Welcome to the E2E Community Discussion Forum!

Just found an interesting and challenging article that states that US Engineers need more hands-on training and that Asian Engineers actually generally have the advantage over the US. 

Apparently Bob Lutz, GM vice chairman of global product development, says they lack problem-solving skills of European, Asian counterparts and  complained that engineers trained in the U.S. are only learning a portion of key skills, such as computer modeling or solving mathematical problems, but not drafting.  He says US engineers are at a distinct disadvantage from Asian engineers because of the way they're trained - with too much emphasis on the business of business instead of engineering.

I think this is interesting...the engineers I know are all trying to get their MBAs and are looking to move up the food chain, rather than improving their technical skills....so maybe there is some truth to that? 

Comments?

Garsten, E. Lutz.  U.S. engineers need more hands-on training.  The Detroit News.  Retrieved from http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0504/13/B01-148929.htm

I've no real direct experience with this, but in general, I notice that Asian engineers often seem to have more exposure to manufacturing, which is useful for actually getting a product developed.  Fresh American graduates have virtually zero experience in completing anything in a useful manner.  (Neither do many college professors, either, it seems.)  I also notice that European engineers seem to get (or simply have) much more technical experience (not necessarily manufacturing).  I can somewhat understand the Asian situation, but don't know why this seems to be the case with European engineers.

A lack of drafting capability in American engineers seems to be somewhat on-purpose.  Drafting is not seen as a job for an engineer even though it is a very useful skill in real life.  There also seems to be the general consensus that Americans are not going to be competitive in global marketplace with lower-level skills that are more cheaply done in China or India.  We (Americans) have to be the high-tech, fancy, super-duper engineers with giant brains directly attached to computers.  Eventually our limbs will atrophe and we'll be at the mercy of our overseas counterparts.

I don't necessarily completely agree with that view.  While I see outsourcing as a general threat to quite a few engineering jobs there are still a lot of small companies for whom it is important to have the engineers local.  Education is going to have to pick up in the US to keep Americans competitive, but I think we should be okay in the long run.  I expect that we will continue, mostly, on the path of engineering management.  The consumer electronics that Walmart sells are all manufactured overseas.  US manufacturing cannot compete at that price level.  Engineering for these products has (and will) follow a similar path.  We will maintain expertise in the mid to low-volume, highly engineered products (read: space, communications, medical), in my humble opinion.

Anyone disagree?
Bradley
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur."  <-- This line is a joke.

I don't agree, I think Lutz is blaming his underinspired, underperforming business on his engineers.  I think the giant bureaucracy (how many executives are engineers?) that governs a company like that stifles creativity and innovation.  Just because Japanese and German car companies are doing a better job than GM is not based on education.  I believe that U.S. engineers get a great education, though in school we really just learn how to learn.  And for the record I didn't take any business courses for my mechanical engineering degree.

I think it is a general trend among younger technical people to gather a broad range of skills and experiences.  Of course in this day and age a new graduate is not going to be a specialist.  Why would anyone stay in school for twice the time to specialize in a skill?  On the job experience is more valuable and that one special skill is likely to be obsolete soon.  Personally, I crave new knowledge and strive to be a well-rounded engineer that can use multiple skills and draw on a variety of experiences to creatively solve a problem.    I also believe in sharing knowledge, I don't hesitate to ask someone else, or freely share knowledge that I have gathered.  That is part of the beauty of the internet and forums like this.

---

"A witty saying proves nothing."
-Voltaire

The first line is not directed at you Bradley, it is response to original post.

---

"A witty saying proves nothing."
-Voltaire

I think you make an excellent point, PRF.  I didn't take into account the source being a GM executive, which colors his concern somewhat given their impending change to junk status.

I also agree that a well-rounded engineer is best and we go to school to learn how to learn, but I think we could get some more experience in college.  I suppose, that's why we have internships and co-ops available, although somewhat limited in recent years.

Bradley

If Lutz would stop treating his engineers as if they were business managers he would see a different outcome. Honestly, employees of all walks tend to become what their company wants them to be... for obvious reason$. To be their "best", an employee must be rewarded for doing and being their best. Each of us needs to push back too but corporate tolerance for this is generally low.

US training may reflect an emphasis on "the business of business" more now than in years past but that is not the limit of a modern engineers training. Also, the business model used by a company like GM influences much more of society than it appears Mr. Lutz is willing to take responsibility for. Industry trends drive educational emphasis. If he wants his engineers to be more like european or asian style engineers then he could start by treating his current engineers like engineers.

---

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. - Albert Einstein (trad.)

Star_E

I believe that there is an American tendency to "specialize", whether it be in medical school or engineering. This is because of the belief that specialization is where the money is and talent follows the money. The product you get can be very competent within their field, but their strengths fall off rapidly when you need to have broad skills.

I know from past experience that the Asian companies can afford to throw more manpower at an engineering problem because of the lower wages and they are very good at creating solutions that are "good enough" to do the job. American engineers have a tendency to design more elaborate and fail-safe systems, perhaps related to a need for tort reform with potentially high product liability cost if they don't do everything possible.

I was talking to a manufacturers rep in the technical community within India less than a month ago. He said that they pay journeymen engineers a salary around $10,000 annual and engineering managers peak in the $20-25K range. I don't think Asian engineers are paid any better. But you need to put this into perspective, as those engineering jobs are highly prized for their relatively high pay compared to manufacturing labor.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that "high-tech" is an American virtue and our ultimate safety net. The Asian community is going after the money too, in that they are focus on where most of the dollar volume is- high quantity consumer items. The Chinese government must expand their economy at a fast pace to accommodate the massive population and it will eventually push them into our sacred markets that are lower quantity with high intellectual content. They currently are using government subsidies in many Asian countries to set up medical enterprise zones. The targets are intially the higher volume medical markets, such as pharmaceuticals but they are currently attracting medical device manufacturers, including design facilities. Singapore and China both are leading the charge.

---

Vitreous Humor
"Eye can see clearly now..."

~

---

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. - Albert Einstein (trad.)

Star_E

Vitreous, how depressing, I need a beer. 
What is the best way for us "fat cat" US engineers to keep ahead of the curve?  Study Chinese Language?

---

"A witty saying proves nothing."
-Voltaire

The best way for US engineers to stay highly employable (this goes for any profession) is to continue to find ways to ADD value beyond the specific job you were hired to do.  I think for US engineers, the secret weapon, given the time differences, language differences and cultural differences, it is probably being an easy to reach, easy to talk to expert.  I think it is not just the expertise that distinguishes someone, it is the accessibility to that expertise -- the willingness to help, being easy to work with is worth a tremendous amount.

I'll give you an example, I hired a consultant to conduct an analysis for our company.  Then I asked him to extrapolate on the meaning of his conclusions - a question that was not exactly outside of the analysis we hired him to do, but somewhat tangential....he wanted to charge for this.  An expert in his field?  Certainly!  Adding value that I can't find somewhere else?  Not really.  I know where the expertise is, but I can't actually acces it without a price.  And for that reason, I'm less likely to engage this consultant the next time. 

If US engineers want to win US engineering projects, they need to find ways to be easier to do business with than their competition in Asia.