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.

 

[SnTMan]

ScottyUK, that's good. Kind of like the lawyer joke..."a good start". I agree 100%.

 

[GregLocock]

SacreBleu - that survey is UK based, Vauxhall and Opel are GM.

btrueblood, I'd point out that survey is about the new vehicle buying experience - which makes sense, because we sell cars to people who buy new ones. In my opinion it overemphasises dealers, but I do know that dealers can easily make or break a brand.

They also do a long term reliability survey, if I were buying a car to keep I'd look at that. I think you'll find a depressing similarity in the results.


Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[corus]

To get back to the original topic, it was interesting to read in today's Guardian newspaper (UK) that out of all students graduating, 45% in China had engineering degrees, whilst only 5% had engineering degrees in the US. Perhaps the title of the thread should have been 'More US engineers need to be trained' full stop.


corus

 

[GregLocock]

You say that, but is there actually a shortage of untrained graduate engineers?

My perception is that we are short of 30-35 year olds with relevant experience, whereas there are bucketfuls of wannabees, grads with no industrial experience, and under and over qualified (grin) applicants.

Now, I'd agree it is largely our fault for not taking on more interns and grads five years ago. I don't know how to change that policy. In the context of our financial position five years ago that would have been a brave move.

The problem is that it is not really to a company's advantage to offer that first two or three years of training - engineers typically leave at the end of that, quite rightly recognising that their existing organisation is unlikely to promote them as quickly as the opposition will.




Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[moltenmetal]

Greg: you've nailed it. But what you're only indirectly saying is that businesses are too cheap and/or lazy to train engineers or anyone else these days. They would much rather hire engineers with relevant experience and training on a short-term contract and dispose of them when the project is over, paying no more than salary for the priviledge. They want engineers to be a commodity rather than a profession!

The second that businesses have to pay more than salary to get the people they need, even if they're not offering full-time permanent employment, they cry shortage to both the provincial and federal governments who then open the taps on both immigration and university enrollments. Unfortunately, they say nothing when the business climate calms down, and nobody is there to turn off the taps again!

Business in general wants a cheap, highly skilled and "flexible" workforce, and the business community expends a considerable lobbying effort to ensure that they get what they want.

As to corus's newspaper article about how many engineers China is graduating, perhaps that explains the huge influx of engineers from China to Canada where they end up driving taxis because the marketplace here is already massively oversupplied. Engineers are clearly critical to economic prosperity and innovation, but simply flooding the market with engineers is not going to make our economies grow. Rather, flooding the market with engineers will merely destroy the profession of engineering.

 

[HEC]

Greg and Moltenmetal

You have both hit very well on the core of the problem. Moltenmetal as you say the problem lies with companies treating the engineering profesion as a commodity. Someone further back in the discussion alluded to the sad fact that there are too many young engineers that have spent their time as "paper engineers", Greg that is the gap that we, as experienced engineers are leaving behind.

As a grad eng many years ago, I realised quite quickly that to get ahead in a company you had to change companies. In doing that I have also changed industry area also. As a young engineer, I was only mentored by one excellent engineer, who unfortunately passed away after I had been with the co for about 12 months. This role was not replaced by the company or engineernig department where I was working. Instead as a young grad I took on most of the more senior duties and lost a very good mentor. The point of this reminice, As a group it is our responsibility to make the profesion what it should be.

What can we do? Find a graduate to mentor and develop them to the standard of engineer that will do the profesion proud, support them. In engineering departments, consultancies and other organisations, insist to managers and thoes that resource, to ensuring there are engineers to follow us, in management speak it is succession planning. We should use their own terms to support our case. <rant off> Finally perhaps that is what our profesional societies should be doing for us as well?

Mark Hutton
hutton4eng@picknowl.com.au

 

[SacreBleu]

Maybe Bob Lutz should hire those taxi-driving Chinese engineers to re-design the Chevy Suburban. The Suburban is a dinosaur by automotive standards. It is a rolling junk pile. My brother-in-law drives one because he has plenty of money to trade in for a new one frequently.

 

[dporte17]

HEC, Greg and Molten:

The "succession planning" needs to be taken on as a priority for younger engineers as well. As a young engineer I have place a high value on this, something that I don't see many of my peers doing. I actually took a pay cut to get into a situation where there was someone who was willing to invest the time in me so that I could replace him. We are a bit of an exception because in our industry that is something that can take 10+ years, but the principle is universal. This is something that needs to be impressed on engineers throughout their education and training, which is not really being done right now.

Dave

 

[ScottyUK]

Dave,

You are absolutely right.

