The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

You don't need practical skills to be an engineer

Hi,


Ok, that's a deliberately provocative thread title, but it's one I'm willing to defend. But let's go back a bit first...


There have been various discussions on these forums over very many years where someone says in passing statements such us "CEng now needs a Masters degree, but Master students come out with no practical skills". Of course I'm paraphrasing greatly, but I'm sure people will get the idea. Similarly I've heard the view expressed at many engineering gatherings of "our graduates come in not knowing how to solder / use a spanner / wire a plug". Now I'm sure often these statements are perfectly true for many of those entering the engineering profession, the question is whether it matters. And I'd argue that much of the time it does not, and that it's important that we debate this. (Hence this thread!)


To give my own perspective on this, my background is as an analogue audio frequency design engineer, with my postgraduate entry level jobs to this role being as a maintenance and then test engineer. Back in the 1980s I did need to dismantle, solder, and mantle again. My first development roles were based around soldering irons and test equipment. By the early '90s my analogue development team was based around modelling tools, our prototypes were surface mount, and although we used manual test equipment the amount of building  / modifying we did was tiny - and ideas and the ability to play around with them were FAR more important than practical skills. Then our world went digital. Analogue modelling had improved the performance of our systems 10 fold, digital systems improved the possibilities 100 fold. The digital teams needed no practical skills whatsoever, but my goodness they did  - and do - some fabulous engineering.


Of course, there is still a real world to interface this technology to. And this is where the key word in the subject of this post comes in - that word "need". We do need a proportion of engineers to have practical skills to cope with the real world interface, but we don't need every engineer to have those skills to contribute to a team. For me this is summed up beautifully by my one and only patent (sadly not renewed, eu EP2100792 (A1)  if anyone's interested!). There are five of us named on it, these are:

  • A mathematical modeller

  • A DSP on FPGA implementer

  • An analogue electronic systems modeller / application specialist

  • A hardware developer

  • A manager / systems integrator / systems concept engineer / patent author and general herder of cats (me)


Only one of these needed practical skills. And yet this was an extraordinary engineering innovation. I'm allowed to say that as I didn't do the really clever bits, my main role was to bring the skills together and enable them - and that's the point. None of these people could have come up with the overall solution by themselves, that's why all are named on the patent.


So I would - and do - argue very strongly that an excellent engineering innovation team needs three skill sets within it:
  • Practical skills

  • Theoretical skills

  • Human skills


And the best teams have the best people in each of those areas, working together and respecting each other. So a mathematical modeller knows their system is "garbage in, garbage out", and works with those with application knowledge to help them refine their models. And a prototyping engineer knows their prototype is useless with no software to run on it. And they all know they will make mistakes, and will have misunderstandings, and so managing the human side of the development is vital. Working in this atmosphere of mutual respect is tremendous. Been there, done that. Working in an atmosphere of silos, sneering, one-upmanship, and inverted or verted snobbery is destructive and, I submit to the court your honour, produces poor engineering (by any measure). Been there, done that, left the company (a long time ago).


Now there is an argument, I've used it myself, that practical experience helps develop problem solving skills. And for some engineering activities I would support this. However a lot of modern engineering is based around very deep mathematical modelling, that's how we've achieved the fantastic advances in, for example, communications and data management we have over the past 20 years. So we have to accept that those involved will become abstracted from the "real world", it's then a management problem to manage the interfaces. In my present field, safety engineering, it is a reality that software engineers will implement what they are asked to implement. There's a whole other level first to define those implementation requirements correctly and thoroughly, which requires a different skill set. (And validating is a different skill again.)


So can I propose that we stop saying "engineers coming out of university with no practical skills is a Bad Thing" and similar statements - but I am very willing to support the statement "not enough engineers coming into the profession with practical skills is a Bad Thing".


Thoughts?


By the way, bizarrely my practical engineering skills are now way better than they were in my 20s when I actually needed them for work, partly due to experience, mainly unfortunately due to medical issues at the time. In fact (as one or two of my more "old school" supervisors delighted in pointing out) I was pretty cack-handed. (I just checked, cack-handed is not rude!) I'd like to pass on my appreciation to those enlightened managers who realised that my problem solving skills meant that I was valuable - they just needed to make sure that nothing I touched ever made its way to a customer! There is a VERY serious point here, I could easily have been put off engineering for life with that attitude of "you're cack-handed, therefore you're an incompetent engineer". Although I do apologise in retrospect to the The Kinks for any reliability issues in the mixing desk they bought in 1985 which I worked on rather a lot, probably the product that has gone into service which has more of my personal soldering in than any other...I did get one of my more dexterous colleagues to check it over very thoroughly before it went out!


