The Art of Engineering Balance (Part 1)
As technology advances, the line between over-engineering and under-engineering gets blurrier. Balance is key. Apple has nailed it — mastering the engineering balance through regular upgrade cycles with exceptional results. But how hard is it to achieve that balance? And more importantly, how do you maintain it?
Like anything in life, it’s about balance. Over- or under-engineered technologies aren’t inherently bad, but when misapplied, they can lead to project failures, cost spikes, reputational damage, or even loss of life. Balanced engineering is about finding the sweet spot where innovation meets practicality without unnecessary complexity or cutting (too many!) corners.
In this post, I’ll explore examples across the engineering spectrum and outline what it takes to achieve and maintain balance in engineering projects.
Over-Engineering: Solving Problems You Didn’t Have
Over-engineering happens when unnecessary complexity is added to a system, often causing it to exceed its purpose or create new issues due to the added complications.
While it brings benefits like innovation, longevity, safety, and redundancy, it also comes at the expense of higher costs, longer development times, and increased risk. Over-engineering has a place in certain industries — it’s probably best that our planes, trains, and automobiles were over-engineered instead of under — I'm looking at you, Boeing!
Concorde: I'm Feeling Supersonic, Give Me Gin & Tonic!
An icon of the skies that requires little introduction – Concorde. In 1973, it took you to twice the speed of sound with a whiskey in hand for a measly £431 (£4,862 adjusted for inflation). With four engines designed for military use, 17 fuel tanks, droop nose technology, and nearly earning an ASBO due to its Sonic Boom — the Concorde was a ridiculous, exceptional, outstanding feat of engineering.
The aircraft was incredibly inefficient, burning or leaking roughly four times the fuel of a regular airliner. Only 20 Concordes were ever produced, and the cost of maintaining an ageing fleet became unsustainable.
After a crash in 2000 grounded the fleet, Concorde officially retired in 2003.
Looking at today’s airlines, like the Airbus A321, Boeing’s 777, and 787 Dreamliner, we see a clear trend towards balancing comfort with fuel economy — and sadly, no supersonic travel in sight (boo). While the ambition of the Concorde was ultimately over-engineering at its finest, it demonstrated what was technologically possible at the time — pushing the boundaries of speed, design, and aerodynamics, and even by today’s standards, ticket prices.
The Concorde helped pave the way for more balanced, efficient, and environmentally focused commercial airlines — So not all bad news. I must do a separate piece dedicated to Concorde at some point...
Samsung Smart Fridge: Overkill in Your Kitchen
We don’t have to look to the skies to see over-engineering — some of us can find it right in our kitchens. Take this Samsung Smart Fridge Freezer. With cameras, sensors, and a screen to tell you what’s inside — just in case opening the door somehow isn’t an option.
Cool? No pun intended — but maybe it’s cool. Necessary? Definitely not. Need a replacement screen? You could buy two regular fridges for the same price.
So, over-engineering can lead to groundbreaking advancements, but it can also bring inefficiencies and high costs— sometimes even fatal consequences to the system itself and, in unfortunate cases, its passengers. It can often look to solve problems that never existed, only to introduce new ones.
As we move forward, it’s important to focus on efficient, balanced engineering that meets both technical and user needs. But we can never stop innovating for fear of failure.
Under Engineering: Less is More?
Under-engineering is the opposite: stripping down to the essentials — and then some. Under-engineering tends to stem from a place of “do more with less,” but often comes out as “we’ve done less, with less.”
While under-engineering can be a conscious choice to speed up development, reduce costs, or minimise complexity, it often comes with compromises. That said, some technologies are mastered through under-engineering — look at the wheel for example.
OceanGate Titan Submersible: A Tragic Example
A tragic example of under-engineering is the 2023 OceanGate Titan Submersible disaster. Titan went missing on June 18, and evidence of an implosion was confirmed on June 22, 2023, after a dive to the Titanic.
The submersible, designed to carry five people to depths of 3,800 metres, used a hybrid hull to fit more passengers. Unlike James Cameron’s Deepsea Challenger, which used a steel pilot sphere, Titan’s hull combined two titanium spheres with a carbon fibre section. The image below shows a rough visual of the differences.
While carbon fibre is strong in certain directions, it’s weaker at angles. The mismatch in expansion and contraction with titanium under extreme pressure led to structural failure, as shown by the arrows above. This ultimately led to the implosion.
Post-It Note: Sticking to It
Not all examples of under-engineering lead to catastrophic failure. Sometimes a simpler, less-engineered solution can accidentally create something surprisingly successful.
Consider the humble Post-it Note. It was the result of a failed attempt at 3M to create a new super adhesive. Dr Spencer Silver, a scientist at 3M, accidentally developed a low-stick, reusable adhesive instead. A few years later, his colleague Art Fry used this glue to keep his bookmark from falling out of his notebook, and that’s how the Post-it Note was born. Even the iconic yellow colour happened by chance — the office only had yellow paper available.
Balanced Engineering: Getting it Right
After exploring under- and over-engineering examples, it’s clear that balance could have led to better-rounded technologies. The best engineering balances innovation, functionality, security, and sustainability— easy, right?
Balanced engineering doesn’t need to be overly simple or overly complex. Engineering, like art, can be subjective and elegantly balanced.
In Part 2 I will focus on the practices and principles we must apply to our engineering to achieve and sustain engineering balance.