The Art of Engineering

As engineers we spend a lot of time solving problems. A customer has a problem and it needs to be fixed. The electronic boards you have just designed are not working and the problem needs to be fixed.

Problem solving has a certain mindset. A problem is narrowly defined and the focus is solving that one problem as quickly as possible. An analytical mindset is adopted and there is an intense search for cause and effect.

The are many challenges with adopting a problem solving mindset. Problem solving can be misguided and focussed on finding the cause rather than obtaining the desired result – has the desired solution been correctly identified before starting? Continuously solving problems can be draining. All you ever see in your product or service are the problems with it, particularly if you are isolated from the happy customers.

The flip side of engineering is that we also get the opportunity to create solutions. Creating solutions is about seeing the bigger picture and understanding the idea or problem within the context of a larger system. This requires more lateral thinking and gathering information from a far wider variety of sources then when we are "solving problems."

Solution creating can be too loosely defined and only slowly drift towards the eventual goal. It is also easy to be continuously finding new solutions (adding features) which are not even needed to achieve the actual goal. It is important to stay focussed on creating happy customers.

Each mindset carries its own set of paradigms so when we adopt a certain approach we close our minds to certain solutions and possibilities. Knowing that each way of thinking opens up different possibilities means that we switch between the two as a tool to help us solve problems and create solutions in a quicker and more comprehensive way.

How would your approach to your current challenge change if you switched mindsets? Adopting a different approach may even help you to find more satisfaction in your work.

Image courtesy of Ethan Lofton, published under a creative commons license.

When James Bond used miniature cameras in the 60's and 70's the thought of a wireless phone that can take pictures and send them to just about anyone in the world, fits into the palm of your hand and even plays high quality music would have been so preposterous (even in a Bond movie) that audiences would have thought it was a joke. Now we struggle to imagine a world without our mobile phones and all of their accessories.

[Cellphone cameras came into being when Philippe Kahn wanted to instantly share photos of his daughter's birth with friends and family.]

40 years ago it was hard (impossible?) to imagine the solutions that we have available to us today. Some of the things we think will have happened in another 40 years time probably won't, and other things that we have no idea about will be in existence. Hard working engineers and scientist will have discovered and created all kinds of new things.

What can you imagine that no one else can?

Most ideas that I come up with are not original – a quick Google search normally proves that. That can be demotivating, but it is also exciting and inspiring.

1. There are LOTS of great ideas out there. They are free and waiting for you to make them happen. There are entire websites dedicated to spreading free ideas.

2. Everything is open for improvement. Just because it has been done, does not mean that it has been done well. It might be the user interface, battery life, power consumption, size, shape, speed, connectedness, or any other thing that keeps a product from being amazing and remarkable. Often the process of improvement and constraints you create can yield their own innovations.

3. Invention is not a prerequisite for innovation. We often get hung up on the need to invent something new. It is unnecessary. Finding a new way to introduce people to an important product is as big an innovation as a new invention.

4. Action has a higher value than ideas. Ideas which are never implemented are nice ideas, but nothing else. Making something happen – actually solving a problem – improves the lives of your customers and helps to create a better world.

Stop getting hung up on the need to invent stuff, and start getting hung up on the need to create a better world (or at least make your customers world better).

Image courtesy of Paul Keller, licensed under a Creative Commons license.

Quoting for electronic design is quite an art. You never really know how long something will take or the difficulties that you will face along the way. Experience helps to give you some indication of the effort involved, but a new project is often outside of the experience that you have. A gut feel could lead you astray or to pin point accuracy. A framework for quoting certainly helps...

1. Always give a quote
   

   An offer is on the table ensures that you are in the running. Set a time frame for the quote and deliver on your commitment. This the first opportunity you have to demonstrate that you can deliver – make sure that you do. I recently quoted on a project and was shocked that at least three other companies had not bothered to deliver a quote.

2. Know your worth
   

   Understand your own value and how that contributes to the project. Undervaluing yourself leads to difficult financial situations and lack of motivation. Overvaluing results in a begrudging client who is unlikely to use you again. Clearly communicate the value that you add.

3. Quote on fair value, not customer worth
   

   Big customers may have more financial backing, but should not have to pay a premium for your services. You may want to under–quote a small customer to make sure that you secure the work. Everybody loses when a quote is not fairly valued. Under quoting undermines the project and compromises your ability to deliver a high quality end–product. Over quoting undermines your relationship with the client and damages future opportunities.

4. Know your strengths and weaknesses
   

   Understanding yourself will help you to leverage your strengths and compensate for your weaknesses. Quote around your strengths and approach the project in a way that gives you and your client an advantage over your competitors.

