1. What’s the next big innovation you’re most looking forward to?
Over the course of my career, materials and software have evolved significantly. What feels different now is the integration of low-carbon thinking into core engineering decisions.
In London, particularly, retrofit-first strategies are becoming standard. When I started out, demolition was often assumed. Now, the reuse of frames, foundations and substructures is rightly interrogated from the outset.
Hybrid systems, especially steel–timber combinations, are also becoming more practical within UK fire and robustness requirements. Used carefully, they can materially reduce embodied carbon without compromising performance.
AI-enabled optimisation will further strengthen early-stage design, testing grids, tonnage and embodied carbon in real time.
The real shift is moving beyond simply delivering compliant structures to thinking about how they perform over their entire life.
It’s about designing efficiently and responsibly from the outset, with a clear understanding of how the structure will actually be built and used.
2. What have younger team members pushed you to rethink?
One of the most positive changes I’ve seen has come from younger engineers.
They are far more instinctively carbon-literate. Where earlier in my career cost and programme often dominated conversations, embodied carbon is now treated as a core design metric. And rightly so.
Their first question is frequently, “Why are we demolishing this?” That challenges assumptions and encourages more robust option testing around reuse, extension and adaptation.
There’s also been a cultural shift. Younger team members are open about workload pressures and value collaboration across disciplines. That has prompted more structured programming and clearer conversations with clients about realistic delivery expectations.
It’s been a healthy recalibration.
3. Which part of your business process do you think AI will struggle to replace?
Technology will undoubtedly support the profession, but it won’t replace professional judgement or accountability.
Under the Institution of Civil Engineers Code of Conduct, engineers are required to exercise sound judgement, act with integrity and take personal responsibility for their work. That duty of care cannot be delegated to an algorithm.
London projects are rarely straightforward. They involve unknown ground conditions, ageing utilities, party wall constraints and contractor sequencing compromises. Much of the role involves balancing safety, proportionality and practicality under uncertainty.
AI can analyse data and optimise member sizes. It cannot apply ethical judgement, manage stakeholder risk, negotiate constraints or ultimately stand behind a signed design.
Professional responsibility remains inherently human.
4. What part of your role has changed most — and what’s remained constant?
The regulatory environment has become significantly more structured. Post-Building Safety Act, documentation, duty-holder responsibilities and compliance processes are more formalised than at any point earlier in my career.
Client expectations around carbon have also evolved rapidly. Embodied carbon reporting should now be expected at early design stages, not as a retrospective exercise.
Encouragingly, engineers are increasingly engaged at feasibility. This in turn influences reuse strategies and viability from the outset.
What hasn’t changed are the fundamentals.
Load paths still matter.
Ground still governs risk.
Water still finds weakness.
And the responsibility of signing off a safe, buildable structure remains constant.
Tools evolve. Accountability does not.
