What's an "Engineer"? 4

[pso311]

It's more than a little irritating that the title of "engineer" is passed around so easily. After going through a rigorous ABET- accredited university to acquire the status, I have learned that just about anyone can be called an "engineer." Drafters, quality auditors, maintenance personnel, etc.

Does anyone else see this trend in their company?

 

[ietech]

Hi pso311,

This has been discussed in depth in the following threads. There are some very interesting comments.

thread731-81836

thread731-47703

enjoy,

ietech

 

[dford]

I had fun reading the threads pointed out by eitech. The discussion whirled around the title "engineer" and only touched on defining "engineering". Since an engineer is one who practices engineering, perhaps pinning down a definition of engineering might define who should be called an engineer.
Dictionaries and the law provide definitions that leave us bewildered, at best. We, who believe we practice engineering, should be able to do a better job of definition.

After working for 30 years, in several industries, with degreed and non-degreed people calling themselves engineers, and often asking myself who among these people I consider engineers -I submit this unpolished definition:

An engineer is a person who can accurately predict and then verify the performance of the machine he designs; As opposed to one who doesn't design machines or designs and then sees how it works after it is built (technician or craftsman).

DOug

 

[CRG]

PSO311,

For myself, I went to an ABET accredited university to learn the basics of engineering. I believe respect and status comes with experience and ability. Once you have them, it is less important what other people call themselves.

 

[BJC]

I had a professor long ago who believed in the definition that an engineer was someone who could do for $1 what anyone else could do for $2.

I recently saw a rerun of the Nova show on a bridge arcoss the Mississippi River. Somebody on the show said "Anyone can build a bridge strong enough to get accross the river. It takes a good engineer to build one that's just strong enough.

 

[jmw]

I had to "star" you, BJC.
That fitted, whether intended or not, with the thread on engineers salaries.
True in both senses. An engineer can do the job and keep the costs under control.
The other attraction of engineers (to employers) is they love their work so well they can be kept at it for less money than a plumber.

 

[aspearin1]

I don't think I'd worry so much about the title if it also included a designation for your background education and experience. I agree, the engineering title is prostituted out, probably as some sort of HR marketing scheme. In my past, I've worked under Senior "Engineers" who never underwent engineering training, but the title was the only next promotional step. I'm a Chemical Engineer by training. I have my EIT and all the ABET accredidation behind me. My last manager was a Chemist by training, but earned the Engineering title somewhere in his 25 years with the company. These relationships can work well until it comes down to doing something more general engineering and less chemical. Case and point, I, as a chemical engineer, made a mechanical design. (WOOHOO!)... For myself, this was no big deal. From my training, these were the basics all engineers should be capable of doing. My manager, however, was completely uplifted, amazed that I could do engineering outside the realm of chemical engineering. Laughable.

Another story, yesterday, a VP in my company tried to design an experiment for one of my fellow chemical engineers. Now the VP is an ME by trade, and true, basic chemistry was in his training long ago. However, his experiment made no sense from a chemstry standpoint.

My point is.. give a designation to the title.. Process Engineer, ChemE.... Senior Enginer, Exp (for on the job experience), that way a person can understand a person's background when we're seeking or receiving advice. Unfortunately, the engineering title implies a worldliness of engineering knowledge, which unfortunately doesn't always occur.

aspearin1

 

[EddyC]

Whats an "Engineer"?

Good question. And its one with a variety of answers depending upon who you ask. Below are some of the answers:

a) Someone who is state licensed.
b) Someone who has a 4 year degree in an engineering program.
c) Someone who has accumulated a wide variety of knowledge and skills from years of on-the-job experienced.

If you look at history, any of the above apply. My definition of "Whats An Engineer?" is:

Someone who performs engineering and performs it successfully is an engineer.

From what I have seen, this is the de facto definition of "Whats An Engineer?".

 

[CanEngJohn]

An Engineer is...

a person who passes as an exacting expert on the basis of being able to turn out with prolific fortitude infinite strings of incomprehensible formulae calculated with micrometric precision from vague assumptions which were based on debatable figures taken from inconclusive experiments carried out with instruments of problematic accuracy and persons of doubtful reliability and questionable mentality (other Engineers).

 

[rerig]

CanEngJohn

May I quote you on that!!!
Wish I could put THAT on a Tee Shirt. (Different Thread)

Rerig

 

[Stormxtc]

What is an Enjuneir(sic)?

A person who can see the future and navigate the most efficient route to get there because he has at his disposal a tool called mathematics which he can be applied to anything and everything in the universe.

In a world where only pretend engineers are available, progress would not take place and the future would be non-existant.

Engineers make the dreams of scientists come to life! )

An easy test to distinguish engineers from pretend engineers is to ask the question "Would this person with the engineering title able to send a man to the moon???"

Lets be proud of our profession and not leave the arena empty for pretend engineers to take our place!

Bit harsh, but bloody true!

 

[CajunCenturion]

I've always liked the following.

An engineer is one who strives for perfection, with perfection being defined as follows: Perfection occurs not when there is nothing else to add, but when there is nothing else to take away.

 

[BJC]

CajunCenturion

Your statement describes a common complaint about engineers. It's sometimes refered to "Polishing a turd".
A good engineer knows whats "good enough". Knowing whats good enough is sometimes difficult to determine. Management has one view engineers have another.

 

[jmw]

In my youth, between leaving college and getting a career, I worked with a house building crew.

Balancing high amid the construction during framing, I called down the measurement for a piece of 2x6 as 17 and 3/16th inches.

"Hell boy" came the cry from the boss down below, pausing only to spit more Red Chief tobaco juice, "You're a nail driver, not a godd**ned cabinet maker" and in an aside to the sawman, "seventeen and a quarter, shy"

A good point.