5. Take reasonable risks
   

   If we only quote for things that are comfortable we limit our ability to grow. Sometimes a project might seem too big, or require skills that we have not yet aquired. Push yourself enough that each project forces you to grow.

6. Only quote if you can deliver
   

   If you can't deliver or you are not the best option, then be open and clear about this. Your client will be happy to know that you did not mess them around. Doing work for work sake is a bad strategy.

7. Be remarkable
   

   Amplify your strengths and offer something remarkable. Remarkable could be the way you communicate with your client, the quality of your work, or the speed at which you are able to deliver it. It may even be the price (high can also be remarkable). Remarkable beats boring.

I would love you hear what your ideas and "rules" for quoting are – please leave a comment and let me know.

If you have an idea for a product, or a problem that can be solved electronically, then please contact me – I would love the opportunity to give you a quote.

Making products is more important than making patents. I like the way that Seth Godin put it at the end of this post about selling ideas:

"Side note: the more complicated your idea is, the better off you are patenting it. Dean Kamen made his fortune patenting wheelchairs and other devices that you and I could never hope to build. On the other hand, if your idea is simple enough to dream up in a week, the only way you're going to protect it is to build it, fast and well."

Patents are important and have a place in product development, but actually making something important has a far bigger impact on the world. Important does not have to be big or complicated – important solves problems (even small ones) and improves our lives.

In my line of work the whole issue of patents, idea protection and non–disclosure often arises. Protecting an idea in the early conceptual phase is crucially important. At this point anyone that can get hold of the idea has an equal chance of getting an actual product to market – that is why all my communications with clients and potential clients are considered confidential.

There are some problems with trying too hard to protect your idea,

1. It may not be worth protecting
   

   Many ideas are not patentable, as prior art already exists. Non–patentable ideas still have value – great beats good, remarkable beats mediocre. Improving on existing products, or turning old ideas into real products are important functions which need to happen continuously.

2. It slows things down
   

   While you are busy building a legal fortress around your idea other people are busy building working versions of theirs. Having a market share and being ahead of everyone else may matter more than having the legal rights to an idea which has passed its sell by date.

3. Your idea is out there
   

   When you patent something it becomes public – everyone knows what you are doing. Competitors may be able to do something innovative with your ideas sooner than you can.

4. It might not work
   

   It is possible to design around patents. If your competitors can come up with their own innovative ways to compete in the same market then your patent may not win you much in the long run. You can still compete, you can still be the best, but what you do keeps you ahead, not a legal document.

5. You have to be able to enforce it
   

   Regardless of what legal protection you have you still need to be able to enforce it. That means legal fees – can your afford to pay for your protection? It is certainly necessary in some cases, but which would you rather do: fight legal battles or make things that matter?

So if legal protection is not all that it is made out to be, what do you do then? Keep it secret and get your idea onto the market. Develop it into a great product, stay ahead of your competitors and keep innovating. Make sure your great ideas see the light of day – avoid letting them get bogged down in legal paperwork.

You will need to work hard, you will need to stay ahead, and yes, a competitor might just be better than you at it and there will not be any legal papers to throw at them. There is risk involved no matter how you approach it.

There are so many brilliant ideas out there. You probably already know a couple that will change your industry or the way your work. You probably read about one on a blog last week. Making those ideas real is important.

Engineer Simplicity helps companies and people develop ideas into real electronic products. I can help you move your idea from conception through to production. Contact me with your ideas – I will keep them safe and confidential.

Images courtesty of Alexandre Dulaunoy, licensed under a Creative Commons license.

Electronic design automation tools like OrCAD, PADS and Altium Designer are part of an electronic engineer's day–to–day life. We need these tools to tell the story of our designs – to lay out the concepts in a symbolic form in the schematics and a physical representation in the PCB files (and much more).

Most companies use expensive commercial tools (like those mentioned above) which offer many features and benefits, but these do have some disadvantages. The biggest hurdle for smaller companies is cost, which makes it difficult to get going – you cannot earn money to pay for the tools without using the tools, which is a vicious circle. Another big disadvantage of commercial tools is their closed nature – file structures are closed and it is difficult to add custom features to the tools. Further to this, if you need improvements or bug fixes you may have to wait a long time before these become available, especially if you are a small customer. In some cases companies are bought out, forcing you to change software and go through a whole new learning curve. To phrase it differently: small users have little say in the direction of the development of the tools.

The big advantages of commercial tools are the multitude of features (if you need them), and commercial support.

