Limiting a job search based on CAD preference 2

[MintJulep]

In a recent thread, thread731-68323, a forum participant indicated that he was looking for a new job as a mechanical designer using SolidWorks.

This got me wondering. Is it wise to limit your job search to only potential employeers that share your preference in CAD package?

The primary marketable skill you have it the ability to produce a design that works. A secondary skill is knowledge of solid modeling techniques. A tertiary skill is specific knowledge about a particular tool. The modeling techniques are easily transferable to any of the popular CAD platforms.

Imagine an auto mechanic limiting his job search by tool. "I want to work as a mechanic, but only at a shop that uses 12 point sockets, not 6 point sockets." Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? (Well that's because this is an example of "reduction ad absurdium&quot.

Anyway, what do job seakers and employers out there think?

 

[TheTick]

It makes sense to a degree. I don't hink one should limit oneself solely on CAD packages, but it happens. This is especially true with non-degreed designers in the automotive field.

Last time around job hunting, I drew the line at working in parametric 3D, and not regressing to AutoCAD 2D design. I had experience with UG and Pro/E, and was able to convince my employer that I could learn SolidWorks on the fly (I actually had already started with the demo version at home).

All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted.

 

[FrenchCAD]

Well, I tend to agree that we should NOT reduce our research to a specific software. I'm currently looking for a job as mechanical engineer, I know Pro/E and SW quite well and also know some basics with AutoCAD (I hate this one ;-) ) But in my search for a job, I also look for Catia-based companies. We never know, they can offer a formation to the soft if your profile is one they're looking for.

Just my 2 cents

Cyril Guichard
Mechanical Engineer

 

[ctopher]

To do a major change and move a family to another state, I would limit my CAD pkg to parametric 3D. Why take a job using AutoCAD and be miserable? If I were laid off and was desperate, I would take it temperarily until I found the job I was looking for.

 

[buzzp]

I would not limit the search at all. With most software, if you know one real good then the others can USUALLY be picked up in a decent time frame. I have also seen HR people write an ad and identify the wrong software. CAD is CAD to them, it does not matter if its AutoCAD, ProE, Solidworks or whatever. You can always tell them no but you can never tell them yes if you eliminate it up front. Personal preference.

 

[ctopher]

Your right, Buzzp...I agree
thanks

 

[corus]

Unfortunately many employers will limit applicants to a particular software as businesses tend to have a short term view and would prefer not to train someone, even though that training would be minimal if they were already familiar with similar packages. No doubt this is because of a large surplus of labour from which they can choose from. I've even had employers ask which version of a package I was familiar with, as if that would be a problem.
To increase your chances of finding work try and and avoid Human Resource people and Recruitment Agents, the leeches of society, who are less likely to be aware of technology skills.

 

[TheTick]

re: excerpt from MintJulep's original post:
Imagine an auto mechanic limiting his job search by tool. "I want to work as a mechanic, but only at a shop that uses 12 point sockets, not 6 point sockets."

I have refused jobs based on CAD packages available. This was not because the particular package was not to my liking, but because it was more like: "We'll give you a pliers because we don't have wrenches and socket sets."

It's not that I am unwilling to learn new CAD packages. Sometimes, a companies software selection speaks volumes about its willingness to get the right tool for the job.

All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted.

 

[ctopher]

My thoughts are with Tick.
I feel if a company doesn't use a good CAD pkg, what does that tell me about the rest of the company? I feel comfortable limiting myself, and I have the patients. I have used AutoCAD for several years and now use SolidWorks. Moving to a job that only uses ACAD will be a big step backwards in my opinion, so why make the move?

 

[Binary]

A company that chooses to use only ACAD for mechanical design is intentionally choosing to operate inefficiently. They're doing so for one of two reasons:

1) They're so borderline that they don't have any cash available to invest in the business, or

2) The decision-makers do not understand that increased efficiency conferred by the state-of-the-art software.

I would not choose a job there unless no other choices were available.

It's also a matter of you continuing to be competetive. By working for a place using old technology you are falling behind all the folks who are mastering the new technology.

It's also very frustrating to have to use AutoCAD after having used paramtric modelers.

ctopher said "Why take a job using AutoCAD and be miserable? If I were laid off and was desperate, I would take it temperarily until I found the job I was looking for." - Amen brother/sister. That's me to a tee and it really sucks. Talk about seeing your career going down the toilet.

 

[Binary]

My situation is that the boss won't even pay for AutoCAD so he's that much less likely to pay for SW, etc.

I've been considering trying to talk him into splitting with me the cost of a seat of SW, provided I own the license. It's a pretty chunk of change, though.

 

[ctopher]

Good luck Binary.
Maybe let him read some of these forums?
You have to spend money to make money...
I hope it works out for you.
ctopher

 

[buzzp]

I would never buy software for a company. Instead, I would look for a different job. If you do buy it, get some legal document that says you own the license.
My last place of employment was kind enough to let me lay out a PCB using a demo program that expired in 30 days. I told them they need to buy it. To no avail. As far as I know, they are still spending about 1.5hrs per board to place the Kluges on the board from the first proto-type board. Morons I tell ya, Morons.

 

[TheTick]

I had interviewed for a position as an engineering manager in a division that used AutoCAD exclusively. I had mentioned that finding well-qualified designers willing to work on AutoCAD would be a challenge.I stated that I believed that in the mechanical design field, most competent designers are not going to stay working in a 2D environment for long when there are 3D opportunities available. That brought the interview to a sudden halt.

I happened to meet the man who was hired for that position (I met him at a SolidWorks rollout at our VAR). He spent a lot of time an energy trying to bring 3D modeling to his department. He said there were too many problems that couldn't be overcome with their current software situation, including hiring and retaining competent people. Ultimately, he quit.

All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted.

 

[PSE]

Unfortunately some companies feel that they have too much legacy data to make a transition. If you talk with a company that uses 2D software, take a look at the product. Perhaps it is simple enough that 2D suffices. If not and they are not considering changing to 3D, they are likely going to start losing business. Those major players in the 3D CAD arena are adding or improving FEA capabilities, the next step in their evolution.

To MintJulep's original start to this thread, CAD is only a tool but it is a VERY POWERFUL tool. It has a significant impact on a companies ability to compete in the marketplace (and hence provide employment opportunities).

Regards

 

[oldluddite]

Seems to me that you have to make up your mind whether you are a CAD operator, or a designer, and whether its the product that you are interested in, or just making models and drawings.

Many years ago when I ran a large Design department, I aquired the name 'Changeit'. That was because when I acquired the department it had a large complement of people whose only concern seemed to be the appearance and 'integrity' of their conformance of their pretty drawings to (BS308 at the time) standards. They didn't like changing things, and were too focussed on presentation.

It did not seem to matter that the products were difficult and expensive to manufacture, that they did not work well and were out of step with what customers wanted. Re-educating some and removing the remainder of these Prima Donnas proved to be the salvation of the business, and changing designs for the better meant a bigger order book, better profits and personal rewards for everybody.

If you want maximum satisfaction from your work as a designer, its the product you should get it from, not the tools.

"Putting Automation into CAD ©"

 

[TheTick]

oldluddite:

I worked with someone like you, once. I enjoyed it immensely.

All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted.

 

[FrenchCAD]

"Seems to me that you have to make up your mind whether you are a CAD operator, or a designer, and whether its the product that you are interested in, or just making models and drawings."

totally agreed there

Cyril Guichard
Mechanical Engineer

 

[ctopher]

FYI,
I agree oldluddite,
But myself, I create dwgs per specs/stds and I will change the dwg as many times as possible to make sure the part is machined effeciantly. When the part is designed, we run it thru COSMOS, send a mockup to the customer for check, then send it to the machine shop. With AutoCAD, and can't do this as easily as SolidWorks or Pro-E. This is not only enjoyable, but is the future in design/mfg. In my opinion, any company not in step with this process is doomed. This is why my job search is limited.
Sorry, just my thoughts.

 

[TheTick]

Just because I hate not knowing what words like this mean...

Lud•dite

a member of any of various bands of workers in England (1811–16) organized to destroy manufacturing machinery, under the belief that its use diminished employment.

All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted.