Stewart Garden joins us to discuss that design in infrastructure is a real issue in Australia. This has been a problem building over the last 20 years, and we are at
“an intergenerational low in the quality of design information and design output”.
It’s an issue that will require changes in design standards, training, fee structures, politics, contracts and diversity… to name a few.
Stewart grew up in the East Coast of SCotland, a place where engineering is ever present. Science, engineering and heavy industriesare a key part of Scotland’s history and identity.
Coupled with a strong national presence of the role of engineering, Stewart’s dad was also an engineer for the local council. While his dad worked on relatively small road upgrades around the county, Stewart always viewed his dad’s work as very tangible and rewarding. But perhaps most importantly, he saw how his dad’s work directly and significantly made a difference in people’s lives.
Having said that, therewas probably one other key aspect about his dad’s career as an engineer that drew Stewart to it….
There was definitely an osmosis process with visits to site that would happen from time to time
Extra discussions during the episode
Future: Engineers must turn their attention to net zero emissions
it’s a huge challenge, but it’s also a huge opportunity for engineers
Advice: The opportunity of engineering is limitless
don’t succumb to a narrow definition of what engineering is
Crossrail in London
It’s an incredible achievement to have built a massive underground railway and threaded this thing through the heart of London
Stewart has twenty years of experience in the design, inspection, load rating and construction supervision of road and rail infrastructure projects.
He has held leadership roles in the design teams for major underground transport infrastructure projects including Brisbane’s Airport Link, London Crossrail and most recently as a station structural design lead on the Melbourne Metro (Tunnels and Stations) project.
Stewart holds the position of Technical Executive at WSP, is a Chartered Civil Engineer in the UK and a Chartered Professional Engineer and Fellow of Engineers Australia.
This is a “close” copy of the words that were spoken during the Podcast, Season 4 Episode 24
It is not 100% accurate.
The guest was Stewart Garden
Stewart: [00:00:00] the other thing is his job meant that he would get to go outside when the weather was good and he’d get to stay in the design office when the weather wasn’t so good. And when you live in Scotland, that’s a pretty important feature for any, any career choice. Although I, I would say that I’ve probably failed on that measure that I spend almost all of my time in a design office these days.
[00:00:23] Mel or Dom: [00:00:23] Did your father take you along to sites when you were younger when, when he was working or was it something that you kind of got their hands on experience when you were still very young?
[00:00:32] Stewart: [00:00:32] Yeah, a little bit. sometimes it was just stay in the car and I’ll be back in, in 10 minutes, but, you know, I did get to see what was happening. I got to see a road base being laid and you know, and paver machines working and all that stuff. There was definitely an osmosis process with visits to site that would happen from time to time.
[00:00:52]Mel or Dom: [00:00:52] when did you come over to Australia?
[00:00:54] Stewart: [00:00:54] I came to Australia in 2007. So I studied in Scotland, in Glasgow, and then I moved down to just outside London and started with the company that’s now WSP in the year, 2000. And so spent seven years there before moving out to Australia with the same company. So I’ve been with the same company for 20 years.
[00:01:17]Mel or Dom: [00:01:17] Oh, my goodness. So you started at what is now WSP.
[00:01:21] Stewart: [00:01:21] Yes, that’s right. At the time it was called Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Kennedy and Donkin. I think there had just been a takeover, but yeah, the, the company is still the same one effectively.
[00:01:32]Mel or Dom: [00:01:32] what was your first job there? What was your first role there?
[00:01:36] Stewart: [00:01:36] Yeah. So the company I joined in the South of England, really, I sort of got dumped in charge of a bridge investigation job. I think I was, I was just in the right place at the right time or the right place at the wrong time. and a couple of people left and it was a really small fee job, but it was relatively complex because it was for London underground and they wanted to do an investigation of a, you know, 120 year old bridge or whatever it was so that they could determine if they could replace the superstructure.
[00:02:06] And I had to effectively organize all the subcontracts, get all the permits. I had to go and get my fire warden training and track training for London underground. Deal with the client, deal with the billing. Just do everything on the project, you know, from being the project manager to the project engineer.
[00:02:23]I’d been there for less than six months at the time, and you know, it was, it was great experience. It really benefited me a lot , because I, I sort of suddenly realized that I could do all sorts of different stuff and it just required phone calls and talking to the right people and, you know, working all those things effectively out for myself.
