CAD jockey or engineer?
Defining the designer's role at the computer is especially difficult during a time of flux.
By Jean Thilmany, Associate Editor
Today, computers power everything from coffeemakers
to cars; e-mail has made letter writing through the mails a quaint, old-fashioned
occupation, and aimlessly surfing the Web rivals primetime television
for mindless diversion. The field of engineering, of course, has hardly
been exempt from the stepped-up pace of technological bustle. But where
does the mechanical engineer fit in relation to computer technology in
today's industries?
Over the past two decades, engineering computer technology has evolved
from software programs capable of only simple drafting that cost $125,000
per seat, to $12,000 personal computer-based software with three-dimensional
solid modeling capabilities. The complex designs that engineers produce
with present-day CAD software can be tested by the company before ever
being produced.
At a time of continual technological advancement, the role of the engineer
at work is evolving as well. Engineers need to know computer-aided design
and analysis software packages inside and out, but that is only part of
their skill. Their range of expertise exceeds that of someone trained
only to use CAD technology.
Yet, because of the importance of computers, the companies who hire engineers
risk doing so more for software proficiency than for engineering abilities.
It isn't that the line between engineer and CAD operator is especially
fluid; it's just hard to draw these days.
"What's changing is the relationship between design engineers, CAD
technicians and drafters, and the professional specialists like an advanced
structural analyst. That's changing very rapidly right now," said
David Weisberg, owner of Technology Automation Services in Denver, a consulting
service for users and vendors of CAD and computer-aided manufacturing
software.
At
a time of continual technological advancement, the role of the engineer
in CAD is evolving as well. CAD is only one skill engineers must have,
but they need to know it inside and out.
Weisberg was a software development project leader working on a commercial
CAD system in the early 1960s and has been working in the industry ever
since. Currently writing a history of the CAD industry, he speaks of a
conflict at the heart of the technology's present role in engineering.
"Are you training CAD operators who then attempt to do mechanical
engineering, or are you, with CAD, giving mechanical engineers a useful
tool to document their design work?" Weisberg said. "That's
the big question that's going on in the use of the technology today."
The CAD operator-versus-mechanical-engineer question is one the engineering
community has entertained only during the past few years as it becomes
possible for CAD operators to do more and more design work because of
advances in software technology, Weisberg said. At heart, the question
addresses the quality of the engineering design.
Will a CAD operator have enough understanding of the engineering principles
that power CAD design to make optimal use of the software?
Perhaps not, Weisberg said.
"For many years, what we were doing was taking mechanical drafters
and teaching them how to use a CAD system," Weisberg said. "Those
people understood the drafting process because they'd been working at
a drafting board for a number of years. So they were professional mechanical
drafters who knew how to use a CAD system.
"But if you've only been through a CAD training course, you won't
understand the significance of tolerance, for example," he added.
"You need a foundation so you can produce drawings that are meaningful
to the people who are going to use them."
Companies must honestly evaluate their talent needs and look at the roles
they assign, Weisberg said. Because the technology is changing so fast,
it's hard to define where it fits into overall functioning of a company
on a month-to-month basis.
Companies Must Address CAD Needs
In light of this, engineering companies are facing their own set of questions.
A key one is: Should they hire CAD operators who know how to design parts,
or should they hire mechanical engineers who know how to use CAD systems?
The answer: Probably both. But assigning job functions and ensuring that
the two complement each other is yet another challenge, say some close
to the industry.
Weisberg maintains that there's a role for both the CAD operator and engineer
in industry.
"If you're designing an automotive powertrain, you'd better understand
the engineering associated with the powertrain design," he said.
"If you're simply a person who's been trained to use AutoCAD, that
doesn't qualify you to design a powertrain."
However, CAD operators can certainly produce less complicated designs,
thereby freeing engineers for other jobs.
"Do companies want engineers who understand how to use the CAD system
to document their design, or do they want technicians who understand how
to use the software but are dependent on the engineers?" Weisberg
asked. "For many companies, this depends on the nature of the product
they're designing—how complex it is."
Company managers also need to look at how to assign job responsibility.
Today's CAD programs, for example, are often linked to software that lets
users perform finite element or other types of analysis or test virtual
prototypes of the design. CAD operators may be able to run those analyses
and simulations, but some companies might feel those tasks are better
left to a trained engineer.
"As I've always put it, if you're a trained mechanical engineer who
understands strength of materials, then it makes a lot of sense to integrate
analysis with design software," Weisberg said. "But if you're
trained solely on CAD, you're trying to make an engineer out of someone
who has technician-level training.
"Companies hire CAD jockeys to save money, and it does save money
on the surface. But if you're turning out poor-quality products, it's
costing you a lot of money," Weisberg said.
Hector Monroy, CAD manager for CSA Group in San Juan, Puerto Rico, hires
both CAD operators and engineers, but is very clear on the role each plays.
CSA Group is an architecture, engineering, environmental, and construction
management firm that employs engineers and scientists working in 48 disciplines,
including mechanical, electrical, industrial, and process engineering.
