The Vocational Aspect of Education

ISSN: 0305-7879 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjve19

Methodologies for problem solving: An

engineering approach

James J. Sharp

To cite this article: James J. Sharp (1991) Methodologies for problem solving: An
engineering approach, The Vocational Aspect of Education, 42:114, 147-157, DOI:
10.1080/10408347308003631

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408347308003631

Published online: 28 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15623

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjve19

Download by: [189.35.58.188] Date: 30 July 2017, At: 05:58

The Vocational Aspect of Education (April 1991) No. 114, p. 147-157

Methodologies for Problem Solving:

An Engineering Approach
b y J A M E S J. S H A R P
Professor a n d C h a i r m a n o f Civil Engineering, Faculty o f Engineering and Applied
Science, M e m o r i a l University o f N e w f o u n d l a n d , St. John's, N F A I B 3 X 5

AbsuPact
Learning how to approach and solve problems which relate to real world situations is an integral part
of the education of many higher and further education students and is particularly relevant to students
studying for a professional or vocational degree. This paper outlines the nature of problems experienced
by engineers and indicates how engineering students are taught to approach the identification and solu-
tion of fhe ~ges of problems which they zoill experience as practicing professionals. Methodologies used
are of general interest and may be applicable in other, unrelmed, disciplines.

Introduction
Education of professionaUy oriented students normally includes three quite different and dis-
tinct components which must be integrated in any suitable program of studies. These compo-
nents comprise the acquisition and understanding of fundamental knowledge, the application of
this knowledge to practical, as opposed to theoretical, problems, and the development of skills
which are required for professional practice. The first and last of these components pose few
difficulties. Acquisition of knowledge is generally handled by the use of lectures, tutorials and
seminars while skills are developed during periods of practical work spread over the duration of
the academic program. Application of fundamental knowledge to real world problems does, how-
ever, cause considerable difficulty largely because real problems can be solved in an infinite vari-
ety of different ways and because considerable creativity is necessary to develop the optimum
solution. For many years professional schools concentrated primarily on the transfer of know-
ledge and largely ignored application and skills.
However, in the last decade increasing emphasis has been placed on the more professional
aspects of education. This has not been accompanied by any less attention to the fundamental
knowledge required and, as a result, a professionally oriented education may now require stu-
dents to spend more ~me in formal education than would be the case for non professionals.
For example students in Arts and Science at Memorial University of Newfoundland may be
awarded a general degree by obtaining credits in 40 courses, typically spread over 8 semesters.
An engineering degree requires credit in 62 courses taken over 10 semesters together with sat-
isfactory completion of 6 semesters spent in industry on work placements.
The type of problem faced by practicing professionals varies with the particular profession
but, for engineers, problems are inmrtately tied up with design. This paper oudines the nature
of engineering design, particularly as it relates to Civil Engineering, and indicates how students
are taught to approach the complex problem of design.

E n g i n e e r i n g P r o b l e m s and Design
Engineers generally think of themselves as problem solvers. Unlike scientists, who examine the

147
148 Methodologies for Problem Solving

world around them to obtain an understanding of t h i n ~ as they are and have been, engineers
are concerned with creating something new, something which is currently not in existence and
which never has been. For example, Scientists, such as Geographers, and Engineers are both
interested in the science of Hydrology which deals with climate, precipitation, floods and droughts.
The Geographer measures rainfall and the resulting floods to understand, among other things,
how river flows respond to rainfall, how much water runs off the land, how much is stored and
how much is evaporated. The measurements are made primarily to obtain a picture and under-
standing of existing natural phenomena and the inter-relationship among them. Engineers make
identical measurements and make use of identical data but for quite different reasons. Frequently
engineers are called upon to design and construct structures which must cope with the effect of
moving water; eg. drainage channels from parking lots, stormwater sewers, culverts under roads,
bridges across rivers, flood-control works, irrigation schemes and dams and reservoirs etc. (Sharp
and Sawden, 1984). For each of these it is important to predict future values of rainfall or river
flow and this is done using the hydrological records collected in the past years. These records
then are only a means to an end for the engineer.
In addition to formulating the picture of current and past events the engineer must use these
records to make statistical predictions of what is likely to happen in the future. Only with this
knowledge is it possible to construct, for example, a new dam with a reasonable assurance that
it will cope with the natural phenomena to which it will be subjected throughout its lifetime.
Each new construction, regardless of size, represents a problem which must be solved and it is
for this reason that engineers tend to think of themselves as people who have been educated
primarily to solve problems.
The oldest engineering profession is that of the Civil Engineer. Originally all engineering was
carried out for military purposes and Civil (or Civilian) Engineering arose largely as a result of
the industrial revolution when technology expanded in leaps and bounds. When the Institution
of Civil Engineers was founded in London in 1818 it defined the profession as, "the art of
directing the great sources of power in Nature for the use and convenience of man." Still valid
today, this description indicates that Civil Engineers are concerned with problems relating to
the provision of conditio,us,nec~ssary for civilized life. Civil Engineers design and construct trans-
portation schemes in th~ form of roads, bridges, airports, railways and harbours etc. They are
responsible for providing shelter, with Architects and Civil Engineers working together on all
large structures. Water engineering forms a large part of the work of the Civil Engineer whether
to provide power in hydroelectric schemes or to supply safe drinking water to consumers. Civil
Engineers are also responsible for the treatment and purification of waste water and sewage. It
is interesting to note in passing that the improvements in public health resulting from the pro-
vision of safe drinking water and good sewage collection and treatment have done more to reduce
worldwide disease and mortality t h a n anythin"g done by the medical profession.
In all of these areas, the Civil Engineer's work results in the construction of some new design.
Traditionally, the teaching of design in Universities has concentrated on the science and tech-
nology involved. Design has been defined as "the determination of what is to be built and the
preparation of instructions necessary for building it" (Harris, 1980, p. 409). In a more general
definition the United States Accreditation Board (1980) for Engineering and Technology defined
design as
"the process of devising a system, component or process to meet desired needs, it is a
decision making process (often irerative) in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and engi-
neering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among
JAMES J. SHARP 149

the fimdamental elements of the design process are the establishment of objectives and cri-
teria, synthesis, analysis, construction, test/n~ and evaluation."
Creativity, innovative thinking and scientific analysis are all necessary and over the last twenty
years or so academic institutions have given considerable thought to the best methods of teach-
ing the innovative and creative aspects of design. The determination of "what is to be built",
for example, is not always obvious and many different types of structures may be used to solve
the problem faced by the engineer.
Problems are typically brought to the engineer by a client who may, or may not, have a clear
understanding of the nature of the problem. For example, Government may wish to construct
a new road between two towns and to cross a river which lies between them. The Engineer will
be approached and it might be thought that the problem is simple, namely to design and con-
struct a road bridge across the river. However, this could be quite misleading. In reality the
problem of designing the bridge is quite secondary to the main problem which is to get traffic
from the town on one side of the river to the town on the other. Many different solutions, of
which a bridge is one, could be used. The engineer could, for example, use a ferry, dig a tun-
nel, build a causeway or a ford o r could perhaps reroute the road to avoid the river altogether.
Only if a bridge proves to be the most desirable solution to the underlying problem does the
design of the bridge become a problem in its own right. Even then the designer is faced with
considerable choice and must decide among the relative merits of steel, concrete, wood or some
combination of these materials. The structure itself may be varied and many differing geometries
could be used. This example is one in which a secondary problem was initially identified as the
primary problem, but other situations exist. For example, a city manager might approach the
engineer for assistance and specify that a problem exists at a particular intersection in thecity
where there is a high incidence of motor vehicle accidents. In fact, the manager has not speci-
fied the problem but only the symptom. No information has been given regarding the underly-
ing problem which may relate to high traffic flow, poor signal control, inferior road layout,
inadequate sight distances or a Combination of some or all of these.
These two illustrations provide at~ indication of the complexity of the problems faced by engi-
neers but also suggest that these problems have three main characteristics in common. The first
is that the problem itself is not always easily identified. Very often the client's view is, at best,
imprecise and, at worst misleading. The second characteristic common to all engineering design
problems is that they are open ended. There is no one 'correct' solution. Instead, there are a
multitude of alternatives to be considered in an effort to find the 'best' or most suitable solu-
tion. Frequently the best solution will depend on the viewpoint (or objectives) of the client.
Imagine, for example, a factory which requires an overhead walkway to be consu-ucted from one
building to another. Regardless of structural concerns or of cost on the open market, a factory
manufacturing concrete products is likely to have a different viewpoint from that of a factory
manufacturing steel products. The third characteristic which engineering problems have in Com-
mon is that there is, at least in the initial stages of the design process, a significant lack of infor-
marion. The engineer must gather information as necessary and must identify, out of all the
information which could be collected, what and how much is actually necessary.
As mentioned earlier many Universities and Colleges used to ignore these complex aspects of
design in the education of engineers. Instead, emphasis was placed on detailed analysis and the
difficult, less defined, aspects of design such as problem identification, conception, and gener-
ation of alternative solutions etc. was left to be learned during the early years of professional
practice. Even then, the difficult conceptual decisions were made by senior engineers and many
150 Methodologies for Problem Solving

