Click for next page ( 2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
Executive Summary Introduction The Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineer (CLUE) established the Panel on Infrastructure Diagramming and Modeling to carry out the following activities: study the structure and dynamics of the engineering community; assess in quantitative terms the engineering community its past, present, and future; assess the underlying driving forces and causes that influence both entrance into and exit from that community; identify the sources from which the community draws its mem- bers and those predictors and relationships that would lee useful in assessing the state of the engineering profession; and arrive at findings, conclusions, and recommendations with regard to these matters. In order to achieve itS mission expeditiously the panel undertook five major tasks, which are described briefly below. 1. Defining Engineering Early in the panel's work, it became apparent that many organizations, societies, and government agencies have their own definitions of engineering. Also, different engineering studies and data bases use different definitions in arriving at conclu- sions. It also became clear that new developments in engineering had 1

OCR for page 1
2 INFRASTRUCTURE DIAGMMMING AND MODELING rendered some of the older definitions obsolete. It was therefore impor- tant for the work of this panel and of the whole committee that a common definition be provided.The definition eventually formulated See Chapter 1) comprises engineering, the engineering community, and the engineer, as well as engineering support groups. 2. Determining Influences on the Engineering Community The panel studied both past and possible future influences on the engineer- ing community to establish their likely effects on the structure of engineering and on its population See Chapter 2J. 3. Diagramming The panel considered a schematic flow diagram to be essential in understanding the complexity and dynamics of the engineering community. Basing its efforts on the definitions it had developed, the panel gave a great deal of attention to formulating a comprehensive diagram. The diagram it produced includes the major sources, flows, and activities of the engineering community and repre- sents a realistic assessment of the complexity and interaction of this community. The diagram has various levels of detail {see Chapter 3J. 4. Modeling As a further aid in understanding the dynamics of the engineering community, a simplified model was developed to study current and near-term causal relationships. Models sponsored by the National Science Foundation {NSF were used to gain further insight into current and near-term relationships and to study long-term rela- tionships and effects. The panel's modeling work consisted of two parts: ~ 1 J an evaluation and critique of existing approaches to modeling; and {2J development of a simple, first-order model The "CLUE model") of the engineering community to permit exploration of "what-if" types of questions with regard to supply and demand See Chapter 4J. Readers should note that the CEUE model is used in a simplistic predictive fashion, and caution must be exercised not to attribute accu- racy beyond the model's intended capabilities. 5. Analyzing Data Bases The panel undertook a thorough analysis of existing and relevant data bases in an effort to determine the size of the engineering community and to provide a source of data for trend analysis. Such quantitative data analysis was needed to identify trends and changes that are important in assessing the supply, demand, and utilization of members of the community. J The data base sources were then used to quantify the major parameters, stocks, and flows of the diagram referred to above. The panel's work focused on compatibility and consistency among data leases, as well as on their completeness {see Chapter 5~.

OCR for page 1
EXE C UTIVE S UMMAR Y Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 3 The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the panel are presented below. Where possible, they are organized to parallel the major tasks of the panel; however, many derive from the insights gained from multiple and diverse viewpoints considered lay the panel. Engineering and the Engineering Community There is considerable diversity of opinion among individuals, groups, and organizations on what constitutes engineering and what criteria should lee used for a quantitative assessment of the engineering pool. Once the panel had chosen and applied criteria, however, the engineering community was found to lie larger than merely the sum of persons with engineering degrees. In fact, the engineering community contains significant numbers of individuals with baccalaureate or higher degrees in science and mathematics who have acquired status as engineers; people whose highest degree is an associate engineering degree or a technologist degree and who have acquired status through experience as engineers or as engineering technicians or technologists; and individuals who over years of experience and/or noncollegiate training have acquired the skills and knowledge to do Mona fide engi- neering work. Furthermore, the practice of engineering is split among many disci- plines, not all of which share a common technology lease. Also, many engineering tasks now are multidisciplinary; computer science, sys- tems analysis, lousiness administration, economics, psychology, and other knowledge areas may play major roles in both the engineering problem statement and its solution. In addition to this new multidis- ciplinary environment is the fact that the engineering community is in a continuous state of flux the tasks of engineering, its boundaries, and its tools are changing. As a result of these findings, the panel concluded that any definition, model, survey, or data base must recognize and encompass the diver- sity of engineering. And so must programs aimed at the education or enhancement of the engineering profession. Thus, the panel recommends that the National Academy of Engi- neering and the National Science Foundation, in cooperation with the Engineering Manpower Commission and the professional engineering societies, develop continuing programs to heighten public, govern- ment, and industrial awareness of the importance of engineering to

