US engineers need to be trained more like Asian and European counterp 11

[GregLocock]

Says Bob Lutz. Well, it is an interesting perspective. I'd add that he should stop letting his managers play at being engineers, but he's the boss, I guess.

I've got no particular objection to the main part of his argument, but I see no benefit in turning every engineer into a CAD user. In general I'll sketch you a solution on a sheet of paper, or a screendump.

Cheers

Greg

http://www.just-auto.com/news_detail.asp?art=47755&lk=rss

Full story follows:

USA: US engineers need to be trained more like Asian and European counterparts – Lutz
13 Apr 2005
Source: just-auto.com editorial team

GM executive Bob Lutz said Tuesday that US carmakers could streamline their design process if American engineers were trained more like their Asian and European counterparts.

"We are actually training our engineers to be managers while the rest of the world trains them to be doers," Lutz said during a speech at the annual conference of the Society of Automotive Engineers in Detroit, according to an AP report.

Lutz said Asian and European engineers are trained in drafting and can draw a new design on the spot when they run into problems, the report said. However, US engineers often need to call in designers to do the drawing and may take weeks to figure out a solution, he said.

"It's somewhat bureaucratized, and it's a slow process," Lutz said. "It's because we don't have the bone-deep understanding of what's in there and the ability to draw and model without pulling in a bunch of specialists."

Lutz said fewer youngsters grow up working on cars and playing with Erector sets, which give them the intuition they can't get from computers or mathematical models.

"Today everything is prepackaged and ready to go," Lutz reportedly said. "Worse yet, a lot of the tinkering that used to be done on cars is now prohibited by federal emissions regulations, in that everything is tamperproof."

Lutz said GM has been trying to combat the problem with a three-year-old program that trains engineers, including some in the middle of their careers, to do their own drafting.

"It's going to take a while to get all our engineers through this program, but believe me, it's going to be worth it," Lutz said, according to the AP report.




Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[GregLocock]

/ENGINEERS/ don't use CAD (for the most part) in the Automotive industry. I sketch out ideas for a CAD guy, or more usually, just talk to him.

To be honest I'd have thought teaching CAD to engineers as part of their degree is a waste of time, there are far more important things to learn at uni. If it is quicker than teaching them to draw I guess it makes sense, but somehow I think I'd rather have an engineer that can draw an engineering drawing by hand than one who can use one particular CAD package.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[ProEpro]

The reason engineers at GM don't do cad is because it is GM. The majority of US companies the engineers deisgn thier own parts in cad. We hired a GM guys with tons of knowledge but he had to be manager because he had no real skills. He had allways had someone to do everything for him.



ProEpro

http://www.whitelightdesign.com

Pro/E FAQ

http://www.whitelightdesign.com/servicestips.htm

 

[QCE]

If an engineer does need to use CAD I would think learning to use the software package would be the easiest part of your degree.

I agree with Greg that teaching engineers CAD is a waste of time.

 

[buzzp]

CAD for drafting (as in AutoCAD or solidworks) is not an engineers task. If the managers want to pay an engineer to draw pretty computer pictures, then let them. However, the most efficient users of these tools are the ones trained to use them, drafters. The engineer gives the direction and order of the particular drawing but the drafter knows how to draw it the most efficiently (if they have a decent drafter). Thats what they get paid for, let them be experts in their field (drafting) and let engineers be experts in their field (engineering - designing (not drawing), calculating, revising, etc).
In the electrical world it is clear (in my mind) if an organization wants me to draw electrical prints then they are fairly clueless. A drafter might make up to $25 and hour (for a real good one) and an engineer might make double that. So if the engineer could draw as efficient as the draftsman, the drawing costs the company twice as much. However, most engineers I know are not real efficient in drawing and would likely cost the company three times as much as the guy who should be doing it, the drafter.

CAD - computer aided design is a completely different subject.

 

[ewh]

Computer aided design is indeed a different animal. Depending on the software, designer/drafters (at least in the aerospace industry) can make over $50.00/hr doing contract work, as much as the engineers in many cases. This is mostly due to supply and demand. I've worked at several companies that would classify designer/drafters as engineers (another subject much debated in these fora) so that the bean counters would pay those rates. These are not engineers, but trained, experienced designers who are aware of and posess the skills needed to augment the engineering effort.
I agree with many above that engineers should have to be skilled in CAD, but it does help immensely if they are familiar enough with the software to navigate their way thru the models, to insure that the parts that they want are the ones that they are getting. As far as taking on the tasks of completing entire drawing packages, it does seem a waste of the talents that they have strived so hard to master. This isn't the army, it takes more than one to do the job effectively.

 

[ewh]

A correction to my post above (I'm ready to leave for the day and didn't proof it very well). The first line of the second paragraph should read "I agree with many above that engineers should NOT have to be skilled in CAD..."

Cheers!

 

[PSE]

I can't help but reminisce as to the considerable number of my Asian and European counterparts that were sitting in class right next to me as I was working on my degree.

In my opinion, familiarity with Design and (especially) Analysis software is a must, while familiarity with Drafting software is beneficial. Oftimes they are part of the same package. Knowing the potential quirks behind the drafting package can help in drawing review and approval.

Regards,

 

[ScottyUK]

PSE,

It also helps when the designers working for you know that you know enough about their job to know when they are working well, and when they are just passing the time of day.



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[SacreBleu]

News Flash:


S&P Cuts GM, Ford Credit Ratings to 'Junk'
By JOHN PORRETTO

DETROIT (AP) - A New York rating agency declared billions of dollars of debt owed by General Motors and Ford to be ``junk'' on Thursday, a significant blow that will increase borrowing costs and limit fund-raising options for the nation's two biggest automakers.

