Curiosity is an underrated engineering skill!

As engineers, we are trained to solve problems. We learn methods, standards, formulas, and tools. We are taught how to calculate, verify, document, and comply. Over time, we become efficient at navigating requirements and delivering solutions that are technically sound and defensible on paper.
Yet one of the most important skills I have encountered throughout my engineering career is rarely listed in any competency matrix or job description: curiosity.

Not curiosity in a vague or academic sense, but practical, disciplined curiosity — the habit of asking why something is done a certain way, even when it appears to work. Many engineering issues do not stem from a lack of competence or knowledge. They arise because assumptions go unquestioned. “This is how we’ve always done it.” “That’s what the standard says.” “It passed last time.” These statements are familiar to most engineers, and they are often where learning quietly stops.

Curiosity is what makes an engineer pause and consider whether a design choice truly makes sense in its real operating context. Why was this thickness selected? Which load case actually governs this component? What happens if the operating conditions differ slightly from what we assumed? Time and again, it is this extra layer of questioning that separates designs that merely pass from designs that perform reliably in practice.

Standards play a critical role in engineering. They provide structure, safety, and consistency, but they do not replace thinking. They are not context-aware, and they do not account for how a tool will actually be handled, installed, or maintained in the real world. Bridging that gap requires engineers to look beyond compliance and consider whether a design is robust, practical, and suited to its intended use.
This becomes especially important in non-standard applications, where innovation is required and established solutions do not always apply. In such cases, meeting the standard is only the starting point. Sound engineering judgement is what ultimately determines whether a solution will perform reliably in practice.

Many of the most valuable design improvements originate outside the design office. Simple questions—how a component is handled offshore, what typically causes delays during installation, or what becomes difficult to access once everything is assembled—often reveal issues that drawings and calculations alone do not capture. These insights can have a decisive impact on whether a solution succeeds or fails.
Experience alone does not necessarily make better engineers; reflected experience does. It is the habit of questioning outcomes that turns a failed test into a lesson, a workaround into an improvement, and a near-miss into a preventive measure. Without this reflection, experience becomes repetition. With it, experience drives progress.

When I look back, the engineers I rely on the most are not necessarily the fastest or the most senior. They are the ones who ask good questions, who are not satisfied with shallow answers, and who are willing to challenge their own assumptions. They understand that engineering is not just about being right, but about being curious enough to notice when something might be wrong.
This text is the first in a series of technical letters intended to share everyday engineering reflections — the considerations, trade-offs, and judgement calls that rarely make it into textbooks or standards. In the coming texts, the focus will be on the aspects of engineering we work with daily, but seldom talk about openly: the grey areas between theory and reality, compliance and practicality, design intent and real-world use.

These letters are not meant to provide definitive answers, but to offer insight into how we think, reflect, and learn while navigating complex challenges, one decision at a time.
Happy reading!

Kristoffer Helliesen Technical Director Izomax