OCR for page 1
4 INFRASTRUCTURE DIAGRAMMING AND MODELING U. S. technological competitiveness and the need for an adequate sup- ply of highly qualified engineers. Furthermore, these organizations should develop the necessary data and analytical tools to permit con- tinuing analysis of the engineering profession in order to provide infor- mation on which educational institutions, engineering societies, government agencies, and industries may base decisions and actions. Definitions: Engineers, Engineering, and the Engineering Community There is wide variability across the engineering community regard- ing the meaning of the terms engineer and engineering. From the stand- point of the educational system, the primary criterion is the degree granted; in the workplace, however, job content and performance are most important. The lack of commonly accepted definitions of engineer and engineer- ing complicates the collection, reporting, and analysis of data pertain- ing to the quantity and quality of engineers and others involved in engineering-related work. Existing data strongly reflect this defini- tional ambiguity. In addition, current definitions do not adequately describe the larger community of engineering, which includes those involved directly in the engineering enterprise, those acting in a sup- port capacity, and those potentially qualified for engineering-related work but not now so engaged. The panel concluded that a comprehensive, commonly accepted def- inition is necessary as a basis for describing the engineering commu- nity in broad terms. Such a definition is also essential to permit the accurate collection, display, and analysis of data about the profession. Finally, it is a prerequisite for reaching appropriate decisions that will affect the engineering community. The panel also concluded that any definition of engineers, engineer- ing, and the engineering community must simultaneously encompass the mission/philosophy, credentialing, function, and context of opera- tion in which engineering is performed. It must anticipate and allow for the development and addition of new technology and new branches of engineering, as well as the decline of existing ones. As a result of these findings, the panel recommends that the defini- tions presented in Chapter 1 of this report be accepted by the engineer- ing community and used as the basis for data collection, reporting, and analysis by all organizationsinvolvedin such activity.

OCR for page 1
EXE C UTIVE S UMMAR Y Forces Affecting the Engineering Community 5 Graduates of four- and five-year engineering programs constitute the single major source of personnel to fill new engineering job openings. However, the increasing utilization of two-year pre-engineering pro- grams in community colleges has had a significant influence on the size of the engineering community and on the demand for four- and five- year engineering education. Among the external forces affecting flows into the engineering community, the size and quality of the high school graduating pool have had a significant influence. The panel also found that there is considerable supply elasticity for the engineering community. For example, there are large numbers of engineers without engineering degrees, who presumably entered the engineering labor force when demand was high. There also appears to be a large " strategic reserve" represented by those who have qualified as members of the engineering community in the past but who either left the profession entirely or, more likely, are currently engaged in mana- gerial and engineering support activities. Other forces with significant influence on the practice of engineering and on flows into, within, and out of the engineering community are social factors [public attitudes); economic factors Compensation for engineers, availability of capital for investments; political factors {e.g., public policy, regulation; and technological factors Rate of obsoles- cence of engineers, discovery of new technologies, and the need for increased productivity. A factor of special interest that is having a growing influence on the engineering community is the emerging interest of women and minorities in engineering as a career. In addi- tion, the supply of people for the engineering faculty pool is limited by the stringent credentials for admittance. This situation is compounded by the observed decline in the relative number of U.S. Ph.D.s and the proportion of those who enter teaching at the undergraduate and grad- uate levels. Imbalances between supply and demand created by sudden or unan- ticipated changes are redressed by a combination of events: increased production from the engineering education system, sometimes at the expense of changing admission and graduation standards; flows from the reserve and support pools; and flows from the hard and soft sciences and other sources. Historically, adjustments by the engineering community to tne . forces affecting it appear to have been roughly adequate in most instances to meet technological challenges and the needs of society.

