Professional and Career Topics

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

I am interested in the intersection of engineering and decision-making. The fact that you don't often see reference to cognitive biases in civil engineering practice for the built environement suggests that this important concept is not well understood or embedded. The link is to an article I wrote on the subject from 2022.

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2022/03/22/improve-your-civil-engineering-decision-making-process

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

After reading your article Improve your civil engineering decision-making process, I realized that engineering decisions are not just about calculations and drawings. They are acts of choice made under conditions of limited information, constrained resources, and time pressure. Cognitive biases, the lack of alternatives, or unclear values can all lead to poor decisions, even when the technical solution seems correct.

I would truly appreciate receiving your opinion in a letter addressed to me personally, in PDF format with your signature, if possible. I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic of my research, which focuses on the development and justification of a digital platform that integrates technical and financial aspects of maintenance planning and execution at industrial energy facilities. May I kindly ask you to share your thoughts on this topic? Your opinion would mean a great deal to me.        <maskemail>dashaveremchuk996@...</maskemail>

This system is designed to overcome process fragmentation-where technical departments and financial units operate in different environments and follow separate procedures. AI integration enables cost forecasting, automatic processing of regulatory documentation, and adaptive scheduling. Such a system would greatly simplify decision-making, improve budgeting accuracy, reduce delays caused by coordination, and minimize the risks of deadline breaches and budget overruns.

As someone who embodies both the engineer and the economist within, I often find myself debating between logic and calculation. Sometimes they argue. Sometimes they fall silent, exhausted. But sometimes, they find common ground-and that's when real project magic happens.

Your vision is structured decision-making. My vision is a digital platform where engineers and economists no longer argue, because they work with the same data, see the same picture, and speak the same language of metrics and consequences.

We both believe that the quality of decisions begins with the quality of dialogue.
And sometimes, that dialogue happens within ourselves.

I am interested in the intersection of engineering and decision-making. The fact that you don't often see reference to cognitive biases in civil engineering practice for the built environement suggests that this important concept is not well understood or embedded. The link is to an article I wrote on the subject from 2022.

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2022/03/22/improve-your-civil-engineering-decision-making-process

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

After reading your article Improve your civil engineering decision-making process, I realized that engineering decisions are not just about calculations and drawings. They are acts of choice made under conditions of limited information, constrained resources, and time pressure. Cognitive biases, the lack of alternatives, or unclear values can all lead to poor decisions, even when the technical solution seems correct.

I would truly appreciate receiving your opinion in a letter addressed to me personally, in PDF format with your signature, if possible. I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic of my research, which focuses on the development and justification of a digital platform that integrates technical and financial aspects of maintenance planning and execution at industrial energy facilities. May I kindly ask you to share your thoughts on this topic? Your opinion would mean a great deal to me.        <maskemail>dashaveremchuk996@...</maskemail>

This system is designed to overcome process fragmentation-where technical departments and financial units operate in different environments and follow separate procedures. AI integration enables cost forecasting, automatic processing of regulatory documentation, and adaptive scheduling. Such a system would greatly simplify decision-making, improve budgeting accuracy, reduce delays caused by coordination, and minimize the risks of deadline breaches and budget overruns.

As someone who embodies both the engineer and the economist within, I often find myself debating between logic and calculation. Sometimes they argue. Sometimes they fall silent, exhausted. But sometimes, they find common ground-and that's when real project magic happens.

Your vision is structured decision-making. My vision is a digital platform where engineers and economists no longer argue, because they work with the same data, see the same picture, and speak the same language of metrics and consequences.

We both believe that the quality of decisions begins with the quality of dialogue.
And sometimes, that dialogue happens within ourselves.

I am interested in the intersection of engineering and decision-making. The fact that you don't often see reference to cognitive biases in civil engineering practice for the built environement suggests that this important concept is not well understood or embedded. The link is to an article I wrote on the subject from 2022.

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2022/03/22/improve-your-civil-engineering-decision-making-process

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

Several universities offer "industrial engineering" programs, in which a large part of engineering lectures is replaced by business administration lectures. In 3-yrs. Bachelors a lack of engineering knowledge is the consequence such that graduates usually work in sales or supply chain management, but hardly in design & analysis. In 4-yrs. programms, the engineering content my be sufficient, though.

I agree that cost aspects should play a role both in studying design variants and doing value engineering reviews. But I suppose that including life-cycle costs and sustainability aspects requires a strong experience in O&M activities to be developed with time. Also economic viabilty (ROI) analysis is demanding but necessary to convince owners of a project business case.

