On Point with Ray Mignogna

An Economic Blindside

2011-11-02T17:16:00.000-07:00

Well, just when we thought we had this all figured out, the Greeks do it to the rest of the world again. This "public referendum" has got to be some kind of joke being foisted upon us by a bunch of economic pipsqueaks who deserve nothing more that to be tossed out of the EU forthwith and left to drown in their own excrement. Frankly, If they collapse, it would be better for the rest of us, as the downside would then be a known quantity and we could set everything else to rights, save all of our retirements and get on with the business of rebuilding the planetary economy.

If I had more energy, I'd continue this mini-rant, but I don't. 'Nuff said.

Following Up - The Economy, Folks

2011-10-31T14:26:00.000-07:00

You may have noticed that the markets have returned to more reasonable levels recently. We should be on an upswing from here, given that our economy is really in pretty decent shape. Many of the metrics used by the really smart people on Wall Street indicate that we're going to continue to expant.

Jim Cramer, one of the people that I follow closely, notes that the transportation industry (durable goods shipmnets, freight car loadings, bulk carriers, and so forth), are doing quite well, TYVM. These leading indicators tell us where we're been, and more importantly, what's next, and that news is decidedly good.

Likewise, other news from the backbone and heartland is also much more positive than negative. Manufacuring, especially of the sort that we excel at, is also moving in the right direction.

All of this gooes to show, however, that much of our unemployment problem rests with the skills mismatch that we find between what employers need and what the workforce has to offer. The best ways to remedy this issue in the short term Are for employers to work with community colleges and within their own organizations to offer short term training opportunities to current and otherwise capapble potential employees to get things moving again. It really doesn't take much more than 3-6 months to retrain a machinist on the newest machinery rather than bemoan their fates. Employers could easily do the same with modern inspection methods, but THEY have to be willing to make an investment here.

One industry that I follow closely is the thermal spray coating process , where an industry-wide coating applications operator program is currently in place. Someone has to pay for the training, however, and employers seem reluctant to make even that kind of minimal investment in their own futures. I'm sure that employees would be happy to pay for the exams, if someone would cover the training costs - the equipment is expensive but can be paid for by a company, or group ("consortium"?) of companies. This effort would provide the people necessary in an industry that can use them , stimulate the local economy and at lest in a small way, get us going again.

More later.

Economics Update

2011-10-21T06:57:00.000-07:00

Well, we seem to be muddling through the debt issues. Now it's Europe's turn. I think we'll make it, no thanks to the nitwits in DC, who insist on playing politics with you money. That's yours and mine, folks. None of this will really be resolved until we elect people willing to work with one another, rather than the ideological purists on either side of the aisle.

On another subject, look for my article in the November issue of the Florida Engineering Society Journal on Energy and Materials. I think you'll find it quite relevant, and worth a read. Speaking of which, I'm going into stall mode right now, so I'm going to end here. More about why at another time.

Ray

Economics of the Debt Crisis

2011-07-18T17:42:00.000-07:00

I'm going to deviate just a bit from my normal technical material today, and comment on the debt crisis issue we're currently facing, not only in the US, but in Europe as well.

While the politicians worldwide dither about, we all are being placed a great risk of financial difficulty. I'm not sure that complete collapse is going to occur, but there will be just enough damage to make us all shudder a great deal. This is already happening, as we get closer to various "deadlines" for solving the problem.

From my perspective, it's time for us all to eat a little of the bullet that's being aimed at us. If we don't share the pain, we'll all get more of it than is really necessary. That means - hold your collective breaths - TAX INCREASES for some of us. This is true not only in the US, but elsewhere as well.

While some people preach tax reduction as though it were some sort of panacea, the truth of the matter is that we've "been there, done that", and all that money is simply building up in corporate coffers and individual bank accounts without a single job being created as a result. Hundreds of major corporations (General Electric is a prime example) haven't paid a dime in federal income tax in years, and that's just not right.

So called "small family farmers" are getting millions of dollars in subsidies to support higher food prices than are necessary. A number of these are the loudest complainers about the current tax system, in that they want to pay nothing, and get the rest of us to support them.

I propose that we (at least in the US) levy a 50% tax on all of the excess profits or income earned by anyone whose total compensation from all sources is over $500,000. The only way out would be to invest the money in anything that creates a job. Hire someone. Open a factory in the US. Invest in infrastructure bank bonds. Buy stuff made in the USA, and by "made", I mean everything. The parts, the assembly process, the distribution scheme, the services needed to operate or use whatever it is. Let's spend our money, and spend it here. It's the only way to get Americans back to work, and thereby contributing to our economic growth.

The reasoning is as follows: If we sit on our cash, like grandma did during the depression, then eventually, no one will have a job, and our economic collapse will continue. Also, consider that the biggest long term fear for all of us should be the slow, steady march of inflation, which robs us of purchasing power unless we act to grow our way out of the current situation.

Keep in mind that this has happened before. I was here during the 1970's when we went through a similar, but somewhat less damaging time. There were also the twin recessions of the early 1980's, and we did live through that as well.

There was also a time in the 1990's when we thought that such situations could never occur again. "This time it's different" was the refrain. Well, guess what folks; it's not different, it will never be different, and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise has been smoking or drinking too much.

What the country needs is enough people working to support the retirees and the overall lifestyles that all of us have come to expect. Anything else won't work, regardless of the tax rates.

Statistical Software Packages

2011-06-11T19:00:00.000-07:00

For those of you who are interested in statistics, and this can include all of the students looking at this blog, there are a number of ways of learning how to manipulate and use all kinds of data. Unfortunately, most of the software programs designed to do this cost significant sums of money, and are not always available to those of us without some serious cash - thousands of dollars.

OK, what to do if you don't have that type of funding? Well, there's an excellent open source (that means free) statistical software package that's available to all of us, to use and experiment with as we see fit. It's called R, and can be downloaded onto any PC or Apple computer easily enough. Go to the website www.r-project.org/. You'll find a link to download the latest version of the software. (If you're a student and your parents like to know what you're doing, this is something you can be proud to show them, BTW.) The download link will show you several sites from which you can access the software. Choose the one closest to you. Most are university sites, and they'll give you the fastest download. Then just run the appropriate install program and you'll be good to go.

If you've never worked with this type of software before, do a little reading on how to use command prompt programs. You can get information on this at a library, along with books describing the software, how to use it, and lots of demos. The book I'm using right now is "R in a Nutshell", by Joseph Adler. I've just started working my way through this material, so I'll have more to say as I go along.

Keep in mind that the R project updates the program about twice a year at the present time. This is no problem for most users, as the things that get changed tend to be for advanced users, and the majority of us won't notice it all for a few years. The version I have is R2.11.1, and I expect that to hold me for quite a while.

Right now, all I can say is enjoy playing with R. It's a neat package, and will really help anyone taking a statistics class, or anyone just interested in statistics and how to manipulate data.

On Teaching Statistics - Part II

2011-05-09T18:33:00.000-07:00

It's taken me quite a while to get back to this blog due to some health issues that I'm dealing with. Nontheless, it's time to pick up from where I left off.

I taught a statistics course (most of it, anyway) to a class of undergraduate engineering majors at Valencia Community College in Orlando, FL. I'm happy to report that, after a ten year absence from the classroom, my students were just as enthusiastic and eager to learn as those I'd taught more than a decade ago. Their responses to my presentations gives me great hope for the future of our society.

Meanwhile, I've become engaged in another project through ASTM Committee E-11, which deals with standards in the quality and statistics world. Working with several others, I'm helping to develop a statistics standard that will show users how to make the most of small data sets and samples; conditions which tend to be the norm in the industrial and commercial worlds where I began my career. In addition, there is always the question of whether or not data follows a normal (or Gaussian) distribution pattern. It's not always easy to find this out when you don't have lots of data, and methods are needed to figure out such things as - are the data random, what do the data say about a process and its capability, what happens when we order the data, and similar issues. I'll have more on this at a later time.

On Teaching Statistics - Part I

2011-02-07T03:26:00.000-08:00

Last June, I posted an item regarding why I felt college students should take a class in statistics to fulfill any mathematically oriented course requirements that they had for their degrees. I'm not going to change my mind regarding that opinion, but I've had an opportunity to think about how we teach the subject, and why our various approaches might make the material much more difficult than is necessary.

Over the course of my career, I've had the opportunity to read and review a rather large number of textbooks devoted to statistics, and to examine several teaching approaches, many of which make use of those texts as the bases for teaching the class. I've gradually come around to the view that we make life more difficult for our students by focusing too much of our teaching on the techniques used to generate statistical results, and not nearly enough on the basic concepts, which, if properly understood, will allow a student to apply those techniques correctly.

There are a relatively few statistical concepts that, if properly grasped, can make the entire subject straightforward for most students. These include the following: what is the probability that something will or will not happen, is a statistical process discrete or continuous (that is, can we count the number of occurrences of some event, or do those occurrences happen over some continuous range of outcomes), exactly how many outcomes of a discrete process are possible (or is that number too large to count), and over what ranges are the outcomes of continuous processes possible.

These concepts, along with a few others related to the measurement of central tendency and variation, make up the bulk of the central ideas necessary for a basic understanding of statistics. How we find all of these numbers and interpret the results of our calculations can wait until later. However, current teaching practice seems to be to rush to the data, generate all manner of charts, graphs and numbers in an attempt to get students to "see" the beauty of it all. I think that this well-intentioned effort results in our losing more students than we gain.

I'd like to see an approach based on conceptual understanding, with a discussion of many situations and where they all fit into the conceptual context of statistics. When students can properly frame the situation they're dealing with, and place it in the proper context, the necessary calculations and development of appropriate charts and graphs, along with interpretation of the results of that effort, becomes much easier than would otherwise be the case. So I'd encourage teachers to spend more time describing situations and how they fit into the basic concepts, and encouraging students to evaluate many situations, before inundating them with calculation techniques.

What I'm advocating here is the same approach that chess masters and other specialists use to become experts in their fields - namely, exposure to as many situations as possible, thereby developing the ability to recognize how each one fits into the framework of the body of knowledge of that field.

4 Year Engineering Technology Programs

2011-01-31T18:19:00.000-08:00

One of the ways for students to enter the various engineering fields is by becoming an engineering technician or technologist. While some people may think of these paths as less desirable than proceeding straight to a traditional engineering degree, let me assure you that this is not the case. For many students, the prospect of being able to actually work with equipment and materials in a hands on (shop, laboratory or similar) setting is far more interesting than sitting at a desk or in front of a computer screen in an office all day long. Keep in mind that computers are also found in the lab or on the shop floor as well as in the office.

There are several items of good news to report regarding Engineering Technology programs in particular. While the 4 year degree in various branches of Engineering Technology has been around for decades, what's new is that some community colleges are now able to offer the entire 4 year programs, not just the first two years, or an Associates Degree. This process has been facilitated by several states allowing community colleges to modify their missions to include selected 4 year programs (not only in technology), and, in many cases, changing their names to reflect their new status as 4 year degree granting institutions. In Florida, a number of community colleges have undergone this change, or are in the process of doing so.

I'm familiar with one such school in particular, namely Valencia Community College, serving Orange County in Central Florida. At the end of this academic year, the school will become Valencia College, and gain the right to offer 4 year degrees. In addition, the school will take over the engineering technology degree programs formerly offered by the University of Central Florida (UCF), whose Engineering Technology department is being shuttered, in part as a response to budget problems at the state level which have impacted the entire university system.

If, as I expect, Valencia does in fact pick up the programs being dropped by UCF, it will be able to offer the same educational quality that it has already demonstrated to its students at the same (lower) cost of attending a "community" college. The 4 year degree will also come with all of the other benefits normally associated with these locally focused colleges. Valencia will thus join the ranks of other Florida colleges that have already gone through the conversion process; Miami-Dade, Edison, Indian River and the College of Central Florida, to name just a few.

I did a brief survey of 4 year Engineering Technology programs currently offered by a number of schools, and believe that they are quite rigorous in their approach, just not as theoretical as most engineering curricula. All of the programs I examined require at least a semester of calculus (most require 2 semesters), along with a host of physics and chemistry classes leading up to the technology core courses. This sort of program is therefore not for the faint of heart, or to be thought of as somehow less worthy than the more theoretical engineering degree. Perseverance is required to be successful, just as in any other endeavor worth doing.

If you are a student for whom financing a 4 year degree is an issue, or who wants (or has) to remain close to home, and is interested in the applied aspects of technology, I encourage you to consider whether or not the 4 year engineering technology degree offered by a local ("community") college is right for you.

Nanotechnology and You

2011-01-15T10:22:00.000-08:00

Nanotechnology is certainly one of the buzzwords of the current century, and it's not going away any time soon, IMHO. I've been asked to describe exactly what it is, and what difference it makes. Along with those questions come the related ones of defining career and business opportunities in the field.

The dictionary and technical definition of "nano" is anything multiplied by 10(-9) power, or .0000000001. The term has come to mean anything that's very small, in most cases, at or near the scale of the size of atoms. Nanotechnology can now be said to be anything related to observing or manipulating things in either small atomic groups or even one atom or molecule at a time. This capability, which has been developed through extensive research, will help us extend control over our environment and processes as we progress through the century.

There are several pieces of good news in the development of nanotechnology. The first is that the research efforts are still being led by US based Universities, Government Laboratories and Corporate Research Labs. The second is that these developments are leading to many new and improved products and processes, all of which will provide economic growth and job creation in the future, both near and long term.

In a brief article in the January 2011 issue of Advanced Materials & Processes (published by ASM International - www.asm-intl.org) Prof. Nitin Chopra of the University of Alabama recently described some of what he thought would be the important subjects for those who want to pursue careers in this field. Among other, he mentions chemistry, metallurgy and materials science; along with physics as being important fields of study. While he focused on training for doctoral level students, the same approach can be taken by those who won't be in the lab, but whose careers will primarily be involved in the businesses of developing, manufacturing, selling, specifying and using products made of nano-materials or which rely on nano processes for successful implementation.

Students and others looking for more information should visit National Nanotechnology Initiative website (www.nano.gov/index.html) for a lot more material, including a listing of schools offering training in this field. The Federal Government has sponsored the NNI since 2001.

