On engineering and design

Let’s start with some Etymology, that everyone loves. In English, the word engineer is similar to “engine”. In Spanish, the word is “ingeniero”, a word with the same root as “ingenio” (wit or cleverness). But actually, both “ingeniero” and “engineer” stem from the Latin word “ingenium”, which means intelligence or ability.

People tend to think of engineers as technical people who work with machines or things, but the key activity of the trade is solving problems. Technical problems, design problems, people problems.

The stereotypical engineer is analytical, logical, and structured. But, in order to succeed, engineers also have to be creative, lateral thinkers. Not all problems have obvious mathematical solutions. Most real-life problems involve trade-offs between benefits and drawbacks that are impossible to measure.

As software began eating the world, users came to demand better graphical interfaces. Human-computer interaction turned into UX design, and what what was once an engineer’s job become one of a designer. Nowadays, many software engineers don’t know or care how the products they build are used by real people.

Let’s now look at the definitions of the words designer and engineer. These definitions are incomplete, as all definitions are.

• Designer: person who creates and plans the form, look, or workings of an object before it is made.
• Engineer: person who applies scientific knowledge, mathematics, and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical, societal, and commercial problems.

It’s clear from these definitions that engineers are designers. Aren’t civil engineers, for example, designers? How about software architects? If an industrial designer uses mathematics for a prototype, does that make her an engineer?

Categories are useful lies. We use the words “engineer” and “designer” to describe a kind of flair. If the flair is more artistic and aesthetic, that’s a designer. If it’s more technical and aimed at solving problems with numbers, that’s an engineer. But the lines are blurry and dynamic.

What all of this means is that categories should not become cages. To solve some of this world’s problems, big and small, we have to think beyond labels like “engineer” and “designer” to open up new angles of attack. Whatever particular piece of knowledge a professional is missing, he can learn as he goes. No need for degrees and certifications, just a compulsion to fix something.

Bret Victor put it better.

In the schools, I trained in the Way of the Electron.

On the streets, I learned the Way of the Algorithm.

And I mastered these paths, but they were false paths. Their followers knew only the Yang of Technology, and worshipped the Code. But technology has not soul, and code no conscience. And I despaired.

Yet I sought, and after many seasons, I found the Yin of Design. It spoke of people, not things. I studied the Way of the Interface, of human perception and understanding.

And I mastered this path, but it was a false path. Its followers were taught to answer questions. They could not question the questions themselves. And I despaired.

Yet I sought, and I thought, and I pursued my own path. And with time, I was enlightened.

The True Way transcends the minutia of Skill. There is no "Technology". There is no "Design". There is only a vision of how humanity could be, and the relentless resolve to make it so. The rest is details.