I’m not an innovator. Does this make me a bad engineer?
There is so much hype about innovating. But I’m not an innovator. Try as I might, I never can come up with new ideas that would be considered innovative. I’m good enough at coding, I suppose. I can design and code solutions to problems. But ask me to innovate, and I fall flat. This makes me feel like crap about myself. Is it possible to still be a successful engineer if you can’t innovate, but can get your work done? Sorry if this is a stupid question.
Most real-life jobs are maintenance, not innovation. You will find more success than your counterparts, in spite of the hype
You won't be the next Mark Suckerberg but so do none of us. Don't worry. Designing a solution involves innovation. Let's hope by the time your exp in innovation will be better so you can be a senior/principal or whatever but even then don't worry.
I’m currently at SMTS and I feel like this is one of the things holding me back from getting to LMTS.
You can design and code solution to a problem. Does your solution works well, does it scale and is it maintainable? If you answer yes to these then congrats you can execute. Which is a lot more valued than innovators who can’t execute for shit.
No that makes you a bad scientist, not an engineer.
You're good. I've never met a manager that tolerates innovators. So, unless you can be an entrepreneur and create a successful startup, being an innovator won't make you any good.
Most “innovations” are just smoke and mirrors used to get a promotion anyways. Don’t worry about it.
Term “Innovative” is very subjective. It can come in many forms and many levels of abstractions... the ones that get noticed are the ones at high level of abstraction. But it doesn’t mean solutions at low levels of abstraction are not important