I'm not exactly new here on this forum, but missed the discussion on the deleted posts topic.
It seems that a lot of the conversation revolved around perceptions of the competency of engineers based on what can be casually observed when looking at things that are done in building cars.
I would like to say that having worked in the automotive industry directly for the last 14 years, that the first point being missed is that Engineers do not run the show at car companies. There are many levels of management at these companies, and the word "Management" is key to the problem. There are program managers, vehicle supervisors, executives, marketing etc. In the Hierarchy, engineering may not be at the bottom, but they are close to it. There will be a few primadonnas who do some of the advanced work and prepare exhibits for some of the auto shows, but these people are more often that not completely divorced from the reality of building cars.
Politics and power struggles rule daily life at the auto companies and the way the vehicle is divided up, there are endless squabbles over who gets what space and whether sheet metal could possibly be changed/revised to make things fit better in the places where they should go. More often that not (with BMW being a rare exception) extreme complexity or compromise in the design, manufacturability and cost of components will be accepted before making any changes to body panels or frame rails to allow sensible parts to fit.
Typically the engineer only has control over the functional part of a component design, very little control over where it ends up being placed, that is often decided before they even begin their job. Nor does the engineer have any control over sourcing or the way the intended design is "thrifted" between global supply chain and the vendors before being sourced.
The management group previously mentioned act as a giant ballast around the neck of the engineers in that they will resist change. I have seen known defects launch and the problem only start being addressed 2 years after launch when cumulative warranty costs start irritating the accountants. As in the well know space shuttle teflon O ring issue, the engineer responsible was overruled and browbeaten into submission, despite being right. He ultimately was fired and the managers who overruled him and sent the astronauts to their deaths were never held civilly of criminally liable and in fact were promoted.
Of course engineers are not blameless either. As anyone who has worked in any field knows, there are maybe 30% people with OK skills, 10% who are good at their job and like it, 1-2% who are brilliant and can almost do no wrong, 20% who barely get by doing the absolute minimum to avoid being fired and another 20% who should have been fired long ago and no-one can explain what they are even doing. Depending on who it is who gets the job (and corporations internally refuse to acknowledge that there is ANY difference in skills at the engineering level) you could have a totally different outcome. A lot of the time, the willingness of the engineer to fight for a "good" solution, when it needs concessions from other divisions, may be very low. The ones who do fight for good solutions deal with a lot more stress and conflict and there are lots of attempts through HR to get these people fired, demoted, transferred or just generally get rid of them so that no "work" is created for the other parties. After 10 years, the ones who "thought they could make a difference" are typically gone unless they are noticed by some executives who may be able to protect them at the HR and career opportunity level.
In smaller companies, many of these problems do not exist. One is still subject to micro management and interference by people in management, but one has a better chance of being respected for good workmanship in that environment. I learned a Long time ago that earning the respect of artisans is often one of the hardest things for an engineer to accomplish. Often, artisans have been through the ringer so many times with engineers who basically can't tie their shoe laces, that they start treating blue prints as just a "guideline" since more often that not, the parts if made to print don't even fit together. After one has consistently produced prints where everything actually works and one experiences a willingness to actually work to your prints, one might even enter the phase where the artisans bring your prints back to you for feedback before they have even built anything.
Long story short: The engineer is not always to blame. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they were overruled. Then you get the vacuum pump on my Ford F250 mounted on a bracket that covers the fuse box in the engine compartment and one needs several wrenches just to change a fuse...
It seems that a lot of the conversation revolved around perceptions of the competency of engineers based on what can be casually observed when looking at things that are done in building cars.
I would like to say that having worked in the automotive industry directly for the last 14 years, that the first point being missed is that Engineers do not run the show at car companies. There are many levels of management at these companies, and the word "Management" is key to the problem. There are program managers, vehicle supervisors, executives, marketing etc. In the Hierarchy, engineering may not be at the bottom, but they are close to it. There will be a few primadonnas who do some of the advanced work and prepare exhibits for some of the auto shows, but these people are more often that not completely divorced from the reality of building cars.
Politics and power struggles rule daily life at the auto companies and the way the vehicle is divided up, there are endless squabbles over who gets what space and whether sheet metal could possibly be changed/revised to make things fit better in the places where they should go. More often that not (with BMW being a rare exception) extreme complexity or compromise in the design, manufacturability and cost of components will be accepted before making any changes to body panels or frame rails to allow sensible parts to fit.
Typically the engineer only has control over the functional part of a component design, very little control over where it ends up being placed, that is often decided before they even begin their job. Nor does the engineer have any control over sourcing or the way the intended design is "thrifted" between global supply chain and the vendors before being sourced.
The management group previously mentioned act as a giant ballast around the neck of the engineers in that they will resist change. I have seen known defects launch and the problem only start being addressed 2 years after launch when cumulative warranty costs start irritating the accountants. As in the well know space shuttle teflon O ring issue, the engineer responsible was overruled and browbeaten into submission, despite being right. He ultimately was fired and the managers who overruled him and sent the astronauts to their deaths were never held civilly of criminally liable and in fact were promoted.
Of course engineers are not blameless either. As anyone who has worked in any field knows, there are maybe 30% people with OK skills, 10% who are good at their job and like it, 1-2% who are brilliant and can almost do no wrong, 20% who barely get by doing the absolute minimum to avoid being fired and another 20% who should have been fired long ago and no-one can explain what they are even doing. Depending on who it is who gets the job (and corporations internally refuse to acknowledge that there is ANY difference in skills at the engineering level) you could have a totally different outcome. A lot of the time, the willingness of the engineer to fight for a "good" solution, when it needs concessions from other divisions, may be very low. The ones who do fight for good solutions deal with a lot more stress and conflict and there are lots of attempts through HR to get these people fired, demoted, transferred or just generally get rid of them so that no "work" is created for the other parties. After 10 years, the ones who "thought they could make a difference" are typically gone unless they are noticed by some executives who may be able to protect them at the HR and career opportunity level.
In smaller companies, many of these problems do not exist. One is still subject to micro management and interference by people in management, but one has a better chance of being respected for good workmanship in that environment. I learned a Long time ago that earning the respect of artisans is often one of the hardest things for an engineer to accomplish. Often, artisans have been through the ringer so many times with engineers who basically can't tie their shoe laces, that they start treating blue prints as just a "guideline" since more often that not, the parts if made to print don't even fit together. After one has consistently produced prints where everything actually works and one experiences a willingness to actually work to your prints, one might even enter the phase where the artisans bring your prints back to you for feedback before they have even built anything.
Long story short: The engineer is not always to blame. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they were overruled. Then you get the vacuum pump on my Ford F250 mounted on a bracket that covers the fuse box in the engine compartment and one needs several wrenches just to change a fuse...
Last edited by a moderator:
