Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
(OP)
One of the most (or perhaps the most significant) tools that has been placed at the engineer is the computer. This tool has become increasingly powerful over the years. I wonder though, if this tool is making sloppy engineers out of us. With ever more intricate algorithms, the capability of the engineer to independently assess the results of an analysis I feel is decreasing. At the same time, computer simulations are bringing products to market with fewer design iterations and even fewer prototypes. I thought to float the following questions for discussion.
Are we becoming overly reliant on a device and accompanying software that uses algorithms too complex to analyze, written by individuals who may or may not have any familiarity with the underlying engineering principles? How many bugs are still within such programs that could affect results? In recent memory, I cannot think of a software program or operating system that was bug free.
I haven't marked this post but will visit it regularly (I get enough e-mails). Interested in your general thoughts.
For a humorous close, from some of "Murphy's Laws"
Undetectable errors are infinite in variety in contrast to detectable errors which by definition are limited.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.
There is always one more bug.
Never program and drink beer at the same time.
Regards,
Are we becoming overly reliant on a device and accompanying software that uses algorithms too complex to analyze, written by individuals who may or may not have any familiarity with the underlying engineering principles? How many bugs are still within such programs that could affect results? In recent memory, I cannot think of a software program or operating system that was bug free.
I haven't marked this post but will visit it regularly (I get enough e-mails). Interested in your general thoughts.
For a humorous close, from some of "Murphy's Laws"
Undetectable errors are infinite in variety in contrast to detectable errors which by definition are limited.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.
There is always one more bug.
Never program and drink beer at the same time.
Regards,





RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
In my opinion analysis software is more like a tool to foresee problems that we may encounter not the definitive answer. I use Pro-Mech for my static and dynamic analysis and TAS for heat transfer analysis. During the analysis to make sure that the software is doing what it is suppose to do (garbage in garbage out), I spot check the results with hand calculations especially when it comes down to the final prototype design (when we are ready to cut metal). Now, the results of the analysis software are fantasy until it is correlated with test data; this is where the rubber meets the road. Once you have test data, the computer analysis can be updated accordingly.
I have been on a program where they went from computer to fabrication. That was a disaster. On top of that, it was a fixed price job so there were no extra funds to use (only overhead) to fix problems. At the end the project it cost more for the company than what we sold it for to the customer.
I don’t think the software is making the engineer sloppier, but making them even better. Back in my college days, one of the assignments for the class was to write code for the computer to solve problems. Back then I could not understand why would Mechanical Engineers program code to do problems, this is what computer sciences and electronic engineers did back in the early 90s. Now I have an appreciation of the professors that they had some foresight that we mechanicals would need an understanding of how analysis software worked.
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Software is making the engineer better, but at the same time, it is allowing the non-engineer to enter the field. This is the person that connot do the hand calculations to check the programming and is "engineering" without a thorough understanding of the garbage in/garbage out concept.
I have seen posts here before that talked about laypeople using our engineering tools. It is becoming more common place as evidenced by failures that make it to the news, and more frightning, failures that do not.
I really believe it is the people not qualified to be engineers that use the tools we created for ourselves that are contributing to the sloppiness (and downright danger)of engineering.
Good thought provoking post...
BobPE
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
But, taking it back further...without the FEM analysis available by computer, there wouldn't be a Boeing 7E7.
If you have no idea what the results of the Program is going to be, then you shouldn't be designing with it. (the collective "you", not you personally)
The design is in my head...the fine tuning and proof comes from the computer.
So, is the " 2 additional repair plys" rule lazy or convenient.
If you go off and use a Computer Program without knowing what the results should be, the results won't make you question the input and program calculations.
I have been surprised by a program's results before and have spent many hours verifying the correctness of the program. It sure does bring back bad memories of doing calculations by hand, every time!
Without the present day computers and programs there would be no glut of Engineers...and Slide Rule sales would be on the increase. (but that is another thread)
Yes, there are bugs...there is also a Factor of Safety.
That is why we use Engineers.
Any IT department that purchases an Engineering Program, without the participation of the Engineering Dept. deserves to have the product fail. Any Engineering Dept. that uses a Program on Face Value of the Marketing provided on the box deserves to fall on their face. Someone must proof the program, but before I relied on the program I would do my own proof testing on known input - outputs.
"If an Airplane had to fly with the paperwork used to build it...it wouldn't get off the ground."
Denny Crain....I mean, Rerig.
