Developing Engineers

As my friend Danny excitedly asks me about how my search for an internship in Germany next year is going, I let slip that I haven’t filled out a single online application or psychometric test, and that a lot of my applications have been the result of networking.  “That’s cheating!” Danny exclaims, “It’s not fair!”.

Networking is perceived to be such a sinister word by so many, and in part I can see why.  Everybody hates to see little Charlie set up with an amazing internship at a top Investment Banking company, simply because his Dad knows somebody.  Especially when Charlie turns out to be the most useless flesh filled sack to ever walk on two legs.  But networking doesn’t deserve this definition because it’s not the kind of network you can sustain.  In a previous blog, Rob Thornton highlighted that networking should be mutually beneficial.  I think networking should be about making your own friends and displaying your own merits.

So if my credentials as a 20 year old undergrad aren’t enough for you, here are some interesting things I read about a few years ago that I think make a good case for proper networking.  The first one is the well-known ‘6 degrees of separation theory’; ‘Everyone on Earth is approximately six steps away by way of introduction, from any other person on Earth.’  In one interesting experiment researchers instructed a volunteer to mail a letter to a final recipient they did not know.  This was to be achieved by passing the letter on to a friend who they believed, was the most likely to know the final recipient.  On average the letters were successfully delivered in 6 steps.  Only basic information about the final recipient was ever supplied.

The second and more interesting theory is that you can control how ‘lucky’ you are.  You don’t need a bottle of Mr Potter’s Felix Felicis either*.  Researchers tried to distil what makes some people ‘luckier’ than others.  They conducted a survey where volunteers were asked to ‘rate how lucky they felt’.  And amongst other questions they were asked to estimate how many friends they had.  Albeit a weak correlation there was a definite link between a person’s large friendship circle and how lucky they felt.  If not just to help me make my point, you can see how such a correlation could occur.  Ever come to buy lunch and find out you left your wallet behind when just that second a friend of yours enters the same shop?  Pretty lucky for you some might say. 

I may even be so bold as to outlandishly state that karma (A major principle of many Eastern faiths) is really… just like Networking.  Good things happen to good people.  Job opportunities and other ‘lucky things’ happen to good people with good networks.  Hopefully I make a good case for it coming down to a few simple things.  Play statistics and keep good relationships with lots of people, this sucks if you’re not already very friendly or extroverted, and do your part to fulfil the mutually beneficial part of the deal.

*I am not a Harry Potter fan.

Copyright: Sauber Motorsport AG.

Copyright: Lotus F1 Team

McLaren were the only team that didn’t have a version of the step in the nose, and it seems that their philosophy is to keep the chassis lower and concentrate on the air flow over the top surface. This means their nose meets the maximum height regulations without adding the step. We’ll see in a month when the racing kicks off if they were right to go in that direction!

A hot topic that caused tension between teams last season was the exhaust blown diffusers. This year the FIA have changed the rules to rule out any exhaust blowing. Exhaust outlets must be straight and cylindrical, they must not be on the floor of the car and must be located further forward and higher within a specific area at the rear of sidepod. There have been a variety of solutions up and down the pitlane – unlike team bosses in an interview with Autosport, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a mid season battle over exhaust rules again!

Finally, not a rule change as such, but the new for 2012 Pirelli tyres could have a major effect on the racing. With exhaust blowing banned, the cars will lack rear downforce. In order to improve this, the 2012 tyres are slightly squarer in shape to provide a larger contact patch, and made from softer compounds to increase grip. Pirelli intend to close the gap in performance between tyres so there shouldn’t be such a marked drop off in pace when drivers are on the harder compound stint in the race.

The change in tyres coupled with the new nose and exhaust rules could throw up some surprises for 2012. It will be interesting to see if any teams bring new components to the next pre-season test in Barcelona next week, where the new Mercedes will break cover for the first time. Hopefully the pack gets reshuffled and we have an exciting year of racing with a new world champion crowned in Brazil at the end of November!

Following on to my last piece on why Codeyear is important for developing engineers, I thought I’d share with you some more ideas for professional development projects I have come across recently.

