# Outsourcing article



## benbo (Dec 5, 2007)

http://memp.pratt.duke.edu/outsourcing/

Interesting how they split up engineers in this article. Also interesting that they don't mention registration.


----------



## C-Dog (Dec 5, 2007)

I have worked with low cost outsourcing in India and I am not worried. We send the redundant, simple problems there.

I found this reference interesting: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c3/c3h.htm


----------



## benbo (Dec 5, 2007)

C-Dog said:


> I have worked with low cost outsourcing in India and I am not worried. We send the redundant, simple problems there.
> I found this reference interesting: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c3/c3h.htm


I'm not worried about it either. I think that this peaked about the time the high tech boom ended. I think that is what both of these articles are trying to say.

Actually, I'm just trying to rile people up because here are two articles about engineering, neither of which mentions the PE (or at least I didn't see it). And the first article, calls all sorts of people engineers. Of course I realize the article I posted was written by a bunch of grad students.

By the way, I think your experience in aerospace was a lot different than mine. I worked 12 years at Hughes Aircraft, and on projects with people from Lockheed and Rockwell, and knew a total of 1 PE. I knew a lot of PhDs though. But that was prior to 1994. Maybe things have changed a lot since then, or maybe it depends where you work, but I still don't see many defense or aerospace ads here in California asking for PE registration as a qualification.


----------



## frazil (Dec 5, 2007)

Good article. thanks Benbo. I had heard that many of the "engineers" in India and China do not actually have 4-year degrees, but it's nice to see some numbers.


----------



## C-Dog (Dec 5, 2007)

benbo said:


> I'm not worried about it either. I think that this peaked about the time the high tech boom ended. I think that is what both of these articles are trying to say.
> Actually, I'm just trying to rile people up because here are two articles about engineering, neither of which mentions the PE (or at least I didn't see it). And the first article, calls all sorts of people engineers. Of course I realize the article I posted was written by a bunch of grad students.
> 
> By the way, I think your experience in aerospace was a lot different than mine. I worked 12 years at Hughes Aircraft, and on projects with people from Lockheed and Rockwell, and knew a total of 1 PE. I knew a lot of PhDs though. But that was prior to 1994. Maybe things have changed a lot since then, or maybe it depends where you work, but I still don't see many defense or aerospace ads here in California asking for PE registration as a qualification.


Definatly not required, but it gives you one more box to check on the old resume and if you look at the folks getting promoted to non-management leadership level engineering positions, I would say that the most of them have a PE or Phd. Have yet to run across both. Just my observations...


----------



## Desert Engineer (Dec 5, 2007)

My father-in-law worked at disney, as a computer programmer, with Indians that had immigrated to the U.S. for the programming jobs. From what my FIL said, the outsourcing is causing resentment between the Indians that moved here and the younger ones that are taking away there jobs over there. Very Ironic...


----------



## Dleg (Dec 13, 2007)

I finally found the time to read this article. Very reassuring! I like the way the authors "split" the engineering disciplines:



> Through our research, we have identified two main groups of engineering graduates:*dynamic engineers *and *transactional engineers.* *Dynamic engineers *are individuals
> 
> capable of abstract thinking and high-level problem solving using scientific knowledge.
> 
> ...


This pretty much goes along with my observations. While there are possibly over 100 "engineers" presently working in my location, maybe only a dozen are registered PEs (ABET graduates), and the rest are foreign workers brought in to fill low-paying jobs. Having worked with or reviewed the work of nearly all of them at one time or another, a split was certainly apparent in my mind. The above classification system explains what I have observed very well.


----------



## Dleg (May 30, 2008)

bumped for relevance to "US engineerng degrees are easy" thread.


----------



## Casey (May 30, 2008)

Transactional engineers... are they the same as technologists (people that do a two year certificate at a technical institute) or one step above a technologist?


----------



## Dleg (May 30, 2008)

Roughly speaking, yes. Read the article, though. I think that it also contends that all kinds of computer techs (such as network techs) are included in certain countries numbers when they report "engineering" graduates.


----------



## C-Dog (Jun 10, 2008)

Casey said:


> Transactional engineers... are they the same as technologists (people that do a two year certificate at a technical institute) or one step above a technologist?


Mainly yes, but I work with some who can not perform their work with out engineering work instructions, standard work... what ever you want to call it and when a problem pops up that is not documented, they just hit a wall. I would call these folks transactional too.

As they say on Tiger and Pooh, "When you have a problem, THINK, THINK, THINK..." some just can't or don't want to.


----------

