EPC vs OEM = Superficial Engineering vs Real Engineering? 15

[romulus2009]

The thread title says it all really,

But let me expand on what I mean just for a second.

Going from a highly specialized graduate level degree in engineering to an EPC company in the Oil and Gas industry, I get the very distinct feeling that the work I do right now is a sort of superficial or "fake" engineering. Although my work is referred to as "engineering", I feel that it comprises mostly about knowing things rather than DOING things. In this business it seems all that you have to do is know everything there is to know about whatever equipment you are responsible for. Why? Because the OEMs /Vendors are the ones doing all the "real" engineering utilizing all the CFD, FEA, CAD, non-linear partial differential equations solving tools while at an EPC level it seems that NPSHA = Hsurface + Hstatic - Hloss - Hvap is as complicated as it gets.

Also, I feel that because of this, an engineer doing hard core engineering in an OEM has an advantage, and is able to move to an EPC and actually be a real asset, while the only real benefit an EPC guy can be to an OEM if they went the other way would be mostly in management more than engineering.

Am I the only one that has this feeling? Do you get OEM jobs that are a lot less technical as well?

The main advantage I see of EPC engineering jobs is that you get decent variety in the type of activities, you obtain a wider breath of knowledge and you obtain good management and interpersonal skills all the cost of forgetting your engineering basics and fundamentals and not ever truly getting that real understanding of engineering concepts that comes only when you dig into the hard core theory.

It's a lot more practical knowledge vs true/detailed understanding.

Curious to know your thoughts on this.

Romulus

 

[rbulsara]

All I can say is no one pays for "superficial" expertize. To be a successful EPC you do need to know something other than just match crunching prowess. That may be practical knowledge, experience, cost estimating, construction methods..etc. There is nothing superficial about it.

I am not sure what your point is. If you do not like EPC work, you can do not have to do it and vice versa. Satisfaction comes from being part of a success be it a design, research or construction. And above all, ultimately every one has a family to feed, so whoever pays more for one's expertize, that is where they work.

 

[rbulsara]

For the record I do not work for any EPC.

 

[GregLocock]

I don't know your terminology, are EPC firms system integrators, and the OEMs design the subsystems?

I think your problem may be that you don't have the experience to be a systems engineer - in my opinion it is the sort of job where you need 15 years experience, at least some of that in that same industry. That is I've always regarded systems engineering as a career goal rather than a starting point. Sadly it is usually done badly, but when it is done well by a team who knows what they are up to it is good fun, and satisfying.




Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[IRstuff]

There's a story about a famous Chinese master named Zhang Dah Chien, whose paintings, at the time, cost upwards of $10k. In a public demonstration, he took up his brush, prepped, and completed a painting in about a minute.

The buyer was taken aback, and wanted to know why he was paying $600k per hour for the master's time. "Ah," he said, "You're not paying for this current time, but for the decades it took me to get to this point."

So, knowing all there is to know about some thing is worth something...

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[MikeHalloran]

The thread title says nothing, really, because you failed to define the acronyms you used. That is a serious failure to communicate, especially so in dealing with a global audience, as is usually necessary in the "Engineering, Procurement and Construction" business.

It would be no less serious a failing in an "Original Equipment Manufacturer" business, where you might be, e.g., designing, say, centrifugal pumps from first principles down to the last nut and coat of paint.

Whereas in EPC you don't generally engineer the pumps or other components; you got trouble enough just figuring out which type and size to buy and ensuring that they'll interact in a desired way.

An EPC engineer might also find amusing work predicting how the components interact in undesired ways, e.g. system stability problems, how the survivors interact when some components fail, or how to minimize losses of all kinds in disastrous circumstance, e.g. fire.

If you think EPC engineering is "superficial" or "not real" or "easy", consider the possibility that you may not be doing it right.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[Pmatherne]

I think IRStuff's story hits the nail on the head, sort of.
Recently I graduated also, I remember one of my teachers explaining the difference between the engineering you learn in school and the way it is mostly done in the real world.
Basically there are 3 types of engineers: consultants, researchers, and field.
If you want to develop new items that have never been seen before, like a new high speed pump. A research engineer would be doing that.
If you want to build something that has something already existing you would be a consultant. You will look at what has been done or the codes that govern that type of project and follow them. The people who are paying you are not going to want you to reinvent the wheel they expect you to take a wheel that you know works for the particular situation and use it.
The field engineers are kind of a mix of both. They might not know all the codes or all the performance characteristics of a pump, but they can tell if it is working correctly in the field. You can almost say the other two engineers work for the field engineer since he/she is the final customer

Even though I am also a recent graduate also, when I look back of all the engineering classes I took, only a few of classes even pertain to my field of choice (HVAC)

 

[romulus2009]

Mike,

I was looking for people who knew exactly what EPC and OEM meant for this discussion, that's why I did not bother defining them. But your definitions are correct.