During some lunchtime web perusal, I came across a story about a little-known US higher education institution offering a “Circuits & Electronics” module online. This is not some watered down, ‘lite’ version of the module, but a full-blown, accredited course that where all of the study materials & even the grading of work, is done online. You even get a certificate at the end. And the cost of this? Nada. Nothing. Zero. My interest was suitably piqued.

This is being billed as the prototype for what will hopefully be a much wider series of accredited courses; they are, of course, working on systems for checking identity and guarding against cheating.

This all got me wondering what else was available. Literally moments of Googling later, I stumbled across a seemingly comprehensive list of other courses available online. Most of these are electives that I wasn’t offered at university, but would either be of direct benefit, or simply just of interest. If you’re anything like me (single, easily bored, comprehensively broken & unable to play sports anymore, and missing academia), within minutes you will have enrolled on to several courses. So far, I’ve signed up for the aforementioned “Circuits & Electronics”, plus “Computer Sciences”, “Design & Analysis of Algorithms”, “Anatomy”, “Game Theory”…

All of these modules are scheduled to start in semester 2 (i.e. anytime now), so I’d recommend going and having a look at what is out there before you get behind!

And the names of these colleges offering the courses? MIT, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley… never heard of them

Every so often, the engineering community embarks on a spot of navel-gazing, questioning why there are no engineering heroes known by the wider public. Commentators bemoan that James Dyson seems to be the only person wheeled out on a regular occasion. They ask where the Brunels of the 21st century are.

For those who are searching for today’s engineering heroes, I have some bad news: they aren’t any and there can’t be any.

Not because of political or societal reasons. Not because the engineering industry doesn’t promote them. The problem is more intrinsic; today’s engineering is so complex, no one person can ever take credit for anything more complex than a clothes peg.

James Dyson, like Steve Jobs was at Apple, is one of the rare individuals who have become synonymous with their company and the products that they develop.

From the drinks can to the smartphone, from the door handle to the jet fighter, nearly everything that we design and build today is developed by an army of specialists. We have rightly taken full advantage of being able to rely on others to allow each person to be a specialist and for each person to concentrate making his or her aspect to best of their abilities. No single person could possibly have all the knowledge to create something even as humble as drinks can from scratch.

We should not be ashamed that we do not have engineers who are household names for their achievements at work, for the products they have produced. No doubt, some may become famous as media personalities but almost never for their products. We should be proud that the engineer is the ultimate team player and that the team is always more famous than the individuals.

The engineering hero is dead; long live the engineering team!

All too often engineers are the ones we look to to solve our problems when it comes to the environment, energy supplies and resource provision.  However, in recent years it has become increasingly clear that technology is not the limiting factor when it comes to solving these global problems.

In fact, while many of us would like to place the blame on inept politicians, who lack the understanding or the courage to make the right long-term decisions, perhaps we should entertain the possibility that it is modern society or even individual people who are truly at fault?

Take myself for example: I often think that I’m quite an environmentally conscious person; I turn off lights when I leave rooms, I recycle everything that Sheffield City Council makes it practical for me to do so, I don’t own a car and the vast majority of my distance travel is done by train.  That’s pretty good right?

Unfortunately not.  These things I mention are the things most people think of when it comes to being environmentally responsible.  Yet if you were to take a closer look at me you would know that I have multiple LCD or LED screens blazing away at any one time, two games consoles (sad, I know), am utterly dependent on my shiny smartphone and for one relatively slim guy I eat a lot of meat and other animal products.

In my defence none of these things are uncommon (ok two games consoles for one guy might be), but it’s fair to say I’ve got through far more than my fair share of rare earths*, while the energy and water it takes to grow my food likely outweighs the energy or the water I need to survive, never mind the phenomenal amounts of land that our my food-animals need to live on!

We justify these excesses by claiming that technology enables us to become more prosperous and more productive, while we defend our lifestyles and choice of diet in the same way that we would free-speech.  And yet it may well be our defence of our so-called ‘freedom’ that traps us into a future riddled with resource-based conflicts, increasingly flooded by rising sea levels and battered by ever more extreme weather patterns.

If we really want to solve global issues like climate change, energy supply and food provision, perhaps we should take the lead, take responsibility and stop waiting for someone else to fix the mess created by our collective inaction.