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
1. Computer software allows engineering students to muddle though and "produce" answers with little, or no understanding of problems. Before computers were common, those same students would have had no way solve these problems (using slide rules or basic calculators). The education system rapidly convinced these individuals to change to another major.
2. Unrelated to this is the increase in truly needed engineering fields that seem "softer" on number crunching - one example may be environmental engineering. This subtle change may have (incorrectly) created the impression that engineers (in general) do not have the "hard core" problem solving skills that were once part of the stereotype.
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
I beg to differ. Well I can only say for my time in college (early 90s) and I can safely say for today that the college students in mechanical engineering are not using the FEA in any of there classes to solve or learn engineering theories. Just in the classes where they are learning “how” to use the analysis software. In fact in my college I know that they are still making their students write code (Fortran) to solve mechanical engineering problems. Believe me, this is no easy effort. It is one thing to understand the theories and calculus, but it is another to program code to make the computer do the theories and calculus and come out with correct results. In fact, in order for them to prove their program works is to show the hand calculations on how they came to a particular or slue of answers. Hey this sounds familiar; this is what I do now!
In a way I do feel that the analysis software was not really meant for the engineers, but to show pretty pictures to management to influence there decision. It is one thing for an engineer to show all his equations for stress and shear stress to an audience, but man, when you throw up that slide with all the neat colors showing where all the stresses are, it can answer a thousand questions at once.
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
In '97 I took the Boeing "Advanced Structural Repair for Engineer's" course. They wouldn't let us use the computers. Scientific Calculators only. I really needed my Slide Rule, but I probably forgot how to use it by now.
I didn't exactly feel Lazy....I just missed the ease of calculating on the computer. (and my home grown formulas)
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
But... no significant model is uncorrelated. In my case the suspension is put together with a nasty mix of hand calculations, spreadsheets and sophisticated modelling programs. Every step of the way results are checked back against previous models, and sideways against prototypes or test parts, and the results from all three analytical methods are expected to agree to some extent.
The danger is that we are moving into a stage where the computer model has been 'right' for about 6 years - that is, we haven't learnt a great deal more from building the early physical prototypes, as they have performed pretty much as expected out of the box.
The temptation is to avoid building these rather expensive and troublesome cars, and design it all on the computer. It would cut about 3 months out of a program, and save millions of dollars.
The question then becomes how do we ensure the integrity of the models, even if they are as good as we think they are?
The answer is you have to build robust models, which is interesting. A robust design may not be as efficient as a less robust design, but will be more tolerant of errors in assumptions. That's quite funny in a way, it's almost going back to cookbook engineering.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
For reference, my university (mid/late 1960's) had one computer available for student use. I was taught to program in Fortran II. Programming consisted of typing the input onto the now almost extinct IBM paper cards (about 25 of the mechanical punch-card machines were available for 15,000 students). You then turned in the cards at the Computer Center, left, and returned a few hours later to pick up your printed results. I remember it taking several days up to a couple of weeks to "get the bugs out” of the math and data entry. The key factor was that the computer was of no use at all in other classes – computer time was to valuable for routine use by undergraduates. All of this was typical for an engineering education at that time.
I majored in Mechanical Engineering, outside of these two Fortran classes, EVERYTHING else was done either on a slide rule, pencil/paper or hand drawn graphical solution – NO exceptions. If a student was “sloppy” in his setup of a problem, manipulation of a slide rule or drafting technique – you got the wrong answer. There was no other way.
My point is that things have changed for the better over the last 35 years, but SOME individuals who could not pass an engineering curriculum then, may do so now by using (but not understanding) the current technology.
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
I too went through the engineering program in the "early days" of computer use. Mention FORTRAN these days and newer engineers or software folks look at you like you are a fossil! We always independently checked results. I wonder if the "new generation" of engineers feel similarly.
Regards,
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Let me be the first to say that I see a great deal of sloppiness invading the software engineering profession.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
For students who find out that engineering is not the field that they would like to get into usally gets weeded out in the math, chemistry, and physics classes (remember the phrase by the professor “look to your left and look to your right, by the end of this class most of them will be gone”). By the time they get pass these classes; they usually know if they like doing the analysis needed for the engineering classes.
In a way I do believe that the current technology at the college level will actually help them learn the engineering theories. I mean software like the Excel spread sheets and Math CAD, even their calculators which are programmable, or programming in Fortran. These are software where the user has to know what they want before getting the software to do the task. Not going to the software to find answers. Because of this, the student will have to “think” while programming. It is almost a mental exercise.
