To the wiser (older folks), how has the profession changed? 19

[ManifestDestiny]

Hi all

I've been binging a lot on documentaries lately, mostly on the grand old stuff that still amazes today, Concorde, SR-71, Apollo etc. Over the weekend me and some friends were catching up for some beers and inevitably it lead to the usual workplace whinge. We surmised that there are really no new problems, just new and innovative ways of F$&@ing something up, and every 5-7 years you just add another zero to the cost of the F$&@ up. Some of these folks were older than me (early 40's) so really still too young to be in the age of the grand stuff, who would be at least at retirement age and beyond by now. I think the majority of Engineers these days are pretty well acclimatised to the corporate buzzwords, sterile leadership, politics and smoke and mirrors that is the western corporate world (it seems to infect the anglo countries more than the europeans). As a young Engineer (29), I'm worried that we may never know what good leadership ever looked like and what professionalism and the craft of engineering really means.

So my question, whats changed? Has it changed? No doubt office politics and boondoggle's still happened, but I can only imagine the look on Kelly Johnson face at Lockheed or George Mueller when he was leading the Apollo program if you told them to "think outside the box", "innovate with blue sky thinking" or (I love this one) "leverage our technology stack". I'm sure the good stuff still exists, but I'm yet to see or hear about it.

What were the keys to success of those grand old projects?

 

[IRstuff]

well, obviously, I graduated waaay before MC 0.3 and Matlab [1984] as well. At my first job, we didn't even have our own computers; we had dialup to a timeshare.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[drawoh]

ManifestDestiny,

You mention Clarence Kelly Johnson. Look up the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation. In 1944, the US Navy withdrew their contract to build much-needed Corsair fighter aircraft. Old things are memorable because we forget the stuff that was not memorable. Maybe Brewster's management blue skied ideas outside the box as they leveraged their technology stack. Nobody writes books about them. They would rather write about Clarence Kelly Johnson.

--
JHG

 

[CWB1]

An introductory CAD/modeling class is already required in most every ME program. I'm not suggesting additional CAD classes are needed beyond that, simply that students be required to use it in other classes. Ideally, every major engineering course would have an individual design project instead of the usual theory-based final paper test. Like many other things in life, a big part of becoming proficient is learned by doing or in this case - using the software. Several of my other suggestions could potentially cut into the time for other courses (GD&T should be a few weeks alone) but IMHO are vital skills every ME needs and should displace some of the fluff. I cant speak to SE/CE or other worlds, but I'd imagine there are key skills in those as well not addressed in college as well as unnecessary content. Personally, if I could go back I'd gladly trade intro to HVAC and a few other niche courses for more DoE and other generally applicable analytical courses.

As for CAD's usage in industry, today's retirees will have a bit of a different experience than the rest of us due to using different technology but IME there's little room anymore for those who cannot use the software. Fundamental theorems are great sanity-checks, but many of us cannot live with their inaccuracy or the expensive testing necessary to correlate a paper model. I still have most of my college texts but to stay ahead of the competition I need to stand on others' proverbial shoulders, and most simulation tools today either tie into or are run in my model's window. To efficiently run a FEA, CFD, or even basic kinematics/dynamics sim, I need to be able to efficiently alter my original model - CAD. About the only folks not using it anymore that I encounter are the "non-engineering, engineering" roles - customer service, product definition, marketing, project management etc, but those jobs IME dont provide too great of job security and arent too desirable to fresh grads.

On the topic of OJT and promoting draftsmen, my quandary is that most college grads today need hundreds of hours of general design training in CAD, simulation basics, GD&T, DoE, etc before we can even get to company/role specific training. Working for good companies that've always put high priority on continuing education has been great for me, but we need to draw a realistic limit somewhere. IME most draftsmen have most of the general design training and some of the company/role specific training, and a select few are capable of handling a true engineering role given the necessary remainder of training. Simply stated, the select few are far more useful than a fresh grad. I even know one that's a PE.

 

[Terratek]

Students can and should take the initiative to learn these trade skills outside of the classroom. This can be by taking extra classes and the community college or, better, doing paid internships during school. I don't care which one, but I don't support more than a single drafting class to be required as part of engineering curriculum. The technology changes and what if you get all trained up in Microstation just to find out that you need Civil3D? The interfaces and commands are totally different. Maybe some electives could be made - but without a doubt this should not be an onerous requirement in any class, in my opinion. My company doesn't even own a proper CAD program. CAD requirements, including the single class I did take, are a complete waste for what I do.

 

[CANPRO]

For me, the most important skill I learned in school was how to teach myself. Quality professors were few and far between, and even the good ones didn't have nearly enough lecture time to cover the material in depth.

We covered a bit of CAD in the 1st or 2nd year of university, but the final couple years was CAD free. My first job out of university, I did all of my own drafting. Starting off was difficult due to the my lack of CAD experience, however, within a few weeks I was good enough to be productive on my own. There is no doubt that I cost my employer money in my first 6-12 months. But I stayed for years after and I know for a fact that I made that investment worth it for them.

 

[bridgebuster]

I guess experience doesn't count.

