By Eugene le Roux, FSAIRAC, and Eamonn Ryan
Modern engineering is no longer confined to calculations, drawings and technical optimisation. In practice, much of what engineers do – whether designing infrastructure, developing products or managing operations – takes place within the framework of projects. These projects involve budgets, schedules, contracts, multidisciplinary teams, regulatory approvals, and complex stakeholder relationships. This is part one of a two-part series.
Engineering education that excludes meaningful PM content risks misrepresenting the profession. Freepik.com
Despite this reality, many engineering degrees continue to focus almost exclusively on technical subjects, offering little formal education in project management (PM). This raises an important question: Are we preparing engineers for the work they actually do, or only for a portion of it?
This article examines the mismatch between engineering education and engineering practice, and explores whether current qualifications risk equipping graduates with only “half a pair of scissors.”
Engineering practice is largely project-based
A significant proportion of engineering activity takes the form of projects. Even roles that appear “operational” often involve project-like characteristics: defined objectives, constraints, schedules, risk management, and co-ordination across functions.
Examples include:
- Upgrading a production line
- Implementing a new IT or control system
- Modifying infrastructure to meet new regulations
- Managing maintenance shutdowns
In all these cases, engineers must plan, execute, monitor and close work in a structured manner – hallmarks of PM. This reality applies across disciplines: civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical, software and systems engineering.
To treat PM as peripheral or optional in engineering education is therefore to ignore how engineering work is actually performed.
PM is more than Gantt Charts
A common misconception is that PM is little more than scheduling tasks on a Gantt chart. In reality, PM is a broad, multidisciplinary discipline that overlaps significantly with engineering leadership.
Key elements of PM include:
- Systems Engineering (SE): Defining requirements, managing interfaces, validating solutions and controlling change
- Contract and procurement management: Managing suppliers, subcontractors and commercial risk
- Human relations and leadership: Motivating teams, resolving conflict and managing performance
- Communication: Reporting to stakeholders, co-ordinating across disciplines, and engaging with clients, regulators and the public
- Governance and compliance: Ensuring legal, safety and ethical approval at every stage
These competencies are not ‘soft extras’. They are core skills without which even the best technical design can fail.
The limits of technical-only engineering degrees
The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) runs to nearly a thousand pages – and even that does not claim to cover everything a professional project manager or engineer needs to know. This alone illustrates the breadth and depth of the discipline.
When an engineering qualification focuses solely on mathematics, physics and discipline-specific theory, it may produce technically competent graduates who are ill-equipped for real-world responsibility. Such graduates often learn PM informally, through trial and error, sometimes at great cost to projects, employers, and public safety.
This raises a provocative but valid analogy: Is an engineering degree without serious PM education equivalent to selling students only one half of a pair of scissors?
The technical blade exists, but the managerial blade – the one that enables effective use – is missing.
The case for multidisciplinary engineering education
Few would dispute that engineering projects are inherently multidisciplinary. A single project may involve:
- Multiple engineering disciplines
- Finance and economics
- Legal and regulatory frameworks
- Environmental and social considerations
- Procurement and supply chains
If projects are multidisciplinary by nature, then engineering education must reflect this reality. Teaching engineers to work only within narrow technical silos does not align with the environments in which they will operate.
A broader educational foundation does not dilute engineering rigor; rather, it enhances an engineer’s ability to apply technical knowledge effectively and responsibly.
Conclusion
Engineering education that excludes meaningful PM content risks misrepresenting the profession itself. While strong technical foundations remain essential, they are no longer sufficient on their own.
The growing complexity, scale and societal impact of engineering projects demand professionals who are not only technically competent, but also capable managers, communicators and systems thinkers. Addressing this gap is not a luxury – it is a necessity.
