Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Engineering Management 3
- Thread starter oranjeep
- Start date
I’d go for an MBA rather than an engineering management degree, but then I’m biased. My MBA graduating class was over half engineers, computer science and other hard science types. The remainder was split between Arts and Commerce undergrads.
A MBA will be more recognized and more portable than an engineering management degree. Everyone knows what an MBA involves, who knows what an engineering management degree involves? Is it the overall general management of engineering or is it an organizational research degree?
Some MBA schools offer MBA’s that specialize in one area of management. For example at Queen’s University in Canada (our equivalent to an Ivy League University) they offer an MBA for IT management. Other schools have similar programs for other technology areas.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
A MBA will be more recognized and more portable than an engineering management degree. Everyone knows what an MBA involves, who knows what an engineering management degree involves? Is it the overall general management of engineering or is it an organizational research degree?
Some MBA schools offer MBA’s that specialize in one area of management. For example at Queen’s University in Canada (our equivalent to an Ivy League University) they offer an MBA for IT management. Other schools have similar programs for other technology areas.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
Hi everyone,
The principle of mamagement is basically the same for managing anything. If one learns to manage, one can manage engineers, accountants, baseball team, etc. it's all about man-management.
The management guru Peter Drucker did have a special word for managing what he called the knowledge workers (which should include engineers)
I would totally agree with your MBA advice rather than a course that was focused on one particular sector.
best regards
voltair
The principle of mamagement is basically the same for managing anything. If one learns to manage, one can manage engineers, accountants, baseball team, etc. it's all about man-management.
The management guru Peter Drucker did have a special word for managing what he called the knowledge workers (which should include engineers)
I would totally agree with your MBA advice rather than a course that was focused on one particular sector.
best regards
voltair
I've got the undergraduate equivilent of an Engineering Management degree (i.e., BS Industrial Management) and I've been regreting it ever since I graduated (loo so many years ago). I regreted it so much I went back and got an MS in Mechanical Engineering (with no undergraduate defeciencies - the ME department liked the BSIM) and a got registered as a PE. My degree program left me with an excellent education that was nearly worthless in the job market because no one knew what I was trained to do. I kept getting assignments that were fit for any General Business grad and the interesting projects (and associated advancement) went to folks with "real" engineering degrees.
This taught me that degree programs that are very far outside the mainstream are great for trust-fund babies, entrepreneures, and folks that love frustration. Go with the MBA.
David
This taught me that degree programs that are very far outside the mainstream are great for trust-fund babies, entrepreneures, and folks that love frustration. Go with the MBA.
David
- Thread starter
- #6
-
1
- #7
oranjeep,
I would go for the MBA for many of the reasons listed above. I would like to add something I heard, and believe in personally:
You don't manage people, you manage technology, projects etc. People need to be lead. Best regards,
Matthew Ian Loew
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
I would go for the MBA for many of the reasons listed above. I would like to add something I heard, and believe in personally:
You don't manage people, you manage technology, projects etc. People need to be lead. Best regards,
Matthew Ian Loew
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
I'd agree, the MBA is the way to go (though I did read an article several months ago stating that the value of an MBA was declining...probably written by a flunk-out of a program.)
There are some MBA programs that run side-by-side with the technology masters programs. I have one I'm looking at joining this fall in fact. What I'll probably do is use my 2 electives to pick up some technolgy management classes and round myself out a bit.
My advise is to just be sure of the program you are joining. Do the classes fit your expectations? Does the subject matter help you advance your career? Is the program accredited and nationally recognized?
~NiM
There are some MBA programs that run side-by-side with the technology masters programs. I have one I'm looking at joining this fall in fact. What I'll probably do is use my 2 electives to pick up some technolgy management classes and round myself out a bit.
My advise is to just be sure of the program you are joining. Do the classes fit your expectations? Does the subject matter help you advance your career? Is the program accredited and nationally recognized?
~NiM
"You don't manage people, you manage technology, projects etc. People need to be lead."
Hi MLoew,
I also liked this phrase. But I could never quite understand what it meant. I can’t decide whether it is a glib catch phrase of the lecture circuit guru or some profound, deep snippet of wisdom that I’m missing!
I can accept that you manage a project, like designing a bridge, or building a power plant. But remove the people form the project and you have nothing to manage. You can’t manage an animate object. By setting targets, deadlines, budgets, milestones etc. are you not managing the activities of the people who are involved in the project? Assigning tasks, picking teams, resolving conflict, communicating objectives, motivating, encouraging, coaching, disciplining, enforcing deadlines etc. are, to me, all part of the management of the whole.
It would, of course, be much better if the person in charge of the team was a charismatic leader as well as an excellent manager. However, these are rare. I have my own short list of charismatic leaders of world renown, though I would imagine we might disagree on that as well. In most cases, managers who progress in an organization will also have some leadership qualities. That is what makes them successful in the first place. However, an excellent manager who has absolutely no leadership qualities would fare much better than an excellent leader with absolutely no managerial ability. To me, the latter conjures up images of near chaos, where enthusiastic and well-intentioned individuals work, without proper guidance, some overlapping with others, some going off in tangent.....
