×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

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

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

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

(OP)
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.

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

However, US engineers often need to call in designers to do the drawing and may take weeks to figure out a solution, he said

hahah...  in every job I've had, we "called in the designers" because they were CHEAP relative to our own rates.  I can do a pretty darn good job in Pro-E and UG (thousands of hours on each), but you can get a non-degreed designer who is 75%+ as good at either program for 30% of the price.  I personally find it much more effective to say "put that over there, and make sure you have enough clearance here" than to spend an hour or two doing it myself.  You might have to babysit a bit to make sure the job gets done right, but you can spend the rest of your time making sure you get the darn thing designed right (calculations, simulations, finding suppliers, interpreting test results, etc) while someone else plays with the crayons.  

I'd say that every engineer should know what the tools do and what their drawbacks are (in his own neighborhood, anyway), but not everybody should be an expert in using every tool.

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

Bob Lutz should also look at the management which drives the engineers. Engineers take on the look of the corporation. The decisions are based on what is in favor at that time in management. The decision to purchase parts is not made by the engineer. Longevity and safety factors for designs come down from above and are sometimes abused.

An organization if it wants to make the highest quality product must have a culture of doing it right the first time and every time. Ask the assembly line worker is his/her job always perfect and meets specifications. Is everybody proud of the product coming off the assembly line? It is not only the shop people but the supervisors, managers, engineers, purchasing agents, and janitors proud of their contribution to making the best car possible.

I would wager manufacturing costs, purchase cost, cars completed, and hours per car are the measurements looked at the most and quality is the last. Every Toyota I have owned has out performed every GM product I have ever owned. By the way I grew loving Chevy's.

Lutz needs to look at the culture at GM and mold it into something it currently is not. Engineers are just part of the equation.

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

Considering GM and others have spent years forcing the design/engineering work down to their suppliers, it is little surprise that they are more in a management role.  As BillPSU points out, it is a cultural issue that was created and needs to be addressed or at least balanced.

Regards,

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

This GM executive "Bob Lutz" needs to look at the practice of the entire automotive industry the past 70 years - It's been mostly a union environment. Even though the engineers may have not been union, the management approach that will creep through all parts of the system is that a person is to do a certain task and no more.

What Bob Lutz needs to do is create a small-company envrionment. I've been working in the US for over 25 years, and for about 20 of those years at different small companies I've had to do almost all of my own drafting, (bench work, testing, minor parts ordering, etc). Some of these jobs have been at small divisions of Fortune 500 companies - samll companies do exist within large corporations.

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

Maybe GM management needs some training as to what the engineers do.  (Good luck to the trainers.)

Seems pretty wastefull to train the electronics, software, thermodynamic, metallurgy, aerodynamics, etc., guys to become  efficient draftsmen.

Doug

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

Bob Lutz needs to come to Europe! I'm one of the few in my company who aren't employed as designers but can drive AutoCAD to a reasonable standard. Sure, I'm slower than they are, but I can get small mods to drawings done much more quickly than waiting for a slot in the designer's schedule. The majority of my colleagues haven't a clue about AutoCAD: using Draw in MS-Word is about it!

Is Bob interested in buying a British car plant, 5000 workers, recently closed?

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

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

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

2
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.

Ron

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

It is not the drawing or drafting that is the question here. I have had problems with excellent draftsmen who can drive a CAD station but have no concept of size..."I did not think it would be that big/small".. is a typical comment from designers who have only worked on a CAD station and lack a link to the real world. You can easily scale it to any size. The issue is rather the ability to visualise the problems and possible solutions, to think as an engineer not a manager.

"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."

Mark Hutton
hutton4eng@picknowl.com.au

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

3
(OP)
I must confess I find the whole thing funny, partly because of what ivymike and dford said.

This is how we work.

I do the dynamics of the suspension, establishing loads and geometry and so on. The two next desks to me have the FEA guys, who take those loads and apply them to the structures and arms. The structures and arms are designed by the CAD guys, who work on the three desks opposite ours. So when I want to change the suspension I can immediately get feedback from the people around me. (The feedback tends to be Anglo Saxon).

Also, to be honest I hadn't noticed that European engineers were particularly more or less inclined to go CAD wrangling, that seems to be more of a company cultural thing. Admittedly at the last UK based company I worked at I did do a fair bit of solid modelling, but that was to get the concepts sorted, packaged, and into FEA. We still had CAD guys to pull the solid models apart and make proper drawings of manufacturable parts that would fit together.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

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

That explains why cars cost so much. The guy is clueless.

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

2
I don't know why we shouldn't offshore the CEO's and top managers. We couldn't get worse results and could save tons of money.

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

Notice Daimler Chrysler board is made up of mostly Europeans. Notice how some of Chrysler's products have started to improve?

Thoughts to ponder.

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

Sorry, Bob Lutz, last GM vehicle I owned was a 1994 model. Maybe you should study a Honda, a Nissan, and a Toyota really closely (reality check).