The classical way is still a full-blown engineering study programme followed by an MBA. Or what would you suggest?

Kind regards, Martin Hohberg (vetting engineering study programmes for ENGINEERS EUROPE (https://engineerseurope.com/).

After reading your article Improve your civil engineering decision-making process, I realized that engineering decisions are not just about calculations and drawings. They are acts of choice made under conditions of limited information, constrained resources, and time pressure. Cognitive biases, the lack of alternatives, or unclear values can all lead to poor decisions, even when the technical solution seems correct.

I would truly appreciate receiving your opinion in a letter addressed to me personally, in PDF format with your signature, if possible. I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic of my research, which focuses on the development and justification of a digital platform that integrates technical and financial aspects of maintenance planning and execution at industrial energy facilities. May I kindly ask you to share your thoughts on this topic? Your opinion would mean a great deal to me.        <maskemail>dashaveremchuk996@...</maskemail>

This system is designed to overcome process fragmentation-where technical departments and financial units operate in different environments and follow separate procedures. AI integration enables cost forecasting, automatic processing of regulatory documentation, and adaptive scheduling. Such a system would greatly simplify decision-making, improve budgeting accuracy, reduce delays caused by coordination, and minimize the risks of deadline breaches and budget overruns.

As someone who embodies both the engineer and the economist within, I often find myself debating between logic and calculation. Sometimes they argue. Sometimes they fall silent, exhausted. But sometimes, they find common ground-and that's when real project magic happens.

Your vision is structured decision-making. My vision is a digital platform where engineers and economists no longer argue, because they work with the same data, see the same picture, and speak the same language of metrics and consequences.

We both believe that the quality of decisions begins with the quality of dialogue.
And sometimes, that dialogue happens within ourselves.

I am interested in the intersection of engineering and decision-making. The fact that you don't often see reference to cognitive biases in civil engineering practice for the built environement suggests that this important concept is not well understood or embedded. The link is to an article I wrote on the subject from 2022.

https://www.asce.org/publications-and-news/civil-engineering-source/article/2022/03/22/improve-your-civil-engineering-decision-making-process

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

You make an excellent point, Darya. Civil engineers should be fluent in engineering economics but too many of us, myself included, are not. The ASCE Body of Knowledge features an entire section on economics, saying the the basics must be taught to undergraduates and application taught by workplace mentorship. It leaves advanced topics learning open, suggesting continuing education.

My undergraduate economics course was taught by the Business College. The instructor possessed no knowledge of engineering and left me unprepared for my first job. A mail-order course covered the gap to some degree but I still feel inadequate. When I taught at Mississippi State University, Engineering Economy was taught by the Engineering College and seemed much better.

Your platform is much needed for the continuing education beyond the introductory level. I didn't find any highly applicable ASCE webinar offerings. Perhaps you could could one to several.

Bill Mc

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

When an engineer rises to the level of a "project/program manager" she/he assumes responsibility for "optimizing" recommendations--given the FULL range of goals and constraints--public safety being number one, but also for design functions and limitations (per client), adverse impacts, AND Economic Efficiency--most Bang for the Buck.  This includes pricing ALL price-able future Benefits and Costs and converting them to present value.  Any engineer who works within a project/program delivery organization must acknowledge this Big Picture and be prepared to take on appropriate responsibilities assigned by the PM.

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

Thank you, Robert - I completely agree with your point about the engineer's responsibility evolving into holistic optimization once they step into a PM role. The "big picture" mindset is truly essential.

May I ask for your opinion on a related idea?

What do you think about the growing trend of professional unification - where engineers are expected to develop economic fluency, and economists gain a better grasp of engineering logic?
In your experience, is this cross-disciplinary integration helpful, necessary - or perhaps even risky?

As someone who often lives in both roles, I find it both exciting and confusing - but maybe that's the future of complex project delivery.

Would love to hear your perspective.

When an engineer rises to the level of a "project/program manager" she/he assumes responsibility for "optimizing" recommendations--given the FULL range of goals and constraints--public safety being number one, but also for design functions and limitations (per client), adverse impacts, AND Economic Efficiency--most Bang for the Buck.  This includes pricing ALL price-able future Benefits and Costs and converting them to present value.  Any engineer who works within a project/program delivery organization must acknowledge this Big Picture and be prepared to take on appropriate responsibilities assigned by the PM.

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

Thank you, Robert - I completely agree with your point about the engineer's responsibility evolving into holistic optimization once they step into a PM role. The "big picture" mindset is truly essential.