When I had to choose an EDA tool suite my (non–existent) budget was the biggest deciding factor and I decided to start using an open source set of EDA tools, gEDA. I have been using gEDA since the middle of 2007, and have completed a number of projects with it. At first I just did my schematic layout with gschem and outsourced the PCB layout which was done in PCAD. Recently I completed some PCBs for a project which where done with gEDA's PCB programme (this was my first entirely gEDA project).

I initially made my choice based on the free price of gEDA, but as I used it and learned more about how the suite works as a whole I discovered that there are far more compelling reasons to choose an open source EDA suite over a closed one.

The open nature of both the file structure and the source code is an incredibly powerful tool for productivity. Think about this simple example: the creation of PCB footprints (or land patterns). Creating footprints is often a long and arduous process which involves graphically drawing out exactly what it should look like and vetting the details. Each subtle variation on the footprint requires more time drawing and checking. The well documented open file format and excellent documentation on the creation of footprints for PCB allows scripts to be written to automate the creation of footprints resulting in a significant time saving. Similar scripts are also available for schematic symbol creation. These are really simple examples of what can be accomplished when the file structure and code is open and documented – far more exciting things can be done, just about anything you can think of!

gEDA is also blessed with a very active support and development community, which operates mainly through the gEDA mailing lists and the gEDA wiki (which provides excellent documentation). I have asked many questions and received quick and helpful responses. How long did your last support request with a commercial company take to be resolved?

Using an open source EDA suite provides more stability and control over the future of your tool chain. If a large commercial tool set is either bought out, or decides to change how it works significantly you have little choice but to embrace that change, whatever the cost or learning implications are. An open source EDA tool provides you with a never ending upgrade path for the future, as well as access to the direction the tool takes. This stability comes with a responsibility to be a part of a community, rather than just a consumer. By becoming a part of the community you create a mutualistic relationship where everyone benefits.

gEDA (or other open source EDA tools) may not be suitable for everyone, or for every project, but there are a large number of projects that can be supported by these flexible tools. Using gEDA does require a shift in the way you work, but so does any other change to your EDA tool chain. Putting in the effort to learn how to use gEDA is certainly worth it and offers the opportunity for large productivity leaps. These productivity leaps are important, as they ensure that engineers spend more time creating, designing and solving problems, rather than wasting hours on repetitive tasks. I am using it exclusively to provide solutions to my customers, and you should take a closer look at it too.

Here is a list of open projects created with gEDA. One of the most impressive open hardware projects that I have seen which uses gEDA is the Free Telephony Project, which not only shows the quality of these tools, but also the magnitude of what can be achieved with open hardware development.

Please note that files and projects created by you are entirely yours and can be used for commercial purposes without any ramifications. The projects noted above have chosen to share their work under open licenses.

There are no up–to–date Windows binaries available for gschem and I found that the PCB binaries were really slow. I run the entire suite on Cygwin. Here are the install instructions for gEDA on Cygwin. I also recommend compiling PCB on Cygwin for significantly improved performance.

I posted my thoughts on creating my first PCB with PCB to the gEDA mailing list – this may give you some ideas of initial hurdles and ideas that you will need to get through.

This post is aimed at electronic engineers working with electronic design automation (EDA) packages.

As an electronic engineer you have probably been through it. It all starts simply and clearly. You need to draw a schematic; so you make some symbols, attach some attributes to them and get going. Then you draw some footprints for the PCB layout and make sure the correct footprint names are attached to the components you have created. The boards go the PCB manufacturer and you use a simple spreadsheet to manage the bill of materials (BOM). Everything goes nice and smoothly – you are happy.

Then another project comes along – a bigger one with more engineers working on it. You carry on like you have before, explaining to people how to create new components and footprints and how to make sure the part numbers are correct. It all seems to be going well. The PCBs and components arrive, but something is not quite right. One of the components (an expensive one!) is the wrong part, and another component does not fit onto the PCB footprint correctly (even though there is another component with the same footprint that does fit correctly). What went wrong?

Eventually with more projects and more people managing the component library becomes a full time job for someone, and getting a new component approved is a lengthy process for engineers. Let's not even talk about managing the now massive stock and BOM spreadsheet which keeps you awake at night. The quick process you started with has become a slow moving, time consuming beast. We need to find a way to kill that beast so that engineers can spend more time creating solutions to problems, and less time on administration.

There are two ways to handles components. We can either have "heavy" symbols, or "light" symbols. First a few definitions so that we are all talking the same language.

component	:	an actual physical part.
symbol	:	a diagram depicting a component which is placed in a schematic drawing.
footprint	:	the physical layout of a component on a PCB.