What am I missing?
Hi MLoew,
I also liked this phrase. But I could never quite understand what it meant. I can’t decide whether it is a glib catch phrase of the lecture circuit guru or some profound, deep snippet of wisdom that I’m missing!
I can accept that you manage a project, like designing a bridge, or building a power plant. But remove the people form the project and you have nothing to manage. You can’t manage an animate object. By setting targets, deadlines, budgets, milestones etc. are you not managing the activities of the people who are involved in the project? Assigning tasks, picking teams, resolving conflict, communicating objectives, motivating, encouraging, coaching, disciplining, enforcing deadlines etc. are, to me, all part of the management of the whole.
It would, of course, be much better if the person in charge of the team was a charismatic leader as well as an excellent manager. However, these are rare. I have my own short list of charismatic leaders of world renown, though I would imagine we might disagree on that as well. In most cases, managers who progress in an organization will also have some leadership qualities. That is what makes them successful in the first place. However, an excellent manager who has absolutely no leadership qualities would fare much better than an excellent leader with absolutely no managerial ability. To me, the latter conjures up images of near chaos, where enthusiastic and well-intentioned individuals work, without proper guidance, some overlapping with others, some going off in tangent.....
What am I missing?
Voltair,
Thanks for the reply. I realize I just threw that idea out there. Here is how it was explained to me:
If you are in a team of people cutting a path through an overgrown jungle, you need people keep the swords that cut through the jungle sharp. Keeping the swords sharp is a management task. Leading the team through the jungle in the right direction is a leadership task.
This example may seem a bit abstract as it is a bit subtle at times. An example from my own experience in engineering is that the leader established the strategic vision for a particular effort and constructs the necessary architecture to enable other's individual success in pursuit of the overall project's goals. For a project I am leading a portion of now, it is my job to create an engineering structure and discipline that will allow the individual contributors to perform at their maximum potential. It is important to note that I am performing some of the detailed tasks on this project myself. I also provide formal and informal training on the details that raise the performance of the members of the team.
The distinctions are indeed subtle, but I think I can sum it up by indicating that a leader's tasks are strategic whereas the resources being managed are more tactical in nature.
I hope this helps and that I was not too verbose.
Best regards,
Matthew Ian Loew
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Thanks for the reply. I realize I just threw that idea out there. Here is how it was explained to me:
If you are in a team of people cutting a path through an overgrown jungle, you need people keep the swords that cut through the jungle sharp. Keeping the swords sharp is a management task. Leading the team through the jungle in the right direction is a leadership task.
This example may seem a bit abstract as it is a bit subtle at times. An example from my own experience in engineering is that the leader established the strategic vision for a particular effort and constructs the necessary architecture to enable other's individual success in pursuit of the overall project's goals. For a project I am leading a portion of now, it is my job to create an engineering structure and discipline that will allow the individual contributors to perform at their maximum potential. It is important to note that I am performing some of the detailed tasks on this project myself. I also provide formal and informal training on the details that raise the performance of the members of the team.
The distinctions are indeed subtle, but I think I can sum it up by indicating that a leader's tasks are strategic whereas the resources being managed are more tactical in nature.
I hope this helps and that I was not too verbose.
Best regards,
Matthew Ian Loew
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
I went through college on a Navy ROTC scholarship. The senior year NROTC course was about management and leadership. If you can get into this course, I highly recommend it. I doubt it would count toward an MBA, though. ![[bat]](/data/assets/smilies/bat.gif "[bat] [bat]")
Gravity is a harsh mistress.
Gravity is a harsh mistress.Hi,
The upside potentials for MBA are far better than M Eng Mgm. MBA about management and leadership and you can employ people,including those with other Master or PhD to work for you. M Eng Mgm seems have no such premium and I think because it is too technically oriented in nature. Just my opinion.
The upside potentials for MBA are far better than M Eng Mgm. MBA about management and leadership and you can employ people,including those with other Master or PhD to work for you. M Eng Mgm seems have no such premium and I think because it is too technically oriented in nature. Just my opinion.
-
1
- #15
The EM programs vary a great deal, many are geared towards production (industrial/mechanical), wheres as some are consultant oriented (civil). In general I think you can learn more on the job, and I agree with other posters saying the MBA is more recognized. I disagree strongly with the previous post stating "If one learns to manage, one can manage engineers, accountants, baseball team, etc". That is not true. Engineering managers in my field (civil consulting) make engineering judgement calls that impact projects every day and are responsible for the work of others. If you don't understand the engineering design process how can you have any idea how to budget projects or allocate resources?
-
1
- #16
GregLocock
Automotive
Easy, get an engineer to do it. My manager's job is to provide me with the resources I ask for, not decide what resources I should have.
My name goes on the report, not his.
Cheers
Greg Locock
My name goes on the report, not his.
