Where IS Engineering Going? 12

[dozer]

Is it just me or is engineering (or those who pretend to be engineers) going downhill. Here are examples over the last year.

Hired a company to design and fabricate some components on a project (details left out to protect the guilty). They had one degreed engineer (but not licensed) who couldn't design his way out of a wet paper bag. We ended up doing much of the design work for them which defeated the whole purpose of us trying to unload some work.

Got anchor bolt reactions from a vendor that were low by a factor of two.

Requested reactions from an equipment skid manufacturer for earthquake loads and was told they really don't understand code requirements for earthquakes and we should figure it out ourselves. (How did they design the supporting structure on the skid if they didn't know seismic loads?)

Asked vendor to provide calcs to justify motor horsepower for a system that is supposed to move over 50 tons. Got an email from him with a one line calc that was wrong.

Another equipment manufacturer framed a T support into a wide flange in such a way that the only moment resistance at the base of the T was through torsion in the beam. You could push on the T with your hand and rock it back and forth. (No , it wasn't supposed to do that.)

These are just a few of the many things I've been seeing. I think one of the problems is vendors who either don't have engineers on staff or their engineers are so specialized they can't do the area that I'm looking out for which is structural.

I realize we're all human and we're going to make mistakes but it has got to the point where I just expect the information I'm getting from vendors to be wrong. Anybody else running up against this?

 

[arunmrao]

The problems that you have encountered are universal and not localised to a single discipline or geographical region. It is all now a mindset to make quick money without realizing what do I give in return.

Perhaps the rot has to be stemmed at the college level itself,where the teachers refuse to accept facts. Familiarity with a few software skills makes them very knowledgeable and arrogant.

I sent my son to a reputed lab for summer internhip. I thought that he would get an exposure to all the advanced testing machines and facilities. In turn he came back with wrong set of values. Everyday I had to undo whatever he had observed. These are the modern temples of technology and instead of being beacons of knowledge set a wrong trend indulging in petty acts.

 

[ajack1]

Not just you Dozer the same applies in the UK, I feel there are many reasons, but this is only my point of view.

Firstly companies now seem obsessed with education, the days are gone when people could work there way through a company, of course you need people that are qualified at the top but we now underestimate the importance of knowledge. Far to many top “engineers” are overlooked for some first or second year grad who knows nothing about what they are doing.

The second thing is arrogance, this was never truer than in the 70’s and 80’s in the UK in the automotive, motorcycle, shipbuilding and precision measuring industries. Japanese products were seen as vastly inferior and not worthy competition, so while we spent the whole time on strike not updating working practices or machinery they just cleared out these industries, we could not have made it easier for them. From a once solid automotive industry we now only produce London cabs and a few quirky sports cars. Having said that most of the F1 and Indy cars are designed and produced around the Oxfordshire/ Northants border, so top end skills still exist. I see the USA going down the same road.

Thirdly is price. I am not saying for one minute companies do not need to be lean and some fail to do this, probably going back to arrogance, but they do need to make a trading profit, if continual price cutting is the order of the day then one of two things happens the company goes bust or standards drop.

How were the companies you used in the examples you give chosen? If it was on ability then it was not a good call from your company was it? If it was on price then maybe you got what you deserved and your company is helping bring down good companies that could have done the job. Sooner or later someone is going to look at this and say if all we are getting is rubbish we might as well pay as little as possible for this rubbish, lets send it to the far east for 1/10th of the cost, it is hard to say they would be wrong.

I think more and more engineering will become a group of smaller niche markets where hopefully they will have a reliable bunch of suppliers around them where all can charge a “fair” price and value is seen as more important than price, did I say think make that hope, the way things are going it does not look good.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Doesn't it seem like it's more important to get something out the door (or get the customer's money in their pocket) faster and faster and faster - without caring about quality or how their second-rate work will reflect on their reputation?

Maybe and maybe not. The only way (IMHO) that sloppy, devil-may-care work, both in-house and contracted from outsiders, can be thwarted is if *we* refuse to accept it.

BUT, there's a price: *we* must write scopes of work, contract docs, etc. that adequately lay out the requirements and clearly delineate our expectations. Let the folks know you're going to check their work. Let them know you expect something typed and not in crayon. Let them know, in excrutiating detail, what it is you want.

If you do that and the work comes in not up to snuff, you have complete recourse to throw the work back at them and ask for you money back. If your boss gets upset because you're going to get behind schedule - remind him that it's THEIR fault and, on top of that, OUR reputation will be marred because we have to put our name on this sub's lousy work. The boss might not care, but you're going to protect yourself by writing a memo for the record - that goes in the package - detailing the problems.

 

[metengr]

These are just a few of the many things I've been seeing. I think one of the problems is vendors who either don't have engineers on staff or their engineers are so specialized they can't do the area that I'm looking out for which is structural.

I realize we're all human and we're going to make mistakes but it has got to the point where I just expect the information I'm getting from vendors to be wrong. Anybody else running up against this?

