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

Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 28 replies
  • Subscribers 13 subscribers
  • Views 2797 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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

Andy Millar
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
  • 0
    Hi Andy,


    I think many of our great mathematicians in the past thought in a graphical way but perhaps different ways of thinking are needed to generate new concepts.


    Can we know too much, does our toolbox hold us back? I'm sure we all have met the, sometimes older, person that just accepts something new and uses it, not bothering what is inside. Equally there are those that desperately deconstruct things to get back to the bedrock of their understanding. (I remember trying to get someone to use a computer and we were down to how a single-pole switch worked before we could move forward!). We used to hear about 'lateral thinking' which has got to be about moving away from a fixed 'model in the mind'.


    Sloyd is a theory for developing a child. Similar arguments hold for getting the 'bookish' children out onto the games field. Where Sloyd has probably got it right is that each child masters skills in stages rather than having to pathetically follow the rest and never getting a kick at the ball. (Baden-Powell encouraged games where the winners were the ones that were eliminated first, allowing the poorer ones to get more practice. That is the opposite of what happened with my nephews when they first started computer gaming. The eldest only handed over when he 'died', after thirty minutes, then the youngest handed over when he 'died', almost immediately!).


    But we are talking about engineers. (What on earth is a theoretical engineer? A theoretical applied scientist?). I think engineers should be jacks of all trades and masters of all! Well at least they should have a wide knowledge of the tools available, (that problem with theoretical again!). My BSc degree had a first year common to the whole faculty so at least we knew what other engineers do. My father was a mechanical engineer who had built radios as a boy so we had a common language when I took up electrical things as a boy and went on to make a career of it. I also learned that my mechanical 'toolbox' wasn't complete, there were lots of "I never thought of that" gems that I would pick up from him. Engineering is the art of the practical, there is always a compromise and that applies to the engineer too. We need to know our stuff and to know our limits. But those limits should be fuzzy in that we know what needs to be done and a have pretty good idea how it might be done but know enough to get someone that we know is competent to do it. Some of your earlier descriptions of teams I found to be quite scary. Who leads them and how do they stop the project being skewed to suit the most assertive specialist?


    To answer the original question though, I think that one doesn't have to have practical skills to be an engineer but it gives one a feel for a job that is essentially practical in outcome. I think it also helps develop mutual respect. A simple example: I have soldered a good few wires in my time but I wouldn't put myself up against a good technician, consequently they earn my respect and in turn I think they appreciated that because they knew that I knew why they were so good. We talked the same language but their pronunciation and vocabulary were better than mine.
Reply
  • 0
    Hi Andy,


    I think many of our great mathematicians in the past thought in a graphical way but perhaps different ways of thinking are needed to generate new concepts.


    Can we know too much, does our toolbox hold us back? I'm sure we all have met the, sometimes older, person that just accepts something new and uses it, not bothering what is inside. Equally there are those that desperately deconstruct things to get back to the bedrock of their understanding. (I remember trying to get someone to use a computer and we were down to how a single-pole switch worked before we could move forward!). We used to hear about 'lateral thinking' which has got to be about moving away from a fixed 'model in the mind'.


    Sloyd is a theory for developing a child. Similar arguments hold for getting the 'bookish' children out onto the games field. Where Sloyd has probably got it right is that each child masters skills in stages rather than having to pathetically follow the rest and never getting a kick at the ball. (Baden-Powell encouraged games where the winners were the ones that were eliminated first, allowing the poorer ones to get more practice. That is the opposite of what happened with my nephews when they first started computer gaming. The eldest only handed over when he 'died', after thirty minutes, then the youngest handed over when he 'died', almost immediately!).


    But we are talking about engineers. (What on earth is a theoretical engineer? A theoretical applied scientist?). I think engineers should be jacks of all trades and masters of all! Well at least they should have a wide knowledge of the tools available, (that problem with theoretical again!). My BSc degree had a first year common to the whole faculty so at least we knew what other engineers do. My father was a mechanical engineer who had built radios as a boy so we had a common language when I took up electrical things as a boy and went on to make a career of it. I also learned that my mechanical 'toolbox' wasn't complete, there were lots of "I never thought of that" gems that I would pick up from him. Engineering is the art of the practical, there is always a compromise and that applies to the engineer too. We need to know our stuff and to know our limits. But those limits should be fuzzy in that we know what needs to be done and a have pretty good idea how it might be done but know enough to get someone that we know is competent to do it. Some of your earlier descriptions of teams I found to be quite scary. Who leads them and how do they stop the project being skewed to suit the most assertive specialist?


    To answer the original question though, I think that one doesn't have to have practical skills to be an engineer but it gives one a feel for a job that is essentially practical in outcome. I think it also helps develop mutual respect. A simple example: I have soldered a good few wires in my time but I wouldn't put myself up against a good technician, consequently they earn my respect and in turn I think they appreciated that because they knew that I knew why they were so good. We talked the same language but their pronunciation and vocabulary were better than mine.
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines