Systems Design Engineering 1

[Narfed]

I graduated from the Department of Systems Design Engineering. It was a program developed in 1969 (undergrad level) to meet a projected need in the engineering world.

It doesn't seem that this field has happend or is likely to happen in the next 5 years or ever.

If anything it's a very senior position for someone with extensive lateral experience.

I'm a new grad so I don't know this, what would be the career path to become a systems design engineer?

Here is a snipet of the program description.

The Department of Systems Design Engineering has evolved over the years into a unique interdisciplinary department in Engineering. Its undergraduate curriculum represents a rational response to increasingly complex situations in modern technological society, involving not only technical, but also environmental, socio-economic and political factors. It is a well balanced program, designed to enable each individual student to find optimum solutions to multifaceted complex problems. A set of special interdisciplinary Systems Design workshop courses, stressing systems design methodology, forms an essential part of the program.

the descriton goes on and can be found here
"

http://www.systems.uwaterloo.ca/AboutUs/aboutus_whatissystems.htm"

]

 

[GregLocock]

I think the point is that systems engineering is innate to modern engineering practice, so you aren't really competing with a few other grad systems engineers for a few entry level systems engineering jobs, you are competing with anyone who worked at any level in a complex project, for a more senior job.

Sorry.

Having said that, defence and academia both would be fertile places to look for explicit systems engineer jobs, I've certainly seen a few ads for the former (and again thought, hmm interesting, I wouldn't mind doing that).

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[KENAT]

I studied Aerospace Systems Engineering.

Systems is a big buzz work in Aerospace & Defence.

In other industries it is sometimes known by other names (project engineering being one).

Most systems engineers started off as something else and evolved, I'm not sure there's that many who studies systems.

As far as career path, you need to be looking for a company that designs something complex enough to warrent dedicated systems engineers. Aerospace or defense would be good places to start.

 

[rb1957]

when i read the thread title i thought of a/c systems (like kenat) ... electrical, hydraulic, flight controls.

but the OP seems (to me) to be talking about general systems ("the big picture").

i'd suggest this would lead to project engineering, maybe government type agencies, maybe large civil type projects.

good luck

 

[Guest0527211403]

Systems engineering isn't necessatily limited to manufacturing either, and, like kenat pointed out, goes by different names.

One of my friends from university graduated as an Industrial Engineer and went on to work for a local hospital. Last I spoke with her, she was an operations manager for the University Health Network.

 

[KENAT]

I didn't mean to imply that aero/defense are the only people to do systems.

That's what I meant by any company that designs anything complex enough to be considered a system. I guess design could be suplemented by maintenance.

 

[rb1957]

really anything/everything is part of a system, i guess it only matters how significant is the interaction of the elements of the system (if the interaction/significance is weak, then the "thing" looks like its on its own).

 

[Ashereng]

No offense meant, but this sounds like a "general" course encompassing a bit from each of the traditional engieering disciplines, added with a touch of political correctness 0(as indicated by the words - environmental, socio-economic and political factors).

I don't quite know what to make of a graduate from this System Design Engineering. I am guessing that the graduate is not as capable as a graduate from any of the traditional disciplines (ie, you are not as good in mechanical as a Mech Eng grad, but you would know more about electrical than a Mech Eng grad). Sort of like a jack of all trades, and master of none.

I would think that something like this is better suited to a graduate level course, where the candidates has a lot of experience in multiple disciplines.



"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[GregLocock]

LPS for you, I agree. Dead easy course to teach, no capital-intensive experiments required, lots of essays, a mastery of Excel, Powerpoint and Project, and off we go. (OK I'll take my cynical hat off).

I've enjoyed the Systems Engneering I've done to date, but it's not as intellectually rigorous as understanding the plate equations is it?






Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Ashereng]

Narfed,

Don't get me wrong. I think systems are important, and can be as difficult and challenging as any traditional discipline.

I think also that it is more suited to a grad level course, after you have mastered one of the traditional discipline, and have gained sufficient experience and knowledge to appreciate the "inter connected ness" of all the disciplinesm, to work in a system, before such a course will make sense.


Then again, Greg may be right. I don't know what a plate equation is, so ...

