"Industrial Engineers in the House?" 2 (The Sequel)

Steven Ibold

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
7
Display Name

Display name:
steven_ib
So back in 2012 I my dad, Ken Ibold, posted a thread titled "Industrial engineers in the house?" (can't link it what with being new and all), where we asked for any input from Industrial Engineers on what to expect as a student. Well, I am now in my senior year and have come back to ask for help once again. This time instead of an essay, I have a couple of projects I'm working on, but there's one I need assistance on right now.

This project is simply "design a teaching lab for incoming undergraduate IE students". That's about the extent of the explanation for this project my group has been assigned. I have data for the number of incoming and graduating students over the last five years (for assuming class sizes), blueprints of our engineering building (for determining classroom sizes), and looked at the first ~15 pages of Indeed.com with the search term "Industrial engineer" to find skills that are sought after (to assume equipment the students would be taught on).

If it is as simple as a computer lab/classroom with a few more software licenses, no problem, my group can write up the report easily. But before making that drastic an assumption, I wanted to try to get in touch with actual Industrial Engineers.

I understand that at a certain point after graduation the "title" on your major doesn't mean much, what with what people end up working on or who they work with, but I'd like some input from IE's in the field instead of from a website.

Tl;dr -- I'm back, with my own account this time. IE's, what is it you do that students should be taught to do?
 
ME students should be taught to use a Sawzall. CE students should be taught to drive a backhoe. EE students should be taught to change a car battery. IE students should be taught to sweep a shop floor.
 
ME students should be taught to use a Sawzall. CE students should be taught to drive a backhoe. EE students should be taught to change a car battery. IE students should be taught to sweep a shop floor.

Well that didn't take long to degrade. At the school I went to the joke was if couldn't hack real engineering you switched to civil engineering and if you couldn't hack civil you went to industrial.
 
ME students should be taught to use a Sawzall. CE students should be taught to drive a backhoe. EE students should be taught to change a car battery. IE students should be taught to sweep a shop floor.
Got it. I'll add "push brooms" to the list of required lab equipment. Should I have the students purchase them as well?
/sarcasm

To be honest I don't think I've heard any animosity between the engineering disciplines at my school.
Or, as an IE, it's all being told behind my back.
 
I joke. No animosity.
No animosity here either, but we had the same joke at Ga. Tech. Except that we added that if you couldn't hack Industrial engineering, your last stop was Industrial Management.
But the real joke is that the some of the most successful Ga. Tech graduates I know were Industrial Management.
 
My nephew is a ME student at Maryland. Smart kid, but they are working him hard. Was surprised to learn there's a minor track in "sustainability".
 
I figured. I was joking as well, but it's not uncommon to see online
 
Well that didn't take long to degrade. At the school I went to the joke was if couldn't hack real engineering you switched to civil engineering and if you couldn't hack civil you went to industrial.

I'm not sure where that leaves me, with a degree in Aerospace Engineering but working for the past 35 years as a mechanical engineer mostly in automation because that's where the jobs are... the way I always heard it was if you can't hack engineering, switch to business school... and the engineers end up working for the businessmen, go figure...

But seriously, if you're now a senior you should have a handle on what the coursework is and what lab facilities would be good to support it. I'd say you want a lab where you can work on things related to industrial processes. Pumps, piping, and flows. Pneumatics, air cylinders, valves to operate them. Conveyors and photoeyes to detect product passing by. A few basic PLCs (programmable logic controllers) that run most industrial machinery and the programming software to use them. And a Bridgeport (milling machine) and a lathe, to learn what can be actually made and what can't and what maybe can be made but is such a PITA it shouldn't be.

The freshmen who do really well can upgrade to mechanical engineering... :)
 
At the UW, we had to first have a civil or mechanical degree to enter the industrial degree program.
 
You might contact Lance Flynn - his line of work might sound well in suggested skills and practical considerations.

