Focus on: Smart Maintenance Maintenance Matters June/July 2026 www.pwemag.co.uk Plant & Works Engineering | 13 components is not irrational. It’s arguably just pragmatic, in a very human way. Rather than viewing such practices purely as problems to be eliminated, they can be read as signals: evidence of where systems do not yet align with the realities of work. The value that isn’t on the dashboard This misalignment points to a deeper issue that not all engineering value is easily captured. Much of what keeps systems running effectively depends on forms of knowledge that are built through experience, shaped by context, applied through judgement. The ERIKS report above also acknowledges that significant value within engineering functions remains “dependent on the individual employee” – an organic contribution that sits outside formal structures. This creates an often-invisible tension within digitalisation efforts. On the one hand, organisations seek to externalise knowledge, embedding it into systems where it can be standardised and scaled. On the other, they remain reliant on expertise that is inherently difficult to formalise. It is here that the idea of the quest for some kind of “digital absoluteness” starts to look like a mission with no end. Sometimes – in the real world – the most critical insights are those that emerge from experience that cannot be logged digitally. “It’s making a funny noise”. “That looks wrong”. Even, “what’s that smell?” Anyone who watched the recent Channel 4 docu-drama Dirty Business, which focused on the perils of off-site monitoring in the utilities industry, will understand the sight of an engineer kneedeep in sewage on the phone to headquarters as they tell him the readings say everything is fine. The risk of optimising for the wrong thing None of this is to diminish the value of digital tools. Connected systems, real-time monitoring and predictive analytics have transformed many aspects of engineering for the better. But problems arise when digitalisation becomes an end in itself. When success is defined by the extent to which human involvement is reduced, rather than by how effectively systems and people work together, the persistence of informal practices, workarounds and locally held knowledge is often treated as a barrier to progress, rather than a recognition that humans still have value in the wider process. Reframing the human role The challenge of restoring value in human eyesand-ears insight, however, comes from the growing difficulty of recruiting and retaining experienced engineers, and the disproportionate impact when that knowledge is lost. What if, instead of viewing the human element as a source of variability to be controlled, it were seen as a source of resilience? A thing of real value. In practice, experienced engineers do more than execute tasks. They interpret incomplete information, adapt to unexpected conditions, bridge gaps between systems, and make decisions where rules fall short. These are not residual functions awaiting automation. They are core to how engineering operates in the real world. The most effective organisations are not those that pursue digital absolutes, but those that integrate digital tools with human capability, using technology to support judgement, not replace it . Bridging the divide The “digital divide” in engineering is often framed as a gap between analogue and digital. In practice, it is better understood as a gap between expectation and reality. Digital systems promise visibility and control. Human expertise provides context and adaptability. Bringing those two elements together means recognising that engineering has always been, and is likely to remain, a fundamentally human activity – enhanced by technology, but not defined by it. In fundamentally assuming humans are the problem in a pursuit of digital perfection, we risk overlooking the very thing that makes engineering work. We make earned, human knowledge obsolete at our peril. For further information please visit: https://www.liketechnologies.co.uk
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ0NzM=