From: mike@pmafire.inel.gov (Mike Caldwell)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:51:20 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Chemical Engineering
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: engineering

In article <H5NPVB1w164w@arasta.uucp> philbo@arasta.uucp (Phillip Lindsay) writes:
>henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>>
>> So, to avoid this problem, companies like Tennessee Eastman take Chemical
>> Engineers, and train them to be computer programmers.  Then the programmer
>> understands what it is that he is trying to accomplish, and the loop
>> gets tighter.
>>
>> Problem?  Yes again, on two fronts.  First of all, where does that leave the
>> people who graduated in Computer Science?  It puts them out of the loop.
>> Second, in my experience, Chemical Engineers do not think the same way about
>> performance as Computer Scientists do.  To a Chemical Engineer, whatever gets
>> you to the end result first has the best performance.  And that includes
>> development time.  So efficiency is sacrificed for expediency, and once it
>> works, as the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>>
>I think you missed the most important role of an indivdual with a Computer
>Science background.  Most Chemical Engineers don't have time to be experts
>in two sciences...It is the responsibility of the Software Engineer to
>connect Software Technology to the Chemical Engineer's needs.  Would a
>Chemical Engineer know if fuzzy logic was applicable to particular problem
>domain?  A Chemical Engineer should be in a role where they best express their
>needs. We need to be in role that best addresses their needs.  High level
>tools alone is not the answer.
>
>> Dr. James P. Henley Jr., former professional computer programmer
>> Department of Chemical Engineering
>--
>Phillip Lindsay "Government for the Politicians for Japan."
>INTERNET: 75230.300@compuserve.com ** UUCP: uunet!zardox!dhw68k!arasta!philbo

Most problems in chemical engineering don't take experts in computer
science to solve them.  An expert in computer science, may find a more
effecient solution, given enough time to search for them.  But there
really isn't enough time to search for them and 99.9% of the time we
don't won't an efficient answer, we  just want the answer, any way we
can get it.

There are a lot of engineers (not just chemical) that would Know if
fuzzy logic was applicable, or neural nets, or OODBMS.  Having taught
a lot of computer science graduates to program over the last ten
years, having a degree in computer science doesn't mean they can
program.  If we are lucky, it means we can teach them to program.  And
I'll be the first to admit that if I need a better hashing alogorithm,
I'll look up one of the CS students I taught to program.

Actually, I try to get management to hire more CS students.  A program
like this one that requires a lot of ChE work and a lot of programming
benefits from a good mix of personnel.  But mixing personnel isn't
easy.  Since this is a chemical plant, there are a lot more
advancement opportunities for ChE than there will ever be for
programmers, and we have very little work for the science side of CS.
In the ten years I've been programming and doing ChE work, we have
managed to keep only one programmer for more than three years ( a
second one is getting close).  And we haven't lost a single ChE yet.
A lot has to do with geography.  The work site is 50 miles from town
and a lot has to due with the job market.  When the CS people get
tired of working here (i.e. trained), they have an easy time getting a
more convient job.  But ChE do get the job done.  The programs get
written, the code works, and we get the answers we need.  And the
bottom line, thats all that management cares about.

Mike


-- 
Mike Caldwell (mike@pmafire.inel.gov or mike@inel.gov)
Paths: ...uunet!pmafire!mike 
Newsgroups: comp.object