BuiltEnvironment

Today's dreams can be tomorrow's reality

Many scientific and technical advances we take for granted were science fiction 75-150 years ago. Jules Verne sent men to the moon in rockets and under the poles in submarines, Isaac Asimov gave us robots to do jobs considered dangerous for humans and Anne McCaffrey gave us artificial intelligences that could run space ships and space stations.

Today, we have been to the moon, our probes have been to Mars and further out in the solar system, many factories are significantly mechanized and computers can learn, getting closer and closer to artificial intelligence all the time.

And architects and engineers still dream!

Today, I read a wonderful article in Engineering News-Record (ENR) by Debra K. Rubin, Saibal Dasgupta and Peter Reina. Titled "Dream Project Realities." the article is about projects that would currently be considered "dreams" that might become reality in the future.

Many of the projects are rated for feasibility: one cloud means the project is feasible; two clouds mean possible; three mean a long shot and four mean impossible. Given the way today's science fiction becomes tomorrow's real life, I assume that "impossible" really means "impossible given today's knowledge of physics and technology, and our ability to develop funding and collaborate on an international scale."

These are some of the exciting projects described:

Poseidon Undersea Resort — a 40,000-SF, 24-suite hotel module complex off the coast of Fiji. Owner claims 225,000 potential customers have signed up for project updates. Slated to open in May 2016. Rating: 1 cloud

Mega-Pyramid Solves Urban Congestion — A structure to be built in Tokyo bay out of yet-to-be-invented materials with an 86,000-square foot foundation and rising 6,575 feet in the air, to house 250,000 residents. Rating: 2 clouds

Lunar Base to Facilitate Space Exploitation — A NASA project to construct domed shelters on the Moon or Mars using robotic, solar-powered 3D laser-sintering printers to fuse dust and rock into structural configurations. Rating: 2 clouds

Using Tidal Flows to Generate Electricity — A dynamic tidal power (DTP) project to tap the power of the tides, an entirely new source of energy. Currently assessing the feasibility of constructing the first DTP project on the Chinese coast. Rating: 2.5 clouds

Space Elevator: A Ball on a String? — Considered feasible "IF risks can be mitigated through technologcal progress." Sounds like a pretty big IF. Long envisioned by science fiction, it would require a major global investment and collaboration. Rating: 3 clouds

City on the Move — A city on treads which could relocate as climate and resources changed. It looks like something out of a Transformers movie. I fear it would destroy everything in its path. Architect Manuel Dominguez says this destruction could be avoided. Rating: 3 clouds

Clean-Air "Bubbles" as Urban Havens — Using bubble-like enclosures, construction of urban havens in polluted cities, sharing their environmentally-controlled air with surrounding buildings. Architect Rajat Sodhi hopes to develop the design for Beijing and Delhi. Rating: 3 clouds

Floating Cities — This city would rest on a floating platform, anchored offshore. One example, the New Orleans Arcology Habitat, is a 1,200-foot tall structure that could house 30,000 residents. Current efforts focus on the platform, which serves as the structure's foundation. Not rated

Tubular Rail System — A rail system that would eliminate conventional rails, using 420-foot long cars traveling at up to 90 mph on elevated stanchions. Engineering assessments carried out by graduate students at Dartmouth College found the concept feasible, and that its cost would compare favorably with that of current light rail or monorail systems.

Vacuum-Tube Transport — Long a staple of science fiction, this would involve shooting transit capsules between cities or continents through a closed tube system at up to 4,000 miles per hour. The Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies (ET3) concept is similar to Elon Musk's Hyperloop. Not rated

"Skycycle" Network — Bicycle use is increasing everywhere and there is pressure to create safe routes. London's "Skycycle" network would create 20-m wide elevated decks above the city's railroads. Each route would have a 12,000-cyclists-per-hour capacity. Not rated

Cooling the Earth — A geo-engineering (climate engineering) project whereby an unmanned vessel shoots sea salt into clouds to reflect solar radiation. Science fiction is replete with worlds manipulating environmental systems and/or weather patterns. This is still in the embryonic stage of development. Not rated

Asteroid Mining — Another long-standing staple of science fiction. Many asteroids have orbits that bring them near earth. A group of investors is developing low-cost, robotic exploration technologies to reach and mine S-type, C-type and X-type asteroids, which are thought to be pure metal, including precious metals. Not rated

Professional education evolves (maybe?)

A few years ago, a big topic in engineering education was whether or not a master's degree should be required to apply for professional registration. There were a lot of good arguments on both sides.

A check of the National Society of Professional Engineers website (www.nspe.org) 30 minutes ago informed me that:

"To become licensed, engineers must complete a four-year college degree... pass two intensive competency exams and earn a license..."

So there was no change in the educational requirement for licensure. This despite a sometimes heated discussion in person and in print about whether a person with a BS had sufficient knowledge to merit the trust clients generally accord a registered professional.

