Technical Competence, Engineering Leadership and Electric Power

by J. A. Casazza

Comments | References

Societal Needs

For quite a number of years, I closely followed some of the work being done for the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California {1}. This was an elite group of good minds from many professions and many different occupations ranging from college professors to a former TV talk show host. One of their assignments was to place themselves in the position of the founding fathers of our country and to write a constitution that would be equally good for the next 200 years. I became quite interested in their work and followed their successive drafts.

One key conclusion they reached was that our government structure had to be modified to recognize that our society had become a highly technical one. The founding fathers had written a constitution with great flexibility but with its roots in the agricultural economy and society of its times. Our constitution provides very little in the way of mechanisms for technical planning and the resolution of technical policy questions. They proposed that the new constitution include a fourth department to complement the existing legislative, executive, and judicial departments--a planning department which would establish the necessary technical policies. While such a drastic change in our government is obviously not feasible, I think we need to recognize that they identified a key weakness in our system of government.

Anti-Engineering Biases

Four hundred years ago in Italy, Galileo was appointed to the chair of mathematics at the University of Padua. Through his technical and scientific work, he concluded that the earth circled the sun. The authorities of his day deemed that this technical information was inappropriate to their objectives and they forced him to recant. Is this much different from the situation on the Challenger space mission where engineers reported that there were risks involved in the mission because of problems with the "O ring" in cold weather? The NASA administrators paid little attention to this technical information. They did not even take the time to find out if these technical claims were valid or whether the risks were significant. The net result was that seven fine young astronauts died.

This anti-technical bias is continuing in connection with the development of electric power policy. Those with the technical knowledge and expertise in these systems, their costs, and their economics are not only being ignored, but are being suppressed. Many in our government have a strong bias against engineers. They show their bias in almost everything they do. Sometimes the biases are flagrantly obvious. Sometimes they are subtle. Recently, at a large public meeting, a high-ranking state government official offered the put down, "You can't be an engineer because I don't see a plastic holder and colored pencils in your shirt pocket." All engineers should resent this sort of stereotyping.

Most of my career has been spent developing electric power systems and policies. In the last five years, I have seen this anti-technical bias rise to the point where I felt action must be taken to correct it. While I have tried to take vigorous action when the opportunities were available to me, I realized that I was dealing with a long-term problem for which long-term corrective action was needed.

Some discussion of the way this anti-engineering bias is shown should be mentioned. All lawyers know that if you can select the jury and the judge, you will get the verdict you want. At federal hearings in Washington, both legislative and regulatory, the government staff involved in making the selections of those to testify have shown distinct biases against engineers. They prefer groups that profess to represent the public interest but in truth represent a privileged class whose main goal is to perpetuate their own existence. The White House Selection Commission for selecting Congressional Fellows in 1990 had five lawyers and one engineer. The scarcity of engineering appointments to key government positions is astounding. A lawyer was appointed to head up the development of energy strategy in the Department of Energy.

The selections made for key engineering advisory panels and boards in the Federal Government frequently have non-engineers as members. I can see the need for some cross-representation between the professions on advisory panels, and I do not object to having a lawyer or two or an economist or two on an engineering advisory board. I do ask for reciprocity. Why aren't engineers appointed to the various legal and economic advisory panels? Why aren't engineers sitting on the president's economic council? Why aren't engineers involved in reviewing nominations for the Supreme Court Justices? Why do lawyers confine to lawyers along procedural questions related to their profession, yet participate, and in many cases dominate, the decisions on technical questions?

TV, newspapers, and magazines distort stories and totally misrepresent technical reports. Some excellent examples are the reports which were given to the American public about the health effects of EMF fields as reported in the recent U.S.C. study. Editors adjust and change letters for publication to remove key technical material under the guise that the readers will not consider it important. Even the IEEE press has technical editors who considerably alter and change the contents of material prepared by engineers, thus destroying its integrity.

In 1989 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order {2} barring all engineers from making an evaluation of a trial of a new approach for the interchange of electric energy and use of electric transmission systems. These are areas in which engineers have worked for generations. {3} The FERC did this under the guise that the key issues were economic and the only ones who could work on economic issues were economists! These biases against engineers are not significantly different from those that exist against blacks, women, and Hispanics, etc. in our society.

Possible Corrective Steps

Democracy will only work and the national interest will only be served if we achieve the necessary technical input and technical participation in setting our national and local policies. The purpose of this symposium is to explore ways to achieve this. The hope is that these efforts will be multiplied through wide distribution of the video tapes of the presentations and discussion.