The company, for example, helped develop an American Airlines terminal
at Miami International Airport. It also remodeled a Warner Lambert manufacturing
room in Puerto Rico to install an in-bin blender, bin lifter, a weighing
area, a dust collector, vacuum system, and chilled water and reheat water
piping.
CSA
Group gets around the CAD jockeys-versus-engineer question with the help
of CAD standards that are followed by all.
Monroy said his department gets around the CAD jockey-versus-engineer
question by giving designers and analysts specific standards the 200 CAD
users must follow when creating and analyzing designs. The standards are
available via the CSA Group intranet.
The key is integrating all CAD users, no matter what their roles, via
the standards and the company's intranet.
"People are each thinking about the same design, but for their own
specific purpose," Monroy said. "For example, mechanical engineers
are thinking about performing FEA. For them, the input is the design."
The standards ensure that the design is handled in a uniform way from
creation all the way to production.
CAD standards can be as simple as how to select the items you want to
print or how to organize drawings within the system. The standards include
ways of classifying the information to be used in design programs, shared
between applications, and integrated to quality and document control programs.
The standards also ensure that designs can be easily passed back and forth
between divisions and between designers and engineers.
However, by defining the standards, and the job tasks to boot, they help
to ensure that computer users are working at the expected level. The standards
help designers and engineers work smoothly together, Monroy said.
At CSA, engineers, rather than CAD operators, check part integrity by
running FEA and other analyses, which helps separate operator from engineer.
Thinking Like a Computer
Monroy fervently believes that one of the keys to making full use of the
computer—whether for design or analysis—is understanding that
the software is mathematically based and must be thought of in those terms.
CAD design is an entirely separate process from drafting.
The engineering processes are changed when they're integrated with computational
tools, Monroy maintains. Though the input data remain clear—you must
perform this function to get this result—what's happening behind
the scenes to get the result is fuzzy for many. They don't really understand
why the procedure gets the result. That leads them to think the result
they get is the best one possible, the only one possible, or is correct,
Monroy said.
"There are probably many users without the vaguest notion of what
is happening inside their PCs," he said. Users don't necessarily
need to become experts at computation, but they should understand what's
happening inside the system when they perform a certain function; that
way, they understand the function itself.
"CAD isn't used for drawing, but for design," Monroy said. "When
users worked with CAD a generation ago, they thought in terms of drawing.
It was the same as drafting. But we must think in another way—that
there's good information inside the CAD system, and if we put the information
in the right way within the CAD system, we'll have a good drawing.
"It's the consequence of thinking in a computational manner,"
he added. "That's the big difference in terms of design and drawing."
For instance, if users are coming at CAD designs from a drafting point
of view, they won't be able to make full use of features such as part
rotation or change of view, Monroy said. A much more complicated process
than drawing a line is going on behind the scenes of a software program—as
when the CAD operator changes a line, which then changes the affected
part of the design appropriately, a process called associativity.
Monroy argues that CAD education at the college or technical school level
needs changing so that students understand what the CAD system is doing
behind the scenes, not just how to use it.
"CAD is a graphic database and a geometric calculator, it is an integrator
between all the software, and it has the advantage of being able to generate
beautiful drawings," Monroy said.
Students need to learn to think of CAD as a combination of all those things.
But they also need to know what a vector is. And they need to know something
about the computer language that powers a system. "If a student knows
Java, for example, they can customize their CAD tools. They can integrate
CAD tools," Monroy said.
The Directorate for Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering
is a part of the National Science Foundation, in Arlington, Va., which
is devoted to promoting computer and engineering research and education.
At a meeting sponsored by the organization, CAD researchers said that
it's hard for colleges to stay abreast of current software trends simply
because the industry is changing so fast that it takes professors more
time and money than their departments might have to keep on top of the
evolving technology.
Many schools use one vendor's CAD software to train students, who develop
a deep understanding of that particular vendor's software. But that approach
has drawbacks, CISE said. The proprietary software makes it difficult
for students and teachers to evaluate new tools or approaches to CAD technology.
And, as Weisberg has also said, a student could risk being hired simply
because he or she was trained in school on the CAD program used by a company.
On the plus side, according to CISE, many CAD vendors have good academic
pro- grams to provide software to schools at affordable prices for teaching
purposes.
Last summer, PTC of Wal-tham, Mass., revised its university program. PTC
lowered the price of its college software by 75 percent. "We took
the focus off driving the college program as a revenue program,"
said Larry Fire, education program manager at PTC. Instead, the company
emphasized teacher training. Again, the software is evolving so fast it's
vital that teachers keep on top of changes, Fire said.
Before the revamp, teachers had to pay for training. But a questionnaire
PTC sent to schools using the software found that many administrators
and teachers believe training should be included as part of purchasing
the package.
Because students get every module included in PTC's Pro/Engineer software,
they learn not only how to design, but also how to create and submit a
bill of materials, and how to use a collaborative-design program called
Windchill to work with students in other locations, Fire said. PTC also
offers a board on its Web site where students can post resumes for potential
employers to see.
What remains to be seen is how college and technical school programs will
respond to people like Monroy, who demand changes in the way students
learn CAD. And how companies will define their CAD needs to include specific
jobs for both engineers and CAD operators.