🚀 go-pugleaf

>user Ed Moore@vcd.hp.com writes:
>>If we engineers must expect to have many jobs rather than a few,
>>then perhaps we should pursue education in breadth rather than in depth.
>
>Yah!  A little of this, a little of that.  It makes sense.

I (Ed Moore) agree that it makes sense, but often for unfortunate reasons. 
There definitely is a need for specialists.  Much of what we regard as progress
in the industrial world is the direct result of individuals dedicating their
lives to a single, narrow pursuit.  In my opinion, we would be flying today on
airplanes of 1950s technology if all airplanes since 1903 had been designed by
generalist engineers.  The progress in aerospace technology was greatly
enhanced by the specialist.

>>We need more company managers (like Ed Moore's HP bosses) who recognize that
>>a well-trained and CROSS-TRAINED staff is far more useful than a whole room
>>full of specialists.
>
>Oops!  Can't quite buy this one.  There is a need for specialists.

Amen!  HP's businesses are far more amenable to the cross-trained staff than is
Boeing's business.  I went to Boeing as a stress analyst with no aircraft
stress analysis experience.  I discovered that the structural optimization (to
save weight) on airframes required detailed knowledge of the intricate
structural features used on airframes.  On a bridge, building or nuclear power
plant, a large member is used to carry a large load.  On an airframe, a hundred
small, thin pieces are riveted or bonded together to carry the large load.  I
believe the only people who know whether the resulting structure will perform
the task are those who are intimately acquainted with such structures.  Let me
emphasize, I only want to fly on airplanes designed by specialists!

>The recent trend to decentralize organizations has led to an
>unwillingness to support technical specialists.  The problem is
>that when managers are forced to look no further than their own
>relatively small bottom lines, they become reluctant to keep
>specialists on staff.  An engineer with a broad (but shallow) background
>becomes more attractive to managers than an engineer who has been
>doing one or two difficult activities very well for years.  The specialist
>becomes an albatros, because his organization typically does not
>have enough need for his/her expertise.  But it and other organizations
>do have that need from time to time.  

I agree completely.  If a business has technical problems that need
specialists, and yet sacrifices its specialists to improve today's bottom line,
then it is simply another example of the U.S. practice of short term investing.

>We may not be around much longer, for the reasons that I've mentioned.
>But the willingness of companies to eliminate technical specialists
>from their payrolls can only cost them more, in the long term.

Yes, short term investing tends to be less rewarding than long term investing.

What is good for the country and company may not be good for the individual
engineer.  Long term investing will, in the long term, be more rewarding to the
country and company.  But the individual engineer cannot force good investment
practices on the company.  If my son were a young engineer I would strongly
encourage him to avoid specializing to protect his career.  To be a bit
flippant, you are always qualified for your present job or you wouldn't have
it.  Therefore don't spend any time improving your qualifications for that job;
spend that time preparing for a different job you are not qualified for.

This discussion is vital to the interests of young engineers.  I'd like to see
many engineers with 15+ years experience throw in their observations.  They
might be very different from mine, and the young engineer has a right to know.

My opinions, not HP's.
Ed Moore - edmoore@vcd.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard
Vancouver, WA