*If you really want to know how dependent we are on these things, I recommend watching this lecture by Dr. Hywel Jones at the Royal Society of Chemistry.

Congratulations to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, as last month the membership passed the 100,000 mark!

The IMechE’s website reports that although it took 164 years to achieve 100,000 members, the number of members has grown from 75,000 in 2007, which is an incredible increase. It is great to know that the Institution is going from strength to strength and playing a role in engineers’ lives.

Read chief executive Stephen Tetlow’s thoughts on the changing face of the profession from January’s Professional Engineer here.

Welcome one and all to my first post on the Developing Engineers blog!

I have chosen to take a look at an issue that has featured in the news recently and seems to be always a point of contention for many people, onshore wind farms.

This weekend it was reported by The Telegraph that 101 conservative MPs have demanded that annual subsidies for onshore wind farms should be ‘dramatically cut’. This is also paired with a concern regarding the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF), which they say hinders any effective opposition to onshore wind farms.

I will focus mainly on the issue subsidies and the wider issue of funding. Firstly without subsidies it is hard to see how anyone could justify, economically, the merits of commissioning onshore wind farms if subsidies did not exist; if anything subsidies do not go far enough in encouraging growth in an emerging market and there review and subsequent scale back will only help us further fall short of 2020 emissions targets.

Firstly I am not in full agreement with the construction of onshore wind farms as the sums often don’t add up; with the amount of electricity actually produced not that great. However at this current point in time we don’t have many viable alternatives, I certainly would rather they remove solar subsidies in this country which were only ever a cursory nod towards the direction of the renewable energy sector, than halt the construction or subsidies for onshore wind farms.

Maybe we should look at the reason why we need such subsidies especially as the opportunity for the UK to be a renewable industry hub is banded about so much by the current government. The infrastructure to support the wind industry in this country is currently not there and the waiting list for wind turbines is a lengthy one, with these and other factors leading to high costs. In August 2009 Vestas moved operations from the Isle of Wight due to uncertainty regarding the industry and of lack of assurance from the government that it will back wind energy; only now are we seeing proposals again for wind turbine manufacturing in the UK, which could always fall down if support is not there for renewable development.

If the government, or more correctly the conservative side of, continues to attack the industry then the costs of renewable energy will continue to rise and become less attractive to potential investors; though maybe this is a preferred option as if renewable energy costs rise it will only give more substance to the Nuclear argument.

Now I cannot say that onshore wind farms are the solution to the energy balance or the best option in renewable energy but green subsidies are a vital component in encouraging growth the renewable energy sector that without them will surely stagnate. Would you rather have a coal or nuclear power plant on your doorstep?

To end on a positive note Nick Clegg has come out in defence of wind power subsidies and renewable energy as a whole, so at least someone is fighting for renewable energy just a pity they have little sway in government…

Luke Young – Have a look at my other blog the renewable future!

2012 is already heavily associated with the London Olympics, but for greater relevance to many developing engineers, it is also ‘Code Year’.

Code Year (#Codeyear) is a New Year’s resolution that challenges people to learn enough code to write their own apps by the end of the year. The initiative, launched by NY based Code Academy (nominated for ‘Best New Startup’), has attracted over 350,000 people to sign up to the weekly online, interactive lessons. One of the highest profile sign-ups was Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of NYC, which prompted our own, beloved Boris to express interest in taking the course if re-elected.

So, why is #Codeyear, and coding in general, of relevance to developing engineers?

Coding is the basis of so many things that engineers use daily, ranging from this website, to your CAE package of choice, to the point where it has been named ‘The New Latin’. It allows us to automate repetitive processes, perform millions of calculations in seconds, and simulate complex systems. I personally use coding (VBA & MATLAB mainly) on a near daily basis, developing tools for myself and my colleagues. One of my personal bugbears is doing the simple things stupidly, and coding has allowed me to remove countless manual steps, producing a more efficient and consistent end product.

