Downstream problems with professionals

June 2, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Listen to the people downstream from certain professions for very long and you’ll wonder whether students are getting enough hands-on experience in college.

Take car mechanics, for example. It’s a good thing the engineers who design engine compartments are safely behind desks and not in repair shops when spark plugs are being changed. Some vehicles require so much labor to strip away other equipment in the compartment just to reach the plugs that costs run unnecessarily high, sometimes into hundreds of dollars.

If engineers had to change plugs just once, they’d make it easier, mechanics gripe.

These kinds of complaints pop up occasionally about architects, too. Ask contractors what they think of the profession and it isn’t uncommon to hear stories about ignorance of how buildings are actually put together. More knowledge of the process would cut construction costs and long-term maintenance, the contractors complain.

The points raised here are based on anecdotal evidence. Maybe you’re aware of studies showing mechanics are giddy about engineers and designers.

But the comments come up often enough to raise questions about whether professionals are trained as well as they could be. And maybe not just engineers and architects. Other professions may come to mind.

Should engineers be required to spend time in repair shops in college? Or architect students on construction sites with the hard hat crowd?

What are your thoughts?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Architects
    It's unbelievable how most Architects design homes. It's like they have never lived in one. A resounding YES is my answer to the question. They should have to suffer through a move or two to see how difficult or impossible it is to get normal furniture into a home!!!
  • Real World Implementation Experience Would Help
    Although I loathe the idea of anybody being "required" to do anything, especially if further institutionalizing more academic requirements for things that are common sense or that people can learn their own there is a point here.

    I recall taking something like 20+ screws out of a desktop computer (in the early 90s) in order to upgrade the memory. I did indeed realize very quickly that the engineer who designed it never had to do this. Today, most are easily accessed with one screw or a pop-off cover.

    Consistently (in houses, computers, automobiles or any other thing) there are opportunities where things could be improved to make ease of repair or enhancement easier. I generally assume things are engineered the way they are for a reason - but wonder if those reasons are always more important than lowering the cost or frustration associated with ownership.
  • They should learn in the field
    Speaking as an architect, I agree that architects should learn from the field. While I have worked a short time in construction, it wasn't through college. Even with the construction experience, not everything I've produced was perfect and took into account all the unforeseen field conditions that are inevitable in construction. We follow industry best practices for detailing the installation and I'm happy to review our design with the construction professionals executing the installation. I know many architects who would argue that the means and methods of construction are the responsibility of the builders and not the architect's concern. I agree to a point, I'm not going to tell them which hammer to use when driving a nail, but I'll be sure we've detailed joints in the construction to provide a watertight system that will perform for the owner and achieve the design intent. What happens often is that a builder will look at the design documented by the architect and find ways to make the construction less expensive through using different systems or removing components from the assemblies they don't think are necessary. When an owner hears a builder tell them "the architect has made this much more expensive" while ignorantly removing insulation, vapor retarders or barriers, and ventilation that is required by state building codes and industry best practices they create buildings with shorter life spans that are less healthy for the occupants. A little field education for the architects is good, and little design and engineering education for the installers is good as well.
  • designer should be user
    My dad told me 50 yrs ago and truer even today - the guy who designs it should have to use. I'm in the bar/restaurant business and this applies to every piece of equipment we have: cash registers, ice machines, kitchen eq, tables, chairs - you name it.
  • Agreed!
    Having done both design and repair, I can state wholeheartedly that no one should be allowed to design a car until they have spent at least a year repairing cars. The same would hold true for houses. A year under a hard hat makes a huge difference in the way one designs buildings. I see nothing wrong with, and a great benefit to, having student engineers and architects spend some course work and time in the field on the other end of someone else's designs.
  • Engineers need more hands-on knowledge
    As an engineer myself, I agree that hands-on experience is necessary for making the best design. I myself have used the knowledge of the people operating the equipment I was responsible for improving. They are the ones that use it day after day. I have also seen engineers design things that appeared to not have much thought applied to how it would be used. I had to fix their designs so that they would be functional. Before an engineer should be allowed to design, they should be involved in the trenches of daily operation.
  • YES
    I agree with hands on training!!!!!!!!!

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.

ADVERTISEMENT