I believe there are two groups we must target: Engineers in current practice and those who are being trained in our educational institutions. I would like to suggest some possible steps for consideration:

1. We need to work to change the present procedures. Engineers need to take an aggressive stance and speak out against such biases, even at personal expense and risk. As stated in the United Kingdom by Sir Monty Finneston, past Chairman of the Engineering Council and past Chairman of British Steel, "People like ourselves who advance civilization and its future cannot isolate ourselves from what is made from our professional efforts." {4}

In a speech to the USA National Academy of Engineers, President Bush's Chief of Staff, John Sununu, stated {5} : "...it is now clear to virtually everyone that science and technology, engineering, are all very critical parts of developing policy and implementing policy at the national and international level...I stress this because what I am concerned about is that as a profession, engineers have been negligent in one very significant aspect...in their direct participation in the policy-making, policy-shaping, and policy-implementing process...And yet the fact is that we have been reluctant to get in and mix it up with the lawyers and others in the process. We have not just the right to do so, we have the responsibility to do so...And so my plea today is that as a profession we understand our obligation. That as a profession, we communicate the need for that kind of participation. And on top of that, to suggest to you that not to be involved is really to miss something that is fun, that is worthwhile, satisfying, gratifying, and back to the original premise, something that is absolutely necessary."

These statements provide an acknowledgement of the task. They do not provide the guts and energy necessary to proceed as they suggest. This can only come from individuals with the motivation and integrity to stand up and speak for what is right for this country; not just for what is right for a particular company, or industry, or profession (including the engineering profession). We must support the few who are speaking out. The entire profession, including our universities and our professional societies, should give them full backing when they do so.

2. We must encourage many more engineers to recognize their responsibilities and to speak out. A recent example of the problem is provided by a recent IEEE publication. It had an article on ways to calculate the RMS value of a particular wave shape and an article on electric power policy. Six hundred and ninety-two letters to the editor were received on the RMS calculation article. None were received on the electric power policy article.

Our greatest problem is that engineers love their work. I once worked for a fine engineer who lived to build power plants, whether they were needed or not. Our universities have produced a generation of engineers who are in love with computers! These fine minds must somehow be helped to see their societal responsibilities too.

John Pope, President-Elect of the IEEE Power Society, is here on the program today to talk to you about the role of the professional society. My experience after forty years of working with the IEEE is that it is very difficult to get engineers involved in anything outside of their narrow technical areas. This situation is being changed by the IEEE. The IEE in Britain also is moving in the direction of redirecting the focus of engineers.

3. We must recognize that there is some justification for the biases against engineers. I have seen many biases during my life. I have even known one individual who felt all people with gray eyes couldn't be trusted. In most cases, I also believe some past justification can often be provided for the bias. Perhaps we engineers need to see why the biases exist against engineers. Here is a good list of possible reasons:

• Their lack of knowledge of acceptable standards of behavior in business and government.
• Their poor understanding of the workings of government (including the increased need to use their analytical capabilities, such as those involved in flow charting, probability and statistical analysis, etc., in analyzing the operation of government.)
• Their lack of ability to educate and influence the general public.
• Their lack of a sense of responsibility, sufficient conviction and a desire to speak out on issues of importance, even at personal sacrifice.
• The narrowness of a typical engineering education.

5. Engineers must develop significant communication skills. They must be able to express their ideas in writing, and orally. They must understand that there are different audiences for which different techniques must be used. Corporate executives, government officials and the general public will not listen to boring intellectual treatises or review complex computer printouts. They don't have the time and often don't have the training. Engineers have to learn to get the story across quickly and effectively. Decision-makers want to know the answer, what alternatives you have considered, what assumptions you have made, and what the uncertainties are, and they want to know it quickly.

6. Engineering faculties need to provide better examples and leadership. In my contacts with universities and colleges, I have often seen a lack of professional responsibility. Faculty members are too often concerned with their research grants and their personal paychecks. The engineer has to be taught a sense of professional responsibility. How are they going to be taught this responsibility if their professors do not have it? A professional realizes his responsibility to others to get the job done well and to get it done on time. All too often, faculty members say "That's not my job," or "That's not my responsibility, someone else is supposed to do it" and walk away and leave things undone.

Some of you are old enough to recall "Red" Blake when he was football coach at West Point. He developed a number of outstanding football teams. Admittedly, he had some fairly good players, but the key to his teaching was that you not only had to meet your responsibilities, but you also had to help others meet theirs. After his players made a block, they would always keep looking for other opportunities to help, recover a fumble, make another block or to make a tackle. This is what I mean by professional responsibilities. Winning organizations have this sense of professional responsibility.

