Everyone who has followed the computer age must be thinking the endless cycle of MS Office upgrading is looking stale now. We can expect a future of it too. The constant revision of MS Office products is straining credibility. Let’s consider this from the selfish perspective of an engineering user, stuck in a time warp.

 Let’s take a case in point. I am a Civil/Structural engineer that mostly works in the drawing office for a large engineering house in the Oil and Gas business. I am in a business that still prides itself on being a pen and paper tradition. And for the most part, rightly or wrongly, this is what we’re teaching the incoming graduates to respect. To make life really interesting there is always the specter of the boss looking over your shoulder, worried you were wasting time on unproductive tools like MS Word.

 My story begins back in 1997, I worked on a major refinery project for overseas client where the client Lead Engineer insisted that the calculations were clear, presentable, visually-driven, numbered, consistent and checkable. He wanted to be confident in our work. I had the opportunity to find a way to achieve this using Word 95. I grew up on Word 95 and found a way for it to work spectacularly in preparing my calculations. From the previous age of WordStar wordprocessing, this was a stellar improvement.

 I was effectively using Word 95 as a desktop tool. We planned the headings, preparing much of it in advance; we reduced the burden of inputs, moved bulky information to appendices and focused on summarizing and collecting the salient points of the analysis, whether it was from Excel, MathCAD, STAADpro or other third party application. We used the calculation as the starting point for the designers and built in checklist for multi-disciplinary issues and for the checker. The most important feature of the calculation was to be visual; we minimized the writing and the calculations looked like a natural extension of the traditional ways being refreshed with technology. You could flip through the pages and all you would see were diagrams, numbers and a logical flow. It was all commonsense, practical, educational and prolific.

This so impressed the client engineer that the method was rolled out across the project and I was training engineers how to do what I was doing. At the conclusion of the project, we found it was faster, more productive and engineers enjoyed the new methodology. The checking exercise was easier and the confidence level and interaction within the team was high. We had engineers wanting to join the large project to have the chance to learn. It was the way to go.

The project finished and everyone went their separate ways to new projects, new offices armed with new skills. MS Office then ‘upgraded’ Word to Word 97. The defaults were changed and different routines were incorporated for embedding graphics, indexing and so on. The engineers, who had barely learned a new methodology, fell at the first hurdle didn’t recognize how to do what they had learned to do before. In their new project environment, surrounded by new skeptics, they shrugged their shoulders and gave up and reverted to the old ways.

By the time Word 2003 came along, it took me nearly eighteen months to find my way back to what I was doing before. In my opinion, Word 2003 is in no way better than Word 95. So why did MS Office bother to upgrade?

The truth is, people and businesses buy the technology and the software supply is all wrapped up in the hardware deal, even if they don’t know how to use the software and only use it if they have to. Isn’t there something wrong with that picture? Yes, the MS Office developers are aware of this so they did another pow-wow. Something is clearly wrong with the old ways, even the programmers hate the old Word packages and no one wants to be a plumber on an old package; hardly the stuff of legends is it? They asked themselves, is it possible to create a MS Office product that people want to use?  Word 2007 was born.

The advertising, the hype, the rave reviews and the excitement in the wake of Word 2007 did not work for the engineers. Just another day in the bizarre world of yet more change for the sake of change and professional pride. So can you imagine taking what you know in earlier Word versions and going into Word 2007 with enthusiasm? This is another excuse for a Babel Tower again. In no way is Word 2007 better or faster than Word 2003.

The defaults in Word 2007 are worse than Word 2003, which are in turn worse than Word 95. I am about to shrug my shoulders and give up using MS Word altogether.

In truth, I have found a way, but I am shaking my head in profound sadness. The MS Office team is doing nothing to advance the opportunity to achieve a minimum of computer literacy within our profession. We are more than twenty years into the desktop computer age and engineers do not know how to use Word. The constant upgrade challenges people to change and most will resist at the best of times. I am in a losing battle with the proposition that we can transition our pen and paper tradition to better ways with a strategic method using Word XXXX. Literacy cannot be inspired overnight with a new package. Literacy takes years of constant use and then a few more years to find the courage to share your ideas with your colleagues and then a few more years to agree the best practices and a collective way to perform.

