Business studies in engineering degree

by M. J. Lanigan

This article contends that excellence in product des@ is now a suwival requirementfor British manufatwing induxtry, and that most Britkh engineering degree courses deliver graduates ill-equkped with the requisite skills. Come enhancements designed to eradicate this unhappy coincidence are proposed and an implementation strategy is outlined.

Introduction

n an earlier article’ the author ouhned several technology-related reacons for the long-standing decline in British manufacturing industry. These I are:

mismanagement of K&D misunderstanding of the relative itnportance of science and engineering the conflict between university and industry cultures

0 inadequate engineering education inadequate management education.

The first three items on this list largely stem h m the last two. Thus part of solving a central problem in the UK economy turns 011 correcting deficiencies in the technological education of non-engineering managers in industry and government. This issue is not examined here. Deficiencies in the formative business education of professional engineers are just as damaging. Ths article first illustrates why thic is so. It goes on to identify i r h t business studles are appropriate in engineering degree courses, and then examines 1mv they should be taught.

Why are appropriate business studies important?

Competitive product des@ is n suwivd ppirement Reversal of the decline of British manufacturing

industry depends on it becoming more competitive in international markets. At national level, history has shown that currency devaluation, whether deliberate or accidental, brings only transient improvements. At individual business level, the most obvious way to become more conipetitive is to reduce prices. But profit may then fall below that critical point where dividends and invectnient cannot both be kept at their survival levels. The arrival of this lethal situation is made more certain if a price war develops. It can be postponed, or even avoided altogether, if costs are reduced in line with prices. But product values (as perceived by potential customers) may then fall below that critical point where they become uncompetitive despite their reduced price. So the threat of a downward spiral to oblivion is inherent in the simplistic price-cut and/or cost-cut policy aimed at improved coinpetitiveness. Too much of our manufacturing industry has already achieved oblivion in this way Additionally, it is a policy which forces the nation towards a low-wage low-tech economy where we must increasingly compete with developing nations offering lower wages and higher technology.

However, the gloomy future promised by this analysis need not happcn. Part of the escape strategy is paying less attention to isolated financial nostrums and recognising that it is competitive product vnluefor money which attracts and retains customers rather than just low prices. So the survival and, even more so, the prosperity of a business twns on

0 creating products that customers want to buy and 0 doing so at costs low enough for competitive prices

to yield profits able to fund both attractive rewards to the business’s owners and adequate invest~nent in it5

future.

There is no new magic here. The formula has long been used by our successful international competitors. It is called ‘competitive product design’.

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATIONJOURNAL APRIL 1994

65

~ _ _ ~ --

+ - - . . . - -. - - - - . . 4 The market place . - - - - - - - - - - . - - .

Customers. Competitors, Constraints

Fig. 1 The essentials of a manufacturing business

Product design connects the product market to product manufacture

In this context, product design is much more than the technical product development and design (TPD&D) activity which it includes within its orbit. Here, product design is:

e the process of seelung a match between a set of customer-derived product requirements and an acceptable way of meeting those requirements.

This comprehensive definition of the whole process places it between the market place for the products offered by the business and the manufacturing operation which makes them. It chiefly involves the marketing, technical and production functions. This is illustrated in Fig. 1, which is a simphfied view of a manufacturing business showing only those functions hrectly involved in creating and s e h g its products.

Achieving ‘conipetitive’ product design requires that the process is managed to create products offering valuelprice ratios at least as high, and preferably hgher, than those of sirmlar competing products. This is the ‘competitive product value for money’ requirement noted earlier.

The word ‘acceptable’ in the definition of product design set out above is particularly important. It applies equally to the customer and to the business creating the product. Thus the ‘match’ within the definition is always a compromise between what the custonier wants and what the customer can have if the business is to survive. Businesses which survive and prosper are those which get these compromises mostly right. The

compromises involve all the business functions shown in Fig. 1, but they are fashoned by the engineers responsible for the technological configuration of the product.