One example of the use of nanotechnology involves the development of a coating process for applying a very thin film of tantalum to stainless steel parts. Tantalum turns out to be the best material for resisting corrosion in a high temperature chemical process for converting water into oxygen and hydrogen without the use of any fossil fuels. The process, known as sulfur-iodine thermochemistry, was developed by General Atomics, of San Diego, CA. All of the materials in the process are recycled, but the chemical conditions inside the reaction vessels are so severe that only tantalum, a very expensive material, has been found able to resist falling apart for more than 50 hours. Rather than use components of pure tantalum, it can be applied as a thin coating to the surface of another (presumably less expensive) component, and make the entire operation economically attractive.

There are many other opportunities like this currently in the development stage, and present multiple career opportunities for those with the right training. The field is so ripe that I'm going to suggest a catch phrase (borrowed unabashedly from the State of New Jersey and former governor Tom Kean) - "Nanotechnology and You, Perfect Together". Let's see if it catches on.

Robert Heinlein's Influence on Engineering Students

2011-01-04T18:16:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading part one of an extensive biography of Robert Heinlein (1907-1988), one of the premier authors of "hard" science fiction of the last century. The book, titled "Robert A Heinlein: In Dialogue With His Century", by William H Patterson, Jr., is a detailed study of Heinlein's work, placed in the context of the time and circumstances of his activities.

Heinlein was a graduate of the US Naval Academy (class of 1929), a time before the academy was allowed to offer B.S. degrees, and so he was, from that standpoint, not an "engineer". However, the intense and practical training offered at the academy stood him and his classmates in good stead when it came to the matters involved in operating and maintaining a ship.

In addition to his Navy service, Heinlein was a politician, student of astronomy, and engineer (during World War II). His writing influenced at least one generation (probably more) of young people who became engineers and scientists, and helped us get to the moon in 1969. He also was the first to describe in his writings such devices as the portable telephone (Space Cadet - 1948). Things like that got many of us thinking about what might be possible. His first published story, "Life-Line", described what might happen if a person knew when he was going to die. He also had a unique take on time travel (backwards only), but found a way to go forward by using another technology.

His series of books for boys, published in the 1940's and 1950's certainly entertained and excited me with possibilities. In particular, 1957's "The Door Into Summer" showed what one bright, talented engineer might be capable of doing, if given just a few key resources.

While some of Heinlein's writing might appear dated today, his stories still appeal to those who have some faith in technological progress, in spite of the difficulties that we've encountered, and will continue to encounter, along the way. I'd recommend those stories to any and all who want to encourage our young people to pursue careers in the STEM fields. Science isn't magic, it's filled with real possibilities, and Heinlein's work brings out the best in those and the characters he created to deal with them. I wish he were still here to add to the collection. Meanwhile, I await with eager anticipation, the second volume of Mr. Patterson's biography.

Tin Pest - A Potential Threat To Technology?

2010-12-19T09:11:00.000-08:00

Most of us know a little bit about solder alloys. These are the low melting point materials that bond electrical wires and tabs to one another, allowing current to flow through them. Historically, these alloys have been made of lead and tin, with an occasional additional element added to control melting points, flow characteristics of the liquid solder or other properties.

Recently, things have changed in the world of solder. Since lead has been shown to be extremely damaging to humans and other life, forms, it's been effectively banned from most applications, including solder. The European Union has been the latest to ban lead in solder alloys. So what does this have to do with Tin Pest?

It turns out that pure tin undergoes an allotropic transformation, that is, changes it's crystal structure, when it's cooled below about 56 degrees Fahrenheit. This transformation is not at all rapid, and generally is retarded by the presence of lead or any of a number of other elements. However, if pure or nearly pure tin is used in solder, the transformation can occur at temperatures and time frames that might matter to us in the future. The damage occurs when the tin, in transforming, dramatically expands it's volume (by about 27%). This results in what was once a smooth solid changing into a gray material that erupts on its surfaces, and thereby weakens the solder joints to the point where they could be unusable.

An interesting article by Ronald C Lasky (available online) discusses some of the legends about, and factual episodes of tin pest, and the damage that it can do.

The danger occurs when pure tin is exposed at quite cold temperatures, below about -20 degrees F. These conditions exist in various polar and sub-arctic parts of the globe, and also in outer space. While its unlikely that tin pest will be a problem that most of us will encounter in commercial devices such as computers and cell phones, there exists the potential for this "disease" to occur in equipment exposed to the low temperature extremes noted above, and could prove damaging to that equipment, including military and space electronics. A growing awareness of the problem by industry will likely lead to the development of new solders with alloying elements other than lead. However, its always good to be aware of the unintended consequences of our efforts to be good environmental stewards by banning lead from products.

The Community College Roadblock to Success and Jobs

2010-12-13T19:02:00.000-08:00

From 1991 through 2007, I worked at two community colleges, where I was a Professor and Chair of a mathematics department and then an Associate Dean (at another college), where my responsibilities included managing the math department. In both cases, large numbers of students were required to take "remedial" (or "developmental", when remedial became not politically correct) courses in mathematics. This is typical at community colleges throughout the country. The basis for the requirement is a placement test that's supposed to measure the student's ability to succeed in a college level math course, which is required for graduation in almost all Associate Degree programs.

Unfortunately, most students who face this particular requirement never pass the requisite math classes, and, as a result, don't graduate. There's nothing new to report here - this result has been occurring since the 1960's. From time to time someone in the academic world tries to find a fix for the lack of student success in elementary math. These classes, by the way, are what we were all exposed to, and supposedly passed, as part of our high school graduation requirement. So how is it that so many are required to take these courses in the first place, and that the majority never achieve the degree of success needed to advance to college level work? While a definitive answer is not readily apparent, it's clear that the traditional method of force-feeding more and more arcane algebra down students' throats doesn't work.

Up until now, there have been no broadly successful programs for mathematics remediation, although some schools have achieved some positive results with approaches that include computerized modular instruction and focusing on particular weak spots shown by individual students. Therefore, it's with considerable interest and hope for the future that I'm watching an approach that seems to be truly new, sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. This approach uses as it's basis the development of statistical reasoning ability in the students. Materials are currently being developed by a team of community college faculty and other experts, leading to a program that is expected to prepare students to be successful at the college level in a one year time span. The program's goal is to double the number of students who succeed, and ultimately, graduate from Community Colleges with degrees.

I'll have more to say about this project as I learn more myself. It turns out that I'm scheduled to teach a statistics class next semester at one of the colleges participating in this program, so I hope to have access to some of the research and program development as it occurs. If the program works, it will help turn the mathematics requirement into a gateway to success, rather than the roadblock that it is for far too many students.

The important point here is that greater student success is imperative if we're to provide our students with the skills necessary to obtain the jobs that are currently (or will become) available, almost all of which require some level of college education as a minimum entry requirement. A minimum of an Associates Degree is essential for those who expect to compete for the jobs of today and the future, so a successful math program matters a lot.

Jobs and "The Death of Capital"

2010-11-23T08:54:00.000-08:00

"The Death of Capital" is a book I just finished reading. The author, Michael Lewitt, is a well known hedge fund manager, who gets to see a lot of what's gone wrong with our economy from the inside. He is highly critical of the current state of affairs in our capitalist system, pointing out that what happened in 2008 was all too predictable, given the nature of both capitalism and human proclivities towards greed. Mr. Lewitt is not someone to be taken lightly. He's studied economics at Brown, and also Yale, as well as law at New York University's renowned School of Law.

The essential thesis of the book is that unrestrained capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction. My own analogy is to liken the situation to a machine that runs out of control. Most equipment operates within a range of values regulated by what's called feedback control. When the operating ranges (speed, voltage, temperature or some other measurable value) are exceeded, the control system kicks in to restore balance by doing something to control the value and set it back on track. Without this process, any machine will run out of control and eventually destroy itself. You know what happens when you overheat something in an oven, or leave the stove on too long. The pot is ruined, dinner is burnt beyond edibility, a fire breaks out, or something equally calamitous occurs.

Well, the same is true of unregulated capitalist behavior. As Lewitt points out so well, when capitalists are not subject to regulation, their natural behavior is to seek more profit in the short term, regardless of the long run consequences. The function of the regulators is to restrain this behavior, so that the capitalist system continues to generate profit and improvement for society as a whole.

We've gotten away from that, with the result that companies have been gutted, jobs lost, lives ruined and our nation up to its eyeballs in debt. It is essential, as Mr. Lewitt points out forcefully, that the US and other governments undertake to properly regulate capitalist behavior, and repair the damage already inflicted upon us. I can't begin to describe all of the detail contained within this book, but I do recommend that everyone find a copy and read it - slowly. Check the extensive reference material if you're unsure of anything he says. This also shows why economics should be taught to every high school student in the country, with Smith, Marx, Keynes and especially Hyman Minsky being required reading for all. If we're to save not only our country, but the entire capitalist system, we have to realize that "later" has arrived.

A Steel Industry Update

2010-11-17T15:53:00.000-08:00

I just spent two very full days attending the Southeast Chapter meeting of the Association of Iron & Steel Technology (AIST). The meeting was held in Charleston, South Carolina, and concluded yesterday with a tour of Nucor Steel Corporation's Berkeley, SC steel making facility. The industry has undergone dramatic change since I last was employed by a steel company in 1980. Nucor, a virtual unknown then, is now this country's second largest steelmaker.

The mill at Berkeley is one of three (2 owned by Nucor) located within the state. The plant was built from scratch, beginning in 1995, with operations commencing in 1996, according to the company people who guided us around and provided insight into the operation. It's now capable of producing approximately 2 million tons of finished product per year with a workforce of some 900 employees. According to my rough calculations, that translates into a production rate of slightly under 1 man-hour per ton of finished steel. That's over 6 times better than the industry average in the 1970's, and is due primarily to advances in technology.

The steel plant is simply fascinating and awesome. Two 170 ton electric furnaces melt raw materials (mostly scrap) in a display that you've just got to see for yourself. After 25 minutes or so, the molten steel is transferred to ladles (they have 4), where the chemical analysis is controlled with various alloy additions. When ready, the liquid steel is poured into one of three continuous casting machines that turn out a steady stream of slabs or billets, to be rolled into sheets or structural shapes, respectively.

While the operation itself is fascinating, what impressed me even more was the evident pride of workmanship that every member of Nucor's staff exhibited as they explained what was going on at each step of the process. These people like what they're doing, and were having a good time at it. I'm really encouraged by that, as it speaks volumes regarding the state of the industry, which, I believe, is excellent.

Meanwhile, back at the hotel, we were treated to presentations about operations, equipment and metallurgy that were uniformly well-delivered by plant operators, engineers and metallurgists. We also heard managers express great confidence in the industry, born out by stories of export orders to such places as Taiwan and Viet Nam. I'm not sure that any of those present could really believe that steel companies in the United States were exporting steel to Asia, rather than the other way around. Maybe we can bring back manufacturing here, and with it, the opportunities we so desperately need to ensure our future as the economic leader of the world.

Investing in Education

2010-11-12T18:42:00.000-08:00

Many of us think of paying for education as an investment in ourselves. This is most often seen at college levels and above, including continuing professional education. In the past, many companies would sponsor or pay for classes if employees would take them. This was most commonly done again, at the college or graduate school level. Most large employers still have programs of this sort. Smaller companies either never had such programs, or have discontinued them for various reasons, most usually, the cost of tuition.

However, when we consider the education of our children, a different mindset is found. Public education of the sort we've become used to is a relatively recent historical development. We all should recall the story of Abe Lincoln, who got his education by reading books at home. This was the norm less than 200 years ago. Public schools were a 19th century development, as the need for basic education of the population became apparent as we shifted from a primarily agricultural to an industrial society.

Further growth, to include mandatory high school attendance (at least until age 16) was introduced by the early decades of the 20th century. Now, even though dropout rates in some areas are still unacceptably high, it's normal for an adult to have graduated from high school, and have at least the beginnings of a college degree before embarking on a full time working career.

This increase in general education comes at a price. That price is unacceptable to many within the United States, and the number who object has increased over the years. While there is some merit in the arguments of those who say that public schools are too costly without getting enough back in terms of student performance to show for it, I would contend that, as a society, we're not spending nearly enough on public education, and that what we are spending is being mis-allocated in many cases.

While there are many factors that affect student performance, the two that are most important, in my view, are teacher quality and class size. By teacher quality, I mean that teachers are fully qualified to teach all subjects for which they are providing instruction. A lack of quality is most evident in the STEM subject areas (science, math, engineering, technology), where far too many teachers are simply not equipped to deal with those subjects effectively. The best way to remedy this situation is to pay teachers substantial premiums if they become fully conversant in those subject areas. Those premiums need to be in line with what a trained professional working in a STEM field might earn.

The second need is for much smaller class sizes, so that teachers can give proper attention to each student, and the students as a group. Students need to be not just lectured at, but guided, coached and mentored in ways that are only possible in smaller classes. I believe that class sizes should be reduced to 11 students (ideally, but no more than 15 in any case), especially in high schools, where most of the work on advanced subjects begins to take place.

Doing this will be quite expensive. The most equitable funding mechanisms are taxes paid at the national level, a consumption tax being the least onerous of the possibilities. A secondary source of funds can be obtained by combining school district administrations to avoid the needless duplication of services currently found across the country. There is simply no need for the administrative burdens found in districts a a few thousand students, supporting large back office staffs. Countywide or citywide districts are appropriate in most areas, with some rural regions having the potential for multi-county districts.

If we're to do right by our kids (not just yours or mine, but all of them), we need to be willing to make the investment in their future, as is done in so many other countries, where student performance is ahead of ours. Wealthy families pay substantial tuition to private schools for these benefits. We, as a society, need to do the same. After all, it's their efforts that will help to support us - we all want our social security now, don't we - and, along with two other key investments, infrastructure and research & development, that will keep this country strong. More on those two at another time.

More on Engineering Educational Requirements

2010-11-09T17:39:00.000-08:00

Over the past few months, I've written some posts concerning the minimum level of education necessary for an engineer to be considered properly prepared to become licensed. In addition, I've also written regarding the impact of proper educational credentials on the job market for professionals and the US competitive position vis-a-vis other countries with better educational systems than currently exist here. Now it seems that others have also begun to take up the cause.

The president of the National Society of Professional Engineers, Michael Hardy, PE, has written an article in the November issue of PE magazine that begins to address the education of engineers, and the lack of post-baccalaureate requirements in order to become licensed. He notes that "...for engineering to be seen as a 'learned profession' by the public as it once was, we need to offer more than a four-year bachelor's of science degree." This may have been enough 3 generations ago, when the majority of adults didn't have high school diplomas, let alone college educations of any kind. However, with a large minority of the general public now holding four year degrees, it's more important than ever that the specialized education and training required to truly distinguish a professional engineer from the crowd be clearly defined, and a single year of graduate study just isn't sufficient to accomplish that end.

Mr. Hardy chooses to "leave that to those who have a better grasp of the details." As someone who has spent over 25 years in higher education, I've seen first hand what some of those details need to be, and will take this opportunity to advocate again for the development of engineering professional schools as being essential for the revitalization of the engineering profession in the United States. Properly prepared engineers are necessary to restore US competitiveness in everything from engineering design to manufacturing to construction, and ensure that the well-paying jobs that go with preeminence in those fields expand within this country, rather than be handed by default to the rest of the world.

Doing this will cost money. Our society must be willing to make that investment, along with investments in the rest of our educational system, manufacturing capability, infrastructure and workforce retraining if we are to retain our place as a leading nation going forward. I'll have more to say on those other investment needs in subsequent posts, but I'll close this one by stating categorically that if we're not willing to invest in ourselves and future generations, rather than just consume for the moment, we'll be a third rate nation in much shorter order than most folks realize.

Manufacturing - A National Defense Issue

2010-11-06T07:33:00.000-07:00

Later this month, the 2010 Defense Manufacturing Conference (DMC 2010)will be held at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas. I wish I could attend this one, and not only because of its venue. I've had a chance to peruse a number of the abstracts already posted on line. There are several sessions scheduled on materials manufacturing, and two papers in particular whetted my appetite for more information. These concerned developments in casting techniques for Aluminum alloys, which can be a big deal if the techniques discussed live up to their promise. Casting Aluminum alloys has always presented technical challenges, and getting a casting process that is more economical to produce parts that have the equivalent properties of more expensive forgings will help make our products more competitive in the marketplace.

The overriding issue however, relates to the development and maintenance of manufacturing industries within the United States. While some factory jobs will be made available as a result of developments in manufacturing technology, it's far more important to the country that the capability to make things be not only preserved, but put to use on a regular basis. We go through this sort of re-discovery every so often, when we figure out that the rest of the world can function quite nicely without us, and that we can't always do the same.

Industries ranging from textiles to nuclear power plants are dependent in large measure on the manufacturing capabilities that now reside offshore, and this makes the country vulnerable to the influence of others, and not always to our benefit. I'm not one of those who would have us isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, but its critical to our well being and national security that we have the ability to make what we need to grow, prosper and defend ourselves if necessary.

Many of the projects described were funded wholly or in part by the Federal Government, and have helped grow companies and university research capabilities that we need to maintain if we're to keep ourselves at the forefront of technology. Developments such as those to be presented at DMC 2010 will go a long way toward ensuring our future well-being, in addition to providing jobs and career opportunities for future generations.

Engineering and Science Jobs in America

2010-10-27T17:43:00.000-07:00

Not that long ago, many scientists and engineers were employed in research laboratories funded by industrial companies, as well as the Federal Government. Most of the "research" was applied in nature, leading usually to new products that were always part of the lifeblood of American innovation. At the beginning of my career, I was employed in two such labs, one run by the Navy, and the other at the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, in Youngstown, Ohio. Many of these facilities are now closed (like those where I worked), their functions "outsourced" in some way or not performed at all. Many of the companies that supported such efforts are either mere skeletons of their former selves, or have disappeared altogether. As a result, research expenditures in both government and private sectors have decreased markedly from levels that were typical in the 1950's.

Enter Mr. Fareed Zakaria, an American who immigrated here from India as a young man. His writing appears regularly in Time magazine, and he also appears on cable TV news channels. In an article in the November 1, 2010 issue of Time, he points out that we can restore the American Dream, if we shift our focus from consumption to investment. He writes, "Everyone agrees that the best way to create good jobs in the U.S. is to create new industries and companies and to innovate within old ones. This means large investments in research, technology and development." (I recommend the entire article, and his program "Restoring the American Dream: A Fareed Zakaria GPS Special", scheduled to air this coming weekend.)

Mr. Zakaria proposes that much of this effort be paid for with a 5% national sales tax, partially offset by a small reduction in the income tax. This money would restore government funding for R & D to the same level that it was in the 1950's, about 6% of GDP. I agree with that proposal, and would go a step further. I believe that we should also restore the private industrial research capability of the nation, and pay for it with the billions of dollars that corporations are currently holding as cash reserves, and can't figure out what to do with. Every company that sets up, or expands an R & D lab within the U.S. would get an additional tax credit equal to the expenditures on any such facility and the jobs created. Hiring preference must also be given to current U.S. citizens or residents.

This would further stimulate the economy, as an investment vehicle, and not as part of some temporary (and ultimately damaging) government "stimulus" package. Returns to shareholders would result from the products developed and patents generated by these labs, as was the case in the past. The companies and their shareholders would, of course, need to have sufficient patience to allow these efforts to bloom, rather than scrap these labs at the first sign of a temporary profit decrease, as was done in the past.

Not only would restoring industrial research to prominence benefit the companies involved, but the jobs created thereby would be highly paid and prestigious, and encourage some of our best and brightest young people to take up technical career paths, something that we sorely need to restore our nation to greatness. While having access to some of the world's great minds is good for us, we do ourselves a disservice by not encouraging our own youngsters to pursue these fascinating and potentially lucrative careers.

Perhaps, if we are willing to really invest in our future generations, and not go for the quick fixes of tax cuts, easy credit and increased consumption just for it's own sake, we can restore America and ensure that the country we leave to our grandchildren is better than the one we inherited.

ASTM Quality and Statistics

2010-10-25T17:51:00.000-07:00

Later this week, I'll be attending (via computer and telephone) the semi-annual meeting of one of my favorite organizations, ASTM's Committee on Quality and Statistics (designated as committee E-11). Until a name change a few years ago, ASTM's official title was the American Society for Testing and Materials. The name change, to ASTM International, was, I believe, driven by a desire to emphasize the fact that standards are now a matter of global significance, and ASTM has cooperative agreements with the standards organizations of numerous countries. In addition, many individual ASTM members are residents of many of those world spanning places.

I've been a member of ASTM since the early 1970's and have been serving on E-11 since 1989. I'm occasionally asked to explain what ASTM is, does, and why it matters. In the U.S., government has rarely been directly involved in standards setting activities, preferring to let various industry and consumer groups set their own standards for materials, products, and test methods. ASTM arose out of that environment, forming in 1898, and was a vehicle used by the steel industry to develop standard material specifications and test methods. The first ASTM committee, A-1 on Iron and Steel, is still in existence, playing the same role now as it did then.

NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was founded in 1901 as a government research laboratory, originally known as the National Bureau of Standards. In spite of the name, it's main role was, and still is, research in the sciences. Among other services, it provides standard reference materials to other laboratories, and also maintains and provides instrument calibration standards.

Another important player in the standards arena is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Founded in 1918, ANSI is a private entity, charged with serving as the accrediting body for organizations such as ASTM, who actually develop and write standards. There are approximately 200 standards setting organizations within the U.S. that are currently accredited by ANSI.

Getting back to ASTM, committee E-11 was formed in the 1930's, and was charged with developing standards for performing statistical analysis of product and test data, and developing plans for selecting samples used in test procedures. Many prominent statisticians, including Dr. W. Edwards Deming, whom I've previously mentioned here, served on that committee. Much of his work, as well as that of others who have been on the committee, has been incorporated into current standards, and have a profound influence on industry practices worldwide. As I've noted recently, Deming, along with a few others, was instrumental in getting the Japanese to develop a culture of quality throughout their industrial companies as they rebuilt after World War II.

Standards are extremely important to all of our industries. Without them, we'd be hard pressed to trade with each other, and consumers would have no reliable way of knowing what they're getting in a product. ASTM now has over 130 technical committees, dealing with materials, test methods, and industries ranging from heavy manufacturing to consumer products, and issues such as energy, exploration and the environment. The committees can always use additional help, and you don't always have to be a technical expert in the particular subject matter to participate. While most committees meet in particular locations twice a year, remote participation, as I'll be doing this week, is also easy. Consider getting involved. Visit www.astm.org to see where you might fit in.

Quality and the Malcolm Baldrige Award Program

2010-10-20T19:22:00.000-07:00

The Baldrige Performance Improvement Award program was begun after the tragic death of its namesake, former Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige. The program was authorized by Congress in 1987, and began operating under the management of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) the following year, with assistance from the American Society for Quality (ASQ). President Ronald Reagan approved the program, even though it was to be managed by a government agency, due to the death of Baldrige, his long time friend and a key supporter of quality improvement while at the Commerce Department.

As may be evident from the awards current title, the Baldrige program has come a long way from its initial focus on quality alone. While still critical, other concepts, such as lean manufacturing, are now embedded within the program. There are seven criteria that are used to define performance relative to the award. They are:

Leadership
Strategic Focus
Customer Focus
Measurement, Analysis and Knowledge Management
Workforce Focus
Process Management
Results

Points are awarded within each category by examiners specially selected and trained to evaluate award applications, and a panel of judges makes recommendations to NIST, which has the final say as to whether or not any organization receives an award. While there is a maximum number of awards available each year, there is no minimum, so there are times when no award is presented within a given category.

At present, awards are authorized in the following categories: Manufacturing, Health Care, Services, Small Business, Education and Nonprofit/Government. Recently, however, the vast majority of organizations applying for the award have been in the health care field. Since 2005, no more than 20% of applicant have come from the three profit-oriented business sectors, with the balance (generally about 25% of applicants) coming from the education and government/non-profit sectors. The above results are quite disappointing for a program that was initially designed to raise the competitiveness of American businesses rather than focus primarily on other economic sectors. It's also interesting to observe that, while health care, education, government and non-profits have shown the greatest desire to use the Baldrige criteria to improve their operations, they face the wrath of business people upset over the current state of the economy generally, and in many cases, the condition of their own businesses, which they continue to blame on everyone else.

The category of awards to non-profit organizations and/or government agencies has generated some really good results. With so much noise out there about how terrible government services are, it's good to find something positive to focus on within the sector. In 2007, the city of Coral Springs, Florida won the Baldrige Award in its category. Working first with a statewide program (35 states have quality or performance improvement programs), the city was able to achieve the following, according to city manager Michael Levinson "...Triple A bond ratings on Wall Street from all three rating agencies, bringing capital projects in on-time and within budget, a 96% business satisfaction rating, a 94% resident satisfaction rating. If you're interested in meeting the needs of your customers in the most cost-effective way - if you want to do it better, cheaper and faster, and live within your means - there's no better way to do that than to work with your state quality program and the Baldrige criteria."

I'd like to see business people step up and do things that will improve their own operations, rather than railing against the "others" of the world, who, after all, are also suffering in the current climate. I can think of no better way for a business to show that its serious about making improvements than to adopt the Baldrige criteria - whether or not that business chooses to apply for an award is secondary.

There's a lot more information available about the Baldrige program, on the NIST website, and at Baldrige.com.

Continuous Quality Improvement and Education

2010-10-16T18:08:00.000-07:00

I've decided to continue with the commentary I started last time concerning quality. The late Dr. W. Edwards Deming, probably the best known "quality guru" of the twentieth century, refined the study of quality concepts to an unprecedented degree. He also completed the development of, and introduced to a wide audience, the Deming Cycle for continuous improvement. This methodology, which can be applied to any industrial, business or management process, provides a way for us to make things better, no matter how good they may already be.

The basic idea behind the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) approach is to learn from what's been done in the past. The first step, Plan, consists of identifying an opportunity for improvement and planning how you intend to carry it out. Step two, Do, consists of implementing the plan developed in step 1. The third step, Check (or Study), requires that you examine the results of your implementation. Finally, step 4, Act, asks you to decide what to do in light of what you've learned. The cycle repeats continuously, resulting in "continuous improvement".

Deming first recommended this cycle for continuous improvement to US companies in the 1940's. When the Japanese, recovering from the devastation of World War II, heard about it, they invited him to their country in order to find out if his methods could help them rebuild their economy. He went, his methods worked, the Japanese improved upon them, and all too soon the rest of the world was faced with overwhelmingly superior Japanese products. They were so grateful that they named their highest quality award, the Deming Prize, in his honor.

In the mid 1990's the Pearl River School District, in Rockland County, New York, decided to embark upon a similar effort to improve the quality of the districts services, not only in the classroom, but also within the administration and in its dealings with the public. Superintendent at that time, Dr. Richard Maurer, led a concerted effort to apply the principles of continuous quality improvement to the entire system. This effort resulted in the district winning the 2001 National Malcolm Baldrige Award for Quality. I was on the external Quality Advisory Council (1997 - 2001) that advised the district during its efforts to implement the PDCA process. That council was chaired by Sandra Coleley, who was the districts Director of Quality and Community Relations at that time. More information is available in "The Quality Toolbox", by Nancy R. Tague (ASQ Quality Press - 2004, pp 390-392).

Among the outcomes that were measured and improved upon during this process were high school graduation rates and college acceptances. In addition, two other district goals, improved public perception of the district and improved fiscal stability, were also met as a result of the PDCA approach. The fact that such an achievement could be accomplished by a small district in suburban New York gives me hope that the same is possible throughout the country. Other schools, districts and colleges can do the same, using the Deming approach.

Quality Inflation and Customer Satisfaction

2010-10-12T14:36:00.000-07:00

Many companies are measuring customer satisfaction these days, and trumpeting the results all over the place. They want the world to know just how wonderful they are. Such "over the top" campaigns seem to me to be, well, unseemly. Having a quality product and a satisfied customer simply isn't enough anymore. Now, every employee needs to be "passionate" about the company, its products, his or her job, coworkers, boss and subordinates. Every product needs to be "without peer", or superbly magnificent. It's not enough to have satisfied customers, they have to be "delighted" as a bare minimum. Anything less than absolute perfection is simply unacceptable in many spheres. In looking at such situations, I wonder if this "Quality Inflation" isn't doing us more harm than good.

For instance, customer satisfaction surveys have traditionally relied on a 5 point scale, known as the Likert scale, which can be used to measure qualitative opinions about everything from product quality to employee performance. Depending upon the situation, several questions or issues could be framed in this context with the highest value, 5, being reserved for cases in which the highest level of performance or satisfaction had been achieved. The development of Likert scales is discussed in many statistics texts, and is featured prominently in those devoted to qualitative measurement.

