They are a bunch of very clever, often PhD level engineers,
who work together in ARUP because they want to design interesting stuff.
And so a large number of ARUP engineers do stuff, not because it's necessarily profit
making, but because it's exciting, and challenging, and worthwhile.
So, in terms of these schematic we've got here,
their objectives are really very loose.
In other words, they are very much in the kind of this oblique principle world.
And their employees are very much driven by what you
might call intrinsic means engineers.
At least in the UK, aren't particularly well paid.
They're not badly paid, but they're not paid anything like as much as,
as bankers and, and consultants and so forth.
So they have very, very loose ends, objectives.
But they actually have to some degree quite tight means.
In other words, they have professional standards and mechanisms and,
and, and systems that they all have to adhere to.
If you are an engineer, if you're trained as a civil engineer,
there are extremely explicit codes around how you design and
develop a bridge or a stadium or whatever it is.
So they actually by virtue of their training, this is why I
call it the scientific method because science is all about conforming to certain
principals of a professional or, or a way of working that guide their work.
So they're fairly tight in terms of means.
It's actually remarkably bureaucratic in terms of what steps you have to go through
when you're going through the design over, you know, a large football stadium.
And yet, strangely enough, it's also an organization that's driven very much by
these sort of loose, intrinsic motivations.
So that's what I'm calling the science model.
And that's the second of the four.