The role ofprofexsional engineers Fig. 1 shows that TPD&D is cenual within the

whole product design process. (It is equally so when a business subcontracts its TPD&D requirements to another specialist business.) This professional engineer- ing activity is aimed at shaping the technological configuration of the product to meet defined cost and quality targets. The acceptable way of meeting the customer-derived product requirements is emboded in the quahty target. Excellent TPDBtD is the key to creating a competitive product. The work is supported by pure (untainted by commercial motives!) research in universities and basic research in industry conducted mostly by scientists. These link into TPDPrD via applied research conducted, usually by professional engineers. Generally, basic and applied research are only found in the larger businesses seekmg to exploit leadmg-edge technology.

(This five phase process of technological innovation which starts with pure research and ends with technical product design is commonly and confusingly, called ‘research and development’. The jargon dangerously conceals a relatively complex StfllCNre, which must be understood if technological innovation is to be properly managed. This topic is examined in Ref. 2.)

The manufacturing (or ‘production’) engineering activity at thc intcrfacc between the technical and production functions (see Fig. 1) is also a critical

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL APRIL 1994

66

element within the whole product design process. This, too, is work for professional engineers.

So the role of professional engineers exercising their professional skills in manufacturing industry is

the application of technology to wealth creation by creating cost-effective solutions (called ‘products’) to human needs and problems.

This is a reasonable definition ofprofessional engineer- ing. Tt is the ambition and destiny of most graduate engineers that join manufacturing industry. So the long-term survival and prosperity of that mdustry depends critically on their professional competence.

Skills neededfor professional engineering competence It follows that the skills demanded of a competent

professional engineer are those needed for excellent TPDBrD. But the required mix of SUS goes well beyond the expected expertise in a set of product technologies, vital though this is. This is because that skill must be exercised in an environment of business objectives and constraints. Trahtionally, however, the early education of British engineers concentrated on product technologies with exposure to the business sigdcance of this basic expertise assigned to training and experience in industry (where, on balance, it was sadly neglected because its high retudinvestment ratio has not been understood). It is now widely recognised that this unreal separation of the tech- nologies from their business context damages the formation of rounded professional engineers.

This is why appropriate business studies in engineering degree courses are important. Here, ‘appropriate’ means that they must equip the graduates for their pivotal role in the whole product design process, and that they must be properly taught.

Why is the current situation unsatisfactory?

Most university engineering courses now contain a business studies component introduced following publication of The Engineering Council’s SARTOR’ policy statement in 1984. Ths policy is reflected in the course accreditation requirements+’ which the engineering institutions now place on academic engineering departments. These requirements are generally nonprescriptive in both content and volunie and, although design is perceived as permeating the whole course, the meaning and extent of ‘design’ is not defined.

For this reason and some others (see later) business studies are usually treated as a minor subject rather than as a major topic underpinning all the technology stuhes. And, worse, the material is often taught by campus speciahsts from nonengineering disciplines who cannot bring an engineering perspective and motivation to its presentation. A ‘management for engineers’ approach is virtually assured when the topic

is handled in t h s way. It is bound to fail in its purpose of preparing graduate engineers for their industrial careers because, firstly, it is irritatingly patronising-on a par with ‘accounting for women’-and, secondly, it comprises a miscellany of management topics in a mix determined by teacher availability rather than by the end result required. Any coherent connection with technology, engineering and the whole product design process is unhkely.

Ths is why deficiencies in the current formative business education of professional engineers are so damaging.

What are the appropriate business studies?

Product dessign sets the topics The effectiveness of the professional engineers at the

technological heart of the whole product design process largely depends on their ability to communi- cate properly across the functional boundaries shown in Fig. 1. Such communication is most efficient when the parties share the same mission, understand each others’ part in it, and speak the same language. With this in mind, the SUS needed by these engineers emerge from the definition of the process. These skills are:

(1) expertise in the relevant product technologies (2) understanding of the overall operation of

manufacturing businesses, and especially of marketing, technological innovation and production

(3) appreciation of the critical nature of time and money in a business environment

(4) financial literacy, because the language of money is the language of business

(5) management, especially technical managenlent, SUS and expertise in the technological aspects of product design.

Item 1 on this list is not a concern here. Most university engineering degree courses, especially those which recognise that engineering is not science, deliver graduates well-equipped in this respect. I tem 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the (customer-derived) requirements which should mould the business studies component of such courses. Items 2, 3 and 4 comprise vital background knowledge whch every manager in manufacturing industry should have. (The fact that many non- engineering managers lack any real understandmg of technological and production matters was noted earlier.) Note that ‘management’ appears explicitly only in Item 5, which gives priority to technical mat!agenient.

