connectorZONE Archive of engeniusBLOG

My pal Jared is a darned good BSEE circuit designer. He knows more about electronics than any electrical engineer I've ever met. What's more, he's got the right approach, reducing challenges to fundamentals, and then tackling problems with whatever software and hardware tools he can lay his hands on. His favorite tool, of course, is a pad of graph paper.

Jared has worked at the design bench for more than 25 years now, and along the way he made time to earn an MBA. Notwithstanding that, he shuns the management side of engineering, preferring to bring circuits to life on the bench. As he puts it, "I won't make my briefcase my grief case."

Until recently, Jared's employer was a major aerospace company. But, since a merger downsized that operation, Jared found employment elsewhere. He now works for a company that specializes in high-speed bus products.

Jared says he was hired, in part, because he has lots of experience designing ASICs based on Xilinx FPGAs. Indeed, the HR department at his company screened his resumé for the acronym FPGA and the word Xilinx.

This is provocative, as Jared tells me his employer won't hire any engineer that needs to be trained to work in the Xilinx environment. On the other hand, his new company will train any engineer if they’re comfortable with a competing FPGA technology. For example, if a staff engineer is versed in Altera FPGA methodology, Xilinx training will be provided, but that's true only if the need is there to transfer FPGA skills from one department to another, or from one design effort to another within the firm.

That’s logical, but nonsensical. Yes, a company searches for hires with specific skill sets so that it can quickly dedicate its new engineers to product-specific tasks. That appears to be an efficient way of running a lab. But a company that adheres to such a policy limits itself.

It's a matter of evolution. If an organism fits the environment, says Darwin, it can survive to pass along its genetic code to its offspring, which, in turn, will likely also fit the constraints of the environment. Creatures get specialized, evolving to fit prevailing conditions. If those conditions abruptly change, however, the critters might not fit the new environment. That's likely what contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs.

It’s that way with engineering shops, too.  Engineering companies and engineering teams often struggle to adapt. When market forces cause change, some companies seem unable to adapt, or find new engineering talent in time.

If a company screens prospective engineers on the basis of specific product-related skill sets, and not on an engineer's overall expertise and approach and outlook, that company may fail to hire a brilliant engineering recruit.

If an employer wants commitment on the part of its employees, isn't it reasonable that the company pay for education, providing training and additional technical courses? What better way to spend company funds? It beats purchasing an espresso machine for the coffee room, or a basketball hoop out in the parking lot. Companies ought to give staff engineers time to pursue education in areas other than what the company considers mainstream to its needs. Sabbatical packages ought to include tuition reimbursement too.

An argument can be made that once an engineer got the education, he or she could pack up and move to another company, taking the intellectual property that's between their ears with them. That could happen, but enlightened employers will always benefit from loyal employees.

I'll have to ask my friend about how his new company is treating him. Maybe I'll catch up with Jared before he reconsiders that job offer from the competing company on the other side of the industrial park.