Investment in training for engineers 1

[Maximise]

Having just begun a fantastic new job in mechanical design, I am eager to hear from you regarding experience in career advancement with regard to internal on-the-job and external training.

My managers have expressed their support in my career progression and have asked me if there is any external training I am interested in undertaking.

I am in the process of searching for courses relvant to design engineers, though not necessarily specific to design engineering. I understand that there is so much more to learn in terms of interpersonal and management skills.

There is also the opportunity to make the most of internal training.
The in-house training I receive is very useful and constantly challenging. I have been trained to use CATIA. The company sometimes uses AutoCAD. My manager has arranged for me to undergo in-house training in AutoCAD.

In addition to mechanical design, we have a team of software engineers and electrical wiremen.

I am a firm believer in investing in yourself and want to prepare for the future as best I can.

Thank you, your advice is hugely appreciated as always

maximise

 

[IRstuff]

If you can get, get it. Training is often intermittent and even random. If they offer to train you, then get everything you can, as that will habe to tide you over in the lean times.

DO bear in mind that you are more than a CAD jockey, so look to the analysis courses in thermal, stress, vibe, etc. However, beware of getting too specialized. A capable engineer with multiple skills is higher on the totem pole than someone who can only do CAD.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[JohnRBaker]

This attitude that somehow being skilled at using CAD and in fact using it as part of your job, is somehow NOT what an engineer should look for in a job is beyond me. CAD is a tool which amplifies the skills and capability of who is using it. I'm a graduate engineer who worked 14 years doing machine design for a multinational corporation (headquartered in the UK). In 1977 my company purchased a CAD system which I used virtually everyday for the next 3 years. Perhaps my boss was a bit naive but he felt that this technology was so expensive (we paid $400,000 in 1977 dollars for a 4 seat system) that he decided to only put graduate engineers on it for the first year or so as to get the maximum benefit and to find out exactly what it was capable of (remember, this was 1977 and CAD was still very embryonic).

Now we were the type of company where an engineer was given responsibility for the design of a new machine and while he eventually might get a couple of draftsman to help when it came time to produce drawings for the shop (if the project actually went into production), but in the beginning it was usually a one-man job for the engineer which included producing all the drawings needed during the prototyping phase. And this is how we used CAD (we also fully implemented the CAM portion of the software since we had approximately 20 NC machine tools to keep busy since that's where the real money had been spent) and how we were so successful that within 3 years we had expanded to 11 seats are our site in Michigan and 15 seats in the UK, and in a good 60%-70% of the CAD time on the systems were use by engineers and lead designers.

Granted, in my case things did take a very sharp turn 30 years ago when, after using this new technology for 3 years, I had the opportunity to join the company (McDonnell Douglas Corp.) which had developed the CAD software and have been with the company (despite it being sliced, diced, bought, sold, merged, spun-off, whatever for those 30 years) ever since in various pre-sales and now product development positions, and I still use the CAD software literally every day of my life. And as for what I've observed these past 33 years of direct CAD experience, is that organizations who make sure that there best and brightest people are given access to the software that this results in both the best utilization and the most successful implementations.

Now I know that some companies, perhaps many of them, at least at one time thought of CAD as being like any other computer application where you hired dedicated 'operators' who 'entered' that data given to them by the people who were actually responsible for the tasks being done. I suspect that this might have been due to the fact that IBM was an early provider of CAD (in the form of CADAM and later Catia) and they may have taken with it a 'data processing' attitude toward who to staff the system with. I saw this first hand when in 1980, before I joined MDC, I interviewed with an aerospace company in Utah which was using CADAM but which they had never been able to get their return on their investment and so they were out looking for people who did know how to make it work. However, it didn't take more than about 20 minutes into the interview to see that they weren't actually looking for engineers would be using the software but rather someone who could help set up the process whereby the engineers could do a better job of interfacing with the 'CAD operators' so as to get more work done. While they did make me an offer, which I almost took, I'm not sure they liked my views on what I would do if I were in charge. This is, fire the 'operators' and move the workstations from the 'bull-pen' where they were segregated from the rest of the engineering staff, into the offices of the engineers themselves as well as the workspace used by the lead designers. In other words, cut out the 'middle man'.

So my advice to 'maximise' is learn all that you can, including CAD, and think of it as a tool, something to amplify your abilities and skills, and if it's something which you feel that you can become good at using to do what you and your management considers to be a job where you are contributing to the success of the company and which they recognize has having value, then go for it.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Design Solutions
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA

http://www.siemens.com/plm

http://www.plmworld.org/museum/

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[Ron]

John...I think that there is a significant difference between engineering design adjunct to manufacturing and production, as compared to engineering design as a consulting venture. In your case, you are closely allied with the production of a product. For civil and structural engineers in the private practice world, the bulk of design is done in a mathmatical fashion, manifested by easily modified standardized details and a minimal need for the engineer to actually do the drafting function. In this case, a 3x3x1/4" steel angle or No. 6 rebar or a light-duty pavement section is the same from project to project; whereas, your specially produced Widget A might not work in Project B, so you have to uniquely design Widget B to work in Project B.

 

[IRstuff]

The issue is that CAD is essentially the threshold requirement, i.e., all the MEs at my work have to know CAD, but only a couple are adept and FEA and thermal analysis. Thus, knowledge and familiarity with FEA and thermal is icing on the cake, if you're already reasonably good with the CAD part.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[csd72]

Maximise,

Try and pick training that is relevant to the work you do, you will remember it that way. You will also be more popular with management the more directly relevant the training is to your work.

 

[wecurb]

My spin, for what it is worth: get several law courses under your belt. In the US, liability issues are paramount. Engineering ethics is non-existant at the university course level, from my conversations with graduates from many different schools.

 

[KENAT]

IRstuff obviously hit Johns sore point!

CAD is a tool, do not get too invested in any individual CAD tool unless you want to go into CAD admin or CAD development roles or the like. Knowing a CAD package is one thing, which various training courses & online training and built in tutorials tend to emphasize.

Knowing what to do with the CAD package is another, rarer, thing.

That's not to say you can't sometimes land an engineering job in large part because you know the relevant CAD software - I've done it. However if you can be an advanced user of a particular CAD software + a good all round drafter + a good all round engineer... Then you're in a better position.

My official title is "CAD Engineer" - I sometimes wonder if 15-20 years ago they had 'Drafting Machine Engineers', or 'Pencil Engineers' or even 'Electric Eraser Engineers'.

Obviously I jest but hopefully you see my point.

Something I'd suggest, if you're serious about being a design engineer, is to look into the skills required for communicating that design beyond just knowing the relevant 'CAD Package'. Do you know how to generally lay out a good drawing? (if not already MBD) Do you understand how to tolerance stuff to suit both function and manufacturing? Are you familiar with the 'language' of drawings?

I'd strongly suggest coming up to speed on GD&T and other drawing standards type stuff if you're going to be doing this seriously. Why not take it as far as getting accredited GDTP or even better GDTPs?

Of course, some will view this as drafters/designers role. However, to my mind, if you're going to be creating drawings, you should do it right, not half ass it because it's 'below you'. If it's 'below you' quit and go work somewhere else - I'm sick of seeing crap drawings from degreed engineers who think it's below them to learn to do it properly.

IRstuffs point is valid though. Even if it's inappropriate, as John would have us believe, that attitude does exist and may influence hiring and firing decisions etc.

I've not spent as much time on more analytical stuff as may have been best for my career, despite some attempts to do so. Don't make the same mistake. Try do be seen as an engineer that does their own CAD - not a CAD monkey with a bachelors in Engineering.

Even on the analysis, learn how to do the analysis, not just how to use the analysis software. For example, for many structural situations you can (even should) validate your FEA with at least order of magnitude hand calcs. Learn how to properly apply constraints and other boundary conditions etc. Don't just bring your cad model into the FEA package and click the 'start analysis button'.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Mr168]

My company has this belief that there is no engineering age gap, and that there will always be this plethora of semi-retired engineers just chomping at the bit to work for them. Accordingly, the most training we receive is the annual "ethics compliance quiz".

HR/upper management doesn't do too much to foster loyalty here.