The question ‘What is Civil Engineering Systems – CES?’ was posed by the editors not as an attempt to arrive at a set of common definitions but more to foster conversation around the issues. The disparate contributions to this special edition have achieved that goal by exposing very large differences of approach ranging at the extremes from the formal (Carmichael) to the informal (Elms).
The editors also ask what constitutes a ‘BOK’ – Body of Knowledge for CEES. This question begs many further questions such as what is ‘knowledge’ anyway when we cannot predict the behaviour of a deterministic non-linear hinged pendulum after just a few cycles? What is the role of science in engineering and how do they both relate to technology in an age when STEM is dominated in the minds of so many people by the S? What is uncertainty when so many theorists deny looking beyond statistics and probability to embrace ambiguity, incompleteness and unknown unknowns? How do we categorise and manage uncertainty to make our systems resilient, sustainable and robust against ‘surprises’ like banking collapses and pandemics never mind the challenges of climate change? How do we learn from mistakes when accidents and disasters like Grenfell follow similar patterns to previous disasters of history? How does CEES relate to the wider world of politics and economics and the arts? Should STEM be expanded to STEAMM to include the arts and medicine?
The implied assumptions in the various papers about the questions seem to depend on the experiences of each author and their necessarily partial reading of the massive amount of material available to a modern researcher. That is natural and to be expected – but is incumbent on us all who follow a systems approach to embrace all relevant points of view (particularly the journals relating to civil engineering) and adapt and learn from them. That is the real value of this Special Issue.
The editors compared contribution under nine headings (Jowitt and Dias Table 1). I looked at the responses of the authors to some other key system ideas which, for brevity I will restrict to just five – complexity, uncertainty, emergence, interdependence and learning. All authors refer to complexity but only Whyte et al discuss it in any depth although Jowitt differentiates between complicated as rich in detail and complex as rich in structure. No-one refers to the sense-making models called Cynefin which differentiate the complex and messy (high emergent uncertainty, interconnectedness and conflict) from the complicated (highly interconnected but well understood), contingent (only indirectly testable and non-additive) and tame (linear, manageable and controllable) (Blockley and Godfrey Citation2017). Likewise many references are made to uncertainty with little importance seemingly given to those aspects not covered by statistics and probability such as the structural attributes of vagueness and incompleteness and the interpretive attributes of ambiguity, dubiety, conflict and vacillation to name but a few (Blockley and Godfrey Citation2017). Surely one of the biggest lessons of recent history in that our understanding is necessarily incomplete. Were it so we would have foreseen the banking collapse of 2008 and the recent pandemic and the tragedy of Grenfell amongst many other ‘surprises’. The biggest challenge to creating more robust and resilient systems is to be able to identify ‘accidents waiting to happen’ as they incubate (Turner and Pidgeon Citation1997).
Carmichael and Delatte seem not to have fully shaken off reductionism as they seek to analyse what constitutes the BOK. Only Carmichael gives a brief mention of the crucial importance of emergence. Delatte does not refer to the now extensive literature of CEES. Lund sees systems as highlighting synthesis over analysis. But systems-thinking is so much more than simply being systematic. Jowitt rightly distinguishes systematic (being rational and organised) from systemic (pertaining to, and emerging within, the system as whole in a way that recognises interdependencies between systems that may well have not previously been included.
Masterson and Jeffrey want to see the liberal arts included into engineering education. This needs a systems perspective in order for students to be able to relate the disparate approaches. Of course, as the authors argue, engineers need to be able to empathise with the social, economic, cultural and philosophical context in which they work. But these are massive topics which will only make relevant sense to students if the teachers are able relate the ideas to engineering activity. Finally, learning is a central theme but only Elms seems to see that we have to use systems thinking to help engineers ‘learn how to learn’ their way through complexity and uncertainty. Perhaps the best and most currently vivid example is how many people have learned how to find their way through the COVID-19 pandemic. Others, who may not have been so reflective, have been critical of the lack of clarity of decisions that depend on unknown outcomes (such as the efficacy of the vaccines). Elms quite rightly sees systems thinking as a way of thinking not necessarily amenable to total formalisation (as being systematic). His stance is another ‘take’ on the importance that I place of the historically ‘lost’ concept of practical wisdom. A wisdom born of experience and reflection. Elms sees ‘purpose’ (asking the why questions), as I do, as central and a starting point. His systems stance is an attitude of personal engagement which relates to reality by recognising the critical role of models and the uncertainty surrounding them. He includes personal and shared models. Although Elms does not refer to Popper his suggestions are reminiscent of Popper’s 3 worlds of reality, i.e. world 1 (physical reality), world 2 (subjective mind) and world 3 (our shared understanding of worlds 1 and 2). Elms sees a need for some principles of modelling which encompass ethics, value and quality and aesthetics as well as uncertainty and surprises. Elms does not refer to ‘learning to learn’ but the idea is implicit in his approach to understanding and the development and maintenance of his systems stance.
Jowitt in common with most authors sees the importance of different styles of learning. His approach to sustainability based on ASK (attitude, skills and learning). He calls for STEM to become STEAM that, like Masterson and Jeffrey, includes A for the arts. I have proposed an even further extension that is STEAMM that includes medicine (Blockley Citation2019). With the developments in biochemistry and bio-engineering medics and engineers now have much more in common than say 60 years ago. It would be revealing to compare Jowitt’s ASK with the way Robertson and I (Blockley and Robertson Citation1983) characterised the three high level jointly necessary and sufficient conditions for a ‘good’ civil engineer. In brief they are (a) being technically sound (engineering capability and sufficient knowledge – scientific and practical wisdom), (b) having all the qualities of a well-educated professional (ability to formulate and solve problems, organise, communicate and be numerate) and (c) having good personal qualities (good character – ethics, intellect and physical health).
Conclusion
In my personal view this special edition has:
successfully brought together a collection of views about the nature of civil engineering systems;
highlighted some similarities centred around the need to widen the scope of engineering education and practice;
revealed a perhaps inevitably wide disparity of approaches to what is after all an emerging and youthful discipline. A discipline that seeks to shift the paradigm of what engineering is, its place in society to meet the complexity of twenty-first century challenges. These include, of course, climate change, increasing influence of digital technology and the potentially massive impact of ‘surprises’ as unknown unknowns. In a world of previously unknown levels of interconnection we have to find ways to reduce our fragility and vulnerability to small unexpected events.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
- Blockley, D. I. 2019. “What Can We Learn about STEAM from Bridges?” Chap. 11. In The STEAM revolution, edited by Travis C. de la Garza, 155–167. Springer Nature, Switzerland. See The STEAM Revolution Transdisciplinary Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Humanities and Mathematics by Armida de la Garza, Charles Travis (z-lib.org).pdf.
- Blockley, D. I., and P. Godfrey. 2017. Doing it Differently. 2nd ed. London: ICE Publications.
- Blockley, D. I., and C. I. Robertson. 1983. “An Analysis of the Charactersics of a Good Civil Engineer.” Proc Instn Civ Engrs, Part 2 75: 77–94.
- Turner, B. A., and N. F. Pidgeon. 1997. Man Made Disasters. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinnemann.