Career development role choice

Oh gosh, that's a challenging set of questions - but not uncommon. And any answers are going to be very personal, as we all bring our own biases and angles to this. But here's my personal view:

I think what you're picking up here are the two major career paths for engineers: technical specialist or project manager. There's very few people (to be honest I can't think of any offhand) who successfully mange to combine both to the same level. Both are perfectly reasonable paths, it depend on what your interests and ambitions are.

If your primary interest is "a good career" (i.e. lots of money  ) then you are probably better off heading up the project management path. That's not to to say you can't achieve that following the technical specialist route, but it it is much harder. Pretty much by definition, those who end up running big projects and, indeed, whole companies have gone up the management path. The focus of your role needs to be on money, deliverables, money, time management, money, resource management, and money.

Progressing to a genuine technical lead role is quite different, to be honest it happens to many of us by accident: we're just working on what interests us, and then find to our surprise that people think that we know more about it than anyone else does!

Which begs the question of which of these paths leads to Chief/Principal Engineer, and the answer is that either can - it depends on what the focus of the company is. Some companies want their staff at that level to be ensuring technical delivery, and it's quite likely that they will actually have been project managers for the last 20-30 years. Some companies want their staff at that level to be ensuring technical expertise in the company, and will want them to be technical experts with other matrix managers ensuring delivery. (Incidentally either works provided the person in that position knows what they're bad at and finds themselves a good partner / deputy!)

Some pros and cons:

• If you move into a delivery / project management role it can be very hard to move back into a technical role - not impossible, but difficult.
• In a delivery / project management role (provided that you're good at it) it is much easier to move company or industry than if you are in a deeper technical role. The flip side is that you are also easily replaceable.
• It is very challenging to stay relevant in a purely technical role as the years go by. 
• Technical roles are MUCH more interesting (ok, that's my bias showing!)
• Do not expect to progress in a delivery / project management unless you are very focussed on time and money.

It's the first of these that's a pain. You do want to be reasonably confident that that is likely to be the path you want to go down long term before you jump. But it's not absolutely burning your boats behind you if you do.

You mentioned consultancy, just a note on that: the business side of consultancy is pretty easier to learn provided you have some idea that organisations have limited budgets and target delivery times. When we recruit new consultants we are definitely mainly looking for technical expertise: we can teach the business side. Of course other consultancies may differ, but no client wants to contract in an engineering consultant who's primarily a business expert.

Don't know if any of that helps, but it might at least prompt some other thoughts.

Good luck!

Andy

Oh gosh, that's a challenging set of questions - but not uncommon. And any answers are going to be very personal, as we all bring our own biases and angles to this. But here's my personal view:

I think what you're picking up here are the two major career paths for engineers: technical specialist or project manager. There's very few people (to be honest I can't think of any offhand) who successfully mange to combine both to the same level. Both are perfectly reasonable paths, it depend on what your interests and ambitions are.

If your primary interest is "a good career" (i.e. lots of money  ) then you are probably better off heading up the project management path. That's not to to say you can't achieve that following the technical specialist route, but it it is much harder. Pretty much by definition, those who end up running big projects and, indeed, whole companies have gone up the management path. The focus of your role needs to be on money, deliverables, money, time management, money, resource management, and money.

Progressing to a genuine technical lead role is quite different, to be honest it happens to many of us by accident: we're just working on what interests us, and then find to our surprise that people think that we know more about it than anyone else does!

Which begs the question of which of these paths leads to Chief/Principal Engineer, and the answer is that either can - it depends on what the focus of the company is. Some companies want their staff at that level to be ensuring technical delivery, and it's quite likely that they will actually have been project managers for the last 20-30 years. Some companies want their staff at that level to be ensuring technical expertise in the company, and will want them to be technical experts with other matrix managers ensuring delivery. (Incidentally either works provided the person in that position knows what they're bad at and finds themselves a good partner / deputy!)

Some pros and cons:

• If you move into a delivery / project management role it can be very hard to move back into a technical role - not impossible, but difficult.
• In a delivery / project management role (provided that you're good at it) it is much easier to move company or industry than if you are in a deeper technical role. The flip side is that you are also easily replaceable.
• It is very challenging to stay relevant in a purely technical role as the years go by. 
• Technical roles are MUCH more interesting (ok, that's my bias showing!)
• Do not expect to progress in a delivery / project management unless you are very focussed on time and money.

It's the first of these that's a pain. You do want to be reasonably confident that that is likely to be the path you want to go down long term before you jump. But it's not absolutely burning your boats behind you if you do.

You mentioned consultancy, just a note on that: the business side of consultancy is pretty easier to learn provided you have some idea that organisations have limited budgets and target delivery times. When we recruit new consultants we are definitely mainly looking for technical expertise: we can teach the business side. Of course other consultancies may differ, but no client wants to contract in an engineering consultant who's primarily a business expert.

Don't know if any of that helps, but it might at least prompt some other thoughts.

Good luck!

Andy

Andy, thank you for taking the time to respond. You make some interesting points which challenged my thinking of which role best fits those descriptions.

I certainly landed where I am now through previous roles being more project orientated but achieved from my technical experience and adaptability across engineering environments. I have acquired experience in some niche areas but do not consider myself a deep specialist and perceive those areas limited.

My interpretation after digesting being, it is the current consultancy (circa 18 months) which provides specific expertise whereas the potential role is more holistic time, budget, configuration/quality control of outputs. Whilst the subject of the later role is more complex in nature, I am not doing the systems engineering. The current consultancy has time, cost, delivery constraints but these are against our bid/budget to deliver.

This has helped me better understand my dilemma. The majority of my current work I am supporting or delivering on behalf of a principal consultant with deeper more specific areas of expertise than I possess, and the areas I mostly provide support in relate to the wider engineering cost/support implications.

It appears my choice is to either work out how I increase my expertise and value via the consultancy v revert to more project/technical engineering manager role. The latter being potentially better suited to the experience & expertise I have to date, providing greater opportunity to advance and long term more financially rewarding (it isn’t short term). My counter argument being my application of those skills works (so far) in a consulting environment resolving businesses challenges where others provide the specialist support when required. The caution being that is only a limited proportion of the consultancy work where the majority is specific expertise required deliverables.

You have at least put my mind at ease that either is a valid engineering career route and would not hinder professional development. Thank you!