Yes, I have seen more of this happening with our vendors. I believe the common denominator for all this was the downsizing and outsourcing of technical expertise within companies starting in the late 1990's to current. Many of the experienced and qualified engineers were displaced to cut costs and rely on fewer, less expierenced engineers remaining in the organization.

I am not that impressed with the technical capability of our so-called qualified vendors. All I know is this, the organization that I work for relies on us “seasoned engineers” to sort out the B--- S--- from vendors.

 

[dozer]

Good comments. Dave, you're right about clearly delineating our expectations. As the quality of work goes down, we have to be more exact about what we want and what the consequences will be if we don't get it.

I wasn't in on the selection process. As a matter of fact some vendors were chosen before I even started this job. One thing I learned though is that when you're going to have somebody actually design one-off items especially for your project you should do your homework. Get resumes of the key personnel, visit their office/shop. If something seems out of whack, don't just shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, they say they know what they're doing. I'm sure it will be fine." You're gut is probably right.

I'm reminded of many years ago a small company I worked at was bidding on a very large structure for a very well know company. The executrons came by our dinky office to see our dog and pony show. The dog had the mange and the pony needed to be shot.

One of the reasons the well know company is successful is because they cared enough to check us out before they invested their money and reputation. They thanked us politely for our time and moved on to the next contractor.

Rather than be offended, I learned an important lesson. We were good at what we did but this project was just too big for us. We (I use the term "we" graciously) didn't realize we would have been in over our head (did somebody mention arrogance earlier?) but the potential client did his homework rather than just awarding to the lowest bidder, probably saving himself a lot of money and headaches.

 

[TomGDandT]

The automotive companies here in the Detroit area keep offering early retirement packages for employees with 20 years. They do this to save money by getting the higher paid to leave. The effect is that they have paid the brain trust to leave before skills and lessons learned are passed to the younger generations. This causes past mistakes to be repeated. Now we can look forward to the Baby Boomers retiring and taking the knowledge with them.


Tom Rhodes, GDTP-S
QMC LLC;

http://www.qmc.com

Senior Dimensional Management Engineer.
CeTOL 6 Sigma

 

[moltenmetal]

Too many young engineers going right into consulting from school. A lack of internship and mentorship opportunities for young engineers. A couple generations of engineers who graduated during the "bust" cycle of the market and couldn't find work, leaving a mid-level experience gap in the labour force. Downsizing of the experienced gray-haired set to "save money". Too much reliance on codes and standards, to the point that people tend to use them as an excuse not to use their brains or do necessary engineering!

Need any more reasons?

...oh yeah- and the other obvious thing: you get what you pay for! Too many years where engineering was a pretty poor gig in comparison to other things that a smart university grad could do to earn a buck. We may have been getting "the best and brightest" into engineering programs in universities, but so many of them are leaving school and NOT entering our profession these days that engineering is now being referred to as "the new liberal arts education". Makes my stomach turn!

 

[2dye4]

Personally I have observed a trait in many engineers of
recent graduation. They are most eager to convince
themselves they understand something, taking a quick
shortcut to really understanding the subject. I have
listened to them describe their understanding of a subject
with glaring logical errors in their description. I can't
wait for them to stop talking so I can ask them
"What about this possibility??"
It is not just laziness in my opinion. They suffer a
insecurity and feel inside there is no way I would ever
really GET IT so it's best try to be close to correct and
just fake it. It is fear of failure that keeps these
people from saying "wait a minuite I really don't get this"

Psychologist say their locus of control is external.
They want acceptance instead of developing a skill set.


Perhaps this is what the famous Danish philosopher
meant when he said.


"ERROR IS COWARDICE"

 

[rhodie]

I read your comments, and as a young engineer I feel that I am among the lot contributing to your collective chagrin.

I find that in any given day, there maybe at least 2 work items that I have no proven method of solving (or resolving), so like anybody I venture into the unknown with the basic tools my college provided and a healthy motive to learn more. The old guys that figured these problems out many years ago have all retired or been moved out. So, we must then reinvent the wheel.

It may be the schools, it may be the lack of talent, but more than likely it is just the natural tendancy of the last surviving enwised elders to identify the deficiencies of the up-and-coming slackjawed idiots being rushed out of the engineering schools.

I want to learn, and I want to be good at what I do. I do not want to be considered lower quality just because of the generation I was produced from.

...and I think that most of my fellows feel the same way.

 

[wes616]

Rhodie,

feel a lesser engineer after reading the above thread. Often times these types of threads are the result of a momentary frustration, or projection on the part of the respondant.

Most people forget how little they knew when they started out. And while many companies are squeezing us to produce more with less (that is the unfortunate economic circumstance we are in) the reality is that the generation before had the same reservations and observations.

This is a problem older than any of us...

Wes C.
------------------------------
No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

 

[Comcokid]

I wonder where engineering is going all the time. I don't know about the issues engineers in professional/licensed occupations face, but the change in tecnical expectations for engineers working in the so-called "industry exempt" areas are sometimes impossible.