Also, for the record, I'm not putting down EPC jobs. Heck, I'm in one, and I actually do love my job. By using the term "superficial" I did not intend it to be demeaning. After all I'd also be demeaning myself, and I value the work I do, and I think IRStuff's story is a good one that applies to this type of job.

Greg, you are correct. EPCs are companies that do the engineering on a system-wide level for complex systems such as Aircraft manufacturers or Refinery manufacturers. In both cases the company does not design all the components from the ground up, but rather builds sub-systems and equipment that is already been engineered by other companies. For example, for the new Boeing 787, Boeing engineers do not design the engines. Those will be designed and engineered by Pratt & Whitney, General Electric or Rolls-Royce and the engine will then be integrated by the Boeing engineers with assistance and consultation from the engine manufacturers. Same with a refinery, the actual engineers to design and develop the equipment is done by a million different companies and sub-companies. This chain can be of several levels, and at each level you refer to the higher level as the client and to the lower level as your vendor or supplier. For example, pump requirements are specified by an oil producer, selected by an EPC, designed and build by a OEM, who in turn asks a Mechanical Seal manufacturer to design and build the mechanical seal, and who knows perhaps the mechanical seal manufacturer might obtain the pressure vessels from another sub-vendor or a division of the company that specializes in pressure vessels.


In every case, the more at the bottom of this chain you are, the more specialized you are and have a narrower field of expertise but at the highest levels of depth.

On the other hand, the higher you are in this chain, the broader your field of expertise and the less specialized.

An EPC engineer cant possibly compete in level of expertise on say compressor impellers as someone who's been designing them for all his life. However, that EPC engineer will have a higher level of expertise on say Mechanical Seals, Instrumentation, Control systems, materials, arrangement, HAZOP, process, codes and standards, applications, maintenance etc not only of pumps, but also compressors, blowers, fans, and perhaps many other types of equipment.

So it's a classic trade of high level narrow knowledge or lesser level broad knowledge.

This applies also to engineers who move to management and become Project Engineers, Technical/Engineering Managers etc.

And btw, you dont need 15 years of experience to become an EPC engineer. EPC companies regularly hire even new grads into such positions. You wont be technically responsible 50 million dollars worth of purchase orders right off the bat, you'll be given smaller tasks and responsibility, and they'll build you up and teach you the job, or rather, you'll most likely have to teach yourself and learn over many years of experience, and you'll be given more responsibility as you become more knowledgeable, skilled, productive, reliable and start having a proven record of succcess.

Romulus

 

[truckandbus]

The job of the integrator may be more difficult than the oem if the oem is not clear on the application or if they are not willing to adjust their 'standard' product to meet the application. As the integrator you need to argue on a technical level with the oem as well as use interpersonal skills to convince them to provide the product needed

 

[ScottyUK]

"...or if they are not willing to adjust their 'standard' product to meet the application", i.e. you are dealing with GE.

Mike Halloran's post is pretty accurate in my opinion.


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

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

 

[MechEng2005]

It all depends on the company and position. I work for an OEM, and often I look at our "standard" product and things we have made in the past. Then, I go through and pick the parts that can be used without modification, mark-up similiar parts that need to be tweaked for the current application, and (rarely) design something with a completely new concept. Is this really that different from an EPC? Most of my work consists of evaluating parts/subassemblies and fitting them together.

Obviously, different companies and positions will vary. Maybe at ABC Company, there are OEM engineers that would more accurately fit the description of an EPC, or vice-versa.

-- MechEng2005

 

[JLSeagull]

Perhaps you design a product as an OEM engineer; compared to designing a plant as an EPC engineer. I worked briefly for a manufacturer, some with an operating company and mostly with a contractor designing plants. It is mostly the same.

I sometimes call myself a catalog engineer. We don't design stuff if we can buy it. University students would be shocked at the small percentage of time calculating something. Even when doing calculations it is normally via a spreadsheet; otherwise a canned software application.

Whether real or superficial -- with a BS degree, few years in a plant and thirty something more years with EPC contractors later I still get decent paychecks for whatever this engineering work is called -- and I enjoy the work.

 

[melone]

romulus2009, you sure seem to know how the real world works already, so why waste your time asking for advice from a bunch of old-curmudegons that don't seem to understand? It sounds like you've already made you decision that only OEM's are real engineers, and systems folks couldn't hold a candle to the OEM folks. Just don't forget, that OEM's have to design parts to work in systems that are defined by "EPC" folks.

You mentioned that "EPC" companies hire fresh-outs, and give them smaller jobs in order to gain experience before being given the 50 million dollar systems. You are absolutely right! But do you think that the OEM's are going to give the snot-nosed punk right out of school the 50 million dollar project? Fresh-outs can't possibly have the experience to understand how their parts will be used in the final application (and more importantly how it can / will be used by other applications)?

Being able to push the buttons and make a computer program draw pretty pictures, heck even chugging through the complex equations that can sometimes go along with "real engineering" does not a good part make. All of those things are just tools to help design. Tools in the hands of a master craftsman allow for great things, but tools in the hands of someone inexperienced usually results in garbage (with lots of calculations to "prove" that is should work, even though in reality, it has serious design flaws).

 

[romulus2009]

Melone,

I have a feeling people are taking the title of this thread as an insult to companies that use other companies' products as parts of their own more complex products. In fact, I wish I could edit the title, I'd change it to something like "Technical vs Managerial Engineering" or simply leave it at OEM Engineering, because the actual term OEM now signifies the opposite of what it was originally intended to be. OEM was originally referred to those companies who produced the parts utilized by other companies. Nowadays, OEMs refer to the opposite. So for example, originally, GE Aircraft Engines would have been the OEM supplying engines to Boeing. Now, Boeing is the OEM that uses GE engines.

Either way, as I've said earlier, I'm not demeaning anyone, or I'd be demeaning my own job, which I love right now. And I dont presume to know everything, or I'd not be even posting here.

I simply wanted to discuss this topic and learn other people's view.

This topic is somewhat related I believe to the topic of some engineering jobs being more "managerial" in nature, while others are more "technical". That's because I feel an EPC Engineer's job is a lot more managerial in nature I feel.

And yes, I understand System Integrators/Engineers are real engineers too. But basically it depends on how you define engineering. I tend to consider something "more technical" or more "engineering-like" if it involves technical matters. The more complex the technical subject, the more in-depth you delve into it, the more "hands-on" your work, to me, that's more of a engineering job. A job that involves solving complex formulas, heavy programming and mathematics, heavy science and heavy problem solving and new design.

I'm not saying this type of engineer is "better" than any other, which is why I'm regretting the use of the words real and superficial in the thread title. Should have been in-depth vs superficial perhaps.

Because when someone has to say, select a component that is designed by others, you dont actually have to have ever touched CFD, or CAD, or have solved any partial differential equations etc to be able to make a good product selection that works well. Yes, you have to understand it in detail and know how it behaves with other components of the system, but in some cases that interaction is quite simple, and a lot of it can come from pure knowledge and experience, not actual number crunching.

Perhaps I'm bad at expressing myself sometimes. This might be one of those times lol.

In the end, I feel that if someone goes from an OEM job to an EPC job, it's easier, and an OEM engineer would be very marketable. However, I doubt an EPC Engineer would be able to work at an OEM in an analysis position unless they had previous analysis experience in an OEM or remember what they learned at school.

Then again, does the guy who stares at a PC all day long and solves Navier Stokes equations for a living know what a BTTFM API 682 Plan 23/52 Seal or even what a P&ID is?

I guess they are just different fields of knowledge. Some require more math than others, some require more analytical thinking than others.

But something tells me the Navier-stokes guy is always going to be the "real" engineer, even if at the end, the EPC Engineer is like 12 steps above him in the food chain and the fate of the navier-stokes guy is in the hands, very indirectly, but surely, of the EPC Engineer.

Again, I'm not bashing anyone. All engineers are essential at all levels and in all fields. I'm just trying to compare and contrast them purely out of curiosity.

Romulus

 

[KirbyWan]

Romulus,

I think that very few engineers are really solving complex differential equations to come up with a new design. A few must of course, but to take a compressor pump as an example, once a 'real' engineer comes up with a good design for a compressor vane, the next engineer in the design line (like an assembly line just for design) comes up with a rotor that uses a bunch of those vanes on a hub. The next decides how many hubs and stators are needed to get the pressure from the design inlet pressure to the design outlet pressure. The next engineer figures that the compressor will need bearings and an enclosure and a base and inlet and outlet ports and a drive shaft.

As the design goes along the mathematical determinism goes down while the experiential knowledge requirements of the engineer go up. Often those rules of thumb and guidelines from experience are not because the math behind them is simple, but because there are so many variables that a matematical rule is impossible or not worth the gain you would get from spending time on a solution.

I myself have that internal feeling that Engineering should be more mathematical. In my own job I rarely do anything more complex then a simple stess analysis. I love the mathematics, but the vast majority of engineering is not. It's understanding the effects of system behaviour which is generally not mathematical. And second to understanding system behaviour is communication. After those two things the mathematics is a distant third in importance. Quite frankly that compressor company might not even bother understanding the math behind desinging the compressor vanes. They may just look around for an effective airfoil that works in a specific regime, run a few tests to see if it is effective in the real world and move on to the next step.

If engineering is building up on previously learned kernels of knowledge, those existing kernels have been solved. The mathematics comes from creating a new kernel which is rare. The rest is taking tose extant kernels and creating something new which is a much more creative process then solving an equation, as fun as the math might be.

Well that's my $.02. I enjoy the discussion and while I agree the title was a bit off (I didn't know what EPC was myself) I wasn't offended. In fact I understand the perspective, I just think it's an over simplified view.

-Kirby

Kirby Wilkerson

Remember, first define the problem, then solve it.

 

[Neubaten]

Solving Navier-Stokes equations can be far easier and far more mechanical than leading a team or adapting a process to fulfil the requirements of a standard spec.

Seems to me you are confusing an engineer with a physicist or a mathematician.

Which are fundamental and essential parts of engineering, sure, just as biology is a essential part of medicine.

And I'm pretty sure you won't consider a biologist the best kind of doctor.

 

[romulus2009]

Great post Kirby. I gave you a star for it.

As the design goes along the mathematical determinism goes down while the experiential knowledge requirements of the engineer go up.

Well said, I agree.

Knowledge and experience go a long way and for most engineering it's all you need. I call them "engineering jewels". All those little bits and pieces of fact that, if you know enough of, can help you gain really great understanding of things.

Things like, lower molecular weight at the inlet of a constant speed centrifugal compressor results in lower discharge pressure. Or, beyond a certain cone angle and Mach number, a bow shock is formed during spacecraft reentry and the lower the ballistic coefficent of the object, the less thermal protection system you need. Or, overhung compressors or pumps are not desirable at high flowrates and pressures (high nozzle loads) to avoid shaft mis-alignment. Dont use a top-side rectangular pipe restriction in cooling tower water service to avoid the formation of air pockets and air-entrainment that could cause flow restrictions and/or noise in the pump etc.

These are the type of engineering knowledge bits that are needed on a day to day basis by most engineers. But to truly understand these things, I think you'd have to delve into the math.

Mathematics and formulas always help the understanding of engineering principles better than just words or thought-experiments like Einstein used to do (he backed them up with lots of math).

Romulus

 

[Pulpeng]

Romulus,

Reading your post makes me laugh. I pondered the same question when I graduated and started in an EPC'ish role. I wondered if I was doing "real" engineering. In the end I came to the conclusion I am good at what I do even if it's a broader scope.

An OEM engineer could run circles around me on a particular set of equations or equipment. I could do the same to one of them on codes, budgeting, overall concept designs, installation hiccups, scheduling etc..etc..

I would also hazard a guess (just for fun) that as an OEM engineer there wasn't a lot of people interaction which can be a significant role for the EPC / project engineer. A project will fail from the start if you can't get input and buy-in and sell and or listen to ideas. I'm just guessing this for how you approached this post.

I would suggest that each of us is doing engineering with varying degrees of scope but to do any engineering job well takes the right individual, training and experience. You may be one that can and wants to transition between the two and good for you for expanding your horizons. I would suggest in the EPC's world a little more practice on dealing with people & conflicts.

Good luck.

 

[thruthefence]

IRstuff,A great story;
In the same vein, Picasso use to sketch out little drawings to pay for dinner, or a bottle of wine. These days, they are worth 10's of thousands of dollars.

 

[Christine74]

Generally speaking, if a person with only OEM experience were to submit a resume to an EPC, he would quickly be called in for an interview and quite likely be hired.

On the other hand, if a person with only EPC experience were to submit a resume to and OEM, it would most likely be thrown in the garbage immediately.

Make of that what you will.

-Christine