A heavy symbol has all of its attributes, such as part name, value, voltage, tolerance, footprint, ordering number, etc. specified in the symbol library. A light symbol has no attributes specified in the library and all attributes are added at a schematic level.

There are some obvious flaws with each approach. A heavy symbol library will quickly grow in size – just think about having a symbol defined for each different opamp or resistor that is used. The graphical representation of an opamp is generic to a number of different parts, but now duplicates are created for each component. If a fault does creep into the library it can result in a number of different symbols needing to be fixed.

With a light symbol library all the attributes are added to the schematic. Maintaining the symbols is easy (because there are fewer), but ensuring that the correct attribute information is added can lead to errors (each time data is manually copied or entered there is the potential for an error).

There are also some obvious advantages. A heavy symbol immediately makes a lot of information available in the schematic which can be passed on to other tools, such as the footprint to the PCB layout package, or the part number to the BOM. A light symbol allows for information to be drawn from multiple sources, and the schematic can be updated without having to propagate the changes back into the library.

Here is a brief summary of the feature of each type of symbol.

Heavy symbols:

• Data duplication,
• Errors requires changes to numerous symbols,
  
• Require a librarian to maintain symbol library sanity,
• Single source of information.

Light symbols:

• No data duplication,
• Errors can be fixed at schematic level, or only affect a single symbol,
• Allows multiple data sources for component information,
• Requires addition of attributes at schematic level.

If you remember that I am against information duplication, then you should have guessed that I am in favour of light symbols.

The "light" and "heavy" nomenclature arose out of discussions on the gEDA mailing list. The gEDA wiki has a brief summary, and the two threads which I think are the most relevant are "Light vs. Heavy gschem symbols?" and "Heavy symbols and such."

Every time information is duplicated there is the possiblity of an error. Let me say that again, every time information is duplicated there is the possibility of an erorr.

The electronic design process is made up of different parts such as schematic capture, PCB layout, component procurement and assembly. Each step requires information to be passed backwards and forwards. Certain information is only relevant to particular steps, for example you only need the exact part number for ordering, while a more basic part number or description could be used in the schematic (passives like resistors and capacitors are a good example of this).

Deciding what is important amongst all this information can be difficult, which often results in much of the information being duplicated in each step. The tools we use for electronic design automation (EDA) can inadvertently encourage us to create duplicate parts with detailed information contained within them. This seems fine until the parts library grows to an unmanageable size and discrepancies start to creep in, resulting in design and manufacturing errors.

Passing information between different systems, like the stock management and design systems can create an even larger mess. Typically these two systems are separated from each other and keeping them synchronised becomes a full time job. Any discrepancies between the two systems result in expensive time losses due to incorrect stock. The more information there is to keep track of, the greater the chance of errors and wasted time and money.

I am sure that most engineers have at some point in their career come across massive stock and bill of material spreadsheets which are overwhelming to manage, not just due to the amount of information, but also due to the incorrect tool (a spreadsheet) being used.

Yes, there are probably comprehensive ERP systems that can help with these problems, but those are not necessarily accessible to small engineering firms or individuals.

Information duplication is the enemy of efficient systems, we must eliminate it wherever possible.

That is the first rule of the process that I am developing for my own business. It will help me to develop faster and better, and once it is working it is going to allow every engineer access to the same opportunities.

There are lots of really complicated and difficult ways to design for lower energy consumption, but most of us do not have the time or budget to do them. Yet, there are many really simple ways to reduce energy consumption which only take a few moments of our time. It is largely a matter of being conscience of the decisions we are making.

Here are a few ideas:

1. Use larger resistors
   

   Does that pull–up/down resistor really have to be 1k? Could it be 10k or more? There are always engineering trade–offs to be made. Increasing resistor size increases noise and can make your design more susceptible to EMI, but there are many cases where resistor values can be increased with no discernable effect. Think about this, at 3.3V a 1k resistor will burn up 11mW, change that to 10k and the power consumption drops to 1mW. Your signal line should be in the correct default state (high for a pull–up and low for a pull–down) to ensure no energy is being spuriously expended.

2. Turn off unnecessary LEDs
   

   We (I) often use LEDs for debugging purposes, such as internally on an enclosed board. It helps us get some visual information about the system while debugging. Did you remember to turn those off in your release version? LEDs can consume a significant amount of power (1.5V @ 10mA = 15mW) which adds up for each LED that is needlessly left on.

