|
|
|
Memo Writing
A routine part
of the daily work of an engineer involves communication with other people
working for the company. Letters, memos, and email are the most common
forms for written communication. The memo is used within the company
for a variety of purposes. A memo might be sent to make a request, set
up a meeting, confirm a conversation, summarize a report, note the status
of work on a project, and otherwise contribute to the day-to-day business
of the organization. Memos are fairly formal and always become a permanent
record. Each company will have a specific form to use for memos, but
they typically look much like the example on this page. Email may be
replacing the memo in many instances, but the memo is still an important
form of communication.
There are two types
of memos that will be written for the class:
Summary/Analysis Memo
Imagine
that a document arrives at the engineering firm where you work. Your
supervisor forwards the document to you with a request for you to read
and comment. Since the supervisor hasn't read the document first, your
response has to include a summary of the document. Then an analysis
of the document and your recommended action is required. This is a fairly
common task, especially for new engineers who need to demonstrate knowledge
about matters relating to the company's interests and confidence in
their ability to draw conclusions.
Here is
what you have to do: After Joel Arthur Barker's Defining a Paradigm
is read and discussed, you'll be asked to find an article in the engineering
literature that connects to concepts you read about in Barker. You'll
then need to write a memo to your supervisor (the class instructor).
Start with a brief introduction. Then summarize the article, analyze
the article using at least three references to Barker and conclude with
a recommended action. The assignment will take one to two pages to complete.
Here's
an example of what you are expected to do:
MEMO
To:
Your Instructor's Name
From:
Your Name
Re:
SILMAN ARTICLE ON THE PLAN TO SAVE FALLINGWATER
Date:
October 10, 2001
As per your
request, I have read the Robert Silman article which you passed
along to me. A summary and analysis of the article follows.
Summary:
For the September
2000 issue of Scientific American, Robert Silman wrote a firsthand
account of his engineering firm's plan to save Fallingwater. The
southwestern Pennsylvania home, designed by famed architect Frank
Lloyd Wright, was constructed in 1937.
Fallingwater
has long been admired for its beauty, but beneath the appealing
aesthetic there is a critical structural flaw. The problem is
that there is not enough support for the portion of the house
that projects over the stream; consequently, there is danger that
the building will collapse. The engineering firm of Robert Silman
Associates was hired to determine the cause of the problem and
to propose a solution. Using a well-established formula for the
construction of horizontal cantilever beams and accepted standards
for the use of reinforced concrete, the engineers evaluated Fallingwater.
With the advantage of computer technology not available when the
house was built, the evaluation produced data which show that
errors were made by the original engineers who tried to solve
a problem involving excess load on support beams.
Once the cause
of the problem was identified, the Silman engineers designed a
plan to relieve the stresses on the cantilever beams through the
use of post-tensioning. The repairs are scheduled to take place
during the winter of 2001-02. The engineers are convinced that
the strengthening of Fallingwater's cantilever beams will guarantee
the structural stability of the house.
Analysis:
Silman's
article has specific connections to Joel Arthur Barker's Defining
a Paradigm. Barker wrote about paradigms and paradigm shifts,
noting that awareness of these concepts helps people solve problems.
When Fallingwater was built, an established paradigm relating
to load distribution on support beams was ignored or forgotten.
It was not a matter of the existing paradigm being no longer of
use. It was, in Barker's words, a failure "to behave inside
the boundaries in order to be successful." The established
model would have worked just fine. As engineers know, the formula
used to measure load distribution now is the same formula that
was the standard when Fallingwater was built.
A paradigm,
Barker suggests, tells that there is a game and how it can be
successfully played. As the Silman article shows, engineers who
work within a paradigm are able to communicate with each other
in an efficient manner --They know the "game" and its
"rules". The original blueprints and calculations made
when Fallingwater was being designed were easily read by the Silman
engineers more than fifty years later. An evaluation of those
original documents ended up showing that an error had been made.
In effect, the rules were not followed. The planned repairs will
use established models relating to post-tensioning to exert a
positive bending moment on the cantilever beam that was not correctly
built. This represents a return to the rules and and boundaries.
An advantage
the Silman engineers had was computer technology. With this tool,
the engineers realized that a paradigm shift, what Barker refers
to as "a change to a new game, a new set of rules",
was not needed. Error did not have to occur. While Barker notes
the importance of watching "for people messing with the rules,"
just messing with those rules isn't automatically the best decision.
Engineers can learn the following from Barker's article: study
the paradigms of the profession, work carefully, use the best
available tools, and ask questions when there is not a convincing
argument for not following an established paradigm.
I believe
the article would be of interest to other new engineers in the
office and recommend that they read it. If you concur, I can have
copies distributed. Please advise.
|
See
Grading for further information about the
Summary/Analysis memo assignment.
Back to Top
Reading
Responses
In the opening weeks of the semester you will be given articles to
read. These will help you understand concepts relating to the course,
think about topics for your projects, and provide opportunities to discuss
the practice of engineering. For each reading, there is a corresponding
"Response Form" to focus your thinking about the reading.
That response form will be collected at the start of the class when
the reading is to be discussed. Typically, there are four questions
to answer. As you'll see, when everyone is prepared for class, class
discussion can proceed very efficiently.
See Grading for further information about
the responses to Assigned Readings.
Back to Top
|