Thanks,


Andy
Parents
  • Thanks Jon for your post (and hope you're better soon!) as it neatly highlights two points. One Ian has already covered, we do regularly as an industry try to fit square pegs into round holes, and then complain that they don't fit. Rather than accepting how well they fit in their square hole, and finding someone else to fit in their round hole.  There is another point hidden in there:

    My colleagues, was very clever and could even think (and talk) in assembly code. Sometimes, he was too clever ... his code was very difficult to follow, as he would program in a way that was interesting to him, which meant it was not very easy to follow.




    That's not a description of a good software engineer, which ties up well with Matthew's posting. Being an excellent software engineer, which includes programming in a way that is useful to the customer, and maintainable in the long term, is very, very, much a full time role. I can think and talk in assembly code, and solve problems in it very rapidly, but I am not a good software engineer - I don't have the skills, knowledge, experience and training to produce sound, structured, maintainable code. So when I work with people who can only do that I really appreciate it!


    Re Simon's post: I agree 100% that is indeed how many companies approach this, and we see the appalling engineering consequences! Validation should be to the customer's needs, not to the spec...but that's for another thread.


    And Jon, I feel really mean raising this when you're feeling under the weather, but the phrase "common sense" always gives me a sensation like fingernails scraped down a blackboard! What it basically means to me is "they don't know what I know really well", but everything we know we had to learn at some point, and we've all learnt different things - luckily. I was thinking when I wrote the first post here about data over telecomms wires: back in the early 1980s "common sense" told us that the maximum speed we'd ever get over it was about 32kbps. The fastest I've come across so far is 800Mbps, and it still seems to be rising. If I had to pick an single example of how ignoring practical experience and common sense, and instead concentrating on pure theory, will achieve something extraordinary, I'd probably pick that at the moment. But of course, I agree with you that we all need to know our limitations, and when to get someone else to do the dangerous bits - and, indeed, how to spot what the dangerous bits are. Although, once again, I'd totally agree with Ian that in an industrial situation that's a corporate as well as an individual responsibility to put suitable safety processes in place. Always worth re-reading the Piper Alpha report to see how even highly trained and experienced people can cause the most heartbreakingly awful situation - it's not a full protection at all.


    Many thanks for all thoughts, let's see what else comes along, meanwhile I'll carry on practically fitting a radiator into my kitchen...


    Cheers,


    Andy


Reply
  • Thanks Jon for your post (and hope you're better soon!) as it neatly highlights two points. One Ian has already covered, we do regularly as an industry try to fit square pegs into round holes, and then complain that they don't fit. Rather than accepting how well they fit in their square hole, and finding someone else to fit in their round hole.  There is another point hidden in there:

    My colleagues, was very clever and could even think (and talk) in assembly code. Sometimes, he was too clever ... his code was very difficult to follow, as he would program in a way that was interesting to him, which meant it was not very easy to follow.




    That's not a description of a good software engineer, which ties up well with Matthew's posting. Being an excellent software engineer, which includes programming in a way that is useful to the customer, and maintainable in the long term, is very, very, much a full time role. I can think and talk in assembly code, and solve problems in it very rapidly, but I am not a good software engineer - I don't have the skills, knowledge, experience and training to produce sound, structured, maintainable code. So when I work with people who can only do that I really appreciate it!


    Re Simon's post: I agree 100% that is indeed how many companies approach this, and we see the appalling engineering consequences! Validation should be to the customer's needs, not to the spec...but that's for another thread.


    And Jon, I feel really mean raising this when you're feeling under the weather, but the phrase "common sense" always gives me a sensation like fingernails scraped down a blackboard! What it basically means to me is "they don't know what I know really well", but everything we know we had to learn at some point, and we've all learnt different things - luckily. I was thinking when I wrote the first post here about data over telecomms wires: back in the early 1980s "common sense" told us that the maximum speed we'd ever get over it was about 32kbps. The fastest I've come across so far is 800Mbps, and it still seems to be rising. If I had to pick an single example of how ignoring practical experience and common sense, and instead concentrating on pure theory, will achieve something extraordinary, I'd probably pick that at the moment. But of course, I agree with you that we all need to know our limitations, and when to get someone else to do the dangerous bits - and, indeed, how to spot what the dangerous bits are. Although, once again, I'd totally agree with Ian that in an industrial situation that's a corporate as well as an individual responsibility to put suitable safety processes in place. Always worth re-reading the Piper Alpha report to see how even highly trained and experienced people can cause the most heartbreakingly awful situation - it's not a full protection at all.


    Many thanks for all thoughts, let's see what else comes along, meanwhile I'll carry on practically fitting a radiator into my kitchen...


    Cheers,


    Andy


Children
No Data