This afternoon I read an article in the November 2014 Engineering News-Record, "Revolution, Not Evolution," by David Goldberg and Mark Somerville. The article is about the evolution of engineering education in the United States.

Goldberg and Somerville point out that in the mid-20th century, the focus was on adding more science and math to the curriculum, to the exclusion of "practical subjects." The curriculum was focused on weeding out those who weren't suited to the profession.

But in the 21st century, they tell us, engineering firms say, "we appreciate their technical skills but we wish they had better communications and soft skills." In order to develop the skills to make themselves worthy of trust, it has to start with teachers trusting students, giving students the chance and the courage to take the initiative in a phase of their lives where failure does not mean fatalities.

Just as some people are mature at age 25 while others are still immature at age 45, some young people can make reasoned and reasonable decisions while some older folks still need to be watched and guided.

The chance to innovate, try and fail under controlled "laboratory" conditions is a tried and true—and trusted—teaching method that builds confidence and maturity even as it builds a student's technical knowledge and cognitive skills.

Today, as engineers open their own firms at younger and younger ages, they need many of the social and entrepreneurial skills they could do without 50 years ago. They need to be able to find and secure new clients and new projects, to build and foster relationshps with existing clients, to read a balance sheet and manage company finances, and to manage staff in ways much more complex than merely offering or taking away a paycheck.

Today's engineer must be comfortable in the world, in his/her city, and in his/her professional community. He or she must be able to initiate and engage in a conversation with a stranger without just talking technical or appearing to sell. Even if he or she is part of one of today's monster A/E firms with many tens of thousands of employees, today's engineer almost needs to be a Renaissance Man or Woman, with knowledge of the arts, finance, government, and social sciences in addition to his or her technical specialty.

I'm not saying that every professional engineer needs to be a da Vinci, but a healthy dose of curiosity and a broader educational palette, combined with a place where failure is fine as long as one learns from it, it a good direction for engineering education to be moving.

If I knew then what I know now . . .

In January 2014, I was a speaker at the SMPS Southeast Regional Conference in Tulsa. At the evening "soiree," I met Stacy Sanders, who was then very new to the A/E/C industry and to being the marketing coordinator in a professional services (engineering) firm.

I thought it might be interesting to hear the perspective of a relative "newbie" to the A/E marketing world. When I asked, Stacy graciously agreed to answer my five questions:

How long have you been in a marketing position in the A/E/C industry?

One year.

What are the two or three most important things you've learned in your first year on the job?

 

I’ve learned that one of the key elements to marketing in the A/E/C industry is relationship building. When I first started working in the industry, I was more familiar with marketing products vs. services. I approached marketing [engineering] the same way I did when I was working with a manufacturer, but soon realized that I had to do things a little differently.

I also learned that I had two major tasks: marketing to our external customers, and selling to my own firm's staff. I had to be creative in presenting different marketing strategies, because my firm had never had an internal marketer. At first, many of my team members were reluctant to embrace marketing as a necessity. I was used to working in industries where marketing was already present, and had been for a long time, where employees knew and understood the need for an internal marketing department. I learned that sometimes people are often slow to adopt ideas simply because they do not understand them, or aren’t familiar with them. I had to make my team feel “comfortable” with the idea of marketing.

What do you wish you had already known on your first day in this position?

 

First, how much of a headache proposals can be! No, seriously, I wish I had known how to simplify the proposal process early on. When I first started, I made the process very difficult because I wasn’t familiar with these types of proposals. I try to customize every proposal I submit to meet the information requested in the RFQ, but there is a lot of “generic” information that I can reuse. It took me awhile to realize that, so in the beginning it took me a long time to complete one proposal.

Second, how to communicate effectively with engineers. Being a marketer, I’m talkative, creative, always trying to make things look and sound “pretty,” etc. I learned that the engineers view things differently—they're not wrong, just different. I had to learn to be direct in communicating with them, to get straight to the point. I also had to learn to break ideas down so they could visualize them quickly and effectively.

What has surprised you most about the A/E/C industry?

 

The lack of respect given to marketing in this industry. Being in marketing in the A/E/C industry can be challenging. It’s foreign, and a lot of people don’t understand it. They don’t see the importance of marketing, because it’s hard to quantify the financial impact a good marketing program can have on a firm.

What has surprised you most about the position of Marketing Coordinator?

I found a lot of the duties are the same as in other industries where I previously worked. In the end, every company wants to increase revenues and obtain new clients. What surprised me is how you approach this role in an A/E/C firm, that you have to adjust your outlook on how marketing works and how you achieve the A/E/C firm's goals. Moving from a products firm to a service firm was challenging. I think over the past year, I’ve done more learning than anything. I’ve had some ideas that have worked, and others that have not. The important thing is I’m learning.

Many thanks and much praise to Stacy Sanders for having the courage to be the first in what I hope will be an ongoing series of similar posts.