 

[ewh]

...I don't support more than a single drafting class to be required as part of engineering curriculum. The technology changes...

This is mixing apples and oranges. Good drafting practices and techniques are independent of which CAD software is being used.

"Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively."
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[CWB1]

I guess experience doesn't count.

There's only so many slots outside of management for folks who cant actually check a simulation beyond rough hand calcs.

I concur with ewh but would extend his statement to design and modeling practice as well as drafting. Large assemblies and complex surfaces often each show how much or little experience someone has and can make/break your/your company's reputation when downstream users need to modify parts/assemblies. I took undergrad intro courses on Solidworks and Pro/E for modeling, Algor for FEA, and an oddball CFD program I cannot recall. The GUIs are all different but the methodology and background math applied is the same. Using those made switching modelers to Inventor, NX, then Catia easy, the same for mechanica and ANSYS for simulation. Had my alma mater not forced me to use them throughout my three years and become reasonably proficient I'd have been in the same boat as many new grads with fewer potential employers.

 

[Tunalover]

The biggest differences I see are:

(1) The entrance of women into the engineering office. In the first five years, the only women were secretaries, clerks and a couple engineers and draftspersons. They knew we were all perverts full of dirty jokes but we were accepted for what we were and it was a fun environment. Now jokes are not heard in the office because too many guys got hauled into HR due to "female sensitivities".

(2) The layout and drafting work is migrating away from designers and draftsmen to the engineers. That's unfortunate for the designers and draftsmen since there are far fewer opportunities now as there were then. But I never thought that someone who didn't fully know the product design history and function was the best person to do the drafting anyway. Too much is lost going from one head to the other.

(3) To solve a physical problem it's hard to find people anymore who will first solve a problem manually with conservative assumptions before jumping on the FEA or CFD program. When I have a say in the matter, the manual calculation comes first because, if it doesn't completely rule out time-consuming, error-prone computer simulation, it at least serves as a "sanity check" for the simulation results.

(4) No one seems to care about good drawings anymore. Fast is everything. There is no discipline. I see horrendous drawings where the drafter was just never taught (or never cared to learn) standard drawing practices. Since so many drawings (and models) are started as a CAD copy from another drawing (and model), good drawings and models (and bad drawings and models) multiply like rabbits. The sad thing is, many "draftsmen" don't know that sufficiency and clarity are kings and that volumes of extraneous process detail (e.g. loads of notes) should be left out in order to focus on the end-item and its function!

(5) People do an analysis without first writing down a problem statement along with the objective, rationale and all the knowns and unknowns. So many people go off trying to solve problems without really knowing what they're trying to solve! They jump right on the machine and rush to the color contour plots. These beautiful plots put "rose colored glasses" on everyone but few sufficiently question the results. Junk is often disguised with pretty colors!




H. Bruce Jackson
ElectroMechanical Product Development
UMD 1984
UCF 1993

 

[casseopeia]

In the old days, no one ever said, "did you try Googling it?"



If you are offended by the things I say, imagine the stuff I hold back.

 

[GroovyGuy]

I can recall in the good old days actually programming computers with 1's and 0's, and sometimes we didn't even have 1's. Try telling that to a youngster today and he (or she) won't believe you.
GG

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

 

[beej67]

My first thought when opening this thread was, "well, nobody has to suck ammonia fumes running bluelines now, so that's an improvement."

Some of these folks were older than me (early 40's) so really still too young to be in the age of the grand stuff, who would be at least at retirement age and beyond by now. I think the majority of Engineers these days are pretty well acclimatised to the corporate buzzwords, sterile leadership, politics and smoke and mirrors that is the western corporate world (it seems to infect the anglo countries more than the europeans). As a young Engineer (29), I'm worried that we may never know what good leadership ever looked like and what professionalism and the craft of engineering really means.

"Corporate buzzwords, sterile leadership, politics and smoke and mirrors" have always been a feature of large engineering corporations, and often noticeably lacking in smaller operations. I worked for two very large firms out of college, had my Office Space moment, went back to get my masters, and then went to work for a smaller firm. (30 employees) My experience at the smaller firm was completely different, much more responsible, and completely devoid of corporate politics. It was very enjoyable. I also probably didn't make as much money as I could have at a bigger firm.

In my field, the 08 Crash saw many smaller and midsize firms either go out of business entirely, or get scooped up by the big firms which were better positioned to suck on the federal teet during ARRA as a lifeline. Now most entry level engineers are pretty much stuck working at larger firms. To my field's credit, though, anyone with a license can quit their job and start consulting out of their garage, and many are starting to do so.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[beej67]

Technology has given birth to the pseudo-profession of planning and scheduling, primarily built around software such as Primavera's P6.

Used by someone proficient with the software and who actually understands what they are planning, it's a very powerful tool which helps both planning the work and reporting on costs and progress.

Used by people who have adopted the title 'planner' - or worse 'senior planning engineer' - who frequently have no clue what they are planning, but can nonetheless produce a Gantt chart of important steps placed in the wrong sequence and with target dates which would require the use of a time machine, it spawns an ever-expanding bureaucracy hell-bent on bringing progress to a halt and sinking morale into the floor.

