Bill – a thoughtful topic. Before going into your resourceful questions – I would like to quote a little bit of philosophy. The early 20th century German historian and philosopher Oswald Spengler (1880 – 1936) – in his book (1918, 1922), wrote in the introductory paragraph . . . It was never seen that many questioners implies many answers, that any philosophical question is really a veiled desire to get an explicit affirmation of what is implicit in the question itself, that the great questions of any period are fluid beyond all conception, and that therefore it is only by obtaining a group of historically limited solutions and measuring it by utterly impersonal criteria that the final secrets can be reached . . .
If we accept this philosophical insight – then it entails that you have some answers in mind – and that there are multiple answers to the questions hopefully coming from colleagues offering different opinions and perspectives.
There is a difference of ways how one looks at it – let's say a rough characterization of things. For example, let's consider our school exam questions. Broadly speaking, in the genre of science and engineering, in particular in engineering – the answers sought by teachers are a definitive and precise one. In the Humanities disciplines however – a definitive answer is not encouraged, especially in non-objective questions. The teachers look for answers from students who can demonstrate curiosity and critical thinking.
If that is so – then most talented students who come to study engineering – get the first dose of the necessity of doing things precisely, albeit with some assumptions and approximations. The second and subsequent doses come from the constraints of practicality – many of which have been discussed in other threads. Perhaps – the experiences give an impression in students' and practicing engineers' mind that established practices and methods – such as those outlined in Standards Codes and Cook-books – are what matters most.
They do – but not always. Some jobs, especially in cases of non-routine engineering – one is expected to look for alternatives – examining and screening each from different perspectives. To look for new ideas – innovative thoughts – innovative products and methods, mostly developed by technology firms. Here is something from Einstein's Unruly Hair . . . Curiosity – is the mother of all innovations – of the necessary source of energy required for accomplishments – of all great ideas that moved humans forward . . .
Engineering graduate schools (for that matter, all graduate schools) cater to build this aspect of the profession. Once – the engine of curiosity is there – creativity flowers into innovations – as well as lets one to look for what innovations are available. And in this age of Internet – global resources are rather easy to find and access.
I leave it at this.
--------------------
Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD
Website Links and Profile
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-17-2026 04:34 PM
From: William McAnally
Subject: Can engineering practice benefit from innovations more quickly?
Innovations in engineering practice, science, and technology enable better, safer engineering solutions. How can we identify those innovations and move them into common professional use sooner?
- How do you learn about innovations you can use?
- If you find a better way to solve an engineering problem, how do you let others know?
- How do academic researchers learn what practice issues need solutions?
- How do practicing engineers learn what issues academics have solved?
- Are there better ways to accomplish these technology transfers?
------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
------------------------------