 

[BobPE]

Just imagine if they spent more time futzing with the problem instead of messing with the solution (us engineers).

Bob

 

[SB63]

Lutz is a clown and his company is tanking. I saw today that GM and Ford's bonds are now junk status. Lutz complaining about engineers is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.

 

[SacreBleu]

I would think that most of GM's and Ford's sales are from large trucks and SUV's, because their cars and light trucks are very poorly made.
With the increasing cost of petrol, I see hard times ahead.

 

[BobPE]

SacreBleu:

I disagree on sales, but I would say that most of the profits come from large trucks and SUV's. The recent decline in SUV sales is hitting GM, Ford and all the other car companies in the world that follow a similar profit model really hard. Maybe not the French car makers since the government will step in to stabalize things. Life is tough in the real world and I don't think France is in the real world on many things...But I wouldn't have as much fun in a day if I didn't have the French to pick on...LOL

Bob

 

[davefitz]

I think GM and Ford could turn it around if they cut loos from pensin requirements ( via bankruptcy) and marketed the high MPG diesels available from Eurpoe and Japan. I am not sure EU cars meet the US safety requirements, but the 65 MPG would sell pretty well .

Also , I was impressed with the cab-over small diesel trucks ( 1-3 Ton models) in EU , Japan and Korea- if the US walked away from the traditional F100 style pickups ( designed circa 1935) and went whole-hog to small diesel, a lot of fuel would be saved,and a lot of marginal small business would not go belly up as gas goes to $3.00/gal. Since it is not possibel to retool factories in les than 2 yrs, the 2 year re-tool period could be addressed by marketing imports temporarily.

 

[JayMaechtlen]

How will you convince the typical customer of a F150 or similar vehicle that they should buy some strange cabover thing? Most of those are bought as vanity/image vehicles, and seldom haul much at all.
Can you build such a vehicle that will protect the occupants in a crash? (otherwise, can't sell it here in USA)
Bigger trucks have a different set of standards to meet.
BTW- remember the "Econoline" and related pickups? (long, long time ago...)
Going to small diesels- yes, can definately save some fuel. Aren't the really good motors waiting for cleaner (low sulphur) fuels?
Jay



Jay Maechtlen

http://home.covad.net/~jmaechtlen/

 

[GregLocock]

Light trucks (and SUVs) face fairly minimal crash tests in the USA, that's one reason they are cheap. A wagon of the same size will bear roughly $1000 of extra engineering costs and parts to meet the FMVSS. The profit margin to the manufacturer on a $20000 car in the showroom is probably around $2000 before rebates. You do the maths.





Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[ilovechickens]

Hi guys

Engineers are not draughties, and teaching them to use a CAD package doesn't make them one. (Just because you can draw a line in a cad package doesn't mean you are a draughtie either, rather a CAD operator - big difference.)

 

[DaveVikingPE]

"Ron07663 (Electrical)
18 Apr 05 14:43
Draftsmen-- I remember them! ---And technicians and secretaries! Those were the good old days -when engineers time was valuable and there were support people.
What's next? I'm sure some managers are looking for 'Engineer in a Box' to load into his computer so he can fire the staff."

Automation did away with all them support people, didn't it? Sure... now all the engineer has to do is know "upward reporting" to his clueless managers - degreed engineers and/or scientists who've transmogriphied themselves into accountant managers.

There's nothing more satisfying to an engineer than having his project bullied into "good enough" status by a manager who put the project on the fast track over an engineer's informed protests several months ago...

I love the statement regarding an engineer's time being valuable. It's obviously not *that* valuable. Especially if the managers who didn't bother to learn the system hand off their travel orders to the engineer for processing - just 'coz the engineer, being an engineer, decided to learn the system on his own...

Regarding CADD... I think it is important for younger engineers to know how to draw - by hand. It's also important for them to know how construction plans are generated. And it's important for them to know how to generate them. Look: the consulting engineering shop may be stuck doing the CADD work. Develop a system for doing it quickly (with elegance, of course) and there won't be a problem. Engineers must know how to read and interpret plans, so what's the problem in knowing how to draw them?

Managers had better know this: CADD work requires dedicated time and resources (that means money). It takes physical time to generate plans. If the managers are willing to pay a premium for their engineers to do CADD, then fine, but it's bad for an engineer's career if all they're doing is CADD. CADD IS NOT engineering and the PE boards do not recognize it as engineering experience. When a firm hires a younger engineer, it owes to the engineering profession to grow the engineer into an engineer, not a draftsperson. Sure there's the issue of a bottom line, but engineering is our business. Let's respect that. I would urge younger engineers - if CADD if forced on them - to get GREAT at it quickly (it's easy), and then look elsewhere for another job. You will only hurt yourself if you become the boss's CAD B*tch, er, "monkey" - and it's no better being the office computer "guru" - that is, the only one in the office who bother's to learn (and retain that nowledge) how to use all those little computer programs and such. Isn't it amazing how the boss just doesn't know how to use any of that stuff? Does the boss check your work? How much experience "on the bench" does that younger "manager" have? What the heck are they good at?

 

[BenDutro]

Thanks to the auto unions and federal tax structure, the cost to build a Ford Focus is nearly identical to BMW's cost to build a 325i. The only profitable vehicles for the big three US companies have been trucks/Sport Futility Vehicles.

There will most likely be more diesels offered as soon as the Low sulfer diesel standards go into effect.

Toyota recently raised their prices out of sympathy for the US's automakers, I found that hilarious.

 

[GregLocock]

"the cost to build a Ford Focus is nearly identical to BMW's cost to build a 325i"

Got a cite for those build prices?

And, so what? They are both well designed vehicles of similar size, performance and quality, why wouldn't they cost the same to make? Is BMW steel especially expensive or something?







Cheers

Greg Locock

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