I kind of see the software as another weeding out tool. The students have to know the engineering theories and know how to use the different software on top of that. Not to pick on the older engineers, but do you know how many times I hear the older engineers trying to do stuff in pro mechanica and scream “I can’t get this stupid box to work!”. They know what they want, but can’t get the software to do it.
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
For other than computer engineering professions, in my opinion, to deny a person "membership in the engineering profession" because they can't get Excel to work is sending the wrong message, and focusing on the wrong skill sets. I couldn't care less whether or not a civil engineer can use AutoCad. I would rather be confident that the engineer has properly evaluated the stress points. By all means continue to weed them out in the physics, chemistry, and math classes as appropriate.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
It is not only the engineers. It other majors in college too. The last in my family that went to college was my youngest sister. When she started back in the late 90s, it was mandatory that all of her freshman class have a lap top. She was a Bio major and she had her own software master. If you did not realize it yet, we are in the computer industry. Actually I would be more scared if the person was not computer literate especially in Excel spread sheets.
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
But technology is and should be a tool, not a requirement.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
As far as canned software, the (black) buttonbox stuff does not doit for me, generally. Mathcad type mathematical program that you write yourself is a good way to verify the results. As for sim's, the high dollar FEA and nonlinear simulations are good.
Sincerely, screwedbynmci
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
I use MathCad and Excel a lot and they "just allow the math to be more involved". When I use a simulator (either downhole, pipeline, or compressor) I always verify the results against both observed data and hand calculations. With a calibrated model I have some degree of confidence in the extrapolations that are generally the reason for the simulation.
I had an intern a few years ago that was working on a de-bottlenecking project on a gathering system. The system had two major laterals that came together into a trunk. The design he brought me was a full-system loop of both laterals. I asked "why don't you just start the loop at the head of the north lateral, jump down to the south and loop that one?". He said that he model said that was a terrible solution. I modeled it in another program and that one said my way was significantly better. Looking at his model showed that the software had a bias to flow gas from low numbered model-nodes to high numbered nodes - I re-numbered the nodes in his model and it liked my solution. The intern lacked the "engineering judgement" (whatever that is) to question the model. I think he learned a lesson that will carry him through a career.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
www.muleshoe-eng.com
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The Plural of "anecdote" is not "data"
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
In the public school system, I would prefer that computers were not introduced until high school. I just don’t see the advantage of computers in the lower grades. In fact, I don’t see the advantage of calculators in the lower grades. I took an upper level course in differential equations in the mid 90’s. The instructor was excellent. He stated at the beginning of the semester that a calculator was not required for exams in his class. I took his advice and did not use one for the exams. Surprisingly, as I finished up my first exam, I saw many classmates frantically punching buttons on their calculators without thinking about the algorithm required for a efficient solution. Given a computer with the appropriate software for engineering, these same button pushers can be dangerous.
In conclusion, I believe that computers have their place, however, that place is not in most classrooms. In most engineering classes, there is little benefit in using computers to make students literate in engineering. Obviously, there should be courses specifically for programming and using computers with numerical methods to solve complex problems. In contrast, computers are of limited benefit for most undergraduate work. Undergraduate studies should focus on the basics and the historical methods of calculations. If the graduate is properly educated, using a computer is a no brainer.
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Would this engineer still be an engineer after the power went out, and the battery ran down?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Every now and then I come across circa 60s and 70s photos of engineers with their draftsmen in a sea of drafting tables and wondered what was the speed back then on completing a project. Just to do engineering change orders from the start of an ECO thru CCB and then to the draftsmen for completion must have been long.
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Like the sign in our shop says: "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick any two".
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
This is not a technology problem, but a process engineering problem. If your work is getting to the floor with out even going thru a configuration control board (CCB) for approval, it does not make a difference if the drawing was done in ACAD or on J size sheets. I would suggest that you put in some kind of check and balance into your configuration management. So that when a new or changed drawing is released, every significant person knows about the new design or change.
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Now, I don't know if this is good or bad...but it is definately different that how things used to be done, and change can be a bad thing before it becomes a good thing....
just my thoughts...
BobPE
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
I've lived with many designs which were thrown over the wall at manufacturing. The machine was tooled up and the parts made. The proto machine had many problems and redesign of many parts parts required. Costs were too high. Assembly time was excessive. Servicing the unit was a nightmare. Time to market was not good.
