Artifice is the human prerogative.

Expert Systems are, perhaps, the greatest in a long line of clever technologies—artifices—that augment human abilities. And, whereas Moore's law severely constrained early Expert Systems research, the growth in available computing power now gives current generation Expert Systems the potential for massive real‐world impact—a happy situation increasingly celebrated with each issue of this journal!

Research impact has recently gained critical importance in HE research funding. For instance, in UK universities, the introduction of the UK government's Research Excellence Framework (REF) links research funding to a university's track record and potential for future research impact. With this, new pressures mount for researchers to ‘create impact’.

And, whereas not all researchers will follow this route, for some curiosity as the driving force for a research agenda will need to be augmented by the demonstration of the impact of their research. In short, these researchers—particularly knowledge engineers—must become impact engineers.

The impact engineer uses research to change the world in measurably impactful ways. And, although they may not realize it, they do this by solving three problems over and over—each time with increasing depth and value delivered. The three problems concern knowledge, engagement and reflection, which together form the warp threads on which impact is woven; their repeated solutions are the weft that adds colour and texture to their impact narrative. The resulting Golden Braid is the archival record of the value they have delivered.

The first problem—concerning knowledge—will be familiar to the researcher, being no more than a situated research question, the answer to which is sought. ‘To which extent can deep learning augment the medical community's diagnostic ability?’, ‘How can fuzzy systems be made accessible to industry?’ or ‘What benefits do deep learning bring to education?’ The solution to this problem sets that scene that captures the curiosity of the researcher.

The second—concerning engagement—will be less familiar: it arises as, without an audience, there can be no impact in answering a research question. It is again situated: ‘How do I engage an audience that will take measurable value from my research?’ Its solution is approached through cultivation of an audience whose needs are understandably linked to the research area and any research questions, for whom the research will skilfully augment any nascent problem solving capability. Once discovered, detail of the audience's needs and context must be explored to find the right application of the research, the areas in which instrumentation is needed to measure impacts and, perhaps most importantly, where and how the next impact narrative element—the next weft in the woven Golden Braid—will come from.

The third—concerning reflection—comes after engagement, after the application of the research, after the impact narrative has been captured, to multiply their value. Most researchers have finely tuned reflective antennae, with ‘What light has been thrown on my research?’, ‘What did I learn?’ and ‘What's next?’ being paramount. However, most new to the impact game will be astonished by the almost blinding richness of unexpected, perhaps even apparently contradictory, real‐world research tendrils that are thrown up by impact engineering. Without effort and dedication, their orthogonal nature can lead to these tendrils not only being ignored—especially if obscured by a safety blanket of well‐honed researcher reflection—but worse, to overload and early burnout if that blanket is removed—‘How do I handle the complexity?’, ‘Why does not my favourite theory apply?’, ‘How can I understand what the audience is saying/feeling?’, ‘Which are the politics that I need to manage?’ ‘What are the risks of continuing?’

The move to impact engineer from researcher is not easy and the problem solving that research prepares us for only contributes, not covers, that that the impact engineer faces. Not everyone can, or should be, an impact engineer. Not many pure researchers have to deal with these issues. But for those that do, for those that weave the Golden Braid of a truly impactful narrative, there is greatness ahead.

技巧是人类的特权。

专家系统也许是一长串可提高人类能力的聪明技术（技巧）中最伟大的。而且，尽管摩尔定律严重限制了Expert Systems的早期研究，但可用的计算能力的增长现在使当前这一代Expert Systems能够在现实世界中产生巨大的影响-随着每本期刊的发行，人们日益欢欣鼓舞！

研究影响最近在HE研究经费中变得至关重要。例如，在英国大学中，英国政府“卓越研究框架”（REF）的引入将研究经费与大学的往绩和未来研究影响的潜力联系在一起。因此，研究人员“创造影响力”的压力越来越大。

而且，尽管并非所有研究人员都会遵循这条路线，但出于某种好奇心，作为研究议程的驱动力将需要通过证明研究成果的影响来增强。简而言之，这些研究人员，尤其是知识工程师，必须成为影响工程师。

冲击工程师使用研究以可评估的方式改变世界。而且，尽管他们可能没有意识到这一点，但他们却通过一遍又一遍地解决三个问题来做到这一点-每次都增加深度和交付价值。这三个问题涉及知识，参与和反思，它们共同构成了经线，在其上编织冲击力。他们反复采用的解决方案是纬纱，使色彩和质感增添了冲击力。由此产生的金辫子是他们所交付价值的档案记录。

关于知识的第一个问题将是研究人员所熟悉的，它仅仅是一个定位的研究问题而已。“深度学习可以在多大程度上增强医学界的诊断能力？”，“如何使模糊系统可供行业使用？” 或“深度学习为教育带来了什么好处？” 该问题的解决方案设置了一个捕捉研究人员好奇心的场景。

第二点-关于参与-会不太熟悉：它的出现是因为没有受众，回答研究问题不会有影响。它又位于：“我如何吸引将从我的研究中获得可衡量的价值的受众？” 它的解决方案是通过培养受众的方法来解决的，这些受众的需求可以理解地与研究领域和任何研究问题相关联，对于他们来说，研究将熟练地增强任何新生的问题解决能力。一旦发现，就必须探索受众需求和背景的详细信息，以找到正确的研究应用，需要使用仪器来测量影响的领域，以及最重要的是，下一个影响叙述元素（下一个纬纱）的位置和方式在编织的金色编织带中-将来自。

第三点（关于反思）出现在参与之后，研究应用之后，捕捉到影响叙述之后，以增加其价值。大多数研究人员已经对反射天线进行了微调，其中包括“我的研究投了什么光？”，“我学到了什么？”。和“下一步是什么？” 至关重要。但是，对于冲击游戏来说，大多数新手都会被冲击工程所抛出的，意料之外的，甚至似乎是自相矛盾的，现实世界中的研究卷须的近乎盲目的丰富性所震惊。没有努力和奉献精神，它们的正交性不仅会导致这些卷须被忽略（特别是如果被研究人员经过充分思考的安全毯所遮盖），而且更糟糕的是，如果移除该毯子，则会导致超负荷和过早地倦怠。处理复杂性？'，“为什么我最喜欢的理论不适用？”，“我如何理解听众在说什么/感觉到什么？”，“我需要管理哪些政治？” 继续下去有什么风险？

从研究人员转变为冲击工程师并不容易，研究为我们准备的问题解决方案只能贡献而不是覆盖冲击工程师所面对的问题。不是每个人都可以或应该是影响工程师。很少有纯粹的研究人员需要处理这些问题。但是对于那些这样做的人，对于那些将真正的影响力编织成金辫子的人来说，未来是伟大的。