Cheers
Greg Locock
GregL
From one Greg to another, if your manager's job is to do what you say, what exactly does he manage and where do I apply? Maybe it is different in your industry, but it is rare that I as PM get all the resources I want or need even when I have scoped and budgeted the projects myself. Upper management can pull my resources at any time, especially if a higher profile client than mine becomes involved. I often have to work with different support personnel (assistant engineers, geologists, CADD technicians etc) than I originally expected. They have varying pay rates and experience levels requiring different levels of oversight but I am still held to the original budget. It is a constant turf war and my manager had better be able to determine who really needs what resource or person. The way the economy has been lately the problem has been trying to keep people employed; too many resources not too few. That is my wretched life as a civil consultant. It's kind of fun. LOL
From one Greg to another, if your manager's job is to do what you say, what exactly does he manage and where do I apply? Maybe it is different in your industry, but it is rare that I as PM get all the resources I want or need even when I have scoped and budgeted the projects myself. Upper management can pull my resources at any time, especially if a higher profile client than mine becomes involved. I often have to work with different support personnel (assistant engineers, geologists, CADD technicians etc) than I originally expected. They have varying pay rates and experience levels requiring different levels of oversight but I am still held to the original budget. It is a constant turf war and my manager had better be able to determine who really needs what resource or person. The way the economy has been lately the problem has been trying to keep people employed; too many resources not too few. That is my wretched life as a civil consultant. It's kind of fun. LOL
GregLocock
Automotive
I am perhaps rather lucky. My little corner of the evil empire is relatively cheap to run, the technology is well known, and every vehicle program always needs roughly the same thing. The only 'negotiables' are when we need to increase our capabilities. The costs involved in this area are frankly pocket change compared with the consequences of our work, and also compared with the costs of the rest of my manager's department, who eat Cray CPU cycles for breakfast. So perhaps he just has bigger fish to fry...
None the less, even in my last department, where the cost per engineer was much higher (prototype cars run at say $60k + each, running expenses in instrumentation would be >20k per annum per engineer, proto part cost a lot and most engineers need a mechanic and a workshop) we each scoped our own work.
In this company my manager is the political tool I wield to get the resources I need. After all, if he turns me down and the whole thing turns to custard, it is going to be fairly evident what went wrong (I have much more time to devote to getting him to do what I want him to, than he has time getting me to do what he wants me to do).Training (breaking in) managers usually only takes a few weeks!
Cheers
Greg Locock
None the less, even in my last department, where the cost per engineer was much higher (prototype cars run at say $60k + each, running expenses in instrumentation would be >20k per annum per engineer, proto part cost a lot and most engineers need a mechanic and a workshop) we each scoped our own work.
In this company my manager is the political tool I wield to get the resources I need. After all, if he turns me down and the whole thing turns to custard, it is going to be fairly evident what went wrong (I have much more time to devote to getting him to do what I want him to, than he has time getting me to do what he wants me to do).Training (breaking in) managers usually only takes a few weeks!
Cheers
Greg Locock
GregLocock
Automotive
here's a neat quote
There are often times of great organizational chaos. These are unsettling to
everyone, but perhaps a little less unsettling to the engineer whose personal
self-esteem is founded in her capacity rather than in her position. Organizational
chaos is a great opportunity for engineers to exercise their magic power. I've
saved this for last because it is a deep tribal secret. If you are not a engineer,
please stop reading now.
Engineers have the power to create and sustain.
Non-engineers can order people around but in a typical engineering-based company
can create nothing on their own and only have the power that engineers grant
them. They can create and sustain nothing without engineers. This power is
proof against almost all the problems associated with organizational mayhem.
When you have it you should ignore the chaos completely and carry on as if
nothing is happening. You may of course get fired, but if that happens you
can easily get a new job because of the magic power. More commonly, some
stressed-out person who does not have the magic power will come into your cube
and tell you to do something stupid. It is best to smile and nod until they go
away and then carry on doing what you know is best for the company.
This course of action is the best for you personally, and the best for the
company you work for. If you are a leader, tell your people to do the same
thing and tell them to ignore what anybody other than yourself tells them,
including your own superiors.
Irritatingly smug, but pretty accurate
Cheers
Greg Locock
There are often times of great organizational chaos. These are unsettling to
everyone, but perhaps a little less unsettling to the engineer whose personal
self-esteem is founded in her capacity rather than in her position. Organizational
chaos is a great opportunity for engineers to exercise their magic power. I've
saved this for last because it is a deep tribal secret. If you are not a engineer,
please stop reading now.
Engineers have the power to create and sustain.
Non-engineers can order people around but in a typical engineering-based company
can create nothing on their own and only have the power that engineers grant
them. They can create and sustain nothing without engineers. This power is
proof against almost all the problems associated with organizational mayhem.
When you have it you should ignore the chaos completely and carry on as if
nothing is happening. You may of course get fired, but if that happens you
can easily get a new job because of the magic power. More commonly, some
stressed-out person who does not have the magic power will come into your cube
and tell you to do something stupid. It is best to smile and nod until they go
away and then carry on doing what you know is best for the company.
This course of action is the best for you personally, and the best for the
company you work for. If you are a leader, tell your people to do the same
thing and tell them to ignore what anybody other than yourself tells them,
including your own superiors.
Irritatingly smug, but pretty accurate
Cheers
Greg Locock
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question
