Author’s reply to David Elms’ discussion of ‘Practical wisdom in an age of computerization'

Abstract

I thank David Elms for his thoughtful and extensive comments on my paper ‘Practical wisdom in an age of computerization’. His comments deserve a full reply. He is right to highlight that that major challenges face everyone on the planet. The rise in global population and massive inequalities are equally important to us all. My choice to focus on three particular challenges does not imply that I consider the others to be of lesser importance. The points made in the paper are relevant, in my view, to all. He perceives a lack of clarity in the paper. My purpose was clearly set out, as he acknowledges, to identify threats and opportunities, to re-evaluate the service we provide as civil engineers, to suggest ways of improving that service and to understand better what it is that we provide that cannot be turned into algorithms of AI. Perhaps his perceived lack of clarity in the paper derives from his thinking that the threats and opportunities fit well with what we do and why we do it – but that increased efficiency and quality (including safety) and the effects of computerisation are somehow subsidiary. The reason I put them together is because quality and safety are paramount in our work and we are often rightly criticized for failures on time and budget as well as loss of life. That is why the section on the interacting objects process model (IOPM) is included. That model is about enabling joined-up systems thinking. It is about getting the right information (what) to the right people (who) at the right time (when) for the right purpose (why) in the right form (where) and in the right way (how). The effectiveness of the IOPM could be transformative if it is developed into servicing worldwide project intra-networks. I think Elms is also a bit dismissive of the loss and changing nature of engineering jobs. The lack of understanding by non-technically qualified decisions makers (politician and business-people) and opinion formers of what engineers ‘bring to the party’ is already leading, in some cases, to inappropriate and harmful decisions about the roles of engineers. These dangers could become even more serious in future projects where AI is used extensively. The distinction between routine work that can be covered by algorithms and that which requires practical intelligence and wisdom is crucial. I agree entirely that we cannot base our decisions about the future on the past alone. Of course, we must learn lessons from the past and our theories do depend on testing in the past and present. We agree that a major concern is how we deal with unknown unknown surprises and that designing for resilience is key.