design thinking training 4

[subsearobot]

Hi all!
My employer is urging me to train in Design Thinking. I am a skilled ME, and I greatly prefer to work in technical areas. The employer has urged me to move into a (project) management track- to which I have declined several times.

but they keep offering me non-technical training. now, it's design thinking.

I am an innovator, a creator, and I am very good at it. I *need* to make stuff- I am one of those obsessed engineers that makes stuff all weekend long in my personal fab-lab. I am terrible with project schedules, and quite frankly, I am at my job to increase my technical experience and skill level. I have been engineering for about 15 years. I've also worked in manual labor, on ships, and even in public service in previous careers. I am good with people, and relatively charismatic. I say this because it seems Design Thinking may utilize these soft skills.

So the ask:
have you used design thinking? Do you know any engineers that have done it?
does DT feel like engineering? what are your thoughts?

thanks!

 

[D Scullion]

Advocates of Design Thinking will probably argue with me here, claiming it to be so much more but in my opinion Design Thinking is just product design wrapped up in a fancy title with numbered stages so experts can sell a unique, nicely packaged 'information product'. Don't get me wrong, there is value in its process and some golden nuggets in there but it is the same design method that successful designers have been using for centuries, DT just defines it in particular stages with nice labels.

So should you go on the training.. yes. Firstly if an employer is offering you training, take it, you are luckier than most. Secondly, considering the way you describe yourself "I am an innovator, a creator, and I am very good at it. I *need* to make stuff . . . I am terrible with project schedules . . . I am at my job to increase my technical experience and skill level" and the fact that you even need to ask about going on training like this gives me the impression, I'm afraid, that you are a little naive about the industry. Companies design products to make money, to do this they need to sell product which means the product must satisfy customers wants and needs, and they need to make profit on each product which means it must be designed to a budget and timescale, using viable materials and manufacturing processes. That is a very simplistic description but in comparison to these requirements, the technical role you are describing focuses just on making the product work, just one of many customer needs. Not just project managers but great product designers need to be on top of all of these requirements and that is where training on topics like Design Thinking are very relevant.

If you want to stay in technical roles rather than go into project management that is entirely your decision and I wouldn't try to sway you one way or another but I would say that technical expertise is replaceable, technical expertise that understands the market conditions, the customer, what they desire and how they will use the product, the financial viability, the competition and the availability of resources required to bring a product to market will be very very valuable to any company.

To learn more about DT, check out Rob Curedale on LinkedIn, he is a Design Thinking expert with several active LinkedIn groups



Declan Scullion CEng

http://www.leandfm.com

 

[truckandbus]

I agree with D Scullion - take advantage of whatever training and certifications you can get as you never know when your situation will change and you may need those certs to set you apart from other candidates. In practice in your current position you can take from the training what works for you currently and set the rest aside for future reference.

Just confirm with your boss that you are taking the training to increase your knowledge but that you still are not interested in project management

 

[IRstuff]

What I see of Design Thinking, at least at flowchart level, seems to be more of a systems engineering framework, rather than a specific tool that can help expand the design space, per se. I think a conventional Systems Engineering cert might be more useful and recognizable.

Something similar, but different, is TRIZ

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newCT_92.htm,

which is one person's codification of all the possible ways people have been solving problems, as exemplified by the thousands of resultant patents that he examined. While most design engineers apply portions of TRIZ, due to their own design experience, TRIZ encompasses all known possible means of solving physical problems. While there's obviously lots of salesmanship about the subject, the basic takeaway is that TRIZ provides a complete checklist of possible approaches to any problem.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[CWB1]

Engineers tend to groan at taking any process related training but I always highly encourage it. If nothing else, it allows you to understand and speak to project management concerns using the appropriate jargon. In many cases however it can also be very beneficial. I have oft pointed to lean/agile/6-sig/scrum/etc teachings and statistics to keep teams on a fact-based, efficient path toward project completion. Engineers very commonly do not know when to put the mechanical pencil down and stop designing, when to call a part or product "good enough." We also tend to wear many hats which makes remaining focused on working one task at a time through to completion very difficult. Learning new methods to set goals, effectively block out distractions, prioritize tasks, etc is well worth a week or three of training IMHO.

 

[ctopher]

To me, I think early on in engineering schooling, actual hands on in any type of shop, building, mfg, milling, etc, is a great place to start learning design training. I have worked with too many engineers that can't design a part because they don't have that thought process how parts are built or go together because they never experienced it first hand.
To teach it later in their career may help some, but but not others. The ones that can't design...some end up Engineering Directors. ;-)
Design Thinking isn't for everyone.