[00:02:44]it’s not necessarily for everybody, you know, I wouldn’t always advocate that people get dumped in charge of, uh, of a job as a six months experience or a five month experience graduate engineer. But you know, it worked for me.
[00:02:58] Mel or Dom: [00:02:58] Oh, my goodness. We have heard some trial by fire stories before, but that definitely is in that category for sure. Yeah, it’s a little bit sink or swim as well. Do you kind of wonder where you either do really well at it or after sort of three months you kind of go that’s it I’m out of here. I can’t do
[00:03:19] Stewart: [00:03:19] Yeah, pretty much. I, you know, I even had to, um, I had to replace a sub-contractor on the project and I think that was almost the point where I gave up after getting some fairly forthright phone calls from the sub-contractor who was replaced. So yeah, it was, uh, it was a sink or swim moment, but, um,
[00:03:40] Mel or Dom: [00:03:40] I’m hoping things improve from there.
[00:03:44] Stewart: [00:03:44] To some extent. Yeah. Although I suppose once you’ve realized that you can do these things then, and once other people realize that you can do these things, they just sort of throw responsibility your way. So, you know, I then moved on maybe a few months later and ended up effectively organizing a significant proportion of the inspection of about 80 bridges for Network Rail in the Southeast of England.
[00:04:10] So, you know, going out in the pouring rain on, on the railway, inspecting bridges and going through all of the safety and approvals processes, to be able to do that.
[00:04:20]Mel or Dom: [00:04:20] So you still with WSP and what are you working on now? What’s where’s your career taken you?
[00:04:26] Stewart: [00:04:26] Yeah. So, the last sort of four or five years have been mostly about underground stuff for me. I took a secondment to Crossrail in London in 2016, and then came back and worked as a structural design lead, on one of the stations on the Melbourne Metro project. and I, I’ve kind of, I had four years of some pretty tough projects and I was put out to pasture for a little while just to, just to cover, at the moment, you know, my rule is, is to be the technical executive in the Adelaide office for WSP, for the bridges and structures group.
[00:05:04] So that’s providing technical leadership and delivering projects for them. At the moment, probably my most interesting job is I’m trying to, rehabilitate a small bridge in the Barosa, which is not too shabby a location to have
[00:05:21] Mel or Dom: [00:05:21] Nah, that’s
[00:05:22] Stewart: [00:05:22] time to time.
[00:05:23]I’m very much a project person, you know, I, I focus on winning and delivering projects and, you know, they are pretty much all in the transport structures space. So, I, I don’t tend to go into business leadership and, and those sorts of roles.
[00:05:40]it’s still about the engineering and the projects for me.
[00:05:43]Mel or Dom: [00:05:43] you started in Scotland and you’ve come to Australia. Is there a big difference in regards to the way that engineering is conducted between the two countries? Or is it, is it very similar to the world over.
[00:05:56]Stewart: [00:05:56] there are similarities. There are differences, I suppose, as the, is the, the easy answer to that question. I’d say that the Australian marketplace, it’s nowhere near as mature in terms of delivery of big infrastructure, you know, there’s, there’s still a lot of learning going on here, but it’s, it’s come a very long way in the 13 years that I’ve been here.
[00:06:18]you know, I, I started working on some rail projects. When I moved over and, you know, assurance was probably something that wasn’t really talked about. Whereas in recent years, assurance on railway projects is, is key. It’s the, one of the most important things. So that’s been quite different.
[00:06:35] It’s been quite a learning experience, all of the sort of process and I guess bureaucracy to put up sort of slightly negative tinge on it, but you know, probably necessary bureaucracy that exists in the UK took quite a long time to become implemented in Australia. but you know, some of the other things are very similar, you know, gravity is gravity.
[00:06:57]I always say, you know, concrete and steel doesn’t have a nationality. So, things will behave in the same way that the principles of structural engineering, the physics of it isn’t any different of course.
I think there are some fairly significant challenges facing the design of infrastructure. And it’s, it’s really a multifaceted problem that encompasses, skills, delivery methods, procurement. and yeah, I’m going to talk about this in the context of the design of civil structures, but you know, much of this will be, it will be common across different disciplines and Different marketplaces.
[00:07:34]I think that the first thing is design has really become commoditized over the last 20 years. the status of the design engineer is probably a historic low, compared with some of the, the consultancies, even as recently as the seventies and eighties, design is very much something that is quite far down the food chain in terms of how it’s viewed and in terms of procurement.
