By Eugene le Roux, mechanical engineer, one of his regular online articles on general project management principles.
This article looks at two issues: What does engineering involve, and what must the training of an engineer include?
Eugene le Roux, retired mechanical engineer.
© RACA Journal
As much money and time is coupled to the answer, may I ask you to participate actively in the discussion, so that the training could be well directed. Do you think this is currently the case?
Could we assume that most people would agree that the training should start with basic engineering subjects such as strength of materials, electrotechnology, thermodynamics, etc?
Is there a chance that too much time is spent on these subjects, and that the next step is not taken?
What is the next step? If there is one thing an engineer will encounter in practice, it is systems, and more systems; sometimes not even recognising the system dynamics. To train for this, just a high-level theoretical description of system dynamics would fall far short. Is the answer not applying the System Engineering Process (SEP) thoroughly to many systems?
The crux of the SEP is the cascading of the high-level requirement down, through the system levels, to component level. How often is this being done in training?
Although this technical analysis is the crux to understanding a system, and to enable relatively smooth project management by means of the Ghantt chart, there are still some system engineering management activities that should be covered, like configuration management, budgeting, the all-important contract management, earned value and reporting, specialist areas such as reliability, ergonomics, and some general management.
Is this too tall an order to include in the graduate course, or could time just be allocated better? Must the primary focus be on depth, or on a wider focus? Could the system thinking be ‘woven’ into the way the basic engineering subjects are presented?
This is where your views are invaluable.
Please let us hear your views.