years of experience were necessary to learn and develop the skills required for sensible decision-
making. In the last decade or so there has been a recognition that the conceptual, innovative
and creative aspects of design have common features regardless of the specific problem to be
solved. This has led directly to the realization that it is possible to teach strategies or method-
ologies for handling these ditticult problems and so more and more institutions are introducing
courses and project work on design methodology into the curriculum. Regardless of the name
given to the coursework, these deal with the generalities rather than with the specific design
problems.

Design Education
Twenty years ago, the American Society of Engineering Education stated the following as the
two basic objectives of engineering education (Walker, 1968).
1) "Mastering of the fundamental scientific principles and command of basic knowledge under
lying a branch of engineering."
2) "Thorough understanding of the engineering method, and elementary competence in its
application."
The 'Engineering Method' was never clearly defined but was understood to relate to design
methodology, ie. the strategies used to solve very complex problems which may be poorly iden-
tiffed and which involve many inter-related parts. Since that time, as engineering faculties have
attempted to come to grips with teaching creative design, a teaching methodology has been
developed which is now, with some variation, in general use. In this the students are encour-
aged to think of design as a logical process in which a number of different steps can be identi-
fied. The problem solving model has been described many times (Cowan 1981, Lewis 1974,
Jewel 1986) and may be summarized as
1) Recognizing a need
2) Defining the problem, the objectives and the constraints
3) Collecting information and data
4) Generating alternative solutions
5) Evaluating the consequence of different solutions
6) Deciding and specifying the final 'best' solution.
In many cases the first two items - need and problem - are so closely related that it is diffi-
cult to separate them clearly. However it must be emphasized that it is necessary to ensure that
the identified problem is fundamental and not simply a symptom of a problem as discussed ear-
lier. Many inadequate designs result from trying to treat a symptom instead of solving the under-
lying problem.
When the problem has been identified it must be clearly described, taking into account and
quantifying, ff possible, the objectives which are to be met by the solution and the limitations,
or constraints, under which the solution must operate. For many engineering problems the pri-
mary objective would be cost-effectiveness but other important objectives may also be set.
Constraints or limitations on the range of solutions which are considered acceptable might relate
to such items as laws, standards and regulations, economic or resource limitations, political and
social pressures and morality and ethical responsibilities.
Having identified the problem, the objectives and the constraints, it is then possible to begin
to collect the necessary data. Some information will, of course, have been available from the
start but only after all the objectives and constraints have been set will it be possible to iden-
tify all the data needed to deal with them. For example in designing a road bridge across a river
JAMES J. SHARP 151