So what can I recommend? If I could have ten minutes with the MS Office team what would I tell them? Nowadays, MS Office are into exciting new tools like Project but they are overlooking the fact that Word 2007 is not going to change anything except to get ready to frustrate the current generation on Word 2007 users with whatever they plan for Word 2010. It complicates unnecessarily. From a selfish perspective, I want to continue to use Word 95. There was nothing wrong with it.

Dating a product, implies Word 2007 is better than Word 2003 is better than Word 95. So the user will go out and buy the upgrade. The wheels of business must keep turning. MS Office would be horrified if nobody advanced beyond Word 95.  Using the same product for fifteen years is not the way for MS Office to make money.

By analogy, I don’t have a great distance to go between point A and point B just across town so I will use my moped and take the shortcuts I know. Over time, the shortcuts get blocked and one way signs appear. The route is getting longer to my objective but I have a car now so it works out to be a little different. Now the road is dug up and a new flyover is built and I have to work out how to get onto the flyover first to go a little distance and get off again. Now, I need to pass a driving test as well. You know what, forget it, I will leave the car at home and walk.

When I tell engineers I can teach them how to use Word 2003 to produce calculations prolifically; many will say, I know Word 2003 I want to know how to use Word 2007. They know how to use Word 2003? And now they cheerfully want to use Word 2007? I should call their bluff on Word 2003 because Word 2007 is so far off the radar screen in terms of practicality, defaults and usability! You have to retrain. And in my business, companies do not train engineers in anything to use MS Office so it is another end of the line and resetting the literacy clock to zero.

Many engineers will try to discover Word 2007 but how many engineers have bought the reference manuals and it sits at home gathering dust?

If I were MS Office, I would rebrand Word 95 and call it WordEng. Let the engineers, as users, design the product over time towards the ideal desktop application we were looking for, before Frontpage got hijacked by Publisher in the internet war of html. I would ensure the question of literacy and competency is addressed over the longer period of time. I bet a product like this would be popular outside the engineering profession as it would be methodical, simplified and intuitive. There are so many little ways MS Office team could improve Word 95 and we would have a product that grow deep roots.

Nothing is more aggravating than to get a Word 2007 attachment file that cannot be opened because you don’t have Word 2007. So you upgrade, right?

That was Word 2007, don’t get me started on Excel 2007.

These global-brand EPC companies for the most part have not changed their business model in response to the economic crisis of the last year; they expect to carry on as before. However, the last year has created an opportunity for many Oil and Gas operators to close down or stall major capital projects on their books. The shock wave was felt throughout Alberta. While for some people the green shoots of recovery are evident, the hard lessons remain for many suppliers, contractors, engineers, designers and shareholders. Shareholders of the oil and gas operators will demand prudence and will not want to see the old customary dance of the mega-project routine repeated.

Now is a perfect time for engineers to collaborate and create a new business model. Engineers should not sit passively on the sideline waiting for crumbs of work from the big EPC companies, finding their way back into the big business. Shareholders will demand prudence, performance and confidence so the likelihood of the oil and gas operators to experiment with lumpsum contracts is high. This will open the flood gate of Alberta industry to international competition. One thing became starkly clear from the last year. Alberta cannot compete on the open market for work elsewhere. Engineers often have many years global experience of working in the Oil and Gas sector and we know the current Albertan strategy is not ideal or competitive. While the Albertan government will accept corporate royalties and help bring foreign labour and trade investment to the patch, they do little to support the grassroot expertise of engineers in Alberta and export it. At this time, we cannot expect help to come from the federal government to promote Alberta as an industrial centre of excellence, they have left that responsibility to market forces and the whim of major EPC companies.

Some of the current crop of EPC companies knows how to break themselves into smaller business units (thinking small) to operate and compete in the new market but are likely to find them marginalized as the major players frustrate the experience for clients and bring the loci back to traditional ways. The culture of Lumpsum contracts requires engineering excellence and experience, minimum numbers of managerial positions, higher productivity and good teamwork. This is a fertile breeding ground for excellent engineering but is the change welcome in Alberta?

So what would a new business model look like?

The best analogy I can offer is Air Canada and Westjet. Air Canada is a tradition with a worldwide reputation and considered a major player in providing national and international air transportation. They have a multitude of options, destinations, a complex fare structure and extensive customer service facility. Since the demise of Canadian Airlines and its absorption into Air Canada, there have been several attempts by the likes of Jetsgo, Harmony, Roots Air and Canjet to take on the scheduled air dominance of Air Canada. Sadly, none of them succeeded. WestJet, on the other hand, has not only survived but seems to be emerging as a challenger to Air Canada.