[00:07:57]according to some, there’s an intergenerational low in the quality of design information and design output. I don’t know if you follow the New Civil Engineers podcast, but, their, their first edition of the Engineer’s Collective was basically devoted to this topic, to the low quality of design information. a function of that, and are probably an input to that, is that design fees have been squeezed over the last few decades.
[00:08:25]you know, something’s always going to suffer and in those types of circumstances. Design programs are being shortened.Quite often public projects, the sphere that I work in, the program is dictated by politics and by false deadlines.
[00:08:42] And quite often there’s some false milestone that might be related to an election or to some other political commitment that, you know, you take away the time that construction takes to get to that milestone and then take away the approvals period between finishing the design and getting the issued for construction drawings out.
[00:09:03]and then the, the sort of time between project award and whenever that ends up is how much time you’ve got to do design. And it, it doesn’t really seem to have much regard for whether that’s actually sufficient time or not. we’re seeing a lot of very late change in some of these big projects in particular, As clients and contractors make up their mind about how they want to build things and what they need to be able to do to build it.
[00:09:31]there are also some issues around design standards.They’re not really written for how they’re being used in contracts. They’re written as a minimum obligation to meet the sort of general it’s for a safe and serviceable structure and in my world, but they get written into a contract.
[00:09:50] And as a result, they sort of become a set of maximum requirements as well as minimum requirements where if you provide anything more than the design standard says, then you’re effectively regarded as gold-plating, even though that might be good practice, that’s just not encapsulated in the same standard.
[00:10:11]There are also fewer opportunities for design engineers to get on site, to understand how things are built. it’s a critical issue now because the introduction over the last decade or so of safety and design legislation means that the onus is on the designer to consider how things can be safely built and maintained and how risks that exist during those activities can be eliminated or minimized.
[00:10:43]but, The opportunities for design engineers to witness construction are reducing. So there’s a fundamental issue there. And I guess similarly, There are fewer construction engineers that are getting any design experience. So we’re seeing quite a lot of people in the construction side who are building things that they don’t have a good understanding of how they actually work.
[00:11:08] So it’s , it’s quite a series of issues.
[00:11:11]Mel or Dom: [00:11:11] That’s very bleak.
[00:11:12] it is, and it’s a really, really good point. That’s a really, worrying point as well, because it is something like that seems to be coming, more and more common across the board. Particularly the, So of coming from the side of consulting engineer as well. And it scares me to see that because there’s always that sliding doors moment where you can’t explain to the client that if they spend more money up front, they’ll see the savings at the end because it’s hard to, to prove that. Yet if it’s designed properly and it’s designed efficiently and economically, then once the people get on site, it’s going to be a much smoother process in regards to the construction as well.
[00:11:54] So it’s, it’s really hard that it has gotten to that point where we, the engineers are sitting at the bottom of the food chain. Cause I know exactly what you mean. It’s, it’s really disheartening that it’s come to that and that we’re not being able to get involved really from the start of the process all the way through to the end to make sure that it’s the most efficient project that can be.
[00:12:15] Stewart: [00:12:15] Yeah, exactly. And it’s a function of that design being commoditized. It’s just something that’s purchased with almost any real regard for whether there could be good design or bad design. it’s a service that people procure.
[00:12:30]Mel or Dom: [00:12:30] Honestly, that sounds like a really bleak, perspective. And you, you mentioned so many causes of it. Like there was political that was client and skills and, everything, but I’m going to jump straight into what can we do about this?
[00:12:46] What are some solutions here?
[00:12:48] Stewart: [00:12:48] Yeah. So it’s something that in the UK, and I guess I, I sort of look back there a lot still. I’m a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and I, take a lot of information from there. They have a, “get it right” initiative that’s come out recently. That’s actually looking at a number of these issues.