As quality issues became more important in various settings, companies, and organizations generally, discovered that not every one or every thing got a 5 in every situation. There was room for improvement. That fact seems to have scared too many managers half to death. They simply didn't (or don't) know what to do with results that tell them improvement in some settings is required. This has lead to the misuse and abuse of such quality concepts as process capability studies and variance reduction techniques in the name of "doing something". The highly popular "Six Sigma" methodology is, in my view, nothing more than a cost reduction program inside a "quality" wrapper. Now there's nothing wrong with cost reduction. Just call it what it is, and apply the appropriate techniques to make it happen. (Of course, cost reduction programs have their own built-in angst, hence considerable reluctance by management to use that label.)

Some of the results of Quality Inflation are the following:

1 - When purchasing an automobile, you're asked to fill out a customer satisfaction survey by the salesman or sales manager, who informs you that you will be hounded to the nth degree should you dare to give anyone or anything on the survey less than a 10. "We just have to maintain our excellent rating", or some such statement is part of the guilt-inducing pitch that you get.

2 - Employee performance evaluations that require a 10 in every category measured in order to be qualified for a raise, or, heaven forbid, be considered for a promotion. Likewise, a rating of less than 10 in any category becomes the stated reason for denying that same promotion or raise.

3 - College student grades of A+, giving a student who can get them a 4.3 GPA on a 4.0 scale.

3a - Unspoken or unintended cooperation of faculty who rely on student evaluations for their raises, promotions or tenure in giving students the highest possible grades, rather than grades that reflect actual performance.

4 - As you may have noticed, the use of a 10 point evaluation scale, as opposed to the traditional 5 point scale.

Of course, if we lived in Lake Wobegon, where every one and every thing are above average, I wouldn't be too concerned. However, most of us are not there yet, but the fiction that we may be has rendered the slap on the back along with "good job" or "attaboy" completely devoid of any meaning or motivational effect. When do we go to the 20 point scale, along with descriptors such as "completely and superbly delighted".

Meanwhile, Dr. W.E. Deming must be wondering what ever happened to continuous improvement, or the idea that one measures quality to learn how to get better, not just how great things already are.

Chromium - The Metal That Makes Stainless Steel "Stainless"

2010-10-07T10:47:00.000-07:00

In keeping with my recent posts concerning corrosion, I decided to discuss the key metal involved in fighting oxidation (one form of corrosion), namely chromium. Originally discovered in the 1770's, it has atomic number 24 and is the single most important element involved in making any alloy resistant to corrosion, especially in an oxidizing environment.

This fact makes chromium of immense commercial and strategic importance around the world. There is plenty of chromium ore (chromite) to go around, but most of it is located in places far from the United States. Almost half of all chromite mined today comes from South Africa (including Zimbabwe), with lesser but significant percentages being found in India, Turkey and Kazakhstan. Other deposits exist in Finland and Iran, among other countries. In the Western Hemisphere, the only significant producers are Brazil and Cuba. The one site in the United States that's been discovered to have recoverable ore is in Montana, and is currently not in production.

I won't go into detail concerning the hows and whys of chromium production and the reason it contributes so heavily to corrosion resistance except to note that the more of it one has in an alloy, the less likely it is for that material to oxidize. Stainless steels were originally developed in the early 20th century, and a minimum of 12% chromium was found to be required to make the alloys truly "stainless". Other elements, especially nickel and molybdenum, were also found to be useful alloy additions, imparting resistance to reducing atmospheres and adding strength. However, no element has the ability to resist oxidation to anywhere near the extent of chromium, especially at high temperatures. As much as 30% chromium is found in some of the more exotic alloys used in such applications as containers and equipment within the various chemical process industries; and in components used in jet engines and other equipment operating at high temperatures. Total production of chromite ores worldwide is approximately 20 million metric tons per year.

Considering all of the above, it's no surprise that oil is not the only raw material giving US government policy makers fits.

Chromium also has a significant environmental downside. In it's hexavalent form, it is highly toxic, and residues from it's use as a plating material have caused contamination all over the planet. Considerable effort and expense has gone into efforts to clean up those residues, and to design processes that prevent or at least mitigate chromium's negative environmental impact. As with many other materials, we need chromium, but not the negative consequences, so it behooves us to find better ways to use and dispose of the byproducts and leftovers.

The good news is that like all metals, chromium can be recycled indefinitely, with minimal loss. Therefore, we can maintain chromium's beneficial properties without undue harm, if we're just careful and smart enough to pay attention.

Florida Energy Systems Consortium

2010-10-05T10:51:00.000-07:00

Last week, I attended the 2010 Florida Energy Systems Consortium (FESC) Summit, held at the University of Central Florida (UCF) in Orlando. This two day conference focused on research activities related to energy topics currently being carried on throughout the state. There were also presentations and task groups related to statewide policy issues, and considerable discussion regarding the condition of the electric power grid, smart grid technology and energy storage issues.

FESC is a consortium of state universities, bringing together academic researchers and other interested parties, especially utilities, to share expertise and experiences in various energy related fields. It was created by the state government a few years ago, and reports to the Florida Energy & Climate Commission (FECC).

Most of the research efforts presented revolved around biomass, solar photovoltaics, and efficiency, storage & conservation, with lesser attention given to nuclear, ocean, wind and fuel cell development. The various levels of effort are in keeping with the perceived relative strengths of the state in various energy arenas.

Of particular interest is the fact that Florida has approximately 10% of the total national biomass, and that the raw materials do not transport well over long distances. Therefore, numerous efforts are aimed at developing this energy source locally. A total of 16 papers, along with 17 posters and a plenary session paper were presented. These included descriptions of local pilot plant efforts, along with more basic research.

A second major area of concentration concerned solar photovoltaic energy, with 8 papers and 16 posters related to this field, which takes advantage of Florida's abundant, but diffuse, solar energy resources.

There was also discussion of policy directions, especially with a view toward diversifying the states economy with proposals for increasing manufacturing of equipment, and education of the public being prominently mentioned. A particularly noteworthy youth education effort was presented by Georgene Bender of the University of Florida IFAS Extension Service. This program, which provides activities for students, is currently directed primarily at middle and high school students, but in my discussion with her afterward, she indicated that the program could be adapted to elementary school children, and also to the adult general population.

There were political overtones as well, since the state legislature was represented by two members, one each from the state senate and house, along with keynote speaker John Lushetsky, who currently manages the US Department of Energy's Solar Energy Technology Program.

All in all, it was good to see that a lot of progress is being made on the various energy fronts, and that the experts are talking to one another about statewide issues. If you want to look more closely at all of this, visit the FESC website at www.FloridaEnergy.ufl.edu.

A Corrosion Update

2010-10-01T18:28:00.000-07:00

Just before my last post, there was a horrific explosion of a gas pipeline in San Bruno, CA, which is just south of San Francisco. Four people died, and at least 38 homes were reported destroyed. Now it seems that investigators are considering the possibility that corrosion of the steel pipe caused this disaster, or at least played a significant role in its occurrence.

First, an article in the Detroit Free Press on September 27th discussed the corrosion of oil and gas pipelines in general terms. The writer noted that many of our pipelines are decades old, and may not always be inspected using the latest technology. Among other potential causes, corrosion of pipelines is not unknown, according to Richard Kuprewicz, an independent safety expert interviewed by the paper. Other factors include the quality of the steel, welding and the fact that an internal inspection process was not able to be completed by PG & E, the company that owns the line. They had to resort to external inspection, which may not be as reliable, in determining the adequacy of the pipe.

In addition, further speculation is now focused on the possibility that bacteria contributed to corrosion of this particular pipe. Known as MIC, or microbially induced corrosion, it results when microbes in contact with metal release materials that are corrosive to that metal. The corrosion then weakens the material, ultimately resulting in failure. This is a common enough phenomenon in underground installations. I've discussed the problem of corrosion in soils, including MIC, in a presentation that you can access via SlideShare (www.slideshare.net/rfmengr/corrosion-in-soils-5012278), or from my website, www.mignogna.net.

This is just another example of the devastating effect that corrosion can have on us, and provides further evidence as to the benefits of having a trained workforce that can identify and deal with corrosion in our environment.

The Price of Corrosion

2010-09-20T18:34:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, I get a call from a prospective client regarding a materials failure that appears to be due to corrosion of some metal part or object. Questions or comments from the client at this point usually include "How did this happen?"; "I specified metal X, is that what I got?"; "What could we have done to prevent this?"; "Someone was hurt. Will I be sued?"; "I want to prevent this from happening again".

The first thing I'll do with a case like this is, with the client's help, attempt to find out exactly what went wrong. Many failures are due to multiple causes, and jumping on a bandwagon too quickly serves no purpose but to get those involved unreasonably agitated. A failure investigation can be a rather complex process, requiring input from several experts, laboratory testing, interviews with eyewitnesses and considerable analytical effort. Only then can the root cause of a failure be determined with a reasonable degree of confidence.

That said, it's been noted by many others that corrosion costs our economy dearly. A study performed for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)and the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) in 2002 found that the cost of corrosion to our economy is on the order of $276 billion dollars per year. This represented about 3.1% of our total Gross Domestic Product for that year. The study breaks down costs into various industry groupings and subcategories, noting that over half of the total, some 56%, were in the utility and transportation sectors of the economy. It was also estimated that 25/30% of those costs could be saved by proper corrosion management and mitigation strategies.

With corrosion being so important, I wondered why more hasn't been done to address the issue. It turns out that NACE and others are working to improve the situation. In 2009, a bill was introduced in Congress (HR3462) that would allow companies in the energy industry to get a tax credit for funds they spent on corrosion prevention. While this is laudable, I'd like to know why other industries were excluded from the legislative proposal. It seems to me that this should be an across the economy effort, involving every company that needs to spend dollars (which are thereby directed away from other tasks) to prevent or manage corrosion.

The final point to note here (at least for the time being) is that there seems to be a lack of education and training regarding corrosion in our colleges and technical schools. My adopted home state of Florida, for example, has no current programs at any of its community colleges or universities to train corrosion specialists. The particular need at the present time seems to be for technicians who can perform inspections and procedures to mitigate corrosion damage, which include instrumented testing techniques and various coating application methods.

The science of corrosion is well known. We know why it happens (naturally occurring processes), and how to prevent a lot of the damage. What we need is the willpower to apply that knowledge so that the damage can be minimized.

Professional Engineering School - Defining the Parameters

2010-09-14T07:53:00.000-07:00

Since I've argued in favor of a requirement that engineering school be a graduate level endeavor, it seems that I should define the parameters involved. By that I mean the number of credit hours, years of study and the degree that is given at the end of that part of the career journey.

The first thing I did was to review what it takes to get a BS degree in engineering under the current system. I examined several BS programs, at schools both large and small, all of which are accredited by ABET. Currently, the number of discipline specific engineering courses required for a BS degree at those schools varies from a low of 55 to a high of 71, with most ranging from 57 to 65 undergraduate credits. This count does not include such basic courses as statics or dynamics, and a few others which could be included in a generic undergraduate degree having a technical focus. Given this information, I consider 63 credits to be a reasonable average.

Next, I examined the requirements for an MS degree under the current system. Typical programs ranged from 30 to 33 credits, with 30 being the minimum standard. I looked at this due to the NCEES proposal, first put forth in 2004, that candidates for the Professional Engineers license have a minimum of 30 credits beyond the BS degree.

Since a professional school will have to address both of these requirements, a reasonable total credit requirement would be between 93 and 96 hours, or 3 years of full time study for a student taking 15/16 credits per semester. This is in keeping with the current requirements of a typical law school, and one year less than usually required for the MD degree.

The final consideration in this proposal is to provide some appropriate degree designation. The ones that have crossed my mind include Master of Engineering, Master of Science in Engineering (MSE), Master of Science in Engineering Practice (MSEP), and Doctor of Engineering Practice (DEP). All of these have some basis or equivalence in current medical or law degree parlance. If anyone who reads this has other suggestions, I'd be happy to post them here.

In summary, this proposal to invigorate the practice of professional engineering includes the following - 1) A broad based but technically oriented undergraduate degree, followed by 2) An advanced degree in a technical specialty preparing a candidate for practice and the PE license exams. It is designed to be a truly viable alternative for those students who are motivated toward technical study, but are turned off by the overloaded curricula and lack of professional reward or recognition in the current system.

Bachelor of Arts in Engineering

2010-09-12T13:35:00.000-07:00

One of the concerns that I've had regarding professional schools of engineering has to do with making sure that students have adequate undergraduate preparation for such a school. In past posts, I've mentioned the possibility of using traditional science degrees to accomplish that objective, and also have a proposed model curriculum on my website (www.mignogna.net).

Recently, I was reminded of yet another pathway, one that's existed for decades, namely the Bachelor of Arts (A.B.) in engineering degree. This degree is offered by some of the most prestigious colleges in the country, including Harvard and Dartmouth. In an article in this months (August/September)issue of PE Magazine, Eva Kaplan-Leiserson discusses the benefits of this blend of liberal arts and engineering, pointing out the benefits as well as some of the pitfalls of this approach.

She notes that these degrees are not accredited by ABET (the agency that certifies traditional engineering degrees) and that graduates are not eligible to take the licensing exam without further study. However, there are numerous benefits to the students, even if they choose not to pursue further formal training in engineering. There are numerous fields that can benefit from someone trained in engineering methodology, including law, science or technical writing, and business.

It appears that more colleges are seeing the benefits of this approach, which fits nicely with the concept of making advanced technical study a graduate level endeavor. Since the early 1970's, such schools as Lafayette College, California Polytechnic Institute, Smith College and Worcester Polytechnic have instituted B.A. programs in engineering. The author interviewed Professor John Orr, of WPI who told her that "...B.A. degrees are an important piece...of the overall education for the profession".

It is gratifying to find out that others are beginning to see the benefits of a broad general education as a prerequisite to the study of engineering, as is true of medicine and law. Once this becomes the de facto standard for engineers, the profession will be able to take its rightful place as a truly "learned profession".

Industrial Exemption in License Laws

2010-09-08T10:53:00.000-07:00

Since I've been arguing for the repeal of the so-called "industrial exemption" from professional engineering license laws, I decided to see if other professions are similarly burdened. I took a look at Architecture and Geology, which are similar in being technically oriented disciplines that might have similar provisions written into statutes regulating them.

