Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers 12

[PSE]

One of the most (or perhaps the most significant) tools that has been placed at the engineer is the computer. This tool has become increasingly powerful over the years. I wonder though, if this tool is making sloppy engineers out of us. With ever more intricate algorithms, the capability of the engineer to independently assess the results of an analysis I feel is decreasing. At the same time, computer simulations are bringing products to market with fewer design iterations and even fewer prototypes. I thought to float the following questions for discussion.

Are we becoming overly reliant on a device and accompanying software that uses algorithms too complex to analyze, written by individuals who may or may not have any familiarity with the underlying engineering principles? How many bugs are still within such programs that could affect results? In recent memory, I cannot think of a software program or operating system that was bug free.

I haven't marked this post but will visit it regularly (I get enough e-mails). Interested in your general thoughts.

For a humorous close, from some of "Murphy's Laws"

Undetectable errors are infinite in variety in contrast to detectable errors which by definition are limited.

If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.

There is always one more bug.

Never program and drink beer at the same time.

Regards,

 

[EddyC]

Computers amplify your sucessful designs and also your bad ones.

 

[btrueblood]

Tobalcane,

I'm not saying it's a good thing. If I could find people in the company competent to review the drawings, and if they had the time to do so, it would get done. By the way, I am a degreed engineer, not a draftsman, although I do the functions of both (plus a few other job descriptions . Drawing reviews are not a priority here, so it doesn't happen, or at least not enough in my opinion. It's the same pattern at a lot of places I've worked recently, and seems to be the company's way of "living with" staff cut-backs.

About 3 jobs back I had an opportunity to do a "clean sheet" design similar to the one BillPSU described. My approach was to pull in people from vendors, our shop and assembly people, drafters, and salepersons, to a meeting at our local tavern. Around a pitcher or two of beer, with a large butcher paper sheet, we discussed ways to fix a raft of problems the old machines had. As the end of the project approached, with the prototype machine having survived nearly 1000 hours of torture testing and the machine starting to "tool up" on the line, I was "asked to leave".

Now, several jobs later, I am doing my best to do what I always do: ask everybody their opinions of new designs in informal reviews. The result is that I'm getting a lot of heat from above for being "too slow". Never mind that so far, every product I've developed is an order of magnitude improvement in performance and reliability than its predecessor. My review comes up in a couple of months, and this subject will probably come up. At my age, I'm unlikely to find another design engineering job, and I'm not sure I'd want one anymore anyway. Wish me luck.

 

[HgTX]

Performance? Reliability? No way, man, those are long-term issues. We gotta look at the current bottom line. By the time the current POS breaks, that could very well be a different leader's problem.

But back a little closer to the original topic, I guess "timesavers" like CAD allow things to move at a speed that precludes adequate review. But those who don't figure review time into the timeline, maybe they would have figured out some other "better use" of people's time than drawing review anyway.

What I see around here is that design drawing get reviewed pretty thoroughly but the shop drawings that come back from the fabricator can't be adequately reviewed in the time allotted. So they make a bigger rubber stamp with a longer disclaimer and okay them en masse. That's not universal; I do see shop drawings with corrections marked. But the designers complain about not being given anywhere near enough time to review the shop drawings.

I fuss about it, then I remember that there are those who want my inspectors to be doing full QC rather than an audit-based QA, and there just ain't no way we have the man-hours to accomplish it.

Hg

 

[GregLocock]

Well, we had a big wake up call when California specified 100000 mile reliability for engines. We'd sort of been angling towards that as a goal, but of course every time a budget got into trouble it was easy to buy the cheap component that was 'good enough' rather than meeting our blue sky objective of 100000 miles.

Once the prices came down because everybody needed long life plugs etc, then it was surprisingly easy. Most of the groundwork had been done, it was just a case of taking a brave pill, doing all the right things, and there you are.




Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[chris9]

The Japanese take a longer-term view of building their business and reputation ensuring their product lasts much longer than their warranty. The big three auto OEM’s survive by cutting costs to the bone but concentrating on marketing their brand. It’s no mystery why the Japanese are gaining market share in the automotive sector.

 

[GregLocock]

Un huh.

In my market, as a subsidiary of the Big 3, two Japanese companies have gone down and are out, big time, and in terms of profitability... not market share ... we're doing rather well.

Focus on profitability, not market share. Any idiot can build market share. In the short term.

On the other hand the Big 3 undoubtedly have a lot to answer for. In all honesty, why do those three companies whose products have hardly ever sold outside of North America think they know how to build 'world' cars? The only reason they are still in business is via manipulation of the political process in the USA. If normal business rules had applied I'm pretty sure that all three would have been bankrupt and dispersed several times over by now. The most recent example - the DCX merger has completely destroyed the shareholder value of one or other of the two companies. Whoosh, one enormous company up in smoke in three years.


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[NickelMet]

In this day and age, we are very fortunate that we - as a society - have been able to develop and spread the use of many tools through which our jobs are made easier. The robustness of calculations today can far surpass those made just 30-years ago. BUT, without the knowledge of WHY the equations work, HOW the math operates, and WHEN to apply the fundamentals, all is naught.

One thing that scares me, as an engineer, as a father of a child just starting elementary school, and as the son of a pair of educators, is the loss of primary math and anlaysis skills. I saw a sign last year on local middle school stating "Year-end comprehension testing next week. Don't forget your calculators!". That sent literal chills down my spine. I've heard of 2nd and 3rd grade students allowed the use of calculators to do simple math. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!! And, while I attended college in the late 1980's, I had one professor become aggressively oblivious to the increased use of programmable calculators to cheat on tests where multiple equations, algorithms, and simple principles were all supposed to memorized and used!! All of these are examples that show our growing dependence upon technology in even the simplest manner.

Now, I'm not one to decry technology and it's use, but there are fundamental skills - like math and logical reasoning - that need to be taught and developed without the use of a technological crutch. Simple math skills - as well as other fundamental skills such as WRITING and READING COMPREHENSION and LANGUAGE ARTS - should never be taken for granted. These should be stressed not only at the lowest level of education but throughout our learning programs, our careers, and our lives.

So, getting back to the forum's question: Are we becoming sloppy engineers? The answer is - at least my answer is - MAYBE. Technology has helped us to succeed in wondrous areas. However, as some skills have bloomed, others have sagged. There is a trade-off - of sorts - but in reality there doesn't have to be. We can stress the use of any tool we find appropriate, whether it be a software program, a calculator, a word-smithing colleague, internet research...whatever. But, we should strive - especially as engineers - to UNDERSTAND the FUNDAMENTALS behind each and every tool we use and why we use them. Sloppiness? Professionally, we should NEVER ALLOW OURSELVES to become complacent with the world around us and that includes allowing ourselves to become so immersed in technology that we lose the BASICS and forget the PRINCIPLES.

Never let yourself become a slave to the machine. Rather, become the master of the machine. Knowledge is power.

...ah well... off my soapbox now ... <sigh!>

~NiM

 

[chris9]

Greg,

In the UK the Japanese OEM’s always top the customer satisfaction surveys. The big three cheapen the product and this enables them to retain higher profits at the expense of reliability. Hardly a good long-term business model?

 

[GregLocock]

Oh, don't worry, I agree. We either turn into Toyota or Honda (or BMW or, possibly, VW), or we will disappear. If we don't build the cars the customer wants then he won't buy them. History has proved that time and again.

The path of cheaper not better is no real solution. As one of my friends recently remarked : if you chase low cost production as #1 priority you'll buy parts from China. Eventually you'll buy all your parts from China, and realise that sending them overseas in the form of a completed car will make more sense than crating them up. Then you don't have a local manufacturing industry, or a local assembly plant.

I don't think things are quite that bleak, but that's a hard argument to counter.


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

NickelMet,

I appreciate your post as it hits on one of the keys I was trying to bring out by starting this thread. I wonder if there will be a bit of a technological "generation gap" between those of us who bridged the slide rule to calculator age and those who are coming on now from the calculator/computer age. I had a brief conversation along these lines yesterday with one of our drawing detailers. He stated to me that in his view, the mechanical engineers tended to review drawings with greater thoroughness than the EE's. By and large, the EE's compromise the more "youthful" demographic where I work. Perhaps they have better faith and confidence in the results of CAD layout of boards but judging from the number of turns we go through before a product is launched, I don't think they should.

Regards,

 

[NickelMet]

Thanks PSE for the vote of confidence.