Perfection is when you deliver what is wanted, not what you want to give.

The definition of a good product is one that meets its specification.

Unless there is good communication between all the parties engineers can and will "over-engineer" the product, especially if marketing leave a void. In some companies a strong engineering team can and will overwhelm marketing and produce the product they want to deliver and not the product that is asked for.

The first company I worked for was a leading water meter manufacturer. When the time came to produce a new meter they came up with a design that was ahead of its time. The client described it as a "Rolls Royce" of meters; they then went and bought the competitions "bomb" (The Kent water meter).

Who is to blame? engineering for putting in too many features or adding that extra thickness in the castings?
Or Marketing for not controlling the specification better? Perhaps management for not setting up good balanced teams or excercising clear control?

The thing is, perfection is in the eye of the beholder. The ultimate beholder is the customer.

Variable area flowmeters; (Rotameters) "perfection" is a precision tapered Schott-Ruhr glass tube formed on a mandril, precision machined float and individually calibrated to obtain the maximum accuracy, right?
No, that is only right in a few applications.
The larger market wants a cheap molded plastic tube with a pre-printed scale and a molded ball float. Which is right? Both are right, they serve different markets and applications.

Perfection is matching the product to the market.
Nothing more and nothing less.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

 

[Stormxtc]

jmw,

In today's market what you say may be correct. But that does not mean that engineering in the past has been like that or in the future will be like that.

I can't imagine the Wright brothers applying a market based design to their aircraft. Nor can I imagine the first manufacturers of Porsche, Audi and Mercedes (as it is known now) applying the same principles.

Where would Mercedes be today if the first engineers designed their automobiles according to what the market wanted?! Where Ford is???!!

I would not even want to imagine what air-bags on cars would be designed to if marketing had their way!!

I think engineers are people who should constantly be pushing the envelope of practical knowledge further using the most powerfull tools available to man...maths, physics and chemistry.

Percision wrapped in simplicity and sprinkled with ingenuity should be what we strive for...rich beyond his wildest dreams will he be who can invent a better mouse trap!

Storm.

 

[jmw]

Now you are talking about the difference between protypes, new products and "me-too" products.

When developing a new concept, the imperatives are quite diferent to when you produce your first product ointo a vrgin market and quite diffent again from when you introduce a "me-too" product into a market rich in competing designs.

But in each case, the same answer is true; match the product to the market.

In new markets or ill defined markets the engineer has more freedom to make "engineering" decisions than in an established market where market factors can be rigorously defined.

And what decisions would the Wright brothers have changed if they were designing for mass production rather than a one of hand built protoype?

So i don't think we are talking about today's market or the past or future markets but the development stage of a product.

However, what could we make of the space program? Public opinion conciousness drove the US to what some may think off as excessive safety conciousness and drove the costs up. In Russia, a different situation.

Engineers can't act in isolation. A specification has to contend with many factors that at first seem outside of the spec. Take any car today and look at how the designs have changed regarding servicability, many more items sealed for life or replace but do not repair. Why? What drives these choices?

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

 

[funnelguy]

JMW,

A star for your last couple of posts. You should be a lecturer at engineering schools in my opinion. Too many engineers insist on building cost into products that serves no purpose. Yor comments strike me as being well thought out and balanced.

 

[Stormxtc]

I too agree with the statements made by JMW, they are certainly true for "today". But "today" is not going to last forever, the design process will have to change.

I don't think many engineers are following through with their designs. By this I mean that we engineers stop the design process once our objectives (usually outlined by marketing) have been reached. This is the same as hitting a golf/tennis ball and stopping your swing instantaneously once the ball has been hit. In reality, we would follow through with our swing and come to an easy stop, even while the ball is meters away.

Similarly, we stop with our "complex" designs once marketing goals have been achieved, which may be looked upon as "good" engineering. However, if we were to follow through with our design, we would then have the opportunity to simplify our design to a point where it then becomes "ingenious"...like the humble mouse trap (a highly complex device but at the same time incredibly simple!). The market may have called out for a mouse trap but the mouse trap itself was the creation of 100% engineering.

So I think that once we have achieved design requirements, we should then spend more engineering time on simplifying the device/process/equipment etc. to come to the level of the humble mouse trap. Dyson vacuum cleaners is another example.

Storm

 

[jmw]

Stormxtc,
you are right about follow through.
In a good company with effective teamwork and cross disipline communications no product should ever remain "fixed".

By keeping engineering continuously engaged with the proiduct and responsive to marketing feedback the design of the product will incrementally change throughout its life. This has many benefits, not least being that the product is always up to date and the engineering support teams don't have to go away and re-educate themselves in the event of a major panic e.g. the introduction of ATEX or PED in Europe.

Sadly, in many companies, management cannot see the value in funding continuous development. Their sole measure seems to be, the end of the month figures. They will sacrifice, often unknowingly, the future profitability by cutting back on support enginmeering. They can, just about, understand that you need to invest in R&D for new products, but think that once designed and in producion, that's the end of it.

In these "recessionary times" management will often cut back on sales, marketing, engineering support and, if it weren't for the share holder perceptions, on R&D. They obviously have a problem with benchmarking because the best evidence is that in these times it is the companies that invest more in sales and marketing and support engineering that emerge strongest.

I think, ultimately good mangers make a company and bad managers wreck it. Guess what we seem to have the most of.

One of the most problematic areas for management to understand is "cross-capture". They have a great fear that any money spent on re-engineeing or developing variants will result in new products that take sales from existing products. They can never understand that if you don't produce better products more finely tuned to the markets needs then the competition will.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com