May I ask for your opinion on a related idea?

What do you think about the growing trend of professional unification - where engineers are expected to develop economic fluency, and economists gain a better grasp of engineering logic?
In your experience, is this cross-disciplinary integration helpful, necessary - or perhaps even risky?

As someone who often lives in both roles, I find it both exciting and confusing - but maybe that's the future of complex project delivery.

Would love to hear your perspective.

When an engineer rises to the level of a "project/program manager" she/he assumes responsibility for "optimizing" recommendations--given the FULL range of goals and constraints--public safety being number one, but also for design functions and limitations (per client), adverse impacts, AND Economic Efficiency--most Bang for the Buck.  This includes pricing ALL price-able future Benefits and Costs and converting them to present value.  Any engineer who works within a project/program delivery organization must acknowledge this Big Picture and be prepared to take on appropriate responsibilities assigned by the PM.

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

This is an impressive piece of writing, Darya. I read your write up with keen interest. I admit Engineers need to work closely with Economists to harmonize quality, cost, and safety. The world is evolving everyday and we, as Engineers, cannot singly see things from technical perspective without recourse to the economic implications.

I  personally encourage you to write more of subjects like this on this platform. I look forward to a time when Civil Engineers will be Chief Executive Officers, Chief Operating Officers, etc of many Fortune 500 Companies. It is only when we expose ourselves more to subjects like the one you articulated here that we can attain that feat.

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

Darya,

I've read these posts several times and would like to offer my thoughts. When I earned my BSCE in 1974 there was very little instruction about estimating the costs of civil works. Over the next few years, I tried to make up this deficit on the job, working in both the private & public sectors. My experiences in public works O&M, infrastructure design & construction, and transportation project development have led me to focus on resilience and sustainability in civil infrastructure. To achieve this result, we need to start by developing the "right" project, which begins by working with the agency/ owner to clearly state the purpose & need for the project. At this stage we must also actively solicit input from the stakeholders and end users of the project. We also have to consider how our project fits into the network of related infrastructure, both existing and planned for the future. This process may take a while and will involve several allied professions to achieve valid results, but it's essential to go through before developing initial, ballpark cost estimates for alternatives (including the no-build).

Through preliminary engineering those budgets for initial construction can be refined and begin to include estimates of GHG emissions and life-cycle costs for resilient O&M. These are used to determine if the recommended project will be sustainable from a physical, social & environmental perspective. Meeting this "triple bottom line" continues with designing the project "right" which goes beyond designing to the minimum standards by using valid projections of future conditions so that the project will meet the client's expectations. This is where the engineer, whether project manager or lead engineer, must work with other professionals to estimate costs and funding sources, both initial and life cycle. Any software tools that will support these efforts, including AI, will help us promote the public health, safety & welfare. That's the art of engineering.

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

Darya,

I've read these posts several times and would like to offer my thoughts. When I earned my BSCE in 1974 there was very little instruction about estimating the costs of civil works. Over the next few years, I tried to make up this deficit on the job, working in both the private & public sectors. My experiences in public works O&M, infrastructure design & construction, and transportation project development have led me to focus on resilience and sustainability in civil infrastructure. To achieve this result, we need to start by developing the "right" project, which begins by working with the agency/ owner to clearly state the purpose & need for the project. At this stage we must also actively solicit input from the stakeholders and end users of the project. We also have to consider how our project fits into the network of related infrastructure, both existing and planned for the future. This process may take a while and will involve several allied professions to achieve valid results, but it's essential to go through before developing initial, ballpark cost estimates for alternatives (including the no-build).

Through preliminary engineering those budgets for initial construction can be refined and begin to include estimates of GHG emissions and life-cycle costs for resilient O&M. These are used to determine if the recommended project will be sustainable from a physical, social & environmental perspective. Meeting this "triple bottom line" continues with designing the project "right" which goes beyond designing to the minimum standards by using valid projections of future conditions so that the project will meet the client's expectations. This is where the engineer, whether project manager or lead engineer, must work with other professionals to estimate costs and funding sources, both initial and life cycle. Any software tools that will support these efforts, including AI, will help us promote the public health, safety & welfare. That's the art of engineering.

