4 answers
Ehivwema
Student
New Haven, Connecticut
1
Question
Updated
222 views
Have you ever gone through a challenge that needed more than just book smarts?
What’s an example from your experience where a seemingly straightforward mechanical engineering problem turned out to require more than just technical knowledge, where communication, collaboration, or understanding the personal aspect of the project played a key role in finding a solution? #Spring25
Login to comment
4 answers
Stephen Griffin
New Product Introduction Engineer
11
Answers
Raleigh, North Carolina
Updated
Stephen’s Answer
Great question, I have been a mechanical engineer for 10+ years now and I will give you my perspective and try and provide examples that fit your request. I have worked as a design engineer, manufacturing engineer and now industrial/process engineer in my career and having more than book smarts is critical in each and every role I had. I put my non "book smart" skills into three categories: Communication, human factors/safety and listening skills.
Communication skills are important for mechanical engineers to clearly explain and articulate design solutions or issues to other engineers (electrical, software) and non-engineers that may not understand the problem to the same degree you do. Recent example would be when I was presenting a plan for a new leak testing machine to upper management and they questioned out method of leak testing with air, they wanted us to test with water instead. It was a valid question and suggestion but we looked into it and there were various issues with a water test. It was my job to research this, and more importantly, explain it to management and convince them that an air test was the best way to go. This included some book smarts but mostly just explaining all of the secondary issues that a water test creates and all the time and work it would be to change to a water test, and getting that information into a form that all of management could understand and appreciate.
Human factors/safety skills are very important for engineers working in manufacturing with operators or with design engineers making products for the general public. There is definitely book smarts and science behind safety and ergonomics but in my experience, a lot of the time it's just putting yourself in the other person's shoes and thinking critically about how the product or machine will be used and trying to make that as easy as possible. When it comes to a specific task or tool that you are designing, each situation is different and you need to be able to be flexible and creative in your approach to the problem just as much as you need to design the tool to withstand the force/torque that it will endure. A recent example was when we had an assembly step where operators had to perform a repeated action with just their fingers which we worried could cause long term joint damage to the operator. This wasn't an issue of them cutting themselves or immediate injury, it was about to much repetitive motion over time. So we needed to design a tool to help them complete the task. The book smarts aspects were to make sure the tool was strong enough, that it fit the mating parts and that it wouldn't rust or corrode in the assembly environment. The non-book smarts stuff was making sure the tool was easy enough to use so the operator would actually use it. If the operator is given a tool that is hard to use, they may just not use it at all and then they will potentially get hurt over time. So it's critical to design a tool that makes the task as easy or easier than it would be without the tool so it actually gets used. If you design a tool that does the job perfectly but is complicated to use or isn't comfortable, you might as well not design the tool at all, because it will just sit on the bench and collect dust.
Listening skills may sound cliché but in my experience it is one of the most important skills a good engineer can have if they want to work in a collaborative environment. Really it's about listening and being open to other peoples ideas even if they differ from your own. In my experience, engineers frequently get attached to their ideas and have trouble opening up to other designs or methods. They have pride in their work, which is good, but it can get in the way of finding the best solution. It's very important to think critically and come up with great design solutions but if you get tunnel vision and block out other peoples ideas or shoot down their idea because of some small detail, you won't arrive at the best solution. My engineering brain sometimes wants to go immediately to the technical problems with an idea to try and solve them but I always try to take a minute to look at the benefits of the idea as well and think about what I could do to grow that idea and adapt it to solve those problems instead of seeing those issues and just dismissing the idea. A recent example was working on the assembly process for a new product and the design engineer added a glued joint into the design. The glue joint worked well for the design but gluing was something we absolutely didn't want to do because it is very messy and hard to get consistent quality with manual gluing. But instead of just telling the design engineer to change it to a different type of joint, I set a meeting and reviewed all the design constraints with them to see why they needed a glue joint. It turns out that we really did need the glue joint due to space constraints (added a threaded joint made the pipe too long and didn't fit in the product). So the design engineer and I worked together to change around the assembly process and add a new piece into the assembly that made the product better and easier to install. We still had the glue joint but we both agreed that it was the best solution even though it made assembly a bit more difficult.
