<p>Where is the engineering done? I'm assuming it's needed to understand the workings of the machinery in manufacturing plants, or to build machinery that might improve efficiency. If that's the case, it sounds a lot like mech. eng. I just don't see where the hardcore math and science courses get put into use.</p>
<p>Industrial Engineers usually take more probability, statistics, optimization and management classes. </p>
<p>Granted the course load isnt of that of a EE/ChemE/MechE or respected engineer but in some cases the are still required to take the general core engineering classes (Thermo, Fluids, Heat, Dynamics, etc)</p>
<p>There is a reason why they call them imaginary engineers.</p>
<p>that's funny</p>
<p>
[quote]
Where is the engineering done? I'm assuming it's needed to understand the workings of the machinery in manufacturing plants, or to build machinery that might improve efficiency.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nah, it's usually more about designing an entire system that utilizes the machinery (the factory) efficiently. For example, you can have the best factory equipment in the world, but the equipment may be constantly sitting idle because you aren't constantly feeding them with the right number of inputs, i.e. you have inputs A, B, and C, but you also need D to manufacture a product and there is no D ready, so the machine has to sit idle until a unit of D shows up. Or inventories are piling up somewhere in the factory, taking up valuable space, because you haven't properly synchronized the output transportation system to transport your finished goods. </p>
<p>IndE has far less to do with understanding the workings of machinery than people think. For example, Toyota is a company that runs arguably the most efficient auto plants in the world, in terms of yield, defect rates, and inventory turnover, and (especially) return-on-investment (hence the famous "Toyota Production System"), yet the equipment they use almost always tends to be old. Toyota rarely uses the newest equipment or the newest technologies. The plants run by Ford and GM often times use far more modern equipment. Yet Ford and GM still can't come close to the efficiency of a Toyota plant. Toyota's advantage is not in having the most modern machinery, but rather in how to USE the machinery to achieve remarkable results. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I just don't see where the hardcore math and science courses get put into use
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, believe me, IndE can get ridiculously mathematical. IE rests on a foundation of operations research, which is a distinct branch of applied mathematics. For example, nonlinear optimization can easily mire you in a morass of mathematics. So can anything that relies of random variables/stoachastic processes, i.e. modeling a system where you aren't sure exactly how much a particular customer will order, how many inputs you will receive, how many defects a particular machine will introduce, etc. A lot of industrial engineering also consists of figuring out optimal routes between various stations, which is a direct application of the mathematical branch of graph theory. </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_%28mathematics%29%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_%28mathematics%29</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory</a></p>
<p>But trust me. You read an IndE journal article or a graduate thesis in IndE, and prepare to be blown away by all the mathematics. There is plenty of math used in IndE.</p>
<p>That was quite the generalization. Sakky, you act as if nonlinear optimization is a daily task for IndEs. That's comical to the core. I'd say the <em>vast</em> majority of IndEs from my school wouldn't touch something like that but once in their lives.</p>
<p>Also, the diatribe on auto industry was a reach (ie: tremendous generalizations that would be misleading to someone who didn't know a bit about the auto industry)...</p>
<p>I loved "mired in a morass of math"! Clearly language skills are not lacking in engineers! :)</p>
<p>If you want a general idea of what's involved calculationally for each discipline of engineering, have a look at the supplied formula booklet for the FE exam:</p>
<p>I think I learned more about other disciplines of engineering while I was taking the FE exam than any other time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, you act as if nonlinear optimization is a daily task for IndEs. That's comical to the core. I'd say the <em>vast</em> majority of IndEs from my school wouldn't touch something like that but once in their lives.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's irrelevant, because the same logic applies to ALL engineering fields. After all, how many working computer scientists/computer engineers go around applying complexity theory every day? How many working chemical engineers go around calculating fugacity coefficients every day? </p>
<p>Look, the truth is, a rather large chasm exists between what you LEARN as an engineering student and what you actually DO as an engineer. This is true in all fields. I strongly remember working in an engineering lab as an intern, and teaching one the guys who worked there, who had a PhD in ChemE, how to do basic calculus integrals, because he was trying to help his daughter with calculus, but realized he didn't know how to do it anymore. Now, obviously this guy KNEW how to do calculus back when he was a student. But the fact is, he hadn't used it in over 20 years, and when you don't use something, you're inevitably going to forget how. Heck, I've gotten to the point where I now barely remember basic integrals, because I haven't really used that stuff for quite a while. </p>
<p>Look. Nonlinear optimization and all that other stuff has nothing to do with the 'daily tasks' of most industrial engineers just like complexity/computational theory and greedy algorithms have nothing do with the daily tasks of most computer scientists and boundary layer calculations have nothing to do with the daily tasks of most chemical engineers. That's not the point. The point is, whether you like it or not, you still have to learn this stuff if you actually want to get the degree in that subject. </p>
<p>Now, if you want to talk about whether students should be forced to learn stuff that they never use, that's an entirely different discussion. But the point is, as it stands now, you have to learn these things if you want to get the degree. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, the diatribe on auto industry was a reach (ie: tremendous generalizations that would be misleading to someone who didn't know a bit about the auto industry)...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? And what exactly is your take on the auto industry? I can quote you an entire stack of articles that bolster my stance on the auto industry. Or perhaps you should read the book "The Machine that Changed the World", and that might convince you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want a general idea of what's involved calculationally for each discipline of engineering, have a look at the supplied formula booklet for the FE exam
[/quote]
Good idea. However, I would like to add one point, for those students who might find this dense, 235-page "booklet" a bit intimidating. </p>
<p>No engineering student is expected to master all of the material in the FE Handbook. The FE exam actually comes in seven different variations, and the FE Handbook contains the reference data for all seven. But examinees only have to choose one. </p>
<p>So for example, most FE candidates probably never even look at the "Industrial Engineering" section of the FE Handbook, unless they actually choose to take the "Industrial Engineering" variant of the exam.</p>
<p>Oh, definitely. The only pages of material I actually learned in college came from the 23 pages of civil engineering material.</p>
<p>Still, I had some time left over during the exam, so I paged through the whole reference booklet and was quite enlightened. =)</p>
<p>Sakky, I work at a Toyota plant. I've seen 'enough'.</p>
<p>(hee hee... owned!)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I work at a Toyota plant. I've seen 'enough'.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what exactly have you 'seen'? I am quoting straight from high industry executives, including Toyota execs themselves. So if you are saying that the studies are wrong, then the execs are either misinformed, or they are lying. </p>
<p>Maybe you would like to wade into the academic fray and tell all these researchers how wrong they are.</p>
<p>I'll put it to you this way, Payne. I used to work at a number of fast-food restaurants and department stores like Sears when I was a kid. But I certainly wouldn't call myself an 'expert' on the operations or the strategy of any of these companies. Even the companies I worked for after college graduation, I wouldn't exactly call myself an expert on those either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And what exactly have you 'seen'? I am quoting straight from high industry executives, including Toyota execs themselves. So if you are saying that the studies are wrong, then the execs are either misinformed, or they are lying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LOL. :) I haven't had a laugh like that on CC for a while!</p>
<p>I don't know "who's right," so I'm not going to get into a ***ing match between Sakky and Payne, but when I see this, I have to pose the following question: How many layers of indirection do you suppose there are between the people on the floor *doing the work and the "high industry executives" sitting in the corporate office?</p>
<p>I thought it was rather obvious that the realms of academia and "the real world" are about as similar as "real engineering" and "corporate executives."</p>
<p>Seems kinda arrogant to me, to say that since you've read a few articles about it, that you know more about the subject than someone who's in the field... I dunno how you think it works in the real world, but I trust my sergeant over my lieutenant any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.</p>
<p>Sakky, my main point is that the amount of knowledge diffusion in the automotive manufacturing industry is <em>extremely</em> high. GM, at least on the manufacturing side, is extremely competitive with Toyota in all of the things you mentioned. This is the current state of affairs, perhaps 10 years ago it might not have been the case, but it is not the case now.</p>
<p>Toyota continues trouncing GM/Ford/DCX because of 3 primary reasons. Their reputation for-and proven-reliability (although the big 3 are closing the gap), product lineup, and (lack of) unions.</p>
<p>Just a few days ago there was an extended thread on industrial engineering (and operations research). </p>
<p>I posted an extended answer to this question on that thread. The readers digest version goes, simply, your academic mileage will vary from school to school. Some industrial engineering programs have kept pace with the modern world and some have not. </p>
<p>I believe the most modern programs prepare you for a robust and well-compensated career in modern, complex industry.</p>
<p>we should make this thread a sticky. For when sakky gets in over his head, which is every other post.</p>
<p>stevee: there is another thread about IE above this one, and this thread was advertised below it. </p>
<p>and to Payne: what did u get your BS in, and where di u get your masters?</p>