Typically in (non software) Engineering the problems are pretty well defined usually along the lines of: "Here is an X make it more efficient" Where X is Engin

Typically in (non software) Engineering the problems are pretty well defined usually along the lines of: "Here is an X make it more efficient" Where X is Engine/structure/Industrial Process etc... And the defintion or at least the intent behind the meaning of "more efficent" is well understood i.e. Weighs Less, Consumes less Engergy, produces more torque etc. In the software world there is a much looser definition of what an improvement is which complicates the issue. "Engineers, in 2015, don't come up with an idea and start pounding on sheet metal" There is a good quote from Tesla I was taught as an undergraduate Engineer: “If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search. I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.” Edison went through numerous protypes trying to design the light bulb. I guess that would be the equivalent of the pounding sheet metal approach. As we were taught Edison was an inventor, Tesla an engineer. The modern day equivalent of the inventor would be the achitects and industrial designers of the world, they come up with crazy ideas (by pounding the metaphorical sheet metal) and some poor engineer has to make it work. Maybe software needs the same thing a looser coupling between software designers and software engineers.