At first glance, it might seem that the required skills and knowledge for engineers haven’t changed that much over the years. Yet it’s easy to see that product development has evolved. Many non-engineering stakeholders need to be involved in this development. Design decisions are necessarily more democratic when taking company-wide considerations into account. This prompts …
At first glance, it might seem that the required skills and knowledge for engineers haven’t changed that much over the years. Yet it’s easy to see that product development has evolved. Many non-engineering stakeholders need to be involved in this development. Design decisions are necessarily more democratic when taking company-wide considerations into account. This prompts a serious question:
Do today’s engineers need to evolve in terms of skills and knowledge?
To answer that question, we need a little context. A good place to start is to look at the traditional culture of engineering.
The Traditional Engineering Culture of Individual Accountability
An engineer’s prime responsibility has traditionally been to design products for the three Fs: form, fit and function. But that isn’t a responsibility without consequences: it carries personal accountability. Engineers place their signature on drawings to signify their personal approval of a design. If products fail, drawing signatures identify responsible engineers so that they can justify their decisions. In summary, more so than any other group, engineering has had a strong culture of accountability.
Mechatronics Complexity and the Fade of the One True Expert
One thing that has undermined engineering’s accountability culture has been the increase of electrical hardware and software in traditional mechanical products, even down to its lowest levels. Few engineers have the deep expertise in mechanical, electrical and software disciplines necessary to make design decisions autonomously. Instead, lead engineers work with specialized engineers to look at design alternatives and their associated impacts, as well as heading efforts to collaborate and build consensus. The result is a group think approach, rather than placing responsibility and accountability on any one engineer.
Designing for the Enterprise
Something else undermining engineering’s accountability culture is the additional consideration of company-wide factors, as well as form, fit and function, during design. A product’s commercial viability must be verified. Parts must be purchased at competitive prices. A product’s manufacturability must be validated. Service procedures must be certified.
To take such company-wide factors into account, engineers must collaborate with many non-engineering stakeholders to collectively make decisions. Engineers must communicate their design intent and provide access to product information so others can get involved. Non-engineering stakeholders must be able to assess and validate their options, choices and procedures independently. Then, engineers must assimilate the feedback and drive consensus among the team.
The Profile of the Modern Engineer
In this trend, there has been a shift from individual accountability in engineering to a more collaborative effort among specialized engineers. Furthermore, the consideration of company-wide factors requires engineers to enable and lead teams of non-engineering stakeholders.
Today’s engineers have new responsibilities. They must act with implicit authority, meaning that engineers aren’t given explicit command over other non-engineering stakeholders to solve product issues and make the best decisions. As a result, their role requires substantial soft skills, including social skills and habits that effectively influence others.
The Challenge of Collaborative Design
- Engineers need to be able to facilitate collaboration and drive consensus among teams of specialized engineers and non-engineering stakeholders. Engineering leaders must therefore ensure that their engineers have the soft skills to facilitate collaborative design.
- The old form, fit and function responsibilities of the engineer haven’t gone away. Engineering leaders must maintain their engineers’ existing technical skills while improving their soft skills.