#Codeyear has come at, as far as I am concerned, a pivotal time for ICT education in this country. Google’s’ CEO, Eric Schmidt, has publicly criticised education in the UK, saying it is holding back the UK’s potential in the new digital economy. Our ICT education in schools focuses on use of software packages, but we should be promoting increased focus on computer sciences. This is a view shared by education secretary, Michael Gove, who describes the current curriculum as ”demotivating and dull”.

The effects of this education deficit are all too prevalent in many engineering offices. I have seen countless developing engineers, at all stages in their careers, performing laborious, error prone & repetitive tasks that could be automated by a dozen lines of code, or simply being left aghast by MATLABs red text. I would never expect all engineers to be capable of writing next years Call of Duty rival, but I do feel that we could all do with a better appreciation of coding.

And what better why of getting started that signing up to #Codeyear for 2012?

“Oh well actually, I don’t think I need to go on another 2 day training course on team building and communications. I think I’m pretty good at it already.” Oh right? How many languages do you speak? And I don’t just mean using broken sentences to ask the way to the bakery. Can you have a technical discussion in a language other than your own?

What happens when you have an Engineering project that involves two different countries? The two parties speak two different languages and somebody is going to have to give in and swap. There’s one thing I’m sure of, it’s unlikely to be the British. In fact it will never be a native speaker of English. (So that includes you too, America)

English: The bastard child of the early Germanic settlers from North West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, who over the years was separately moulded in the image of several uncles and aunties; the Vikings and later French influences from the Royal Courts*. The official language of 54 countries, adapted by 27 non-sovereign entities (including the EU and the UN to name but a few).

What upsets me: The general consensus of opinion among the native English speakers is “Why should we bother learning another language? Everybody else speaks English already”. “If they don’t understand me, I’ll just shout it louder and slower the next time” Even our own school system is against us; in most English schools it’s not even compulsory to learn a 2^nd language to GCSE level.

In our defence, you can somewhat understand the position faced by the British Public and the rest of the world. Firstly English is everywhere already (We might have conducted an ‘aggressive marketing campaign’ a few hundred years ago). Secondly it is also very good for technical discussions and easy for foreigners to learn compared to many other languages (Very large vocabulary, simple grammar). But we shouldn’t use these excuses to brush the matter aside, there are huge benefits to being bilingual, in any languages.

Even at the most basic level where you’re able to engage in greetings, niceties and small talk in another language, your foreign colleagues will hold you in a higher regard for at least having made an effort. But with high language ability you’ll be able to do business with people you couldn’t previously and you will set yourself aside from non-bilingual competitors. You become more versatile and more employable; it’s also a lot more fun than many other soft skills your company may force you to engage in.  

Stop focusing on other soft skills, management training, and business studies. Languages are more valuable to you. Scary thought is Mandarin Chinese and Hindi have more speakers then English. Guess who might be the next up and coming Engineering Nations? Maybe the government and Engineering companies should put more focus on developing 2^nd languages.

I’ll sell it to them as something to do with the 2012 Olympics, that’ll get them on board for sure.

*Apologies for any inaccuracies spotted by any stray linguists that may have wandered in a daze onto this blog.

Don't be put off by the paperwork

Following up from my previous post in September, it was touch and go whether I’d ever get my annual report done. The busy seasons at work happened to clash with the busy season for my IMechE report writing. I’m sure you’ll be glad to hear the final annual report has been completed and graded above the minimum competency requirements of three level 3’s and two level 2’s.  I’m onto the next step now, the application process.

So what’s next you ask, well to sum it up a large amount of talking about yourself, which personally I hate. However it is a great way to refresh your CV and look back on your engineering career. I must stress this is for the MPDS route, not the Professional Review Report route.  The following documents are now on my to do list within the 6 month window to apply post MPDS.

• Application form – Essentially a pro-forma CV which your Mentor and Sponsor need to sign
• A sponsor form – A one page competency assessment by a Chartered Engineer who can corroborate your development to date
• A Final Personal Report and Development action plan – This one looks tough, it’s two sides of writing with two thirds focused on summarising what I’ve done to date since my MPDS started. The other third looking a bit easier as I can utilise my recent appraisal for my development actions.

So wish me luck, hopefully the next post will have a smaller to do list than this one.
All the information above is given in more detail in the IMechE’s guidance notes, please use that in the first instance rather than the above.