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

(OP)
Grim reading for various people (including me) in the JD Power/What Car quality survey.

http://www.whatcar.com/NonCar/134555622.jpg

here's the full report

http://www.whatcar.co.uk/News_SpecialReport.asp?NA_ID=214562&EL_ID=3121175

Note that both Mercedes and Chrysler are getting hammered.

I must admit I struggle a bit with Skoda's position, but have never driven one. VW must have put a ton of money in.

Kia must be scratching their heads, one of their models gets 1 star, another gets 5!

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

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

Greg,
I didn't see any GM cars in that list?
I am an ex-GM owner. The last 2 GM cars I owned were apparently designed to be thrown away after only 60,000 miles. By contrast, I had a 1975 Buick Century, which was good for 180,000 miles. The 1994 Buick Century I owned for a short time was a total piece of crap.
The big difference between Japanese small cars and trucks and American small cars (in general): the American ones are the horribly designed and built. The full-size American trucks are pretty decent.
Wake up Detroit.

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

Engineers in general need more hands-on work experience.  From what I've seen of our European subsidiary, that's little different in Europe than it is here in Canada.  Far too many kids go straight from school into engineering consultancies to become "stationery engineers" (i.e. engineers whose only product is paper, and who virtually never get to witness the efficacy of their design decisions in the field).

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

"I don't know why we shouldn't offshore the CEO's and top managers. We couldn't get worse results and could save tons of money."

Not too far offshore. The continental shelf would suffice...

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

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

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

I'm not that impressed with JD Power's survey (the short time duration of it, particulary), and like the Consumer Reports survey of car reliability for guidance in what vehicle to buy.

That said, our most recent purchase, for the wife's vehicle, was a large SUV.  Before I compared reliability ratings, I was fully prepared to go buy a Suburban... you'd think that a vehicle whose basic design hasn't changed in 30+ years would be a pretty bulletproof performer by now... but the Toyota Sequoia beats its pants off, and let's not even talk about the Ford product.

We bought a Toyota.

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

Looks like Bob Lutz just wants to get rid of some designers/drafters and transfer their workload onto the existing workload of his engineers. Opinions like his make me question the value of modern capitalism. How many of the business leaders of today started out on the shop floor "tinkering" as he describes it? What need do we have for Osama Bin Laden with business leaders like this?

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

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

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

(OP)
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.

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

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

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

(OP)
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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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!

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

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.

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

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. :)

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

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

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

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?


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

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

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

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.

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

(OP)
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.

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

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.




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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

(OP)
/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.

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

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
www.whitelightdesign.com

Pro/E FAQ www.whitelightdesign.com/servicestips.htm

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

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.

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

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.

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

  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.

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

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!

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

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,

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

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!

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

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.

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

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

Bob

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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/

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

(OP)
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.

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

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.)

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

"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?

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

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.

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

(OP)
"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.

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

I was given that bit of info from a Ford Co. engineer lamenting the lack of profitability, ergo development/sales incentive in the domestic compact lineup.

The MSRP for a Focus SE 4 door is 13-20k, the 325i's is right at 28-31k.

Detroit has been chasing the fat margins for so long, they're blind to the fact that they've excluded themselves from the next market shift.

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

(OP)
In plain English, BMW is a successful brand, that people will pay more for, even though the variable manufacturing cost of the product is just about the same. This gives the manufacturer more funds for development, thereby allowing greater investment in the next model, continuing the vicious circle. I think, in detail, he is wrong, by the way, in particular the engine, and probably the tires, don't 'look' especially cheap to me.

How much more does an IPod cost to make than the no-name brand equivalent? Five bucks at a rough guess. How much extra do they sell for? $150?

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

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

US engineers need some hands on experience in machining parts. You wouldn't take piano lessons from someone who can't play the piano....

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

Interesting... if engineering is about having grease under your finger nails, why is everybody upset when the plumber calls himself an engineer? I guess there are 2 schools of thought here (at least).

IMHO, having grease under your finger nails is indispensable if you were to design and build a car yourself, but as a part of an organisation of thousands of people, you can perfectly well engineer part of an engine or a suspension without ever having taken one apart and put it back with no pieces left. OK, a ME who does not know how a car engine works is the other extreme, I admit...

PS getting back to the Focus, in Europe it's considered a relatively cheap, well-built and popular car - there's still plenty of hope for Ford, guys...

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

epiosses:

you are missing the point...come out your office and see the real world too..

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

Around here, if a plumber calls himself an engineer he's generally taking a significant paycut!

Yes, epoisses- you need to get out of your office a bit!

As customers of engineers what they dislike about using an engineer's services and THIS is exactly what they'll complain about:  failures of imagination brought on by a lack of practicality and experience on the part of the engineer preparing the drawings and specifications.  