[00:13:07]There’s no easy answer to it. And I think they acknowledged that, but there are a few things that can be done. They advocate strongly the use of collaborative contracting rather than, the, the sort of adversarial approach that has, really negative outcomes in terms of culture and in terms of input from the design team. you know, and the building of trust through these collaborative contracts between the client, the contractor, or the designers, and they’re really advocate to over a longer period. you know, I think also, I don’t really like looking backwards, all the time, but there was a point where a number of graduate development programs had effectively a mandated exchange when you were in certain disciplines, so that you were forced as a design engineer to spend time on site or forced as a construction engineer to spend time in a design office. So that, that, that basic understanding, even though you stayed within construction, if that’s what you wanted to do, you would still have a fairly strong understanding of what design is and what the designer does. And I think, instituting a 21st century version of that would benefit people hugely. There could be other opportunities. For instance, the opportunities that design engineers do get to go on sites, is often through construction for your services in a D&C or Alliance type contract. But quite often, you know, one of the cost saving measures is to eliminate or minimize that function as best as possible. So to have a client mandated designer presence on site that maybe relates to the size of the contract would definitely help.it would be good to see better investment in design requirements so that we had a better base.
[00:14:58] we were all working from the same handbook. We have a fairly significant variation across Australia for what the additional design requirements are on top of the Australian standards. It would be good to see that developed.
[00:15:14]and I think something else that we should really be considering in Australia is the adoption of the structural Euro codes for design.
[00:15:23] So the European standards. and I, I say that because I think it would increase our ability to have international exchange of best practice, it would increase our opportunity to access better tools and better practices. and I think also Australia’s a small market and there’s a very small group of people who look after these standards.
[00:15:47] So, the adoption of the group of standards that is maintained and developed by a significant organization, could help us stay at the forefront of, of technology and really have potentially better design outcomes. And the way that the European design standards are structured are that they can be adopted in different countries.
[00:16:12] So that each individual national set of requirements that are geography specific, like wind design or seismic design can be, incorporated in annexes to these standards. So I think there’s a big opportunity around that. I think also we should be looking at better diversity in teams.
[00:16:32] We should be looking at an improvement in culture and definitely a departure from the macho culture that exists in construction so that we can get more widely talented and people who think differently and potentially are more creative, but don’t thrive in those adversarial environments, involved in design.
[00:16:54] So, you know, in essence, a way to get different people, more ideas, and move away from what it’s been like in the past.
[00:17:04]Mel or Dom: [00:17:04] just on your first point in regards to the sort of separation between the designers and the contractors. In the more mature markets that you’ve worked in, is there less of an us and them kind of rivalry that seems to go on? Is that something that, because our market hasn’t developed to the point where it has obviously through the likes of Europe, do you see that as a bigger problem over here, where there is that separation of designers and then the contractors?
[00:17:30]Stewart: [00:17:30] I think it will come back to the form of contract adopted. I think there are probably great examples and poor examples everywhere. Interestingly, the UK is looking at alliancing in Australia as a way of fostering more collaborative culture. So it’s definitely not a one way thing. I think really it comes back to the form of contract and it comes back to that management of risk and people defending their positions.
[00:17:57] And if we can move away from that, we will probably free up the industry to have much better outcomes.
[00:18:05]Mel or Dom: [00:18:05] the standardization that you were talking about, I suppose it’s a bit of a hard one because you always wonder where the pushback’s coming from as well.
[00:18:14] Because I do know in regards to some of the things with Australian standards where it actually becomes very limiting in certain areas, because it’s almost as though we’re, we’re being parochial in relation to what we want. When in reality, there’s no reason why we can’t utilize European standards and therefore European materials in European systems.
[00:18:35] But, have you seen where that, stop seems to be? Do you think that it’s coming because of the old guard in the Australian standards and they really just need to evolve and adapt? Or is it, is it something like that it just keeps getting pushed on the back burner and so we haven’t really caught up when we should?
[00:18:53]Stewart: [00:18:53] that’s a difficult question to answer. I’m not really sure I know where that pushback comes from. it’s
[00:19:01] Mel or Dom: [00:19:01] or if it’s a pushback at all,
[00:19:03] Stewart: [00:19:03] Yeah, it might not, it might not be a pushback. It might just be that it’s something that no one has really thought about seriously before. because you’re at nation, you have an industry, you have your set of standards for that industry. That’s, you know, it’s kind of par for the course. It’s what any developed nation I guess, would, would see as important in its, in its particular industry. I think potentially the loss of control would be something that people would be very concerned about.
[00:19:35]the inability. You know, perhaps to control certain revisions to the standards. But I think the reality is that Australian standards are developed with a very keen eye on, on other nations standards anyway. And in particular the Euro codes, and it’s not like they’re not used here. They’re just used to fill up the gaps between the points where the Australian standards don’t cover. So I, and in terms of the control issue, It’s not necessarily a big problem because there is always the ability to sit outside or produce additional guidance or to you to have an, a, an annex that goes along with that standard that says this clause does not apply in Australia instead use this set of rules.
