In this, the fourth and final column of a series (“The Idea,” December 2015; “The Future,” January 2016; “An Analysis,” February 2016), I ask you to consider the engineering way of thinking (EWT) as a relatively formal way of adapting to a constantly changing environment (in the broad sense) by enabling variation and selection as safely as possible under sometimes significant uncertainty. I will emphasize two sources: Engineers and Ivory Towers, by Hardy Cross (1952); and Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure, by Tim Harford (2011). Cross is a well-known engineer (think moment distribution) from the mid-20th century, and Harford is an economist today. …

In two previous columns (“The Engineering Way of Thinking: The Idea,” December 2015; “The Engineering Way of Thinking: The Future,” January 2016), I discussed the idea of the engineering way of thinking (EWT) and what it might bode for the future. This column is an analysis of the EWT, performed in a manner similar to how the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein – who received his initial education in engineering – might have gone about it. It consists of a number of statements organized in a way that I hope will lead you to a better understanding of the EWT. …

As discussed previously in this space (The Engineering Way of Thinking: The Idea, STRUCTURE December 2015), engineering is continually evolving as engineers try new tools, develop new designs, and build new or modified artifacts. All of these expand the heuristics that engineers use, but many times lead to failures. Henry Petroski has even argued that engineering advances through failures. …

At the 2013 annual meeting of the National Academy of Engineering in Washington, DC, Mitch Daniels, the former governor of Indiana and the president of Purdue University, said this about the possibility of educating too many engineers: “But even if we were to somehow outrun the market’s need for engineering talent, we will be a far stronger country if the engineering mentality takes a more prominent place in our national conversation.” …

Structural Forum is intended to stimulate thoughtful dialogue and debate among structural engineers and other participants in the design and construction process. Any opinions expressed in Structural Forum are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCSEA, CASE, SEI, C³Ink, or the STRUCTURE® magazine Editorial Board. …