Also, Ted Dupuis, who has spent some real valuable time in manufacturing-intensive companies, and is an engineer.

Though, I still don't understand what driving a train has to do with any of that.
 
But seriously, if you're now a senior you should have a handle on what the coursework is and what lab facilities would be good to support it. I'd say you want a lab where you can work on things related to industrial processes. Pumps, piping, and flows. Pneumatics, air cylinders, valves to operate them. Conveyors and photoeyes to detect product passing by. A few basic PLCs (programmable logic controllers) that run most industrial machinery and the programming software to use them. And a Bridgeport (milling machine) and a lathe, to learn what can be actually made and what can't and what maybe can be made but is such a PITA it shouldn't be.

The freshmen who do really well can upgrade to mechanical engineering... :)

Makes sense, but I want to be sure. I was looking for a difference between what's inferred in a classroom versus real-world experience. Most of my classes so far have been math and physics based.
We already have what we call an "innovation lab" with all of the stuff for soldering, programming, we have a laser cutter, lathe, mill, etc.

Seems to me that some of the curriculum may need to be worked on instead. Instead of mainly math classes, maybe try to throw in some technical/hands-on classes as well...?
 
Makes sense, but I want to be sure. I was looking for a difference between what's inferred in a classroom versus real-world experience. Most of my classes so far have been math and physics based.
We already have what we call an "innovation lab" with all of the stuff for soldering, programming, we have a laser cutter, lathe, mill, etc.

Seems to me that some of the curriculum may need to be worked on instead. Instead of mainly math classes, maybe try to throw in some technical/hands-on classes as well...?
Have you not had an internship or Co-op?

I've done a co-op program so I've worked in the field for a year before I even graduate. We also have a TON of hands on courses, machine shop and nearly every class has a lab accompanied with it (MechE).
 
Have you not had an internship or Co-op?

I've done a co-op program so I've worked in the field for a year before I even graduate. We also have a TON of hands on courses, machine shop and nearly every class has a lab accompanied with it (MechE).

I just started an internship (of sorts) -- at least we're (different team) called "interns" in the documents. But that's driving around doing time studies. I'm wondering if there's more
 
I'm not sure where that leaves me, with a degree in Aerospace Engineering but working for the past 35 years as a mechanical engineer mostly in automation because that's where the jobs are...

Apparently you're in a similar position as me, though I graduated much more recently. BS in aero, Masters in mech, currently working in the aerospace industry doing mechanical engineering. A decent compromise.

I understand that at a certain point after graduation the "title" on your major doesn't mean much, what with what people end up working on or who they work with

Obviously it's possible to move around, but I found that after one internship in a structures group (after sophomore year) I was labeled as a "structures guy" for every job application thereafter. It can be a challenge to change fields one you establish yourself somewhere. And you get that first job in large part as a function of the title of your major.

But with the right job, you can get experience in a number of different fields which can help for a transfer later on. My current position has me work with design, analysis, manufacturing, testing, customer support, and sales. I think it has probably opened a lot of doors if/when I decide to look for a different job. On the other hand, you can get a job in a structures group doing analysis and you can end up pigeon-holed into that for the rest of your career.
 
Tl;dr -- I'm back, with my own account this time. IE's, what is it you do that students should be taught to do?

Long time IE here. The program I graduated from has been the number one rated program in the world beginning the year *after* I graduated. I can interpret that a couple of ways... Oh, and I went to night school for an MBA a few years later.

Pretty much, if it is in the IE Handbook, I've done it. Study of processes, growth/merger/acquisition, process design, facility design, logistics, forecasting, inventory management, warehouse management, automation, developing internal sales presentations for very large industrial projects. Managing those projects. Managing other engineers. Equipment design. Figuring out reasonable business practices that don't need everyone on the team to be a PHD in order to implement the practices. Creating jobs. Creating wealth. Sorting the necessary from the extraneous. Working with brilliant people. Working with morons who think they are brilliant. Teaching brilliant people. Teaching morons. Working around agendas. Working to reset agendas. Learning when to stick your head up out of the foxhole and when to keep it down. Lots of stuff.