An engineer who has no grease under his or her fingernails is courting disaster.  It's only a matter of time before such a person's presumption of what physical reality is all about actually catches up with them and bites them severely in the behind!  It's this lack of true practicality grounded in physical experience which has spread through our profession and gotten worse with the passing years.  It's also something which is frightfully difficult to fix via the educational system.

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

And someone name an employer who nowadays gives their employees the opportunity to get this practical experience. These days the employers expect the new hires to pass along knowledge to the employer instead of the other way around.

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

The reference to Asian engineers brings to mind a story told me by the owner of a company that made parts for the Nissan racing team.  During his first visit to Japan, he was taken into a room full of engineers.  The engineers' desks were in rows such that the engineers faced each other.  At one end was the manager, with his desk facing down between the two lines of desks.  The group secretary was at the opposite end from the manager, facing him.  When he needed her, he would signal, and she would take the long walk to his desk.

When asked why the secretary was so far away, the American visitor was told that she was the lowest in seniority, so had to be at the far end.  So the American suggested that the secretary's desk be moved to the manager's side, but facing the wall behind him so she wouldn't be in the seniority line.  Of course, his Japanese host thought this idea would never work.  Next time he visited the facility, all of the secretaries' desks were behind their managers, facing the wall.

Jim Treglio
Molecular Metallurgy, Inc.

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

Here's the perspective of a 31 year old ME.  When I finished grad school, I went to a GM interview where they were processing applicants by the busload.  They offered an offensively low salary, such that I didn't even bother to counter offer.  I felt like they had wasted my time, and only wanted bodies, not talent or experience.  So what kind of engineers do they get out of that process?  Either people with no better offer (non likely very good engineers), or people who are good at negotiating for themselves (probably more management than engineering material, and likely to jump ship as soon as they see a better offer in a few years).

In my experience, many big companies are lazy about recruiting, and seem to take the attitude that they'll just hire numbers and fill the slots.  Long term, though, the parasites find a way to hang on, and the more productive workers move on to something better.  I've also found that some companies will offer incentives to come work there, but then don't offer much to stay, so as employees gain experience, their experience is more valued outside the company than in, so they leave.

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

Getting back to the grease vs the office... heh heh heh... I knew I would trigger such a reaction... don't worry, I change my own oil!

But honestly, guys, I believe there is such thing as too much exposure to nuts and bolts. To explain where I'm coming from, I've spent many years in a refinery among process engineers who worked in the plant right next to the control room and the mechanics. And I've been astonished how fast a carthesian engineer can be turned into a mathematically challenged person whose only ability is to quote operators and produce only anecdotal evidence that never lead to an out-of-the-box improvement rather sound data and tested hypotheses.

A ME with grease under his fingers is fine, but you improve suspension X to develop suspension Y, I would really like you to demonstrate and CALCULATE why its performance is better than type X in whatever respect and NOT tell me that type Y's part Z can now even more easily be replaced.

IMHO engineers do need to limit their exposure to nuts and bolts to stay inventive and think outside the box. Don't you guys get your best ideas in bed at night, in the shower or on holidays?

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

PS and I don't want to be negative on operators or mechanics at all, but they are just not engineers nor vice-versa

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

PSPS if operators and mechanics are present during project gate review meeting, unaccessible valves and instruments will be flagged and prevented, although I must say that I consider those inexcusable errors even for an office engineer

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

Epoisses

I agree you can be too close the work to see the whole.
I also think that mathematical analysis is the dividing
skill between techs and engineers.

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

Well, there is a third way, not simply mathematical or experiencial. As I recall from reviewing a form of statistical quality control commonly used in Japan, there is another way to improve the design of complex mechanical components or systems.

If it is suspected that a complex component or system  is not optimized in some way ( typically it fails too frequently or is more costly than a competitors) , then several steps are implemented to steadily progress toward improvement. First , complete formal record keeping of test data from all parts of the fabrication process are recorded.

Secondly, the data is reviewed to determine if there is a correlation ( statistical) between some aspect of the data and the failure rate. This statistical evaluation tends to expose hidden flaws and root causes not apparent to formally educted persons with preconcieved notions or prejudices. (Ie, the numbers don't lie)

Third, there is a brainstorm session between all workers , designers and managers that are involved in the production of the component, and all suggestions are recorded , however insignificant or "unqualified" they may be. This process tends to recognize forms of human intelligence and intuitive observation  not recognized by traditional or formal educational methods.

Fourth , a critical review of all suggestions is made with an open mind, and the 3 most promising suggestions that may correct the 3 most deleterious aspects of the performance test data are implemented on a trial basis . Further test data is taken on the performance of the modified component, and compared to the prior baseline.  The overall proces is repeated on the other, lower impact root causes as the major causes are addressed and found to be non-problematic.

Although our western chauvinism tends to downplay Japanese methods , by assuming we westerners are more creative by nature, the above proven method of statistical quality control has undoubtably been proven to be the basis  of the overall better quality of most japanese products, and the exact same methods can be applied to very comples systems, such as large electiric power plants.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources