OT: Scientists, Engineers, Technicians, and Mechanics

[pbanders]

I thought a little perspective on the relationship between scientists, engineers, and technicians and mechanics might help people understand how all of these roles work together in advancing technology. What I describe below is somewhat simplistic, but it's basically how the system works.

Scientists discover basic phenomena and reduce it to a set of rules. They do this by developing theoretical descriptions of how things work, then comparing these theories to real life examples. If they don't agree to a reasonable extent, the theory is discarded and a new approach is developed. Note that in this model, experimental data is the final arbiter, not the theory.

Engineers take the rules developed by scientists and apply them to creating "things". Here, the goal is to use what is known to make a "thing" that is usually subject to many constraints - speed, power, performance, durability, serviceability, etc. The best engineers are the ones who understand which of these constraints are the most important to the end users of the "thing" and how to optimize the "thing" to provide maximum benefit.

Technicians are the people who put what engineers design into practice. They have specialized skills to make a design reality, and to translate it as faithfully as possible. Often, they identify problems during this phase and work closely with engineers to redesign the "thing" to avoid the problems. A great example of this relationship is discussed in the book on the Lockheed "Skunk Works", written by the director who followed Kelly Johnson. Johnson insisted that his engineers work on the floor with the machinists and other technicians who built the planes, so that the feed-foward and feedback of information was instantaneous, and so that the engineers could see the real-life problems created by their designs, and the technicians could understand what the engineers really wanted.

Mechanics are generally charged with keeping an existing "thing" working. They are often the recipients of bad design and bad execution, and as a result, often have to act as an engineer AND a technician in redesigning and implementing a "fix" so that the "thing" works again or works better. Some of the most clever engineering work I've seen has come in this phase of the technology cycle by people who never saw the inside of a book, but have an innate understanding and knowledge of how "things" work.

When the roles above work correctly, there is a constant feed-forward and feedback of information that results in incremental improvements in technology. Through this process, in the automotive world, we now have amazingly sophisticated cars that are simultaneously economical, practical, inexpensive, efficient, and emissions-friendly.

We need to make sure that when we communicate across these roles, that we understand that the goal is to improve technology through exchange of knowledge and information. When an engineer asks a technician to explain why a part cannot be made to specification, the explanation by the technician needs to be in a form so that the engineer can understand how to redesign the part so that it can be made within the constraints of the fabrication system. Similarly, when engineers and mechanics communicate, we need to be certain that accurate information is clearly communicated.

This forum brings together people from all of the domains I describe, plus a very important group I didn't mention - the end customers. It's not surprising that engineers will want to be communicated to like they're talking to another engineer, or a technician or mechanic will want to express themselves as they do to their peers, we need to try to bridge the gaps so that we all learn from the process. And the customers are watching and learning, so all of us in the technology world have to listen to the requirements they bring, and take responsiblity that what we communicate is untainted by our personal feelings and attitudes.

I've learned a great deal about my car, cars in general, and technology in general from the many forums I participate in and the opportunity to hear from the continuum of people in this process. By keeping our communications clear and appropriate, we can continue this process and all learn from it.

[lapuwali]

Interesting. I was just composing a similarly-themed post myself.

There is a well-known theorist on this board, and another well-known experimentalist. Each seems to have little time for the other (not just personally, but the theory person seems unwilling to listen to practical evidence that in any way contradicts his theory, just as the expermentalist seems unwilling to listen to conflicting theory). Understandable human nature, for the most part, but frustrating to watch nonetheless.

Both theory and experiment are useful and necessary parts of development. Using either in isolation impedes development and understanding.

When a fact arises that conflicts with theory, the theorist must accept that fact and adapt the theory to allow it. All too often, the theorist will deny the fact instead, claiming experimental error or outright deception.

The experimentalist has to be able to listen to theory that stretches the boundries of tangible facts. Denying well-accepted theory because it APPEARS to conflict with the facts is just as wrong as the theorist denying facts. Experimental error does happen, and facts are sometimes open to interpretation.