The hardest thing to do reliably in business (at least in the very large organization where I work) is communicate. That isn't necessarily a skill particular to IE's, but it is the single most important skill. I can teach a monkey how to calculate an EOQ, how to do a cut/fill estimate, or how to negotiate a deal with the state. Teaching that monkey how to communicate the information appropriately and effectively is the challenge. Another big challenge is figuring out ways to say "Yes" when your knee jerk reaction is to say "No". "No" gives you a lot of control. "Yes" can create success. Flexibility creates success.

So, what to do in a lab? Create projects that make people think. Give 'em conflicting data. Then put 'em under deadlines to pass their conclusions/presentation to the appropriate group. Halfway through the task, change the goal, but not the deadline. ;-)

That's real and the skills are critical to an IE's success (or anyone's success).
 
I think one of the most valuable "real world" assignments in the undergraduate ME program was the 'senior project.' It was a team effort where you had to design and build some type of machine, and that included procurement of the materials, at the team's cost. The teams had the use of the machine shop and foundry. Pretty much every skill was utilized - leadership, personnel management, engineering design, drafting, material cost savings, shop skills, and even public speaking when it came to presenting the project at the end. It was a real test of 'can you live with what you drew on paper.' (or designed in CAD.)

I do not work as an ME but in our field, we generally have to 'train' freshly graduated engineers from the ground up. The main purpose of school is to instill the theory that the would otherwise never learn behind the tools and practices that they will use in the real world.
 
I think one of the most valuable "real world" assignments in the undergraduate ME program was the 'senior project.' It was a team effort where you had to design and build some type of machine, and that included procurement of the materials, at the team's cost. The teams had the use of the machine shop and foundry. Pretty much every skill was utilized - leadership, personnel management, engineering design, drafting, material cost savings, shop skills, and even public speaking when it came to presenting the project at the end. It was a real test of 'can you live with what you drew on paper.' (or designed in CAD.)

Our Senior Design project was an excellent experience, but <in hindsight> seemed too scripted. Far away deadlines, an objective that was set early and didn't change, etc.. My projects in MBA land were the same. My experience is that in the real world, timelines are shorter and objectives morph.
 
Haven't gotten to my own "senior design" class yet -- Mine is only one semester compared to all the other Engineering student's two, so I don't know the scale of our projects compared to theirs.
Anyway, a little bit of a dead thread revival here, but I just wanted to thank you all for your input. I'll definitely pitch it to my team as we work on our paper as the semester closes.

Side: Does anyone know offhand if there's an APA citation standard for a forum?
 
You might contact Lance Flynn - his line of work might sound well in suggested skills and practical considerations.

Also, Ted Dupuis, who has spent some real valuable time in manufacturing-intensive companies, and is an engineer.

Though, I still don't understand what driving a train has to do with any of that.
Good suggestions. At my school, I.E. was more about value engineering, efficiency, and the like.
 
Side: Does anyone know offhand if there's an APA citation standard for a forum?

Just use the standard Internet reference, linked to the forum page that you want.

Engineering rivalry in school was always dominated by MEs--the gEEks were easy targets, and the Imaginary Engineers didn't put up much fight . . .

:cheers:

--BSME, MSE
 
Sorry I can't help with your project, but tell your Dad we miss his participation around here.

Agreed.

As far as setting up labs go, I miss teaching labs. They were always so nice and organized and goals were set, and all that... compared to the real world. :)

(I agree with @kyleb - a lab where folks had to start something and have the entire thing radically change on them mid-project would be the closest one could get to a real-world simulator ever.)

Not technically being an "engineer" and my role being systems and structure, I find often that my job is literally to walk into a meeting and say, "Didn't we already decide this, and what changed to make us decide that our original plan sucked?"

Because man, engineers on a tear can even confuse the hell out of themselves and forget they already picked the best course of action.

That and I hate re-working old problems. Finish the dang thing and then make up all the new problems you like there, ADD Poster Child... you'll get done with both, faster if you FOCUS. Hahaha.

A lab designed to break focus off of a goal would be hard core reality, too.

WE CHOSE TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT FREAKING MAKES THE PLACE BIG BUCKS... would you quit working on that other shiny thing that caught your attention and doesn't, PLEASE?!

LOL!!! Good times.
 
I spent a chunk of my life as a supervisor of Plant Engineering at a tiny little company that used to be called GM.
I always started new student and graduate engineers (all varieties) with 6 weeks on the handle of a push broom and a mop bucket.
If they performed satisfactorily (one, actually did not - whodathunk - I wonder what the parents who were paying big bucks to educate him thought) the next exciting adventure was running a production machine in the heat and the noise.
Eventually, they were allowed to push the tool box for one of the journeymen skilled trades guys (no gals on those days) and fetch coffee.
Later, sometimes much later, they were allowed to dust off a drafting board and sharpen pencils.
I had engineers stop back at the plant years later and shake my hand and say that they learned more from their time at our plants about engineering things that actually worked than at the university.
 
I spent a chunk of my life as a supervisor of Plant Engineering at a tiny little company that used to be called GM.
I always started new student and graduate engineers (all varieties) with 6 weeks on the handle of a push broom and a mop bucket.
If they performed satisfactorily (one, actually did not - whodathunk - I wonder what the parents who were paying big bucks to educate him thought) the next exciting adventure was running a production machine in the heat and the noise.
Eventually, they were allowed to push the tool box for one of the journeymen skilled trades guys (no gals on those days) and fetch coffee.
Later, sometimes much later, they were allowed to dust off a drafting board and sharpen pencils.
I had engineers stop back at the plant years later and shake my hand and say that they learned more from their time at our plants about engineering things that actually worked than at the university.

While it's a good story, no corporate entity would allow that today. Some idiot in HR somewhere would be wringing their hands about all sorts of things in that story.
 
While it's a good story, no corporate entity would allow that today. Some idiot in HR somewhere would be wringing their hands about all sorts of things in that story.
Not at all true. That's exactly how Wolf Robotics is run,one of Fort Collins' largest employers.
 
Mechanical engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets. ;)

- Junior student of mechanical engineering.[/QUOTE

And without a real engineer (an EE) to design you a guidance system your weapon would never hit their target. :)
 
I'm a bit late to the game and I suspect it's too late for you to swerve in your project - it being the end of the semester and all....but I sometimes work with and in an IE field with work processes, efficiency studies, work goal times, etc.

The specific product is a Labor Management system, which uses activities recorded from a larger system to "stamp" when and what a worker did. In my case that large system is usually a Warehouse Management System. For example, the worker might travel to location A0101, pick up a pallet and take it dock door 005 and load it on a truck. The actions of "pick up" and "load onto a truck" are analyzed to figure out an ideal time - not too fast as to be unsafe, but not to slow. Then the speed of the fork truck is known as is the distance. So we get a goal time that equals "time to pick up" + "time to travel to door" + "time to load" + "time to travel to the next location". One of our rules is that you stay on your current assignment until you start the next one. We then use the activities recorded in the system with time stamps to determine how quickly the person actually did the work and assign a score to it. This is basic Industrial Engineering 101.

Some example data for Joe, the worker:
9:35:00 - Joe signs into the system
9:36:00 - Joe picks up a pallet at A0101 - activity PPCK - Assignment 1 beings
9:37:15 - Joe records a deposit at Door 005 - activity DLOD
9:38:30 - Joe picks up a pallet at B0909 - activity PPCK - Assignment 1 ends, assignment 2 begins.
etc.

The goal time for Joe to do the work is 2 minutes, 45 seconds.