it is necessary to know whether the river authorities wish to perrrfit river traffic to pass under
the bridge. If so, one constraint on the design is that it must permit suc~h passage. In that case
it is then necessary to obtain data on the size o f ships using the river, their manoeuvring capa-
bilities, the free span needed for safe passage and the likely magnitude o f forces on a support
pier in the event of a collision. Obviously this data is not required if the river is not used by
boat traffic in which case safe passage by ships would not constitute a constraint on the design.
Following data collection, the design team can proceed to the generation of alternative solu-
tions. This is p r o b a b l y the most creative part o f the task and probably the most difficult for
people who are new to the design process. T h e information available is usually still inadequate
at this stage and a multitude of different solutions could be used. Initially at least, students are
discouraged from considering the feasibility o f any particular potential solution. It is easy to get
bogged down wondering whether any particular idea might work and it is important to avoid
this distraction. What is important is to generate as many alternatives as possible no matter how
ridiculous, or sensible, they may be. Harris (1980, p. 410) described this process well when he
wrote that:
" F r o m concentration on the facts of what is needed, ideas o f what is possible will spring.
T h e s e ideas may be vague or may be surprisingly detailed; their occurrence is fortuitous.
T h e y may occur during office hours or at the most unlikely - indeed embarrassing - moments.
This leap of the intellect defies rational analysis, it is invention (and every job is a new
invention), the fire from heaven, the inspiration of the muse, the dictates o f the genius, the
promptings of the daimon, the brainwave, the wheeze. It can neither be planned nor counted
on, it can only be wooed - and can equally be stifled. It is best wooed by hard concentra-
tion on all those facts (we are unlikely to have ideas unless we are looking for them) though
there is often a place for deliberate techniques - 'wild thinking', 'brainstorming' sessions,
design team meetings at relaxed week-end parties etc. T h o u g h t must be uninhibited; the
critical faculty is suspended at this stage. T h e designer is not deducing an answer from
known facts; he is not problem-solving, rather is he problem-inventing - and if the prob-
lem is too difficult, he will change it."
T h e evaluation of alternative solutions requires many of the designer's initial ideas to be dis-
carded. Indeed, again from Harris (page 41 I):
" G o o d designers are known as such for the ruthlessness with which they appraise their
own schemes as for the power of their imagination in producing them - indeed, a fertile
mind has no hesitation in scrapping its product if it finds it inadequate; it is only the designer
to w h o m an idea comes rarely who must make it work at all costs."
M a n y of the ideas will be set aside on no more than a commonsense basis, but other will
require careful study. F o r these it will be necessary to use analytical skills with the tools o f math-
ematics and engineering analysis. Only at this stage in the design process will the student use
techniques learned in other courses.
T h r o u g h o u t the whole procedure information and ideas must constantly be fed back from a
later stage to an earlier stage in order to refine the ideas generated and to arrive at the best final
design. Although the collection of data and information was listed as part o f the process fol-
lowing problem definition, each of the following steps tends to generate its own need for addi-
tional data. This is particularly so when the various alternative solutions must be compared to
determine which solution is the 'best'. It was suggested earlier that the first part o f the process
was the definition o f the problem. However, every step after problem definition can be used to
refine and thus more clearly identify the nature of the problem so that in every stage of the
152 Methodologies for Problem Solving

