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?

 

[ctopher]

Interesting Tick.
I use to be an Automation Engineer. Whenever the union machinist saw use automating a machine or process, they were furious thinking we were putting them out of a job.
Until they started using the newly automated machine...now just setting it up and pushing 'go', sit down and read a book. Funny how updated the tools can make an employee worry at first, then happy in the end.

 

[brad]

Regarding MintJulep's original post--it's not wise to limit your search to a particular CAD package, but I have seen that many employers (at least in automotive) limit their search to people with those skills.

A case in point in Detroit--I know of experienced Pro/E designers who are having trouble finding a job, as that CAD platform has been pretty much dropped from NA automotive, and nobody wants to invest the time to retrain them. It's not an issue of no CAD jobs; it's rather an issue of the CAD users with proficiency in particular products getting the job offers.

Advertising oneself as an "IDEAS" or "UG" guy may give somebody a leg up on a general "CAD" Designer. Unfair and short-sighted? Possibly. But this is a reality at least from what I've heard from my CAD friends.

Brad

 

[ClydeMule]

THe only argument to putting a specific CAD package on your resume is the fact that many companies scan resumes looking for key words.

I believe though, that any engineer or draftsman worth his salt can move from one to the other relatively quickly. I mean this in terms of one type of package to another. I use Solid Edge. THe last 2 engineers we hired used Solidworks in previous jobs. They took about a week to get stuff squared away. Time is mostly spent figuring out what the new package calls this and the workarounds for all of the bugs.

With the way I design now, I would rather gouge my eyes out than have to do the same work on AutoCAD.

Since the subject has been brought up in this thread, I would like to share my opinion on 2D vs. 3D and CAD as a tool.

I think I am a halfway decent engineer, at least pretty good at designing machinery and coming up with new concepts. I am a crappy drafsman. I don't know anything about standards. I went to a very hands on engineering school (Cal Poly SLO), but they were changing the curriculum around and I did the minimum amount of drafting classes to graduate. I taught myself Solid Edge my senior year. I used it to design and build 2 food processing machines for my Sr. Project.

A full 3D package like Solid Edge or Solid works (or PRO/E etc.) allows someone like me to design very accurately and quickly, separate from the 2D angle. My model is then drawn out by a draftsperson, or in the case of my company the manufacturing engineer.

This helps to keep drawings standards from affect how to design something.

I can't draw an outline of my hand, I would be lost without 3D.

Adios,

Clyde

 

[ctopher]

Brad,
From my experience, it depends in what feild your looking for.
i.e, CATIA- automotive, med
UG- aerospace, mfg
ProE- commercial
SW- a little of all of above

Just limited to what I have experienced
ctopher

 

[brad]

ctopher--
I agree--when I state Detroit, I'm talking automotive. ProE has been steadily dropping off the map in most of Detroit. These days, it seems if one doesn't know UG/IDEAS/CATIA, the pickings are slim for a CAD in Detroit. Similar things are likely seen in other "one-industry" towns (although the particular packages in demand may be different).

 

[buzzp]

AutoCAD is still used by alot of smaller companies. Only in the electrical and civil areas. For electrical you will find it in the power areas as well as electrical mfg (not board or electrical design but enclosures and fixtures) along with solid works. Civils do a lot of work in AutoCAD from what I know.
If you consider yourself a mechanical designer or engineer then maybe AutoCAD, specifically, could be excluded from your search. However, other areas use AutoCAD that may include some mechanical design that are not mechanical specific.
Then there are the companies that operate with antique tools when the new tools boost productivity and are easily justifiable. Like upgrading from AutoCAD to SolidWorks.

 

[Sparweb]

Commands like ELEVATION and object properties like "THICKNESS" are evidence that AutoCAD is not perfectly suited to anything other than civil drafting.

However, small companies like the one I work for can't afford the big names, so AutoCAD is good enough for us, and since so many technical schools teach AutoCAD, it's easiest to find grads that can hop in the seat and pump out drawings within a week or so.

I think it would be hard to justify the cost of upgrading from AutoCAD to SolidWorks in a small company because

a) we keep referring to the old drawings, so we'd have to keep AutoCAD current anyway
b) we draw quickly with blocks that would all have to be converted
c) EVERYONE in the company would have to take the time to learn the new system, because everyone draws.
d) our customers see nothing but paper drawings. The arrangement of the electrons provides no value added.



STF

 

[ewh]

re original post: "I want to work as a mechanic, but only at a shop that uses 12 point sockets, not 6 point sockets."

Another way to look at this would be "I am an experienced, BMW trained mechanic, and want to work where my hard gained knowledge and experience will do me and my employer the most good. I do not want to work on Yugos." Doesn't sound quite as ridiculous now.

I have over 13 years of experience working with UG. It is not the only CAD system I can work on, but it is the one on which I am most efficient.
In the real world out there today, you can expect to earn much less (sometimes 50%) in a direct position that requires learning a new CAD system compared to what you can earn building on your previous CAD experience in the contract field. Permanent employers are willing to suffer your learning curve comfortable in the knowledge that you will learn to meet their needs at less cost over the long term. Temporary employers don't have that luxury, and are willing to pay top rates for proven designers to meet their deadlines. These jobs can and often do turn into direct positions.
I would rather expend my efforts in creating a good design with tools that I am very familiar with than suffer the frustrations of learning a new software package while those deadlines keep getting closer and closer.
I have been fortunate enough to land a direct position near my home with a company that utilizes three of the higher end systems, UG, CATIA, and SW, but at a cost to my income. I just hope those deadlines ease off enough to pick up those other systems.
The bottom line is that it all depends on your own goals. If you want to make the most money, regardless of product or location, go for the jobs with the CAD systems you know. If money isn't as important, but what you would be designing, job location and security are, then be flexible and emphasize your design ability and eagerness to learn differing CAD systems on your resume.
Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[ctopher]

ewh,
I totally agree with you.
I am also the most effeciant with one CAD system, but know something of a few others.