Engineers can't sign their name to a guess.
That's why generative AI stalled at the door of the control room.
This episode is about what got through instead.
Andy Webster is Senior Director for Digital and AI at KBR's Sustainable Technology Solutions division. His team spent the last three years going from an organisation curious about everything to one focused on a handful of bets: culling projects on a six-week clock, then backing physics-based AI hard enough to invest in it.
His argument: language models predict the next word, physics-based AI predicts the next state of your asset, and that difference is what earns an engineer's trust.
We get into:
- The "difficult, if not traumatic" project cull — and why stopping things created the velocity
- The six-week rule: every experiment defaults to stop unless it earns another six
- Physics-based AI explained properly: prediction constrained by gravity, thermodynamics, reality
- Why KBR went from reseller instinct to investor in Applied Computing, and what an ecosystem play looks like in engineering
- "What if your plant could think?" Talking to a physical asset like a colleague
- Souls on steam trains: what the history of tools says about the fear of this one
- Will professional bodies end up approving the data sets we trust? The next fight over "data is the new oil"
- Andy's hard-way lesson: the person saying no is as smart as you
Connect with Andy: linkedin.com/in/andywebster1
Connect with Helen: linkedin.com/in/helen-dawson
Sign up to The Hard Part newsletter: helen-dawson.kit.com/the-hard-part
AI Confidence Snapshot (4 mins): scorecard.helen-dawson.com