To some extent, available tools and the overreliance on those tools compounds the problem, fooling the tool user into believing exactly what they see, ignoring the limitations of the tool.

btw, I should point out that this blinkered view is hardly unique to this board, nor is it a sign of stupidity on the part of either person. Brilliant physicists, for example, have long been divided into theory and experiment camps. There has been back-biting and silly arguments between those two arenas for centuries. The smartest just avoid the arguments and draw their own conclusions based on the work of both sides.

[914GT]

Brad, good post. I think the good engineers, techs, etc. have abilities from more than one area. I know engineers who have no good mechanical skills, they are poor at visualizing a design once it's built or how easy it will be to work on. The better engineers have experience building things. The better techs apply ways of thinking more like engineers. Mechanics know the 'how' but maybe not so strong in the 'why'. I think working on cars or customizing/hot rodding/etc. is a great way to learn all these things across several disciplines. Makes you a better tech, engineer, or whatever it may be.

[sean_V8_914]

these discussions have been enjoyable reading for me. Even though it got ugly, the info was interesting. My R&D experience confirms Brads summary of the relationships between each developmental element. It is interesting to see the dividing lines get blurred as a developement team gets deeper into a project, Engineers assembling parts, techs designing modifications and scientists wrenching on machines to meet project deadlines. Next thign ya know, we are all eating pizza at 3am discussing the physics behind why the widget failed for teh 55th time but worked 100 times before that.

Lapuwali also brought up a good point. I worked with an amazing engineer/scientist. he had a sign on teh wall that said something about removing the ego from engineering. Although he said he beleived this, he was not successful in living by it. I think ego enters into these things because of the large personal investemnt we feel we pay to achieve progress

[Jake Raby]

Excellent post.

[Bleyseng]

Yes, good post.
I work in construction and we have the same type of people ie: architects, engineers, designers, Project Managers, and the tradesmen.
I have tried to build to some pretty weird buildings in my time, some worked out others had lots of changes. Getting to a good end product is the goal of everyone involved. Same applies here.
Geoff

[lmcchesney]

The feed forward and feed back method applied by Kelly Johnson at the Sunk Works department resulted in overcoming significant barriers in aero/electromatic engineering. But what is even more remarkable is the respectful interaction inwhich these activities were maintained. Human ego is a frail and often wanting part of the needs of the biological design called man. Possiblily a design concept which can be better by effective feedback.
L. McC

[SGB]

As a professional engineer working amid hundreds of other engineers (here at the Corps of Engineers- duh), I can tell you, we are all whacko.

Mr Anders makes true observations, described in the typically definative, utterly logical, black and white of engineer-speak (Brad, I bet you're one too).

I don't think human behavior follows any actual "universal" logic, just the rationalized logic of the human in a particular situation.

IOW: There is little hope in expecting each individual to understand the other's perspectives, but this is what compells one to reach for new boundaries- to show someone how wrong they are!

I spend a lot of time addressing conflict resolution between the Government and the public. Conflict on a particular issue is good, it just must not be allowed extend beyond the issue in dispute.

Thanks for the great reading and thought provoking discussions.

Oh and by the way, you are all just wrong. I am certain that only my thoughts count (to me, anyway...). -Ooops, forgot. Only my wife's thoughts count. "Yes, Honey, I do have other things to do besides work on my car."

At least I still have self-delusion on my side!

[pbanders]

Scott, yes, I r n engineer...

Another example of cooperative technology development (which I use here at work, frequently) is the interaction of the members of an F1 team. They even employ scientists (I know, because a friend of mine here is a mathematician who worked for Tyrell and Ferrari in the '80's). The thing I like about it is the integration aspect. Each engineering team working on a specific system, such as suspension, body/aerodynamics, controls, engine, tranny, etc., have very detailed goals they're trying to achieve, but they are constrained by other aspects of the car design. For example, the engine designer may want to go to a wider engine V angle, but that would detrimentally affect suspension and aerodynamics. The job of the car designer is to weigh all of these considerations and come up with an optimal solution that is the best overall compromise.

