Technology's Effect on the Engineering Businesses 3

[ELEcontrol3e]

I have the opinion that engineering businesses have a lag in their business methods compared to the technology that "we" produce. Take for example the information technology boom. Are engineering firms using internet and information technology in a way to optimize the design process and business methods (Besides email).Why, as was suggested in an earlier thread, could an engineering web-based business be developed? Are we using the internet or super-computers as effectively as the marketing and finance industries, I would say no. What other technologies could be more effectively used to improve our business practices, or what can we anticipate in the future?

 

[GregLocock]

Have you ever used a web based collaborative design tool?

If not, why not?

Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[HEC]

There are certainlly some aspects of the engineering business that can utilise the advantages of the web. However in my experience so much of engineering is look, feel and smell, that it needs a physical presence. So the response would have to be, for specalist areas there is more potential for web based services, but in general because there are physical outcomes from our endevours that should be checked (eye balled) that the remote advantages are often lost.
Just my 50c worth

Mark Hutton

 

[ELEcontrol3e]

Hey Greg and Mark;
Thanks for the comments. In my experience, though limited, I have not seen too many web based engineering systems.I have never seen in any of my employers an web based collaborative design. But I've seen a web based collaboration between other departments.

As for Mark's comments, I would hope and I firmly believe that the "physical" and nonideal aspect of engineering design are imperative. Still though I think that there are too many inefficiencies in the design of a product. Usually it comes down to miscommunications and faults in the information system between departments and design centers.

For example where I work, in service engineering, I see that too much time is wasted in diagnosing problems. First we have a weak database for part and product history. The information just isn't presented in an effective manner, and secondly a remote DAQ would most definitely pay for itself. This information is not fed back to design or manufacturing,if it could be done there would be a powerful thing. There is too much inertia though to get systems like this implimented. I think if a competitor were to do so they would take the market, assuming all other factors are the same.

Since my long terms are to build an effective engineering business, I am wondering how to gain a competative advantage in the future.

Thanks again:
JT

ps I dont remember if I sent a purpule star innitially, so you may have gotten two.

 

[buzzp]

So the web is one way to pass along this info to the appropriate persons? It certainly is not the only way. Just remember the security issues involved with web based collaboration, yeah I know they are improving, but I for one would discourage passing this info (product problems) along a web based server. However, if I am competitor I may like it.
I see what your getting at and I don't think it is necessary. With the time to market ever decreasing, every organization is looking to streamline the process. I believe if using the web in the design phase would increase efficiency, reducing time to market, it would be already in place if the organization had decent leadership.

 

[Drazen]

I have one example that looks pretty good to illustrate thread statement:

Working in industrial engineering project for years in role of project engineer and phase manager, in my last project, company had interesting and innovative approach to project team organisation:
There were project manager and construction manager. Project manager is the head but in first phase of project construction manager was running the business, there were 4-5 civil engineers and 1-2 M&E engineers, project manager was running just general issues, everything else was on construction manager.
When major civil issues are completed, construction manager had gone in shade. He still has lot of job on finishing, handover issues, defects clearance, but his role is secondary. There were 1-2 civil engineers left in team, but there were 5-6 M&E engineers at this moment.

Now I am in "classic" engineering company again. Phase of the project is near commissioning. Project manager is civil engineer who already solved major civil issues, and with all efforts is apparently bored with M&E issues, commisssioning and startup. There are 6 civil engineers in the team, rather relaxed, and only two of us, M&E guys.
At my liberal estimate ca 85% of work is M&E. Commissioning programme is in initial, the most important phase. Two of us are totally overwhelmed, 6 rather rlaxed people and rather disinterested PM.

Looks bad, isn't it, but I was seeing it several times so far. Companies generally recognize the problem, but mostly activities are put on additional indoctrination of project manager and something similar. PM's are generally smart and open-minded, but it is very hard to motivate them to be so deep in something which is far away from their background.

The only good solution is the one I mentioned above. What do you think.

 

[HEC]

Drazen

A very interesting and I am sure common problem. Many of the projects I have been associated with have utilised a separate process team. This seems to work well even with a single PM.



Mark Hutton

 

[ELEcontrol3e]

Hey Drazen:

I think your example helps to articulate my question/comment in a little better way. If the project manager were to disappear form the equation, could the company still design and finnish projects? I think so. There would be more headaches, but the work could still get done. So, the role of the project manager is to co-ordinate and help impliment. In essence he or she is managing information and co-ordinating the flow of engineering and pertintent financial information, correct. So if information is the nature of the beast, the PM needs to become a IT/MIS guy of sorts. What specific types of information:

1.) How much redesign is done due to a useless database(if any) of older projects technical data and overwealm of the ME and EE's? Can a system be designed to provide this information effectively to the designers.
2.)How about a vendor, equipment pricing and availability database for specifying engineering.
3.) If your company provides service, why not have a failures and redesign/fixes database to understand failure mechanisms in desing.
4.) In manufacturing why not co-ordinate quality/mfg into the information as well.
5.)If the design and CAD or CAD/CAM tools' information can be tracked as the designs occur then the information can be pooled and information inefficiencies can be reduced.(and reduce boring meetings)

The PM instead of getting "deep" as you say into the desing, should concentrate on managing information. In essence an engineering firm IS an information firm. Past design experience and propriatary information is part of the knowledge database, which we lend out to customers.The designs we do as engineers are creations we further lend out. Specifying parts from vendors and learning of our customers applications are like borrowing information. There is an incoming and outgoing flow of information. If the PM can catalogue, track, and access the information imagine how the engineering process can be improved.

Is it possible to design/integrate financial instruments and CAD/CAM systems into a fluid system where the design process can be made more efficient? I think yes. For example I work as a field service engineer. I think the feedback from the customer and and failures is poorly integrated into our company's engineering methods and systems. Im also involved in commissioning, and for some reason we are making the same mistakes over and over, usually due to poor information.

Good example Drazen.