There is an important point here. This is not the conventional ‘management for engineers’ approach to business studies. There is no merit in seelang to deliver even first-level industrial managers &om an engineering degree course: time is too limited, the students are (usually) too inexperienced, and industry

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL APRIL 1994

67

~ ~

Fig. 2 The basic structure of the product requirements definition methodology (from Reference 8)

is too sceptical. Indeed, it is a worthy achievement if the new graduates can manage themselves properly. The aim of the business studies must be to instil industrial awareness and empathy into the students. The menu outhned in Items 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 above offers all of this, and more. It sets the embryonic engineer’s technical expertise in a manufacturing businets context through its focus on the technological aspects of product design. This is an inmiediately valuable sM.

Engineers-fiir management This approach to business studies has the underlying

theme of ‘engineers for management’: surely more motivating and less patronising than its inverse. Just as TPD&D is the natural motivating link between the product technologies of Item 1 above and the other items on the requisite $kills list, so too is TPD&D a natural introduction to a wider management expertise, because product design is a problem-solving activity in which why a product is required sets what it has to do, arid various constraints then determine how it must do it (Fig. 2). Similarly, management is a problern-solving activity in which why a solution is required sets what it has to he, and various constraints then determine how it must be implemented. Solutions to management problems arc management products. Management is about product design and product design is about management.

Course stmcture: overview

.

Student appreciation of the business context of-

engineering, focused on TPD&D, should be built LIP

in parallel with their technology studies during each year of the course. Only in this way will such business studies be recognised as a major component coniprising not less than 10% ofthe whole course. The earlier analysis showed that it is at least this important.

So the business studies menu outlined in Iterns 2, 3, 4 and 5 above must be reorganised into a matchmg but acceptable course structure. This should build &om gentle beginnings into an exatnination ofthe real world of manufacturing industry just before the new graduates enter it. It must emphasise the role of professional engineers in that industry. Most British engineering courses are still only three years long and the criteria just noted Fuggest a matching three-part structure such as that shown in Fig. 3. (More details about the topics favoured by the author can be found in Reference 8.)

It is not suggested that engineering graduates will be required to use all of this material at the start of their industrial careers. However, it describes the why, what arid how of the business and management environment where they must work and develop their careers. The sooner they understand this environment the better for all concerned.

As presented here, it is sensible to align the three-part course structure with the three years of the typical engineering degree course. Thus the Year 1 material prepares the ground for the more obviously technology-related topics of Year 2. These, in turn, will greatly assist the student with the mandatory third-

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL APRIL 1994

68

year project. The Year 3 material will then extend understanding of the real-life constraints applying to TPD&D and hrther broaden the business horizons of the student. The overall aim must be a natural flow from topic to topic via an integrated, analytical, ‘systems’ approach. This is greatly assisted by the unifying central theme provided by the focus on TPD&D. A four-year course clearly demands some mod~fication to the phasing suggested here, but t h s is not difficult.

How should these business studies be conducted?

The ideal teaching mode Embryonic engineers must be convinced that

absorbing the business context of engineering is a

either help or hindcr thc approach to business studies advocated here. These include:

0 campus culture in the resources competition: engineering versus the rest

0 proportion of staff with relevant industrial experience

0 proportion of staff with industrial empathy (attitudes to business studies range From perceptive enthusiasm through apathy to active hostility)

0 proportion of staff with the relevant expertise and/or eagerness to acquire it

0 proportion of students with prior industrial experience

0 amount of direct industrial involvement in the

0 the amount of whole course time presently assigned courses

respectable, demandmg and intellectualpursuit which to business studies is worthy of their attention. It is not, as many currently come to suppose, a dubious distraction from ‘real’ engineering which is best left to those seeking a more dramatic life-style. So, ideally they should be taught the business topics outlined above in an engineering fashion by engineers equipped for that task. This is the best way for motivation to be transmitted, and for it to be received and retained.

