH 215/396/397/398/399 MECH 460/461/462

Stand back and look at what you have done.

The Elements of a Task

Breadth and Depth

You need to find a balance.

Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster

S-ar putea să vă placă și