While overseeing modelling for a large data-centre project, Dr Anne Hellstedt FIEAust CPEng EngExec, the first woman to obtain a PhD in fluid mechanics from the University of Melbourne, was reminded of the importance of clarity.
I was working for a company with a focus on building sustainable projects. Sustainability was and still is a great passion. I led a team with specialist sustainability and modelling skills. We were working on the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling of the cooling system’s heat loads and failure modes within a significant new data centre, to inform the mechanical design of the air-conditioning system.
On this particular project, I was the “checker” of the output generated by the CFD modelling. When the modelling came to me, I could see that the results were far removed from what I would have expected to see.
We couldn’t provide these results to the client, as I knew how difficult it is to build a reputation for quality, and how easy it is to lose that reputation. So I went to the team member who had completed the work and discussed the results. I saw too much faith in the model and not enough appreciation of the underlying physics.
Although difficult, I agreed with the project director on an extension to the modelling deadline, and I worked with the team member to redo the modelling. Accuracy outweighed timeliness in this case. With the pressure placed on the team member to produce accurate results within a tight new deadline, along with my role as a senior leader in the business overseeing the work, I faced a challenge in balancing support and guidance, accountability and cultural sensitivity to hierarchy for us to successfully deliver the results together.
For the failure-mode modelling, I realised the scenario we were trying to investigate was not clear. Rather than make assumptions, we set up a meeting with the client to better understand what they needed. The lack of clarity was highlighted when the two senior members of the client team had wildly different expectations. We left that meeting with clarity across all parties.
I saw that we had fallen into the stereotype of engineers running off to solutions mode, and not taking enough time to clarify and confirm the problem before launching into the work.
Ultimately, the work delivered by the team was excellent and high-quality, and the client was happy.
This project taught me many things and reaffirmed others. Firstly, in CFD, the physics must lead the model, not the other way around. As engineers, we need to deeply understand the outputs of any model. This has never been truer than today with the advent of AI.
It’s also important that everyone has enough time to fulfil their role. As the quality assurance person on this project, I should have been involved earlier.
As a leader, I aim to foster a culture where people are supported in how they go about their work; where they are able to accept feedback, absorb it and build on it. They should know the importance of this thought process, and it should be championed, so I know we will get the best-quality outcomes.
I’ve kept these things in mind in every project I’ve worked on since.
You might like: An expert weighs in on saving engineering’s reputation
Key lessons
- Don’t put complete faith in a model. An engineer’s professional scrutiny is vital.
- Ensure you have a very clear problem statement before you start designing a solution.
- If things don’t look right, ask questions. Don’t just keep working on the problem, hoping the solution will become clear.
Dr Anne Hellstedt is the Former Chair of the Engineers Australia College of Leadership and Management.
This article was originally published in create magazine.
Join Engineers Australia by 30 September and save $105 on membership. Visit engaus.org/getsaving for more information.
Thanks Anne
A very timely and grounded article with all of the current AI speculation.
Also a great pity that CSIRO and AEMO appear to be unable to follow the basic principles you have articulated with their so-called energy analysis and planning work.