What I found was quite revealing. Since I now live in Florida, I decided to investigate the Florida laws on this subject. Engineering is regulated by chapter 471, while architecture and geology are governed by chapters 481 and 492 respectively. Each has some level of exemption, but neither of them approach the number or degree of exemptions that apply to professional engineering.

In the case of architecture, there is a relatively minor exception for farm buildings,one or two story residential structures and other "low cost" buildings. This is described in section 481.229 of the statute. There is no exemption that relies upon the nature of an architects employer for its basis.

Geologists who are employed by mining companies are exempted from the licensing requirement while working on that employers operations, as detailed in section 492.116(5).

Engineers, however, are exempted from the license requirement in all manner of cases. Sections 471.003-2(c), 2(h) and 2(j) detail all manner of specific industries for which the exemption applies. I won't bother listing them all here.

This is typical of what is true in other states. There is no profession that has more exemptions to its licensing requirements than engineering. This not only weakens the effectiveness of the statute, but also the profession, as many engineers who are employed by industrial companies fail to see the benefits (to them) of obtaining a license to practice.

It also serves to fragment the profession and reduce our influence over policies, both public and private, that are rightly the focus of all engineers, not those whose technical specialty is directly impacted by those policy decisions. All of us are affected by decisions involving the application of technical principles that are common to all disciplines, and we should each need to know enough about them to inform the discussion. The only way to ensure that this happens is to require that all engineers be licensed graduates of graduate level professional schools of engineering.

Preparation for Engineering Professional School

2010-08-27T11:56:00.000-07:00

Since I've been promoting the concept of engineering school as a graduate educational experience similar to law or medical schools, I've been asked to describe appropriate undergraduate programs that would prepare a student for engineering. There are two basic pathways that come to mind (others might be possible, but more circuitous).

The first path is to take a traditional undergraduate major in math or one of the sciences (chemistry, physics, biology) and choose electives in subjects like statistics, basic engineering sciences (statics, dynamics, mechanics, thermodynamics, electrical circuits), computers and computer applications. Any of these choices will provide the basic preparation necessary, and also give the student the well rounded academic background expected of today's working professionals, regardless of specialty.

A second, more clearly defined pathway would consist of an undergraduate pre-engineering major, incorporating the current standard of 128 semester credit hours in science, math, liberal arts, basic engineering studies and some collateral classes. I've posted a model program that meets this need on my website - www.mignogna.net/engineering_education. This type of program would fully prepare a student to study any of the various branches of engineering at the graduate level, with an optimum chance of success.

In addition to traditional 4 year colleges, this program could be made available through community colleges, which are now offering 4 year degrees in some states. The cost advantage of attending a community college has long been known, and students who succeed at their community college have outstanding track records when they move on to more advanced schooling.
In addition, it's possible to offer this type of program in an on-line format, further expanding the number of students who can be served.

There are a number of other issues to address concerning the engineering professional school concept (accreditation, faculty, qualifications, specific program choices, etc.) that I'll comment on in future posts. Meanwhile, I'd urge you to look at the model, and think about what it can accomplish.

Engineering Professional School Redux

2010-08-26T19:08:00.000-07:00

I promised a follow up regarding my belief in the need for graduate schools of professional engineering, much like medical or law schools. While some may see this as a waste of time and money, I believe that it is not.

Let me start by noting that the NCEES, that's the group who makes up the PE licensing exams, has come out in favor of a proposal to require that exam candidates have a minimum of 30 credits beyond the BS degree before taking the exam. They recognize the immense explosion in worldwide technical knowledge that's available, and realize that anyone who is a candidate for a license needs more formal academic preparation than is currently offered by almost all 4 year degree programs.

This, it seems to me, still does not meet the minimum standard of preparation as we move further into the 21st century. In addition, there is a second, and perhaps more critical issue regarding preparation that I'd also like to consider. Given our current system, engineering students have to make almost irrevocable career choices long before they may be ready to do so. This also limits the ability of students to gain the broad based, interdisciplinary knowledge necessary to function as part of an engineering team in the workplace. More than ever, we do not work in discipline silos, but are required to interact with each other, and therefore need to understand at least the basic principles of all of the major engineering specialties (which, by the way, are really the same in many respects).

Early specialization also limits the number of high school students who can consider engineering as a career choice, since they have to make choices in their early or mid teens that can keep them out of engineering disciplines. These relate particularly to mathematics sequences, which are very rigid, and must be taken far too early in a students academic career for all but the most advanced to be able to cope with. This isn't only a matter of lack of intrinsic ability, but, in many cases, simply is a function of both academic and emotional maturity. By requiring students to make these choices in their early high school years, we may be missing the opportunity to expose legions of bright but unready students to the potential of careers in engineering. No amount of "mathcounts" or other programs can make up for this particular type of shortsighted behavior on our part. The same may be true of studies in chemistry and physics, courses which many high school students aren't even given the opportunity to take, but which are required for success in beginning engineering classes.

Thus, when students arrive at college, many are unprepared for engineering classes than begin, in some cases, as early as their freshman year. As well, not every 18 year old (or younger) college freshman is ready for the rigorous study of calculus, a freshman engineering staple. Therefore, we need to give students time to mature both intellectually and emotionally in order to prepare for what lies ahead in the study of engineering, and also provide both time and program space for a broad range of basic engineering science studies at the undergraduate level, as well as such subjects as basic economics, business and language - we do live in a multinational business environment after all, and our young people deserve the best preparation we can offer, irrespective of future career choices. All of this means that it would be in everyone's best interest to delay the choice of an engineering specialty until graduate level study has begun, and students have had the time and developed the academic background to succeed. The 50% average dropout rate from current engineering programs, which has not changed in over 60 years, is further evidence of the wrongheadedness of our current approach.

It won't be easy to change the current system, but the effort to increase the credit hour requirement for the license exam, and the renewed movement to repeal the industrial exemption contained within most licensing laws, are both steps in the right direction. However, we must continue to press our politicians, educators and current members of the profession to do what's right for both our students and our country, and make engineering professional schools a reality.

Steel - A Worldwide Industry

2010-08-25T13:46:00.000-07:00

My introduction to the steel industry was courtesy of Bethlehem Steel's plant in Bethlehem, PA in 1967 (it's now a casino). Back then, it was clear (at least to me) that the US was the worlds premier steel producer(frankly, I wasn't paying much attention to the rest of the planet back then). I was awed by the plant, and the opportunity to tap an open hearth furnace was one I couldn't resist. As a budding young metallurgist, it seemed like the place for me. I did have several jobs in the industry back in the 1970's, until my life took a different path, but I've continued my association with it to the present day.

Times have certainly changed. China is now the worlds largest steel producing nation, with total production for the first seven months of this year of 375.5 million metric tons (mmt) representing almost 47% of the worlds output of crude steel. The top ten producers (this year, to date), in order are China, Japan, USA, India, Russia, South Korea, Germany, Brazil, Ukraine and Turkey. This data is from the World Steel Association (www.worldsteel.com).

Technology has changed as well. The only place in the world still using the open hearth process is Russia, which still has a few of those furnaces (now considered to be dinosaurs) remaining. The rest of us use either electric furnace or basic oxygen furnace technology for the bulk of production, with a number of smaller countries relying on the direct reduction (of iron) process. These, and numerous other technology changes, have reduced the cost of steel production dramatically since the early 1970's.

What hasn't changed is the fascinating nature of this industry, it's processes and products. Many producers are multinational in scope, and are constantly developing new production methods and applications for their products. While employment in traditional mill jobs is nowhere near what it once was, there are still many opportunities for scientists, engineers, technicians, managers, economists and others to build solid careers and contribute to the continuing development of the industry. Steel faces competition from other materials, but the world is still dependent upon it for many of the benefits of our civilization.

Steel production is also an indicator of the health of the economy worldwide. In 2008, total crude steel production for the first 7 months of the year was 816.9 mmt. In 2009, that figure was 657.0. This year, we're back up to 821.0, slightly above the 2008 figure. Material production figures are one way that I've used to gauge the relative health of the economy, and it's a reason that I'm cautiously optimistic about the economic outlook going forward. While many focus on jobs reports, those tend to be lagging indicators, and don't always tell us what we need to know about future trends.

If you are a student, or recent graduate considering a career direction, I'd suggest that you investigate opportunities in the steel industry. While it continues to change, the industry itself will be around for quire some time to come, and offers many opportunities for the well trained and educated professional over the long term.

Engineering Paraprofessionals

2010-08-15T07:36:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I left off with a post on why engineers must be licensed. I'd like to address a comment that's sure to arise by supporters of the industrial exemption, namely, "where will we get all of the technical workers that we need if they all have to be licensed?" Let me take this comment, and it's two main thoughts, in reverse order.

First, not all technical workers need to be licensed engineers. That distinction can be reserved for those who are in charge of the work, as is now the case in most of the public works where a licensed engineer is currently required to approve the project. Many unlicensed technical workers, including some who currently hold engineering degrees, work under the license holder. This is much the same situation as prevails with physicians assistants (PA's) and paralegals, who now do so much valuable work in medical and legal venues around the country.

Currently, engineering technology degree holders (and those without degrees, but at least some technical training) serve the same purpose in many areas. The notion of an engineering technologist (unlicensed) can be expanded to include all who don't want to, or for whatever reason can't, continue through an engineering professional school program to become licensed engineers. Their depth and breadth of knowledge would not have to be as extensive as the licensed professional, and a 4 year degree in an appropriate area of technology would suffice for most. Of course, the option to continue would always be available for those with the talent and inclination to undertake post-baccalaureate engineering study.

With a sufficiently educated and trained workforce, the practice of engineering within the industrial sphere would not require an exemption from the license requirements, and the technical workforce would then work under the direction of appropriately licensed professionals.

As I've already said, all of this is possible if we as a unified profession (engineers, not just civil engineers) can muster the political will to insist that everyone who is in charge of engineering work have a professional license as being in the public interest.

To summarize - in order to fix the current mess we need to a) insist that all engineers who are placed in charge of technical work be licensed professionals, and b) that they be graduates of recognized professional schools of engineering modeled along the lines currently used by schools of medicine and law; and that support personnel, technologists, technicians and those who are otherwise unlicensed workers in technical fields, report to the license holders rather than to other unlicensed individuals in management.

The License Debate - Again

2010-08-14T18:40:00.000-07:00

In the time I've been traveling, it seems that the BP disaster has finally caused a few intrepid souls to stir the pot regarding the "industrial exemption" in engineering license laws across the nation. It's about time that engineers have the same status, privileges and and responsibilities attendant upon the two other "learned professions" of medicine and law, which have no such exemption. Every lawyer and every doctor is required to be a licensed practitioner, regardless of the nature of his/her employment. Those who are in charge of engineering work should have the same requirements imposed upon them. As we've seen, engineering has just as much, if not more, impact on the life or death of people as do medicine and law.

A few have finally dared to speak out - the Executive Director of NSPE and president of the National Academy of Building Inspection Engineers (NABIE - I'm a member of both groups) have both issued statements regarding (or bemoaning) the lack of licensure of engineers involved in industrial work. However, as David Carlysle (president of NABIE) pointed out in his mid-summer missive in The NABIE Examiner, "...eliminating the industrial exemption is not a particularly high priority goal for NSPE." This is a downright shame, and should be an embarrassment to all engineers, especially those who, like myself, are licensed. Turning engineering decisions into "business decisions" simply because of the exemption is exactly what leads to engineering disasters of all sorts in the first place. It also cheapens the profession, and, along with the lack of postgraduate professional schools of engineering, is one of the primary causes of engineering not being chosen as a career path by many of our most talented young people.

It's time to put an end to this absurd situation, which is reminiscent of the arguments in the 19th and early 20th century which finally led to the creation of the ASME boiler and pressure vessel code. Boilers of all sorts had been exploding with concomitant damage and loss of life shortly after Fulton first steamed up the Hudson River. It took until 1914, almost a century, for saner heads to prevail and require that boilers and other pressure vessels be designed to meet a minimum standard for safety and efficacy. It's time that the engineering license debate be ended once and for all. This is not a technical, but a political issue. Engineers, and those who are affected by engineering decisions (that's everyone, by the way) need to make our politicians realize that this issue is serious enough to require legislative action, and that the relevant bills be signed into law as soon as they can be passed. In most cases, the procedures are easy, as it just requires the repeal of various segments of existing law, not the creation of a new statute. Of course, there's then the issue of implementation - time required to get everyone licensed, potential "grandfathering" of current practitioners, at what stage a project becomes subject to the statute, etc. However, simply saying that it's hard is just another excuse. The profession and the public deserve better.

Engineering Professional School

2010-08-03T21:23:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I mentioned that one essential of a new model of professional development for engineers should be the creation of schools of professional engineering. These schools, which would be similar in structure to law or medical schools, would have as their main responsibility the postgraduate education of engineers intending to practice, in either a consulting, industrial or government environment. They are not meant as a replacement or substitute for traditional university graduate schools, whose main function has been and continues to be the preparation of (primarily) candidates for research careers.

Appropriate undergraduate preparation for such a school would include such majors as math, chemistry, physics or biology, or any of the computer sciences; or any major that provides appropriate math, computer and basic science preparation, thereby allowing the professional school to concentrate on the development of technical expertise in an appropriate engineering specialty.

This would most likely require three years of full time study, or an equivalent period of part time work. Part time study must be included in any professional engineering school model, as so many students, who would be in their twenties at this point, find it necessary to hold jobs in order to support themselves and their families. This is currently possible at many law schools, as well.

Faculty would be primarily drawn from practitioners with at least master's degrees initially, and each of whom must be licensed, with some minimum amount of practical experience. Once enough professional schools have been in operation for a sufficient period of time, faculty could then be drawn from graduates of these schools as well. Again, let me emphasize that the point of any school of professional engineering is to teach engineering principles and practice. Faculty would be expected to teach and consult, not do research. That function must be left to the research arms of universities.

Engineering Professional Development

2010-08-03T09:23:00.000-07:00

I've been traveling for the past few weeks, and won't be home for some time yet, so I haven't been posting much, but I've been involved in some discussions regarding engineering careers, and want to comment on a few things.

