Welcome to another episode of The Being an Engineer podcast. Today, we are excited to host Professor James Trevelyan, a renowned engineer whose career spans significant contributions to both academia and industry. James' work has profoundly impacted practical engineering applications and education, notably in areas of robotics and automation. His extensive research and development projects have not only pioneered technological advancements but also provided critical insights into engineering practice. With a focus on enhancing the utility of engineering work and its recognition in society, James offers invaluable perspectives on navigating and succeeding in the world of engineering.
Aaron: James, thank you so much for being with us on the show today.
James Trevelyan: Pleasure, Aaron, It's lovely to meet you.
Aaron: Well, James, can you tell me a little bit about how you decided to become an engineer?
James: I never really thought of anything else. From as early as I can remember, I was playing with model trains, taking things apart. I have always been inclined towards mechanical engineering, but several times in my life I was dragged into other areas of engineering out of necessity. So, it wasn’t really a decision. It was something I channeled myself into right from the start.
Aaron: In your genes and your genetics, part of who you are.
James: Somewhere there, yeah. It's not common in my family, though. My family tends to be progressive politicians, somewhat naive to the realities of politics, and also quite a few religious personalities. I did follow some of my relatives in writing books.
Aaron: That’s right, and we’ll talk about one of them in particular, The Making of an Expert Engineer. Before we get into that, can you share a little about your extensive career in academia and how you have also been involved in industry? What do you think is one of the keys to effective collaboration between academic research and industry implementation?
James: My career has been one where I’ve had a foot in both camps all the time. That’s made it possible for me to shift between one and the other quickly. One thing I’ve discovered is that academia tends to be an anti-collaborative environment. In academic settings, collaboration is often regarded as cheating. The most successful academics tend to be those who have adapted to this culture. So, it's actually difficult to get effective collaboration in many academic environments. I believe this starts with the assessment process. In university, students get grades by sitting down alone and working alone. This message, unfortunately, goes with them into their working lives and causes great difficulty for many. I was lucky to be put into situations where I had to adapt to a more collaborative culture.
Aaron: Have you found this more true in the past 15 to 20 years with the rise of social media?
James: Yes, economists call it the "productivity puzzle," trying to explain why global productivity has taken a hit since around 2005. Productivity used to increase by about 2% to 3% a year, but that’s changed. I believe it was the introduction of the smartphone. Text communication is now fast and easy, but it undermines trust and collaboration, as psychologists discovered in the 1950s. It's a lesson we seem to have forgotten. Social media has changed how people interact, giving them more of an option to withdraw. As engineers, we still need to produce results, but we must adapt to these changes.
Aaron: I agree. I’ve noticed that especially with younger engineers, there is a preference towards emailing people instead of calling them or visiting them in person. I’m even putting together a presentation about communication, showing that email is at the low end of urgency, while in-person visits or phone calls are at the high end. But we seem to be less inclined to just talk to people.
James: That’s a valid observation. Many have remarked on this. I had an interesting experience early in my academic career where I sent out emails but deliberately put important information in attachments, knowing people wouldn’t read them. Out of 400 emails, I got five replies. It saved me a lot of time! But you're right, it is hard to encourage people to make phone calls or meet in person.
Aaron: It’s amazing how people behave like that.
James: Yes, once I got over my shyness, I learned through training courses. It’s important for young engineers to know that these are skills anyone can learn over time. There's no need to classify yourself as a poor communicator for life.
Aaron: Terrific point. We all change and grow over time. Who we are today is not necessarily who we're going to be tomorrow.
James: Absolutely.
Aaron: You're joining this conversation from Australia. I've never been to Australia, but I have the sense there are a lot of commonalities culturally between the U.S. and Australia. But you’ve also worked in countries where things are very different, like Pakistan. How has your experience in countries like Pakistan shaped your approach to engineering and innovation?
James: Good question. First, I’d caution you—Australian culture is quite different from American culture. There’s probably more in common between Australia and America than between Australia and Pakistan, but working in a different culture makes you more aware of your own. For example, my wife is from Pakistan, and the hospitality there is amazing. The challenge is learning how to decline hospitality when you need to be somewhere else.
As an engineer, though, I was struck by the amount of rubbish and how expensive it was to do business in Pakistan. I thought labor is so cheap, why don’t they just hire people to clean up? But as I worked on a project developing devices to clear landmines in Afghanistan, I found it was actually cheaper to do the engineering work in Australia because the quality was better. This puzzled me—engineers from countries like Pakistan and India, educated at some of the world’s best universities, struggle to produce results in their home countries but do well in places like Australia and the U.S. I realized it had something to do with local culture and collaboration. Information isn’t exchanged freely, and that makes it harder to achieve good results.