3. Dim or blink required LEDs
   

   LEDs that provide visual information to the user can be dimmed or blinked to reduce power consumption. Try to determine whether those LEDs are really necessary in the first place – are there other indicators which are providing the same information? A laptop typically has a power LED and a screen which both provide feedback that it is on, while cellphones have no power indicator other than the screen. Does the laptop really need the power LED to be on all the time? What if it was only on when the screen was turned off, or flashing while in sleep mode? What if the battery indicator flashed when the laptop was off and the battery was full instead of being permanently on? How else can you convey the same information?

4. Put microprocessors to sleep
   

   Microprocessors are often waiting for an event such as a timer or communications interrupt. It is normally a simple task to put a device to sleep while it is idle. Some simple code can reduce the power consumption (and extend the battery life) of your device.

5. Turn off unnecessary peripherals
   

   Microprocessors usually have a number of peripherals which are either not used, or not used all the time. If unused peripherals are clocked that means that energy is being banished to heat just to clock something that is idle. Not all devices support this, but more and more are coming out with these features (such as the Luminary Micro range).

6. Use low power components
   

   Duh! That may seem obvious, but take some time to look at the quiescent current of the components you choose when designing. Faster components (like high speed op–amps) typically require more power when idle, while slower components require less. Consider using a slower op amp or lower power transceiver.

7. Use a higher bus voltage
   

   When you are running long wires (e.g. power bus around a warehouse) use the highest voltage that is practical. This will help reduce power loss due to copper losses. It also means you can use thinner cable, or run more units from a single cable (if cable current is a limiting factor).

8. Use a lower bus voltage
   

   Have you considered using a lower system voltage (e.g. 1.8V instead of 3.3V)? The limiting factor is often peripherals which require certain voltages, but you can consider other peripherals or use level translators. There are a lot of trade–offs to consider here, so use your engineering wisdom to come up with the best solution.

9. Consider latching relays
   

   Normal relays require a continuous current flow to keep them in the on position, while latching relays only require a short pulse to switch from one position to the next. You will have to consider cost and a small amount of extra circuitry, but these are particularly valuable where there are power supply limitations.

These are all really simple ideas, many of which can be quickly and easily implemented. By being conscience of power consumption and the decisions you make you can help to reduce waste and create a cleaner, better world.

Photo courtesy of Windell H. Oskay, www.evilmadscientist.com

Sometimes we have to say No.

Saying No is an important part – a critical part – or our job as engineers and designers. Great products are designed by people who know when to say No and when to say Yes.

Great products do not need feature lists and check boxes. Great products are sold by their users because they love them.

You know what the most difficult thing about this is? You have to choose, and choosing means you have to be brave.

I just love this graph from Kathy Sierra and the article that goes with it (thanks for the inspiration).

"Give users what they actually want, not what they say they want. And whatever you do, don't give them new features just because your competitors have them!" – Kathy Sierra

There are a lot of steps to turn an idea into a product. Each step requires care and attention to ensure that the best product is created. Below is the process that I follow to create an electronic product. It is all laid out nicely in a linear way, but in reality a lot of the steps are occurring in parallel. Also, any step could be the starting point, it is really dependant on the product and client requirements.

1. Initial engineering report
   

   This is a short report which gives everyone some preliminary ideas to work from. I like to start with this as it is a small investment in testing the idea, and provides a lot of information for the path forward.

2. Detailed investigation
   

   The initial report or specification has already identified the options, now all the options are investigated in detail. This entails reading datasheets and application notes, speaking to distributors, and really understanding whether the available options will provide the required solution.

3. Development of proof of concept
   

   There are two ways to go here, either develop a proof of concept using evaluation boards, or dive straight into the custom hardware design – which is better depends on the risks involved. The risks are a function of the project and the amount of experience with similar designs. Wherever possible it is nicest to speed things up, but a detailed proof of concept can take a lot of risk out of the later stages.

4. Final concept
   

   After a full proof of concept it is quite clear how all the pieces fit together. At this stage we should have system block diagrams, communication protocols, component choices, disposal planning and a whole lot more down on paper. The framework for our creation is in place, now we need to make a real prototype.

5. Schematic layout
   

   All the concepts and ideas have to be put down into technical drawings (an electronic drawing is called a schematic). Once this is done we have a schematic, a BOM (bill of materials), and other technical files needed for the next steps.

6. Printed circuit board layout
   

   The schematic output is used to generate a printed circuit board (PCB layout). The physical size is determined and the components are placed and connected together with tracks. Any mechanical design which is required (e.g. a casing) is also done along side with this step so that the PCB will fit nicely. This can be a time consuming step, as a lot of checking is required, such as tolerances, spacing and component patterns. A set of gerber files are generated which are used to manufacture the actual PCBs.