The driver is a key component in the system. Drivers who are able to understand the car technically and what it is telling them are invaluable. Mark Donahue was a master of this, and I suspect that it is one of the major reasons Michael Schumacher is so dominant. The final arbiter is perfomance on the track. A good example of where this went wrong this year is the McLaren, which went to a radical design that according to testing was supposed to be superior to conventional designs - track performance has proven otherwise, though incremental improvements through the year have helped.

The workings of a top F1 team are utterly seamless, with each performer knowing their role and communicating up and down the technology stream. The responsiveness is also amazing. Where major changes take months/years here at work, F1 teams have a heartbeat that is much faster - a new race every 1 to 3 weeks. Changes are made at an incredible pace as a result. A great example of the technology system that can be applied to many other engineering situations.

[Alfred1]

There was some disussion recently on Jake's forum about engineers but it was a little less respectful. I found it hilarious because a lot of it rang true.

-------

Jake: I absolutely cannot believe this clown...

This came from the Type 2 mailing list.. Since I'm so horrid I figured I'd share it with you guys since it mentions the STF many times..

Other guy: Boy, oh boy...

I miss a digest or two, and the pooh totally hits the oscillating blades!

Bob - a big THANK YOU to your well reasoned and thoughtful response to the engineering issues associated with bus pilot-age, but I would be really careful about admitting to Jake's e-face that I was an engineer.
He "hates" those guys, 'cause they're in league with the Evil One. Jake may/mayn't have Super-Powers. Better get your aluminum foil hat on...

Richard - sign me up for some of them ceramic hydraulics too! That is such a kewl idea - think of the possibilities! Cams and lifters that will last 'til the next Ice Age, and will only require checking once or twice a century Likewise - get yer aluminum foil hat ready...

David - You better be careful racin' Jake with the 'Stang, I "heard"
that he raced some guy in GA one time and made the guy's motor blow up just by looking in the rear view mirror. It was all over the STF - so
it must have been true. Three words for you, buddy - Aluminum. Foil.
Hat...

BTW - who's the admin-on-duty? Would someone puh-leaze remind Mr. Raby of the Type 2 List charter... He did us all a great service with his two posts over the last couple of weeks on the Type 4 head issues, but nobody (I don't think) on this list is all about spankin' rice with a hi-po bug or 'teening on the track with the big boys. I'll posit that more than just a few of us here are more the "Hoover Endurance Run"
types. Keep "The Fist and The Felching" chat elsewhere, m'kay? It's kewl and all reading about it, but where's the bus content? Speaking of which - buses with an SVDA or a DVDA (instead of an 009/050) and a CDI box installed will get better gas mileage. I've been running the Comp-u-fire points replacement rigs in my various Type 4 powered vehicles - the only dead one is one I accidentally killed when I hooked up the loom to the relay board on my 914 while the board was powered up. The only two Pertronix units I've had the (dis)pleasure of meeting had life-spans of 15 seconds and 15 minutes respectively.

So, in summary - to my esteemed colleagues, engineers, rocket scientists (we still got any rocket scientists on board?), regular scientists, computer scientists, statisticians, critical thinkers, college granulates, ladies/germs and fellow bus pilots; I leave you with the following thoughts. You best be careful talking all that high falutin'
statistical analysis, causality, tribology, and experimental design/testing standards with Jake - he usta be a Marine, and I "heard"
that he looked long enough and hard enough in the direction of a pesky former customer in Puerto Rico, an' the guy didn't have HIS aluminum foil hat on, an' the poor guy went crazy, an' then he pulled the trigger on himself and quit the oxygen habit... He can do it - it was on the STF. You've been warned

Now ducking/covering, fashioning an aluminum foil hat of my own, sprinkling a circle of salt, and saying the Rosary... it's been nice know you-all, and with that - I take your leave.

A Bus Pilot

[SGB]

OH NO!

The foil hat conspiracy theory!
Don't tell Elvis!

What a loud party we could have, eh?