design process there is some feed-back to every other stage in a constant iteration to understand
the nature of the problem and to clarify the solution.
T h e whole process is something which is difficult to teach and indeed as indicated earlier, it
is only in the last two decades that Engineering schools have attempted to deal with what might
be called "the philosophy of design." T h e current teaching process utilizes some lectures to out-
line the process and to emphasize the importance of the various steps involved. However much
of the time available is devoted to open-ended projects. Typically the students are set simple
problems and are required to solve them using ingenuity and some simple construction. One
approach (Campbell 1983) often taken is the classic egg drop experiment. Each student is given
one fresh egg and a quantity of material such as newspaper, balloons, twine etc., each material
having a specified unit cost. T h e problem involves dropping the egg suitably protected from the
top of a specified building on to a hard surface at ground level. T h e objective is to have the egg
arrive at the bottom using a construction which minimizes the function of cost x drop time x
weight of apparatus. T h e constraint is that the egg must be still unbroken after the experiment.
This experiment may be posed as an individual student assignment to be accomplished within
one week. A control group of students is told to work in small groups and to attempt to follow
the design process. Results consistently favour the group solution over individual solutions and
the 'delivery system' chosen by groups tend to be more uniform. This, in discussion with the
students, demonstrates the advantages of group activity and standardized solutions. However,
this is only true on an overall average. Invariably the minimum-value function is achieved by
one or more innovative students who devise creative systems that impress everyone, including
the faculty.
A similar problem which has been used with success relates to transportation. Students have
been asked to devise a system to carry a small object - one bottle of beer - across a small lake
on campus. T h e objective was to minimize transportation time while ensuring safe passage and
constraints were set relating to cost. Each group supplied their own beer and some incentive
was added to the competition by the rule that all beer successfully transported became the prop-
erty o f the winning team!
For more senior students the work becomes increasingly quantitative and they are expected
to use methods of analysis learned in other courses when comparing alternative solutions.
Assignments are more challenging and aspects of human behaviour, group interactions, man-
agement theory and communication are introduced in order to relate design to the real world
environment. Group activity for second year students has included consideration of alternative
energy transport systems, survival systems for offshore oil platforms, pedestrian safety and train-
ing devices for children suffering from cerebral palsy. This latter assignment was particularly
successful. Students spent half of one term identifying the needs and defining the problem in
some depth. T h e results of this concentration on basic need resulted in several simple yet excel-
lent training devices which were implemented and used with considerable success. Prior to this
project, senior students who had been less exposed to the 'philosophy' of design h a d attempted
to help these same children. However the problems had not been so clearly identified and the
results were unnecessarily complicated and of little value in satisfying the basic needs.
Elementary structural engineering projects such as the design and construction of a bridge,
water tower or crane are sometimes posed (Dalton 1987, Argue 1976). These structures are
usually designed to be fabricated from simple, readily available, materials such as spaghetti, cop-
per wire or drinking straws. In the case of the bridge, students would be given only the width
to be spanned and would work to design a structure capable of carrying a given load at minimum
JAMES J. SHARP 153

cost (different unit costs would be allOcated to the different materials -'eg. $1000 ]3er gram for
spaghetti, $1500 per gram for straws and 83000 per gram for wire). The 'best' bridge would
be the one which carries the #oven load at minimum cost. A more challenging problem would
be to design a bridge to give the best weigh#cost t'ado rather than setting a minimum weight
to be carried. Finding the 'best' bridge then involves testing each design to destruction, some-
thing which is rarely done in practice!
It would be wrong to give the impression, as might be done by these elementary examples,
that engineering design is all fun and no work. Certainly the problems used here as examples
are complex in the number and diversity of the issues which have to be addressed but they are
fairly elementary, or simple, from the point of view that little mathematical analysis is required.
The exception here would be the structural projects where students might first perform some
experimental testing to measure the strength of their materials before undertaking some simple
structural analysis. In most engineering problems however it is necessary to complete extensive
analysis in finalizing a design - for example to determine the size and shape of a steel beam, or
the amount of reinforcing steel in a concrete column or the size and shape of an irrigation chan-
nel. Only with this analysis can the various alternative solutions be fully developed and then
compared with each other to arrive at the optimum design. Furthermore, the degree of com-
plexity in practice is significantly greater than that illustrated in the teaching examples #oven
here. This has necessitated specific methods of approach in which problems are recognized as
complex systems comprising a number of less complex sub-systems each of which is related in
a number of different ways. Not unnaturally, this approach has become known as the 'Systems
Approach.'

S y s t e m s A p p r o a c h a n d Annlysis
As technical knowledge increased over the years engineering innovation became much more
complex and more systemic approaches to design became needed, often using a team rather
than an individual approach. Complex projects became too large to be handled by a single per-
son and design teams were set up with the lead engineer acting essentially as a manager. Specific
parts of the project were allocated to each member of the main design team and, for large

Hydroelectric Power Project

I
Environmental
!_
D~,, rvoir Power plant

[
Water La~[d Recre[ation Sp'~wa D[am [
Transmission Tutti ines I
Generators [
Support Con[u.ol,
quality use section system structures

Geotechnic[ ]