Hope these examples answer your question and help you understand what working as an engineer is like.
Communication skills are important for mechanical engineers to clearly explain and articulate design solutions or issues to other engineers (electrical, software) and non-engineers that may not understand the problem to the same degree you do. Recent example would be when I was presenting a plan for a new leak testing machine to upper management and they questioned out method of leak testing with air, they wanted us to test with water instead. It was a valid question and suggestion but we looked into it and there were various issues with a water test. It was my job to research this, and more importantly, explain it to management and convince them that an air test was the best way to go. This included some book smarts but mostly just explaining all of the secondary issues that a water test creates and all the time and work it would be to change to a water test, and getting that information into a form that all of management could understand and appreciate.
Human factors/safety skills are very important for engineers working in manufacturing with operators or with design engineers making products for the general public. There is definitely book smarts and science behind safety and ergonomics but in my experience, a lot of the time it's just putting yourself in the other person's shoes and thinking critically about how the product or machine will be used and trying to make that as easy as possible. When it comes to a specific task or tool that you are designing, each situation is different and you need to be able to be flexible and creative in your approach to the problem just as much as you need to design the tool to withstand the force/torque that it will endure. A recent example was when we had an assembly step where operators had to perform a repeated action with just their fingers which we worried could cause long term joint damage to the operator. This wasn't an issue of them cutting themselves or immediate injury, it was about to much repetitive motion over time. So we needed to design a tool to help them complete the task. The book smarts aspects were to make sure the tool was strong enough, that it fit the mating parts and that it wouldn't rust or corrode in the assembly environment. The non-book smarts stuff was making sure the tool was easy enough to use so the operator would actually use it. If the operator is given a tool that is hard to use, they may just not use it at all and then they will potentially get hurt over time. So it's critical to design a tool that makes the task as easy or easier than it would be without the tool so it actually gets used. If you design a tool that does the job perfectly but is complicated to use or isn't comfortable, you might as well not design the tool at all, because it will just sit on the bench and collect dust.
Listening skills may sound cliché but in my experience it is one of the most important skills a good engineer can have if they want to work in a collaborative environment. Really it's about listening and being open to other peoples ideas even if they differ from your own. In my experience, engineers frequently get attached to their ideas and have trouble opening up to other designs or methods. They have pride in their work, which is good, but it can get in the way of finding the best solution. It's very important to think critically and come up with great design solutions but if you get tunnel vision and block out other peoples ideas or shoot down their idea because of some small detail, you won't arrive at the best solution. My engineering brain sometimes wants to go immediately to the technical problems with an idea to try and solve them but I always try to take a minute to look at the benefits of the idea as well and think about what I could do to grow that idea and adapt it to solve those problems instead of seeing those issues and just dismissing the idea. A recent example was working on the assembly process for a new product and the design engineer added a glued joint into the design. The glue joint worked well for the design but gluing was something we absolutely didn't want to do because it is very messy and hard to get consistent quality with manual gluing. But instead of just telling the design engineer to change it to a different type of joint, I set a meeting and reviewed all the design constraints with them to see why they needed a glue joint. It turns out that we really did need the glue joint due to space constraints (added a threaded joint made the pipe too long and didn't fit in the product). So the design engineer and I worked together to change around the assembly process and add a new piece into the assembly that made the product better and easier to install. We still had the glue joint but we both agreed that it was the best solution even though it made assembly a bit more difficult.
Hope these examples answer your question and help you understand what working as an engineer is like.
William Vvuko
Retired engineer
70
Answers
Moyo, Northern Region
Updated
William’s Answer
Hi Ehivwena,
Thanks for the insightful question.
