Where have all the engineers gone?? 17

[izax1]

I just found the following on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/12/30/cb.popular.graduate.degrees/index.html?iref=obinsite

And I wonder: Why has the demand for engineers declined??

And I wonder because everymans demand for engineering gadgets are still present in an ever increasing complexity. (Computers, Kitchen utilities, TV and Home video etc) but I think the most demanding and most complex engineered utilities must be the "tools" we use to get as far as possible and as fast as possible from A to B. And at the same time without failure and accidents. We still need ever more advanced cars, trains, aeroplanes and ships. Wher to they come from if not from clever engineers? And you dont get from A to B with a computer if you do not have the car with and engine.
I am a mechanical (aerospace) engineer myself from Europe and love my job, and have been privileged with working with advanced automobiles, aeroplanes and spacecrafts. This survey from CNN is not unique, and not specific for the US. What will transport the dentists, the doctors, the accountants, the teachers, the politicians from A to B if there are no engineers to design and develop the transporters.

I just wonder?

 

[cranky108]

I can't believe there is "the firm" and consultants. Many times working for "not exactly the firm", I have found consultants making really bad design errors, so I believe there needs to be some "the firm" engineers, as well as consultants to fill in where required.

The "not exactly the firm" that I work for also employes lawyers and doctors (in very different departments), and so many of us consider ourselfs as gardians of stupid ideas (take that one of two ways).

We all bring something to the table of ideas, and bad buckets of ideas always seem to leak away.

 

[moltenmetal]

StoneCold: couldn't disagree with you more!

We've permitted ourselves to be separated from the value we create such that we've ended up as commodified service-providers (i.e. servants).

Too many of us are consultants, whose only product is paper. Too few of us are true participants in the value chain we create or enable. That participation comes with risk as well as reward. By avoiding the former, we've lost quite a lot of the latter.

 

[lacajun]

Engineers are commodities. We've done it to ourselves, which is my personal opinion. Many of us don't ask for more. As a profession, we don't take care of it the way doctors and lawyers care for theirs. It isn't for lack of smarts. I know doctors and lawyers, who couldn't cut engineering, that aren't too smart in their chosen profession. They have great memories but can't translate or correlate knowledge and ideas too good. Yet, they've made a lot more than I have. Part of the reason is licensing. They have to be licensed to practice. Very few US engineers get the license, which indicates to many that our profession is easy, unregulated, and not to be taken seriously. Years ago I heard the stat that roughly 2% of all engineering graduates get the license. I doubt that has changed. I've met young and not so young graduates that have never heard of the FE or the PE.

Many technicians and technologists are quite happy to denigrate the engineer because engineering is easy. Anyone can understand it and EE is the easiest of all. I've heard it many times. One maintenance hand criticized me greatly for one of my solutions. I had budget constraints and unsuccessfully lobbied to get more money to spend. A solution was not worth more money than they had budgeted. The maintenance hand convinced the Process Engineer to spend more money. He had greater access to him and they were buds. He then exclaimed loudly to anyone who would listen that he could do EE and much better than I ever could. I let him go on and kept silent. He enrolled in engineering and dropped out the first semester because he couldn't handle math. He had the courtesy and grace to apologize to me for his criticisms. I had the courtesy and grace to accept.

But that, ladies and gentlemen, is how our profession is viewed by too many people. They cannot see the value we bring through building materials and products, transportation, fuel, computers, appliances, food products, medications, medical equipment, entertainment, etc. We, collectively and individually, do a very poor job of educating the public in all the ways we touch their lives.

I doubt too many people with mental illness, cancer, depression, epilepsy, etc. would want to do without their medications. Without engineers, their medications would not be possible. I doubt they ever consider this throughout all the years they pop those pills, take those injections, etc.

One of the fundamental problems is that people are so entertainment oriented today they don't want to be bothered with how products are made and reach their periphery. But, I digress......

 

[SNORGY]

The change required to restore appropriate dignity and respect for our profession needs to come with, and be driven by, regulation. Where I come from, the governing association is actually "self governing" and, accordingly, self-regulated. That governing body has historically become very hands-off and non-participating with respect to supporting this cause on behalf of its membership, and has contributed towards what is now nothing more than a cut-throat market of commodity providers. Engineers - particularly those in EPC firms ("consultants") are no longer applied scientists or professionals; rather, they have allowed themselves to become nothing more than vendors. With all vendors, faster and cheaper is better. Here is my own mathematical take on the subject.

