By Eugene le Roux, FSAIRAC, and Eamonn Ryan
In Part 1, we explored engineering as a continuum from abstraction to application – from modelling and design through to production and maintenance. But once this continuum is in motion, a new question emerges: who is responsible for managing it? This is Part A of part two of a three-part series.
Engineering is not defined by rigid roles, but by fluid boundaries. asierromero | Freepik.com
If engineering is a spectrum of interdependent roles, then project management is the thread that runs through all of them. It is present at every level – from conceptual design to on-site installation – but it does not belong exclusively to any single discipline.
At its core, engineering project management is about co-ordination: aligning technical requirements, timelines, budgets and human resources to deliver a functioning system. However, the complexity of the project determines who is best suited to manage it.
In highly technical environments, such as complex HVAC systems, industrial plants or integrated control systems, the project manager often needs a strong engineering background. This is because decisions made at a management level can have deep technical implications. A misunderstanding of system behaviour, tolerances or dependencies can introduce risk, cost overruns or outright failure.
Conversely, where a competent system engineer or lead designer is already driving the technical direction, the administrative and commercial aspects of project management can often be handled by someone with less technical depth. In such cases, responsibilities naturally split: the engineer ensures what must be achieved, while the project manager ensures how and when it is delivered.
This reinforces a broader truth introduced in Part 1: engineering is not defined by rigid roles, but by fluid boundaries. Project management is not a separate function imposed on engineering – it is embedded within it, adapting to the level of abstraction or practicality required at each stage.
Another factor shaping these roles is economics. In most employment scenarios, remuneration is governed less by intrinsic importance and more by supply and demand. Engineering skills, particularly in specialised fields, are relatively scarce. However, the number of roles requiring those skills – especially in pure design or modelling – is also limited. The result is a balancing effect: engineers are well compensated, but often not to the extent one might expect given the depth of their expertise.
This economic dynamic extends across the entire engineering ecosystem and becomes even more pronounced as we move further along the lifecycle – from design into production and operation.