[00:20:22]but it, it sort of takes away the, the fundamental core development of the standards, as an obligation on the country. And it also frees up markets. we can, all of a sudden use software that’s been designed for the whole of Europe, rather than having to incode Australian standards in our design software.
[00:20:45] And similarly Australian software manufacturers are no longer limited to the marketplace that they sell in. they would be able to sell all around the world without having to, to change the, the coding that exists in their programs. So the opportunities are, are manifold it’s it’s it’s just an idea that potentially hasn’t got any momentum yet.
[00:21:08] Mel or Dom: [00:21:08] Hmm. because you listed out a number of really interesting solutions, when you’re going through it. And when you came to the standards or the codes, I’m like, that’s gonna be a hard one. That one, because I think it comes back to it’s like, what you even said is like, a bit of pride in your nation as like, Oh, you know, European, they have lots of snow and stuff like that.
[00:21:31] And I don’t know. I can’t, I reckon there’s a lot of other. Quick wins to ensure the design factor gets involved. But, yeah, that that’s a doozy. So what are your thoughts on the future of engineering?
[00:21:45]Stewart: [00:21:45] So I think the defining issue for the future of engineering has got to be net zero. it’s a huge challenge, but it’s also a huge opportunity for engineers. and it’s, it’s an everything issue, you know, it’s energy generation use, it’s asset management, it’s transport, it’s food production, it’s flood defense, it’s biodiversity in urban design.
[00:22:04] It’s it’s everywhere, but a lot of that is engineering. And if you look again at the UK, they have legislated targets for, for net zero, by 2050 for England and Wales in 2045 for Scotland. we’re already seeing this beginning to affect the planning approvals for major infrastructure projects. So I think we need to see this become legislated in Australia. It’s something that’s already supported by the Business Council of Australia. they have a clear statement of their support, it’s supported by science. And Australia has the abundant natural resources and the engineering skills to be able to achieve this,it just needs the will to do it.
[00:22:48]Mel or Dom: [00:22:48] Yeah, the political agreement to do it. It’s always hard because you look at that and if it’s a little bit like, Getting up in the morning and going for a run, you know, it’s good for you, but no one seems to want to do, but it’s just that struggle to get up. And it’s the same with, these sorts of things.
[00:23:05] It’s a case of, you know, that the benefits are just so astronomical and yet, I don’t understand why they we can’t sort of get the motivation and the, get the momentum for people to start doing it. Yeah, hopefully it’s something that will get the momentum and we’ll get it quickly. because once people know that there’s goals that they have to achieve, it’s amazing how quickly they get there.
[00:23:26]I agree that yeah, hopefully that comes in the future.
[00:23:30]Stewart: [00:23:30] Yeah. if we look at COVID, it’s demonstrated that people will change their behavior. If they have to. Um, and we’re almost at the point where we have no choice in this anymore. it’s going to be the defining issue of the next 30 years, without a doubt. and you know, it’s potentially our future on this planet in terms of any kind of semblance of the lifestyle that we lead.
[00:23:58]Mel or Dom: [00:23:58] it’s a very carrot and stick. So at the past week being like the carrot, come on, it’s a good thing to do. But until, as COVID showed, if there’s a stick, people can move. Sorry. It’s all stick now. Between the Bush fires and the COVID, a lot of stick.
[00:24:18] Climate change that it needs to stick. It’s just too, it’s a threat. It’s just seems too threatening.
[00:24:23] It needs a big stick. so on that note, what would you say to people starting out in engineering?
[00:24:30]Stewart: [00:24:30] I would say don’t succumb to a narrow definition of what engineering is. It’s always broader than you think. Now there’s a tendency for engineers to think that engineering is analysis or concrete design or three-inch modeling. You know, even the, the writing and communicating and presenting and marketing as their job, let alone, becoming involved in politics or advocating for the industry, or encouraging people to become involved.
[00:24:59] You know, there are obviously numerous examples of engineers who have realized this, but I think that it’s a key message to anybody starting out in engineering. and I think, uh, I would say to anybody that’s interested in it. If, if you love solving problems, then engineering is the place for you .
[00:25:16] It’s it’s about solving problems, whatever they might be. Logistical, social, analytical, practical.
[00:25:23]Mel or Dom: [00:25:23] Yeah, I love that because it is, it’s one of the things that I sort of try and preach as well. I understand that a lot of people get into it because of the whole, the maths side of it and the physics, but I just see it as problem solving. And it really is. It’s a basis from which there’s a whole world of amazing challenges that you can actually come up against.
[00:25:45] And they have to be those stereotypical ones that everyone thinks of where you’re just basically going to be churning out maths for the rest of your days.
[00:25:52]is there a piece of engineering that impresses you.
[00:25:54]Stewart: [00:25:54] I think Crossrail, the new east-west railway in London, you know, it’s, it’s having some challenges in its final stages and that’s a real shame, but it’s an incredible achievement to have built a massive underground railway and threaded this thing through the heart of London. and when it, when it opens, it’s going to have a massive impact on, on life in London.
[00:26:17]a huge difference to travel times, given access to jobs and education to people who previously wouldn’t be able to make that commute. it’ll reduce overcrowding on the tube significantly. It’s an incredible piece of engineering and an incredible piece of architecture for that matter, too.
[00:26:34]Mel or Dom: [00:26:34] Yeah, I actually, I find the underground, in itself was amazing. But when I realized what they were trying to do, like the crossrail where they’re connecting all these things. It is, A real, country making piece of engineering, I think. So what you were to what you were saying that whole, it’s going to change people’s lives.
[00:26:54] It is it’s absolutely. It’s not just an underground rail network or cross rails network. it’s changing up the way society is going to interact with each other. Yeah, that’s an excellent example of some impressive engineering for sure.
[00:27:09]is there an engineer that you admire.
[00:27:12]Stewart: [00:27:12] Yes. So Linda Miller, who is a project director for Bechtel, and. Last year, she delivered one of the most inspirational lectures on engineering that I think I’ve ever seen. It was the institution of civil engineers, 2019 Brunel lecture series, and actually it toured around Australia. Although I was sadly always in the wrong city at the wrong time to be able to see it, but thankfully, it’s online then and anybody can watch it and I, I would strongly recommend anyone who does listen to this too, to search it out. if you search for Linda Miller Brunel lecture, you will inevitably find it. and I would say it was so good that even some of the more cynical colleagues of mine were sending me emails to say, “you’ve got to listen to this lecture”. It’s just the best one I’ve I’ve ever heard on civil engineering.
[00:28:09] Mel or Dom: [00:28:09] I’m going to make it easy. Go to our show notes and I will have a link in there for this, so that you’ve sold me. Okay.
[00:28:17] Stewart: [00:28:17] Yeah. And you know, she features on the, the crossroad documentary that was on the BBC. And I think shown SBS in this country. I think that the things that probably impressed me most about her is that she obviously is someone who’ll stand up for what she believes in, regardless of how many people tell her that she’s wrong or that she should stop pursuing this course of action.
[00:28:39] She just sticks at it. And isn’t afraid of being unpopular and to drive the right thing through them. She’s also a great role model. It’s obvious that she cares about the teams that she works for. and in the lecture she defines these six, what she calls “inescapables”. That, I really about behavior, and working in teams and I’m not going to go through them here.
[00:29:04] I would just recommend that people watch the lecture because, she does a far better job of explaining them than, than I ever would.
[00:29:11]Mel or Dom: [00:29:11] That’s a perfect note to end on because we don’t want to be telling people halfway through a podcast episode to go off and, and listen to something else. So this time around now that this episode has finished, now you can go listen. Perfect timing. So, and we’ll have a nice little link in our show notes on the website for Linda Miller’s Brunel lecture.
[00:29:31] But Stuart, thank you so much for joining us today on Engineering Heroes.
[00:29:35] It’s been wonderful. Thanks for that. That was great.
[00:29:38] Stewart: [00:29:38] thank you very much. It was great to talk to you.
I’d like to thank everyone for listening to another great episode of Engineering Heroes as we present the new dawn of engineering challenges for Engineers Australia. your hosts have been Melanie and Dominic De Gioia. You can view this episode show notes or learn more from our podcast by visiting our website, www.EngineeringHeroes.com.au
If you enjoyed today’s show, all we ask you to do is go and tell someone, tell lots of people either in personal or write review, it’s that easy to show your support for engineers everywhere. We look forward to you joining us next week when we bring you another interview with one of our engineering champions.