The principles of critical path scheduling are extremely important. I know far too many project managers who are simply ignorant of critical path methodology.

That said, I can do a critical path chart for a relatively complex civil engineering design project on a whiteboard with a marker in fifteen minutes, in the middle of a meeting, snap a picture of it with my cell phone, and email it to the project team. Reliance on software meant for complex construction projects not only wastes time, it dissociates the professional from understanding what he's actually doing.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[beej67]

I guess experience doesn't count. cry

There was a time when mailmen needed to know how to ride a horse.

If I were hiring a project manager in my field today, there is no conceivable way I would hire someone who didn't know how to at least negotiate an AutoCAD drawing. You can't properly manage the labor of a group if you don't understand what the group is doing. Engineering project management is not only about the engineering, it's also about the management. Managers in any field who lack a fundamental understanding of the tools their subordinance use are a huge liability. That goes for engineering project management, construction superintendent, or the dude who runs the TGI Fridays.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[drawoh]

beej67,

Many, many years ago, I worked for the planning and scheduling department of a very large engineering company. I drew CPM networks on a drafting board.

I returned to college and finished my diploma and landed a job doing mechanical design. On one occasion, I was asked to estimate time for a project, and I draw a CPM network of my tasks. The main thing I learned was to not do CPM networks for time estimates. The CPM network implied that I thoroughly understood all sorts of tiny details of the project which I actually did not understand yet. It also implied that I would break down the design into a set of discrete tasks, which is not the way I work. I did top-down design on drafting boards, long before I got anywhere near SolidWorks.

That is not to say that CPM is not a valid activity. I am sure it is valid on large projects with multiple people and discrete, well-defined tasks.

--
JHG

 

[Comcokid]

I began my career in 1978 at a large company for a couple years, and since have worked at eight smaller companies for one to ten years. This is what I have noticed as the major change over the years.

It used to be that engineering time and knowledge was valuable, so engineers had the near newest-equipment available to do their jobs, and support staff (technicians, drafters, drawing clerks, department secretary) available to make them more efficient. But today a company won't supply the equipment needed to do a job efficiently, and engineers do all of the drawings, revisions, and testing required for their projects (for a department of 20 there is a single technician and a single secretary).

The last three companies I worked at (1997 to present) had no new equipment available, and no capital-equipment budgets even though the companies operated financially in-the-black. A lot of engineering time is lost building-up simple circuits to provide proper stimulus to exercise designs rather buy the proper piece of equipment. The past two companies some equipment is bought used off eBay and frequently has to be refurbished or repaired to be usable, not to mention that such equipment is typically a couple decades old (nothing like using a power supply that was built when you were in high-school in 1972). Not to mention that frequently I can't get approval to obtain equipment needed, and in desperate frustration I buy it myself, because I am responsible for getting the new product to production rearguards of resources.

It seems today that accountants run businesses, and as long as they supply a desk with a computer with Microsoft Office and a single CAD program they have provided everything you need. Thank God for freely available LT Spice and similar free-download programs.

 

[IRstuff]

The problem is in "the near newest-equipment available to do their jobs." Back when military budgets were overly generous, equipment would be bought on a whim, resulting in a massive pool of equipment that soon became test equipment crib ghosts. But, because of the whole notion of capital equipment is the longevity, the costs would be amortized over the lifetime of the equipment, resulting in depreciation costs long after the actual utility of the equipment ended.

Engineers tend to do poorly in justifying ROI, and most companies now demand some, pro-forma, justification of costs and benefits derived therefrom. Some of the changes in the tax law will help change that, since strict expensing of some capitalized equipment will mitigate the lingering cost problem from depreciation.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[CWB1]

Sounds like a job search is in order, I'd recommend larger corporations for more resources. Personally I'd never put up with much of that crap. I honestly haven't had much of anything denied to me. Granted, I don't ask much I can't easily justify and have realistic expectations. One secretary is fine for me since she has few duties at that. Draftsmen and techs are readily available to start on projects within 2-3 days if necessary, I only do drafting in "emergency" situations - rarely. I get a new computer every 2-3 years and have access to more software than necessary, four solid modelers alone. JMO but one key to fixing a lousy culture is for folks to back up words with actions, if folks leave they'll either fix it or go out of business.

 

[beej67]

That is not to say that CPM is not a valid activity. I am sure it is valid on large projects with multiple people and discrete, well-defined tasks.

I would never do a CPM diagram for a job that a single individual is going to complete. In my eyes, they only begin to be useful when organizing a job that has multiple people doing tasks in parallel to each other, some of which must be done before others can begin. The point of them is not to discover the ultimate answer of every possible thing that goes into the schedule. The point is to give you a tool to know how far behind you are when you're only half done. And alternately, to know how far behind you are when a task takes longer than estimated. They are a planning tool.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[IRstuff]

"I would never do a CPM diagram for a job that a single individual is going to complete. "

One might not do a formal CPM diagram, but I look at Master Chef examples where a single person is creating a dinner, and they have to run through a CPM analysis in their own minds to know that they've got to get the meat into the oven at T-30 minutes, the sauce has to be ready at T-10 minutes, etc.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm