One Million Pounds

"So why do we feel the need to 'bribe' people to get them into engineering these days?" Channel 4 Interviewer on the announced one million pound prize for engineering. [video here]

This week, Lord Browne [President of the Royal Academy of Engineering], with the backing from the Prime Minister amongst others announced on behalf of the Queen, that there was to be a new worldwide prize for engineering. The Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering.

The hope is that this prize will stimulate growth and innovation within the engineering industry, the world over. It has also been debated for many years as to why engineering has not had a prestigious Nobel Prize award to aspire to like many other scientific, medical and artistic professions have. Unofficially, the Royal Academy of Engineering - had hoped that our UK based engineering prize, the MacRobert Award would fill that particular gap. For the last 43 years, many accomplished and diverse engineering companies have been nominated for and won the 'Gold Medal', including Microsoft Research in Cambridge for creating what essentially became a biometrics systems which led to the invention of X-Box 360's Kinect. The MacRobert Award may not have become the worldwide Nobel Prize which it was hoped for, but it has delivered to the UK engineering a supreme level of excellence to shoot for. [much cap doffing]

Now, you will be excused for not knowing much at all about those awards, or even the 10 other  prizes which are awarded each year to promote engineering in the UK and worldwide. That is of course unless you have been employed at a managerial level in a large engineering firm, or brushed shoulders with some of the industries elite in the UK - then you may have not considered winning one of theses awards as an achievable goal in your life-time.

So why have them?

For our Channel 4 interviewer mentioned already, this would have been a very pertinent [but stupid] question. Why are we creating a new prize just so that the UK can bribe people into becoming engineers? What's that about?

I do not believe this is why we need these awards. It is important to establish a competitive field amongst our engineering elite. They can then strive to push each other hard, and provide a platform from which we all can celebrate in their innovative success.

It's imperative that we continue to raise awareness of the advances in engineering made by our own country, so that we can go on and inspire students to take up engineering. It is an enormous and everlasting crusade, made even harder by the indigenous cynical press and the low profile of our industries footsoldiers. It goes without saying that if graduates were only to measure a successful career by the size of a salary upon retirement age, then the truth is, we stand to lose quite a number of our most talented young hopefuls to the likes of Goldman Sachs etc. If money is your thing, then chase it. If the thought of building a prosperous future for us all and our following generations gets you up in the morning... then keep reading please.

"It's broken" Seth Godin.

Yes it is. All of this is broken. The UK exports in the region of £1.5 billion pounds worth of engineering  expertise every year. Yet we only really get to hear about the escapades of the hard hitting international engineering giants such as Arup, WSP Atkins and Buro Happold, although this is a wilful stretch of the imagination. If I were to take the question to the city streets - "Have you heard of Buro Happold?" or "Do you know what Arup does?", then I would stake a large portion of my monthly income that I would see more blank faces than not.

A lot of this is to do with the public's perceived value of our primary function as an engineer. It is agreed that earning a degree in engineering is one of the more demanding academic achievements [slightly biased opinion]. Yet we are no closer to the remuneration package of a Lawyer or Doctor, than say a plumber or electrician. No offence meant by that last remark, but I am basing the disparage upon the inherent disparate levels of public responsibility... and that you need a masters in civil engineering to become a Chartered Engineer too.

I digress. My conclusion? My advice to our industry leaders? Stop chasing the dream. We cannot compete for a higher profile than of an Architect, or the social standing of a Doctor, or the wealth of a financier or indeed the respect of a Lawyer - LOL! Sorry I had to get that last one in... we cannot compete with the power given to a Lawyer.

So if we cannot and never will be able to compare, then the answer is quite simple, don't try. I accept that there will be a few of us who may climb high enough in our industry, that we may become managing directors of one of the engineering giants, but this job commands a different kind of respect. You are no longer measurable as an Engineer, who works the coal face of practical design implication and management - in the public's eyes. Harsh realities, or my personal opinion? You choose. 

I wish to throw in an potential opportunity to those of us left to lead the way out of the trenches. A new way of thinking that the newly enlisted talent may not find too palatable at first. Re-brand the Engineer - sensibly. This could be a broadly unpopular proposal, and I am bracing for the backlash.

We are thought of as a steady 'trade' profession by the public. Not flashy, a shade conservative, reliable, with a sensible and plod along career path. So why not take this on board finally and play with that?

Showcase the small consultancies. Represent an underlying sense of humour to the proceedings known as 'engineering for the masses'. Demonstrate how the advanced mathematics are used in real life examples - on small scale works. Toy with the idea that we are the public's go-to guys and girls and best positioned to help bring projects safely in on time and on budget. Be the centre of constructions universe.

The reason why I say all this is because aren't we setting the bar too high? Surely throwing us all into the premier league may just be too difficult for the majority of us to live with? How about uncovering a little of the truth behind our talented free-lancers who eventually settle down, open an office and employ graduates direct from universities. Giving them a launch pad to take their careers as high as they can imagine. This strategy may seem a little bit backwards at first, and I do accept that we need something to aspire to, but aspiring to owning your own business is good right? Aspiring to being personally responsible for a new graduates initial, formative years in a design office is important right? So let's show it.

I'll leave you with a brief exchange of dialogue between the Channel 4 interviewer and Paul Westbury of Buro Happold. It is quite entertaining...

Interviewer: "Paul Westbury, how do we prevent graduate engineering students from being poached by Channel 4 news or companies like Goldmansachs?"


Paul: "We can start by challenging your language!", "You talk about taking a million pounds back to your factory? Or Goldman Sachs luring engineers away from making lawnmower parts. That's the kind of stuff that we have got to change!"

Interviewer: "but money is a problem isn't it? You can't compete with the city salaries can you?"

Paul: "Of course you can't for some people, but actually for a large number of people you can"

Really?

Let's not get drawn into a debate where we always find ourselves wanting. Better yet is to ignore the 'so called' competition for the attention of our graduates. Concentrate on what we have right now and what we are good at. Training graduates, solving problems, building better futures, protecting society and most of all - doing it because we absolutely love to. You cannot argue with these points. By all means though - you can give it a go.

This has been another exercise in problem solving. Talk to me.

Engine[er]