Rationality for Engineers: Part I- Setting the scene

Author

Brunel University, London

Abstract

The truly complex element of modern times is not the technology, but the engineers who develop, design, manufacture, and maintain it. An engineer’s job is to change/improve existing situations into more desirable ones, as well as to respond to the demands or needs of society. Engineers cannot wait until all phenomena and their implications are well understood. Engineers have worked for centuries solving problems with limited information and knowledge and are presumed to be rational decision-makers. Then, how do engineers make their decisions with limited knowledge, time, and cognitive capacity in a variety of domains? Engineers require understanding what part of information can be ignored, and what situations require fast, and timely response, resulting hopefully in a better decision by freeing cognitive capacity to make it.  A rational decision-maker should choose an option that maximizes the expected benefits (utilities), although there may be significant hurdles in achieving such goals, especially in emergencies where time pressure is acute.  To overcome these hurdles, most engineers revert to “rules-of-thumb”, also known as heuristics. Heuristics are experience-based methods of gut feelings that can be used as an aid to solve specific problems in a particular environment. Heuristics, however, are imperfect; thus, engineers must understand their limitations. Their applicability is also limited by the context under which they were derived as well as their fit with the environment of the problem at hand.  The overall objective of these four-part papers is to discuss heuristics and how they can make decision-making easier and faster for engineers. These papers also remind them of their own cognitive biases and describe ways of avoiding them. This first part aims to set the scene by providing background information. These papers address the type of rationality that engineers need to be effective build on the existing literature and liberally draws from them. Engineers cannot march on the spot while thinking for a solution, they must think while moving forward, thus there is a danger not starting on the right foot.

Keywords

References

1. Barros, G., (2010). Herbert A. Simon and the concept of rationality: Boundaries and procedures, Brazilian Journal of Political Economy, vol. 30, nº 3 (119), pp. 455-472.
2. Battersby, M, and Bailin, S. (2018). Inquiry: A New Paradigm for Critical Thinking, Windsor Studies in Argumentation Vol. 7.
3. Bazerman MH: Judgment in Managerial Decision-Making 4th edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1998.
4. Brown, S., and Salter, S. (2010). Analogies in science and science teaching, Adv Physiological Education 34: 167–169.
5. Chow GV, Czarny MJ, Hughes MT, Carrese JA. CURVES: a mnemonic for determining medical decision-making capacity and providing emergency treatment in the acute setting. Chest. 2010 Feb;137(2):421-7.
6. Craik, K. (1943) work entitled The Nature of Explanation.
7. Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M.W., Nordgren, L.F., and van Baaren. R.B., (2006). “On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation - Without - Attention Effect.” Science 311: 1005–1007.
8. Elms, D. G., and C. B. Brown. 2013. “Intuitive Decisions and Heuristics – An Alternative Rationality.” Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 30 (3-4): 274–284.
9. Forrester, J. W. (1971) Counterintuitive behaviour of social systems. Technology Review.
10. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why Heuristics Work. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 3, 20–29.
11. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., & the ABC Research Group., (1999), Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2006) How We Reason. Oxford University Press.
14. Johnson-Laird, P.N., and Byrne, R.M.J. (2002) Conditionals: a theory of meaning, inference, and pragmatics. Psychol. Rev. 109, 646–678.
15. Kean, S. (2014). "Phineas Gage, Neuroscience's Most Famous Patient". Slate. Reprinted in Skloot, Rebecca, ed. (2015). The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2015. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 143–8.
16. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
17. Klein, G. (1989). Strategies of decision making. Military Review, 56, 56–64.
18. Klein, G. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In G. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok.
19. Klein, G. (2015). A naturalistic decision-making perspective on studying intuitive decision-making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 164–168.
20. Kelman, M. (2011). The Heuristics Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the Method Conducting the Engineer's Approach to Problem Solving 276 pages
22. Lehrer, J., (2009). How Do We Decide, Houghton, Mifflin, and Harcourt publishing.
23. Murray, S.R. (1997), ' Deliberate Decision Making by Aircraft Pilots: A Simple Reminder to Avoid Decision Making Under Panic', The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 83-100.
24. Neustadt, R, and May, E (1986) Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers. New York: Free Press.
25. Polya, G, (1945). How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Newest edition 2014, Princeton Science Library.
26. Siegel, H. (1980). Critical Thinking as an Educational Ideal, The Educational Forum 45(1):7-23.
27. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.
28. Simon, H., (1983). Reason in Human Affairs, Stanford University Press; New e. edition (30 Jun. 1983), 128 pages.
29. Simon, H.A. (1991). Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science 1991, 2:125-135.
30. Todd, P. M., Gigerenzer, G., and the ABC Research Group (2012). Ecological Rationality: Intelligence in the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31. Yasseri, S., (2014), Application of systems engineering to subsea development, Underwater Technology: The International Journal of the Society for Underwater 32(2):93-109, DOI: 10.3723/ut.32.093.
32. Yasseri, S., (2015), Evidence-based practice in subsea engineering Underwater Technology, The International Journal of the Society for Underwater 32(4).
33. Yasseri, S., (2017), Thinking Like an Engineer, available on ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319644185_Thinking_like_an_engineer.
34. Yasseri, S and Bahai, H. (2018), Availability assessment of subsea distribution systems at the architectural level, Ocean Engineering, 153, 399-411.
35. Yasseri, S., (2021), Rationality for engineers, Part II, IJCOE Vol.4/No. 2/Summer 2020 (1-13).
36. Yasseri, S., (2021), Rationality for engineers, Part III, IJCOE Vol.4/No. 2/Summer 2020 (1-13).
37. Yasseri, S., (2021), Rationality for engineers, Part IV, IJCOE Vol.4/No. 2/Summer 2020 (1-13).
38. Zajonc, R.B. (1997). Emotions, In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Fourth Edition (pp. 591-632). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
39. Zajonc, R. B. (1980), Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-75.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics