Algorithms Ahead, Understanding Behind—Time to Close Geotech’s Skills Gap

The geotechnical engineering profession is at a critical juncture. While software is becoming sophisticated at a rapid rate, geotechnical education is not changing as fast. Software tools increasingly incorporate advanced algorithms and theoretical frameworks, while geotechnical curricula at higher educational institutions advance at a much slower pace. As a result, a troubling gap has emerged between software sophistication and users' theoretical foundations. This disconnect threatens the quality of geotechnical engineering practice.

The User-Friendly Paradox

Rocscience has witnessed firsthand how the pursuit of user-friendly software has created an unexpected challenge. Our commitment to developing intuitive, accessible tools has been tremendously successful – engineers can now perform complex analyses with a few clicks that would not have been possible, or would have taken weeks of manual calculation, just decades ago. However, this accessibility has inadvertently contributed to what might be called the "user-friendly paradox": the easier software becomes to use, the greater the risk of users treating it as a black box.

Critical state mechanics is one instance. This robust framework, initially developed at Cambridge University about 70 years ago, provides beneficial insight into understanding the contractive and dilative behaviours of tailings and weak, granular soils. The state parameter, for example, helps geotechnical engineers predict how these materials respond to loading. Yet, despite its fundamental importance, many practitioners use software implementing critical state principles without understanding the underlying theory.

This discussion is not merely academic. Research shows that the rapid advancement of geotechnical programs has widened the gap between software sophistication and practitioners' capabilities [1]. As an educator once observed, "It is often deplorable to see an engineer building a sophisticated numerical model straight away, forgetting to think things through beforehand" [2]. The consequences are threefold:

• Inefficient use of (both basic and advanced) software tools.

• Potential errors in analysis and design.

• Missed opportunities for developing innovative solutions.

The Historical Perspective: Technology Never Goes Backward

Some argue that the solution lies in making software less user-friendly to force engineers to engage more deeply with the underlying theory. In our opinion, this approach fundamentally misaligns with the nature of technological progress. Throughout human history, technological advancement has been in one direction—forward. Societies have never willingly reversed their technological capabilities.

Technological change has accelerated dramatically in recent decades. It took our ancestors 2.4 million years to control fire, but only 66 years to go from the first flight to landing on the moon [3]. And this acceleration shows no signs of slowing down. Artificial intelligence and advanced computing are continuing to revolutionize every aspect of our lives [4]. Asking the engineering profession to step backward technologically is not just unrealistic; it is impossible.

The University Challenge

The logical response that most readily comes to mind is to strengthen geotechnical engineering education at the university level. However, research shows that universities are struggling to keep pace with industry trends. Current undergraduate curricula often provide inadequate geotechnical training and leave graduates unprepared for the complexities of the real world [1]. Specialized postgraduate programs are not too common, which further limits the development of geotechnical expertise [1].

Moreover, universities face another fundamental challenge: they need to balance foundational knowledge with rapidly evolving technology. As a software engineering thesis notes, "The field of software engineering is constantly changing and evolving. New skills are constantly needed... Education cannot keep up with the constantly changing workplace" [5]. Geotechnical engineering is no different, and the gap between academic theory and practical application continues to widen [6].

Enhancing learning with technologies such as LLMs offers some promise. Educators are implementing computer-based simulations, virtual laboratories, and advanced computational tools [7]. However, these initiatives often suffer from resource constraints, a lack of faculty experience with new technologies, and difficulties in aligning new knowledge with existing curricula [7].

Learning from History: The Master-Apprentice Tradition

The solution to our current predicament possibly lies not in the future, but in the past. History's most outstanding teachers and innovators understood that true mastery comes through mentorship and hands-on experience. Leonardo da Vinci, perhaps the ultimate Renaissance engineer, learned his craft in a traditional apprenticeship system under Andrea del Verrocchio [8][9].

From age 14, Leonardo spent seven years in Verrocchio's workshop, progressing from basic tasks like grinding pigments and maintaining tools to eventually creating masterpieces that surpassed his master's work [8][10]. For centuries, this model of progression from apprentice to journeyman to master formed the basis of knowledge transfer [11][12].

The medieval guild system provides another relevant example. Guilds maintained strict quality standards through a hierarchical training system in which apprentices learned not just techniques, but the reasoning behind them [11]. Masters had to train apprentices properly, and the guild system ensured that knowledge was passed down efficiently from one generation to the next [13].

Similarly, great teachers throughout history – from Aristotle training Alexander the Great to Newton's role as a professor at Cambridge – understood that true education requires personal mentorship and hands-on guidance [14]. In ancient Egypt, artisan skills were transmitted through familial workshops where apprentices shadowed masters during real projects, learning through observation and repetition [15].

The Modern Solution: Dual Pathways

In today's world, the answer may lie in recognizing that we need both technological advancement and enriched human development. Modern professional engineering registration systems already acknowledge this principle. Countries worldwide require engineers to demonstrate not just academic knowledge, but also practical experience under supervision (typically four years of mentored practice) [16].

This arrangement recognizes that becoming a competent engineer requires both formal education and on-the-job training under experienced professionals. The UK's Engineering Council describes this process as assessing both knowledge and competence, ensuring that engineers can apply their learning in the real world [16].

Corporate Training: The Missing Link

Rocscience believes that one of the most promising solutions lies in corporate training programs that bridge the gap between university education and practical application. We, and companies like GeoTraining in Canada, have successfully developed comprehensive training programs specifically for geotechnical professionals, offering both online and in-person instruction [17]. These programs have provided immediate payback through the enhanced quality of work and improved professional capabilities [17]. A Rocscience expert has even floated the idea of establishing a formal geotechnical academy to train practitioners in the use of software.

Modern technology offers opportunities for effective corporate training. Blended learning approaches that combine instruction with hands-on practice have proven particularly useful for technical training [18][19].

Engineering Education Australia has pioneered the integration of online and face-to-face training. It recognizes that "many people seek continuous learning and the ability to learn new skills when they need them, preferably in short hits" [20]. Their approach complements face-to-face training by enriching it through online components [20].

The Call to Action

Despite the significant roles of universities and software developers, the responsibility for addressing the skills gap cannot rest solely with them. A concerted effort from the entire geotechnical engineering community is required. We are calling for the following actions:

For Companies and Consultants:

• Implement training programs that go beyond software tutorials to include the underlying theory.

• Establish mentorship programs that pair experienced engineers with junior staff.

• Invest in continuing education for all staff levels, not just new graduates.

• Create formal pathways for knowledge transfer and skills development.

For Experienced Professionals:

• Embrace your role as mentors and teachers.

• Share practical knowledge through formal and informal training.

• Contribute to industry training programs and professional development initiatives.

• Take active responsibility for developing the next generation of geotechnical engineers.

For Junior Engineers:

• Cultivate intellectual curiosity beyond just learning software usage (simple clicks of buttons).

• Seek mentorship opportunities and actively engage with experienced professionals.

• Pursue formal and informal learning opportunities to understand the theory behind the tools.

• Ask questions and challenge assumptions rather than accepting software outputs uncritically.

For Industry Organizations:

• Support the development of comprehensive training programs.

• Recognize and reward companies that invest in employee development.

• Create industry-wide standards for professional competency that go beyond software proficiency.

• Foster collaboration between software developers, educators, and practitioners.

The Future of Geotechnical Engineering

The geotechnical engineering profession has always relied heavily on empiricism and experience [21]. This fundamental character means that no amount of sophisticated software can replace the need for experienced judgment and deep understanding of soil and rock behaviour. The geotechnical legend Dr. Ralph Peck once stated, "No theory can be considered satisfactory until it has been adequately checked by actual observations" [21].

The path forward requires that we embrace both technological advancement and human development. We must continue to develop user-friendly software with relevant, sophisticated advances. Simultaneously, we must ensure that users understand the principles underlying these tools. This path is not about moving backward technologically – it is about moving forward responsibly.

The stakes are high. Geotechnical failures can result in catastrophic consequences. The profession cannot afford to have sophisticated tools in the hands of practitioners who do not understand their limitations and assumptions.

As we face increasingly complex challenges in mining and civil engineering, our greatest asset will be a well-trained, highly skilled workforce proficient in both the principles of geotechnical engineering and the effective use of software tools. The time for action is now. The future of our profession depends on how we respond to this challenge.

• The author acknowledges that this article may be controversial. However, the current trajectory of increasing software sophistication without corresponding increases in user competency fundamentally threatens the quality of geotechnical engineering practice. Only through honest acknowledgment of this challenge can we begin to address the issue effectively.

