I started my career in industrial R&D because I wanted to invent things and make things better, not simply keep things running. I enjoyed the innovation and creativity of the process development function but found that plant professionals were reluctant (usually opposed) to implement things we proved in the lab or pilot plant. 

After about three years, I was transferred by my company to a manufacturing plant to work in the technical support group. Despite my reluctance to leave the personal affirmation of R&D, I came to enjoy the plant, including the magnitude of the impact of slight process improvements to the company, process control, statistical analysis, economics and analytical trouble shooting. Unexpectedly, I learned a lot, and I appreciate the benefits of that experience.

Then R&D folks, with their naive certainty, came to the plant to tell us the improvements that they wanted to implement. "Lock the gates! Turn off the lights! Nobody home!" was our cry. However, upper management had approved the plant trials. What happened? They came, made changes, then left on their nine-to-five schedule. We were left to fight process complications and soothe operators, which, of course, needed to happen at 2 a.m. on weekends. 

I think it is important that people in design and R&D have significant plant experience to be able to understand the myriads of issues that manufacturing must address. They should shape their innovations to accommodate the manufacturing context reality.

On the other hand, naivety permits creativity. Whereas, significant real-world experience knows a possible innovation will not work, this knowledge hampers transformation. So, it might be a good idea to have inexperience and out-of-the-box creativity on design teams. However, design novices need to be well-supervised by experienced coaches. If experience supervises novices, then realism can be embedded in creative solutions.

Get your subscription to Control's tri-weekly newsletter.

For many graduates who are seeking employment, the design environment (attractive space, use of simulators, comfortable dress, landscaped building) is much more attractive than the often-uncomfortable field or manufacturing environment. As a parallel, for students, the capstone design course is usually much more enjoyable than the unit operations course (noisy, dirty, PPE, aggravating reality). So, if a company wants to hire office- or development-oriented students, they may have to offer them entry into design or R&D jobs and be sure that their supervision provides a comprehensive reality balance.

As a third stage in my career, I was in the product development group. My job was to direct innovations in our products to make them more competitive in our customers’ manufacturing processes. Here, my manufacturing experience was essential to establish credibility with our customers. Also, the joys making our products more competitive were unexpected, and seeing how our customers ran their business gave me insight as to how we might also run ours.

When I returned to supervising technical support engineers in my old manufacturing plant, the insights from marketing and R&D were beneficial.

The last part of my career was as a chemical engineering professor, where I believe the diverse industrial experience gave me relevance and creativity advantages in both teaching and control research. 

Maybe the question should be broadened to, “Does diverse engineering experience contribute to effectiveness in other engineering jobs?” I say it does, very much so.

To develop your potential, after building competency in one engineering function, accept transfers to others. Embrace the experience you will bring to the new function and the benefits that new experiences will give you in your career future.