One of the biggest issues that I see facing engineers in our industry is a tendency to come across as consultants, rather than as part of a team. This manifests itself a lot of different ways, but a lack of ownership is what really strikes me. We don’t even take ownership of our own issues, much less the broader issues of the program. I think that is a real pity. Not only does the program suffer, but we are reduced in the process.
I view engineers as problem solvers. But we seem to be extremely selective about what problems we are willing to address, as if we are afraid of getting our hands dirty. So someone fills the void; almost always someone less capable and less trained in critical thinking. Then we get to sit back and complain about the poor decisions made by management. And better yet, we get to use those poor decisions as our excuse for all the milestones we will miss.
At least this is my perspective. I’m constantly hoping to see engineers step up and lead cross-functional teams, speak up about a quality or tooling issue, or make recommendations on how to address a contracts issue. I know we are capable of doing it, but we seldom do.
Does anyone else see it this way? Does anyone else feel that engineering is choosing to play a secondary role, to the detriment of our companies, and ultimately our own interests? If so, why are we doing it? And if I’m wrong, help me see it the way you see it.
4 comments:
The problem is that the definition of an engineer varies dramatically. People trained in engineering and/or have degrees in engineering are not always problem solvers, and do not always think bigger picture - many are only capable of solving a well defined and structure problem with requirements fully vetted out; while others thrive in an abstract environment. Several turn towards analysis, design, CAD, etc. The cross pollination and critical thinking in general should come from your systems engineers who form a link between your chief engineers, program managers, and from one IPT to another IPT. Engineers "think" they know everything, but don't accept that they only know their discipline.
While this is true, not all engineers are the best at abstract problem solving, I think there are also engineers that do know more than their discipline. So much of what we do on a daily basis depends on understanding basic concepts and having good leadership skills. I agree that some engineers are more than capable of helping figure-out problems in other disciplines just because they think a different way and bring a fresh perspective. I've also seen more and more engineers go back and get business degrees or at least take a few classes, which gives them even more insight on how to help other areas of the program. A lot of times, someone just needs to give them a chance or at least the time of day instead of dismissing them just because they are an engineer and assume they can't possibly understand business aspects.
You raise some good points, thisguy. I have definitely witnessed cases where engineers were dismissed from non-technical discussion, in part because there was an assumption that they have nothing to offer. However, I think at times it is also due to a sensitivity to to how much they are paid. In other words, there is a strong incentive to "get them back to work", rather than include them in non-technical discussions. Sometimes that may be the right thing to do, but In the long run, it may not maximize an engineer's value to the company.
I really had to chuckle at the response of "Anonymous" to this post. If I read it correctly, "engineers" think they know everything, but "systems engineers" actually do.
Actually, your point is well taken, and I do appreciate and value the role of a systems engineer. Alas, I would have to say that the definitions and use of systems engineers varies almost as much as does the more generic "engineer" role. (And I'm not even talking about the common misuse of the term.)
Post a Comment