Chris, CSWP
SolidWorks '17
ctophers home
SolidWorks Legion

 

[subsearobot]

Thanks all! I have always agreed with the sentiments of taking any training offered, and to never forget that I am expendable. (and also remembering- life's too short and there are plenty of jobs out there)

I am trying to balance those sentiments with the concept that as an expert, I need to pick and choose the use of my time wisely. I did not go to business school for a reason- I like engineering. DT feels like a marketing activity to me, but I want to see if my understanding is misguided.

this question goes a little deeper- we have a new engineering director. since he has come on staff, he has asked the engineers to do all sorts of non-engineering activities like: outsource all the engineering so we can have time to innovate (it's been 9 months, and no layoffs yet. not even the weakest members of the crew). & get DT training. innovation is fun in principle, but paper innovation over the internet is not my goal for a career. I am assessing if it may be time to move on, and DT analysis is part of that assessment. I am wondering if DT would have appeal to a hardcore technical engineer like myself. is there something there that will appeal to the side of my brain that likes to design mechanisms?

I have several friends that, years ago, took engineering jobs out of their area of interest . their careers are still derailed. I like what I do, I like the skills that I am continually gaining, and the experiences that I am afforded, I like the people that I work with. But, I work to engineer. not to make money. I work to become a better engineer.



thanks again

 

[GregLocock]

I think the thing that put me off TRIZ was the book I had on it called "And Then the Inventor Appears". Which pretty much summed up every anecdote in the book! I've had dealings with two inventors, one was a brilliant salesman, the other, to be fair, ran a successful business and used it to fund someone's PhD, but they were solving a non-problem.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[D Scullion]

Subsearobot, typically at what stage of maturity is a project at when you receive it and when you pass it on to the next stage? for example are you being told "here is a problem, solve it" or "design this widget, here is the spec" or "here is our final concept, make it work" and do you pass on to manufacturing engineers or straight into manufacture/implementation?

I have been involved in projects where I have been told "we need one of these widgets in our product range, copy what is on the market and fix any obvious problems" - basically starting with an existing design, learning about the technology involved, adding a little bit of my own expertise to it and getting it made. I felt a lot of satisfaction getting the finished product out the door.

I have also been involved in projects where I have been told "we want to enter this market, create the right product". That project involved visiting potential dealers and customers (council utilities, golf courses, estates, farms), travelling to trade shows and posing as potential customers to learn about the competition, finding market experts, identifying relevant new technologies and finding experts in them . . and that was all before I even drew up a project spec. The innovation didn't come from sitting at a computer, it came from mocking up concepts, reviewing concepts with customers, bringing together a multi-department team to brainstorm and a lot of learning. As the design came together I was travelling to potential suppliers, getting tours of their factories and taken out on the town. I was even running a couple of sub-projects with universities. In the detailed development I was able to get my hands dirty with a lot of new technology. As Chris will be glad to hear, the companies attitude was that all engineers should build their own prototypes. I ran all the testing, and brought final prototypes to potential customers for trials and reviews and followed the whole process through until production was up and running and all problems resolved. I was brought to trade shows we were displaying at to provide technical sales support and I had to deal with any customer or warranty issues that arose.

I would say that much less than half of that project was spent at a computer. I didn't necessarily enjoy every step in that process, but I had some great experiences, learned so much and massively developed my network (including 2 job offers). But the fulfilment and satisfaction of seeing that product in the hands of the customer is second to none, even now over 10 years later when I see one still being used I get a swell of pride. It was because I owned that product, literally like a child from conception until it could go off into the world on its own.

You are obviously right to steer your career in the way you want but don't be scared to try out new things first before steering away from them. I detailed all of the above so you can see that the soft or fuzzy stuff at the front end of projects isn't all sitting in front of a computer and that it is not only possible to be involved in all that and still be able to get stuck into the technical design but it is in fact even more fulfilling.


Declan Scullion CEng

http://www.leandfm.com

 

[CWB1]

DT feels like a marketing activity to me, but I want to see if my understanding is misguided.

If you trace process history back through time you'll find that all of these methodologies originated as a means of improving production quality, and that along with quality improvements it was found that they also led to efficiency improvements as well. Their usefulness to other depts has been well proven in decades since, so try not to think of these as marketing, engineering, etc specific. If you're an overly organized person you will likely find a lot of the material taught to be common sense, repetitive, and possibly even silly but as mentioned above there will likely be some nuggets worth taking for your own use. The larger takeaway for me personally is simply the jargon and tools which can be very useful helping keep teams organized. I'm an overly organized person myself, a bit OCD actually, but ultimately its the team's results management cares about not mine specifically.

 

[ProEpro]

While I do not know anything about the course you are offered or the system they are selling I have always enjoyed the innovation session with Industrial Designers. They have all used various forms of design thinking. The process of exploring the problem and the potential solutions can be challenge. They think differently than engineers and look more at the emotional side of the problems and solutions. However, they also take that approach to the process and try to make it fun.

With your experience the course will likely reinforce the best practices of what you already do. However, to quote a wise friend "It isn't scripture. The entire thing will not be useful but enjoy the meat and spit out the bones." If you and your coworkers come out of the course and feel it was a waste of time you have at least proven you existing process work and have probably figured out how to explain that to the new director.

Try to take this as part of your design to grow as an engineer. I like your attitude and while it hasn't paid off financially I have the same attitude to my career. I had the same feelings as you but I took some project management training and found it to be a useful tool. I would not to want to make it the focus of my job but it allows me to see the critical path of what really has to be done (and stay off it .