WestJet started as a low cost regional carrier focused on the west but they have moved into the high density markets of Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Halifax where they are meeting with considerable success in what has traditionally been Air Canada territory. WestJet is now flying in the USA and the Caribbean. These markets were dominated by Air Canada, who had a significant market share advantage over their upstart rival. However, Air Canada can no longer ignore the new competitive reality they find themselves in – the days of WestJet being a niche domestic player are over. Westjet’s business model is based on the European experiences and they did not duplicate any of Air Canada’s ways of doing business. Westjet are still expanding their and no one doubts their ability to expand further. As a frequent commuter between Ottawa and Calgary, I know the Westjet business model provides the cheapest and reliable way for me to fly from Calgary to Ottawa, and in eighteen months I have only been late once, by 20 minutes.

The Westjet price is the same for everybody, is cheaper, always on time, comfortable, fast check-in, no fuss and there is free satellite tv. The friendly Westjet personnel from the pilot to the cabin crew and ticket counter, all work together to clean the plane, as you are deplaning.

The present economic downturn has been particularly tough for Air Canada as well as most other major carriers and this has resulted in the usual cost-cutting measures, downsizing staff and cutting routes. WestJet has certainly not been spared by our present economic hardships but, rather than pull back, they are taking advantage of the situation and continuing their expansion plans. On international routes, Air Canada is still a major power and WestJet has barely scratched the surface. Air Canada’s powerful frequent flier program, well respected website, membership in the Star Alliance and worldwide perception as “Canada’s airline” are formidable competitive assets.  No one douts, airline competition is good for the consumer. In the short term, the heated rivalry over USA and the Caribbean markets result in significant price wars. And so it goes on. The story continues. Competition is most certainly intensifying and Air Canada will not give up its dominance without a fight, so for the consumer this can only be a good thing. Bring it on!

When we as consumers pay Air Canada fares, they in turn have to pay a lot more people than Westjet, to cover their management, support teams, shareholders and advertising. Westjet has a smaller pyramid of management, do not pay for cleaning, foods, tiered booking programs and also minimize and standardize their advertising. We pay for different things. I will bank on Westjet every time for my travel needs in Canada and the USA and look forward to their international ambitions.

Now substitute “global EPC companies” for Air Canada and “Collaborating group of Engineers” for Westjet and re-read the narrative. While it reads like a David and Goliath story, there is more to it. Let’s call the Collaborating group of Engineers, Collage Inc. This is essentially a team of say, three or four engineers with many years experience and expertise in the Oilsand business.

As a team they approach the client with their proposal for design work and demonstrate what they can bring to the table and how much it costs and they save. If the clients are familiar with their experience and ability, they will find it hard to beat the bottom line of engineers in the frontline. If there is a deal agreed, then Collage Inc. will be able to recruit from their network the engineers and designer they need to execute the job, paying them top market rates and integrating them into the teamwork culture. Collage Inc will also use profit share with all participating team players, vendors and contractors who contribute to the success. Collage can propose a similar challenge, as Westjet does to Air Canada, to the way engineering solutions are provided to the client.

As a team, they will likely have intimate knowledge of the client project and know of a multitude of ways to improve the design to save on material, schedules and costs. The client saves money because they are paying engineers directly, without the baggage of management of the traditional EPC companies. Why does it make a difference?

Traditional EPC firms invest in technology and management to deliver the project. The expensive investment in technology requires continual training of designers, diluting the experienced engineering pool through budgetary challenges. The management also seeks to deploy workshare options, diluting further the resources for engineers locally. More and more engineering decisions are being made by management and when they don’t work, as they manifest on site, the engineers are blamed. Productivity is more important than the right solution and even this cannot be managed. Only in Alberta will you hear designers and engineers say, “There’s no time. The site team will sort it out”. Cost and schedule overruns are common. The contracts are commonly cost-reimbursable and do not include incentives for improved designs or schedule completion.

Collage Inc invests in engineers with experience. Productivity does not require expensive technology but will flow from experience. A central tenet of the company is team-building, communication, training and enthusiasm. As collaborating engineers, they will pride themselves on delivering quality solutions at great savings and within budgets. Scheduling and the management of the schedule will follow from the engineering path agreed. All work is executed locally and achieved to meet the deadlines. Productivity is achieved through good standards, good details, good communication, teamwork and repetition. This culture will bring in the opportunity for cost-savings incentives.