Two decades ago, my maintenance team had a very interesting experience. The beer market was growing rapidly (50 percent per annum). The business took a decision to modernize it's packaging line by procuring a combination of new & refurbished second hand machines to reduce manual handling and optimize capital expenditure. Therefore, we got a refurbished second hand palletizer. After installation and commissioning, it started giving us all sorts of mechanical problems on its gripper head assembly (robotic part of the machine). Wear parts were failing at abnormal rates. Intensive routine corrective maintenance had marginal impact in reducing engineering downtime on the machine. After running for a year, I ordered for a new gripper head assembly from the original equipment manufacturer. When the assembly arrived on site, I took exception to inspect it personally. It was at this point that I realized the palletizer head didn't match our crate size. A quick correspondence with the original equipment manufacturer confirmed that the equipment was originally supplied to a Coca-cola factory with details of the load it was designed to bear. Our basic force analysis revealed that the current load was two and half times the original load. After doing a line capability studies, we also discovered the palletizer was the slowest machine on the line when it was supposed to be the fastest thus having a detrimental impact on overall line efficiencies.
A decision was taken to select it for advanced problem solving as part of our drive for operational excellence.
As a new crate size was being introduced that required a new gripper head assembly, we decided to team up with the supplier to redesign the old head. The project involved supplying two new heads, a PLC to replace the microprocessor in the original design, a VSD to help optimize cycle times and a resized overhead shaft. We got amazing improvements as a result of these interventions. The palletizer consistently had one of the lowest engineering downtime on the line after the intervention. It's throughput also improved to acceptable levels as per our V-profile requirements. The machine was replaced with a modern robot a few years ago after a combined service life of over three and half decades.
Thanks for the insightful question.
Two decades ago, my maintenance team had a very interesting experience. The beer market was growing rapidly (50 percent per annum). The business took a decision to modernize it's packaging line by procuring a combination of new & refurbished second hand machines to reduce manual handling and optimize capital expenditure. Therefore, we got a refurbished second hand palletizer. After installation and commissioning, it started giving us all sorts of mechanical problems on its gripper head assembly (robotic part of the machine). Wear parts were failing at abnormal rates. Intensive routine corrective maintenance had marginal impact in reducing engineering downtime on the machine. After running for a year, I ordered for a new gripper head assembly from the original equipment manufacturer. When the assembly arrived on site, I took exception to inspect it personally. It was at this point that I realized the palletizer head didn't match our crate size. A quick correspondence with the original equipment manufacturer confirmed that the equipment was originally supplied to a Coca-cola factory with details of the load it was designed to bear. Our basic force analysis revealed that the current load was two and half times the original load. After doing a line capability studies, we also discovered the palletizer was the slowest machine on the line when it was supposed to be the fastest thus having a detrimental impact on overall line efficiencies.
A decision was taken to select it for advanced problem solving as part of our drive for operational excellence.
As a new crate size was being introduced that required a new gripper head assembly, we decided to team up with the supplier to redesign the old head. The project involved supplying two new heads, a PLC to replace the microprocessor in the original design, a VSD to help optimize cycle times and a resized overhead shaft. We got amazing improvements as a result of these interventions. The palletizer consistently had one of the lowest engineering downtime on the line after the intervention. It's throughput also improved to acceptable levels as per our V-profile requirements. The machine was replaced with a modern robot a few years ago after a combined service life of over three and half decades.
Li Nar Goh
Global Services Product Manager
4
Answers
Salzburg, Austria
Updated
Li Nar’s Answer
Hi,
Great question! I’m sharing a view being the work partner of mechanical engineers. As a product manager, I’m not an expert in mechanical engineering. So mechanical engineers in my team will need to have the ability to understand my perspective and the objective of the product or project. With that, then provide a solution and communicate it in a way that all stakeholders from different background can understand it.
Great question! I’m sharing a view being the work partner of mechanical engineers. As a product manager, I’m not an expert in mechanical engineering. So mechanical engineers in my team will need to have the ability to understand my perspective and the objective of the product or project. With that, then provide a solution and communicate it in a way that all stakeholders from different background can understand it.
Simon Beau
Engineering Manager
1
Answer
Heddesheim, BW
Updated
Simon’s Answer
Especially in the field of mechanical engineering, true understanding comes from hands-on involvement and the practical challenges faced during the execution of numerous projects. Over the years, my team and I have tackled a wide range of problems that initially seemed unsolvable. Through intense design and brainstorming sessions, an openness to new ideas, and a collaborative mindset, we were able to find innovative solutions. Ultimately, we always focused on turning the best idea into reality—together.