Sewage I
Foundation Inte[~ace Hyd~[ulic C[r~ne FounLtion wlalls FIIoors
treatment stratification elevation system
and control
temperature system
control
system I I I I I I
Diversion Penstocks Control Utilities Drainage Structure
tunnels structures

Figure 1: System Hierarchy (R. Jewell 1986)

154 Methodologies for Problem Solving

Tranmamion
system

!
I I I I
Tramfxsrmen Switd~k~ Trlwaai~ion C.omtoh

I
I I I I
Power Right o f Towen Enviromnemal
lines way system

Figure 2 Transmission Sub-systems (R. Jewell 1986)

projects, each of these persons would then manage another group of engineers working on the
sub-project. In this way the idea of an hierarchy of systems and subsystems arose with a corre-
sponding need for a formal mechanism to handle the interactions among the various teams. The
typical hierarchy exhibits a pyramidal structure (Jewell 1986) such as that illustrated in Figure
1. here the main system is the hydroelectric power project which is itself composed of five main
subsystems, each o f which in turn is sufficiently complex to be further subdivided. Although
this is already complex, each of these subcomponents could be broken down further as shown,
for example, in Figure 2 where further details of the transmission system are provided. The

I
Max4mi~ rctllm ml investment
I
I I I I
Dam Power plant Hydrology

I
Cmgi rninirn/.~- CO~tl"UCri~
I
O011 mmrlmi~
I I
Goal maximi~
COetS ran'age output yidd from buin

I I I I
Criterion e~cieacy
Criteria unit and total
olgm

I
I I I
$~ mlti
S to ~ ' ~ l u ~
voltlltte OUt
vohmxe in
Spillway Dam section C~tedm.
I t I
Goal minimize Goal m i n i m ~ Goal choose beat
complemty and volume of dam site for dam
size I
Criterion minimum cost

I I I
Hydraulics
Foundation Imeffl~
I I I
Goal minimize necetlity Goal ~ i n l m ! ~ n ~ t y Gold minimize [gzme~
for Irouting length and difficulty
I I I
Criterion volume of grout Critefim~ ydj cut Criterion tunneling cost

Figure 3 System Goals and Objectives (R. Jewell 1986)

JAMES J. SHARP 155

problem solving approach outlined previously must now be rigorously applied to each system
and subsystem. Considerable thought must still be #oven to identifying the problems and the
objectives or goals because these and the criteria involved will be different for each subsystem.
This is illustrated in Figure 3.
T h e systems approach then is essentially a planning framework in which complex problems
can be handled in a manner which leaves nothing to chance. According to Jewell, (1986, p. 12):
"it brings more objectivity to the design/planning process. It is in essence, good design:
a logical and systematic approach to problem solution in which assumptions, goals, objec-
fives and criteria are clearly defined and specified. Emphasis is placed on relating system
performance to these goals. A hierarchy of systems which allows handling of a complex sys-
tem by looking at its component parts or subsystems, is identified. Quantifiable and non-
quantifiable aspects of the problem are identified, and immediate and long-range implications
of suggested alternatives are evaluated."
For all complex problems there are a multitude of answers and designers generally seek the
optimum solution, ie the solution which satisfies the need while achieving the 'best' level of per-
formance relating to the goals or objectives initially specified. In many cases the primary objec-
tive will be to minimize costs. However the cost of one component of a system is linked with
that of other components and even with a very simple system some analysis is required.
As an example consider the optimization of the total cost of a pipeline plus pump designed
to raise water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir. There are two extremes which might
be considered. In an effort to reduce the resistance to flow in the pipe it would be possible to
use a very large diameter pipe in which case, with little internal resistance, it would be possible

