Engineering design position

The reasoning behind the work.

This page preserves the position statement developed for ESC102 and connects it to three documented team projects: Praxis I, the CIV102 bridge project, and Praxis II.

Position statement

My position on engineering design

This statement is preserved from the original ESC102 assignment. References to academic year and prior experience reflect that original context.

Introduction

My name is Jan Kazimierczak and I’m a first-year student in the University of Toronto Engineering Science program. My interest in engineering started when I was around 13 years old with the first Falcon Heavy launch. Seeing both boosters land with such precision was one of the most beautiful things I had seen, and it changed my life. Since then, I have seen engineering as a means of changing our world for the better. I understand engineering design to be a structured and efficient approach to addressing an opportunity by modifying the world around us.

Ethical stance on engineering design + background

My ethical stance on engineering design is influenced by my background. I am Polish and thus have been influenced by Catholic thought. This affects me in multiple ways. Firstly, I believe my work is a duty which requires commitment and is thus important for me to be intentional and hard working. Also, I want the wellbeing of every human being, but I understand that this is not necessarily advanced in every engineering project. The human situation is complex and a factor that cannot be ignored. The best way I have found to manage this fact is an ethical line which cannot be crossed. I believe that designs cannot interfere with the freedom of, nor the life of innocent human beings. I understand that this red line is not directly relevant to the Praxis II project. However, I also understand that ethical boundaries are important to define early in one’s career.

Practices in engineering design

Regarding my practices in engineering design, I can pinpoint three distinct events or projects that have shaped my approach: a high-school science symposium project, high-school musical stage construction, and the Praxis I project.

  1. My grandfather who is an engineer himself helped me with the science symposium project for which we had to build a wind tunnel 3 meters long to perform some experiments. Having no experience, I started construction without really having any concrete plan, which meant that it would not have been as good as it could’ve. My grandfather taught me to always have control on what you are designing and building and to always proceed with caution, patience and due diligence.
  2. The second experience that shaped my approach to engineering design is the stage construction for my high school’s musical. In this case I was no longer the “Authority” in the project, as opposed to the science symposium project, but here we had no say on the decisions regarding the construction. While working on it I noticed that the decisions they made regarding the method of construction would mean that the set would probably fail when people stood on it, and it turned out that I was right. I did mention it, but because I saw myself as with no “Authority” I did not insist on it. After this experience I decided that for future engineering design projects I would raise concerns about methods or ideas to reduce potential harm done.
  3. The last experience ties closely to the stage design project. When working on the Praxis I project, it was the first time where I worked together in a team where we all were “authorities” without a single “Authority” that would present us tasks. This taught me to make compromises regarding decisions and to try to hear everyone’s perspective regarding decisions on the project.

My position on engineering design

  1. Following my grandfather’s example and advice I spend a considerable amount of time on careful planning and design so that everything works as intended on the first try. This means that my approach is systematic and cautious.
  2. While working on a project I will voice my concerns regarding decisions that I deem to be wrong or dangerous. Due diligence is crucial in engineering design so I believe we all should contribute to it.
  3. I try to consider all team members’ ideas and find compromises between them while working on a group project. This position lies closer to the “authorities” concept in praxis rather than one big “Authority”.

Approach to engineering design (Conclusion)

Having covered all these points, I can express my approach to engineering design in the following way [Figure 1]: Coming from a Catholic background I want the product of engineering design to benefit the most people possible. While working on a project I take the planning and designing stage very seriously to ensure the projects are completed with due diligence and efficiency. When encountering a problem or potential risk I raise my concern so we can work together to find a solution. And finally, when working in a group I find compromises on ideas so we can develop a good working environment to explore all ideas and solution proposals.

Figure 1

Approach to engineering design

The flowchart below summarizes the process described in the position statement. It links ethical checks, careful planning, raising concerns, compromise, iteration, and delivery into one design approach.

Flowchart of Jan Kazimierczak's engineering design approach
How to read the figure

Simplified flowchart of my approach to engineering design as described in the document. The “Red lines check” loop links back to my background and ideals. The “compromise” loop links to the Praxis I experience. The “Plan carefully” stage links to the science symposium project, and the “Raise concerns” stage links to the stage-design experience.

Selected projects

The three projects included in the portfolio

Each project reflects a different part of the position statement: compromise in teamwork, careful planning and performance evaluation, and systematic design through iteration.

BikePack Buddy project image
Praxis I Design Prototyping CAD

BikePack Buddy

A front-basket extension concept intended to move a backpack load from the rider’s body to the bicycle. This project connects especially well to compromise, shared decision-making, and iterative design work.
Top view of the completed CIV102 bridge
CIV102 Structures Testing Analysis

Bridge design project

A bridge project centered on material constraints, structural behavior, and performance under load. It reflects careful planning, due diligence, and the responsibility to understand whether a design is actually safe and effective.
Praxis II project image
Praxis II Mechanism design Automation Iteration

Automated screw sorting device

A compact device concept built around a specific physical task and the logic intended to carry it out. It represents a systematic design problem where planning, mechanism choices, testing, and iteration all matter.
Connection to the statement

How the three projects shaped my position on engineering design

Praxis I

The praxis I project was my first experience working in a team where we all had authority and responsibility for the design. This made it clear to me that compromise and shared decision making are important when being in a team.

Praxis II

The Praxis II project introduced me to a more advanced engineering design process. As a three-person team managing a larger project than those in CIV102 and Praxis I, we had to communicate clearly and share responsibility. This reinforced the distinction between formal “Authority” and the authority each team member carries. The project also helped me strengthen my planning and communication skills and become more intentional and systematic in my design approach.

CIV102

The CIV102 bridge project was my first experience with a more rigorous engineering design project, where the need for careful planning and due diligence became clearer. Earlier projects focused mainly on process, research, and prototyping; this project placed greater emphasis on implementation, analysis, and testing. We examined the bridge’s potential failure modes and iterated on the design using those calculations. I learned the importance of validating design choices through analysis and physical evidence, and of communicating those findings effectively within a team. Seeing the constructed bridge fail at a splice also showed me that a model can guide a design without predicting every real-world failure mode.

References