The tagline for Collage Inc. would read something like, “We are engineers who manage the project, not managers who engineer the project.”

The decisions and market conditions that framed the mega-projects of pre-2008 economic restructuring have changed considerably. Many projects were ‘first’ in size, scope, schedule and concept but the recent economic and market conditions have changed the landscape substantially.

Now, Oil and gas Operators have an opportunity to benefit from the collective of the best engineers available in Alberta, directly. These are engineers with long experiences as engineers, managers and site experiences to major Oilsands project. So if you have fifteen to twenty years experience in the Oil and Gas industry, a reputation you are proud of, long service to a particular client and you know a few other engineers who think as you do then it is time, it is your time to step up to the plate and help keep the green shoots of recovery faster. Collaborate and talk. Clients will listen. If the idea is strong enough, all else will follow. Maybe then, we can get the Alberta government to help engineers with the grant writing. Be warned though the extraordinary length the major EPC companies will go to protect their business, which would include operating at a loss.

It may appear naive to many engineers and managers but we do live in changing times. The seeds of the future are in the hands of the few. We either wait for the corporations or the inspirations. I know what I am looking.

My coal-mining grandfather didn’t mean to but he inspired me to become an engineer. He regaled me with the stories of Doncaster, puffing on his pipe. We’d be standing in the middle of nowhere, Cusworth Country Park looking at the gentle rolling countryside. He’d be puffing on his pipe and he’d tell me we were standing on a roman road that ran straight to London. I’d think he was pulling my leg. Next he’d tell me Doncaster was a fishing port in them days. Oh come on! Grandad! Aye it’s true lad. With great affection I remember his patience in telling me the stories of the great lords of engineering and his own contributions to safety in the mines in the days before mechanization. My grandfather, from a family of twelve brothers (all down the mines), started work with the pit ponies at the age of eleven. He saw the general strike of 1929, he was refused military duty for the second world war and fought to keep Scargill from the mines and lost. When he retired he had spent 52 years down the mines and didn’t miss a day of it and wouldn’t wish a moment on anyone. He defined stoicism, pride and intelligence. Mechanization and the world economy changed the coal business in Britain forever. And my grandfather was indeed right about all the things he ever told me. Miners like him are extinct now.

The coal Britain produced for over a hundred years fuelled the mighty industrial revolution and the great lords of engineering ruled everything. One such great talent was Isambard Kingdom Brunel. He came from a family escaping the French revolution. His father Marc Brunel is credited with the first factory for making the threaded holes in wooden blocks for the rigging of the sailing ships, and boots for Wellington’s army. The end of the Napoleonic wars probably spelt doom for their ventures. Isambard went to university in Paris while his father avoided bankruptcy. Brunel had his first site experience on the first Thames tunnel and nearly lost his life; he designed the greatest sailing ships the world had ever seen, the fastest train time to Bristol and the first suspension bridge. An extraordinary talent who died at the young age of 54 from overwork. He was brash, aggressive but also a man who lived in the future.

Where was I? The desktop computer, the second age. But hang on whatever happened to the first age? The first age was ruled by mighty mainframes getting bigger aye lad. Puff puff, It were brilliant, structural engineers and mathematicians were the rulers of it. Puff puff. It were not pretty but it put man on the moon, built nuclear submarines and designed earthquake-safe bridges. Good enough for me. Then some booger comes along and puts a desktop computer out. Puff puff. What he’d do that for? Can you hear my grandad ? That’s me now!

Quite simple, profit. Mass market, mass opportunity. Sort yourselves out chaps, well done thank you. Go go. I am not sure if Brunel had an accent but nothing stopped him, parliament, limits, or any other engineer. Maybe Bill Gates could measure up to Brunel but I am not so sure. At least Bill is a gentleman although he was aggressive in pursuit of his goal and he saw the future too. But Bill left a mortal wound in the structural engineering profession and it could continue to bleed us dry.

However, in pursuit of their own agenda, the structural analysis programmers, the lords of the second age undertook a pyramidal effort to build the best structural analysis programs. While the engineers struggled to come to terms with Windows for Workgroup 3.11 Lotus 123 and Symphony were slashing it out for the top spot only to become Excel. The rapid proliferation of computer languages, opportunities, diversities, continual upgrades and revisions left the engineers dispirited and exhausted trying to keep up. The structural analysis programmers saw an opportunity to capitalize and with a wink said, “we’ll take care of that.” And we accepted it. We turned out backs on the world and became specialists. Now when we analyze, we hit the button and file it.