Barriers to progress There are, however, some for-

midable obstacles to be overcome in realising this ambition. Two of these seem to apply to virtually all academic engineering depart- ments. These are that

0 engineering cours’es, particu- larly those of the three-year variety, are already over-full with conventional ‘product technologies’ material

0 engineering academics know about the product technologies and engineering research in academia, but they are not normally well-versed in those skills demanded by the whole product design process listed as Items 2, 3 , 4 and 5 under the earlier ‘Product design sets the topics’ heading.

A range of other factors, which vary widely between academic engineering departments, can Flg. 3 Proposed three-part structure for a business studies course

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAr A P R I L 1991

69

~- - .- --

The way ahead So the number of academic

engineering departments currently able and d i n g to deliver the business studles recipe advocated here is likely to be small. Changing this sad situation for the better depends on

(a) recognition, in academia and elsewhere, of the critical importance of improving, as defined in this article, the quality of engineering graduates. This is a survival issue for all concerned.

(6) obtaining, by training and/or recruiting, enough engineering academics able to deliver the proposed design-oriented business studies

Fig. 4 Rachel confirms that it is never too soon to think about product design

(c) statements ofbusiness studies accredtation require- ments which are more prescriptive than those currently offered by the engineering institutions. Design-oriented business studes can be common to all engineering courses because they are not technologically dependent.

(d ) the provision of adequate funding to bring about Items a and b above.

Government, The Engineering Council, the engineer- ing institutions, manufacturing industry academia in general, academic engineering departments in particular, the Engineering Professors’ Council (designate) and indlvidual professional engineers all have a role to play in bringing about the necessary changes. All are increasingly damaged and vulnerable as British manufacturing industry declines, as is the whole nation.

Perhaps The Engineering Council is best placed to define and co-ordinate an appropriate action programme. They are currently conducting a review’ of engineering formation. This article is offered as an input to that review.

In conclusion

It is unlikely that service industries alone v d ever be able to support an acceptable quality of life for all the 56 &on inhabitants of t h nation. So our prosperity depends in the future, a~ it has in the past, on a thriving and vigorous manufacturing industry. But British manufacturing industry is in long-term decline. A major reason is that it has failed to match the technological product innovations of its principal international competitors. Consequently we are increasingly forced to compete, armed only with price

and cost weapons, in low-tech arenas with developing nations which are presently more hungry and less costly than we are. This is the road to national ruin.

A mnre attractive road is that which leads towards high-tech hgh-value pro- ducts which can support our (now) intrinsic high costs. Proper education and train- ing, at many different levels, is an essential part of ths escape route. Ths article describes a recipe for the formative business education of pro- fessional engineers which, if implemented, would make a substantial contribution to our salvation. Implemen- tation will not be easy, but the alternative is disaster.

Acknowledgment

Some of the material in this article has been adapted h m the author’s book ‘Engineers in business’ whch is published by Addson-Wesley at Wohngham. Their permission to publish this article is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1 LANIGAN, M. J.: ‘Science, engmeering, inanagenient and competitiveness’, E g . Sri. and Ed. J , August 1993, 2, (4), pp.149-152

2 LANIGAN, M. J.: ‘A structure for technological innovation’, Eng. Management./., April 1994, 4, (2), pp.71-77

3 ‘Standards and mutes to registration (SARTOR)’. The Engineering Council. December 1984 and, revised, January 1990

4 ‘Guidelines on accreditation’. IEE Membership Brief MIU, revised edition October 1991

5 ‘Guidelines on engineering applications EA1 and EA2’. IEE Membership Brief M12, revised edition January 1993

6 ‘The initial academic formation of mechanical engineers’. IMechE, 1988

7 MARSH, H.: ‘Guidance on accrediwtion requirements’. IMrchE, December 1991

8 LANIGAN, M. J.: ‘Engineers in business’ (Addison-Wesley, 1992), ISBN 0-201-41659-6

9 ‘Rwiew of engineering formation. A discussion document‘. The Engineering Council, August 1993

0 IEE: 1994

Dr. Mike Larugan i b a frrelance writrr and consultant with extensive experience of both the academic and industrial environments. He is a Fellow of the IEE and may be contacted at ‘Four Seasons’, Meadow Close, Bridge, Canterbury, Kent CT4 5AT. UK.

ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND EDUCATION JOURNAL APRIL 1994

70

--