A career in structural engineering can shape how professionals understand resilience and the decisions behind a design.
Drawing on his experience in construction, structural analysis, and engineering education, Engineering Institute of Technology (EIT) Lecturer Dr. Igor Shufrin shares insights from his career and reflects on how these areas inform his work as an engineer and educator.
Engineering careers rarely follow a single, predetermined path. For some, the direction is shaped by a clear ambition; for others, family influence, circumstance, and opportunity can quietly steer the course. For Dr. Shufrin, engineering was almost woven into the family fabric. His father was a Mechanical Engineer, while his mother worked as a Structural Designer; leaving him with two disciplines that felt like natural possibilities: mechanical or structural engineering. In the end, it was his older brother’s decision to pursue mechanical engineering that helped settle the question. As Dr. Shufrin puts it, structural engineering became his “choice”, a decision that would ultimately shape his career.
What began as a decision shaped by circumstance eventually became something Dr. Shufrin genuinely enjoyed. He found that structural engineering suited the way he thinks, particularly his interest in understanding how things work, why they fail, and how they can be made to work better. Over time, what started as a family allocation ultimately became a career he eventually chose to pursue.
As Dr. Shufrin’s career progressed, his understanding of civil and structural engineering deepened alongside the field’s changing demands and evolving practices. He began at the practical end of construction, working as a concreter on a construction site before moving into structural analysis during his first degree. “My first understanding of structures was very physical: formwork, reinforcement, concrete, gravity, and sore muscles at the end of the day,” Dr. Shufrin recalls.
Such early experience gave Dr. Shufrin a practical perspective on structural engineering. When he moved into structural design, he encountered a very different side of the discipline, including computer methods for structural analysis that were largely studied on paper at the time. Dr. Shufrin recalls working with computers that could occupy an entire room, a striking contrast to the software and computing capabilities available to him and his students today. Looking back, he sees this technological change as one part of a much broader shift in how he approaches engineering.
For Dr. Shufrin, one of the most important changes has been his understanding of what it means to be an engineer. Earlier in his career, he viewed engineering largely as a matter of calculating the correct answer. Over time, his view expanded to include understanding the problem, questioning assumptions, and making sound decisions. As he puts it, “A very precise answer to the wrong problem is still the wrong answer.”
Structural resilience is another area that features prominently in Dr. Shufrin’s professional experience. Rather than viewing it only in terms of whether a structure can withstand an extreme event, he considers the wider systems and conditions that influence how a structure continues to serve its purpose. In his view, this includes the roads, power, water, communications, hospitals, and evacuation routes that support communities. “A structure may remain standing, but its role can still be compromised if the wider infrastructure around it has failed.”
Throughout his work, Dr. Shufrin has also developed a particular interest in how existing structures can be understood and maintained as conditions change. Some of the considerations he highlights include:
Dr. Shufrin’s practical experience also influenced how he approaches engineering education. As an academic, he believes teaching should go beyond helping students calculate and use technical tools. For him, it is equally important for students to understand how those skills translate into real structures and real decisions. For him, effective engineering extends beyond technical performance, with simplicity often adding greater value when a design is easier to construct, maintain, and repair.
One of the aspects of teaching that Dr. Shufrin considers particularly important is helping students develop engineering judgement. While formulas, standards, and software can be taught, he believes judgement develops through exposure, experience, success, and failure. As structural software becomes more advanced, he encourages students to look beyond the output and consider whether the results are logical and technically sound.
As structural engineering moves beyond traditional methods and established workflows, Dr. Shufrin sees value in engineering professionals who can respond thoughtfully to the combination of new technologies and the practical realities of construction – a perspective that aligns with EIT’s focus on connecting engineering knowledge with its application in professional practice.
This article was published October 5th, 2026 and the content is current as at the date of publication.
Back to news