The diversity the desktop technology brought, in terms of better pay in newly spawned industries and the old boys hanging their hats to retire, left us bleeding and lacking continuity. At one time calculations were the engineers pride and joy, with the power of the pencil he could draw the problems out to match anything Brunel designed. Now we are walking backwards into a tar pit of mediocrity and killing our potential productivity too.

Compare the ages. One age was the t-square on upright boards, rotring pens, pin ups, smoking, constant banter, slide rules, well-thumbed tables and a huge draughty hall. To be an engineer then was to be respected and leading the team. The current age is a silent sea of computers, cubicles, privacy, no tables, and a sterile office. The engineer is becoming a figurehead. The defaults of the new technology overwhelmed us and we sacrificed quality to third party. The modern programmers don’t realize the terrible mess they have left in their wake to innovate technology again and again. I am not nostalgic, I am worried, am I alone in what I see?

The major difference for me, is the calculations. I learned my trade and craft from the power of good calculations. It would simplify, educate and be a work of art to appreciate. I see a calculation today and it will likely be disappointing, difficult to read and very detailed. Is this the path into the future? Engineers have the power to change their roles and prove their ability but they have to be inspired. We live in the age of defaults and we have to break those too.

I lived in two eras and I believe we are facing extinction in the third. Puff puff. Now like my grandad, I am leaning on the fence staring into eternity wondering what Brunel would say?

Sin #2 Pasting pictures/tables from Excel directly.  You have spent time formatting your tables in Excel and now you want to include it in your calculation. You find when you paste directly you will either spend hours trying to replicate the table properties in your document, or choose to print it separately. Anything you bring into Word, you must use the Edit> Pastes Special> Picture (JPEG) format. This means MS Word will not tamper or adjust hidden settings it would normally recognize. In the imported item. Selecting Picture means it puts its hands up and lets you insert your picture/table unmolested! If you need to change the table, you go back to the source document and re-insert the new table. No time is wasted. Now we’re using MS Word as a desktop publisher.

Sin #3: Not enough information on a page.  Including graphics from external sources should be resized so as to fit as much information on a page. The human eye reads drawings faster than the words on the page. Showing plans, sections and elevations from a StaadPro output, typically spawned across twenty pages is difficult to coordinate in the mind. Reducing all the drawings to a single page means a single page can be viewed and the mind can construct the visual information instantly. This single page becomes the valuable blueprint for the designers, third-party, multi-disciplines and the client.

Sin #4: Too much writing in calculations: A calculation is different to a report, it should not betray one’s culture or proficiency in language. A calculation is a series of logical numbers and diagrams arranged in a methodical and practical manner. In calculations, you build your pages around the plan, even if there is only three lines on one page, or another page is jammed full of sketches and diagrams. In calculations, you do not need to worry about headers and header numbering. Where the report is the written justification, the calculation is the visual collection of the relevant numbers and diagrams. The report must show the correct use of language, the calculations must show the correct use of theory, units and numbers. Do not mix these. If you cannot spell, get someone to check all spelling.

Sin #5:  Writing your headlines and/or body copy in ALL CAPS.  Research has shown that people find reading text that is typeset in all caps extremely difficult to read as well as very annoying, especially body copy written in all caps.  If you want appreciative readers for your calculations, do not use all caps for any text, especially body copy. Using default line thickness for tables and lines are similarly “loud” and annoying.

Sin #6:  Not using page/section breaks properly.  There are two types of end-of-line return. These are soft ( as you type more than a page width) and hard line return(where you hit the enter key.) As each page is built to a plan, you do not want to use a continual series of end returns to find your way to the next page. Use the page section break(control + enter keys). This prevents future changes impacting and pushing empty lines onto the next page when you add new lines of text or a graphical image.

Sin #7: Not using visuals. Relegating quality of results to third party applications is bad enough but presenting endless reams of results without any visuals to the reader is poor form. The checker will not appreciate the lack of effort. Rather than write, as in a report, use diagrams and visual aids to follow the logic of the calculations. Learning to draw in Word is very easy and fast. Importing visuals from outside Word is also a simple and powerful tool. The imported visuals can be embellished further by annotations and highlighting key features. 

