NAFEMS logo

home about membership events nwc09 publications resources regional groups technical groups media & news projects contact us
home > publications > benchmark magazine > article archive > benchmark july 2008

publications
browse and buy
benchmark magazine
article archive
article submission
advertising guidelines
subscribe now
 
international journal of cfd case studies
'magazin'
e-library
invitations to tender
forthcoming publications
publication reviews
glossary of benchmarks

BENCHmark July 2008

Who will provide the simulation engineers of tomorrow?

 

BENCHmark Magazine - July 2008NAFEMS aims to keep its ear close to the ground, and to listen out for messages that are becoming widespread. In recent years, at many events where CAE professionals are gathered together, a particular message has been starting to resonate more and more loudly: from many different sources, we are frequently being told “we’re struggling to recruit good engineers to do our simulation”.

To make matters worse, many of the high value engineers who have spent most of their career are now approaching retirement.

At the same time, there seems to be unanimous agreement amongst industry pundits that the market for CAE continues to enjoy double digit growth. To be sustainable, this growth needs to be matched be an increase in the pool of engineers that can perform simulation. New generations of software designed to be used by engineers that are not full-time analysts goes some way towards alleviating this. But vendors have recognised that the shortage of suitably qualified and experienced staff is a key factor that threatens to limit the future growth of the market for simulation.

Unless universities and other educational establishments can start to feed through a significantly increased supply of new engineers (and unfortunately the reverse appears to be the case in some regions) the problem is only going to get worse in the future. With annual outputs of 25,000 engineers in the UK and 60,000 in the US being dwarfed by the 450,000 graduating from Indian engineering colleges, it is little wonder that so many large engineering companies are turning to India.

In fact, the offshoring of engineering services presents a $40 billion opportunity for the Indian economy by 2020, according to a study released by National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM). This trend is no longer being driven solely by the desire to drive down costs, but rather the availability of suitable manpower resources.

Even assuming that, by embracing a global approach such as this, sufficient engineering graduates can be tempted to take up a rewarding career in simulation (as opposed to the more lucrative but arguably less rewarding careers in finance, IT etc which have an equal thirst for capable and numerate graduates) they then need to gain appropriate and effective training and experience.

NAFEMS believes that, to be a highly competent engineering simulation professional, an engineering graduate should obtain:

  1. Training in background theory to underpin the engineering application of numerical analysis
  2. Familiarity with, and appreciation of, the limitations of the particular software employed
  3. Numerical analysis experience - that is relevant experience in the specification, planning, execution and interpretation of numerical analysis applied to design, simulation or product verification
  4. Understanding of the engineering aspects relevant to the particular products that are being worked upon

As we work our way down this list, the emphasis generally shifts from formal or semi-formal training to “on-the-job” training and experience. For an individual, obtaining this experience in any form of structured and efficient way proves to be very difficult. From the perspective of an employer, judging the quality of the experience gained is easier said than done.

Tim Morris - Chief Executive - NAFEMSThere are no easy answers, but it should be recognised that NAFEMS is working hard to understand the different issues and formulate ideas for how it can offer some assistance.

 

  

Tim Morris, Chief Executive
July 2008

Articles are available for NAFEMS Members to download below . You will need to login on the right to access these files.     

 

Knowledge Base 020

 

The CAE Guy 003

 

Complexity Management: New Perspectives and Challenges for CAE in the 21st Century

The problem of managing complexity in the CAE process.

NAFEMS World Congress 2009

The International Congress on Simulation Technology for the Engineering Analysis Community moves to Crete, Greece for 2009.

CFD Mythology

Another take on the common myths of CFD.

The Impact of Multi-Objective Numerical Optimization in Biomedical Engineering

The application of design of experiments, multiobjective optimization and robustness analysis technologies.

A Conversation with…

Prof. Ahmed Noor, one of the leading lights in CAE in the aerospace industry, discusses the future of CAE and NAFEMS’ role in that future.

Full Issue

 

If you are not a NAFEMS Member, click here to find out how you and your company can benefit from joining the only independent, international association dedicated to engineering analysis and simulation.

Members Login

username

password

forgot password >


Shopping Basket

Currency - Currency - UK Pound Currency - Euro Currency - US Dollar


Description Qty Item Price

your basket is empty



BENCHmark July 2008BENCHmark July 2008

BENCHmark April 2008BENCHmark April 2008

BENCHmark January 2008BENCHmark January 2008

BENCHmark October 2007BENCHmark October 2007

BENCHmark July 2007BENCHmark July 2007

BENCHmark April 2007BENCHmark April 2007

BENCHmark January 2007BENCHmark January 2007

BENCHmark October 2006BENCHmark October 2006

BENCHmark July 2006BENCHmark July 2006

BENCHmark April 2006BENCHmark April 2006

BENCHmark January 2006BENCHmark January 2006

BENCHmark October 2005BENCHmark October 2005

BENCHmark July 2005BENCHmark July 2005

BENCHmark April 2005BENCHmark April 2005

BENCHmark January 2005BENCHmark January 2005

BENCHmark October 2004 BENCHmark October 2004

BENCHmark July 2004BENCHmark July 2004

BENCHmark April 2004BENCHmark April 2004

BENCHmark January 2004BENCHmark January 2004