• Apply principles of sustainability to create viable systems (A)

During my internship at HME, I faced a crucial incident where I had to spot a major oversupply of sealing liquid in the automated dispensing system on a new electric motor production line. This experience was really important for me professionally because it was the first time I directly saw the real waste caused by an inefficient industrial process. It shifted my understanding of sustainability from just a theoretical idea to a real engineering responsibility. At first, I was pretty nervous, worried that as an intern, I might misinterpret things or come off as criticizing the work of more seasoned engineers. But alongside that anxiety, I felt a strong ethical obligation; seeing such clear overuse of resources just felt wrong, pushing me to take action even though I was still new to the field.

 

When I reported the issue along with supporting data, my manager expressed gratitude, which reassured me and turned my anxiety into a feeling of empowered responsibility. This event significantly altered my perception of a sustainable system. Previously, I had considered sustainability mainly from an environmental perspective, concentrating on energy efficiency and material recycling. However, this experience revealed that a genuinely sustainable system must also be economically and operationally viable. The wasted sealant had immediate cost consequences (economic) and could lead to downstream quality problems or process interruptions (operational), potentially resulting in additional waste and resource consumption, thus creating a detrimental feedback loop.

 

This new understanding is strongly supported by literature. Elkington’s (1997) concept of the triple bottom line— advocating for systems that perform well not just economically (Profit), but also socially (People) and environmentally (Planet)—provides a robust framework for this incident. The faulty sealing process was failing on the ‘Planet’ (wasteful resource use) and ‘Profit’ (financial loss) principles. Furthermore, Mulder (2017) argues that sustainable engineering requires a paradigm shift from optimising individual components to optimising entire systems for long-term viability. My intervention was a small step towards this systems-thinking approach, moving beyond just ensuring the robot arm functioned to ensuring its function within the larger production system was resource-optimal.

 

This incident will directly inform my future professional development. I now recognise that sustainable design is not an add-on but an integral part of initial system commissioning and continuous improvement. In future projects, I will proactively ask questions about resource flow, waste streams, and long-term maintenance from the outset. I will also champion the practice of thorough documentation and standardisation, as was done in rectifying the sealing issue, to ensure that sustainable practices are embedded and replicable, not reliant on individual intervention. This experience taught me that creating a viable system requires vigilance at every stage and the courage to question established processes in pursuit of greater efficiency and responsibility.

 

References:

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/42948589/Cannibals_with_Forks

 

Mulder, K. F. (2017). Strategic competences for concrete action towards sustainability: An organizational perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, *140*, 155-166. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116002732

 

 

• Professional Practice within intercultural and global contexts (F)

 

A crucial event took place during my internship at HME when I joined my manager for a negotiation meeting with a significant Chinese supplier of precision motor components. The professional importance of this occasion was substantial, as the results had a direct effect on the cost, quality, and schedule of our new production line, giving me insight into the high-stakes nature of global supply chains. At first, I felt assured, equipped with my technical data and cost analyses, anticipating a conversation that would concentrate entirely on these measurable factors. However, I soon became perplexed and irritated as the first hour of the meeting was spent on what I viewed as small talk—extensive discussions about our experiences, the weather, and mutual acquaintances, with no reference to the contracts or specifications.

 

My initial response, shaped by my academic background that emphasized efficiency and straightforwardness, was one of anxiety. I was concerned that this indirect method was squandering valuable time and a way to sidestep the tough negotiations ahead. I felt like I was on the outside looking in, struggling to understand the deeper dynamics of the conversation, and worried that my well-prepared points were losing relevance. This frustration shifted to a moment of clarity when my manager, after the meeting, pointed out that this relationship-building, or guānxì, wasn’t just an extra step in the negotiation process but actually its core in this cultural setting. He made it clear that building trust and mutual respect was essential before diving into any serious business talks, and ignoring this would be viewed as extremely disrespectful.

 

This experience is a textbook example of the cultural dimensions theorized by Hofstede (2011). My initial approach reflected a very low-context, individualistic culture where communication is explicit and direct. The supplier’s approach, however, exemplified a high-context, collectivist culture where communication is implicit, and great importance is placed on the relationship and trust built before a transaction. As noted by the Project Management Institute (2017), a failure to recognize and adapt to these differences is a primary reason for the failure of international projects. My manager acted as a cultural bridge, demonstrating the practical application of intercultural competence.

 

This experience has a big impact on how I see my future career growth. I realized that while being technically skilled is important, understanding different cultures is just as vital. Moving forward, I plan to dig into the business practices and communication styles of my international colleagues before we start working together. I want to change my perspective on relationship-building from viewing it as a time-waster to seeing it as a key investment in the success of our projects. Plus, I’ll focus on being an active listener and observer in new environments, appreciating the process of building guānxì just as much as the technical results it brings. This incident showed me that to be a real global professional, you need to be good not just with numbers and programming but also with social norms and politeness.

 

References:

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. Available from: https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

 

Project Management Institute. (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute, Inc. Available from: https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/a-guide-to/9781628251845/cover.xhtml