I've also been involved in one project where a new machine was needed to compete against a competitor's new machine. A team of people was called together and told we need a new machine in 6 months. Previous design and build of a new machine was 18 months. The design engineer was the final decision maker on any disputed concepts. Reuse or modification of previous machine parts with their proven designs reduced testing requirements. Manufacturing knew the tooling needs long before the actual designs were released. Assembly and service problems from previous designs were addressed. The end result of all this collaboration was a completed machine in 6 months. Meeting and exceeding expectations on almost every area.
The machine I'm talking about is a digger derrick used by electric utilities with a 45 foot boom height mounted on chassis. It still is one of the standard machines available today.
Collaboration must start at the conceptual phase not at the end of the design process. Many design decision are made very early in the process and changing late in the process becomes time and cost prohibitive.
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Each week (I think) the solid models that the CAD guys have been working on are rounded up and loaded into a viewing system. This means that anyone with access to a web browser can pull up the latest solid model of the car, or whichever parts they are interested in, and using an overhead projector can use it in meetings. Using net meeting the guys in the plant can participate at the same time, and so can the supplier, all they need is remote access to our intranet, or to go to one of our offices for a meeting.
OK, it isn't as good as getting everyone together around a drafting table, but it is the only way of dealing with suppliers from around the world.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
That is a great example of technology being used as a communication tool to yield better results than were possible just a few years ago. All of the "stakeholders" have the ability to participate in the design decisions. The end result has to be better than we ever could have done with a T-Square.
This thread has been about the other end of the spectrum where technology is used instead of communication as opposed to acting to enhance communication. The fault isn't the technology (it is the same technology in both cases), it is with an organizational model makes people act as though the technology could "think". Any time someone allows a computer program to replace a decision (as opposed to supporting the decision process) you get another case study on how not to engineer.
David
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
25 years ago, an electrical engineer was specialized in RF, Analog, Digital, Systems, etc with only a limited amount expertise in other areas.
Today, A company may advertise for an "Analog Engineer", but listed in the experience requirements (in addition to analog design) will be something like:
"Experience required : FPGA programming, verilog, C+, Visual Basic, LabView, evaluation testing, proficiency in PowerPoint and Microsoft Project. Familiarity with FMEA, ISO2000, EMC testing or experience with products for such-and-such-market a plus."
Now Lets Face It: You just can't be a expert at everything. I know I am constantly required to solve problems, make decisions, and use software tools I am not completely familiar with. On occasions, I have even had to solve problems in engineering areas of: mechanical, materials, manufacturing and patent law.
Engineers working in some areas are being slowly forced to know everything at the expense of being specialized, and that results in sloppy engineering.
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Can engineer do the job without a computer? I sure as hell hope so.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Some of the higher-end software packages have not only a new set of features with each release, but a new set of bugs as well. One electronics package (that I will not name) recently made such a complete overhaul to their user interface that it took me several months to get to the same level of proficiency as before - and I had used it for 12 years. The project I had during this period is very sloppy in terms of the document quality - and would be a little lower cost had I not been relearning the tool.
Not all packages have the same issue. In AutoCAD, I can type into Release 14 the same line commands that it used in the old V2.13 DOS days (cir 1984), and it still works.
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Otherwise I'd still be using WordPerfect.
Hg
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
I'm not saying it's a good thing. If I could find people in the company competent to review the drawings, and if they had the time to do so, it would get done. By the way, I am a degreed engineer, not a draftsman, although I do the functions of both (plus a few other job descriptions :). Drawing reviews are not a priority here, so it doesn't happen, or at least not enough in my opinion. It's the same pattern at a lot of places I've worked recently, and seems to be the company's way of "living with" staff cut-backs.
About 3 jobs back I had an opportunity to do a "clean sheet" design similar to the one BillPSU described. My approach was to pull in people from vendors, our shop and assembly people, drafters, and salepersons, to a meeting at our local tavern. Around a pitcher or two of beer, with a large butcher paper sheet, we discussed ways to fix a raft of problems the old machines had. As the end of the project approached, with the prototype machine having survived nearly 1000 hours of torture testing and the machine starting to "tool up" on the line, I was "asked to leave".
Now, several jobs later, I am doing my best to do what I always do: ask everybody their opinions of new designs in informal reviews. The result is that I'm getting a lot of heat from above for being "too slow". Never mind that so far, every product I've developed is an order of magnitude improvement in performance and reliability than its predecessor. My review comes up in a couple of months, and this subject will probably come up. At my age, I'm unlikely to find another design engineering job, and I'm not sure I'd want one anymore anyway. Wish me luck.