My industry - powergen - was deregulated in the late 80's or early 90's by the government of the time. The UK went from having a national body that was the envy of the world - the CEGB - to a fragmented mess of small private companies. The new companies effectively stopped funding R&D, closing the research labs and paying off many of the experienced engineers. Those engineers who are not quite at retirement now are largely self-employed consultants, forced upon them by their age and relatively high salary demands. They have no-one to pass on their knowledge to in their one-man-band operations, although many would love to have that opportunity, and are quite literally taking their knowledge to the grave. It is a terrible waste of the investment made by the country during the time the industry was nationalised.



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

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

 

[dozer]

Like most managers, it appears that Mr. Lutz is an extremist. Like him I see young engineers who can't use CAD (what happened to all this supposed computer savy of the younger generation) and can't sketch to save their lives. So Mr. Lutz's solution is to make engineers drafters. Typical manager over reaction.

I personally believe most brands of engineers should be able to drive a CAD package, but come on, having the engineer be responsible for producing the final "pretty" drawings for the shop is just a waste of his/her time.

I'm probably being a bit hard on him because he does have some good points. It's just that he hit a nerve with me because it sounds a lot like what Ron07663 was talking about regarding support people dissapearing and "Engineer in a box". Good comment Ron, here's your star.

 

[Ron07663]

Most engineers can do it all - from conception, analysis, design, test, documentation and production. Should they do it all? Probably not – unless engineers are plentiful and work cheap.
Lutz is a clever MBA who knows that – it’s all about money. This is why HR in corporations wants to ‘dumb down the profession’.
When management sees engineers as draftsmen – soon they will pay them as draftsmen. Worse yet, soon actual draftsmen ‘are’ considered engineers.
As for dress down –when you look like a ‘bum’, you will soon be paid like a ‘bum’. Bring back the jacket and tie.

 

[SacreBleu]

GM needs less Bob Lutzes, and more innovative engineers. Until then, I will keep buying non-American cars.

 

[smwpe]

Another thought for you to ponder.

A relatively few years ago the slide rule was the driver in engineering design

Later, the computer entered the scene. And introduced AutoCad.

It seems to me that any US engineer who is going to make it today must get ahead of the sunami tech wave that is lapping at our shores.

Learn AutoCad, put it on your laptop, and tell your client your are the best in the world?

 

[ewh]

Autocad? I don't think you'll find many auto manufacturers using it. That tsunami is closer than you think.

 

[QCE]

A CAD operater is not an engineer. If you are an engineer charging engineering wages to do CAD then you have beat the system. A CAD operator is a computer draftsmen.

I would never pay anyone an engineers wage to draw things in CAD that is for people with 6 month to 2 year CAD diploma's.

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, I can't see that happening. Around here a CAD guy on a month by month contract is probably on 45 an hour max, experienced engineers are on 60-80, or more.

Having said that, running a tube for a year or two provides a valuable additonal education for a young design engineer, if they treat is as part of their education and training, and don't just do the CAD side of things.


Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[smwpe]

OK ladies and gentlemen:
Here is the logic?

HAND WRITTEN CALCULATIONS USING JOHN C. TRAUTWINE'S REFERENCE BOOK WRITTEN IN 1882.......HAND LETTERED INKED CONSTURCTION DRAWINGS......SLIDE RULE....COMPUTER.....CAD....AND WHO KNOWS WHAT IS NEXT?

If we as engineers over the years have not kept up with the technology and have a working knowledge of the state of the art in our profession, then we are going to be phased out by our peers in India, China and others in South Americe who are coming on line--fast.

My point is- go to a local college and get a working knowledge of cad so you will be able to manage your work force.

In the old days they referred to the non-degreed staff as engineering technicians, but you can bet they knew everything they did because the engineer wss we in responsible charge.

I will get off the soap box now.

 

[QCE]

I see that you are a structural guy so yes CAD may be handy.

For a lot of fields it is a waste of time to learn and is not used anymore or was never used.

 

[BillPSU]

CAD to some people is computer aided drafting and other it means computer aided design. I dare say automotive or aerospace engineers using Catia or Unigraphics designing wing sections or structures don't feel CAD is a waste of time. Pro-E users will also argue with you.

CAD is a tool. In the right hands and circumstances, it can produce spetacular results.

 

[TFL]

i am confused in what field od design is cad not used? I ask this because i teach intro to engineering at the local university on an adjunct basis and i would tell the students that every design engineer uses some form of cad. does not everyone have to convey their design to someone to build it not matter what it is? airplane, building, bridge, electrical circuit, chemical process in a plant, etc.

i don't understand how you can design something withoud someforme of cad to convey the info.

i would understand if the person is not really designing anything if they are simply admimistrating a contract or manging people

i would appreciate examples

thannks