7. Component procurement
   

   Before a prototype can be built, you need all the components that will be placed on the PCB. This step is really happening in parallel with all the other steps to ensure that everything arrives at the right time. Electronic component lead times can vary significantly (from 1 to 16 weeks or more), so a fair amount of planning and scheduling is required.

8. Prototype manufacturing
   

   A PCB manufacturer (such as WHCircuit or Trax) makes the PCB's according to the gerber files. The PCB is then populated with the components either by hand or machine. For a first prototype I like to populate the board by hand (where possible) so that I can test each part of the system as I build it up.

9. Development and debugging
   

   The amount of effort that goes into making a system work properly is really quite big, but depends on the complexity of the system and the amount of detail that went into all the proceeding steps. It must be shown that each block of the system works and that it all works together properly. Firmware (software that runs on the system) must be tested and developed to a fully functional level. Any bugs that are detected need to be resolved and noted for the future.

10. Testing
    

    Once all the functionality is working it must be fully tested, both to check that it is working correctly and to also stress the system to find out if any real world events could break things. Careful attention must be paid to test as many usage cases as possible, and more. Certain countries require specific certifications and any required tests must be done to ensure all the necessary specifications are met.

11. Design refinements
    

    All of the testing and development will either have proved that the design works exactly as desired, or indicated areas that need to be improved before going ahead with manufacturing. Steps 4 to 11 are repeated until the product meets the requirement.

12. Initial production run
    

    Manufacturing can bring its own challenges to the product from solderability through to the programming and testing of the product. To avoid major manufacturing disasters it is normally better to have a small initial run to iron out any problems in the process.

13. Product manufacturing
    

    Once all the manufacturing issues have been resolved it is time to go into full production. This can be a big investment and the quality of the work that has gone before will determine how successful the product is.

14. Continuous improvements
    

    There are always things to improve. Wherever possible I try to build in mechanisms that allow easy upgrading of products (such as in–field upgrading of firmware), but it is sometimes necessary to go through some redesign to meet a new requirement or fix a manufacturing issue. Once a product is out in the field you start to get a feel for how it is really used, which teaches you a lot about how to improve the quality.

It is a long process and is fraught with many risks, but the great reward of having created something meaningful which changes people's lives for the better is amazing.

If you are interested in creating electronic products, then please contact me.

Photo courtesty of Johannes Henseler and licensed under a Creative Commons license.

My last post spawned an interesting discussion on how we should be focussing our energy saving efforts – should we be worrying about saving a few watts in one area, while there are other areas which are wasting kilowatts?

How we each approach this depends a lot on our personalities. Some people think big and need to see huge value resulting from their actions. Others find joy in fine tuning all the details and making sure that everything is just right.

I feel that the two go hand in hand. Each on its own lacks substance. If all you can see are the fine details it is difficult to work towards a bigger goal. If all you can see is the big goal, it is hard to see the small steps that need to be taken to achieve it. It is a bit like that saying: how do you eat and elephant? One bite at a time.

Setting big goals is important, and so is sweating the small stuff. We still come back to that question though: where should we focus our energy to have the largest impact?

There are two important areas to focus on,

1. The biggest point of pain, and,
2. The easiest thing we can do.

For businesses and home users the biggest point of pain is probably paying their electricity bill at the end of the month, which means that water heating (for homes) and HVAC (for business) are the things to focus on. The easiest thing that everyone can do is activate your computers' energy saving modes (it is really easy and costs nothing to do). Making one small change can start a process of discovery leading to further changes.

I am currently working on a warehouse floor application and one of the issues is power consumption. Power consumption affects how many units can be powered from a single power supply, and what type of cabling is used. When I made some measurements I found that the system was consuming way more energy while idle than I was happy with. The easiest (and in this case only) way to address that was to do some investigation into the power saving options of the microprocessor. I managed to cut the idle power consumption to 20% of what it was. In this case the amount of power saved per unit is not much (100mW) but the number of units is high. It helps me to increase the number of units I can drive, as well as saves a reasonable amount of energy overall. That small saving per unit will save around 350kWh/month in this application – the monthly energy consumption of my home.

So sweat the small stuff, and sweat the big stuff. Build momentum and keep moving forward.

To the engineers: what you do matters – keep making good choices.

Photo, courtesy of Mandy Goldberg, licensed under a Creative Commons license.

---

A quick guide to computer energy saving

1. Set your monitor/display to turn off after 15 minutes or less (don't use a screen saver).
2. Set your hard drives to turn off after 15 minutes or less.
3. Set your system to sleep after 30 minutes or less.
4. Choose "Minimal Power Management" as a power scheme in XP (this makes sure the processor can go into low power modes while it is not busy). In Vista make sure your "Minimum processor state" is set to a low value under the advanced power options and "Processor power management."
   

The Climate Savers Computing Initiative has a guide for minimising computer power in each operating system (see the list in the sidebar for your OS).

I am an advocate of making sure that every device consumes as little power as possible at all times. Indicator lights should be off, processors should be sleeping as much as possible, and generally the device should just be optimised to use as little power as possible.

I may have to rethink that....at least a little bit.

Dan Lockton has a brilliant blog, Architectures of Control, where he discusses how things are designed to result in a certain action (or lack of action) – or as he calls it, design with intent.

There are two devices in my home which have helped me to reconsider turning off all the lights, my DVD player and my laptop. Each has its own subtle "architecture of control" whether intentional or not.

Our DVD player has (to me) the most irritating standby light that I have ever seen on any device. When on, the light is constantly illuminated, but when in standby the light flashes continuously (at a slow rate). This drives me mad, but results in an interesting action – it causes me to turn it off at the plug when I am not using it (which is most of the time). Suddenly one little flashing light has resulted in more energy saving than having no light.

My laptop has a similar "feature." When it is powered down the battery indicator remains on (green if full, flashing yellow if charging). This used to bother me, and I thought, "Why not just leave the light off when the battery is charged?" My wife's laptop is like that, the battery indicator only flashes if it is charging, once charged it turns off.

That is all good, except my laptop communicates to me that it is plugged in and consuming standby power when it is not in use. When I unplug it from the wall socket, then the battery indicator goes off – I save the standby power of both the power brick and the laptop.

There is one problem with this, it only works on people who care. If I did not care about saving energy, then I would just leave the laptop plugged in and the DVD player on. That means that you have to consider how your users will handle this kind of subtle feedback and determine whether turning the light off, or encouraging unplugging results in more energy savings.

Sometimes the most obvious design decisions may not be the ones which result in the greatest energy saving. Keep designing for low energy consumption and also keep your mind open to new possibilities.

Problem → Idea → Concept → Design → Prototype → Refine → Produce.

In some ways that is really as simple as it is.

Changing a problem into a solution is a wonderful and rewarding process. It is about creating more value in the world around us. I often ask myself, "How does doing this make the world a better place?" By being true to that I can create (and help you create) truly great products.

I finally got around to watching "The Story of Stuff" and was absolutely blown away by the compelling and simple way that its message is presented. Spend 20 minutes of your time to watch this video (here, on the site, or download it)



It is really important that this message gets spread, as we all have a role to play in fixing what we have helped to create. As consumers we need to change how we purchase, as engineers we need to change how we create, as marketers we need to change the message that we spread.

There are some things we need to carefully consider. Take this comment from the brilliant Seth Godin,

"So I'm hoping that what you make is worthy. Marketing is a powerful tool especially when it associates a product with a desire and instinct we already have."

Does what we create help people to live a better happier life? Does it protect the precious world we live in? We have a great responsibility when we create, market and sell things – we need to make sure we carry that responsibility well.

And then the final line of the video,

"Remember that old way didn’t just happen by itself. It’s not like gravity that we just gotta live with. People created it. And we’re people too. So let’s create something new."

We have created the system that we currently have. Does the current system protect our world? Does it help us to be happier? I don't think so.

Even though some people may think "there is no other way" we have to remember this: we created this system, and we can create a new one. We can find a new way.

Further reading:
[1] Happiness versus consumption on No Impact Man
[2] Sustainable consumption's "double dividend" on No Impact Man
[3] Slower consumption by Dr Tim Cooper – Journal of Industrial Ecology (via No Impact Man)

Engineering is about creating a better world.

We need passionate engineers working hard to create a cleaner and healthier world. We have to make sure that each decision we make – each product we produce – is helping us move towards that.

No, it is not easy. It is actually really difficult. It means forcing ourselves to reevaluate the "norms", to look at every decision we make in the light of the world around us. It means taking responsibility for our products, and fighting for what we believe in. It means constantly searching for better solutions.

I call it environeering: engineering for a better environment.

An environeer wants to change the world, and can. They live for energy savings, cleaner technology, recycling, water saving and much more. They are constantly seeking ways to create better products. They talk passionately about the world and how we impact on it. It is all about moving forward and embracing our passion for the world we live in. Most importantly, they care about people.

