article relating to engineering req's for mgmt 4

[TheTick]

<

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jun04/235522.asp>

Milwaukee city council votes to keep requirement that head of DPW has an engineering degree.

 

[Tobalcane]

<<The committee heard from former DPW heads and other retired high-ranking officials from the department who argued that the engineering degree requirement was vital. Ald. Joe Dudzik, a former DPW worker, labeled the move a "dumbing down" of the position.>>
This rings true thru all of the disciplines. Actions like this demoralize the engineering degree and the importance of having an engineering degree. Understandable that most of the work must be administrative, but the head of the DPW should be qualified to at least understand and communicate with the DPW engineers on issues with bridges, roads, and waste disposal. The engineering degree shows that this person has one of the important credentials to do so. If the engineering degree was dropped as one of the requirements, it is another blow to the engineering disciplines.

Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

 

[4tuna]

Thanks for the article, Tick.

I have to say that I disagree with the move entirely! As has been commented on in many other threads, often engineers don't make the best managers for a variety of reasons. These positions are much more political and broad-based than they were years ago, when the head of public works actually focused on public works projects.

As noted in the article:

"chief of staff Patrick Curley noted, however, that much of the department's focus, including trash pickup and forestry, is not tied to engineering and that some large cities, such as Boston and Chicago, do not have an engineering degree requirement."

In a high level position like this, I would think communication and negotiation skills and political savvy would be much more important, provided you have a good, well-qualified city engineer who can provide guidance when called upon. Do you want an engineer negotiating a labor dispute with garbage truck drivers? I don't. It's not "dumbing down" of the position if someone is smart in other (more aplicable?) ways.

It is naive to think that you must have an engineering degree to understand the fundamentals or implications of an engineering project.

 

[TheTick]

Milwaukee has a pretty strong ME scene, with three engineering colleges in a city of 600,000. Finding an administrator with an engineering degree will not be difficult. Mayor Barrett just want to "cast a wider net" over one of his buddies, no doubt.

Another Milwaukee-related engineering-management tidbit:
Harley-Davidson recently started requiring engineering managers to have a degree or pass the PE exam.

Due to illness, the part of The Tick will be played by... The Tick.

http://www.EsoxRepublic.com

 

[buzzp]

I agree with the requirements. To say no engineer is capable of performing in this position is ridiculous. It should be a requirement to have the degree. We get into trouble when we put someone who "doesn't understand" in a position of power to make decisions over and above an engineer on technical matters. Engineers can also have a talent for effectively managing people and dealing with the public. Granted, the stereotype does not fit in this category but I don't like to stereotype.

 

[jmw]

"This is simply a request to allow us to expand the pool of the applicants," he said, later adding: "We're certainly not interested in dumbing down the position. We are looking for the best candidate."

Given that engineers are not exactly and endangered species, something we know from other threads, I would not have expected that they would have a shortage of suitable engineering qualified candidates. Indeed, they should probably insist on even higher engineering standards just to get the short list down.

This is the normal way of doing things. No candidates, you open up the requirements to include more. Too many candidates, you tighten up on the requirements or offer less money. Or both.

The article did not say that they had had problems finding candidates. I therefore tend to suspect an element of truth in "the Tick's" comment.
At the least, it isn't a smart politician who would open himself up to such suggestions. Actually, strike that last, most politicians seem impervious to such critisisms.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

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

 

[Tobalcane]

http://www.nspe.org/etweb/10804citypes.asp

Is Milwaukee city officials really against engineers? Sure seems like it….

Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

 

[HgTX]

On the other hand, I know of at least one state agency that used to require that *all* department heads be PEs. Head of finance, human resources, information services...Fortunately they got over that.

Hg

 

[btrueblood]

buzzp wrote:
"... We get into trouble when we put someone who "doesn't understand" in a position of power to make decisions over and above an engineer on technical matters."

I agree wholeheartedly. At the very least, the chief engineer working for the guy should have a means to veto the admin's decisions if human life/safety are at risk...

Look at the trouble NASA has had with "business" type managers running the space shuttle program.

As counter-argument to another point: an engineer manager can hire a negotiator to wrangle with the union. {Better yet, in my mind, he could decide to open the garbage hauling up for public bids... (ok, ok, he probably would break several laws, but hey! }

Would you trust a biz ed. major to know when he is over his head on technical matters?

Ben T

 

[epoisses]

The managing director of the affiliate where I work is a former physiotherapist and the best manager and businessman I've ever met. Let's select a manager for his/her management skills, not for his engineering skills.