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

Darya,

I've read these posts several times and would like to offer my thoughts. When I earned my BSCE in 1974 there was very little instruction about estimating the costs of civil works. Over the next few years, I tried to make up this deficit on the job, working in both the private & public sectors. My experiences in public works O&M, infrastructure design & construction, and transportation project development have led me to focus on resilience and sustainability in civil infrastructure. To achieve this result, we need to start by developing the "right" project, which begins by working with the agency/ owner to clearly state the purpose & need for the project. At this stage we must also actively solicit input from the stakeholders and end users of the project. We also have to consider how our project fits into the network of related infrastructure, both existing and planned for the future. This process may take a while and will involve several allied professions to achieve valid results, but it's essential to go through before developing initial, ballpark cost estimates for alternatives (including the no-build).

Through preliminary engineering those budgets for initial construction can be refined and begin to include estimates of GHG emissions and life-cycle costs for resilient O&M. These are used to determine if the recommended project will be sustainable from a physical, social & environmental perspective. Meeting this "triple bottom line" continues with designing the project "right" which goes beyond designing to the minimum standards by using valid projections of future conditions so that the project will meet the client's expectations. This is where the engineer, whether project manager or lead engineer, must work with other professionals to estimate costs and funding sources, both initial and life cycle. Any software tools that will support these efforts, including AI, will help us promote the public health, safety & welfare. That's the art of engineering.

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

An important topic and many interesting discussions. As done in the past, I am adding this discussion to Darya's initial thread – but, in doing so, would refer to others – perhaps in a way of presenting more queries than delving into answers.

Without being an economist – as I see it (also touched a little in the Industrialization Essay) – engineering activities located in a certain jurisdiction function within the boundary conditions set by macroeconomic umbrella of an economic structure that varies from free-market economy (not sure to what extent it exists in reality) to mixed economy to planned economy. Further, engineering activities may differ categorically in terms of concepts and methods known as industrial economy (pointed out by Joerg-Martin) and knowledge economy. While construction entities belong to the former – the engineering consultancies are part of the knowledge economy. How economists formulate their approach to such different aspects?

Engineering economics (points by Bill M and Mitch) caters to the engineering decision making processes (and all engineering graduates get a dosage of it in the first-year engineering curricula). As part of the so-called microeconomics – it focuses on different scenarios of cost-benefit analyses of engineering alternatives – also, in the delivery aspects of a selected project in efforts to balance the constraints of scope-cost-schedule. And, again how to integrate this aspect?

Also, as an entity graduates from small to large – statistics (as in The World of Numbers and Chances) of number games begins to play a big role in economic decisions. How to address the scalability question? It often comes and is characterized in the guise of one size does not fit all – also, as in a Chinese idiom that says: each lock is different – so must be the key.

* * *

On the importance of interdisciplinary question there are different ways how diffusion and infusion are occurring. And as Robert and Darya rightly pointed out – these are healthy trends enriching the profession – opening it to wide perspective view of things. Majors in other disciplines coming to study engineering, and vice versa – or in terms of infusing some humanities curricula into engineering – but, not more than 20% (hope this happens!). They are discussed extensively in: If You Ran the Zoo; and in: Integration of Disciplines in Engineering.

Engineers practices are blind without continuous infusion of scientific findings and progress – this is true for every branch of engineering – especially the hydraulics tenet of civil engineering. This tenet is highly interdisciplinary. There comes physicists, hydrologists, geologists, geographers and oceanographers. At least I know of two well-known hydraulics physicists who were not engineers – yet we use their findings and formulae in many of our works. Fortunate to know them personally, these two physicists are Nick Kraus of CERC and Leo van Rijn of Delft Hydraulics.

Do engineers suffer from tunnel vision? As in Creativity and Due Diligence . . . it is important to consider the common view of some people about engineers. The most common view is that engineers have tunnel visions of things. If this view is correct, it is very serious because engineering is supposed to be a creative profession. Unless engineers see a problem from different perspectives, it becomes difficult for them to appreciate multiple aspects of a problem, and be creative and innovative in their judgments. But some others tend to argue that the tunnel vision of engineers is the unfortunate outcome of their own pursuit of perfection requiring them to focus on details. Yet there are others who think that stereotyping engineers as such amounts to blocking their career path in the corporate hierarchy . . .

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation? 

Excellent insights, as always, Dilip.

Your mention of tunnel vision is especially significant because it affects so many people -- engineers and non-engineers alike. I regularly encounter engineers claiming that aesthetics and economics are "not engineering concerns" when they actually are. Economics certainly ranks on the same level with effectiveness. Aesthetics may not be a primary design concern but I know of projects that had to be redesigned because they failed an aesthetic criterion.

Non-engineers' tunnel vision often includes a serious misunderstanding of what engineering is. A book author friend once "explained" to me that engineering was a technical profession with cookbook solutions, not a creative profession. 

