Operational vs analysis/design engineering 1

[sbullet86]

We all know the engineering field is probably one of the most broad professional choices out there. Out of all the jobs out there, it seems like they all fall either into two categories: the more analysis or designing side, or a conducting operation or over seeing trades and get sh1t done side.

I'm kind of wondering, from experience, are engineers who never really got any real world (work) experience in playing with numbers and doing analysis and design, get the shaft later on in life if they choose they prefer to do more actual "engineering"?

I stayed in touch with some engineering professors, and some urge me to look for something that actually involves "real engineering". On the other hand, just being in the work environment of a defense contractor, it seems operations is what makes the world (company) go around.

Any comments from more experienced professional whose been around the block? Im sure this thread may also help many new engineering graduates who are deciding on which jobs to take.

 

[plasgears]

Design and analysis is generally the first position for a newby, but it takes maturity and experience to manage operations. In the various firms I worked, operations types coordinated the actions of design, sales, finance, mgt, and customer relations. It's a big job. It is an adjunct to the front office.

This is not to minimize the design function. I have worked with senior engrs who had high reputations in the company and among the customers.

 

[TheTick]

I got into design because I want to design. I do not make career decisions based on some mythical requirement of engineering machismo.

 

[moon161]

"I got into design because I want to design. I do not make career decisions based on some mythical requirement of engineering machismo."

+1

Where I used to work, the more macho types were definately in ops (well, I was transfered to ops for a week or 2, but my job was design). Fond of expressions like 'running at the cliff' and such, known for the '$10/minute' speech about line downtime. Leading an assembly cell for a day was definitely a charge, gave me an appreciation for the task for sure. I must have done OK, I wasn't teased about it.

Oft repeated here is the 'what to you want to do' question. Answer that and work towards it whenever practical.

 

[csd72]

In my experience (in a different industry) the office job is where all the really technically demanding stuff is at.

Out on site, the tempo is faster and there is an essential need for an understanding of the fundamentals, but it is not normally as technically demanding.

There are the occasional jobs that are technically demanding where you need to think on the fly to solve emerging problems but in my experience they are not the norm.

I think some experience of both is important.

 

[mauricestoker]

There are quite a few jobs that require both hands on and theoretical. You might be interested in looking at the commissioning field. To be useful for energy analysis you should have both hands on and theory. I don't see much sense in making an unneeded delineation unless you want to limit yourself. I've worked as contractor, consultant, gubmint COTR and Chief, Engineering and Construction. I like the variety of design and field work. Working in the field with master tradesman can teach you a whole lot of the difference between what works on paper vs how it would typically be constructed in the field. The devil is in the details.

For DoD, O&M is where the steady money flow is, and a large amount of the recurring budget. That looks good to the financing field making cost of money go down, and gives a chance for the foot in the door on design and construction. Toughest job I've had is running O&M. When the BSL-3 goes down at 2 AM on Christmas morning, you need to think fast, make decisions fast, and know what you are doing. I found it a lot more stressful than design.

 

[sbullet86]

im impressed with the replies in this thread. There seems to be opinions from a large variety of backgrounds.

I'm working for a defense contractor, and was hired into a more running operations function, specifically giving trades instructions and implementing radiological controls since we work with nuclear systems.

I'm content with my role and its potential, but I was just a bit worried it would shut the doors to theoretical positions and have my hard earned undergrad knowledge goto waste. The most math I need to do is adding cost estimates. I guess at the end, its all just business, and thats life.

 

[DerPumpeMeister]

In my experience, a well-rounded engineering has to have both theoretical/analytical knowledge as well as hands-on "real world" experience. The jobs that I have been most satified with are those that have allowed me to do both. I never enjoyed being chained to my desktop or being kept from it for an extended period of time. Different engineers have different personalities and interests, but I am grateful for the opportunities I've had to expereince both ends of the engineer spectrum.

How to Find, Get and Keep an Engineering Job

http://www.EngineeringGuideBook.com