[Jake Raby]

Yep, I got even with that one.......

[BigD9146gt]

pbanders, Thats interesting you bring up Schumy, if you watch him when he walks by the other teams, he's always looking at what they are doing. That right there tells you he's not just a driver. Montoya on the other hand, is a great example of a rich little Brazillian b!tch who doesn't pay attention to anything and whines about everything.

Originally posted by lmcchesney
Human ego is a frail and often wanting part of the needs of the biological design called man.
L. McC

Very true. I had a conversation with a good friend while back about ego's. He was someone that if you spend a few hours around him, you would say he had a small ego, when in fact, he beleives he has a big ego, probably bigger than most. His reasoning was that he is above the game of argueing, above the pesents who bicker about meaningless things. He knows what he knows, and admits to what he doesn't know. And thats wisdom. I would say at times he is chicken, and doesn't like to get into anything that doesn't affect him personally.
Regardless, it was interesting that he mentioned the Id as often getting people into more trubble than their ego. The Id is what we do without thinking, our primal instinct. This would explain our actions if we felt threatened. In this example, we have dedicated our lively hood to produce performance 4 cylinder motors. Then, some puck a$$ 23 year old kid who ran out of aluminum foil the night before, challenged what we knew. We would then retreat into the Id and acted like a primal monkey, ignoring all questions and blabbing pointless statements about "i don't have time for this, i'm going to go put together my 400hp TIV"

[schosh]

************************************************** *
Quote from BigD9146gt
Montoya on the other hand, is a great example of a rich little Brazillian b!tch who doesn't pay attention to anything and whines about everything.
**************************************************
JP Montoya is a Colombian with a rather middle class upbringing. His dad mortgaged his business to bring JPM to the US to race. JP seems to have graduated from the Dale Ernahrdt Sr Charm and Driving School. (Actually I wouldn't be surprised to see him in Nascar some day..he is a big hero to many spanish speaking Americans... a growing demographic target for Nascar ( see Christian Fitapaldi).
Myself, I cheer for that scandanavian party animal Kimi R

[tshih]

I agree entirely with Brad's analysis and the reason why Porsches are such wonderful things are exactly the fact that at porsche the engineers , technicians and designers are one and the same or share the roles of all three functions. Only when there's harmony amongst these three groups can there be a product that also exceeds all expectations from servicing, ultimate performance, and function rolled into one.

[BigD9146gt]

schosh, my bad. He is talented, i couldn't even come close to what he does... and he did make it to F1 from indy threw talent. But, he will never be the best because of his temper tantrums.

I felt so bad for kimi last sunday, that sucked when his rear wing flew off. Hes one of the only guys who can nip at schumis tail... which makes the races even more fun to watch.

[jhadler]

On the concept of scientist-engineer-machinist-operator interactions. I just saw a great doccu-drama about the development (and downfall) of the Avro Arrow aircraft in the late 50's and early 60's. When the common goal was stronger than the barriers between disciplines. A fantastic aircraft was created that (debatably) was decades ahead of its time, and the egos of the politicians that controlled the project (both in Avro and the gov't that was funding them) were what ultimately got in the way of the completion of the project.

From personal experience, I've worked (to one extent or another) in the capacity of one or all of the above disciplines through my career. By title, I'm a scientist. But I have functioned in all phases, from operator, to machinist, to engineer, to scientist. And I've found in my experience, that when all four disciplines can talk together, not only do problems get solved MUCH faster, but ideas come to fruition that otherwise would never have been realised.

Each one (scientist, engineer, machinist, operator) has tools and abilities that are different from the other.

-Josh2

[Bleyseng]

I think the new name for it is "Teaming"


Geoff

[Porschekid962]

No matter how good Kimi, Jenson, Juan Pablo (i met him once when he raced for chip ganassi, he is a real ass) or anyone else is, no one will win the drivers championship until Schumi Sr. retires. He is the key in the success of Ferrari, he does this by surrounding himself with the best in the game and getting to business with them.

[sean_V8_914]

being genetically gifted helps too