Share
Jon Excell
Editor
The Engineer
Keeping business and engineering at arm's length
Following Alan Sugar’s recent prime-time denigration of engineers, this website almost collapsed under the weight of furious readers determined to set the record straight. ’What about James Dyson?’ you snarled. ’Haven’t you heard of Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, or any of the other numerous engineering entrepreneurs who have made more money than you?’
Taken at face value, Sugar’s comments were clearly ridiculous but did he perhaps stumble clumsily upon a truth that has hampered the development of many a young engineering company?
The UK economic recovery is likely to rely heavily on the ideas emerging from its technology and engineering sectors, and there are plenty of reasons to believe industry can deliver. But the UK’s less illustrious record of failing to capitalise on some of its key strengths is cause for concern. One reason for this is that engineering innovation and a focus on business don’t always go hand in hand not because engineers aren’t capable of being good business people but because the process of engineering can be all-consuming. It’s not a dynamic that troubles our larger engineering businesses. You’re unlikely to find the bosses of BAE Systems or Rolls-Royce scrabbling around on the factory floor. But the challenges of keeping a balance between business and engineering become more acute in small companies.
Andrew Bowyer, director of Magna Parva, one of the UK’s most exciting young engineering companies, provides an intriguing perspective on this in our latest interview. Although a trained engineer, Bowyer decided early on to concentrate on business. And with his company’s exotic order book growing by the day, the decision appears to have paid off.
Taking this philosophy a step further another of our special reports examines the value of focussing on business at an even earlier stage through the use of spin-out incubators that can spot potential, identify markets, and help help researchers set out on the rocky road to commercialisation.
Of course, none of these tacit acknowledgements — that a technology’s inventor isn’t always its best salesman — lets Sugar off the hook, but if his ill-judged comments were to spark an industry-wide debate on how to get the best out of the UK’s fledgling technology companies, it would be no bad thing.
Readers' comments (10)
S. Martin | 6 Jul 2011 1:14 pm
Engineering and business have always been inextricably linked, no financial return (profitably) means no product. If we look back through the annuls of time we can clearly demonstrate this, many large engineering companies or concerns relied upon engineering, ignoring business.
Take AEC, the large engineering company who were a predominantly engineering led company, fantastic world leading technologies. They lacked, and ignored the business aspects which led to their ultimate demise, yet they had worldwide markets years before larger multi nationals.
Here lies the conundrum, investment.
There are many forms of investment, capital investment from a variety of non commercial sources which give a large inward investment. Then there is inward investment from your own company.
Capital investment usually comes from organisations wanting a specific return within a specific timeframe, here is its downfall. It may offer larger investments, but these will only usually be within "dead certs" so many ideas are cash starved of investment.
Companies funding their own inward investment have to raise this from existing profits. loans, or other sources such as share capital investment schemes.
People like Sugar do not care about such things, they merely care about what they can sell for what profit. They have no concerns about where or how a product is developed or manufactured, or any other impacts such as employee stability or environmental issues.
All he cares about is how much he can make.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6 Jul 2011 1:17 pm
Alan Sugar has had more commercial product failures than I have had hot dinners!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6 Jul 2011 1:26 pm
Alan Sugar was actually right. The business side values bonuses for financial banker, poor or inexistent evidence-based and performance-based management, awful ethical values, insufficient education and code of conduct (obvious in the Apprentice when they go in France or the guy does an impression of a dynosaur during an interview). A candidate cannot speak French: he has an i-phone with google translate in his hand. And the artistic creativity when they create ads or videos could be featured in Benny Hill.
It might be really time to tear these dollhouse down because most of them in the business does not deserve the money they earn.
It is not Alan Sugar who is wrong, it is whoever condone the current business practices, cultures and demeanors shown in the Apprentice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6 Jul 2011 1:28 pm
Read a interesting article in Jets Monthly and the editor raised the point about our production decline and position as a world leader in aerospace. It is not the lack of skills the country lacks but the obstacles put in the way of a good idea. Also when Alan Sugar started out there was not the red tape as we have now.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike d L | 6 Jul 2011 1:49 pm
It's about salaries. Talented engineers find that unless they go into the business/finance side to improve their pay they fall behind. Poorly talented engineers quickly realise where the money is and spin their way into the white collar areas. One German company I know about pay their experienced man on the drawing board the highest salary in the firm. The manager organises the tea, the annual leave and the office furniture. Honda expect their senior execs. to be both engineers and accountants. No exceptions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike West | 7 Jul 2011 6:53 am
I may not particularly like Alan Sugar, but he did not denigrate Engineers. He merely pointed out what is generally true- most Engineers are poor at Business. It's about time we understood this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Martin Woodhead, Woodhead Publishing Limited | 7 Jul 2011 2:49 pm
For what it's worth, yesterday we hosted a meeting of our local secondary school's STEM Club (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), to inform them about how science is transferred to industry via books, journals and online platforms. They were all 16 year olds and we were very impressed at their technical knowledge and their keen commercial interest in making a profit from an enterprise. So our future engineers may have a different outlook towards business, which should please Lord Sugar.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
alan Jones | 8 Jul 2011 10:29 am
I don't watch the TV Entertainment show The Apprentice regularly, I don't rate Alan sugar as a person, I do however think that most engineers could do most business functions if they had the time. The main problem with 'Business' or the financial side of engineering is obtaining the funds to do the job ! In Japan, Germany and I assume China investment in engineeering is always seen as a long term process. In the UK (and USA) the business men always want a quick return on their money, So whilst we concentrate on engineering the 'business' men screw us up. Remember and tell people Everything you have, touch or rely on has been designed and made by engineers. The 'wealth' of Britain was created during the industrial revolution by engineers and squandered by politicians and 'business' men.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alex | 8 Jul 2011 10:48 am
@ Mike West | 7 Jul 2011 6:53 am - most Engineers are poor at Business.
Most British engineering companies promoted accountants and marketeers to the top jobs in the 70s and 80s. Most German engineering companies promoted engineers.
Which have done better?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8 Jul 2011 1:15 pm
Del Trotter was famous for appearing on television, often in a high-rise building in London, buying and selling products he didn't really understand and certainly couldn't have manufactured. I'm still struggling to come up with a one sentence synopsis of Lord Sugar....
Like anything else, engineering businesses only work if they pay and unit cost has to be a key consideration in anything an engineer does. A good engineer, therefore, has to have business skills or the product is unlikely to be viable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment