In Engineering And The Mind’s Eye, Eugene Ferguson emphasizes that while the university training of many engineers deals adequately with the theoretical, scientific side of design and engineering, they do not attain knowledge of the actual, physical process of making many of the parts and mechanisms that they design, and that their ignorance of this part of the process can cause them to make assumptions that in some cases can cause fatal flaws. When they have not witnessed the process of physically making the parts they design, or the buildings, bridges, and other structures, they make assumptions about the strength of the materials, and the processes that will be used to actually machine components out of raw steel or wood, or whatever happens to be their raw material. And while the designs produced by these engineers may look good on paper, they may fail in practicality, or not be able to be produced at all in the shapes required.

Ferguson states that the field of engineering is moving in the direction of simplification, where the deciding factor is not the user’s experience, but rather lets the software do much of the work that would otherwise have been done by the engineer. This approach, however, lets the programmer who writes the software make those decisions for the engineer, and like the engineer who does not realize the capabilities of the materials he is working with, he is prone to make decisions that are not the best informed, making assumptions, which in many cases lead to purely arbitrary choices. While convenience is a fact of life in the modern age, simplification and the taking away of user decision-making only limits the possibilities, and forces thinking in a certain direction. In any case, there are many ways to accomplish a single task, while there is no one method that is the best in every aspect. However, there is a solution that is the best for a given situation, and that is up to the judgment of the engineer.

Furthermore, Ferguson also states that the entire process of design is not flexible enough. Sponsors for certain projects must be presented with a preliminary plan, which is often arbitrarily constructed. Ideally, the components required for a certain project would be designed and tested first, and then the big picture adjusted as needed. However, when the finalized framework has been decided before the design process even begins, there are bound to be problems that could not have been foreseen. However, these undertakings are generally sponsored in part or in its entirety by the federal government, who has nearly infinite resources, which it derives from its taxpayers. Since the project is too large to fail, the solution is to throw more funding at an unsound design, which due to a lack of flexibility, contains several fatal flaws that cannot be easily fixed.

Given Ferguson’s perspective, a plausible solution to the problems posed by these gaps in the engineers’ training would be to include at least some machine shop experience in courses taught to engineering students. Having an idea of the limitations of the materials and the machines used to work them into the desired shapes would allow for better judgment in this area, and could mitigate design defects based purely on flawed judgment and assumptions in the place of careful calculation. Having the projects themselves more open to change and the process built in a more flexible manner would allow any problems that do arise to be circumvented. There are many ways to tackle a specific problem, as stated beforehand, and if one particular method does not work as well as expected, these engineers should be prepared to work in a new direction if necessary, rather than doggedly pursuing a directive that may not be achievable at all. Methodically, they should be versed both in design, and physical application of these designs, and they should not be dependent on computer-automated tools that require them to follow a set of built-in limitations, dictated by the boundaries of the software. They should be aware of how to operate the tools and systems they design, so as to allow for better usability, and so they will keep in mind that their final product must be practical. Philosophically, they should be taught to think independently, outside of conventional constraints. Rather than blundering through any errors they encounter, they should be taught to mitigate those issues in advance, or work around them when they arise.

Overall, Ferguson emphasizes that most engineering failure is not from miscalculation, but rather from misjudgment and a lack of calculation. Given a new mindset of not guessing on details, but rather taking the time to check all their numbers and doing the math to make sure that in the real world, they can be as sure as possible that their design will work. While the engineer, somewhat like the artist, puts form to the raw materials, he must also be able to think in the material, physical, practical sense when he creates a design, because unlike the artist, who only puts out his design as the final product, the engineer must make sure that what he designs can perform in the real world. He must also understand and take into consideration how his design will operate, and be able to understand also the individual components so he can modify and change their configuration, or even their very makeup if needed. He must be aware of not only its form, but also its function.

And while many engineers reject art as being something different from their own work, as being more abstract and “soft” than the “hard” practice of engineering, every engineer must also consider the aesthetic side of his work as well. These are arbitrary decisions in most cases, though sometimes a few have been able to apply form as a part of function as well, though this is something of their own genius, rather than something that had been taught to them while they were still taking their courses in graduate school. However, even if aesthetics are not taught to them during their courses, this is something that they must encounter regardless, and to leave this solely to their uninformed, and consequently arbitrary decision would be that otherwise avoidable errors from faulty judgment would appear in the framework of these projects. Artists, in their work on aesthetics typically follow a set of rules, laid down by whichever school of thought they associate themselves with. However, they are only limited by the application of their medium, and aesthetic rules are easily broken in the artistic scheme, whereas the engineer is limited by natural law, by the laws of physics, which cannot be broken as easily, if at all.