Specialists vs. Generalists 12

[PSE]

How do you see the engineering profession evolving? Will there be a greater profusion (or need) of engineers specializing in a discipline/sub-discipline or will there be a greater need of the "Jack of all trades, master of none"? Science (in my point of view for this thread), seems to be evolving toward focused specialization, will engineering follow?

 

[ceesjan]

PSE,

I am a mechanical engineer (MSc, Thermal Power Engineering) and if I look around me I see that the choice you refere to really depends on someone's interest and personality.
Both specialists and consultants are needed and the first type is mostly more the quiet puzzle-solving type while the other is more the socializer. I know I generalize here but that's how I obsereve it.

Cees-Jan

 

[PSE]

ceesjan,

I agree that both specialists and generalists are needed. As the sheer volume of technologies increase, I begin to wonder if even the generalists will start to become specialized or perhaps sub-generalists. It was interesting to see the qualifier (MSc, Thermal Power Engineering) that you placed after your mechanical engineering title. I know that I was surprised even back in my collegiate days, at the variety of specialization possible within a selected engineering major. How far might this trend continue in industry?

Regards,

PSE

 

[Rich2001]

He is a quote from Robert A. Heinlein that I think is appropiate -

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wasll, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently and die gallanty. Specializations is for insects."

I also agree that both specialists and generalists are needed. But the numbers of generalist needs to be increased. I see it everyday, where engineers have been design the same thing for years, but give them something slightly different and it throws them for a loop. I believe that some of the Continuing professional development that a Professional Engineer is require to take each year should be spend on items to expand the engineers knowledge base. Why attend a seminar on galvanizing if you have been designing items to be galvanized for 15 years?

 

[StressGuy]

My focus, as a specialist in pipe stress engineering, has been to learn as much as I can about the elements involved in my specialty (codes, metallurgy, bolting, etc.).

However, I must, to be successful (and of any real use to my company) develop enough of an understanding of the disciplines that I interact with (piping design, process engineering, pressure vessels, heat exchangers, etc.) that I understand how my work affects these other disciplines and how best to interact with them. However, that broader base of knowledge does not make me qualified to take on those jobs.

I must confess, that I am leary of generalists, particularly in mechanical engineering. Pretty much every area has such depth that I have difficulty seeing how someone who is a generalist would be useful at any but the most light weight of problems in a given area.
Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[sc]

I tend to think that a generalist is some one who knows their own limits and who has a support system of collegues and contractors to help with the in depth work. The generalist is the person who may interact between the client and the specialist and who would also be responsible for managing the overall project.

In my own field I would consider that I am a specialist in residential/domestic construction design and in subdivision design. But in larger building projects I would consider myself a generalist, where I can handle standard type designs but not designs requiring more complex analysis and design solutions, for these I have several other engineers I can sub-contract the work to.

Just my thoughts.

Regards
sc

 

[richanton]

I'll add my 2 cents since I am a generalist. Our company, an A/E is changing. 25 years ago there were designers, drafters, and engineers. Now the designers are disappearing and the engineer is expected to do it all, sometimes including the drafting. This has come about as a result of the reduction in the number of hours allotted for each project. If we need a specialist that is not in the company, we hire a consultant. Lately there are more and more consultants.

So if you want to work for a company, you better be a good generalist. If you want to specialize, start your own business as there probably is a lot of work out there if you have the right contacts.

 

[Hush]

richanton,

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. My specialty is designing valve & wellhead equipment, but in order to do that job properly I have to know something about, machining, drafting, metallurgy, welding, NDE, metrology, forensics, etc. I need to know a little bit about everything if for no other reason than to know when to call a specialist for help.

 

[PSE]

Interesting posts so far. It appears that a hybrid style of engineering is evolving. "Ideally", an individual with perhaps a couple of salient strengths that retains the ability to work outside of their expertise at a fundamental level. My own experience is that of a generalist (I get to figure out the most efficient ways to put things together), but I have "specialized" my career in working only with corporations that use technologies aligned with my educational discipline (Optical Engineering).

Calling in specialists, subcontractors, consultants etc. has been mentioned in several of the previous posts. Using the umbrella term "Collaborative Engineering" does this tend to take place internally (engineering project team) or externally (subcontracted consultants)? Perhaps this could be fodder for another thread.

Regards,

PSE

 

[MASSEY]

Rich2001,

I love the quote you posted above as well as the rest of your post...but what the hell is a wasll??

 

[RITelectric]

PSE,

I agree, and would like to think that in this day and age, we have increased our capacity to learn to the extent that becoming a "jack of all trades" does not prevent someone from achieving mastery of one or more other subjects.

I'm preparing to become a "jack of all trades, master of some," and that's not too unreasonable anymore.

P.S. A wasll is either olde english typewriter slang for 'wall'... or he misspelled 'wassle': that lovely cider/juice concoction from the weird Christmas carol.

 

[RITelectric]

I'm a generalist at heart, though... in 21 years of life, all I've left for myself is to learn how to plan an invasion, butcher a hog, and set a bone before I can die happy. LOL

 

[owg]

Wasll is a word that is entering the language due to the proximity of the letter "s" to the letter "a" on the querty keyboard. Google finds many pages when asked to search for wasll. From the context, most seem to mean wall.

"Wasll" - a person with fat fingers who can't be bothered to spellcheck.

For a good all purpose free spellchecker, take a look at

http://www.iespell.com

. The dictionaries reside on your hard drive and you just right mouse and select iespell to start the spellchecker. The spellchecker is particularly useful for checking input to forums via dialog boxes just like the one you will use to comment on this suggestion.

 

[RITelectric]

Thanks for the link, owg, I jsut downloaded it and it works well!

 

[owg]

jsut?

 

[RITelectric]

My humor is often subtle.

 

[owg]

LOL

 

[namdac]

I have been in Civil Engineering for almost twenty yrs. I started on the ass-end of a gunters chain, Drafting plans by hand with real drafting tools, have an engineer hand you a design proposal hammered out on cocktail napkins in a cryptic language that would confuse most. Now, today we have software that helps us show John Q. Public this is our proposal in a 3-D animated Power Point Presentation "This is how much of your land we are going to take for this project."
So, let's ask the Question "Can the New Engineers of today use a slide-rule?" NO
Can the New Engineers of today quote tangent tables from memory without consulting there HP48GX with the program card? NO
Can the New Engineers tell you the conversion factor from end areas to cubic yds.? NO
So, with the technology moving foward as it has, and drafters moving into design positions should we really stamp the set of plans with an Engineer Seal or the Software Seal.

 

[RITelectric]

namdac,

Let me start by saying that I have tremendous respect for anyone who's been in their field as long as you have, and even more respect for the skills they learn by such extensive experience. I believe that experience defeats classroom knowledge hands-down...

...but in defense of the new engineers: Computerizing the engineering process saves precious time and money; we wouldn't have adapted to the CAD software and the calculators had there been no advantage. It is true that young engineers like myself cannot use a slide rule or any of the other implementations you refer to. But in the case of advances in technology and its impact on engineering, should we really be stripped of our titles as engineers because we don't use the same tools engineers used in the past?. We're making progress and learning how to use new tools. To be a successful engineer today, one still requires common sense and a 'head for engineering'; these talents are not exclusively linked to slide rules. I find the scenario similar to the following:

A horseman may know how to take care of his horse, but as the automobile era approaches, that knowledge loses value. Sure the average driver might not know how to take care of a horse, but it doesn't matter. Everyone's driving around in automobiles.

The horseman's advantage is that he already knows the roads, but it doesn't mean he has to use his horse to get to them.

 

[namdac]

RTelectric,

I understand where you are coming from. I must say though I think that are institutions of learning must move foward as with technology if our new engineers are to be successful.

That I guess is the point I was trying to make.

The tools that were used then vs. now I agree. I know deep down in my heart that having these "New Tools" will help all of us improve the way we do things.

Thanks for the info.