Engineers need better training in the management of their activities. Whether they are going to be top executives or not, they have to understand what it takes to get things done. If our engineering schools want to help engineers learn how to manage, they could spend more time in improving the management of their own organizations. I have been involved in making research grants to a number of different universities. I have found very few cases where I felt that the administration of the projects was effective and that the money was used to the maximum efficiency. Often I found sloppy administration and a failure to be "goal-oriented"

7. Engineering curriculum should be revised. {6} The engineer must be trained in philosophy, history, geography, and politics. In the fall 1990 issue of The Best of Tau Beta Pi, in an excellent article, by Samuel C. Florman states, "I can never forget the words of Eugene Ferguson, a noted historian of technology, who once said if we are ever going to liberalize the training of engineers and elevate their sights, we're going to have to kill off at least one generation of engineering faculty." {7} Well, I am not here today to propose this as a solution. I do feel, however, that engineering faculties need to have fewer specialists and more generalists, people who are broad-based and see the need for training individuals to meet our society's future technical needs. They need fewer Ph.D.'s and more with "real world" experience. The excessive concentration over the past twenty years on the development of software skills and modeling techniques have set back the engineering profession considerably.

We also need to develop far more "system engineers" who can not only integrate technical systems but also societal systems, who recognize financial and environmental problems. I have participated in an international activity involving 17 nations on how to best influence public opinion in the electric power area. {8} I would like to read a checklist to you which was developed by Nelson DeFranco, an electrical engineer from Brazil, who is involved in electric power policy in South America for the World Bank. Here are the skills he thinks are needed by engineers.

1. Be able to identify the decision makers and how they actually arrive at their decisions.
2. Develop a set of alternatives, not concentrate on a rigid single recommendation.
3. Be prepared to respond quickly to changing conditions or a different set of players.
4. Recognize the importance of the various political motivations that are involved.
5. Establish an effective information system so as to be able to assess quickly the impacts of revised plans on the need for financing and on the cost of electricity.
6. Recognize that the funds required for the operation of the existing system and its expansion must be achievable, regardless of whether the system is publicly-owned or under privatization.
7. Develop a full comprehension of the regulatory system and the role it plays as a substitute for market forces in a country. Part of this effort should include participation in discussions of the changes needed in regulating procedures.
8. Involve engineers in the process of establishing tariffs in order to arrive at tariffs that will provide the proper signals to the consumers and provide the necessary funds for the functioning of the utility that will be established.
9. Be able to stress not only short-term consequences but real, long-term consequences of alternative projects, tariff schedules, etc.
10. Recognize that attempts might be made to have the electric power system meet social objectives, particularly to help the poor. In these situations, the possibility for having direct government funding for these purposes should be encouraged.

As some of you know, I have a strong interest in electric power. I, and many others, have been deeply concerned about many policies I have seen proposed for the USA {9}, {10}. These policies are being proposed without analyses by individuals lacking an understanding of the technologies involved. They are based on the unreason application of political and economic philosophies to a very complex technical system. These individuals do not even know what questions need to be asked about the effects of these policies. They claim that those who raise vital questions "are raising a technical fog so dense that no mortal can penetrate it." {11}

I will not get into the details, but I will point out what is happening in the United Kingdom where changes were made that are similar to some being proposed in the USA. Excess generating capacity is being installed. Costs of electricity have gone up 20% to 40% in one year. {12} Planning for future electric power requirements has become impossible. There are those in the USA who are trying to get us to follow these same policies. Recently I have seen judges, legislators, regulators, and utility executives make decision and propose actions which completely ignore technical facts. The most disheartening part of this situation is that they don't care to have technical and economic information that might sway them from their political course.

A Request

In closing, I have only one request. Listen to the presentations at this symposium. Try to learn more. I have provided some references for further reading. Whatever your resulting views are, become an activist in helping the engineering profession fulfill its needed role. Become involved in the current debate on our future electric power policy. Help in the development of coordinated technical and institutional solutions. The future welfare of our country depends on it.

I would like to close with a few brief words on why I decided to establish the Peter Cooper Fund for advancing Government competence. I felt a personal obligation to try to:

1. Repay Cooper Union for the outstanding education it gave me.
2. Provide a "seed" which hopefully would grow to improve technical leadership nationwide.
3. Provide a personal example demonstrating what I am preaching.

If any of you in the audience would like to contribute to the Peter Cooper Fund, I am sure Dean Baum will be glad to hear from you.

Thank you.

Presented at the Symposium on Public Policy, Leadership, and Electric Power
at the Great Hall, The Cooper Union, New York City
03 December 1991

Comments | References

Previous | Home | Next