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[Narfed]

Ashereng, I suppose it does sound like a "general" course because it attempts to cover a breadth of knowlege from many disciplines. Perhaps that stigma is why the program has not caught on very well in other universities or companies.

In defence of my program, please understand that it is not a "general" course in engineering. In the case of my program anyhow, it was the hardest program to get into at the university (based on academic and extracirricular) and the cirriculum kept a relative pace so we would not sacrifice depth of understanding for breadth of knowlege. Our core encompassed the general engineering core required by all disciplines as well as crosslisted courses from other disciplines. There is so much overlap between courses of other disciplines that this is possible with a little extra workload. In addition our core included additional courses specific to design, optimization and complex systems modelling that other disciplines do not offer. Our available higher year electives included most electives across disciplines as well as our own discipline specific ones.

Because my program stressed design from many levels including things that many engineers forget about such as user needs. I would hope that this would make me just as capable as other engineers for many jobs. It's rare that a B. Eng or BASc uses every single tech electives course to do their job. That knowlege may help them understand what they are working on at a different level but the same can be said of my tech elecs, design and human factors courses.

As Greglocock has eluded to the engineers doing these jobs are senior level engineers who have been exposed throughout their careers to complex systems so that they learn to understand other engineering (and buisness) disciplines and through their work. That's the way our current engineering system works and I understand that. That's why I was asking about where to start off my career so I could eventually be doing what I was educated for.

 

[Narfed]

Also to further confuse things. My program cirriculum has nothing to do with the current industry adopted standard of "Systems Engingeering". or even Project Engineering, although I wouldn't mind doing that.

I've worked in a place where the systems engineering department was responsible for puting things together and testing them. I don't even know if those people were engineers. More of a technician job imao.

FYI I DO know what a plate equation is and it's in the core cirriculum of my program. Like really...how else can you model a plate in a mechanical system if you don't know how it will deform and effect the rest of the system?

 

[GregLocock]

Interesting, plate equations were final year electives at my uni. Ashereng - imagine a rectangular plate built in on two adjacent edges, with a uniformly distributed load. Derive the deflection of the plate from first principles. I wasn't much good at it 20 years ago, now I'd do it in FEA or look with fingers crossed in Roark.

OK, to do proper systems engineering as a specialisation you'd be looking at aerospace or defence. But, at least in Australia, I haven't seen an entry level vacancy for them.




Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[Narfed]

Ok, I must be mistaken. I didn't have a whole course on plate theory. I looked up the plate equation and it looks like something i've done to calculate deformation.

 

[Ashereng]

Narfed,

I think you just came across my point. You have a dabbling in a bit of everything, but not specialised in any.

If you were to have the same depth of knowledge as a Mech Eng, you would be a Mech Eng. Since your course load is similar to a Mech Eng, this is not possible, as you also touch on the other disciplines.

I am sure you are proud of your discipline. That is no reason to slander another. Your program is not the only one that stresses user needs.


Greg,

No offense. I think I will let you contemplate the plate equation - it really doesn't strike my fancy.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[Tropx]

I went to U Waterloo, so I have some understanding of the systems engineering department. The general joke about systems eng went something like:
civil - will tell you how to build it
mechanical - will tell you how to make it move
electrical - will tell you how to power it
systems - will tell you what colour to paint it

I have worked with people in telecom who had a systems degree who were doing digital board design. I think your work experience to some extent will enable you to do different things. As others have mentioned the potential problem with the systems eng degree is that you do not have detailed courses in any one area. I perform something of a systems engineering job at my company and I need to know bits about optical engineering, electrical (microprocessors mostly) and software. I think there is definitely a need for systems engineers, but you need to work in an industry long enough to gain some experience with the different areas that go together to build the system. Telecom equipment manufacturers need people who think in a systems manner. There are always problems when there is no systems group to make sure that all the work from the various groups integrates well. One suggestion I have is to get into a larger company where you can ask to rotate through different groups. I think GE does this with new hires. When I started at my company 5 years ago I basically tried to get experience in many areas, from component qualification, to hardware testing/design, to manufacturing testing to system integration testing, to system design. I'm not expert in any one of these areas, but I know enough about how each of the bits works now that when my group (the optical systems development group) hashes out ideas I can immediately understand the implications of our ideas on hardware and software.