 

[TheTick]

Is he managing an entire city's infrastructure?

 

[HgTX]

Up speaks the devil's advocate: Is the ubermanager going to truly understand the engineering behind all aspects of a city's infrastructure? Geotech, structural, hydraulics, transportation? Each of those is a completely different field and in some of them yer manager will have had maybe one course as a youth.

I work for a public agency. Nobody in my line of command higher than my boss's boss understands much about what I do--I'm a structural person in a land ruled by pavement people. If they really need to know, they ask. Couldn't a non-engineer ask too? They can read an executive summary as well as anyone else.

My gut feel, though, is that the agency head does need to be an engineer. First, they'll have a solid background in *some* area rather than none. And they'll at least have some small basis to comprehend the rest, even if it means casting back to undergraduate days--it'll be review rather than something completely new.

Hg

 

[TheTick]

If they really need to know, they ask. Couldn't a non-engineer ask too?

When the answer is given, how well will he understand?

 

[VoyageofDiscovery]

Would they even know to ask?

For example, as far as I know wrt the fatal Denver bridge collapse, the Contractor wasn't required by the DOT to submit an erection plan stamped by a PE. Lack of appropriate policy.

Regards

VOD

 

[HgTX]

I don't know if that's an answerable question. When someone tells me about the latest fad in bituminious pavement, do I understand it any better because of the one semester of materials class I took in 1995? Maybe I do.

I just got through editing a 1000-page set of specifications. My field of expertise takes up maybe 80 pages of that book. People listened to my editorial advice when they wouldn't listen to tech writers because I was an engineer--but do I know any more about bulldozing or vehicle loop detectors than a technical writer would have? I really don't think so.

I'm not sure how good a parallel that is to the management case, but I think it's at least somewhat relevant.

Hg

 

[HgTX]

VoD: and having a PE in charge of the Colorado DOT didn't prevent that problem.

That said, an engineer is more likely to have at least passing familiarity with various issue to know when to ask.

Not that engineers are immune either. My former boss and mentor-for-life keeps a small stack of ruined test specimens on his desk. I ruined them as a graduate student because I didn't know to ask. If anyone asks what they are, he tells them to ask me, and I have to fess up all over again. It's very effective.

Hg

 

[btrueblood]

Most good engineers know when they don't know enough, and know to shut up and listen to the expert. I have worked for far too many business majors running companies who thought they knew more about my job than I did. In at least two occasions, my being "right" about the product or project failing, against their opinion, was directly related to my having to find another job.

I now work for a boss who is an engineer, and a company president who is an engineer; when I tell them I know something (and can back it up with analyses, test data, or a really clever lie) they will usually listen. If it breaks, it's still probably time to go job hunting, but at least it's my own damn fault.

Yes, engineers are subject to hubris too, and can make bad decisions just as fatal to people as managers can. But we're trained not to be inordinately confident in our own decision making abilities, especially in the absence of sound analysis and data, can you say the same of business school graduates? Professional engineers are required NOT to "sign off" or practise engineering in areas outside their expertise; can you say the same of a "professional manager"? Would you ride an airplane designed by managers, or would you rather ride one designed by people trained in the arts of engineering, and have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of metal fatigue?

... Hey, where'd this soap box come from?

Ben Trueblood

 

[jmw]

btrueblood,
some nice points.
The problem with aircraft, as we have seen from too many accidents, is that managers get to manage the maintenance against cost criteria and not maintenance criteria. Then they crash. It isn't enough just to have engineers in a design role, engineers are vital anywhere engineering is involved, whether they are in charge or not... though being incharge is nice.
Incidentlly, being an engineer working for an engineering manager is nice but i worked for one once who knew squat about marketing and boy did he make some business damaging moves.
This brings us back around to what we all already know, you need the right person in the right job... and that isn't easy whatever they learened at school.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

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

 

[buzzp]

The bottom line is a 'good manager', whether an engineer or business major, should rely on the people under him. That is why they are there. It is a team effort not a one man show. No manager is expected to know everything about everything although most act this way. This is why companies have 'key' people, the ones the manager goes too when he needs an honest, expert opinion. This is also why there are people under him doing work, other than the labor jobs. If the manager chooses to not use these people then he is making a big mistake and it will catch up sooner or later.

 

[4Pipes]

Managers don't need to know everything about everying. The bit that business schools forget is that they also need to understand the language and understand what they are being told whether they are running a DPW or bank. If a manager is only able to rely on his techical experts he is wide open to influence by the communication skill of the expert rather than technical merit of the argument.