Sins #8 – 27.  Yes, there are far more than 7 deadly sins of MS Word in engineering calculations, and sadly, your team is probably making most of them, thus killing the readership and undermining the productivity by proving that Word does not work for them .

These suggestions are a snapshot from The Engineer’s Word, the first book in a series of The Mote Method. Available from www.trafford.com or www.amazon.com. The Mote Method is intended for the corporate engineering environment to support excellent calculations rather than the commercial development of engineering spreadsheets and programs.

 The Mote Method is about:

• Creating effective calculations;
• Rules of good layout;
• Looking after the formats;
• How to show assumptions graphically;
• Designing and creating visual tools, such as flowcharts, key diagrams and hyperlinks; and
• How to design spreadsheets for the future.

This level of respect for the calculations will show tremendous educational benefits for future graduates, clients and practicing engineers.

As one of the world’s unique training firm for engineers in the design office, Motagg Solutions focuses on demonstrating how only 10% of MS Word generate stunning results in improved productivity for your team. The Mote Method is a tried and tested principles developed by Dr Robert Mote, working in the frontline of the real world — and it shows. The Mote Method goes beyond MS Word and looks at MS Excel and VBA. The Mote Method has helped generate powerful results for many of the world’s most prestigious companies, including:

• ABB Lummus Global, NL –Shell Seraya Project
• AMEC, UK – FPSO Bonga Project
• Fluor, UK – Kuwait KOC GC25  Plant, Kazakhstan SGI/SGP Tengizchevroil
• Fluor Canada – CNRL  Horizon Project, New Delhi team.
• Jacob Canada – Suncor Firebag Project, Mumbai, Charleston teams

http://wp.me/pu3p4-2k

I agree with their main thrust. Next year, I plan to expand into audiovisual examples using Adobe Captivate, or Camtasia. This will ensure the message gets over faster.

I recently had an interesting conversation with a manager (VP) of a large engineering firm who was curious how I could claim to succeed where no one has succeeded before. He was very experienced and we were able to discuss in step-by-step details, relating to a piperack design,  how engineers could improve productivity. He was resigned at the end, bcause he felt his team would disagree. He would rather wait until t ws too late. It wasa lot of information, he doesn’t know me and he has never heard of what I proposed, or seen it done this way, but he was intrigued.

At the heart of it, engineering design firms are ‘conservative’ and the talented manager sitting at the top, looking for a small commercial advantage, believe if they cannot do it themselves, how can they expect other engineers to do it? The thinking is to rely on technological advances in 3D models, drawing production tools and ignore the delays by engineering work processes. Managers believe they are still engineers second, and do not believe it can be done so it won’t be done. Standard practices prevail.

Following recent comments on my published articles, engineers across all disciplines have kindly replied and expressed agreement with my suggestions. They do understand it can be done. and it is so simple. The major obstacles to productivity have been more personal than we realise. Recently, the IBM president spoke to his company and said that the days of innovative technologies are over, it is time for innovative processes. He is so right! The engineers have still not caught on to the opportunities of everyday computer programs of the last fifteen years. You can double your productivity easily just by understanding a simple innovative process designed for engineers.

Professional people do not use MS Office tools well. MS Office programmers know it too which is what they hoped to turn around with Office 2007. They unwittingly created the problem in the first place but they have never fixed the blindspot in their thinking. I will discuss this more next week.

Every manager I have worked with is poor in Word, Excel and VBA skills. Read it again. Every one of them, I mean really poor and strictly it is disgraceful. And they are the ones who discourage the opportunity to use these tools in the engineer’s work but they will spend millions on the next technology advantage so that some unqualified designers can design a refinery in two weeks, without an engineer in sight. I always heard the mantra, “site will sort it”. When this happens this pushes problems to the site team which does not have an engineering bean in its body and now have to resolve constructability issues in the details. They blame the engineers for the stupidities and costs and schedule overruns.

Computer illiteracy within the engineering profession is rampant and is now the number one enemy of productivity. People are laughing at their own frustrations and managers are blocking the path to better processes because they couldn’t do it or they don’t see it. A positively Dilbertian view.

I have worked on the same project, 4 years now,  from cradle to completion.  I work on site and I see it can be done, so much better.  The next company that embraces what I propose will enjoy enormous advantages, save money and become market leaders in engineering.

It can be done,  just do it. Swish swish Swish, The Mark of Zorro

 This is like some glossy magazine pop quiz! Without the gloss.

 Ask yourself these questions;

1)      Do you like doing calculations?

1. Hate it
2. Avoid it at all cost
3. Got to do it
4. Love it

2)      Are you proud of your calculations?

1. Didn’t understand the question
2. The bigger the better, I aim for size!
3. Would like to be but got to admit, there’s something wrong.
4. Definitely. It is planned, easy to read and pleasant.

3)      Have you ever picked up a calculation that made you sit up and enjoy?

1. What planet are you on? You don’t enjoy calculations!
2. Never, only my own.
3. I read one a long time ago that was good
4. Keep hoping.

4)      When did you last train on MS Word?

1. waste of time, I am not a secretary.
2. Never, I hate it.
3. bought the reference, haven’t had time
4. My boss is all over me to do all the training

5)      When did you last train on MS Excel?

1. waste of time, I use MathCAD
2. Never, I know how to use it well
3. Forget it, I am into Access
4. Everybody loves my spreadsheets

6)      When was the last time you had any formal PC training?

1. Don’t need it
2. Only lunch and learn sessions
3.  Don’t know what I need to know!
4. Looked up courses at college, went for Professional Development

How did you do?

Score as follows: a) zero, b) one, c) two, d) three

Reveal yourself ! Imagine this, 80% of engineers spend 80% of their time doing calculations and they cannot tell you how they feel about their calculations.  Strange situation. 

0-6 points: Sometimes you wonder why you are an engineer. People annoy you and you hate checking calculations. You are set in your ways and will resist change at all costs. You spend time thinking about what else you could be doing. Fortunately, you don’t really exist!

6-12 points: You often work alone and don’t talk about your calculations. You like to spend more time with the analysis and find preparing the calculations are a tedious last minute task. You neglect to talk to other disciplines and spend little time with the designers. The idea of working to deadlines is not terribly exciting.

12-18 points: You are an enthusiastic engineer open for change. You find yourself stuck in a rut wondering how to become a better engineer. You want to meet the deadlines but there is so much work to do and so little time. Under the pressure of a deadline, you also spend a lot of time checking calculations and wonder if it they are adequate. You know calculations are vital tools of the trade. You look in bookshop for inspirations.

19-24 points: You are well on the way to being a better engineer for trying to find the ways to improve your calculations. You know good calculations means good engineering. Confusion and miscommunications are avoided because you think about the reader, the users and talk all the time to all people who have an interest in your work. You are a clever engineer who learned to be smart.

 To break the strait-jacket thinking, engineers need to look at the way they work:

• Brainstorm the details together
• Talk to each other
• Work together, not in isolation
• Break the work into smaller components
• Perform more frequent regular checks.
• Be visual in your work
• Identify, agree and focus on the key component of the design
• Avoid automatically performing 3D analysis
• Use analysis to verify the thinking.
• Leave the analysis towards the end of the design cycle
• Think about the reader
• Do not keep a history of superseded pages in the calculations
• Ensure the calculations are an active component of the design office cycle
• The calculations are a minimum basis for design, not the final.
• Go electronic
• Talk about your job, all the time!

I posted it to a group of process engineers to see if it resonated with them and I have to say I really like this group of inquisitive and bright engineers. They actively use the internet to find and share information. I will be spending more time with them! Very illuminating comments.

Did you know? As Michael Caine would say:

Your comments are absolutely correct. I also have seen the “dumbing down” of our calculations, but I think one of the most interesting is how you can use EXCEL to demonstrate that 1/0 = 1319.07

In cell B2, enter the value 1
In cell B3, enter the equation =1/B2
Then, using goal seek, set the value of cell B3 to zero by adjusting the value in cell B2. Always converges to 1319.07

Keith mentions the effect of changing the starting point of a calculation to change convergence. In EXCEL, if you begin with “2″ in cell B2 instead of “1″, it changes the convergence … it changes to 1/0 = 1007.68

Very repeatable

What is frightening is the fact that millions of calculations have been done using goal seek in EXCEL, and people do not understand how it actually works.

This came from John Westover and I didn’t know this. I had, for the longest time, limited myself to only 10% of Excel and avoided learning such possibilities but goodness me, what they don’t tell you!

As a result of all of that effort, I am staying on Firebag for the foreseeable future.

Seminars have been posted for end July. In-house corporate work is going to be the focus for the next few months. Articles will start being released in August and continue monthly until December.

Now as the dust settles, I will finish the third book.