I want to get to know all the environeers out there. I want to talk to you, engage with you, and together work towards a happier, healthier life for everyone.

Let's start talking – contact me.

The advert ends with the line, "The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds."

There are a couple of ways to interpret the catch line and it really depends on how you view art and engineering (surprise, surprise). I would say the way that the advertising company wants you to interpret that statement is that BMW have highly engineered cars with wonderful aesthetics. My interpretation? Well, maybe less obvious and possibly more true to the artist's feelings.

Let us start by looking at the word "art". Here are two definitions from Dictionary.com,



So we have two (of many) definitions, one focussing on aesthetics (the "typical" association with art) and another focussing on skill at doing something. I am going to diverge a little to tell you a story about my wife and the dentist - yes maybe you think that is strange, but bear with me for a bit...

My wife really dislikes the dentist (is that applause I hear in the back row?) - until she met a lady dentist in Pretoria. Now the first thing that my wife normally tells a dentist when she sits down in the chair is how much she does not like them and how she does not understand why anyone would like to become a dentist. Luckily this tends to break the ice and lead to a good relationship :). So when the topic of, "Why would anyone want to become a dentist?" came up with this particular dentist she responded by saying that for her it was a form of art. She really took pride in how she did her work so that it would be both aesthetically pleasing and functional. Obviously it requires a skillful dentist to do this well.

So who of you would have said that a dentist was an artist? (that is, other than a torture artist ;) )

Maybe the question that needs to be asked is how far apart art and engineering actually are. In general it seems that people put them at opposite sides of the spectrum with art being all about creativity and engineering all logical and scientific. I think that what Joe Average does not realise is the degree of creativity that engineering requires and that is most likely due to engineers lack of ability to explain what we do (see my previous post on this).

For me the art of engineering is so much more than just creativity - it is something that goes to the core of function, aesthetics, and problem solving. I believe that we as engineers need to create solutions that actually enhance people's lives. The point where all of this comes together is the point were we as engineers can start to be artists.

It is more than function and more than beauty - true engineering art should take your breath away and change the way you see the world. That is the kind of art that I want to create.

I've just realised that I can't think of something off the top of my head that embodies those principals. I'm going to have to go scratch around and find some examples of what I think encompasses the art of engineering (I see a "Top Ten" post coming on). Do you have anything that you think stands out as an amazingly engineered product? Let me know by posting a comment!

A final thought - take the time to be an artist at what you do. This will enhance the lives of the people around you, and most importantly your own life, and the ripple effect of that is huge.

PS. If you're looking for a great dentist in Pretoria (or Tshwane, or whatever you want to call it), try Dr. Cornel Cronje (drop me a line if you want her contact details).
__________________

PPS. I've added a "Current Reading" section to the links on the right so that you can check out what I'm (hopefully) enjoying at the moment. The link will take you through to the Exclusive Books website (I'm an affiliate) where you can buy books and have them delivered for free to your nearest Exclusive Books.

Currently the main work that I do is as a consulting and design engineer and I've been trying to beef up my marketing. I've realised that marketing engineering design and consulting can be a bit difficult for a couple of reasons.

The first reason?

Very few people actually understand what engineers do....and most of those that do, are engineers.

At first this caught me a little bit by surprise until I spent a little time thinking about it. I actually thought that more people would have an idea what engineers do (or can do, at least). I suppose that I shouldn't have been surprised - there are lots of reasons why people would have little or no knowledge of engineering. I would say that there are two main reasons, (1) engineers, and (2) the word engineer.

Firstly engineers....well what can I say? Ever been at a party or dinner with an engineer and someone has asked what they do? As soon as the words, "I'm an electronic engineer," roll off their tongue you can feel the fear as people wait in trepidation for some arcane explanation designed to impress a magna cum laude Ph.D graduate. During the explanation everyone's eyes roll back as they wait for the first chance to change the topic.

Put another way - we fail to explain ourselves well

The other problem is the word engineer and its multiplicity of meanings and interpretations. If you go look up the word engineer in the dictionary you'll find a number of meanings from,

engineer: "a person who runs or supervises an engine or an apparatus"

to something that I feel is closer to my definition,

engineer: "a person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems"

As engineers we have not managed to create a clear definition of who we are and what we can do. And what is that really?

Well, one thing - engineers solve problems.

I'll be touching on some solutions to these issues in the future, along with my other marketing struggles - for now, send me some thoughts on this (and other reasons why engineering is not understood) - I'd love to hear them.


Technorati tags : engineers, marketing