There has been such a industry drive to reduce expenses that the typical engineering staff has become smaller and smaller. Engineers have to become familiar with so many different technical areas that they are no longer experts at anything.

A recent job ad I saw for an "Analog & Hardware" engineer also included experience requirements of:C and C++, RTOS, VHDL, FPGA, UL, CE and FCC, RF design to 2.4 GHz, antenna design, PCB design, switch-mode and off-line power supply design, magnetics, SolidWorks, Matlab, LaBView, with experience in millimeter wave design and measurement desirable. Expereince with custom ASICs a plus.

In technical areas where the "half-life" of knowledge is usually 18-months with new technical areas being developed every few years, you just can't expect an engineer to know everything.

 

[Tropx]

Comcokid,

Either you need to be genius material so that you can learn new material and assimilate rapidly, or you need to have no life and spend your hours outside of work studying new material. These are the facts of the modern economy. Hyper competetion is here to stay. At least the best jobs still pay well.

That said, a solid foundation will always serve one well. I think that in many cases universities are wasting their time trying to teach software tools to students. Students need a solid grounding so that they can solve real world problems. Any bright student can learn a software tool. Whether they can use it properly to solve real world engineering problems depends on how well they understand fundamentals.

I do not agree with the statement that this generation is going through the same thing as previous generations. The fact is that telecommunications networks and free trade have essentially removed any notion that you are competing only against those in your country. Companies now compete globally and therefore must have absolutely the best people. That is a lot of pressure on 20 something year olds. The rate of technological change is unprecedented and distractions are everywhere in modern life. Children are depressed in record numbers. There is general disdain for the merit of education outside of preparing one for a vocation. And yet we continue to "innovate" at record pace.

As a relatively young engineering graduate I agree with what others have said about wanting to do well. I do want to learn and understand my field better. But after a 12 hour day I barely want to turn on the TV let alone crack an advanced textbook.

 

[EddyC]

From Tropx:
"Companies now compete globally and therefore must have absolutely the best people."

Not always true.

There are plenty of "bottom feeder" companies that hire employees based upon price and not upon their skills. I have worked for 2 so far and I see many others around me.

When things don't go well financially, companies choose to do bad work using bad staff, rather than voluntarily going out of business.

 

[moltenmetal]

The b*tching going on here isn't an indictment of the new generation of engineers whatsoever. It's still possible to find both gifted engineers and bald-faced idiots amongst the graduating classes these days. What has changed is the expectations of industry, which is only now coming off a 20-year run of bust or near-bust conditions in the traditional engineering disciplines.

Engineers can't merely be educated in schools. There's an on-the-job training component as there is in ALL professions. But this is impossible when the experienced people who have the most to offer in terms of mentoring new grads have been "greyed" out of work, or starved out of the profession! It's compounded by the fact that engineering faculty these days are hired on the basis of their ability to generate published papers- industrial experience is entirely secondary and in many (most!) cases, completely absent!

 

[StoneCold]

We need look no further than ourselves as to where to lay the blame. If you want to make things better take some interns or young engineers in under your wing. It is quite challenging. They are definately lacking in many areas but I think most of that is do to a lack of good experience. After all, McDonalds is about the only jog these kids have had. Complaining helps none of us. Passing on our knowledge helps everyone, it even sharpens our own need to increase our knowledge.

Regards
StoneCold

 

[Tomfh]

I do not want to be considered lower quality just because of the generation I was produced from.

Don't feel too bad. The next generation is always terrible.

 

[lewtam]

The warden in Cool Hand Luke described it well:

'What we have here is failure to communicate.'

The Procurement Department lives on another planet from the Engineering Department and the Engineering Department lives on another planet from the Operations Department.

The people who have to use a product or service have no say in the spec. The people who have to spec a product or service have no say in the buying. Lowest bidder, the guy who doesn't have any engineering design and support overhead, wins.



LewTam Inc.
Petrophysicist, Leading Hand, Natural Horseman, Prickle Farmer, Crack Shot, Venerable Yogi.

 

[oldfieldguy]

Our local university just completed a multi-million dollar revamp to the football station, bringing it to state of the art.

The engineering and technical school relies on second-hand donations of hardware from local industries.

Correlation? Yeah...

Engineers are like any other segment of the graduating class. There are good ones who went to school to learn the basics of a chosen field, and leave school with a willingness to continue to learn. Others have a diploma and are looking for an office in which to hang it. I like the first type. There are too many of the second, some who graduated in 2006, some who graduated in 1966...

old field guy

 

[Comcokid]

Oldfieldguy, issues of athletics and other university programs is nothing new. When I was at a state university in the late 70's, all the engineering programs were being threatened with accreditation because of the size of the university library, and had three years to correct the issue. The same time, the Astroturf was peeling in the end zone of the stadium and it could be noticed on TV. The engineering colleges and the football program both applied for emergency funds.

Guess which got done?