Eventually, I found engineers in these countries who had overcome these issues. They produced world-class results but couldn’t explain how. It was a puzzle for me, but what I learned is that collaboration is key to getting great results, and it’s something you have to work through in a local culture. We don’t teach collaboration in engineering schools—it’s assumed that because students work in groups, they learn to collaborate. But they often still engage in anti-collaborative behavior, and companies struggle to get young engineers to collaborate.
Aaron: I wonder if the reason we don’t have better communication or collaboration skills as young engineers is because there’s no money in it.
James: Actually, Aaron, there is money in it. Let me explain. In Pakistan, I discovered that collaboration is critical to success. I came back to Australia and found there was little research on what engineers actually do in detail, so we had to start answering those questions. What we found is that value creation in engineering is deeply tied to collaboration. There’s a reluctance to engage in activities like design checks because engineers think real progress is designing, not checking. But when you look at why so many major engineering projects fail, it’s often due to collaboration failures.
Poor collaboration is costly. Major projects fail 4 out of 6 times, and one in six loses all investor money. For example, there’s a nickel refinery that cost about $2.5 billion to build, was sold for $250 million, and now sits mothballed. The failure was due to collaboration issues. So yes, collaboration does produce significant financial returns. And companies need to recognize that collaboration failures explain why so many projects fail.
Aaron: That’s fascinating. Can you define the difference between communication and collaboration, give examples of poor versus good collaboration, and suggest how engineers can become proficient at collaboration?
James: Communication is essential for collaboration, but collaboration is more than just communication. To improve collaboration, start by developing listening skills. Engineers spend about 25% of their time listening, and the most useful information is often communicated verbally. People are often more willing to give information in casual conversation than in a formal setting. Being able to listen and take quick notes is crucial, but unfortunately, we don’t teach listening skills in universities.
For example, I once suggested teaching listening skills to students, and the response was puzzling. Academics didn’t see the need because students sit in lectures all day. But when you measure students’ listening skills, you find that they forget most of what’s said after the first few minutes of a lecture. Listening is a critical skill for engineers, and it's something companies should focus on in training young engineers.
Aaron: I’ve seen companies invest heavily in technical training but not in communication or collaboration training. There seems to be a lack of financial incentive for that. You’ve written books on this—what are some ways engineers can improve their listening skills?
James: In Australia, companies do spend money on professional skills training, including collaboration, though engineers themselves often prefer technical training because they think that’s what will get them ahead. But companies recognize that professional skills are critical too.
If you don’t have access to good training courses, my books offer some easy-to-learn methods. Effective collaboration makes a huge difference in engineering results. I talk about three activities necessary for creating engineering value: value creation, value delivery (where collaboration is key), and value protection. These are crucial for ensuring successful engineering projects.
Aaron: There’s a notion in us as engineers that we want to do perfect work, but the reality is that engineering is driven by business objectives. Sometimes "good enough but quick" is more valuable than "perfect but slow." What are your thoughts?
James: I understand that instinct to get everything perfect. But what I’ve learned is that if you create value for the client, they will give you the time and resources to do things right. The key is understanding where your work starts to create significant value. If the client sees that, they won’t mind how long it takes.
For example, I worked on a project to develop robots for shearing sheep in Australia. Initially, I thought no one would pay for a robot to shear sheep, but I was wrong. Farmers were willing to invest in innovative solutions because the need was so great. Though we never commercialized the robots, the behavior of shearers changed once they saw the robot. They no longer demanded unreasonable pay raises. Sometimes, technology changes behavior, even if the product isn’t commercialized.
Aaron: That’s fascinating. I have one last question. What’s one thing you’ve done to accelerate the speed of engineering?
James: One of the most useful ways to speed up engineering is through simple experiments. For example, when I was developing our little air conditioners, I found that computational fluid mechanics has its limits. Simple measurements and experiments can be much more valuable. When you confront the ground truth, that’s when perceptions start to shift.
For instance, I took my air conditioner prototype to a factory in China, and they tested their replica of it. They said it didn’t perform well, but when I used simple thermocouple instruments to compare my prototype with theirs, I quickly saw that my design performed about 60–70% better. Simple tests like this can make a huge difference.
Aaron: That’s great advice.
James: I also had a young engineer do a simple experiment with a thermocouple in ice water to help him understand temperature changes. After seeing the results himself, he understood the physics much better. Simple experiments can be incredibly valuable for learning.
Aaron: James, thank you so much for spending time on The Being an Engineer Podcast. I really enjoyed hearing about your research. I’ll include links to your books in the show notes. Is there anything else you'd like to share before we sign off?
James: Please include a link to our little air conditioners too. I think they have the potential to transform the world. Simplicity in engineering is often undervalued, but simple solutions can be incredibly effective commercially.
Aaron: Absolutely. Thanks again, James. How can folks get in touch with you?
James: LinkedIn or email. Despite what I said earlier, email works! You can easily find me online.
Aaron: Terrific. Thanks again, James.
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.