Another question to ask is whether you even need to be a systems engineer. If you are so inclined you can take a MASc in one area and become a specialist at that. More and more it seems like industry is looking for people to fill certain specialty roles. Just make sure you don't do something too esoteric or you will be no further ahead.

 

[tripleZ]

Maybe I can answer...or maybe not. Your program sounds a lot more general than mine was. My undergrad was in Industrial & Systems engineering. We took all of the same courses during the first two years that all engineering undergrads did. After that, you began working in classes involving work station design, ergonomics, statistics, computer modeling/programming and simulation, DOR, POR, etc. etc. The technical electives were the point at which people deviated from the norm. Some folks focused more on business courses. Others who enjoyed the math and physics took thermo, fluids, etc. Senior year was always characterized by a year-long senior project encompassing various disciplines you'd learned over the years. It focused heavily on both project management and technical info. Basically, it was geared to what you would do if you were in the engineering consulting field. Most of the projects we worked on were given to us by corporations on the outside (e.g. Phillip Morris, Coca-Cola, Federal Mogul, etc.).

Is this what your coursework entails or entailed?

If so, there are a fair amount of opportunities out there; it just depends on where you live or want to live. Some of my friends went into consulting, which I tend to think is ludicrous if you have no experience in the working world. Others went into various manufacturing industries as IEs. Some went to work in gov't contracting fields focusing on programming and system simulation. Some went to grad school for their MBAs, and two went to law school (patent law). Hell, I know a few that went to work for Merrill Lynch in the strategic acquisitions area (buying up or turning around smaller companies for a profit). That's where the technical knowledge combined with management and accounting comes in handy.

Basically you end up being somewhat of a generalist, but your coursework likely positions you to focus on moving into plant or business management.

Close or no cigar?

 

[Ashereng]

As Tropx and tripleZ alluded, it sounds like a generalist course, someone overseeing the efforts of specialists:

You have optic experts, programming experts, electronics experts, mechanical experts, design experts and so forth needed to build, say a cell phone. The systems engineer is there to coordinate and facilitate the combining of all of these discipline's work. Yes?


"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[wes616]

one good thing about being a generalist, is you may still be around when the need for that particular niche specialty fades into oblivion.

Wes C.
------------------------------
Light travels faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

 

[Narfed]

Ok, some people seem to understand what I was asking and have posted some helpful answers.

But, Ashereng seems to want to propagate a notion of a generalist engineering program. For what reason other than to troll me, and hijack this thread, I have no idea. However his way of using other poster to support his argument by saying "as ___ alluded to" is putting words in someone else's mouth which I disagree with. It seems a little moronic for me to do this since I think most people who know what is required to get an engineering degree already know (everyone on this board), but I will attempt to correct this absurdness because it I am sick of it.

As triplez reminded us, the first 2 years is the same material and the last year is mostly a workshop. The engineering accredation board regulates the cirriculum of engineering degree courses and programs to ensure that all engineers meet a set "engineeing" standard. In a sense everyone was taking "general engineering" for the first 2 years.

That leaves a year of courses that defines one discipline from another. This year is composed of mainly technical elective courses. That is to say that it's possible for an electral engineer to have more in common with one mechanical engineer than another electical engineer. Stating that one is more "capable" at mechanical engineering as Ashereng does is an absurd generalization.

Again these courses are regulated to ensure that sufficient technical courses are taken so that the graduate engineer has a sufficient technical knowlege. A student cannot go ahead and take 1st and 2nd year courses for their 3rd and 4th years. For my 3rd year, I was not taking more 1st and 2nd year courses nor was I taking "general engineering 3rd year". I was taking high level engineering courses. Some of these were the same as 3rd year courses from other departments. Others were specific to mine focusing on mathematical systems modelling or design. Stating that one has more "depth" of knowlege is as Ashereng does is also absurd and would not be admissible for engineering accredation.

Does taking technical courses on mathematical modelling and user design make my program a "generalist" program? Perhaps if you are trying to pigeon hole it as either mechanical or electrical. Even then, considering the skills required for an average engineering job for undergrad degrees, many technical electives aren't aplicable and often times one technical elective is as good as another.

Please stop repeatedly refering to my program as a generalist course, it's incorrect, not the point of this thread and frustrating.