Engineering schools are institutes producing exceptional technical innovations and talented engineers. However, the intense focus on technological advancement often overlooks crucial dimensions of technology implementation and impact. While creating cutting-edge technical solutions, technology exists within broader human and societal contexts. This is why a comprehensive systems approach that integrates technical, human, and societal dimensions is essential for developing technology that functions well, serves its intended purpose, and contributes positively to society.
The implementation gap
Engineering institutions often prioritize technical excellence above other considerations. While technical proficiency remains fundamental, this singular focus can lead to what might be called “the implementation gap”. Technically sophisticated solutions fail to achieve adoption or impact due to neglected human and social factors.
The implementation gap, where technically sound solutions falter in real-world adoption, remains a persistent challenge across engineering domains. This phenomenon often stems from overemphasizing technical metrics at the expense of human, organizational, and societal factors. The so-called “Engineer’s Syndrome”, where complex projects are treated as purely technical challenges, has also led to significant setbacks, especially in large-scale infrastructure initiatives. High-speed rail projects, for example, have been delayed or derailed not because of engineering flaws, but due to a lack of attention to political realities, community concerns, and regulatory processes. These projects demonstrate that technical excellence alone is insufficient. Understanding and engaging with societal stakeholders is crucial for success. The gap between technical promise and practical adoption is equally pronounced in agricultural robotics. Engineers have developed sophisticated robotic platforms using AI and Lidar for harvesting and monitoring crops. However, these innovations often underperform in real-world settings because they are designed for ideal conditions and do not account for the variability of actual farms or the needs and skills of farmers. Even the most advanced technologies can struggle to gain traction without involving end-users in the design and deployment process.
Engineering education also reveals the limits of a purely technical focus. For example, courses promoting energy efficiency among engineering students have shown that while technical knowledge can be effectively transmitted, it does not automatically translate into sustainable behaviors. Only when these programs incorporate real-world case studies and stakeholder engagement do students begin to appreciate their work’s broader societal and ethical dimensions, leading to more meaningful and lasting change.
Tech-Centricity in Engineering Education
These examples highlight integrating systems thinking, stakeholder engagement, and human-centered approaches into engineering practice and education. Technical rigor remains essential, but it must be complemented by understanding the broader context in which technology is developed and applied. Only then can innovative solutions achieve their full potential and deliver real-world impact.
The traditional engineering mindset tends to view technology as an end rather than a means, focusing on what technology can do rather than what it should do or how it will be used.
“My proposition is that to reach digital transformation goals, we must influence or change people, process, and technology”. Too often, our engineering approach emphasizes only the last of these three critical elements (It’s Still all about People, Process, and Technology | LinkedIn).
When we develop technology in isolation from its context of use, we risk creating solutions that, despite their technical brilliance, fail to address real-world problems effectively. This disconnect leads to rapid technological advancement outpacing societal adaptation capabilities.
No content without context
A systems approach offers a more comprehensive framework for technological development and implementation. Rather than viewing technology as isolated components, this approach recognizes technology as part of an interconnected system with numerous interdependencies.
“A systems approach is a holistic and interdisciplinary way of understanding and solving complex problems. It views the world as a collection of interconnected and interdependent elements or people, emphasizing their relationships and interactions” (What is a Systems Approach). This perspective acknowledges that technology cannot be separated from the people who use it or the society in which it operates.
“Engineered Systems provide outcomes which benefit stakeholders by helping them achieve something of value in one or more problem situations” (Applying the Systems Approach – SEBoK). This highlights an essential point: a system’s success ultimately depends not on its technical specifications, but on its ability to deliver value to stakeholders.
People-Process-Technology
An efficient approach to technology development recognizes the interdependence of people, processes, and technology. This framework acknowledges that technological success depends on harmonizing all three elements (It’s Still all about People, Process, and Technology | LinkedIn).
The people component encompasses capabilities, skills, experiences, and behaviors that individuals bring to a technological environment. Processes create the structured frameworks through which technology operates and people interact. Even the most sophisticated technology will fail to deliver its potential value without appropriate processes. Technology, while often the focus of engineering efforts, is just one part of this triumvirate.