OCR for page 1
6 INFRASTRUCTURE DIAGRAMMING AND MODELING However, because of increasingly rapid changes in technology and related industrial and societal pressures, as well as increasing competi- tion from abroad, the panel concludes that industry, government, and the engineering profession must pay continuous and close attention to the internal and external forces affecting the size and capability of the engineering community in the United States. Based on the considerations delineated alcove, the panel recom- mends that engineering societies at state andlocallevels urge state education departments and local school boards to establish and implement ade- quate math and science curriculum standards to prepare qualified stu- dents for entryinto college engineering programs without the need for remedial work; the engineering societies and schools develop active guidance pro- grams for elemen tary and secondary school systems to encourage quali- fied students to enter engineering; community colleges be encouraged to expand theirpre-engineer- ing programs in close cooperation with the four-year engineering schools; all employment sectors be encouraged to study and continuously monitor the utilization of engineers to ensure that theyrealize their full capabilities; and special programs be developed to interest qualified women and minorities in engineering. Diagramming and Modeling The panel found it difficult if not impossible to understand the flows and relationships within the engineering community without a com- prehensive schematic portrayal of that community. Since no such com- prehensive schematic portrayal existed, however, the panel developed a comprehensive flow diagram of its own, which proved adequate to display this complexity. The development of the schematic portrayal of the engineering com- munity revealed a complexity in structure and flows greater than is generally understood. Construction of the flow diagram also led to the identification of two large populations not previously considered part of the community a technical reserve and a pool of staff support. In relation to modeling, the panel found that existing models pertain- ing to engineering do not encompass the entire engineering commu- nity as defined in Chapter 1 of this report. Nor do they track the flows as represented by the diagram described in Chapter 3. A model structured

OCR for page 1
EXE C UTIVE S UMMAR Y 7 to match the flow diagram should allow broad sensitivity analyses of flows and resulting impacts on the pools identified. This is more impor- tant than striving for absolute accuracy. It must be said that the rapidly changing and unpredictable character of technology and of the economic, political, and social influences affecting the profession militate against development of a reliable pre- dictive model. This, however, does not preclude the use of a model for gaining insights and drawing broad conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships and for focusing on shortcomings of data. Thus, diagram- ming and modeling of the engineering community are necessary activi- ties for understanding the complexity and interaction of the various stocks, flows, and interrelations within the engineering community. The panel recommends that the flow diag, am presented later in this report be adopted by the engineering communityand used as a basis and guideline for collecting data, analyzing flows and relationships, and nrniPctin~ the effects of changes in flows and! relationships. ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~J1 ~ Data Bases Data on the engineering community are collected, analyzed, and reported by several different organizations, each for its own particular purpose. {The most extensive data bases have been developed by the National Science Foundation, National Research Council, American Association of Engineering Societies, Engineering Manpower Com- mission, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and National Center for Education Statistics. J The diverse structure and purposes of the existing data bases make it extremely difficult to integrate or compare data. For example, for 1982 there are estimates of the numbers of engineers in the United States that vary from 1.2 million to 1.9 million. Without standard measurement criteria there is no discernible way to reconcile these differences. As a result, these inconsistencies make it difficult to develop either quantitative or qualitative descriptions of the engineer . . ng community. Further limitations of the data bases include the following: There are major gaps in the data particularly for the numbers and flows of those members of the engineering community without engi- neering degrees E.g., technicians, technologists, and individuals with degrees in other fields). Existing data on employment of engineers by specific industry are inadequate. Since industry is the major employer of members of the engineering community, this constitutes a serious gap in the data bases.

OCR for page 1
8 INFRASTRUCTURE DIAGRAMMING AND MODELING Sample size and structure of existing data will permit limited individual disaggregation for sex, minorities, employment specialty, degree, employment sector, and age, but multiple disaggregations E.g., sex and age) are restricted. None of the existing data leases, either singly or in combination, can adequately support the flow diagram and model referred to in Chap- ters 3 and 4 of this report. Current data do not permit complete quanti- tative or qualitative analysis of flows into, within, and out of the . . . engmeermg community. There are reasonably good data on students at the secondary, undergraduate, and graduate levels and on flows of degreed engineers. These data, however, permit only limited disaggregations of persons within the working pool. Almost no data exist on the technical reserve. As a result of these findings, the panel concluded that available data bases provided only a limited understanding of the engineering com- munity as defined in this report. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to construct an accurate and internally consistent picture of the entire engineering community, including those engaged in engineering as well as those engaged in engineering support, over the last 20 years. To assess the technological strength and competitiveness of the United States accurately, there must be complete and accurate data on engi- neering and scientific manpower. The panel thus recommends that the National Academy of Engineer- ing periodically convene a conference of all organizations involved in the collection, analysis, and reporting of engineering manpower data with the goal of making those data more complete, more accurate, and more compatible. In addition, future data collection efforts should be guided by an agreed-upon overall schematic of the engineering community, similar but not necessarily identical to the pow diagram described in this report. Existing data collection efforts should be modified to provide, as a minimum, information on all segments of the engineering community as depicted in the pow diagram in this report. (Chapter 5 provides more specific recommendations.J Efforts also should be undertaken to ensure the accuracyandreliabil- ity of existing data bases and current methods of data collection and analysis. In particular, the reliability and accuracy of the Occupational Employment Surveyshould be evaluated because of itsimpact on deci- sions affecting the engineering community.