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
But back a little closer to the original topic, I guess "timesavers" like CAD allow things to move at a speed that precludes adequate review. But those who don't figure review time into the timeline, maybe they would have figured out some other "better use" of people's time than drawing review anyway.
What I see around here is that design drawing get reviewed pretty thoroughly but the shop drawings that come back from the fabricator can't be adequately reviewed in the time allotted. So they make a bigger rubber stamp with a longer disclaimer and okay them en masse. That's not universal; I do see shop drawings with corrections marked. But the designers complain about not being given anywhere near enough time to review the shop drawings.
I fuss about it, then I remember that there are those who want my inspectors to be doing full QC rather than an audit-based QA, and there just ain't no way we have the man-hours to accomplish it.
Hg
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Once the prices came down because everybody needed long life plugs etc, then it was surprisingly easy. Most of the groundwork had been done, it was just a case of taking a brave pill, doing all the right things, and there you are.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
In my market, as a subsidiary of the Big 3, two Japanese companies have gone down and are out, big time, and in terms of profitability... not market share ... we're doing rather well.
Focus on profitability, not market share. Any idiot can build market share. In the short term.
On the other hand the Big 3 undoubtedly have a lot to answer for. In all honesty, why do those three companies whose products have hardly ever sold outside of North America think they know how to build 'world' cars? The only reason they are still in business is via manipulation of the political process in the USA. If normal business rules had applied I'm pretty sure that all three would have been bankrupt and dispersed several times over by now. The most recent example - the DCX merger has completely destroyed the shareholder value of one or other of the two companies. Whoosh, one enormous company up in smoke in three years.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
One thing that scares me, as an engineer, as a father of a child just starting elementary school, and as the son of a pair of educators, is the loss of primary math and anlaysis skills. I saw a sign last year on local middle school stating "Year-end comprehension testing next week. Don't forget your calculators!". That sent literal chills down my spine. I've heard of 2nd and 3rd grade students allowed the use of calculators to do simple math. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!! And, while I attended college in the late 1980's, I had one professor become aggressively oblivious to the increased use of programmable calculators to cheat on tests where multiple equations, algorithms, and simple principles were all supposed to memorized and used!! All of these are examples that show our growing dependence upon technology in even the simplest manner.
Now, I'm not one to decry technology and it's use, but there are fundamental skills - like math and logical reasoning - that need to be taught and developed without the use of a technological crutch. Simple math skills - as well as other fundamental skills such as WRITING and READING COMPREHENSION and LANGUAGE ARTS - should never be taken for granted. These should be stressed not only at the lowest level of education but throughout our learning programs, our careers, and our lives.
So, getting back to the forum's question: Are we becoming sloppy engineers? The answer is - at least my answer is - MAYBE. Technology has helped us to succeed in wondrous areas. However, as some skills have bloomed, others have sagged. There is a trade-off - of sorts - but in reality there doesn't have to be. We can stress the use of any tool we find appropriate, whether it be a software program, a calculator, a word-smithing colleague, internet research...whatever. But, we should strive - especially as engineers - to UNDERSTAND the FUNDAMENTALS behind each and every tool we use and why we use them. Sloppiness? Professionally, we should NEVER ALLOW OURSELVES to become complacent with the world around us and that includes allowing ourselves to become so immersed in technology that we lose the BASICS and forget the PRINCIPLES.
Never let yourself become a slave to the machine. Rather, become the master of the machine. Knowledge is power.
...ah well... off my soapbox now ... <sigh!>
~NiM
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
In the UK the Japanese OEM’s always top the customer satisfaction surveys. The big three cheapen the product and this enables them to retain higher profits at the expense of reliability. Hardly a good long-term business model?
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
The path of cheaper not better is no real solution. As one of my friends recently remarked : if you chase low cost production as #1 priority you'll buy parts from China. Eventually you'll buy all your parts from China, and realise that sending them overseas in the form of a completed car will make more sense than crating them up. Then you don't have a local manufacturing industry, or a local assembly plant.
I don't think things are quite that bleak, but that's a hard argument to counter.
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
I appreciate your post as it hits on one of the keys I was trying to bring out by starting this thread. I wonder if there will be a bit of a technological "generation gap" between those of us who bridged the slide rule to calculator age and those who are coming on now from the calculator/computer age. I had a brief conversation along these lines yesterday with one of our drawing detailers. He stated to me that in his view, the mechanical engineers tended to review drawings with greater thoroughness than the EE's. By and large, the EE's compromise the more "youthful" demographic where I work. Perhaps they have better faith and confidence in the results of CAD layout of boards but judging from the number of turns we go through before a product is launched, I don't think they should.
Regards,
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
A small story about drawing details. In the mid 80's, I was in college and worked as an intern for the Corps of Engineers doing drafting work. We had just gotten our first set of CAD machines, including a thermal printer that would print full size drawings. After several months, we were getting pretty good at turning out drawings so they started checking them. (And I mean CHECKING...text position, placement...line width..etc.) But for every correction we would make (sometimes down to the thousanths place), it seemed to not be the fix. Long and short of it, we found that the paper being used in the thermal printer would shrink or grow depending on the humidity and temperature, thus causing the measurement errors of the drawing checker. Goes to show you that you should never get too comfortable with technology!
By the way, I may be a young engineer (<40), but I had plenty of training in the "old school" methods (including slide rules and drafting t's). I think being a student in the mid 80's lended itself to that "upbringing" as we were making great strides in technology and the curriculum was doing it's best to play catch-up. I still think there are basic engineering classes that no matter the technology level, they should be required.
Another example. We were melting and casting an alloy into a new form, one which the alloy development team said should be impossible due to the nature of the alloy and the size of the casting. On the 2nd try in the manufacturing process, we were successful. However, one of the development engineers (young fellow) remained skeptical and would not believe our results, even after we reproduced them 3 more times (and improved each time). He couldn't get past the fact that the computer model he based his conclusions on was wrong! And, another part of the development team asked me how the production team decided to take certain steps (they weren't predicted by any literature or model he could find). I replied that sometimes you extrapolate from experience and forge ahead. (In other words, go with your gut.) Neither engineer could grasp that, but it sure put a grin on my face as lead production engineer (and a bigger grin on my techs and operators).
Basic fundamentals. Rote experience. Self-reliance and faith in one's knowledge and ability. Common sense. Thinking and learning outside the box. These are the building blocks of an engineer.
~NiM
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
5 years out of school and I'm the local "expert" for lack of anyone else to fill the role. I am somewhat well-credentialed but as far as I am concerned I know diddlysquat. I don't have years behind me to give my gut something to go by, and don't have any elders to turn to in my immediate surroundings. Fortunately I have a national network of "elders" I can turn to, but most people in my position wouldn't have those connections. And I can't turn to my network for every routine matter, so mostly I need to go by the book, and I'm reasonably sure I've put the book over "common" sense any number of times. I know the theory the book is based on, but don't always know when some things don't really matter in reality.
"The book" is not the same as "the computer", which is what spawned this thread, but maybe what that means is that ANYTHING that can be used to substitute for knowledge and experience, whether it's new technology, published guidelines, specifications, etc., is a double-edged sword.
Hg
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Now that is an example of a sloppy engineer. Beleiveing that his computer analysis is reality is the wrong way of using today’s technology. The computer data is just “fantasy” until proven by “actual” experiment. Hard data never lies!
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
I'm an EE and have a reputation for being a good reviewer of drawings because they always go back covered in redline for everything from questioning calculations to correcting typo's and improving the layout. The designers hate me, or so they claim in public, but they also appreciate the effort because it makes their work look good.
Many of my colleagues simply sign drawings off with no checking, because they either don't understand the potential consequences of a bad drawing making it to construction, or because they don't care. I don't like either option, but I'm not the boss so I can only grouch about it and hope he listens.
----------------------------------
If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Glad to see your response. Our CAD detailers occasionally used to "test" the reviewers by putting in obvious errors (recipes, balsa wood as a material for a machined part or as a board composite). Some drawings would be signed off as is. Luckily, the detailer is also part of the sign off prior to release so they could remove their "errors". Certainly helps drive home that one of the engineering "basics" is reviewing and checking work. If some of our EEs were as diligent, we might not average 6 board turns per product launch!
Regards,
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
~NiM
RE: Are we becoming "sloppy" Engineers
Back when I first started on a drawing board, all of my drawings would come back full of red. Most were minor mistakes, some not so minor. I used to resent the checker for some of the things he would mark up, but he was the BEST teacher I have had when it comes to creating a proper drawing.
It is a sad state of affairs when the majority of engineering departments have done away with the drawing checker. Now we are supposed to check our own work, but it needs to be released today. I don't care how good of a drafter or designer you are, your own mistakes can be invisible until you put the drawing aside for awhile.