References

1. Hammah, R.E. (2022). The current state of rock mechanics education [Unpublished internal document]. Rocscience Inc.
2. Utter, N. (2000). What role should software play in geotechnical education? Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering Education. International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE).
3. Roser, M. (2023, February). This timeline charts the fast pace of tech transformation across centuries. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/02/this-timeline-charts-the-fast-pace-of-tech-transformation-across-centuries/
4. Flower, J. (2024, November 20). The acceleration of technology in the last 80 years: A revolutionary shift in human history [Post]. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acceleration-technology-last-80-years-revolutionary-shift-joe-flower-z8dvc/
5. Gruber, S. M. (2023). Gaps in software engineering education (Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). VTechWorks. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstreams/1ce784cf-2ca5-4fb5-84bc-a1d216817513/download
6. Romero, E., & Abellán, M. A. (2005). A virtual laboratory for teaching geotechnical engineering. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 131(3), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2005)131:3(163)
7. Rehman, Z. U. (2023). Trends and challenges of technology-enhanced learning in geotechnical engineering education. Sustainability, 15(10), Article 7972. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107972
8. Milan Art Institute. (2020, November 10). Leonardo da Vinci’s time as an apprentice artist. https://www.milanartinstitute.com/blog/art-lessons-from-da-vinci
9. Anderson, J. (2022, October 1). The virtue of art: Leonardo da Vinci and Renaissance apprenticeship. Educational Renaissance. https://educationalrenaissance.com/2022/10/01/the-virtue-of-art-leonardo-da-vinci-and-renaissance-apprenticeship/
10. Bloos, H., Kampas, A., & Levison, H. (2018, March 29). A mentor's tale: Going back to Verrocchio and Leonardo Da Vinci [Post]. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mentors-tale-going-back-verrocchio-leonardo-da-vinci-aris-kampas/
11. GIGAZINE. (2020, September 16). What are the differences between classes such as apprentices and masters in medieval European guilds and what is the purpose of the guild? https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20200916-medieval-guild-apprentice-journeyman-master/
12. Bosshardt, W., & Lopus, J. S. (2013). Business in the Middle Ages: What was the role of guilds? Social Education, 77(2), 64–67. https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_77021364.pdf
13. Study.com. (n.d.). Medieval guilds: Types, hierarchy & function. https://study.com/learn/lesson/medieval-guilds-types-function.html
14. Best College Reviews. (2021, May 3). The 50 most influential living teachers. https://www.bestcollegereviews.org/teachers/
15. StudyRaid. (2025, March 13). Apprenticeship system – Ancient Egyptian artisans: Crafting life in the shadow of pyramids. https://app.studyraid.com/en/read/15134/524222/apprenticeship-system
16. Engineering Council. (n.d.). Becoming professionally registered. https://www.engc.org.uk/professional-registration/becoming-registered
17. GeoTraining. (n.d.). Home – Training solutions in ground engineering for technical professionals. https://geotraining.ca/
18. EI Design. (2021, May 12). Tips and best practices to create highly effective blended training program design. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/effective-blended-training-tips-best-practices
19. CommLab India. (2025, July 11). Blended learning: Exploring online formats to aid technical training. https://www.commlabindia.com/blog/blended-learning-technical-training
20. Engineers Australia. (2014, April 14). A new era for engineering education: Learn what you need to, when it suits you. https://portal.engineersaustralia.org.au/news/new-era-engineering-education-learn-what-you-need-when-it-suits-you
21. Barron, J., Barry, B. E., & Klosky, J. L. (2022, June). Theory to practice: Application of problem-based learning, flipped-classroom, and just-in-time-teaching in an advanced geotechnical engineering course (Paper ID #36549). American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/26407761/2272b7f6-4c8a-4de2-aefc-62db27ba3788/theory-to-practice-application-of-problem-based-learning-flipped-classroom-and-just-in-time-teaching-in-an-advanced-geotechnical-engineering-course.pdf

Client Testimonials on Rocscience Courses

1. Thank you so much, Dr. Reginald Hammah, for these amazing days of learning and networking in Accra! The hands-on experience with ShapeMetriX and the practical applications in RocSlope3 and RocTunnel3 were truly eye-opening. A special thanks to all the participants. By Jaber ZOUBGA, Underground Geotechnical Engineer, Endeavour Mining.
2. “It was wonderful to have Alison and Jiwoo come to site to conduct software and theory training for the Geotechnical Team at LXML Sepon, Laos PDR. The structure of the training was very well developed and absolutely met the brief of being a mixture of software and theoretical training. Some Slide and RS3 skills were re-enforced for some, while others were learning for the first time. The practical sessions were good in cementing the training and hopefully be remembered and adopted by my team. All the training sessions were made available to the team to refer to if they ever forget a step. We would love to have the team come and expand on this training next year again”. By Noel Smith, Superintendent - Geotechnical, Hydrogeology, Tailings – MTS, Lane Xang Minerals Limited