Given that example, you can provide a list of activities that Joe did during the day and have the freshmen frame each assignment, then compute the time, compare it to the goal time and compute a percentage score for each assignment and for the entire day.
LOGON - 09:35
PPCK - 9;36:00 @ A0101
DLOD - 9:37:15 @ Door 005
PPCK - 9:38:00 @ B0909
DLOD - 9:45:00 @ Door 005
PPCK - 9:47:15 @ E0901
etc...
LOGOFF - 10:30

I won't go into the same detail, but in doing the same work, Denning style work efficiency often comes into play too - how many keystrokes does the WMS require to do a task, how much time does it take for the person to get off his fork truck to verify something, to look at it and to get back on. THEN, how do we improve the work so that it takes less time. Seems silly, but I have been in places where a worker would perform 40 assignments an hour or about 250 in a work day. When we moved away from stock cards on pallets, it saved about 15 seconds on each assignment, meaning an extra hour of work time every day - a 12.5% improvement, which is nearly unheard of. Later I also once converted a warehouse from using paper picking sheets to a voice activated system and increased the work by 45% and eliminated the second shift because of the efficiency of talking vs typing. There is a dark side to efficiency, some people lost their jobs because of the increase.

Just a few examples If you're still looking for information, you can IM me directly.
 
Not at all true. That's exactly how Wolf Robotics is run,one of Fort Collins' largest employers.

If they're up front about it in the job description, they probably can. And of course being an "at will" State helps that along. Most HR lawyers wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.

At the very least, they'd lose an appeal on grounds that they misrepresented the job at an unemployment appeal after they fired the engineer who said they wouldn't be the janitor.

I'm not arguing it's a good or bad idea, I'm just saying the engineer's lawyer would have an easy time of it someone made an engineer so do a different job than they were hired for, for a year.
 
I'm just saying the engineer's lawyer would have an easy time of it someone made an engineer so do a different job than they were hired for, for a year.

It's easy for Fresh Outs, just mention a training period rotating through multiple plant departments. How long it lasts will be determined by the supervisor's judgement on performance and learning (naturally, so that part won't need to be mentioned).

I think it's a good idea for engineers in a factory to get some first hand experience working in the factory, where they will learn firsthand the difference between a good engineering decision and a bad one. Working as a janitor won't teach them that, but certainly have them to clean up at the end of the day, it teaches responsibility.

--BSME, MSE, now working in my 5th manufacturing facility
 
At Purdue back in the day, the Aero's shared a building with the IEs. Walked into the (shared) computer lab one day and someone had written on the chalk board (yes, a real honest chalk board) in proper mathematical notation that lim(AAE) as GPA->0 = IE. It didn't last long, but we all found entertaining. Out of ALL of the Aero's I went to school with, only one is still an actual engineer. I still believe that engineering is the best all around degree you can get. It prepares you for many opportunities.
 
I spent a chunk of my life as a supervisor of Plant Engineering at a tiny little company that used to be called GM.
I always started new student and graduate engineers (all varieties) with 6 weeks on the handle of a push broom and a mop bucket.
If they performed satisfactorily (one, actually did not - whodathunk - I wonder what the parents who were paying big bucks to educate him thought) the next exciting adventure was running a production machine in the heat and the noise.
Eventually, they were allowed to push the tool box for one of the journeymen skilled trades guys (no gals on those days) and fetch coffee.
Later, sometimes much later, they were allowed to dust off a drafting board and sharpen pencils.
I had engineers stop back at the plant years later and shake my hand and say that they learned more from their time at our plants about engineering things that actually worked than at the university.

Way back when, Caterpillar started most everyone shoveling chips. I (un)fortunately missed those days and was hired with an MS into the Tech Center. I had the opportunity to work with some of the most talented engineers in my life there. Those guys knew how to run most machines in the shop, knew how to manage people and were fine all around engineers. I really wish I'd been forced / had the opportunity to work the floor like those guys did. I learned all my machining on the fly and am not particularly good.
 
Back
Top