A small story about drawing details. In the mid 80's, I was in college and worked as an intern for the Corps of Engineers doing drafting work. We had just gotten our first set of CAD machines, including a thermal printer that would print full size drawings. After several months, we were getting pretty good at turning out drawings so they started checking them. (And I mean CHECKING...text position, placement...line width..etc.) But for every correction we would make (sometimes down to the thousanths place), it seemed to not be the fix. Long and short of it, we found that the paper being used in the thermal printer would shrink or grow depending on the humidity and temperature, thus causing the measurement errors of the drawing checker. Goes to show you that you should never get too comfortable with technology!

By the way, I may be a young engineer (<40), but I had plenty of training in the "old school" methods (including slide rules and drafting t's). I think being a student in the mid 80's lended itself to that "upbringing" as we were making great strides in technology and the curriculum was doing it's best to play catch-up. I still think there are basic engineering classes that no matter the technology level, they should be required.

Another example. We were melting and casting an alloy into a new form, one which the alloy development team said should be impossible due to the nature of the alloy and the size of the casting. On the 2nd try in the manufacturing process, we were successful. However, one of the development engineers (young fellow) remained skeptical and would not believe our results, even after we reproduced them 3 more times (and improved each time). He couldn't get past the fact that the computer model he based his conclusions on was wrong! And, another part of the development team asked me how the production team decided to take certain steps (they weren't predicted by any literature or model he could find). I replied that sometimes you extrapolate from experience and forge ahead. (In other words, go with your gut.) Neither engineer could grasp that, but it sure put a grin on my face as lead production engineer (and a bigger grin on my techs and operators).

Basic fundamentals. Rote experience. Self-reliance and faith in one's knowledge and ability. Common sense. Thinking and learning outside the box. These are the building blocks of an engineer.

~NiM

 

[HgTX]

Meanwhile, wasn't there another thread elsewhere about how experience is undervalued in favor of young thangs who can be molded in their employer's image and don't require much pay?

5 years out of school and I'm the local "expert" for lack of anyone else to fill the role. I am somewhat well-credentialed but as far as I am concerned I know diddlysquat. I don't have years behind me to give my gut something to go by, and don't have any elders to turn to in my immediate surroundings. Fortunately I have a national network of "elders" I can turn to, but most people in my position wouldn't have those connections. And I can't turn to my network for every routine matter, so mostly I need to go by the book, and I'm reasonably sure I've put the book over "common" sense any number of times. I know the theory the book is based on, but don't always know when some things don't really matter in reality.

"The book" is not the same as "the computer", which is what spawned this thread, but maybe what that means is that ANYTHING that can be used to substitute for knowledge and experience, whether it's new technology, published guidelines, specifications, etc., is a double-edged sword.

Hg

 

[Tobalcane]

<<He couldn't get past the fact that the computer model he based his conclusions on was wrong!>>

Now that is an example of a sloppy engineer. Beleiveing that his computer analysis is reality is the wrong way of using today’s technology. The computer data is just “fantasy” until proven by “actual” experiment. Hard data never lies!


Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

 

[ScottyUK]

PSE,

I'm an EE and have a reputation for being a good reviewer of drawings because they always go back covered in redline for everything from questioning calculations to correcting typo's and improving the layout. The designers hate me, or so they claim in public, but they also appreciate the effort because it makes their work look good.

Many of my colleagues simply sign drawings off with no checking, because they either don't understand the potential consequences of a bad drawing making it to construction, or because they don't care. I don't like either option, but I'm not the boss so I can only grouch about it and hope he listens.



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[PSE]

ScottyUK,

Glad to see your response. Our CAD detailers occasionally used to "test" the reviewers by putting in obvious errors (recipes, balsa wood as a material for a machined part or as a board composite). Some drawings would be signed off as is. Luckily, the detailer is also part of the sign off prior to release so they could remove their "errors". Certainly helps drive home that one of the engineering "basics" is reviewing and checking work. If some of our EEs were as diligent, we might not average 6 board turns per product launch!

Regards,

 

[NickelMet]

ScottyUK: Keep it up. That sounds like a good engineer to me. Plenty of redline! Make it right the first time.

~NiM

 

[ewh]

ScottyUK,

Back when I first started on a drawing board, all of my drawings would come back full of red. Most were minor mistakes, some not so minor. I used to resent the checker for some of the things he would mark up, but he was the BEST teacher I have had when it comes to creating a proper drawing.

It is a sad state of affairs when the majority of engineering departments have done away with the drawing checker. Now we are supposed to check our own work, but it needs to be released today. I don't care how good of a drafter or designer you are, your own mistakes can be invisible until you put the drawing aside for awhile.