F~
O
t3

Optimumi solution
DIAMETER OF PIPEr/ME

Figure 4 Optimization of Pump/Pipdine System

156 Methodologies for Problem Solving

to make do with a relatively small pump. Pipe costs would be large but pump costs would be
small. To reduce pipe costs it would be possible to use a very small diameter pipe. However,
the resistance to flow would then be significant and a much larger pump would be necessary to
push the water through the smaller pipeline. Although the pipe costs are low the pump costs,
in this case, would be large. The problem then is to determine the optimum size of pump and
pipe which together give the minimum total cost. This, in fact, is a relatively simple problem
and can be answered by plotting cost against size of pipe as shown in Figure 4. As the pipe
diameter increases the cost of the pipeline increases (line A). However as the pipe diameter
increases the resistance to flow decreases making it possible to use a smaller, cheaper pump.
This means that the cost of the pump (line B) decreases as the pipe diameter increases. Total
cost is obtained (line C) by adding the two original cost curves together. This shows a high total
cost at the two extremes with an optimum solution at the turning point on the total cost curve.
The location of the turning point clearly identifies the 'best' pump and pipe sizes.
This argument, involving only two variables (pump size and pipe size), leads to a single line
with one minimum mining value. If three variables were involved, the single line would become
a three dimensional surface and the optimum solution would be given by the lowest point on
that surface. Obviously the difficulty of finding an optimum solution increases with increasing
numbers of variables. Formal mathematical methods and techniques used to handle such com-
plexities are known as Systems Analysis (Smith 1983). Developed originally during the second
world war to handle the complexity and uncertainty in military planning and decision making
the techniques have been constantly developed and refined for use in a wide variety of engi-
neering design, planning, construction and production problems.
In many Engineering programs, simplified and open ended project work is used in the junior
years so that students become familiar with the creative and innovative strategies required to
approach any particular design problem. Then, at a more senior level they are taught the ele-
ments of systems analysis. This is usually done in a more formal and traditional manner using
lectures and tutorials. The combination of the two approaches provides a good framework for
attacking and systematically solving the complex design problems which they will meet in pro-
fessional practice.

Summary
Problem solving in a practical setting requires more than analytical skills alone. Understanding
and insight are necessary to define the problem and to envisage the constraints which limit the
range of potential solutions Creativity and innovation are both required in generating a number
of alternative possibilities and analytical techniques must be applied to study feasibility and to
obtain the optimum or 'best' solution. When they leave University or College many students
will be required to solve problems which are ill defined, where insufficient information is imme-
diately available and where a variety of different alternatives might be satisfactory. Under these
circumstances it is necessary for their education to include some exposure to a methodology of
problem solving.
This paper has concentrated on the methodologies taught to Engineering Students. However,
regardless of the fields in which a student might work, the practical problems to be faced are
typified by the characteristics discussed here; ie. lack of problem definition; lack of information,
open ended solution, necessity to optimize etc. It is likely therefore that the methodology described
here may be applicable and of interest to many different disciplines and that it could be employed,
with suitable modifications, in many other higher education programs.
JAMES J. SHARP 157

References
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, (1980), "Criteria for accrediting programs
in engineering in the United States."
Argue J.R. (1976), "Design projects and the civil engineering curriculum", Proc. Melbourne
National Conference, Inst. Engineers, Australia, p. 28-32.
Campbell W.J.; Christian A.J.; and Sharp J.J. (1983), "Education for professional practice",
Proc. Inst. Cir. Eng., vol. 74, part 1, Feb., pp. 61-77.
Cowan (1981), "Design education based on an expressed statement of the design process", Proc.
Inst. Civ. Engrs., vol. 70, Part 1, Nov., pp. 743-753.
Dalton D.C. (1987), " A n educational structural engineering design project", Civil Engineering
Education, ASEE, Civil Eng. Div., vol. IX, No. 2, pp.
Harris A.J. (1980), "Can design be taught?" Proc. Inst. Cir. Engrs., vol. 68, Part 1, Aug., pp.
409-416.
Jewel T.K. (1986), "A systems approach to Civil Engineering Planning and Design", Harper
and Row, New York.
Lewis W.P. (1974), "Observations of problem-solving by Engineering Students", Australia Journal
of Education, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 172-183.
Sharp J.J. and Sawden P. (1984), "Basic Hydrology", Butterworths, London.
Smith A.A., Hinton E., and Lewis R.W. (1983), "Civil Engineering Sysems Analysis and Design",
J. Wiley, New York.
Walker E.A. et al. (1968), "Goals of engineering education", American Society for Engineering
Education, Washington, D.C.