Let me start by reiterating something I've said in the past. Back in the first quarter of the 20th century, when states began to regulate various professions, medicine and law took the path of developing professional schools subsequent to undergraduate education, along with a requirement that all doctors and lawyers be licensed in order to practice. The engineering profession, for whatever reason, did not adopt the same set of requirements, and the profession, along with individual engineers, have suffered the consequences ever since.

We have finally reached a point at which the National Council of Engineering Examiners (NCEES) have recognized that a Bachelor's degree is simply insufficient preparation for licensure as a Professional Engineer, and have adopted a model law which would require a BS + 30 credits as a minimum to sit for the exam. Some states are currently considering modifications to their licensing laws to enact this proposal, but none have completed adoption of the requirement to date.

Let me put forth a proposal for modification of the engineering education and licensing requirements that are in line with the legal and medical professions, thereby restoring engineering's parity with them, and encouraging more of our best and brightest students to find careers in engineering more attractive than is currently the case.

First, each state and other licensing jursidiction needs to develop or have access to at least one publicly funded and one private school of professional engineering, on the same general level as schools of law and medicine. Second, the so-called "industrial exemption" needs to be removed from all engineering licensure statutes. This is especially important in that, as we've seen recently, too many engineering decisions have been made by non-engineers (at least people without licenses), hiding behind that legal loophole, and not having to suffer the consequences of those actions. See BP, Toyota, and numerous other "black swan" events for examples.

I'll flesh this all out in subsequent posts, but for now, you have the basics.

Elevator Speeches

2010-07-17T12:09:00.000-07:00

Over the past few years, "elevator speeches" have become all the rage for those trying to define who they are professionally, what they do, and who they can help. The basic idea is that, if you've got 30 seconds to explain yourself to a potential customer or hiring manager, you should have this memorized presentation, approximately 80/90 words long, that is hard hitting, to the point and so memorable that your fellow elevator occupant will be not only blown away by it, but will remember it, and you, at least long enough for you to be able to email him a resume.

This process seems also to fit in with the personal branding concept, where everything you say and do presents a completely integrated message of yourself to the world. That's great for those who fit the mold, but what if you're more likely to muse about things that you might like to do, or want to ask a question before launching your auto-response mode. I'll admit that many people are probably more clever than I am when it comes to this sort of thing. I've tried to follow the formula for years, and have never been able to come up with a pithy introduction (7-10 words), supporting statement (30-40 words) and an immediately obvious real world example (30 or so words). No matter what, I always seem to start with "I'm a Metallurgical Engineer...." or something similar, at which point whole bunches of folks just roll their eyes. See my bio sketch here for an idea.

Anyway, I discovered yesterday that I may not be the only person who is "elevator speech challenged". I attended a luncheon at the annual meeting of a professional society at which the lunch speaker tried to help us develop elevator speeches, not only for ourselves, but for the organization, which may be in need of a serious image makeover. With over a hundred people in the room, we did manage to come up with some possibilities for the organization's consideration. However, I was somewhat relieved to find others struggling with the same issues as I do every time I try one of these exercises.

I'd be interested in hearing about any experiences that you've had in developing elevator speeches, or similarly pithy was of describing your professional identity to others.

Careers in Computing

2010-07-13T18:42:00.000-07:00

I just ran across an interesting item regarding careers in various computer/computing related fields. Prof. Joel Adams of Calvin College in Michigan has compiled some data put out by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. It seems that the BLS projects that, over the next 8 years, almost 3 out of every 4 jobs requiring a degree in a STEM field will be in some area of computing. At the same time, the data shows that nationwide enrollments in computer related majors has fallen by about 50% over the past decade.

Every other STEM related field is expected to have more graduates than jobs to offer them over the same time period. Most notably, jobs in life sciences are expected to average about 15,000 per year, while the number of graduates will approach 90,000. When I calculated the total number of jobs available per year as compared with the total number of graduates, using the same BLS data, I found that the US will graduate almost 30,000 more STEM majors than there are jobs available for them, every year, for the next 8 years. While some of these graduates (at the BS level) will go on to graduate school, there certainly doesn't seem to be an impending shortage of professional level technical graduates, at least not according to our own government.

For those in the other STEM fields (engineering, sciences, math), it might be worthwhile to investigate the potential of applying your skills within the world of computers. You may need a few additional courses, or perhaps you have a minor in a computer related area which would be enough to get you started, so if you're a recent graduate still looking for work, or still in school, consider the possibilities of a career in a computer related discipline. Specialties such as software engineering, computer networking and systems analysis appear to be particularly promising. Do keep in mind, however, that BLS data may well lag developments, and if your heart is set elsewhere, don't let the number of jobs define your career direction.

Measuring Job Satisfaction

2010-07-12T19:02:00.000-07:00

Most of us who work in scientific or engineering fields tend to think in quantitative terms. We want to know what the numbers are for anything, and that can include job or career issues. Measuring such things as job satisfaction has never been straightforward, because the basic concept of quantifying one's feelings is not natural to most of us.

In 1932, Dr. Rensis Likert, an organizational psychologist, published his PhD thesis, in which he described a way to do exactly that. Many are now familiar with the 5 point scale he created, attaching numerical significance to our feelings. Given a statement, we are asked how we feel about it, from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. This approach has been used in everything from customer satisfaction surveys to overall assessments of likes and dislikes in all sorts of fields. While much research has been done that indicates the original 5 point scale does an adequate job of assessment in most cases, there are two modified approaches that may have more utility in certain settings.

The first of these is the 4 or six point scale, where the middle, or neutral value is removed, thus forcing the respondent to make a distinct choice regarding a preference for or against an item. The second is to expand the scale to 7 points, where the preferences on each side of the neutral line are Strong, Moderate, Weak (strongly favorable, moderately favorable, weakly favorable, neutral, weakly opposed, moderately opposed, strongly opposed).

I happen to like the 7 point scale for evaluating career related items, since many of us do express a range of emotions regarding specific career issues. What I have in mind here is to be able to use Likert scaling to quantify our feelings, not only about a specific job, but about ones career path generally. Over the next month or so, I'll be traveling, and won't be posting as frequently as I have in the recent past. I intend to use some of that time to investigate the potential for developing a career preference survey that individuals can take on-line and generate some useful feedback regarding their preferences. Once it's done, I'll put a note here in the blog, and post it on my website at www.mignogna.net. Let me know what you think of the concept, and the results when it's completed.

Career Management for Young Engineers

2010-07-05T09:50:00.000-07:00

Now that graduation season is over, there are a whole crop of newly minted engineers (and others) out there, some of whom may not yet be employed. This is directed mostly at those engineering grads who haven't found a job yet, but should be useful to others as well.

If you're an engineering school graduate, you've chosen a major, and have a basic toolkit of analytical skills that you'd like to apply in "the real world". You may even have had an internship, or summer or co-op job, which has provided at least a bit of experience. Now, how do you convert all of this into a job, and a career path?

Let me offer a few suggestions that should help. First, whether or not you're employed at the moment, join several professional societies. Most have reduced rates and/or waivers for young engineers. Take advantage of that - it's usually available only to those with five or less years of experience. Some of these will be a function of your major, but a common denominator for all engineers should be the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and its affiliated state society. The reason for this is the Professional Engineering License. It's the most important post-graduate credential that you can obtain, and it will be harder to do it the longer you wait. If you haven't done so already, take the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE, also called part I) of the licensing exam as soon as possible. Passing that exam will also give you a leg up in your job search at this early stage of your career.

The other key decision you have to make at this stage is the selection of what industry, or group of industries, you intend to focus on. The more experienced you become, the more important it is that you gain industry, as well as technical knowledge. If you've spent your college years wisely, you already have some idea of the types of industries that employ graduates with your particular background. Once you've made some choices, investigate the industry professional or trade associations that encourage individual memberships (not all do). Pick one that seems relevant, and sign up.

The third choice is that of the professional association that serves people with your specific technical background. You may have already been a member of a student chapter at your school. Keep that going.

Next, don't just join - get involved. Attend local meetings. Introduce yourself to others who are already working in your field. If you're looking for work, don't be bashful. When asked what you do, or who you work for, something like "I've just graduated with a degree in XYZ, and I'm looking for an entry level position in the ABC industry" should get a conversation started. Be prepared to fill in with a few details, such as senior project or thesis topic, plans for grad school, if any, and whether or not you've taken the FE exam.

Lastly, you might get the opportunity to be a friend. Take it. If you hear, "Gee, we're not looking for XYZ right now, but we sure could use an FTR"; if you happen to know of someone who fits that description, you might say "My friend Jane has a degree in that, and she'd just love to talk to you about it". That's one of the ways networking works, BTW, and you might get that favor returned some day. You never know, so it pays to help when you can.

Steel Shipments - A Leading Economic Indicator?

2010-07-04T10:12:00.000-07:00

First - Let's wish the USA a happy 234th birthday! May we all have many more.

Now, on to a discussion of how we might get a handle on the overall economy, at least in the United States. While our country has long since become more of a service provider than a manufacturer, manufacturing is still an important economic sector. More to the point, manufacturing activity can tell us a lot about the state of our economy. The government does a lot of statistical analysis of manufacturing, releasing data by the truckload monthly, quarterly and annually. I'm not always sure of what to make of much of that information. It sometimes seems like TMI. There are also private economic reports, along with company quarterly statements.

However, some of what we get may give us clues as to what's going on out there. One that I've picked up on regards the relative health of a few players in the steel industry. It's not their specific financial performance that's really interesting (although that will matter to investors in those companies), but rather the amount of product made and shipped, especially as compared to the prior quarter and year that matters. My focus here will be on tool steels, and the companies that make them, although some other categories of steel products can serve a similar purpose.

I view tool steel shipments as important because those materials are used to make the molds, dies and other tooling that goes into the production process of just about everything. When companies are gearing up to increase production, one of the first things they do is order more tool steel, either directly, or through service centers. In that regard, I've noticed that, over the past few months, domestic companies in the tool steel business have reported increases in shipments for the first quarter of 2010, when compared to both the prior quarter and the first quarter of 2009. They've also been cautiously optimistic that shipments would continue to increase for the balance of 2010. In addition, there have been reports that overall imports of tool steels into the US are up over the year ago period. Note also that while China is the number one steelmaker overall, European companies contribute significantly to the tool steel sector.

I'm not naming names for two reasons. One, I don't want to give anybody the idea that this is investment advice - it is not that, and I'm not qualified to give such advice in any case. Second, what I've noticed is not based on a systematic analysis (yet). So far, this is anecdotal evidence only. However, for those looking for clues as to the overall direction of our economy (US and the world), the upcoming quarterly reporting season, mid July through mid August, would be a good time to see what tool steel makers have to say about themselves and the overall health of their business. If they have good things to say generally, I'm going to feel a lot better about the prospects for the economy and job growth for the rest of this year and into 2011.

The Professional Engineers License - Again

2010-06-29T17:38:00.000-07:00

The subject of state licensing of engineers has been around awhile, and we're off and running again, thanks to the BP disaster. I've commented on this issue before, in other forums, but it seems timely to bring it up again. First, a bit of history. Back when states were first passing laws regulating the practice of engineering, a large loophole was created at the behest of private industrial firms. This loophole, known commonly as the "industrial exemption", permitted companies to employ engineers who were not licensed to work on their products and processes, under the theory that they were not dealing directly with the public and therefore would not really be affecting the public health, safety and welfare. (If you believe that, I've got a bridge for sale.)

Today, Mr. Larry Jacobson, Executive Director of the National Society of Professional Engineers (disclaimer - I'm a long time member), issued a statement decrying the lack of professional engineering oversight of the BP project. He's right, of course. Drilling that well, or any other, needs to require independent verification of all technical aspects of its design and construction by a licensed professional. The same is true of so many other industrial products and processes, whether or not a disaster has ensued.

Mr. Jacobson points out that all physicians and attorneys are licensed by the various states in which they practice, regardless of their employment status. What he does not say is that these professions are much more remunerative than is that of engineering, regardless of whether or not the individual engineer is licensed. Of course, the license does make a difference in compensation - those with it make more than those without.

My reason for focusing on the economic aspect of the license issue is simply this - more people would choose to enter the profession, and its various sub-specialties if the economic rewards were better. We constantly see much hand wringing, especially in the political arena, over the supposed lack of interest in engineering and related fields by our young people. "What can be done?" is the lament.

I think I've found an answer. Make it possible for engineers to earn a living comparable to those engaged in those other professions. The best way to do that is to eliminate the industrial exemption from all state laws regulating the practice of engineering. This requires political will, which has not been forthcoming to date. Until our politicians, especially at the state level, develop a backbone, the current situation will continue. Young Americans will not pursue careers in engineering, this country will continue to lose its edge and things will only get worse. We need to do so much - implement new technology, revise our energy mix, develop new industrial products and processes, reconstruct our infrastructure - all of which require the services of engineers. If they're not available, it won't happen.

Our kids are not dumb. They're going where the rewards are. Law, medicine, business. Engineering was once a way out of poverty, not a way into it. We need to make engineers as important as we say they are. In other words, put our money where our mouths are.

Patents - The Bilski Decision

2010-06-29T07:47:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court issued a decision as to whether or not to grant Bilski, et al, a patent on a particular "business process". I'll put this up front - while I am a Patent Agent, registered with the US Patent Office, I am not a lawyer, and am not offering legal advice or guidance here. That said, there is much to digest regarding this decision, written by Justice Kennedy and agreed to, in whole or part, by just about everyone else on the Court.

The decision to not grant Bilski a patent turned on the concept of his trying to patent an abstract idea, or mathematical formula. Doing that is prohibited by both the law and long-standing precedents, which Justice Kennedy describes in detail. However, the more general issue that was involved, namely whether or not business methods or software could be patented, was left open to further interpretation, depending upon the specifics of the claims.

Justice Kennedy wrote, in part that "the term 'method'...may include at least some methods of doing business.", but, referring to 35USC section 273 (patent law) , "it does not suggest broad patentability of such claimed inventions."

He goes on to say that "the Court resolves this case narrowly...petitioners' claims are not patentable processes because they are attempts to patent abstract ideas." The court also rejected the notion that a patent had to meet some absolute test requiring that the claims had to be operable on a specific machine, or perform some specific transformation (see 35USC section 101).

The take away from all of this seems to be that, if you have something really new in terms of a business method, or computer software, go ahead and apply for that patent, but it better be really new, unobvious, and meet the other tests of patentability contained within current patent law. Also, if your claims amount to nothing more than an attempt to patent the math, you're probably not going to get one.

Pareto's Law (The 80-20 Rule)

2010-06-28T13:23:00.000-07:00

Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist (who was originally trained as an engineer) discovered something very interesting. He found that the income distribution within the Italian economy could be empirically described by an equation that looked like this:

log N = log A + m log x,

where N is the number of people making above some income level x, and the values A and m are constants. The results he generated showed that 80% of the income was earned by 20% of the workers, and this result was published in the early 1900's. We'll leave the math at that for now.

Dr. Joseph Juran, working on quality control issues in the 1930's and 40's, discovered that a similar relationship could be used to describe the causes of product failures, and similar activities. That is, 80% of failures are due to 20% of the causes. When he realized what he had, Dr. Juran labeled the result "Paretos Law", and was able to expand it to show that, no matter what issue or problem one deals with, it can be described in terms of an "80-20" rule. Some practical example are a) 80% of failures are caused by 20% of all possible causes of that failure, b) 80% of your time is spent on 20% of the total number of things you have to do, c) 80% of sales are accounted for by 20% of a product line, d) 80% of customer returns are accounted for by 20% of the product line, and so forth. Of course, it's easy to get carried away by the "80-20" notion, and miss those that are 70-30, or something similar. The point to realize here is that it's possible to ferret out some big picture issues from amongst a pile of otherwise indecipherable data.

This phenomenon has some interesting implications. How we spend our time and effort is certainly something that we can think about in this context. If 80% of our time is spent on 20% of our tasks, we should be sure to choose those that matter most. But first we have to decide which ones matter. For instance, a salesman might spend the bulk of his time with one or a few key customers, who account for most of his sales. Project managers spend the majority of their time dealing with a small subset of all possible delays and problems. Students should spend the most time learning the things that are going to make the greatest difference in their future careers (that's why its a "major"). Companies will usually find that the majority of their profits come from a small portion of the product line, and so on. Finding those key items can be the difference between success and failure in any activity or field.

There are a number of ways to do this type of analysis, and every situation is different, so I won't try to foist a lengthy example on you here. I'd just encourage all of you to think about how the "80-20" rule can be applied to your job, career path and life. It's a good way to get the most out of your time and effort.

National Energy Policy (II)

2010-06-25T14:30:00.000-07:00

Two specific pieces of good news related to an energy policy have just been reported in the press (these items extracted from the National Society of Professional Engineers Engineering Press Review, dated June 21st).

The first concerns the development of high speed rail networks, which have been promoted and backed by the Obama administration to the tune of 8 billion dollars. According to a report prepared for the US Conference of Mayors, the 13 high speed corridors will create a total of 150,000 new jobs and account for $19 billion in new business by the year 2035. The report, prepared by the Economic Research Development Group for the Mayors, also noted that the link connecting Orlando and Tampa, in Florida, is closest to completion, now scheduled for 2015. Ultimately, the rest of the states major cities will be tied in, and lead to an economic benefit of almost $3 billion. The anticipated benefits are said to be comparable with those that high speed rail has brought to Europe and Asia.

The second item is about Terra Power, a start-up based in Washington State which has raised $35 million in venture capital to design a new type of nuclear reactor. The design, called a "traveling wave" reactor, is said to be able to wring as much as 40 times more usable energy from a given quantity of uranium than can be obtained from current reactors. This type of reactor is supposed to be able to run for decades without refueling. Along with other new reactor designs, all of which are inherently more reliable and safer than those currently in use, the thought of generating 50% of our electrical energy needs, and the large quantities of hydrogen necessary to fuel ground vehicles (cars/trucks/buses), is not as much a pipe dream as we might have believed only a few years ago.

Developments like these auger well for our country's future, with or without a formal policy in place. American ingenuity may save us after all.

National Energy Policy (I)

2010-06-24T23:19:00.000-07:00

The recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and the various knee-jerk reactions to it, have led me to think about the long-debated question of developing a national energy policy. Since so many technical people work in energy related fields (I've put my time in there as well), it makes sense for us to consider what we're doing, and perhaps suggest some ways of dealing with our energy needs.

Therefore, I'm going to use some of this space to outline a framework for a national energy policy, including some specifics that can be used as starting points for discussion.

I'm going to outline some general principles, and then consider how and when we might get to where we need to be. First, the policy needs to keep in mind the nature of our country and its citizens. Any policy must maintain our ability to travel where we want, when we want, in our own private vehicles. Americans won't accept anything else. Second, we must completely eliminate oil as a fuel source for ground travel. Oil is simply too valuable a resource to keep burning it up. Third, we must maintain our reliance on private industry to construct the vehicles we use, and provide maintenance services for them. Fourth, government funding of the public infrastructure necessary to achieve some of our goals must be accepted, just as we fund (or have funded) roads, airports, shipping terminals, and railroad right-of-way. It's the only practical way to get all of the capital that these projects need into the right places at the right times.

With the above in mind, I suggest the following as a policy for our nation going forward. I believe these steps are do-able, but will require focused effort from all concerned.

A) By the year 2050 (40 years from now), meet the following specific goals:
1 - Have the commercial electrical grid fed by 50% nuclear, 25% natural gas and 25% combined solar or wind generators.
2 - Eliminate the internal combustion engine. Public and private vehicles to be run on a mix of Hydrogen (produced by the nuclear plants) and electric power. (If you think this is too ambitious, consider that the entire country went from no cars in 1890 to a complete system, including roads, fuel stations and related infrastructure by 1930 - the same 40 year span.)
3 - Construct a high speed rail network connecting all cities of over 100,000 population with each other. Again, the time frame is perfectly reasonable. Look at rail maps dated 1840 and 1880 for a similar example.
4 - Eliminate 80% of domestic air travel of under 1,000 miles in favor of the rail network.
5 - Develop people mover systems for all intra-city travel in those with over 250,000 population.
6 - All new private residential housing to be powered entirely by solar or wind systems, thus reducing reliance on the electrical grid. Retrofit 50% of the existing housing stock to the same standard.

B) Extend the electrical generating mix to 50% nuclear, 10% natural gas and 40% solar/wind by 2075; and eliminate natural gas completely (except for occasional peaking units) by 2100.

I'll be most interested to see any comments to this post.

Thinking About Advanced Degrees

2010-06-24T08:04:00.000-07:00

Several people have asked me some variant of the following - "I have a Bachelor's Degree in Engineering or Science. What, if any, advanced degree should I look for, and should I go to graduate school full or part time?" Good questions. Once again, like almost all education issues, it depends very much on what your objectives are. Do you want to further a technical background, study management formally, or prepare for an academic career? If the latter, what type of college do you want to work at, and what specific subject matter do you intend to teach (or, are you thinking about becoming an administrator)?

Let's start with your objective. If you've recently graduated with a BS degree and have a job, do you want to continue working in your current field, or do you see yourself switching fields or industries? Do you see yourself becoming part of a management team someday? Do you think you might want to run your own business? Does academic research and teaching appeal to you?

We'll take the easiest case first. If you want to teach or conduct research at the college or university level, then a doctorate of some sort (PhD or ScD) will be required eventually, so plan your next step with that in mind. Begin to focus on a specific sub-specialty, see if you can find an appropriate mentor, and go to it. The best places for you will be those that are already conducting research in fields related to your interests.

If you see yourself in education administration, think about an EdD (Doctor of Education) degree. It will open wider paths than to administrative jobs in just science or engineering. Lots of college presidents have this degree.

If you want to run your own engineering practice, a masters in your field, along with a Professional Engineers license, are the appropriate credentials. It's possible to do this with only the license and a BS degree, but there's too much to learn these days to leave it at that. At a minimum, a rigorous program of continuing education in your specialty (college courses) should be pursued, either on campus or on line. Larger consulting firms will also value an MBA, but only after the technical requirements are met.

Lastly, private industry tends to value the MBA highly. If you want a career in industrial management, regardless of the industry, an MBA will give you the right preparation in most cases. This should be coupled with specific industry experience. Management of any sort requires knowledge of the industry and environment in which you are operating. I'd look for an MBA program that does lots of case studies, as this has proven to be a very effective management education method.

I'll discuss government and non-profit organizations at another time.

Superconducting Magnesium Diboride

2010-06-21T14:46:00.000-07:00

One of the most interesting areas of energy research is the development of materials that will either save energy or make it possible to build devices that can generate or use alternative energy sources easily and at relatively low cost. One such material is Magnesium Diboride (MgB2). I'm not going to provide all of the literature citations in this post - very boring stuff anyway - but I do want to address a little bit of history, and discuss some current and potential applications.

The first report of superconducting behavior in MgB2 was in 2001, by a team of Japanese researchers. It generated a lot of excitement in the Physics world since the material remained superconductive up to 39 degrees Kelvin. Now that may not seem like a lot, but in the superconductivity world, it was a breakthrough. It costs a lot less money to maintain a superconductor at 39 degrees than at 4 or 5 degrees. For the next few years, researchers concentrated on understanding the fundamental behavior of the material.

By 2007, several people were working on making wires out of the stuff, and Harald van Weeren of the Netherlands published a PhD thesis on the topic. Since then, several companies have developed and either patented, or filed patent applications for, the manufacture of MgB2 wire. Those companies are located all over (Hyper Tech Research - USA, Diboride Conductors, Ltd. - UK, Columbus Superconductors Spa - Italy, Bruker - Germany, among others), are all currently producing wire for use in magnets and electrical transmission applications.

Now, why does this all matter? Well, superconductivity itself can result in reduced losses when transmitting electricity, and the savings can run to many millions of dollars, an important economic benefit to all of us. The power savings also mean that we'll have to generate that much less electricity, which helps our global warming position if we use conventional fuel sources. It also provides us with reduced costs for generation and tansmission using alternative sources. There are other economic benefits as well.

The second reason that this is a big deal is the potential for jobs. People will have to make the wire, and the products that use the wire. People will have to make the equipment that uses the wire. People will conduct research on additional applications, and try to develop similar materials. People will design new products or redesign old ones using the wire. Some will come up with new inventions, form new companies, create new types of business, all because of this wire.

The bottom line here is that this is one way in which the entire planet will grow economically, while making life better for all of us.

Jobs for Engineers and the Economy

2010-06-17T14:32:00.000-07:00

Many of my licensed PE brethren are struggling in the current economic environment, as are so many of the rest of us. Getting and keeping a job, or finding contracts to bid on, has been extremely dicey over the past couple of years. Yet, far too many of our fellow citizens are all too ready to throw in the towel, and give up on the country's future.

As Ben Bernanke well knows, and has advised us, one of the primary lessons of the great depression is that, when things get really bad, private investment doesn't happen. If the Federal government leaves us to our own devices, as some (and the Hoover administration) would do, we'll be far worse off than we were at the depths of last years market sell off. When people are afraid, they don't buy stocks. They don't take risks. They don't invest in capital projects. They fear "fear itself". However, the budget surpluses of the late 1990's were a result of an improving economy, which led to greater tax revenues even as the rates fell. This happened because we spent money we didn't have in the 1980's and early 90's.

This matters (or should) to engineers because many of us make our livings from the design and construction of said capital projects, be they government or privately financed. If the financing goes away, so do the projects, and the engineers ability to earn a living. Just yesterday, I attended a meeting at which I heard more than one senior level engineer say that their firms were not hiring interns (or as many interns) this summer due to the economy.

Yet many would not have the government spend money on new capital projects, among other things, due to their fear of deficits at the federal level. Those same people want their taxes lowered, and basically seem to wish that the entire government would simply disappear. I sincerely hope that they do not get what they're asking for, because THAT, and not deficits, oversight, or anything else the government might do, would be what spells the end of our civilization. Those who believe in minimalist government might think about why the Articles of Confederation (our first attempt at a national "government"), didn't work. Anyone who thinks that private investment alone is going to create the jobs we need to save ourselves needs to put their money where their mouths are.

This is also a marvelous lesson in why students should major in engineering. My next bit of research will be to see what percentage of this years graduating class of engineers has an entry level job in their field of engineering (or something close to it), now that they've graduated and are supposed to be off the parental dole. Of course, graduates who did not major in engineering may be even worse off. I don't know. Yet.

Continuing Professional Education for Engineers

2010-06-16T18:22:00.000-07:00

Those of us who are licensed as Professional Engineers in one or more states (54 separate jurisdictions, including Puerto Rico, Guam, The US Virgin Islands and District of Columbia), are gradually becoming subject to requirements for continuing professional education in order to maintain our licenses in good standing. By and large, this is a good thing. In the 35 years since I first earned a license, there have been many changes and advances in both technology and management practices, and it behooves me to keep abreast of them as they occur.

I do have a problem, however, with the piecemeal way in which continuing education is being made part of the system, and in the various different requirements being imposed on us by the several jurisdictions that administer license requirements. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) has developed a model for continuing education, spelling out such things as number of hours required and types of activities that qualify as appropriate continuing professional education.

While the various state boards may want to include or exclude certain specific activities due to particular conditions within their states, I'm convinced that each should at least adopt a common minimum standard number of hours of continuing education required per year. NCEES recommends 15 hours per year, with the appropriate adjustments for those jurisdictions with multi-year registration cycles. At this writing, I'm aware of states that have anywhere from no requirement to those requiring 15 hours per year. I'm currently licensed in states that run this gamut of requirements, and find it to be an unacceptable situation. Why is it that engineers in state X are expected to keep up, while those in state Y don't have to?

I'd like to encourage all licensed engineers to lobby or petition their state boards and/or legislatures, as appropriate, to adopt the NCEES model of 15 professional development hours per year of registration. The requirements are easily fulfilled by anyone who is really involved in engineering practice, and doing it uniformly will only strengthen the stature of the profession. Engineering is a dynamic collection of fields, and the amount of knowledge keeps growing exponentially. We all need to recognize this, and be willing to learn new methods and procedures as they become part of the practice of the various engineering disciplines.

The Unexpected - Statistical Outliers or Black Swans

2010-06-14T18:12:00.000-07:00

There's recently been a lot of editorial space, both in print and on line, devoted to the phenomenon popularly known as the Black Swan. It's a really popular phrase right now. When I googled the term, almost 6,000,000 results were returned. In a 2007 book, Professor Nassim Taleb described his theory of Black Swan events, those things that are unexpected, seeming to arise spontaneously to upset our nicely ordered world of "mediocristan", and placing our entire existence (especially the financial portion) in imminent danger of total collapse. In doing so, he roundly criticizes the Gaussian, or "normal" statistical distribution, as it tells us what to expect, and does not prepare us for the unexpected.

I think that he's got it wrong, in a very fundamental way. It's easy to look back when the unexpected occurs and say "we should have seen it coming", or to observe that we're simply not prepared for the unexpected events that happen all the time. That does not invalidate the statistical premise of all randomness; namely that in every sphere of occurrence, some things are simply more likely to happen than others. The use of the Gaussian distribution is not merely a convenience, and can be justified in almost all cases based on sound statistical theory and practical results.

The point that is being overlooked is that statistical distributions take into account all possible events occurring within the spaces that they model. The fact that a low probability event occurs does not invalidate the distribution. In particular, the Gaussian accounts for all possible events - it simply assigns very low probabilities to some of them. It is then for us to judge the risk to ourselves and our society should one such occur, and take appropriate precautions to prevent or mitigate the damage. Here's a more commonplace example - plane crashes. Tragic, associated with large loss of life, but predictable. What we can't predict is which plane will crash, or when that will occur. Are we willing to put all planes on the ground, knowing full well that there will be another crash, somewhere, someday? It seems not.

Sometimes our judgments will prove faulty, and we need to modify our risk assessments or risk tolerance levels in the light of experience. That's the nature of the human condition. We occasionally make a mess (witness the current environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico). However, in the long run, we'll fix it, take into account the fact that this could happen again, and do a better job of preventing or containing a similar occurrence in the future. The same is true of financial disasters. I'd be surprised if anyone would ever allow a well such as blew out in the Gulf to be drilled and operated without a relief well to contain the damage. Bank regulation will be restored to minimize or prevent another housing mortgage disaster. There are numerous other examples, but I think I've made my point.

Statistical outliers will always exist. They're usually on the very edges of, or beyond, our ability to see them and their consequences until they've foisted themselves on us in sometimes unpleasant, indeed tragic, ways. However, sometimes the news is good (no one would have bet much on the survival of the Apollo 13 astronauts). Walking away from a plane crash in the Hudson River? Who'd a thunk it? Yet no one complained about these rather unlikely events, or came forward to say that the world as we know it would end because of them.

Teaching Students About Standards, ASTM and ANSI

2010-06-13T12:30:00.000-07:00

Technical standards, and their development and use, is a subject that's really near and dear to me. I first found out what they were, and got involved in standards development, shortly after I went to work for the US Navy as a co-op work-study student in 1966. I was assigned to a group that worked with standards documents, among other things, and wound up under the tutelage of some really bright people. Our group leader, Sol Goldspiel, was from Brooklyn, not too far from the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which housed our lab facility. Others were from all over, Chattanooga,TN; Boston, MA; Rome, Italy among other places. I'll save the rest of the memoir for another day.

Ever since Eli Whitney received a contract from the US Government in 1800 to supply muskets to the Army, the use of interchangeable parts, and the resulting need for standardization, has been a part of industrial life. Since that time, both the government and private industry have developed a set of processes for standardizing everything from steel production to child safety seats. In the US, the two major standards development organizations are the American Society for Testing and Materials (now known as ASTM International) and the American National Standards Institute. There are numerous other technical and professional organizations that engage in standards development activities, but these two cover the widest range of issues. In Europe, and the rest of the world, ISO (International Standards Organization) serves as an umbrella for national standards development activities, including those here as we work to integrate our standards with those of other nations.

What I want to focus on here though, is the lack of instruction in standards development or use at either the high school or college level. This isn't just for technically minded people either. Standards are critical to the functioning of our economy, and it's important for everyone to have a basic understanding of their development and use. Elementary material can be presented as part of classes in economics, history and the sciences at the high school level. This is not nearly as hard as it may seem at first. All of the standards organizations have websites. A casual visit to my garage revealed a piece of 1/2" diameter plastic pipe with the notations "ANSI/AWWA C 904; ASTM F876/F877" stamped along its length. I bought this particular item at a local hardware store, so a first assignment might be for students to visit a hardware store and look at what's for sale. Write down the relevant standards designations and look up the titles of the documents on line. This can serve as the motivator for a discussion (or several) on the topic.

For instructors who want to go further, ASTM in particular makes educational packages available for adoption by (especially) college faculty. Instructors who are unsure of their own knowledge base regarding standards can usually get help from the standards organizations or their members, of whom there are thousands all over the country. The international community is also rife with people who do standards development.

So, why do this? Simply, since much of the domestic and world economies rely on standards for the production, purchase, sale and use of all sorts of things, it behooves each of us to know what standards are about. Who knows, someone might even be interested enough to join a committee (ASTM) or participate in some other way. There are career paths available to those who want to do this work for a living, as well. A friend and college classmate spent a career at a major company as a standards engineer. Not a bad deal at all.

Statistics for College Students

2010-06-11T13:24:00.000-07:00

Most college students are required to take at least one mathematically oriented course as part of their degree programs. I'm going to be just a bit self-serving and suggest that, if you are a student with a choice in the matter, choose a statistics class. Why, you may ask?

For many years now, statistics has been a part of our lives generally. We are affected by (some would say assaulted by) statistics in almost every aspect of our lives. Sports are a statisticians dream world. Statistics run rampant through our financial news, and lives. Some of us might even use or want to use statistics at work. That said, how does one choose an appropriate class?

There are two fundamental approaches to statistics. The most common one is called the "frequentist" approach. This is what most of us normally think of when the subject of statistics arises. How to calculate an average. What's the difference between a mean and a median? How do we make sense of a histogram or a pie chart? How do we know if a particular data point should be discarded (is an outlier)? What's six-sigma all about, and so on?

The second methodology is based on a different view of the world (statistically speaking, of course) and traces itself back to the writings of the Reverend Thomas Bayes, an 18th century Englishman. I'm not sure exactly what Rev. Bayes would think of what has come to be called "Bayesian Statistics", but his ghost is now stuck with it.

The central idea is that one can guess at a statistical result (say the probability of an event occurring), make a measurement of some sort, and then modify the prior result based on the measurement. The guess is called a "prior probability" and the modification is referred to as a "posterior probability". I've grossly simplified a whole host of ideas to make a point, so please, if you're a statistician, especially a Bayesian statistician, hold your fire. You can expound to your hearts content in your classrooms.

So the first choice to be made is from amongst these two approaches. For most, the more traditional frequentist approach will serve them best in a first course. Later classes, especially in a graduate or business school setting, can allow for Rev. Bayes to rear his head.

The second decision to be made is the level of mathematical sophistication of that first statistics course. If you're an engineering, science or math major with a good grasp of calculus, you can take the version based on that background without much fear. The concepts will cause much more consternation than any fears over calculating an integral formula. For those without such background preparation, an approach that relies on nothing more than an average high school algebra background will certainly suffice.

In either case, you can expect the usual round of exercises both in class and as assigned homework. Many modern-day courses make use of statistics software and/or statistical calculators to ease some of the arithmetic burden. Try not to let the technology get in the way of the concepts. The best instructors will focus on the latter and not get too overwrought about decimals and digits.

A final point - statistics, like anything else you do in an academic or training setting, gives you back only as much as you're willing to put into it. Read the material. Do the exercises. Ask questions, both in and out of class. Get your time and money's worth. Above all, enjoy what you're doing.

Students Majoring in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) Fields

2010-06-08T12:38:00.001-07:00

-->

A few months ago, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE – I’ve been a member for many years) asked a generic question regarding whether or not we’d recommend that college students major in engineering as opposed to some other field. I would not recommend engineering as a major for most students, and I detailed some reasons for that choice. Others, by about a 2 to 1 ratio, felt the same. Our comments were published in NSPE’s monthly magazine this past April. The latest issue of same contained two “rebuttal” arguments, expressing “shock” and “disappointment”, along with sadness.

Given that I’ve spent the last half century (almost) in engineering and engineering education, I feel the need to comment further, and this is the place to do it, especially given my last post regarding how a student should choose a major, among other things.

First, a bit of personal history. When I was growing up, during the 1950’s and early 60’s, technical fields were all the rage (not what the kids think of as “technology” today). The manned space program was in full flower, and those of us who wore slide rules on their belts and pocket protectors in their shirt pockets were considered rather cool (at least by some). We went off to college just to graduate as the Apollo program was winding down (most of us didn’t realize what was happening then), and the first recession of the 1970’s got under way.

Having witnessed, and been personally involved in several recessions (plant closings, layoffs, cutbacks, downsizings, you name it, we had it) since then, I’ve become rather cautious about recommending anything just based on what appear to be good current job prospects. There has to be more for it to make sense, and that more is a deep desire to pursue the field, regardless of temporary economic conditions. Engineering is not one monolithic field of study. There are many different types of engineers, and numerous programs, all of which have the potential to prepare students for rewarding careers, if they understand exactly what they’re getting into. When students who don’t know about the various branches of engineering ask, I much prefer to steer them toward majors in more generic STEM fields, such as physics, chemistry or math (I’ll leave computer related fields for another day). The more general background, especially at the undergraduate level, provides a student with far more opportunities for exploration than does being locked into a relatively narrow specialty before one has had a chance to sample at least some of the various engineering “flavors”. There’s plenty of time to specialize at the graduate school level, which is almost a requirement for any successful engineering career in the 21^st century.

Two related issues that should be considered are the need for a Professional Engineer’s license and what type of environment is suitable for a particular student. Most large private employers, and by those I mean industrial companies (GE, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Ford, you get the idea), don’t require the typical engineer to hold a license to practice. This is due to exceptions written into most state laws regulating engineering practice.

Firms involved in the design or construction of buildings or facilities place a much higher value on the Professional Engineer license. These can be large or small companies. Certainly, anyone who intends to operate his/her own practice as an individual or partner must be licensed for most projects. Almost all state or local government engineering offices require that at least those “in responsible charge” be licensed by the state in which they are located. Then there are the various laboratories run or sponsored by the Federal Government, or universities, where a doctoral degree (PhD, ScD) is more appropriate to a successful career, and a license is almost useless.

For anyone who wants to work in an environment that requires a license, majoring in engineering at the undergraduate level is the way to go. If you’re thinking in terms of a career in industry, government laboratory or academia, an undergraduate engineering degree can be more burdensome than it’s worth, unless you’re specializing (as I did) in a particular branch that you already know is where you want to be. I’ve always been something of a “lab rat”, and can remember working with my grandfather to cast toy soldiers before I started kindergarten. Ergo, metallurgy.

Just remember that whatever course you choose; make sure that you’re comfortable with both the program, and the environment – that’s why co-op programs and internships are so important. They can keep you from making a huge mistake that will be expensive and time consuming to fix later on. I’ve told students, and still do, that if I can’t talk them out of engineering, then it’s probably the right place for them. If I can talk someone out of it, then maybe that’s not where the heart is.

College Education - What to Do and How Much to Pay

2010-06-06T08:24:00.000-07:00

Some of you may know that I spent about 25 years in the academic world (college education) before giving it up for sunny Florida. People still ask me about the pros and cons of college, so I've come up with a few tidbits that may be worth passing on to others.

My advice to students:

If you're in high school, getting ready to graduate, or are already done with it, and considering what to do next, think about the following:

These days (mid 2010 as I write this) college is not optional unless you're in a skilled trade. Even there, understanding the world on a more sophisticated level will give you a leg up on the competition.

When thinking about what school to attend, and what to study once you get there, be aware of your own sense of what you like to do. Choose a program of study that you like, based either on past exposure (which may be limited, that's why people change majors), or at least some exploratory reading or discussion with people (more than one, please!) who are in the field.

Many people will tell you to work on improving your weaknesses. For most, this is a waste of time. Deal with academic weakness by minimizing the amounts of those subjects to taking what you need to graduate and no more. Spend your time developing your strengths. You'll be happier and much more successful in the long run.

If you'd rather play a video game than study or do some other activity related to your chosen field, re-think why you feel that way. Aside from a small amount of time devoted to relaxation, people watch TV or play video games because they are not engaged by their studies. If this describes you, try to figure out what's not clicking regarding your studies. Again, you should be spending time on things you like to do. This is not the same as active participation in sports or similar activities. If you're willing to stand in a batting cage, or on a driving range all day, then maybe you should see if you have potential as a pro, or teacher/coach, at the very least.

An aside to parents - a good way of seeing whether or not your child is really interested in music, art, dance, or whatever is to see what happens when you threaten to take the instrument away if your student won't practice. If all you get is a ho-hum reaction, then maybe she really doesn't care about being the next great cellist, or whatever.

While in high school, talk to college students. Try to get introduced to professors in your proposed field of study.

After you've made a decision regarding field(s) of study, start researching schools. Find the ones with the best programs in your proposed field. Find out what it takes to get admitted, apply to the schools most likely to accept students like yourself. Look at typical student profiles. Do these folks seem to be like you? If so, go for it. If not, reconsider. You might apply anyway, but if you're not comfortable at a school, you'll be less likely to do well there.

Attend the school that offers you the best deal. This can include scholarships, internships, work-study plans or other incentives. Try not to attend any school that leaves you with a debt load of more than one year's annual salary for a new graduate. Half a year is better, if you can manage it. Graduating from a "name brand" school with a six figure debt load is no way to launch a career. You're getting an education, not buying a place on the social register. (If you are, why are you reading this?)

If money is really tight, or you just can't make up your mind at the beginning, attend a community college. These places have generally excellent programs and very accessible faculty. Take advantage of that access and get to know your professors. They can be immensely helpful, not only now, but later when you need advice or recommendations to move on to 4 year or graduate schools. Once you graduate from the 4 year college, no one will ever ask you which community college you attended (although you might want to volunteer that information if you had a really good experience there).

Make sure that you have some of your own money at risk in terms of paying for college, especially if you've been given gifts over the years intended to cover some of the expense. Parents who pay all the bills do their children a disservice. There's less, much less, incentive if it's not coming out of the student's own pocket, at least to some extent.

BTW, when thinking about the amount of debt you should be carrying on graduation day, include in that figure anything you owe on a credit card or other financing, such as for a car. Again, the total should be no more than what you can earn during your first year of employment after graduation. So, if you need the money for tuition, scrap the car, credit card, spring break in Cancun (or wherever), etc.

Life is tough enough. Try to enjoy what you do with your time on this planet. It may even help you live longer. Good luck.