An important topic and many interesting discussions. As done in the past, I am adding this discussion to Darya's initial thread – but, in doing so, would refer to others – perhaps in a way of presenting more queries than delving into answers.

Without being an economist – as I see it (also touched a little in the Industrialization Essay) – engineering activities located in a certain jurisdiction function within the boundary conditions set by macroeconomic umbrella of an economic structure that varies from free-market economy (not sure to what extent it exists in reality) to mixed economy to planned economy. Further, engineering activities may differ categorically in terms of concepts and methods known as industrial economy (pointed out by Joerg-Martin) and knowledge economy. While construction entities belong to the former – the engineering consultancies are part of the knowledge economy. How economists formulate their approach to such different aspects?

Engineering economics (points by Bill M and Mitch) caters to the engineering decision making processes (and all engineering graduates get a dosage of it in the first-year engineering curricula). As part of the so-called microeconomics – it focuses on different scenarios of cost-benefit analyses of engineering alternatives – also, in the delivery aspects of a selected project in efforts to balance the constraints of scope-cost-schedule. And, again how to integrate this aspect?

Also, as an entity graduates from small to large – statistics (as in The World of Numbers and Chances) of number games begins to play a big role in economic decisions. How to address the scalability question? It often comes and is characterized in the guise of one size does not fit all – also, as in a Chinese idiom that says: each lock is different – so must be the key.

* * *

On the importance of interdisciplinary question there are different ways how diffusion and infusion are occurring. And as Robert and Darya rightly pointed out – these are healthy trends enriching the profession – opening it to wide perspective view of things. Majors in other disciplines coming to study engineering, and vice versa – or in terms of infusing some humanities curricula into engineering – but, not more than 20% (hope this happens!). They are discussed extensively in: If You Ran the Zoo; and in: Integration of Disciplines in Engineering.

Engineers practices are blind without continuous infusion of scientific findings and progress – this is true for every branch of engineering – especially the hydraulics tenet of civil engineering. This tenet is highly interdisciplinary. There comes physicists, hydrologists, geologists, geographers and oceanographers. At least I know of two well-known hydraulics physicists who were not engineers – yet we use their findings and formulae in many of our works. Fortunate to know them personally, these two physicists are Nick Kraus of CERC and Leo van Rijn of Delft Hydraulics.

Do engineers suffer from tunnel vision? As in Creativity and Due Diligence . . . it is important to consider the common view of some people about engineers. The most common view is that engineers have tunnel visions of things. If this view is correct, it is very serious because engineering is supposed to be a creative profession. Unless engineers see a problem from different perspectives, it becomes difficult for them to appreciate multiple aspects of a problem, and be creative and innovative in their judgments. But some others tend to argue that the tunnel vision of engineers is the unfortunate outcome of their own pursuit of perfection requiring them to focus on details. Yet there are others who think that stereotyping engineers as such amounts to blocking their career path in the corporate hierarchy . . .

Dilip

---------

Dr. Dilip K Barua, Ph.D

Website Links and Profile

I'm a woman engineer. I'm a builder. And yes, I have a degree in economics.
Throughout my entire career, I've constantly witnessed the same thing: engineers arguing with economists, and economists arguing right back. And there I am, in the middle - thinking, who's actually right?

Sure, that's what managers are for - to smooth things over, build bridges, and align perspectives.
But have you ever thought: What if there were a platform where engineers and economists could truly work together? Let's call it the dream platform. A place where each side speaks a language the other understands. Where financial models reflect real processes, and technical solutions fit within real budgets.

Sometimes I joke: Imagine combining both roles into one person - a financial engineer!
Sounds terrifying, doesn't it? But maybe that's exactly what we need.

To be honest - no, I don't have a split personality.
I have a split profession. And sometimes, I find myself arguing… with myself. As an engineer and an economist. And somehow, I always lose - to myself! 😅

But perhaps, that's the path to a dream job.
Not just building or budgeting. But creating new methods, resolving tensions, and seeing the full picture.
Maybe laziness - the refusal to accept inefficiency - is the real driver of progress. And maybe that's what drives me now.

I'm currently developing a platform that integrates engineering workflows with financial and project decision-making. It's still a work in progress, but I believe the future belongs to those who speak both languages.

I would be truly grateful for your professional opinion.
If you're interested in the intersection of engineering and economics, I warmly invite you to collaborate.
Any expert feedback, critique, or advice is deeply valuable to me.

Have you ever caught yourself in a mental dialogue between professions?
Tell me - who do you argue with more: logic or calculation?