LETTERS

THE STIRRINGVIRUSMadam- I've stirred. Afternearly 20 years full member-ship characterised by completedormancy with diagnosis ofdeath only disproven by theregular payment of my annualsub, the Institution badly needsmy advice.

The furore over mergersamong engineering institutionshas much to do with a Britishvirus; one which incidentallycaused me to forsake theIMechEforthe IProdE long ago.I see disturbing symptoms ofthe virus at the IEE.

All engineers, and espe-cially manufacturing engineers,should recognise that engineer-ing science can only determinethe technical feasibility of anyactivity, be it a machine, pro-duct or service. In short, engin-eering is invention. But whetherthe invention will become a suc-cessful reality is determined byeconomic and social forces.We see the application of theseforces only too clearly in thedemise of out-dated products,but we fail to recognise that ft isprecisely the same forceswhich are critical in bringingnew products into being.

Unfortunately, in our societymost of the economic and so-cial forces are controlled bygovernments, local councils,educational establishments,and a multitude of politicalquangos whose deliberations,to say the least, are rarelytroubled by technical reality.

Why?Because they are controlled

by people with no experience ofindustry, because in turn engin-eers are too busy to get in-volved in politics.

In fact, what we have cre-ated is a society driven by adestructive positive feedback

system. Those best equippedto innovate, implement andmanage, do so. The rest retreatto comfortable sinecures wherethey seek to control the innova-tions. Worse still, the politicaldecision makers, ie those whocontrol society, are drawn fromthis group. Naturally, they directthe development of society intheir own mould.

That is why lecturers, tea-chers, and social workers are tobe found in abundance in par-liament, local councils andcommittees around the land.How many chartered engin-eers, or doctors for that matter,are there on your local council?

Apply the same analysis toour own institutions. Are we notin danger of placing too muchemphasis on academic careersand not enough on businessmanagement? Is not this attri-butable to the undue influenceof our members in Academia,who in turn are the ones with thetime to claw their way up theInstitution's pecking order?

The future of Britain, andmost of our membership, lies inmanagement and innovation inindustry. Yes, we should main-tain standards of entry into ourprofession, but thereafter wemust eliminate the idea that weare primarily a learned aca-demic society. We need to cre-ate a negative feedback sys-tem, where those at the sharpend of industry control not onlythe engineering institutions butalso greatly extend their in-fluence beyond.

In fact, I need to re-examinemy dormancy in a new context.

WH Bailey16 Claude Rd

CardiffCF2 3PZ

Wales

LET'S DOIT ALLTOGETHERMadam- I have read MrMoore's article on concurrentengineering with some interestand certainly the problem ofmaintaining an effective up-to-date database available to allinvolved parties is important.

However, this article seemsto miss the main point of con-current (or simultaneous) en-gineering which is that the con-cept of series product develop-ment is dropped for a parallelapproach. Design, manufac-turing, supply etc all worktogether on the new designfrom the start, rather than hav-ing to cope with a concept thathas been developed by productdevelopment to the 'set in con-crete' stage, where only rela-tively minor changes can be in-troduced to help with manufac-turing's or supply's problems.

I have previously extolledthe virtues of QFD (quality func-tion deployment) and this is oneapproach (amongst others)which will automatically involveconcurrent engineering as ateam effort from the start ofdetermining the customers'needs through to the final stageof production.

A computer system that cancope with the real concurrentengineering situation would bewelcome and the approach ofIntergraph in the article in thesame issue is to be com-mended.

BB HundyLong Whin

Cranfield RoadMoulsoe

Newport PagnellBucks

MK16 0HB

FROMDOWNUNDERMadam - I read with interestthe Annual Report of the Asso-ciate Members' Board in theDec/Jan issue of Manufactur-ing Engineer, presented by thechairman PD Callister.

The point that particularly in-terested me was the statement:

"Our designator/ letters areprotected..."

My understanding is that wehave lost the use of AMIMfgEbut had retained our lEng. Itherefore find the comments bythe Associate Members' Boardchairman confusing.

Perhaps the institutionwould like to clarify this situationfor all associate members.

GM PatersonNSW

AustraliaPD Callister is correct; mem-bers who pre-merger were en-titled to lEng AMIMfgE can re-tain these designatory letters,the valtdity of which is main-tained under the aegis of alimited company.However, what they are not en-titled to do is use AMIEE as,because of differences be-tween the two institutions, as-sociate members of the IMfgEhave become associates of theIEE and not associate mem-bers.On a different note, it is nice tohave a letter from one of thedivision's overseas members.There are over three thousandof you out there and this is justas much your letters page asanyone else's. Incidentally,you should be receiving yourcopies much faster these daysas they are now sent out by air.

The Editor

The Editor reserves the right to shorten letters. Send to:

The EditorManufacturing Engineer

IEE PublishingMichael Faraday House

Six Hills WayStevenage Herts SG1 2AY

MANUFACTURING ENGINEER APRHJMAY 1992