Engineers must consider technical capabilities and how they impact our behaviors, cultural practices, and social bonds when developing new technologies. Failure to consider these aspects leads to technologies that, despite their sophistication, fail to address real needs.
Integrated Engineering Education: A Path Forward
Recognizing the limitations of a purely technical focus, educational institutions should further develop integrated engineering programs that combine traditional engineering education with liberal arts, social sciences, and humanities. These programs aim to produce graduates who can navigate the complex interplay between technology and society.
To address the limitations of a technology-centric focus, an engineering school or program should move toward a more holistic, systems-oriented approach in education and research. This means integrating the social sciences, humanities, and systems thinking into the curriculum alongside technical subjects. For example, courses can be designed to challenge the dominant technical discourse by valuing students’ diverse experiences and including examples from various cultural contexts.
Interdisciplinary research and collaboration are also essential. Programs should encourage connections between digital sciences and the humanities or social sciences, foster collaboration across departmental boundaries, and involve external partners in co-creation efforts. Innovation often emerges at the intersection of different fields, and students benefit from exposure to various perspectives.
Problem-based or challenge-based learning should be central. It should focus on real-world challenges that require students to consider technical, social, and ethical aspects. This will prepare graduates for the complex situations they will encounter professionally.
Collaboration with industry should not be limited to technical innovation but should also emphasize the practicalities of implementation, adoption, and broader social impact. Such partnerships help students appreciate the full lifecycle of technology development and its effects beyond the lab or classroom.
Finally, ethics and social responsibility should be woven throughout the educational experience, not considered an afterthought. Students must continually reflect on their engineering work’s ethical implications and societal responsibilities, ensuring that their solutions are technically sound, socially relevant, and responsible.
By adopting these strategies, an engineering school can better prepare students to design and implement effective, accepted, and beneficial technologies in real-world contexts.
Engineering education of the future
Engineering education requires a careful balance between depth and breadth. At the undergraduate level, mastering mono-disciplinary knowledge forms the critical foundation of an engineer’s expertise. Bachelor’s programs must prioritize rigorous technical training in core disciplines, whether mechanical, electrical, software, or civil engineering, to ensure students develop the specialized skills required to analyze problems, design solutions, and apply scientific principles effectively. This focused training equips future engineers with the precision and analytical rigor needed to innovate within their fields, fostering the ability to solve well-defined technical challenges. Without this bedrock of domain-specific knowledge, engineers risk lacking the credibility and competence to contribute meaningfully to complex projects.
However, the limitations of a purely mono-disciplinary approach become apparent as engineering challenges grow more interconnected. While Bachelor’s programs rightly emphasize technical mastery, Master’s programs must expand this perspective by integrating multi-disciplinary knowledge and systems thinking. Advanced engineering education should deliberately bridge technical expertise with insights into stakeholders, societal dynamics, and user behavior. For instance, a robotics engineer might excel in designing autonomous systems at the BSc level. Still, an MSc program should challenge them to consider how these systems interact with human operators, impact labor markets, or align with ethical frameworks.
This shift acknowledges that real-world engineering problems are rarely confined to a single discipline or technical domain. A structural engineer designing flood barriers must understand climate science, urban planning, and community needs. A software engineer developing AI tools must grapple with data privacy laws, algorithmic bias, and user trust. By embedding courses on human-centered design, systems analysis, and socio-technical systems into MSc curricula, programs can cultivate engineers who view technology as part of a larger ecosystem.
The integration of broadening knowledge need not dilute technical rigor. Instead, it complements it by teaching engineers to ask critical questions: Who benefits from this technology? What unintended consequences might arise? How do cultural, economic, or regulatory factors influence adoption? Systems thinking equips graduates to anticipate ripple effects, collaborate across disciplines, and align technical solutions with human values. For example, renewable energy systems require electrical engineering expertise and understanding of policy landscapes, supply chain logistics, and community engagement strategies.
BSc programs build the technical “toolkit” in this model, while MSc programs teach engineers to wield those tools within complex, real-world contexts. This approach ensures that advanced graduates can navigate the interplay between innovation and implementation, creating functionally superior, socially resonant, and sustainable technologies. By structuring education this way, engineering schools empower the next generation to bridge the gap between what is technically possible and genuinely beneficial for users, stakeholders, and society.
Tom Van Woensel 