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
  • Hi Roy,


    really like that idea of a "registered engineer"! Take five house points smiley (Do schools still have house points?)


    As I expect I've said before, I do have a problem with that word "elite" as it has unhelpful connotations. I don't consider myself as any more worthy of saving from a sinking ship than someone with EngTech, IEng,  or indeed someone with GCSE D&T. However, I do feel competent to take personal responsibility to sign off novel safety critical designs within my area of expertise, and hence feel perfectly justified in being CEng. But as you suggest, trying to correlate my education and training with why my employer, myself, UKAS and the IET all think I am at that level of competence would probably be impossible. What I like about the IET's implementation of the UKSpec process is that it focuses on how you are actually doing your work today. Personally I find the exemplifying qualifications a bit of a red herring - although it's useful guidance to give an idea of the level of technical understanding expected at each level. Maybe the next version of UKSpec will have better wording on this point???


    On the "am I an engineer?" point, I find this a completely invalid question. If I was introducing myself professionally I would never say "I am an engineer". At present I'm a safety assurance engineer, I've been (working backwards) a manufacturing engineering manager, a safety critical equipment design engineering manager, an electronics design engineering manager, an analogue electronics design engineer, an analogue electronics design engineering team leader, an electronics design engineer, an electronics test engineer, and an electronics maintenance engineer. Without the qualifying wording the description would be misleading. I know many engineers would like to be able to simply say "I'm an engineer and I'm proud" (hence all the calls for regulating the title), personally I'm very pragmatic that we are where we are, and we just have to be a bit bullish about using more exact titles that will make sense. (Incidentally I've more or less bludgeoned the words "engineer"/"engineering" into many of those job titles, in many cases I didn't tend to use it at the time. For example I used to call myself an "electronics designer" rather than an "electronics design engineer" as it seemed to make more sense to people - otherwise they tended to expect me to have practical skills smiley) To go back to the medical example, immediately following a car crash a paramedic is likely to be a darn site more use than a brain surgeon, they are both "medical professionals", and the surgeon may be seen by some as having higher "status", but the important question is which one you need at the time!


    Or in other words: yes, I agree!


    Cheers,


    Andy
Reply
  • Hi Roy,


    really like that idea of a "registered engineer"! Take five house points smiley (Do schools still have house points?)


    As I expect I've said before, I do have a problem with that word "elite" as it has unhelpful connotations. I don't consider myself as any more worthy of saving from a sinking ship than someone with EngTech, IEng,  or indeed someone with GCSE D&T. However, I do feel competent to take personal responsibility to sign off novel safety critical designs within my area of expertise, and hence feel perfectly justified in being CEng. But as you suggest, trying to correlate my education and training with why my employer, myself, UKAS and the IET all think I am at that level of competence would probably be impossible. What I like about the IET's implementation of the UKSpec process is that it focuses on how you are actually doing your work today. Personally I find the exemplifying qualifications a bit of a red herring - although it's useful guidance to give an idea of the level of technical understanding expected at each level. Maybe the next version of UKSpec will have better wording on this point???


    On the "am I an engineer?" point, I find this a completely invalid question. If I was introducing myself professionally I would never say "I am an engineer". At present I'm a safety assurance engineer, I've been (working backwards) a manufacturing engineering manager, a safety critical equipment design engineering manager, an electronics design engineering manager, an analogue electronics design engineer, an analogue electronics design engineering team leader, an electronics design engineer, an electronics test engineer, and an electronics maintenance engineer. Without the qualifying wording the description would be misleading. I know many engineers would like to be able to simply say "I'm an engineer and I'm proud" (hence all the calls for regulating the title), personally I'm very pragmatic that we are where we are, and we just have to be a bit bullish about using more exact titles that will make sense. (Incidentally I've more or less bludgeoned the words "engineer"/"engineering" into many of those job titles, in many cases I didn't tend to use it at the time. For example I used to call myself an "electronics designer" rather than an "electronics design engineer" as it seemed to make more sense to people - otherwise they tended to expect me to have practical skills smiley) To go back to the medical example, immediately following a car crash a paramedic is likely to be a darn site more use than a brain surgeon, they are both "medical professionals", and the surgeon may be seen by some as having higher "status", but the important question is which one you need at the time!


    Or in other words: yes, I agree!


    Cheers,


    Andy
Children
No Data