Let Q = Quality
Let F = Faster
Let C = Cheaper
Let B = Better

According to what has now become the prevalent business model in EPC (where P.Eng.'s are ruled by MBA's):

Q = F + C + B

However, it is difficult to tangibly quantify "B", so the following substitution is typically made:

B = F + C

Thus:

Q = F + C + (F + C)

Q = 2(F + C)

Hence:

F + C = (Q/2)

Put another way:

Q = F + C + B

(F + C) = (Q - B)

(F + C) = [2(F + C) - (F + C)]

(F + C) = (F + C)

From which, one concludes two things:

(1) When considered only in terms of speed and cost, quality is halved.
(2) "Faster and Cheaper" is exactly equal to "Faster and Cheaper", and "Quality" is eliminated from consideration altogether.

I call it "MBA Algebra".

Not that I am in any way bitter.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[lacajun]

SNORGY, I agree. An old friend, probably in his 70's by now, got an MBA in the 60's and watched what it did to Corporate America over the decades. He believes it is one of the most ruinous things to happen in this country.

 

[HEC]

Snorgy,
Got my star fot that derivation. Mind if I circulate it to a few friends in the EPC business?


Mark Hutton

 

[SNORGY]

No worries Mark, it's public domain.

Caution, though. I presented it to management at my former place of employment. They were not overwhelmingly amused.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[TPL]

Here's another 'less mathematical' version:

Fast
Good
Cheap

You can only ever have two of these qualities applied to a project. Select the two you want and you automatically get the opposite of the one that is left

 

[KENAT]

At best you can get 2 of the 3, often only 1, and on some dog projects 'none of the above'.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[lacajun]

Caution, though. I presented it to management at my former place of employment. They were not overwhelmingly amused.

SNORGY, over the years I've found management to become decreasingly humorous and increasingly sensitive. They cannot admit to making a mistake, which makes them exceptionally uptight. In 2005, I interviewed with an engineering manager who had nothing personal in his office. It was stark and cold as was the interview. He began as an instrument engineer and was known for doing projects with excellence. As the engineering manager, he finally "understood" why excellence was not required. He moved back to engineering in 2009.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Where did: Q = F + C + B come from? I though trying to define Q would make you lose your marbles.

- Steve

 

[SNORGY]

Steve,

"Q = F + C + B" was a model developed by management...MBAs...

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[SomptingGuy]

And I thought "Q" was connected with motorcycle maintenance.

- Steve

 

[looslib]

'Q' invents all sorts of tools of the trade for Sir James Bond.

"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[SNORGY]

I am quite involved in dog agility.

Accordingly, "Q" often eludes me as well, if it exists at all.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[cranky108]

I am afraid that what managment wants dosen't involve fase, good, or cheep. Whay they want is something that makes them look good, and involves there promotion.

My perspective is we as working class engineers, need to be good at our jobs, no matter what managment puts in our way.

Said another way, managers are like "vars", they provide no useful work, but are required to get work done.

 

[SNORGY]

This is a direct quote from the leadership (management) of a hypothetical (let's call it that) place:

"We will be the best in the business if we are faster, cheaper and better than anyone else."

While, arguably, that may have been true, the problem was in the ensuing definition of "better".

Thus, it came to pass that there was a Management Brainstorming Assessment (MBA) event, wherein all of the managers and senior leaders concluded that, with respect to "Quality" and "Quality Management", the firm was "...well ahead of schedule..." and "...exceeding expectations..." relative to the baseline plan. An unidentified individual then asked:

"So...what is "Quality", exactly?"

Nobody knew.

"So...is there a corporate definition of "Quality", at least?"

There wasn't.

"So...how do we know what great shape we're in with respect to it, when we don't even know what it is?"

He immediately became an unpopular individual who went on to deriving random algebraic expressions.

In any event, to me, "Quality" means meeting or coming closest to optimally meeting, the following, in descending order of importance:

(1) Safety.
(2) Suitability for intended function.
(3) Reliability throughout intended design life.
(4) Can be professionally endorsed proudly rather than begrudgingly or apprehensively.
(5) Cost.
(6) Schedule.

But, *STAR* for Cranky108 for saying (paraphrasing) that no matter whatever else management throws our way, we are obliged to do what we do (engineering) well.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[SomptingGuy]

SNORGY,

Take a week off, read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance". It's been 20 years since I read my copy, but it's still in the bookshelf, a definite keeper.

- Steve

 

[SNORGY]

Thanks Steve.

I will probably have my wife purchase and download the e-book onto her Ipad. I will read it at our next agility trial.



Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[cranky108]

Without a guide post, how do you know where you are? If you look back then you could trip and fall. If you only look forward, then you may not see you are alone, and on the wrong path.